5.  The applicant was born in 1971. 6.  On 13 May 1999 criminal proceedings were instituted against the applicant and five other persons in connection with a murder. On the same day charges were drawn up against the applicant. As his whereabouts were unknown, the authorities decided to place him on the list of wanted persons and issued an order for preventive remand in custody. 7.  On 21 May 1999 the applicant was arrested. Subsequently, he was charged with membership of an armed gang, murders, extortion, and keeping firearms and ammunition without a permit. A number of his alleged accomplices were also arrested and charged. 8.  According to the Government, during the pre-trial investigation the authorities took more than 490 investigative actions in order to establish all the facts relevant for the criminal case. 9.  Following completion of the investigation, on 17 April 2001 a local court received the case file from the investigation authorities. 10.  On 5 June 2001 the case was allocated to the Supreme Court of the Autonomous Republic of Crimea (subsequently renamed the Court of Appeal of the Autonomous Republic of Crimea, and hereafter “the Court of Appeal”) for consideration on the merits. 11.  On 25 June 2001 the Court of Appeal committed the applicant and fourteen other defendants for trial, and scheduled the next hearing for 30 July 2001. 12.  On 30 July 2001 the hearing was adjourned because one of the defendants, some victims and lawyers failed to appear. 13.  On 6 August and 3 and 5 September 2001 hearings were adjourned owing to the failure of some lawyers to appear. 14.  On 11 September 2001 the Court of Appeal established the identity of the defendants and read out the bill of indictment. The next hearing was scheduled for 13 September 2001. 15.  On 13 September 2001 the Court of Appeal adjourned the proceedings, following a request by one of the defendants for the hearings to be recorded, for which the technical means were not available at the time. 16.  The next hearing was scheduled for 9 July 2002, but on that day the Court of Appeal adjourned it, as one of the defendants and two lawyers had failed to appear. 17.  On 11 July 2002 the Court of Appeal resumed consideration of the case. 18.  Between 29 July and 22 October 2002 several hearings were postponed, as the lawyers of certain defendants could not be present. 19.  On 12 November 2002 the Court of Appeal postponed the hearing till 24 February 2003, because one of the lay judges had to deal with another case until that date. 20.  Between 18 March and 10 September 2003 no hearings were held, as one of the lay judges was ill. 21.  On 15 December 2003 the Court of Appeal remitted the case for additional investigation, upholding the custodial preventive measure in respect of the applicant after noting that there had been no grounds for changing the measure. The court found, inter alia, that the charges against the applicant and the other defendants had been vague and lacked appropriate substantiation. The decision was appealed against by the prosecution. 22.  On 8 May 2004 the Supreme Court quashed the decision of 15 December 2003 and remitted the case to the Court of Appeal for trial. 23.  The next hearing in the case took place on 28 February 2005; previous hearings had been adjourned because some defendants and lawyers had failed to appear. 24.  A number of later hearings also had to be adjourned for various reasons, including failure to appear by defendants, witnesses, victims, and lawyers, and also because of power cuts. 25.  On 22 May 2006 the Court of Appeal found, among other things, that the applicant was guilty of the above-mentioned crimes and sentenced him to fifteen years’ imprisonment with confiscation of his property. The Court of Appeal also convicted fourteen other defendants. According to the Government, that judgment was passed after the Court of Appeal had held 105 hearings, during which it had questioned the defendants and numerous witnesses, examined the evidence in the file and considered various requests submitted in the course of the trial. 26.  The applicant appealed on points of law. 27.  On 5 April 2007 the Supreme Court partly quashed the conviction of the applicant on the charge of keeping firearms and ammunition without a permit. It upheld the remainder of the conviction as substantiated and confirmed the sentence. 28.  On 14 June 2007 the applicant was transferred to the Lugansk Pre‑Trial Detention Facility (“the Lugansk SIZO”) where he was held until 9 July 2007. 29.  According to the applicant, in that facility he was held in a cell measuring about 15 sq. m, which was located in a semi-basement. The overall number of detainees ranged from fifteen to twenty. The number of bunks was insufficient and the detainees had to take turns to sleep. Some of the detainees were infected with tuberculosis. The toilet in the cell was dirty and offered no privacy. The sewerage system repeatedly broke down and the corridor was periodically flooded with waste water. There were two small windows and no ventilation. The walls of the cell were covered with mould. There were no mattresses or pillows. The laundry facilities were out of order. The nutrition was inadequate. The rubbish bins were located three metres from the outer wall of the cell and a bad smell penetrated from outside. Flies and cockroaches abounded. 30.  According to the Government, the applicant was held in cell no. 5, which measured 17.7 sq. m. The cell was equipped with fifteen bunks, a bench and a table. The cell had not been overcrowded as it had never been occupied by more than fifteen detainees. Between 19 June and 9 July 2007 the cell had been usually occupied by thirteen detainees. None of the inmates was suffering from any serious illness. The toilet in the cell was separated by a plywood partition of 1.5 m in height. There were several breakdowns of the sewerage system which were quickly repaired. There were two windows which allowed sufficient daylight to enter and provided ventilation for the cell. The applicant was provided with bed linen, a mattress and a pillow. He was able to have a shower every seven days. Nutrition was provided in accordance with domestic standards. Rubbish bins were kept in a special yard with a fence. Overall, the sanitary and hygienic conditions were adequate. 31.  According to the applicant, on 14 June and 9 July 2007 he was transported in overcrowded railway carriages and vehicles. For railway transportation, the overall number of detainees in each compartment ranged from twelve to fifteen. The compartments were not ventilated, even though the weather was hot. For transportation by road, the applicant and another twenty detainees were packed into a special vehicle, which heated up in the sun and did not provide sufficient space or ventilation.