5.  The applicant was born in 1968 and is serving a prison sentence in Samara. 6.  The police suspected that the applicant and a number of other people were involved in a series of car thefts. On an unspecified date the police applied for judicial authorisation to intercept the suspects’ mobile telephone communications. 7.  According to the Government, on 6 December 2004 the Samara Regional Court authorised the tapping of the applicant’s mobile telephone. 8.  From 17 to 26 December 2004 the police intercepted the applicant’s mobile telephone calls. They recorded five audio tapes and on 13 January 2005 forwarded them to the investigator. 9.  On 26 December 2004 the applicant was arrested during an attempted car-jacking. According to the applicant, three police officers handcuffed him and kicked him in the face and on the head during the arrest. The applicant was then taken to a police station where the beatings continued. 10.  On an unspecified date the applicant retained legal counsel. 11.  On 28 December 2004, in response to a complaint by the applicant, the investigator looking into the matter noted that the applicant had resisted arrest and that the police officers had had to use force on him. The investigator ordered the applicant to have a medical examination. 12.  On 30 December 2004 a forensic expert examined the applicant and documented the following injuries:
“Bruises around the right and left eyes and on the right part of the head;
Haemorrhage ... on the left of the lower lip;
Bruises on the nose, right cheek, forehead and right knee joint.” 13.  In the expert’s opinion, the injuries had been inflicted between three and eight days before the examination and had not caused any serious damage to the applicant’s health. 14.  On 21 January 2005 the prosecutor’s office dismissed the applicant’s complaint of ill-treatment in police custody as unsubstantiated. The applicant did not appeal. 15.  On 28 December 2004 the Leninskiy District Court of Samara authorised the applicant’s pre-trial detention. The applicant did not appeal. 16.  On 30 December 2004 the applicant was charged with multiple car thefts. On an unspecified date he was also charged with the organisation of a criminal gang. 17.  On 25 February 2005 the Oktyabrskiy District Court of Samara extended the applicant’s pre-trial detention until 23 April 2005. The applicant remained in custody pending the conclusion of the investigation and trial. 18.  On 27 February 2006 the Samara Regional Court fixed the trial for 13 March 2006. 19.  On 12 March 2007 the prosecution dropped the criminal gang charges and several of the car theft charges. On the same day the Regional Court found the applicant guilty of eleven car thefts and sentenced him to twelve years’ imprisonment. In establishing the applicant’s guilt, the court relied, inter alia, on the recordings of the intercepted mobile telephone calls between the defendants. According to the applicant, the court refused to provide him with access to the judicial authorisation for the interception of his mobile telephone communications. The court order in question of 6 December 2004 was not in the case file, which contained only a certificate confirming the taking of that decision by the Regional Court. 20.  On 13 November 2007 the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation upheld the applicant’s conviction on appeal. As regards the interception of the defendants’ mobile telephone calls, the court noted as follows:
“It is clear from the material in the case file that the Regional Court authorised the interception of the [defendants’] telephone communications ...
Pursuant to [the applicable legislation], information about covert operational and search activities is classified as a State secret. The judicial decision authorising the conduct of such operational and search activities and the material submitted [by the police] when applying for such a decision are kept only in [police] files.
The arguments in the [defendants’] statements of appeal that the decision [authorising interception] had not been included in the case file raise no issue under the law.
It is clear from the material in the case file that [the police officer] Yu. was authorised, in accordance with the law, to carry out the interception and recording of the defendants’ telephone communications. The said operational and search activity was conducted in compliance with the provisions of [the applicable legislation].
The [appeal court] dismisses as unsubstantiated the defendants’ complaints that violations committed [by the police] in the course of the interception and recording of their telephone communications should render that evidence inadmissible.
The [appeal court] discerns no violations of [applicable laws] in the course of the storage, transfer, inspection of, and listening to, the audiotapes containing the recording of the defendants’ telephone communications.
The results of [the interception of the defendants’ telephone communications] were submitted to the investigator and the court in accordance with an instruction prepared on the basis of [the applicable legislation].” 21.  From 26 to 31 December 2004 the applicant was detained in a temporary detention centre. The cell where he was held had no windows. The applicant did not receive a mattress or sheets. The lighting was dim. According to the applicant, his requests for medical assistance were ignored. 22.  From 31 December 2004 to 8 September 2007 and from 26 December 2007 to 14 January 2008 the applicant was detained in remand prison SIZO-1 in Samara.
(a)  Description provided by the Government 23.  The Government provided copies of the prison’s population register for each day of the applicant’s detention in the remand prison and the relevant floor plans. Their submissions can be summarised as follows:
Period of detention
Cell no.
Cell surface area (sq. m)
Number of inmates
Number of beds
From 31 December 2004 to 1 March 2005
8 24.  According to information submitted by the governor of the remand prison, the applicant was provided with a mattress, a pillow, a blanket, bed linen, towels, cutlery, a mug and a bowl. The bed linen was changed weekly. The applicant had the possibility to take weekly showers and a daily one-hour walk. 25.  The toilet in each cell was separated from the living area by a partition that was 1.5 to 2 m high and a door that was 1.1 m high. The distance from the toilet to the dining table was at least 1.5 m.
(b)  Description provided by the applicant 26.  According to the applicant, his cells were at all times overcrowded. The number of sleeping places was insufficient and the inmates took turns to sleep. On most days he had no more than 2 sq. m of personal space. 27.  All the inmates smoked and the applicant, a non-smoker, was exposed to second-hand smoke. There was virtually no gap between the toilet and the dining table. The toilet offered no privacy. The partition separating it from the living area of the cell was only 1 m high and there was no door. Cells 8, 58, 60 and 61 were infested with bedbugs. On several occasions inmates suffering from scabies and having lice were detained in the same cells as the applicant. It was very cold in the winter and stiflingly hot in the summer.
(c)  Description provided by other inmates 28.  According to inmate Sh., from 4 September 2006 to 7 September 2007 he was detained in cell 34 which measured no more than 30 sq. m and housed from 28 to 34 inmates. The cell was dirty, damp and infested with cockroaches, bedbugs and lice. The inmates often suffered from colds and scabies. The food was of poor quality. The lighting was insufficient for reading or writing. The toilet was not separated from the living area of the cell. 29.  According to inmate Ye., who was detained in cell 61 together with the applicant from 15 February to 19 April 2006, most cells in the remand prison measured approximately 30-35 sq. m and housed from 20 to 28 inmates. The number of beds was insufficient and the inmates had to take turns to sleep. The toilet was 1.5 m away from the dining table. It was very cold in the cells during the winter and the inmates had to sleep with their coats on. In the summer the temperature in the cells exceeded 30oC. The cells were poorly ventilated and constantly smelled of sweat and tobacco smoke. The inmates suffered from scabies and fungus infection. Hot water was not supplied. Many cells in the remand prison were infested with cockroaches and bedbugs 30.  According to inmate K., he was detained in cell 61 from February to March 2006. He provided a description of the conditions of detention which reproduced verbatim the statement made by inmate Ye. 31.  From 9 September to 25 December 2007 the applicant was detained in remand prison SIZO-3 in Moscow. 32.  According to the applicant’s submissions of 15 April 2013, the conditions of his detention in Moscow were identical to those in Samara. 33.  According to the Government, in 2004-2007 the transport of inmates to and from courts in Samara was carried out by GAZ-3307 prison vans. Each van had two compartments measuring 2.1 by 1.2 m with seating capacity for ten people and one compartment measuring 0.62 by 0.72 m for one person. The distance between the remand prison and the court-house was approximately 9-10 km and the travel time was less than one hour.
(b)  Description provided by the applicant 34.  The applicant was transported over 58 times from his remand prison to court and back. On those days he normally had to wake up at 4 a.m. and had no breakfast. From 6 to 9 a.m. he was held in a holding cell. At 8 a.m. he received a bag of food for the day at the court-house. It normally comprised dry bread, instant soup and tea. No hot water was provided during the day and it was not possible to prepare the soup or tea. The van collected inmates from different prisons and made stops at various courts, meaning that the applicant’s journey from the remand prison to court lasted longer than an hour. On the way back, the applicant was again placed in a holding cell measuring 12-13 sq. m with another fifteen to thirty inmates. 35.  In the summer it was stiflingly hot inside the van. Natural ventilation through the hatches was insufficient and it was difficult to breathe. There was no internal lighting when the engine was off. The floor of the van was extremely dirty and was covered with cigarette ends, bits of food and other litter. It was impossible to use the toilet during the journey.