5.  The applicant was born in 1959 and lives in Chişinău. He is a member of the Russian-speaking minority in Moldova. 6.  On 9 December 2002 the applicant was arrested on suspicion of murder. Since the beginning of 2003 he has been detained in Prison no. 13 in Chişinău, Prison no. 3 in Leova and in Pruncul Hospital for Detainees. 7.  The applicant submitted that he had been detained at the same time and in the same prison, and even in the same cell, as Mr T. Ciorap, in respect of whose prison conditions the Court had found a violation of Article 3 of the Convention in Ciorap v. Moldova (no. 12066/02, 19 June 2007). He considered that the conditions of detention were no different from those in which Mr Ciorap had been detained. 8.  He described as follows the conditions of detention in Prison no. 13. In one cell (no. 117), where he had been detained during his hunger strike, there had been no light bulb on the first day and no bed linen throughout his detention there. A malfunctioning tap and a blocked sink let water gather on the floor; it was always very humid in the cell. The cell was situated in the basement and was not heated; it was very cold owing to the absence of glass in the window. No attention to personal hygiene was possible in the cell. 9.  The applicant submitted that, when escorted to court hearings, all detainees had been transported in a single vehicle, regardless of whether they were ill with infectious diseases such as tuberculosis, which they could transmit to others. They then had to stay for hours in cramped conditions in court-houses waiting for their turn to go into court. 10.  The applicant pointed to the low quality of the food which he had received and the fact that when he had been escorted to a court hearing, he had been away from his prison from 7-7.30 a.m. until 7-7.30 p.m. He thus had left the prison and had returned there outside the hours when food had been provided. No food had been given throughout the day to those escorted to court hearings. No medication had been distributed during such days either, even if it had been prescribed by doctors. The applicant claimed that he had become ill with prostatitis and rheumatism while in prison. 11.  He also submitted that he had been detained for several years in Prison no. 13, which was used as a pre-trial detention facility with worse conditions than the prisons in which convicted persons normally served their sentences. In particular, he had been detained in overcrowded cells with no possibility of leaving them for more than an hour per day. He mentioned, for instance, being detained with five other persons in a cell (no. 55) measuring 9.5 square metres suitable for two detainees. He also mentioned having felt ill from the smoke in the cell. In reply to his complaint about the lack of proper ventilation, he had allegedly been informed that the prison administration was considering a ban on smoking. The applicant added that he had been unable to see a priest of the Russian Orthodox Church while in detention. 12.  The applicant’s representative complained to the Chişinău Prosecutor’s Office about the inhuman conditions of detention in Prisons no. 13 in Chişinău and no. 16 in Pruncul. In reply, on 24 March 2008 he was informed that during 2007 and 2008 the Prosecutor’s Office had on seven occasions drawn the attention of the above-mentioned institutions to the shortcomings found in their activity. These notifications concerned, in particular, the failure to secure the statutory minimum of four square metres of living space per detainee. According to the prosecutor, there were still more detainees than beds in those institutions. 13.  On 1 December 2008 the applicant asked the governor of Prison no. 13 to confirm or deny that he and five other persons were being detained in cell no. 55 of that institution, measuring 9.5 square metres. He attached a list of names of all those detained in his cell. In reply, the head of prison no. 13 informed the applicant that before the entry into force of the new Enforcement Code[1] cell no. 55 could host up to six persons. In reply to another request from the applicant of 20 March 2008, on 4 April 2008 the head of the Prisons Department informed him that in order to satisfy the legal requirement of four square metres of living space per detainee, cell no. 55 in Prison no. 13 could accommodate two persons. 14.  The Government submitted that since 2003 the applicant had been detained, with certain interruptions, in Prison no. 13. He was detained there in various cells, which measured between 7.9 square metres and 30.68 square metres, including in cell no. 55, measuring 7.9 square metres, currently used for the medical supervision of detainees. They also submitted a long list of medical interventions of various types ranging from check-ups to inpatient treatment from which the applicant benefited throughout his detention. In particular, after his psychiatric problems were discovered, the applicant was regularly examined and treated for his illness. Moreover, the applicant had made 160 requests and complaints to the Prisons Department, nine of which were complaints about the conditions of detention, in addition to eight complaints about the quality and/or quantity of food served. He made another 132 complaints and requests to the administration of Prison no. 13, eleven of which concerned conditions of detention, as well as one complaint about the quantity and quality of food served. By contrast, he made only one request to the authorities of Prison no. 9 in Pruncul and three requests to those of Prison no. 15 in Cricova. In addition, the applicant initiated seven different court actions against the Prisons Department, the administration of Prison no. 13, the Government, and its various Ministries concerning the conditions of detention. Three of these actions were struck out and one was rejected as unfounded. Three more are pending. 15.  On 24 May 2004 the applicant was convicted of murder by the Botanica District Court and sentenced to twenty years’ imprisonment. That judgment was upheld by the Chişinău Court of Appeal on 27 September 2005. 16.  On 20 October 2005 the applicant lodged an appeal in cassation with the Supreme Court of Justice. On 21 October 2005 the Supreme Court of Justice informed him that his appeal did not conform to legal requirements. It had to include information such as dates and references to the lower courts’ judgments, the appellant’s identity and a summary of the reasons given by the appellate court. Moreover, the appeal had to be typewritten and to be submitted in as many copies as there were parties to the proceedings. 17.  The applicant claims that he had a short time for appealing and that he could not typewrite his appeal since a typewriter was not available in prison. He therefore submitted five copies of his handwritten appeal to the Supreme Court of Justice. 18.  On 14 December 2005 the Supreme Court of Justice declared inadmissible the applicant’s appeal in cassation because it did not conform to the requirements as to form and content. The court noted that the applicant had failed to provide reasons for his appeal or to identify the general legal issue which required it to intervene, that he had failed to rely on any of the grounds exhaustively listed in the law for lodging an appeal and that his appeal had not been typed. That decision was final. 19.  On 24 February 2006 the parliament amended the law by excluding the requirement that appeals in cassation should be typewritten. On an unknown date the applicant asked the Supreme Court of Justice to reopen the proceedings in his case since in his opinion his appeal had been declared inadmissible only because of the failure to submit it in typed form. On 14 May 2008 the Supreme Court of Justice rejected his request as unsubstantiated. 20.  The applicant initiated a number of civil proceedings against the prison authorities, a newspaper, and other persons and institutions. He submitted copies of court decisions refusing to accept for examination his court actions because, inter alia, he had failed to pay the court fees (decisions of 12 September and 4 October 2005, 23 January, 28 February, 3, 7 and 17 March and 7 April 2006, 28 September, 15 October and 11 December 2007). In each of these decisions, the courts also found that the applicant had failed to observe other legal requirements such as submitting original documents or certified copies, submitting arguments and evidence in support of the claim, identifying specifically the defendant or submitting copies of documents for all the defendants and the court. 21.  The applicant initiated court proceedings against the Government, the Ministry of Justice and the Ministry of Finance, claiming compensation for a violation of his right of access to court and for discrimination against him. On 1 March 2007 the Buiucani District Court left his action without examination because he had failed to pay the court fees. The applicant appealed. On 25 July 2007 the Chişinău Court of Appeal quashed that decision and ordered that the case be heard by the lower court in order to determine whether the court fees should be waived in the applicant’s case. 22.  On 29 October 2007 the Buiucani District Court found that the type of court action which the applicant had initiated (seeking a finding that a violation of his right of access to a tribunal had taken place in other contentious procedures) was not to be examined as a separate procedure. He had the right to appeal against any refusal to examine his court actions in those civil proceedings in which his actions had been left without examination and thus exercise his right of access to a court in each particular case. It added that the complaint concerning discrimination was ill-founded since the applicant had conceded in court that he had obtained translations of all judgments into Russian whenever he had asked for them. 23.  The applicant submitted copies of the decisions of the Chişinău Court of Appeal of 7 March 2006 and 11 December 2007. In the decision of 7 March 2006 he was informed that he had missed the time-limit for paying the court fees. Even though he had subsequently paid those fees, this was not a legal ground for annulling the decision taken before such payment. He could, however, re-submit his action before the lower court on the same issue as a new case. The applicant did not inform the Court whether he had followed the court’s advice. The Court of Appeal noted in its decision of 11 December 2007 that the applicant had failed to properly identify his claims, thus failing to observe legal requirements. 24.  According to the applicant, on 15 February 2008 he appealed to the Chişinău Court of Appeal. He submitted no evidence in support of that claim. According to the Government, no such appeal had been lodged, as confirmed by that court in a letter of 13 February 2009. 25.  In its report for 2010 (page 142 et seq. – “Conditions of detention” chapter), the Centre for Human Rights in Moldova (“the Centre”, which is the Moldovan Ombudsman institution) found, inter alia, that:
“Non-observance of the statutory living space (4 square metres) in the living blocks of the institution[2] has become an unpleasant problem; it has transformed into a systemic deficiency of the prisons in the entire country. ...
The same situation was observed during a visit to Prison no. 13 in Chişinău on 9 September 2010. In some cells the living space was not proportionate to the number of detainees. ...” 26.  The relevant parts of the report of the European Committee for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (CPT) on its visit to Moldova between 20 and 30 September 2004 (CPT/Inf (2006) 7) read as follows (unofficial translation):
“55. The situation in the majority of prisons visited, faced with the economic situation in the country, remained difficult and the delegation encountered a number of problems already identified during the visits in 1998 and 2001 in terms of material conditions and detention regimes.
Added to this is the problem of overcrowding, which remains serious. In fact, even if the prisons visited were not at their full capacity – as is the case of Prison no. 3 in which the number of detainees was appreciably smaller than during the last visit of the Committee – they continued to be extremely congested. In fact, the receiving capacity was still based on a very unsatisfactory 2 m2 per detainee; in practice often even less. 79. The follow-up visit to Prison no. 3 in Chişinău revealed an unsatisfactory situation. The progress noted was in fact minimal, limited to some running repairs. The ventilation system had been repaired primarily thanks to the financial support of civil society (especially NGOs), and the creation of space for daily recreation had been made possible only as a result of contributions by the detainees and their families.
The repair, renovation and maintenance of cells are entirely the responsibility of the detainees themselves and of their families, who also pay for the necessary materials. They must also obtain their own sheets and blankets, the institution being able to give them only used mattresses.
In sum, the living conditions in the large majority of cells in Blocks I and II and the transit cells continue to be very poor indeed. ...
Finally, despite the drastic reduction of the overcrowding, there is still a very high, even intolerable, level of occupancy in the cells. 83. With the exception of the Lipcani prison ... the quantity and quality of detainees’ food is a source of grave concern everywhere. The delegation was inundated with complaints regarding the absence of meat and dairy products. The findings of the delegation, regarding both the quantity of food and the menus, confirm the credibility of these complaints. Its findings also confirm that in certain places (in Prison no. 3, [...]), the food served was repulsive and virtually inedible (for instance, insects and vermin were present). This is not surprising, given the general state of the kitchens and their modest equipment.
The Moldovan authorities have always claimed financial difficulties in ensuring that detainees receive adequate food. However, the Committee reiterates that this is a fundamental requirement of life which must be ensured by the State to persons in its charge and that nothing can exonerate it from such responsibility. ...” 27.  The relevant parts of the report of the CPT on its visit to Moldova between 14 and 24 September 2007 (CPT/Inf (2008) 39) read as follows (unofficial translation):
 “46.  In September 2007, the Director of the Prison Department of the Ministry of Justice provided the delegation with detailed information on measures already taken or planned with a view to reforming the Moldovan prison system and implementing the CPT’s recommendations. One particularly welcome outcome of these measures is the reduction of the country’s prisoner population. At the time of the 2007 visit, the total number of prisoners stood at 8,033 (including 1,290 on remand), compared with 10,591 in 2004. This positive trend can be attributed to legislative changes in recent years, including the entry into force of a new Code of Execution of Sentences in July 2005 and the adoption of amendments to the Criminal Code and the Code of Criminal Procedure. As a result, there has been an increase in the number of conditional early releases, as well as a wider use of alternatives to imprisonment and a more selective application of remand custody by the courts.
Further, the implementation of the “Concept for reforming the penitentiary system in the period 2004-2013” has been supported by an increase in the budgetary allocation (from 75.8 million lei in 2004, to 166.1 million lei in 2007), as well as by a growing input of foreign aid. This has enabled, inter alia, the amelioration of the food provided to prisoners, an improvement of health care, and the carrying out of refurbishment work at several penitentiary establishments (e.g. No. 1 in Taraclia, No. 7 in Rusca and No. 17 in Rezina).
Last but not least, there has been an important shift in mentality through improved staff recruitment and training procedures. The delegation was informed that the directors of many penitentiary establishments had been changed in the last year, following a competition and a probation period. Further, new training programmes for staff had been developed, placing particular emphasis on human rights issues (see also paragraph 100). 47.  The CPT can only welcome the above-mentioned measures taken by the Moldovan authorities. Nevertheless, the information gathered by the Committee’s delegation during the 2007 visit shows that much remains to be done. In particular, overcrowding continues to be a problem; despite the fact that all establishments visited were operating well under their official capacities, there was on average only 2 m² of living space per prisoner, rather than the standard of 4 m² provided for in Moldovan legislation.
The CPT is convinced that the only viable way to control overcrowding and achieve the standard of at least 4 m² of living space per prisoner is to adopt policies designed to limit or modulate the number of persons sent to prison. In this connection, the Committee must stress the need for a strategy covering both admission to and release from prison to ensure that imprisonment really is the ultimate remedy. This implies, in the first place, an emphasis on non-custodial measures in the period before the imposition of a sentence and, in the second place, the adoption of measures which facilitate the reintegration into society of persons who have been deprived of their liberty.
The CPT trusts that the Moldovan authorities will continue their efforts to combat prison overcrowding and in so doing, will be guided by Recommendation Rec(99)22 of the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe concerning prison overcrowding and prison population inflation, as well as Recommendation Rec(2003)22 on conditional release (parole).” 28.  The Government attached to their observations copies of domestic judgments in the cases of Drugaliov v. the Ministry of the Interior and the Ministry of Finance; Gristiuc v. the Ministry of Finance and the Prisons Department; and Ciorap v. the Ministry of Finance, the Ministry of the Interior and the Prosecutor General’s Office, all cases in which the applicants were awarded compensation for ill-treatment and/or inhuman conditions of detention.