5.  The applicant was born in 1979 and lives in Moscow. 6.  In April 2000 the authorities brought criminal proceedings against the applicant on suspicion of robbery. During the trial the applicant was also accused of theft. 7.  By a judgment of 20 July 2001 the Zelenogradskiy District Court (“the District Court”) convicted the applicant on both counts. 8.  The applicant appealed against the judgment and on 23 October 2001 the Moscow City Court (“the City Court”) quashed the conviction on appeal and remitted the case for a fresh examination at the first instance. 9.  On 4 June 2002 the District Court again convicted the applicant of robbery and theft and sentenced him to nine years' imprisonment. 10.  The applicant's appeal against the judgment was dismissed by the City Court on 9 July 2002. 11.  On 15 April 2004 the City Court, acting by way of supervisory review, upheld the judgment of 4 June and the decision of 9 July 2002 in part relating to the count of robbery and quashed the rest of the applicant's conviction. 12.  The court established that there had been various irregularities in the criminal proceedings in so far as they related to the count of theft and, in particular, the fact that the applicant had not been given a reasonable opportunity to prepare his defence and state his case properly. The applicant was accordingly acquitted on this charge and the overall sentence was reduced to five years. 13.  The applicant was taken into custody by the authorities on 6 April 2000 and remained in pre-trial detention until 19 July 2002. 14.  From 6 April 2000 to 26 July 2001 and from 22 November 2001 to 9 June 2002 the applicant was held in pre-trial detention centre IZ-77/5 in the city of Moscow (“SIZO no.5”). 15.  From 26 July to 22 November 2001 and from 9 June to 19 July 2002 the applicant was detained in pre-trial detention centre IZ-77/3 in the city of Moscow (“SIZO no. 3”) 16.  The applicant submitted that throughout his detention the cells in SIZO no. 5 and SIZO no. 3 had been heavily overcrowded and that the prisoners had had to take turns to sleep. 17.  In both prisons the cells were dirty and lacked ventilation. The applicant also submits that the food was of poor quality. 18.  In respect of SIZO no. 5 the Government submitted that the applicant had been held in cells 205 (measuring 25.3 square metres and containing two windows and ten sleeping places), 303 (measuring 37.1 square metres and containing three windows and fourteen sleeping places), 312 (measuring 33.5 square metres, containing two windows and twelve sleeping places), 322 (measuring 27.4 square metres) and 403 (measuring 36.8 square metres, containing three windows and fourteen sleeping places). 19.  The Government were unable to provide the Court with original documentation concerning numbers of prisoners detained in SIZO no. 5 along with the applicant. They relied on record no. 50/5-8 dated 31 March 2006 of the administration of SIZO no. 5 confirming the destruction of the relevant prison records in this respect. 20.  As to SIZO no. 3, the Government submitted that the applicant had been detained in cells 213 (measuring 28.5 square metres, containing two windows and twenty-eight sleeping places) and 608 (measuring 32.7 square metres, containing two windows and thirty-two sleeping places.) 21.  The Government submitted that there had been twenty-five to twenty-eight detainees in cell 213 along with the applicant and were unable to provide information in respect of detainees in cell no. 608. They relied on record no. 176 dated 16 February 2004 issued by administration of SIZO no. 3 and confirming the destruction of the relevant prison records. 22.  The Government submitted that the applicant had been provided at all times with an individual sleeping place and bed linen. All cells had been naturally and artificially ventilated and lit. The cells had been equipped with heating devices and regularly cleaned with toilet facilities having been partitioned with a wall. The applicant underwent regular medical examinations.