4.  The applicant was born in 1982 and is currently serving a prison sentence in Plovdiv Prison. 5.  On 14 September 2001 the applicant was questioned before a judge as a suspect of a theft and an attempted theft, committed in complicity with another person. He confessed into both offences. On an unspecified date charges were brought against him. 6.  On 29 April 2002 additional theft charges were brought against the applicant. 7.  In November 2002 the Plovdiv district public prosecutor’s office submitted an indictment with the Plovdiv District Court against the applicant and two other individuals. 8.  In the period between May 2003 and June 2004 the District Court conducted five hearings, two of which were adjourned because of the absence of the applicant’s lawyer and the others due to absent witnesses. 9.  On 7 June 2004 the District Court convicted the applicant as charged and sentenced him to two years’ imprisonment. 10.  Upon appeal, on 27 December 2004 the Plovdiv Regional Court quashed the sentence for procedural violations and remitted the case to the District Court. 11.  After the remittal, in the period between June 2005 and March 2007 the District Court held eleven hearings. Two hearings were adjourned because of the absence of the applicant’s lawyer, three because of the absence of a co-defendant and five – because of the absence of witnesses. 12.  At a hearing held on 28 March 2007 the District Court approved a plea bargain agreement between the defendants and the prosecuting authorities and discontinued the proceedings. The applicant was punished by one year and six months’ imprisonment. 13.  In February 2004 the applicant was placed in pre-trial detention in connection with an investigation into robbery and fraud, both committed during the suspension periods of three other convictions. On 23 April 2004 his case was brought to court. The applicant was convicted and sentenced to six years’ imprisonment, the final judgment being delivered on 23 February 2007 by the Supreme Court of Cassation. 14.  During these proceedings, the applicant made several unsuccessful requests for release. 15.  On 5 October 2004 he requested to be released and asked the court to commission a psychiatric expert’s report in order to prove the deterioration of his mental state. The District Court dismissed his evidentiary request as unsubstantiated and on 19 October 2004 upheld his detention. Upon appeal, on 26 October 2004 the Regional Court, sitting in private, upheld the decision of the District Court. 16.  At hearings held on 19 January and 30 March 2005 the applicant made further requests for release, arguing, inter alia, that he used to be a drug addict and had mental problems. The District Court dismissed the requests. On 7 April 2005 he appealed against the dismissal of his request of 30 March 2005. On 5 May 2005 the Plovdiv Regional Court, sitting in private, dismissed his appeal. 17.  The courts relied on the gravity of the charges against the applicant and his previous convictions, which justified the suspicion that he might abscond or re-offend; the lack of new circumstances warranting his release and the diligent conduct of the proceedings. They also found that the applicant’s mental problems could be treated in prison. 18.  The applicant was detained in Plovdiv Prison from April 2004 until an unspecified date in 2007, when he was moved to Sofia Prison. He submitted that the conditions in Plovdiv Prison had been inhuman and degrading. 19.  The applicant submitted an envelope bearing a post stamp of 2005 addressed by him to his lawyer. It was stamped as having been monitored by the administration of Plovdiv Prison. 20.  According to the applicant, he received all the letters from his lawyer opened and read by the prison administration. He had to hand to the prison administration the letters addressed to his lawyer in open envelopes, in conformity with the prison rules.