6.  The applicant was born in 1973 and lives in Volgograd. 7.  On 20 September 2002 the applicant was arrested and charged with several counts of theft. 8.  On 9 February 2004 the Gorodishchenskiy District Court convicted the applicant as charged and sentenced him to one year and eight months’ imprisonment starting from 20 September 2002. 9.  On 20 May 2004 the applicant completed his sentence. 10.  On 29 April 2003 the Tsentralniy District Court of Volgograd remanded the applicant in custody on suspicion of infliction of serious injuries. It referred to the gravity of the charge. 11.  On an unspecified date the applicant was charged with membership of an armed criminal gang, several counts of aggravated robbery, extortion, kidnapping, infliction of serious injuries and murder. 12.  On 19 June 2003 the Tsentralniy District Court extended the applicant’s detention until 10 September 2003, referring to the gravity of the charge and the risk of his absconding or reoffending. Counsel for the applicant was absent from the hearing. 13.  On 8 September 2003 the Tsentralniy District Court extended the applicant’s detention until 10 December 2003, referring to the gravity of the charges and the need for an additional investigation. The applicant was represented by court-appointed counsel. 14.  On 5 December 2003 the Tsentralniy District Court extended the applicant’s detention until 10 April 2004, referring to the gravity of the charges and the risk of his absconding or reoffending. Counsel for the applicant was absent from the hearing. 15.  On 12 April 2004 the investigation was completed and six defendants, including the applicant, were committed for trial before the Volgograd Regional Court. 16.  The defendants asked for trial by jury. 17.  On 20 April 2004 the Volgograd Regional Court fixed a preliminary hearing for 27 April 2004 to examine the request. It further held that the defendants should meanwhile remain in custody. 18.  On 27 April 2004 the Volgograd Regional Court held a preliminary hearing, ordered that the defendants be tried by jury and that they remain in custody pending trial. 19.  On 13 October 2004 the Volgograd Regional Court extended the defendants’ detention until 12 January 2005, referring to the gravity of the charges. 20.  On 12 January 2005 the Volgograd Regional Court extended the defendants’ detention, referring to the gravity of the charges and the risk that they might put pressure on witnesses and jurors. 21.  On 7 April 2005 the Volgograd Regional Court extended the defendants’ detention until 12 July 2005. The Regional Court found that, in view of the gravity of the charges, it was “opportune” to keep the defendants in custody. It rejected their requests to release them under an undertaking not to leave the town, since it could not exclude the risk that they would put pressure on witnesses or jurors. 22.  In his grounds of appeal of 14 April 2005 the applicant complained that the Regional Court’s conclusion that he might interfere with the proceedings had been suppositional and had not been supported by facts. He further submitted that he had three minor children, an unemployed spouse and an elderly mother and that he was the only breadwinner of the family. He had a permanent place of residence and employment. 23.  On 8 June 2005 the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation upheld the extension order on appeal, finding that it had been lawful and justified. The appeal hearing took place in the presence of the prosecutor who made oral submissions. The applicant and his counsel were absent. 24.  On 29 June 2005 the Volgograd Regional Court extended the defendants’ detention until 12 October 2005. It found that the defendants might interfere with the proceedings, as they were charged with serious criminal offences, including the charge of being members of an armed criminal gang. 25.  The applicant appealed, repeating his arguments set out in the grounds of appeal of 14 April 2005. On 7 September 2005 the Supreme Court upheld the extension order on appeal, finding that the applicant had been charged with serious and particularly serious criminal offences and that his arguments were not sufficient to warrant the quashing of the extension order. 26.  On 4 October 2005 the Volgograd Regional Court extended the defendants’ detention until 12 January 2006 for the same reasons as before. 27.  The applicant appealed, repeating his arguments set out in the grounds of appeal of 14 April 2005. He further complained that he had been refused access to the materials submitted by the prosecution in support of their request for extension. On 8 December 2005 the Supreme Court upheld the detention order on appeal, finding that it had been lawful and justified. 28.  On 22 December 2005 the Volgograd Regional Court extended the defendants’ detention until 12 April 2006 for the same reasons as before. 29.  On 10 April and 5 July 2006 the Volgograd Regional Court extended the defendants’ detention for the same reasons as before. 30.  On 2 October 2006 the Volgograd Regional Court extended the defendants’ detention until 12 January 2007, referring to the gravity of the charges and the defendants’ “characters”. The court also indicated that the purpose of the detention was to eliminate any risk of the defendants’ absconding, reoffending or hampering the court proceedings. 31.  The applicant appealed, claiming that the Regional Court’s conclusions that he might abscond, reoffend or interfere with the proceedings were not supported by relevant facts. He referred to his family situation, permanent place of residence and employment. The Regional Court had already heard all the prosecution witnesses and examined the evidence submitted by the prosecutor, therefore he could no longer put pressure on witnesses or interfere with the proceedings in any other way. He also complained that his detention had exceeded a reasonable length. 32.  On 28 December 2006 the Supreme Court upheld the extension order on appeal, finding that it had been lawful, well-reasoned and justified. The defendants were charged with serious criminal offences, and they might therefore abscond, reoffend or obstruct the proceedings. The allegedly excessive length of their detention, their poor health, minor children, elderly parents or permanent place of residence were not sufficient reasons to warrant release. 33.  On 27 December 2006 the Volgograd Regional Court extended the defendants’ detention until 12 April 2007 for the same reasons as before. 34.  On 10 April 2007 the Volgograd Regional Court extended the defendants’ detention until 12 July 2007 for the same reasons as before. 35.  On 9 July 2007 the Volgograd Regional Court extended the defendants’ detention until 12 October 2007, finding that there was no reason to vary the preventive measure. 36.  On 11 October 2007 the Volgograd Regional Court extended the defendants’ detention until 12 January 2008, referring to the gravity of the charges and the risk of absconding or intimidating the witnesses or jurors. 37.  On 9 January 2008 the Volgograd Regional Court extended the defendants’ detention until 12 April 2008 for the same reasons as before. 38.  On 8 April 2008 the Volgograd Regional Court rejected the applicant’s request to be released under an undertaking not to leave his place of residence and extended the defendants’ detention until 12 July 2008. The decision reads as follows:
“As the trial has not yet been completed, it is necessary to extend the defendants’ detention.
The court considers that the gravity of the charges justifies applying to the defendants a preventive measure in the form of detention.
However, in addition to the gravity of the charges - namely the organisation of an armed gang ... and commission of assaults on citizens and murders - carrying a sentence of up to twenty years’ imprisonment for each of the defendants, the court also takes other factors into account.
Thus, the court is entitled to believe that ... application to the defendants of an undertaking not to leave the town or other preventive measures will not exclude the possibility of their absconding or exercising pressure on participants to the proceedings and jurors.
The defendants’ argument that their detention has been excessively long is not in itself sufficient to warrant release.
The defendants have not produced any material showing the existence of factors making impossible [sic] their stay in detention facility conditions.
The court is not convinced by the defendants’ argument that they have not been granted access to the materials submitted by the prosecution in support of their requests for extension. The court has at its disposal only the materials from the criminal case file, which had been studied by the defendants.
The court considers that the grounds for the detention of the defendants, who are charged with serious and particularly serious criminal offences, are relevant and sufficient. Their detention serves the interest of society, as it prevents the commission of similar criminal offences and ensures high-quality and effective examination of the present criminal case.
The criminal case file contains sufficient evidence against each defendant justifying an extension of their detention...” 39.  On 7 July 2008 the Volgograd Regional Court extended the defendants’ detention until 12 October 2008, repeating verbatim the decision of 8 April 2008. 40.  On 10 October 2008 the Volgograd Regional Court extended the defendant’s detention until 12 January 2009, repeating verbatim the decision of 8 April 2008. 41.  The proceedings are still pending before the trial court. The applicant remains in custody. 42.  The applicant is detained in detention facility SIZO no. 1 (IZ-34/1) in Volgograd. 43.  The applicant stated that the cells were overcrowded. There were not sufficient bunks for the inmates and they had to take turns to sleep. There was no lavatory bowl; instead there was a hole in the floor which inmates used to relieve themselves. The eighty-centimetre partition separating the toilet facilities from the living area did not offer sufficient privacy and the person using the toilet was in view of the other inmates and the wardens. The dining table was very close to the toilet. Only four persons could sit at it, and the other inmates ate sitting on the floor or on the bunks. There was not much food. Inmates were not provided with adequate medical care. As a result, the applicant’s health deteriorated. 44.  According to a certificate of 2 April 2008 issued by the facility administration and submitted by the Government, from 30 September 2002 to 23 December 2003 the applicant was held in cells no. 7, 19, 53, 181 and 189, measuring 17.1 sq. m, 19.2 sq. m, 20.6 sq. m, 55.8 sq. m and 22.4 sq. m respectively. It was not possible to establish the number of inmates in each cell, as the detention facility registers for that period had been destroyed on expiry of the statutory storage time-limit. 45.  Since 26 December 2003 the applicant has been held in seventeen different cells. They were described as follows:
– cell no. 189 where the applicant was held from 26 December 2003 to 4 July 2004 and from 26 July to 6 November 2004 measured 22.4 sq. m and housed five to twelve inmates;
– cell no. 13 where the applicant was held from 4 to 26 July 2004 measured 16.4 sq. m and housed seven to eleven inmates;
– punishment cell no. 6 where the applicant was held alone from 6 to 8 November 2004 measured 8.41 sq. m;
– punishment cell no. 9 where the applicant was held alone from 19 to 22 November 2004 measured 8. 41 sq. m;
– cell no. 181 where the applicant was held from 22 November 2004 to 11 July 2005 measured 44.8 sq. m and housed seven to twenty inmates;
– cell no. 200 where the applicant was held from 11 July 2005 to 1 March 2006 measured 22 sq. m and housed seven to twelve inmates;
– cells nos. 193 and 201 where the applicant was held alone or together with another inmate from 1 to 17 March 2006 measured 5 sq. m;
– cell no. 186 where the applicant was held from 17 March to 7 April 2006 measured 22.4 sq. m and housed nine to twelve inmates;
– cell no. 86 where the applicant was held from 7 April to 30 October 2006 measured 19.7 sq. m and housed nine to fourteen inmates;
– cell no. 103 where the applicant was held from 30 October to 30 November 2006 measured 8.2 sq. m and housed five to seven inmates;
– cell no. 30 where the applicant was held from 30 November 2006 to 27 March 2007 and from 30 March to 2 April 2007 measured 18.04 sq. m and housed eight to nineteen inmates;
– cell no. 220 where the applicant was held from 27 to 30 March 2007 measured 27.2 sq. m and housed two to three inmates;
– cell no. 153 where the applicant was held from 2 April to 8 May 2007 measured 15.7 sq. m and housed two to four inmates;
– cell no. 36 where the applicant was held from 8 May to 6 November 2007 measured 33.05 sq. m and housed seventeen to nineteen inmates;
– cell no. 123 where the applicant was held from 6 to 9 November 2007 and from 12 November 2007 to 22 January 2008 measured 17.1 sq. m and housed two to six inmates;
– cell no. 122 where the applicant was held from 9 to 12 November 2007 and from 22 January to 2 April 2008 measures 16.7 sq. m and housed one to four inmates. 46.  On several occasions the applicant was transferred for short periods of several days to other detention facilities. 47.  Relying on certificates of 2 April 2008 from the facility administration, the Government further submitted that the applicant had at all times had a separate bunk and had been provided with bedding. The cells had natural light and were ventilated through the windows and were also equipped with fans. The average temperature inside was 18 to 20º C in winter and 24 to 26º C in summer. Inmates had an hour’s exercise daily. 48.  It follows from the same certificates that all cells were equipped with a lavatory bowl. This was separated from the living area by a partition of 1.5 metres in height. The dining table was situated at least two metres away from the toilet bowl. There were no insects or rodents in the detention facility, as all the cells were disinfected every month. The inmates were allowed to take a shower once a week and were provided at that time with clean bedding and towels. Finally, the Government submitted that inmates were provided with food three times a day. Boiled drinking water was distributed daily. 49.  Finally, the Government submitted that the detention facility housed a medical unit which was open twenty-four hours a day and had all the necessary equipment and medication for high-standard medical assistance.