5.  The applicant was born in 1990 and lives in Bucharest. 6.  On 19 December 2008 the Bucharest Prosecutor’s Office indicted the applicant, who was a final-year high-school student at the time, on the basis of medical, forensic, documentary and witness evidence, for attempted aggravated murder, and referred his case to the Bucharest County Court. 7.  By a judgment of 12 March 2009 the Bucharest County Court convicted the applicant and sentenced him to five and a half years’ imprisonment. The applicant appealed against the judgment. 8.  By a judgment of 9 November 2009 the Bucharest Court of Appeal dismissed the applicant’s appeal as ill-founded. The applicant appealed on points of law (recurs) against the judgment. 9.  By a final judgment of 5 March 2010 the Court of Cassation dismissed the applicant’s appeal on points of law as ill-founded. 10.  At the time of his incarceration the applicant had completed eleven years of education and was enrolled in the twelfth at a high school which trained students to become skilled workers in various industries, including the food industry. 11.  On 29 April 2010 the applicant’s father asked the warden of Rahova Prison on behalf of the applicant to allow his son to complete his last year of high school, which he had had to abandon after his imprisonment, or alternatively to allow him to attend classes which would teach him a trade or profession. 12.  On 11 May 2010 the Rahova Prison warden informed the applicant’s father that his son’s circumstances would be examined by the prison’s work commission on the basis of the prison’s requirements. 13.  On 5 July 2010, with the applicant’s consent, the applicant’s father asked the Rahova Prison authorities to allow his son to be transferred to Craiova Prison. He argued, inter alia, that his son wished to be transferred in order to be able to complete his high-school education, because following a private discussion with the warden of Rahova Prison he had been notified that Rahova Prison did not have the resources to set up such a course. 14.  According to the Government, following a request received from the applicant on 21 September 2009, the Rahova Prison authorities informed him that it was not possible to arrange high-school courses at that time. In addition, the applicant’s request of 28 July 2011 addressed to the Jilava Prison authorities to be enrolled in courses for twelfth-grade high-school students was granted, but immediately afterwards the applicant requested a transfer to Bistriţa Prison. The documents submitted by the Government to the Court in support of their arguments do not provide any further information. 15.  From 2010 to 2012 the applicant enrolled in and took part in several sporting, artistic, religious and literary competitions, as well as several training and educational programmes set up by the domestic prison authorities. 16.  On 9 June 2011 and 6 October 2011 the applicant stated to the Court that he had repeatedly asked the wardens of Craiova, Rahova and Jilava Prisons either to be allowed to complete his last year of high school or to be allowed to work. According to him, all his requests were refused because the prison authorities were temporarily unable to arrange classes for final‑year high-school students, vocational courses were full, and there were no vacancies for work. 17.  From 25 June to 25 September 2012 the applicant was enrolled in and attended a course set up by the Bistriţa Prison authorities, training detainees to become skilled workers in the food industry. 18.  On 9 June 2011 the applicant stated to the Court that the conditions of detention in Jilava Prison were inhuman and degrading. He contended that he was detained in Section VI in cell 601, which was overcrowded. The said room was 40 sq. m in area and contained twenty-seven beds and twenty-seven detainees. The room was squalid and was infested with rats, lice and bedbugs. During his detention in Jilava Prison he was diagnosed with and treated for scabies. He was also repeatedly bitten by bedbugs. The detention cell lacked heating in the winter and was extremely hot in the summer. The applicant was suffering from constant headaches and dizzy spells in the summer because of the overcrowded conditions, the high temperatures and the lack of ventilation and air in the room. Nor did he have access to any sporting, cultural and educational activities. 19.  On 18 July 2011 the applicant stated to the Court that on 21 January 2009 he was diagnosed with gastroenteritis, which he stated was caused by the poor food in Jilava Prison and the prison’s drinking water which was infested with bacteria. He also submitted a copy of his medical file attesting that between 21 and 29 January 2009 and on 4 January 2011 he had been diagnosed and treated for gastroenteritis and scabies. 20.  The applicant was detained in Jilava Prison from 7 to 21 January and 29 January to 6 February 2009, 2 September to 25 October 2010 and 28 October 2010 to 25 August 2011. 21.  From 7 to 21 January and 29 January to 6 February 2009 the applicant was detained in cells 308, 601 and 604. The size of the cells was 27.42, 31.21 and 13.5 sq. m respectively, and the number of inmates in the cells was of between eighteen and nineteen, twenty and between three and thirteen, respectively. 22.  From 2 September to 25 October 2010 as well as from 28 to 31 October 2010 the applicant was detained in cell 504. The size of the cell was 32.9 sq. m and the number of inmates ranged from fourteen to seventeen. 23.  From 1 November 2010 to 1 March 2011 the applicant was detained in cell 201. The size of the cell was 27.26 sq. m and the number of inmates ranged from twenty to twenty-three. 24.  From 2 to 17 March, as well as from 7 May to 19 August 2011, the applicant was detained in cell 601. The number of inmates was sixteen to eighteen. 25.   From 18 March to 6 May 2011 the applicant was detained in cell 604. The number of inmates was ten to twelve. 26.  From 19 to 25 August 2011 the applicant was detained in cell 603. The size of the cell was 12 sq. m and the number of inmates was eight to nine. 27.  In all the detention cells the applicant was provided with his own bed. The detention cells were fitted with shelves for storing luggage, two tables and at least two wooden benches or chairs. Waste was removed and the sanitary facilities and the prison premises were cleaned daily. The inmates were provided with cleaning materials, waste baskets and rubbish bags. The cells were cleansed of bugs and vermin by specialised companies every quarter or as often as it was needed. The detainees’ clothes and underwear were washed weekly on request. 28.  Cold water was permanently available, except during the short periods of time when maintenance work was carried out, while hot water was available twice a week. Drinking water was tested monthly and was of good quality. 29.  The cells had windows for ventilation. In hot weather the doors were also left open. 30.  Heating was provided from November to March on the basis of a pre-approved schedule, except for brief periods when the prison’s heating system was malfunctioning. During the applicant’s detention the basic temperature was a constant 21 degrees Celsius. 31.  All the cells in which the applicant was detained were renovated in 2010 and 2011.