5.  The applicant was born in 1977 and lived until his arrest in Vladimir. 6.  On 23 October 2004 an investigator of the Vladimir prosecutor’s office instituted criminal proceedings against the applicant on suspicion of aggravated rape. 7.  The applicant was arrested at approximately 10 p.m. on 25 October 2004. The record did not indicate the grounds for the arrest, save for a reference to Article 91 § 2 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The applicant signed the arrest record, noting that he had been informed of his constitutional rights as an accused, including the right to remain silent and to be assisted by counsel. He also made a handwritten statement refusing legal assistance “at the time of the arrest”. It appears that the investigator made a handwritten note in the arrest record, stating that the applicant had not been searched. 8.  On the following day the investigator began questioning the applicant in the presence of his counsel, Mr Ovchinnikov. A record shows that the questioning started at 12 noon. The record bears the applicant’s signature after the paragraph stating that he was informed of the nature of the accusations against him, in particular, that he was suspected of having participated in a gang rape on 23 October 2004. The applicant made a handwritten entry in the record, noting that he had decided to make use of his constitutional rights and would remain silent.
(a)  Authorisation of the pre-trial detention: detention order of 27 October 2004 9.  On 27 October 2004 the Leninskiy District Court of Vladimir authorised the applicant’s pre-trial detention, holding as follows:
“[The applicant] is employed [and] has a permanent place of residence.
However, he has a previous conviction for a criminal offence against an individual, and his criminal record has not expired by virtue of a court order. It follows that, if released, [the applicant] might continue his criminal activities; [he] might also hinder the investigation, in particular as regards the uncovering of evidence in the case – a mobile phone which had been stolen from the victim. [The applicant] is suspected of having committed a serious offence against an individual; [the offence] is punishable by imprisonment. The victim identified [the applicant] as a perpetrator of the criminal offence against her. It follows that, if released, Mr ... [the name of the applicant’s co-defendant was crossed out and the applicant’s last name written by hand] might influence the victim during the pre-trial and judicial investigation; therefore, the victim, at her request, took part in the identification parade in conditions whereby [the applicant] was prevented from seeing [her].
Consequently, the court considers that a measure of restraint in the form of pre-trial detention is lawful and well-founded and [it] accepts the motion of the senior investigator of the Vladimir prosecutor’s office ... to place [the applicant] in custody.” 10.  Several days later the applicant’s lawyer appealed, arguing that the applicant had not been properly and promptly informed of the reasons for his arrest and that his detention was unlawful. He requested the applicant’s release on bail or the application of an alternative, more lenient, measure of restraint. Relying on Article 3 of the Convention, the lawyer urged the Regional Court to take into account the appalling conditions of detention to which the applicant would be subjected. 11.  On 9 November 2004 the Vladimir Regional Court upheld the detention order, endorsing the reasons given by the District Court. It noted, in particular, the gravity of the charges against the applicant and his previous conviction. As regards the lawyer’s argument concerning the conditions of the applicant’s detention, the Regional Court noted that it was not the courts’ task to deal with the matter in that set of proceedings.
(b)   Extension of the detention: order of 22 December 2004 12.  On 22 December 2004 the Leninskiy District Court extended the applicant’s detention to 11 January 2005 inclusive, noting the applicant’s “personality”, the gravity of the charges against him and the likelihood that he would abscond, re-offend and pervert the course of justice. 13.  The applicant’s lawyer appealed, arguing that the detention was unlawful and excessively long. The lawyer also reiterated the arguments that he had put forward in his statement of appeal against the detention order of 27 October 2004. 14.  On 1 February 2005 the Vladimir Regional Court upheld the decision of 22 December 2004, holding as follows:
“Having examined the materials presented in the appeal statements, the court decides as follows.
While examining whether it was necessary to extend [the applicant’s] detention, the judge correctly took into account the gravity of the charges [and] the information on the accused’s character.
It follows from the materials presented that [the applicant] was held liable for criminal offences, including a particularly serious offence; and that in 2004 [he] was held administratively liable.
The judge’s conclusion that [the applicant] is likely to abscond from the pre-trial investigation and judicial proceedings, to continue his criminal activities and to pervert the course of justice is corroborated by the record of an interrogation of the victim, from which it appears that the victim has been receiving insulting phone calls which frighten her and which she considers a way of applying mental pressure on her for having instituted the criminal proceedings.
The extension of [the applicant’s] detention is also connected to the necessity of carrying out investigative measures with a view to closing the pre-trial investigation.
The judge examined the possibility of applying another, more lenient, measure of restraint to [the applicant], as reflected in the decision, which states that applying a different measure of restraint to the accused cannot be justified.
...
By virtue of the requirements of the Russian Code of Criminal Procedure, when a judge examines an extension of detention issue, [he] does not have to take into account the conditions of [the applicant’s] detention, as raised by the lawyer in his appeal statement.”
(c)  Request for release: decision of 15 February 2005 15.  On 9 December 2004 the applicant’s counsel, Mr Ovchinnikiov, submitted a request for the applicant’s release to the Leninskiy District Court, arguing that his arrest and subsequent detention had been unlawful. 16.  According to the Government, three hearings scheduled for 13, 20 and 28 January 2005 were postponed owing to the absence of the applicant’s lawyer. 17.  On 15 February 2005 the Leninskiy District Court dismissed the request for release on the grounds that the applicant had been committed to stand trial before the Frunzenskiy District Court and that the trial judge had exclusive jurisdiction over the detention issue. 18.  On 31 March 2005 the Vladimir Regional Court quashed the decision of 15 February 2005 and discontinued the proceedings, reasoning as follows:
“The merits of the lawyer’s ... complaint concerning [the applicant’s] allegedly unlawful detention was examined by the judge by virtue of Article 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, while the criminal case against [the applicant] on charges of aggravated rape, aggravated sexual assault, aggravated robbery and death threats had already been sent for examination to the Frunzenskiy District Court of Vladimir; thus [the Leninskiy District Court] violated the requirements of paragraph 3 of Article 29 of the Criminal Code, according to which the court has competence to examine such a complaint only in the proceedings before the [applicant was committed to stand] trial.”
(d)  Detention from 12 January to 13 October 2005
i.  Decision of 25 January 2005 19.  In the meantime, on 12 January 2005 the period of the applicant’s detention authorised by the decision of 22 December 2004 expired. On the following day the applicant, having been served with the final version of the bill of indictment for charges of aggravated robbery, sexual assault and death threats in addition to aggravated rape, was committed to stand trial before the Frunzenskiy District Court. The court received the case file on 17 January 2005. 20.  At the preliminary hearing on 25 January 2005 the Frunzenskiy District Court, having noted that the applicant and his co-defendant were charged with a serious criminal offence, that the applicant had been held administratively and criminally liable and that there were reasons to believe that, if released, he and his co-defendant would abscond, threaten the victim and pervert the course of justice, concluded that there were no grounds for changing the measure of restraint. 21.  On 16 March 2005 the Vladimir Regional Court upheld the decision of 25 January 2005, finding that the lawyers’ arguments that the defendants had permanent places of work and residence in Vladimir and that they had no intention of absconding did not suffice to conclude that the District Court’s decision had been incorrect. The Regional Court also noted that there were no grounds for releasing the defendants after 11 January 2005 because they were considered to be detained “pending judicial proceedings”. In the Regional Court’s opinion, after the District Court had received the criminal case file, it had six months to examine the issue of the applicant’s detention. 22.  In April 2005 a lawyer for the applicant’s co-defendant, Mr G., asked the Frunzenskiy District Court to remit the case to the prosecutor’s office for further investigation because the investigators had committed various procedural violations and had breached the applicant’s defence rights. At the same time, the applicant’s counsel sought his release. 23.  On 27 April 2005 the District Court remitted the case for further investigation and noted that the measure of restraint applied to the applicant and his co-defendant “should remain unchanged”, as the circumstances which had served as the grounds for their arrest were still present and there were no reasons to authorise a change. 24.  On 28 June 2005 the Vladimir Regional Court upheld the decision, noting that it was well-founded. The Regional Court also found that the co-defendants’ detention was within the six-month period authorised by the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
(e)  Extension of the detention until 13 October 2005: order of 7 July 2005 25.  On 7 July 2005 the Frunzenskiy District Court authorised the extension of the applicant’s and his co-defendant’s detention for an additional three months, until 13 October 2005. The District Court stated that the authorised period of the applicant’s detention would expire on 13 July 2005 because the District Court had received the case file on 13 January 2005. It concluded that the defendants had been charged with serous criminal offences and were likely to abscond, pervert the course of justice and threaten the victim. 26.  On 11 August 2005 the Vladimir Regional Court upheld the decision, reasoning as follows:
“Having discussed the arguments put forward in the appeal statement, the court considers that the decision [of 7 July 2005] is lawful and well-founded.
When the [District] court was taking the decision, [it] took into account the gravity of the three criminal offences which are punishable by more than ten years’ imprisonment and which are considered serious, posing a particular danger to society. The arguments laid down in the appeal statement were examined by the court and the respective findings were made. [It] was found that there were no grounds for changing the measure of restraint. The above-mentioned findings are reasoned and the reasoning should be considered convincing.
The courts of the first and second instances examined the complaints that the arrest on 25 October 2004 had been unlawful and that after 11 January 2005 [the applicant and his co-defendant] had been detained unlawfully, and found them to be unsubstantiated.”
(f)  Extension of the detention until 13 January 2006: order of 13 October 2005 27.  On 13 October 2005 the Frunzenskiy District Court extended the applicant’s and his co-defendant’s detention until 13 January 2006. The wording of the decision was identical to that issued on 7 July 2005. 28.  On 23 November 2005 the Vladimir Regional Court upheld the decision, endorsing the reasons given by the District Court.
(g)  Extension of the detention until 13 April 2006: order of 11 January 2006 29.  On 11 January 2006 the Frunzenskiy District Court, in a decision identical to the ones issued on 7 July and 13 October 2005, extended the applicant’s and his co-defendant’s detention until 13 April 2006. 30.  On 7 March 2006 the Vladimir Regional Court dismissed an appeal lodged by the applicant, concluding that the District Court’s findings were lawful and well-reasoned. 31.  On 10 April 2006 the Frunzenskiy District Court found the applicant guilty as charged and sentenced him to five years’ imprisonment and a fine. The judgment was not appealed against and became final. 32.  On 2 November 2004 the applicant was placed in detention facility no. IZ-33/1 in Vladimir. During the entire period of his detention, until August 2006, he was kept in eight different cells: nos. 33, 50, 51, 52, 55, 60, 63 and 66. The parties did not indicate the dates on which the applicant had been detained in each cell. 33.  Relying on certificates issued by the head of the detention facility in May 2009 and barely legible extracts from prison population logs for four days in 2004 and eight days in 2005, the Government submitted that the three smallest cells – nos. 60, 63 and 66 – measured approximately 14 square metres and housed between two and four inmates. Cell no. 55 measured 51.48 square metres and accommodated from eight to sixteen persons. Two cells – nos. 51 and 52 – measured 32.5 and 39.5 square metres and held from six to eight and from six to ten inmates, respectively. Cell no. 33 measured approximately 26 square metres and housed between four and six persons. The largest cell, no. 50, measured slightly over 77 square metres and housed between ten and twenty-two detainees. To the extent that it was possible for the Court to decipher the extracts from the prison population logs, the number of detainees housed in the cells on the relevant days corresponded to the highest number indicated by the Government for each cell. The Government also submitted that the applicant had always had an individual sleeping place. According to a certificate issued by the head of the detention facility, neither of the cells where the applicant had been detained had contained three-tier bunks. 34.  The Government further maintained that the smaller cells had one window and the bigger ones had two windows. Each window measured approximately one square metre. From 6 a.m. to 10 p.m. the cell was lit by one or two 80 watt bulbs. At night a 40 watt bulb lit the cell. Each cell had a properly functioning air conditioning system and a heater installed below the window. In addition, inmates were allowed to open a casing in the windows to give them access to fresh air. According to the Government, each cell was equipped with a tap and a lavatory pan, which were installed in a corner, more than 3 metres from a table. The lavatory pan was separated from the living area by a 1.9 metre-high partition. Inmates were allowed to take a shower once every seven days, for which they were afforded between fifteen and thirty minutes. The facility’s shower room was equipped with twelve shower heads. The Government supported their submission with a copy of the “shower days” schedules for certain cells of the facility on 5 October and 7 December 2005, 15 February, 15 March, 18 April, 3 May and 6 June 2006. The schedules showed that the entire cell population, save for the largest cells, had been afforded no more than 20 minutes to take a shower. The majority of the schedules provided by the Government contained no information about the eight cells where the applicant had been detained. One schedule showed that on 5 October 2005 six inmates from cell no. 33, twenty-eight from cell no. 50, twenty-three from cell no. 51 and ten from cell no. 52 had taken a shower. On 7 December 2005 six inmates from cell no. 33, twenty-six from cell no. 50, seven from cell no. 51, ten from cell no. 52 and twenty-five from cell no. 55 had been allowed to take a shower. On 15 March 2006 four inmates from cell no. 33, thirty-five from cell no. 50, eleven from cell no. 51 and fourteen from cell no. 52 had been allowed to take a shower. 35.  Lastly, the Government stated that the sanitary conditions in the facility had complied with the existing legal requirements. The applicant had received an adequate quantity of food of proper quality. Medical assistance had been provided to him whenever necessary and free of charge. 36.  Having provided different measurements of certain cells, the applicant mainly disputed the number of inmates which the cells had accommodated. In particular, he argued that cell no. 55 had thirty sleeping places and usually housed forty to sixty detainees. The same number of inmates usually stayed in cell no. 50. Cell no. 52 was equipped with twenty sleeping places and accommodated between twenty-five and thirty inmates. Cells nos. 60 and 66 had four and six sleeping bunks, and housed four to nine and five to eleven inmates, respectively. Four to five persons had to share four sleeping places in cell no. 60. Cell no. 51 equipped with twenty bunks accommodated twenty-five to thirty inmates. Cell no. 33, which had eight sleeping places, housed between eight and twelve detainees. The applicant insisted that owing to severe overcrowding, he had not had an individual bunk. Inmates had had to take turns to sleep. He further pointed out that detainees had been kept in extremely cramped conditions. Part of the cell floor space was taken up by metal bunks serving as beds for the occupants. The rest of the space was taken up by a wooden table, a bench, shelves, a tap and a lavatory pan. That arrangement left inmates with literally no free space where they could move. There was a lavatory pan in the corner of the cell, just a few metres away from the wooden table and bunk beds, separated from the living area by a partition no more than 90 cm-high. A curtain which inmates hung to obtain some privacy was always removed by the wardens. Furthermore, the facility administration did not provide inmates with cleaning fluids. The lavatory pan was always dirty and it did not have a lid, allowing unpleasant odours to permeate the cell. 37.  The applicant further stated that the cells had not had an air conditioning system. They had been damp, stuffy and dark inside. Inmates had been allowed to smoke in the cells, which had been unbearable for the applicant, who did not smoke. Detainees had also had washed their clothes in the cells, creating excessive humidity. The cell windows had been too small and had not allowed sufficient light to enter the cells as they had been covered by metal netting. The fluorescent lighting had been constantly on. The cells had been infected with bed-bugs, lice and cockroaches, but the administration had not provided any insecticides. Inmates had not been provided with toiletries. They had been allowed to take a shower once every seven days. Fifteen minutes had been afforded to fifteen to twenty inmates, while only four to five shower heads had worked. Food had been very scarce and of low quality. Inmates had been allowed to have an outdoor walk for an hour a day in the facility courtyards. The largest courtyard had measured 60 square metres and the smallest one 18 square metres. Eight to forty inmates had been placed in a courtyard at the same time. The courtyards had been covered by metal roofs, with merely a metre of empty space between the walls and the roof. 38.  The applicant supported his submissions with statements by two inmates: Mr Y. and Mr V. Between 30 January 2004 and 1 July 2005, Mr Y. had been detained together with the applicant in cells nos. 55 and 66. Although Mr V., the applicant’s co-defendant, had never shared a cell with the applicant, he had been housed in the facility at the same time as the applicant. Mr V. had also been kept in cells nos. 50 and 52. Both detainees’ descriptions of the detention conditions were very similar to that given by the applicant. 39.  The applicant also submitted four colour photographs of cell no. 52, which his co-defendant, Mr V., had taken. The photographs showed from eight to ten inmates in a very small and sombre room with a row of three-tier bunks installed along a wall. A long table with two benches was placed between the bunks and another wall. The remaining floor space of the cell not taken up by the furniture was only sufficient to allow the entire cell population to stand shoulder to shoulder. The bunks were not separated from each other. The inmates had hung linen and clothes on the bunks to get some privacy. There was dirty and worn-out bedding on the bunks, which were installed in such a way that they blocked the window. The window was covered with two rows of metal bars. The photographs also showed a heavily scratched floor and walls with peeling paint. The furniture was in a very dilapidated state. The bunks were rusty, and clothes had been hung on a rope below the ceiling. 40.  In addition, the applicant provided the Court with a copy of order no. 7 issued on 31 January 2005 by the Federal Service for the Execution of Sentences. The order dealt with the renovation programme of temporary detention facilities in Russia for 2006. It contained a list of temporary detention facilities and the conditions of detention therein, which raised particularly serious concerns. Detention facility no. IZ-33/1 in Vladimir was among them. The order indicated that, with 1,009 detainees, the facility was housing twice its maximum capacity (507 places). It also indicated that inmates in that facility had less than 2.5 square metres of personal space. 41.  Lastly, the applicant presented copies of letters to the Vladimir regional prosecutor from the same head of facility no. IZ-33/1 on whose certificates the Government had relied in their submission to the Court. The letters concerned an inmate, Mr N., who had been detained in the facility from 13 April 2004 to 27 June 2006. Mr N. had also stayed in cells nos. 50 and 51. In his letters to the prosecutor, the head of the facility indicated that cell no. 50 measured 47.35 square metres, had thirty-three bunks and housed twenty-four to thirty-three inmates. Although he indicated the same size of cell no. 51 as in the certificate that he submitted to the Government, the head of the facility noted that that cell had twenty-four sleeping places and sixteen to twenty-three persons had been detained there together with Mr N. 42.  The applicant lodged a number of complaints before various domestic authorities, including the courts, alleging that he had been detained in appalling conditions. The complaints were to no avail.