7.  The applicant was born in 1960. He is serving his sentence in the town of Minusinsk in the Krasnoyarsk Region. 8.  On 14 November 1998 police officers searched the applicant’s flat and arrested him on suspicion of several counts of murder, robbery, kidnapping and unlawful possession of arms. 9.  On 16 June 2000 the investigation was completed and the applicant was committed for trial before the Irkutsk Regional Court. Legal-aid counsel was appointed to represent the applicant. 10.  The first hearing was scheduled for 23 October 2000. It did not go ahead because the judge had fallen ill. 11.  The trial started on 28 February 2001. The court verified the identity of nine defendants and adjourned the hearing as counsel for some defendants did not appear. 12.  The hearings of 5 and 11 March 2001 were adjourned at the request of the defence team, who needed additional time to study the case file. 13. The hearings of 20 and 21 March, 9 April, 3 and 28 May, 6 and 13 June 2001 were all adjourned either because one of the defendants was unwell, or because counsel or witnesses did not attend. 14. On 26 June 2001 the court ordered a psychiatric examination of the applicant. The examination was completed on 17 August 2001 and the hearing resumed on 28 August 2001. 15.  The hearings of 30 August, 10, 12 and 19 September 2001 were adjourned either because a defendant was unwell or because the defence asked the court to make requests for information from various State institutions. 16.  The hearing of 24 September 2001 was adjourned at the request of the newly appointed counsel of one of the defendants, who needed time to study the case file. 17.  The hearings of 1 and 10 October 2001 were adjourned as counsel for one of the defendants was ill. 18.  On 25 December 2001 the Irkutsk Regional Court convicted the applicant as charged and sentenced him to life imprisonment. 19.  The applicant and his co-defendants appealed. They sought leave to appear in person before the appeal court. The applicant asked to be provided with free legal assistance. 20.  On 15 March 2002 the applicant received a copy of the trial record. 21.  On 13 June 2002 the applicant lodged an additional appeal. 22.  The appeal hearing was scheduled for 10 April 2003. 23.  On 10 April 2003 the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation adjourned the appeal hearing and ordered that four defendants, including the applicant, be brought to Moscow. 24.  On 21 May 2003 the applicant and two of his co-defendants were transported to Moscow. 25.  On 12 December 2003 the fourth co-defendant was transported to Moscow. 26.  On 29 January 2004 the Supreme Court held an appeal hearing, changed the legal characterisation of certain offences and upheld the remainder of the judgment. The defendants participated at the hearing through video conference facilities. No one was appointed as counsel for the applicant. 27.  On 19 December 2005 a deputy Prosecutor General lodged an application for supervisory review with the Presidium of the Supreme Court. He submitted that the Supreme Court had infringed the applicant’s right to free legal representation. 28.  On 1 March 2006 the Presidium of the Supreme Court granted the prosecutor’s application, finding that the failure to provide the applicant with free legal representation at the appeal hearing had violated the rights of the defence. It quashed the appeal judgment of 29 January 2004 and remitted the case for fresh examination before the Supreme Court. 29.  On 22 November 2006 counsel Mr R. was appointed to represent the applicant on appeal. Counsel spent the period between 22 November and 8 December 2006 studying the case file. He had two meetings with the applicant. 30.  On 14 December 2006 the Supreme Court held a new appeal hearing and upheld the applicant’s conviction. The applicant and Mr R. participated at the hearing. The judgment indicates that the applicant and Mr R. both made oral pleadings. 31.  From 19 November 1998 to 21 May 2003 and from 21 to 25 April 2004 the applicant was held in detention facility no. IZ-38/1 in Irkutsk. 32.  Initially the applicant was held in common cells nos. 146, 14 and 158. 33.  On 4 October 1999 the applicant complained to the director of the detention facility that the common cells were all noisy and smoky and asked to be transferred to a solitary confinement cell. On an unspecified date at the end of 1999 he was transferred to solitary confinement. He was successively held in solitary cells nos. 23, 27, 97, 93, 90 and 100. 34.  According to a certificate of 25 November 2005 from the facility administration, produced by the Government, each cell measured 8.29 sq. m. The windows in all cells were covered by metal security shields which were removed in March 2003. Each cell was equipped with a bench, shelves, a coat rack, a dining table, a lavatory pan, a drinking water container, a mirror and a TV set. 35.  Another certificate of the same date indicates that the applicant always had three meals per day. Between 28 February and 25 December 2001 the applicant was regularly brought to the courthouse. On the days of the court hearings he breakfasted and dined at the detention facility. Lunch was served either in the courthouse or at the detention facility after his return there. 36.  The applicant disagreed with the Government’s description and submitted the following: The cells had been small, dirty and damp. The metal security shields covering the windows had blocked access to natural light and fresh air. Drinking water was supplied in rusty containers. There had been no bed and the applicant had slept on a concrete bench. He had not been provided with bedding or with eating utensils. On the days of the court hearings he had received only breakfast. He had had a daily walk of half an hour but he had always remained handcuffed while outdoors. He had been likewise handcuffed during the hearings held between 28 February and 14 May 2001. He had not received treatment for his bronchial asthma. 37.  On 21 May 2003 the applicant was transported to Moscow where he remained until 21 April 2004. 38.  On 21 April 2004 the applicant was transported back to detention facility no. IZ-38/1 in Irkutsk. On 25 April 2004 he was transferred to a correctional colony. The applicant did not describe the conditions of his detention during that period. 39.  On 11 September and 5 October 2007 the Court dispatched letters to the applicant confirming receipt of two of the applicant’s letters and his observations in reply to those of the Government, together with his claims for just satisfaction. The applicant received those letters on 31 October and 28 November 2007. He stated that both letters had been opened by the administration of detention facility no. IZ-24/1 in Krasnoyarsk. 40.  On 11 and 30 November 2007 the applicant complained to the prosecutor’s office about censorship of the Court’s letters. 41.  By letter of 27 December 2007, the prosecutor’s office confirmed that the letter received on 30 November 2007 had been opened. It however found no breach of domestic law, noting that “the letter had not been reviewed by a censor and its contents had not been changed”. The detention facility administration had merely checked the envelope for prohibited objects and registered the letter, without censoring it. 42.  On 9 November 2007 the Court forwarded to the applicant the Government’s additional observations and their comments on the claims for just satisfaction. The applicant received the letter on 17 December 2007. It was opened and bore the stamp of the administration of detention facility no. IZ-24/1. The enclosures were missing.