4.  The applicant was born in 1978 and is currently serving a prison sentence in Jelgava Prison. He has been in detention since being arrested on 22 December 2002. 5.  On or before 3 March 2005 the applicant was diagnosed with bilateral destructive pulmonary tuberculosis. On 4 March 2005 he was admitted to the Prison Hospital (Ieslodzījuma vietu pārvaldes Republikāniskā slimnīca), which was located on the premises of the Central Prison in Rīga. The applicant stayed in the Prison Hospital between 4 March and 7 September and between 28 September and 18 October 2005. While in the Prison Hospital he was held in cell no. 334. 6.  According to the applicant’s description of cell no. 334, it measured approximately twenty-four square metres and could hold up to eight people, sleeping on four bunk beds. The applicant pointed out that the cell was in need of repair; among other things the walls were crumbling, the floor was uneven and the ventilation system was not functioning. Apart from natural sources of light, lighting was provided by two fluorescent bulbs during the day and a small, dim light bulb at night. Only cold water was available in the cell, and even that was turned off from time to time. The toilet facilities – a hole in a cement pedestal measuring 0.85 by 0.65 metres – were separated from the rest of the cell by two plywood sheets which were 1.5 metres high. The toilet facilities were disinfected several times a week throughout the applicant’s stay in the cell. On the other hand, during the whole of the applicant’s stay there the cell was sanitised with ultraviolet light on only one occasion. 7.  The cell had a large window, parts of which could be opened but because of its state of disrepair it could not be completely closed. There were gaps around the edges of the window – one of them three centimetres wide. Accordingly, the air temperature inside the cell was dependent on the temperature outside. Thus, up to the middle of May the temperature inside the cell was approximately 10 to 15 degrees Celsius, which, in combination with the constant draught, meant that the inmates had to wear their coats and hats while sleeping. 8.  The applicant noted that he was entitled to take a walk outside the cell for one hour each day. The walks took place in small courtyards measuring ten by five metres, which were essentially prison cells without a roof. The yards were in a state of disrepair with crumbling walls and very dirty floors. 9.  The inmates who were in the Prison Hospital were allowed to have a shower once a week. For a while all six inmates in the applicant’s cell had to take their shower at the same time, despite the fact that there were only four showerheads. The bathroom was very dirty and in a state of disrepair. Subsequently the bathroom was repaired, but the applicant considered that the improvement had not been satisfactory. 10.  No toothpaste, toothbrush, shaving razor, soap or toilet paper were provided to the inmates who were in the Prison Hospital. The applicant had to acquire them from the prison shop at his own expense. Owing to the schedule for changing bed linen, the applicant at times had to sleep one night a week without any sheets. The applicant was dissatisfied with the quality of the food at the Prison Hospital, indicating that in the five months he spent there he had lost 3.5 kilograms in weight. 11.  The applicant considered that the medical care in the Prison Hospital was inadequate. As a result he had developed a wide range of health problems, including issues with his heart, stomach and intestines. The applicant indicated that his complaints to the attending doctor were often ignored and not followed by check-ups. 12.  On 4 April 2005 the applicant sent a letter to the Ministry of Justice, in which he described in detail the conditions of his detention in the Prison Hospital and raised a series of questions about the certification of that hospital. One of the questions raised by the applicant was “Does compulsory long-term detention of an ill person in such conditions amount to [a violation] of Article 3 of the [Convention]?” The applicant’s letter concluded with the following passage:
“I draw your attention to the fact that this submission should not be interpreted as a complaint against the medical staff of the Prison Hospital and about the medical care or as a complaint against staff members of the Central Prison. I ask you not to forward this submission to the director of the Prisons Administration, since I am interested in your opinion, as a State official, on the questions raised in the submission”. 13.  On 20 April 2005 the Ministry of Justice provided a response to the applicant’s submission. It stated that the Prison Hospital was staffed with qualified doctors, and that medical care was provided in accordance with World Health Organisation guidelines. The Ministry nonetheless noted that since 1999 work had been going on to set up a new, better equipped, tuberculosis hospital for prisoners; however, those efforts were dependent on the available funding. Furthermore, it noted that, while the administration of the Central Prison ensured that the cells were heated and provided supplies for cleaning the cells, the inmates themselves had partial responsibility for keeping the cells clean. The Ministry stated that the cold in the cells was often caused by the prisoners’ own choice to keep the windows open. Lastly, in response to the applicant’s allegation of a violation of Article 3 of the Convention due to the conditions of detention, the Ministry noted that such questions fell within the competence of public prosecutors. It appears that the applicant did not complain to a prosecutor. 14.  On 19 April 2005 the National Human Rights Office (Valsts cilvēktiesību birojs) forwarded an enquiry from the applicant to the Minister of Health. In its accompanying letter that Office stressed that the Prison Hospital did not comply with human rights standards, and that it had previously been criticised by the Human Rights Commissioner of the Council of Europe and by the European Committee for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (“the CPT”). 15.  The Ministry of Health replied to the applicant on 16 May 2005. It pointed out that all medical institutions operating in Latvia had to comply with certain legal standards. Since the Prison Hospital’s compliance with those standards had not been assessed, it was barred from providing medical services. It further noted that at the relevant time there were no binding legal regulations on standards of hygiene in medical institutions, including specialised tuberculosis treatment institutions. 16.  Similar information was provided on 7 June 2005 by the State Agency for Health Statistics and Medical Technologies (Veselības statistikas un medicīnas tehnoloģiju valsts aģentūra), which is the authority responsible for assessing medical institutions’ compliance with legal standards. 17.  The applicant submitted that on 20 January 2006 he had received a letter from the Court. The letter was brought to his cell in an unopened envelope. In accordance with the regular procedure the applicant signed to confirm that he had received the letter. However, after he had signed, the prison guard started opening the envelope. The applicant pointed out that the guard had no right to do this. The guard then handed the half-opened envelope to the applicant and requested him to open it in his presence and to show him the empty envelope and the unfolded letter for the guard to check that the envelope did not contain any forbidden objects. The applicant was told that if he refused to do this his cell would be searched. The applicant complied with the guard’s request. 18.  On 8 March 2006 the National Human Rights Office replied to the applicant’s complaint about the opening of the letter from the Court. The applicant was informed of the Court’s ruling in Campbell v. the United Kingdom (25 March 1992, Series A no. 233). The prison authorities were also informed about the Court’s case‑law in this regard. 19.  On 25 July 2006 the applicant submitted a complaint to the Administrative District Court. He complained that the administration of Jelgava Prison was monitoring his correspondence. Among other incidents, he alleged that on 15 June 2006 a staff member of that prison had intercepted a letter addressed to the applicant from the European Court of Human Rights. The applicant requested the Administrative Court to prohibit prisons from monitoring his correspondence with certain institutions (including courts and prosecutors). He also requested the Administrative Court to provide instructions on what the prison authorities were allowed to do if they suspected that such letters might have illicit contents. No compensation of any kind was requested. On 30 July 2007 the court adopted a judgment, in which it referred to the above-mentioned Campbell judgment and concluded that the prison’s actions in this matter had no adequate basis in law. Accordingly the court upheld the applicant’s request and prohibited Jelgava Prison from monitoring correspondence with certain state institutions. While the court refused to provide specific instructions, as had been requested by the applicant, it did spell out certain general principles. That judgment was not appealed against and became final.