5.  The applicant was born in 1982 in Achinsk, Krasnoyarsk Region. He lives in Krasnoyarsk. 6.  On 21 January 2005 the Achinsk Town Court of the Krasnoyarsk Region convicted the applicant of aggravated robbery and sentenced him to nine years’ imprisonment. He was sent to Krasnoyarsk Region correctional colony no. IK- 235/26-22 to serve his sentence. 7.  On 22 August 2007, owing to repeated violations of prison rules, the applicant was placed in the single-cell wing (единое помещения камерного типа, hereinafter “the EPKT”), a stricter regime of the correctional colony, for eleven months. He was allegedly beaten up by EPKT guards on two occasions. 8.  The applicant submitted that on 5 March 2008 a new detainee “of a lower social status” was placed in his cell, which was shared with other detainees. Soon a heated quarrel broke out between the applicant and the newcomer. Prison guards entered the cell, took the applicant out, kicked his legs, twisted his hands, threw him to the floor and then dragged him to a search room. There they delivered blows to his head and body, handcuffed him to the ceiling of a metal cage and left him alone for an hour. Upon their return the guards put him in a spread-eagled position and started beating him, until he fell to the floor. They continued beating him for another two to three hours. 9.  Two days later the applicant was sentenced to fifteen days’ detention in a disciplinary cell. 10.  According to the applicant, on 9 April 2008 he was again beaten up by prison guards under the pretext of a minor disciplinary offence. The beating continued for two or three hours. The applicant insisted that the beating had been so severe that he had lost ability to walk unassisted. Thereafter he was dragged back to his cell where he was locked up alone. 11.  The applicant further submitted that on the morning of 10 April 2009 he was taken to the office of the head of the unit where he slumped into a chair, half lying on it as he was unable to sit up straight due to a pain in his back and leg. A prison guard hit the applicant on the head and ordered him not to fake injuries. 12.  The applicant was allegedly forced to write a statement to the head of the prison service of the Krasnoyarsk Region, stating that no force had ever been used against him or any other detainees in the correctional colony and that his health problems had resulted from an accident in childhood. 13.  During his detention the applicant suffered from chronic gastritis, urethritis and ischialgia. His health-related complaints were addressed by a prison doctor, who provided him with treatment when necessary. 14.  In the EPKT the applicant was subjected to routine daily check-ups for bodily injuries. No injuries were recorded during the entire period of his detention. 15.  On 10 March 2008, five days after the first incident of alleged ill‑treatment, the applicant complained to a prison doctor about pain in the small of his back. The doctor diagnosed lumbalgia, prescribed drugs and ointment, and noted in his file that the applicant’s skin was “peculiarity‑free”. 16.  On three occasions in the same month the applicant complained of constricting chest pain, frequent urination, a headache and pain in the small of the back. The doctor diagnosed lumbalgia, “neurocirculatory dystonia of the hypertensive type” and cystitis. Medication was prescribed. 17.  In the end of March 2008 the applicant again visited the prison doctor to complain about a sprained ankle. The doctor discovered an oedema on his ankle with a scar measuring 1cm. The applicant explained that it was the result of a childhood trauma. In addition, he also made a written statement that his back pain and leg problems were chronic and that he had not been ill-treated in the correctional colony. Having recorded the absence of any injuries on the applicant’s body, the doctor prescribed analgesics. 18.  On 18 April 2008, nine days after the alleged second episode of ill‑treatment, the applicant complained of pain while urinating. The doctor recorded acute cystitis and amended the drug regimen. In the last days of that month he complained, for the first time, of pain on his left shin. The doctor noted that the left leg was swollen and the applicant was unable to stand on it. He diagnosed a blood circulation disorder and prescribed medication. 19.  The applicant’s medical condition did not improve and on 13 May 2008 he was placed in the old wing of the prison hospital. He informed the hospital doctors that he had started experiencing the pain in his leg after a fall in the cell in the first days of March 2008. His diagnosis of acute deep-vein thrombosis of the left leg, lymphedema, and degenerative disc disease were addressed by conservative treatment, leading to the amelioration of his condition. 20.  The applicant was discharged from the hospital on 22 May 2008 with instructions to continue treatment and use a walking stick. 21.  In the summer of 2008 the applicant started using crutches. In July 2008 a doctor recorded significant swelling of his left leg accompanied by bluish coloration of the area. The diagnosis of relapsed lymphedema led to the amendment of his drug regimen. At the same time, the applicant made a statement stating that he had not been subject to any ill-treatment. 22.  By mid-October 2008 the leg oedema abated. 23.  In November 2008 the applicant was again placed in the old wing of the prison hospital. He was diagnosed with post-thrombotic disease and nephroptosis. The treatment was effective and on 21 November 2008 he was discharged. The doctor prescribed a drug regimen and recommended that the applicant not use crutches. 24.  In the beginning of 2009 the applicant’s leg swelled again. On 28 March 2009 he was admitted to the new wing of the prison hospital where the conditions were, according to the applicant, satisfactory. His treatment in the hospital continued until 27 April 2009 and resulted in the decrease of the oedema and associated inflammation. Compression stockings, drugs and limiting of physical activity were prescribed. 25.  In the beginning of 2010 the applicant underwent symptomatic treatment for degenerative disc disease. In September 2010 his medical condition was declared stable with his chronic illness having been taken under control. 26.  In 2011-12 the applicant had allergic dermatitis, rhinopharyngitis, lumbodynia and vegetative-vascular dystonia, without any condition being considered serious or problematic. The illnesses were addressed with drug therapy. 27.  In August 2008, during a meeting with his mother, the applicant complained of having been beaten by the guards. On 10 September 2008 his mother asked for a thorough inquiry into the alleged ill-treatment. 28.  On 24 October 2008 the Boguchanskiy district prosecutor visited the applicant, who submitted his account of the events and asked for a criminal case to be opened. 29.  The investigating authorities collected extracts from the applicant’s medical records and written explanations from a guard who had been allegedly involved in the beatings. The colony officers denied using force against the applicant, supporting their arguments with the applicant’s written statements of 17 July 2008 and written statements by his fellow inmates. The inmates insisted that the applicant had suffered for a long time from chronic back pain and swollen leg syndrome, which had become particularly acute every spring and autumn. Tired of the difficulties of prison life, the applicant had allegedly told the inmates that he had intended to use his chronic ailments to obtain a transfer to a hospital, where he “could rest”. 30.  On 15 November 2008 a senior investigator of the prosecutor’s office dismissed the complaint, having found no evidence of criminal conduct. 31.  The above decision, as well as another three similar decisions of 27 June, 8 August and 5 September 2011, was overturned by a higher‑ranking prosecutor, who criticised the lack of thoroughness of the investigation. 32.  On 12 September 2011 an expert from the Krasnoyarsk Bureau of Forensic Medical Examination was asked to look into the possible cause of the applicant’s leg condition, including the possibility of it having a trauma‑related cause related to the alleged beatings in March and April 2008. The expert found that the condition could not have resulted from the beatings. 33.  On 16 January 2012 the investigating authorities again refused to open a criminal case. The refusal was overturned by a high-ranking prosecutor who ordered further investigation steps. 34.  In the new round of the investigation the investigator questioned Mr V., the only inmate who had not previously been interviewed. Unlike all the other witnesses, who had denied the beatings, he said that on 5 March 2008 the prison officers had taken the applicant out of his cell, after a conflict with a “low caste” cellmate, to a search room. He had then heard guards shouting and the applicant moaning. However, he had not seen any injuries on the applicant, but had seen the latter limping several days after the incident. The applicant had insisted that he had been beaten by the guards. 35.  On 28 September 2012 a new medical expert report was prepared, with the expert asked to see whether any of the applicant’s illnesses could have resulted from having been beaten. After having examined the applicant and his medical file, the expert found no evidence of ill-treatment and insisted that the applicant’s medical condition could not have been caused by or linked to the beatings. The main finding was that the applicant’s illnesses were no more than “independent pathological processes without any traumatic influence”. 36.  On 12 October 2012 the investigating authorities dismissed the applicant’s complaints of ill-treatment. 37.  From 22 August 2007 to 13 May 2008, and from 22 May to 17 July 2008 the applicant was detained in the EPKT. On several occasions he was also detained in various disciplinary cells, with the most recent periods of this detention being between 7 and 22 March 2008 and between 19 and 24 August 2009. During the latter period he was detained in cell no. 12, which measured 15.2 square metres. The cell was equipped with two double plank beds. 38.  The applicant provided a very general and summary-like description of his detention in all the disciplinary cells, complaining of poor ventilation and lighting and inadequate sanitary conditions. 39.  According to the Government, the number of cellmates in disciplinary cell no. 12 did not exceed four. The applicant was afforded a daily hour-long walk in the prison yard. The cell was ventilated by means of a window casement. The window itself, measuring 90 by 60 centimetres, allowed sufficient daylight. The cell was also lit by a 150-watt lamp from 5 a.m. to 9 p.m. and a 40-watt security light at night. The toilet in the cell was separated from the main area by a one-metre high partition, ensuring privacy. The cell was clean and disinfected. The applicant was given uniform, underwear and slippers. Once a week he could take a shower. 40.  In June 2008 the applicant lodged a claim seeking compensation for non-pecuniary damage allegedly caused by the poor conditions of his detention in the prison hospital and ineffective medical care. He also sought leave to appear. The presiding judge informed the applicant that there was no procedural obligation to transport a convicted inmate to a civil case in which he or she was a party. 41.  On 30 December 2008 the court ordered an expert report to assess the quality of the medical treatment afforded to the applicant in detention. In a report on 29 June 2009 experts stated that the applicant had received inpatient treatment in full compliance with the generally recognised medical standards. The deterioration of his health in November 2008 could have been caused either by the natural course of his illness or by his failure to adhere to doctors’ recommendations. The experts noted that the applicant had suffered from chronic conditions, including vascular illness, degenerative disc disease of the thoracic and lumbar spine with Schmorl’s nodes and first-stage nephroptosis of the right kidney. He had received adequate medical treatment. 42.  On 23 November 2009 the Zheleznodorozhniy District Court dismissed the claim, having considered that the medical treatment received in the prison hospital had been adequate and successful, given the significant improvement of his health. The applicant was not brought to the hearing, while the representatives of the prison hospital appeared. The District Court again cited the lacuna in the Russian law pertaining to the participation of convicts in their civil cases. 43.  That judgment was upheld on appeal by the Krasnoyarsk Regional Court on 17 March 2010. The parties to the proceedings did not appear. No comments were made by the Regional Court on account of their absence. 44.  In 2010 the applicant lodged a claim for non-pecuniary damages against the correctional colony, arguing that the conditions of his detention in the EPKT had been appalling and that he had not had adequate medical care in the colony. 45.  On 1 April 2010 the Achinsk Town Court ordered an expert examination, asking for an assessment of the quality of the treatment afforded to the applicant between 5 March and 17 July 2008. 46.  On 29 July 2010 the commission presented its report. It concluded that the applicant was provided, timeously and in full compliance with the existing legal requirements, with the necessary treatment which any person was entitled to receive in a general, non-specialised, medical facility. The experts also stressed that there were no scientifically available means to properly diagnose the applicant’s deep-vein thrombosis before the illness had manifested itself through acute symptoms, such as pain. The deterioration in his health could have been either the natural development of the illness, or could have resulted from his failure to follow medical recommendations. The experts noted no episodes of belated medical treatment or evidence of a failure to provide him with conservative treatment. 47.  In the meantime the applicant asked the Town Court to ensure his presence at the hearing. The application for leave to appear was dismissed with reference to the lack of a legal provision regulating inmates’ transport to civil courts. 48.  On 28 April 2011 the Town Court, having examined the case in the applicant’s absence, dismissed the claim. It found that his vascular condition could not have been diagnosed earlier and that it had been developing in a stealthy fashion throughout the detention. As soon as the symptoms had appeared, the applicant had started receiving timely and adequate medical care. 49.  On 7 September 2011 the Regional Court examined the case in the absence of the parties. It noted that the applicant’s presence was not required given the specific nature of his claim and the limited usefulness of oral submissions.