5.  The applicant was born in 1989 and is currently in detention in Lublin. 6.  On an unspecified date before October 2011 the applicant was convicted of assault and of endangering lives through arson and extortion. 7.  On 14 October 2011, the Lublin Remand Centre Penitentiary Commission (“the commission”) imposed a special regime for detainees deemed to be dangerous (“the dangerous detainee regime”) on the applicant. The commission referred to the fact that the applicant had organised a collective protest in Opole Lubelskie Prison, namely, a hunger strike by prisoners, and that he had planned an attack on a prison employee. It also found that the applicant had received disciplinary punishments on many occasions, in particular for the attempted smuggling of psychoactive substances into prison. 8.  The applicant did not appeal against the decision to impose the regime on him. 9.  The decision was reviewed and upheld by the commission every three months. 10.  On 12 January 2012 the commission again reviewed the situation and upheld its decision, considering that the applicant posed a serious danger to the security of the prison. The applicant did not appeal against that decision. 11.  On 11 April 2012 the commission reviewed and upheld its decision, relying on the same grounds as previously. The applicant appealed. 12.  On 16 May 2012 the commission examined the applicant’s appeal and upheld its earlier decision. It referred to the applicant’s conduct, finding that he had often behaved aggressively. It also referred to the applicant’s highly deficient moral character (wysoki stopień demoralizacji), and the fact that he had been the leader of a collective protest in Opole Lubelskie Prison (the prisoners’ hunger strike) and had planned an attack on a prison employee. The applicant lodged a court appeal against the commission’s decision. 13.  On 13 June 2012 the Lublin Regional Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the decision had been lawful. 14.  On 14 July 2012 the Lublin Remand Centre Penitentiary Commission lifted the dangerous detainee regime in respect of the applicant. It based its decision on the applicant’s good behaviour and the fact that he no longer posed a danger to the prison. 15.  The applicant’s cell, including its sanitary facilities, was constantly monitored via closed-circuit television. The window was covered with a plastic blind. The applicant was subjected to a body search every time he left and entered the cell, which in practice meant that he had to strip naked in front of prison officers and was required to bend over to allow his anus to be examined. Whenever he was outside his cell, including at court hearings, the applicant had to wear joined shackles (kajdanki zespolone) on his hands and feet. The shackles consisted of handcuffs and fetters joined together with chains.