4.  The applicant was born in 1968. He is currently serving a prison sentence. 5.  On 2 November 2002 Klin police officers found the dismembered corpse of a man. They later found traces of blood which led them to the applicant’s mother’s apartment, where they found a bloodstained axe and further traces of blood. Three men (the applicant, G. and O.) and two women were in the flat. G. told the police officers that the applicant had asked him to get rid of the dead body of a man who had been with the applicant to see him the day before. The applicant was arrested. On 3 November 2002 he was questioned in the presence of a duty lawyer. 6.  On 6 November 2002 the Klin District Court ordered the applicant’s pre-trial detention. 7.  On 10 June 2003 the Moscow Regional Court convicted the applicant of murder, sentencing him to sixteen years’ imprisonment. During the proceedings before the first-instance court the applicant was represented by a court-appointed lawyer. 8.  The applicant appealed against the judgment. He complained, inter alia, that the court had refused to admit statements made by A. and K. as evidence or to summon Ka. who, according to the court’s findings, had brought G. a note from the applicant in which he had asked G. to change his statement. 9.  On 8 October 2003 the Supreme Court upheld the first-instance judgment. According to the applicant, he asked for the hearing to be adjourned and to be appointed a legal aid lawyer, but his request was rejected. With respect to his complaints, the court found that A. and K. had not been eyewitnesses and that their statements were irrelevant to the outcome of the case. As regards Ka., the court found that the circumstances of his appearance with the applicant’s note had been confirmed during the trial by another witness, L. 10.  On 28 July 2010 the Presidium of the Supreme Court re-examined the criminal case against the applicant by way of supervisory review, set aside the appeal decision of 8 October 2003, and ordered a new appeal hearing. It held that the applicant’s right to defend himself through legal assistance had been violated at the appeal hearing. 11.  On 7 September 2010 the Supreme Court upheld the judgment of 10 June 2002 in part and reduced the applicant’s sentence to fourteen years’ imprisonment. Both he and his lawyer were present at the hearing. 12.  The applicant was examined upon his arrival at the temporary detention unit on 3 November 2002. The examination revealed several bruises and scratches on his body. It was also noted that the applicant had not made any complaints about his state of health. He had however claimed that at the time of his arrest he had been brutally beaten by the police officers. 13.  On 10 November 2002 the investigator ordered the applicant to undergo a forensic medical examination. The expert submitted his report on 12 November 2002. The only injuries found were a puncture wound and a bruise which could have been from an injection. 14.  On 13 November 2002 the applicant was examined at Klin Hospital and his state of health was found to be compatible with detention. 15.  On 15 November 2002 he was transferred to Volokolamsk Detention Facility and underwent a medical check-up upon arrival, which did not reveal any chronic illnesses or bodily injuries. 16.  According to the applicant, he repeatedly complained of back pain and muscle loss in his left leg. According to the Government, he did not mention having any back problems. 17.  On 19 March 2003 the applicant was examined by a neurologist from Klin Hospital and was diagnosed as having paresis and atrophy of the left leg. It was noted that an X-ray of his spine was required; however, it was not carried out. 18.  On 3 April 2003 he was again examined by a neurologist, who recorded his complaints that his left leg was wasting away and diagnosed him as having paresis of the left leg and muscle hypotrophy of unclear origin. 19.  On 27 October 2003 the applicant was transferred to correctional colony IK-11 in the Republic of Mordovia to serve his sentence. 20.  Upon his arrival that day, he was examined and diagnosed as having paresis and muscle hypotrophy of the left leg. 21.  On 4 November 2003 it was recorded in the applicant’s medical file that he complained of back pain and muscle loss in his left leg. He was examined and the previous diagnosis regarding his leg was confirmed. 22.  On 3 December 2003 the applicant was diagnosed as having myelopathy, namely chronic damage to the spinal cord, possibly on account of trauma. An X-ray was again recommended, but was not conducted as the equipment was broken. 23.  On 11 December 2003 the same diagnosis was confirmed and the applicant was allowed to use a walking stick. 24.  On 11 February 2004 the applicant was examined by a psychiatrist and diagnosed as having traumatic encephalopathy. 25.  On 13 October 2004 he was examined by a neuropathologist and the diagnosis of 3 December 2003 was confirmed. He was prescribed vitamins B1, B3, B6, B12, ATP (Adenosine triphosphate) and Neostigmine, a drug used to improve muscle tone. 26.  The applicant’s health continued to deteriorate, which he made the subject of numerous complaints to various bodies, including the prosecutor’s office. Between 2006 and 2008 he made 116 complaints. The applicant continued to be periodically examined by psychiatrists and neuropathologists. In 2006 a neurologist recommended that he avoid any physical activity. 27.  Between 2008 and 2009 the applicant was placed in a punishment cell on several occasions for breaking various prison rules, such as smoking and wearing the wrong clothes. On 7 February and 19 February 2008 he was punished for sleeping on the floor of his cell when according to the prison’s daily timetable, he should not have been asleep. He was detained in the punishment cell for twelve and thirteen days respectively. According to the applicant, he did not receive any medical treatment for his condition during these periods and he was not allowed to use a walking stick. The Government did not refute this information. 28.  On 16 January 2009 the head of the prison medical unit exempted the applicant from having to queue or take physical exercise. He was told to stay in bed, to avoid pressure on his spine and being subjected to cold temperatures. 29.  According to the applicant, the first X-ray of his spine was performed on 22 June 2009. The Government did not refute this information. 30.  On 17 December 2010 the applicant was sent for treatment at the Republic of Mordovia Central Hospital, where he was examined by a neuropathologist, a surgeon, a psychiatrist and a therapist. He remained there until 28 December 2010. 31.  On 21 December 2010 the Republic of Mordovia prosecutor’s office replied to one of the applicant’s numerous complaints concerning the inadequacy of his medical treatment. The prosecutor found that the applicant had been receiving medical treatment appropriate for his condition. He had also been to hospital for treatment, where he had been examined by a neuropathologist on several occasions. 32.  In September 2011 the applicant again asked to be sent to the Central Hospital for treatment as his health had not improved. He was transferred there on 14 October 2011 and was again examined by specialists. He was sent to a specialist clinic for a Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI) scan of his spine. The doctors allegedly told him that they did not know what was causing his poor health. The surgeon allegedly refused to conduct an X-ray of his pelvis, considering it unnecessary. 33.  The applicant was sent for the MRI scan on 6 December 2011 and remained in hospital until 23 December 2011. The results of the scan concluded that the applicant was suffering from a spinal disc herniation, the effects of a sacral fracture with displacement of bone fragments, and signs of osteochondrosis of the lumbar spine. 34.  According to the applicant, his condition did not improve.