5.  The applicant was born in 1987 and lives in Nizhniy Novgorod. 6.  The applicant and two minors (Z. and S.) were suspected to be implicated in several car thefts. 7.  On 23 August 2007 the Leninskiy District Court of Nizhniy Novgorod (“the District Court”) authorised the applicant’s detention on remand in connection with the car thefts, referring to the gravity of the charges and an unspecified risk that she would put pressure on minors S. and Z. The judge concluded that the applicant could obstruct the proceedings. Z. was also detained on 28 August 2007. 8.  On 5 September 2007 the Nizhniy Novgorod Regional Court upheld the detention order on appeal. 9.  On 13 September 2007 the investigator ordered a psychiatric examination of the applicant to verify whether she was fit to stand trial. On 8 October 2007 the experts found that the applicant suffered from a mental deficiency. The experts concluded that her mental conditions did not exclude a criminal liability and that she did not require any compulsory psychiatric treatment. 10.  The District Court, referring to the need to complete the investigation “in the absence of grounds for varying or cancelling the measure of restraint”, issued further detention orders extending the term of the applicant’s pre-trial detention on 18 October and 14 December 2007, and on 15 January 2008. 11.  In February 2008 the criminal case against the applicant and her co‑defendants was submitted for trial before the District Court. 12.  On 18 February 2008 the District Court, noting that the applicant had been charged with a serious crime and could exercise pressure on the minor co-defendants if at liberty, decided to maintain her in custody until 1 August 2008. 13.  On 11 July 2008 the judge ordered the applicant’s and Z.’s release, concluding that there was no longer necessary to maintain them in custody, given that they had made admissions and that the applicant was unlikely to put any pressure on her co-defendants. 14.  By judgment of 1 September 2008, the applicant was convicted on several charges and acquitted of the remainder, in particular, of the charges pertaining to involvement of minors in criminal activities. She was sentenced to a suspended prison term. 15.  On 23 August 2007 the applicant was placed in remand prison IZ‑52/1 in Nizhniy Novgorod. She was kept in cell no. 7/56 measuring 66 square metres. According to the applicant, the cell accommodated up to forty persons. In the Government’s submission, twenty-seven to thirty-five inmates shared the cell during that period. 16.  On 20 December 2007 the applicant was transferred to cell no. 30/349 measuring 12.14 square metres, which she shared with another detainee. 17.  In December 2007 the Committee Against Torture retained Ms P., an advocate, who visited the applicant in the remand centre on 27 December 2007 and 21 February 2008. The applicant explained to the advocate that a certain “Olga”, a prison staff member, asked her about her complaint to the Court and told her to make written statements indicating that she “had no claims against the remand centre”. 18.  In the meantime, on 8 February 2008 Mr Ryzhov, the applicant’s representative before the Court, sought a permission to see the applicant in the remand centre in order to obtain further details concerning the conditions of her detention. The applicant’s representative showed a simple authority form signed by the applicant and authorising him to represent her before the Court. 19.  On 28 February 2008 the administration of the remand centre informed the representative that such permission could be granted by the District Court dealing the criminal case against the applicant. 20.  Instead of applying for a court order, the applicant’s representative sought judicial review of the above refusal. By decision of 25 March 2008 the Sovetskiy District Court of Nizhniy Novgorod confirmed the above refusal considering that the applicant’s representative had not been vested with any authority to represent the applicant in the judicial review proceedings because he had not had an “advocate” status, as required by the Civil Code or the Code of Civil Procedure; a copy of the authority form concerning the proceedings before the Court had not been duly attested. 21.  On 6 May 2008 the Nizhniy Novgorod Regional Court upheld the Sovetskiy District Court’s decision on appeal.