5.  The applicants were born in 1967 and 1970 respectively and live in Rostov-on-Don. 6.  On 26 December 2006 the applicants were arrested and placed in a detention centre operated by the Rostov-on-Don police. 7.  On 1 January 2007 and 31 December 2006 respectively, the applicants were transferred to remand prison no. IZ-61/1 in Rostov-on-Don, where they were held until 23 March 2012. 8.  The first applicant, Mr Reznik, submitted that between 1 January and 15 May 2007 he had been held in cells 117 and 118 of the remand prison, which measured 6 square metres and had six sleeping places but accommodated up to nine inmates. In cells 42, 44 and 45, where he stayed from 15 May until November 2007, the surface area was approximately 11 square metres for twelve sleeping places and up to eleven inmates. For the next few years he was in cell 111, the largest of all the cells he was held in at 14 square metres, with up to five people sharing. On some occasions he and his cellmates had to take turns to sleep. The first applicant produced written statements by Mr F., Mr K. and Mr S., with whom he had been detained in the same cells in 2007-2009, 2009, and 2006-2010, respectively. The statements corroborated his account of the conditions of detention. 9.  The Government did not contest the fact that the applicant’s former cellmates had been held in the same remand prison as the applicant or the veracity of their statements. 10.  The second applicant, Ms Guzeyeva, submitted that apart from the first month she had been detained in cell 184, which measured 25 square metres, had eight sleeping places and held between ten and twenty-six inmates. Because of a lack of sleeping places she had to take it in turn to sleep, not only in bed but also on the floor. 11.  The Government provided a description of the applicants’ conditions of detention, relying on certificates issued in June 2015 by the director of the remand prison, photographs of the cells, prisoner transfer logs (суточная ведомость учёта лиц, временно выбывших из следственного изолятора) and registration logs (журнал количественной проверки подозреваемых, обвиняемых и осуждённых). They submitted that the number of prisoners in the cells where the applicants had been held had not exceeded the occupancy limit. 12.  The prisoner transfer log shows that the applicants were detained in the following cells:
 
Mr Reznik
Cell 
Date
117
21 February 2007
42
16 June; 16 and 23 September, 1, 7; 13 and 14 October; 11, 12, 18 and 26 November 2008; 1, 15 and 22 September, 6 and 27 October, 10 and 17 November 2009
Ms Guzeyeva
Cell 
Date
184
21 February, 14 May and 14 August 2007; 14 March and 16 June 2008 13.  The prison director’s certificates specify that cell 44 “was equipped with three sleeping places” and measured 14.3 square metres. They also indicate, in particular, that the applicants were held in the following cells:
 
Mr Reznik
Cell
Surface, sq. m
Inmates
Period
118
8
2
14 January to 14 May 2007
44 14.  The registration logs did not contain the names of prisoners but listed numbers that could be interpreted as the cell number, its maximum occupancy and the actual number of prisoners on a given date. All the cell numbers and maximum occupancy figures were pre-printed, except for the maximum occupancy figures of the applicants’ cells, which were written by hand. For example, in the log of 9 June 2008, the maximum capacity was handwritten for cells 42, 44, 45, 111, 117, and 118 (see Mr Reznik’s cell numbers above); and for 184 and 192 (Ms Guzeyeva’s cells), and matched the actual number of prisoners in those cells. 15.  The Government also provided undated photographs of cells 42, 44, 45, 111, 117, 118, and 192, which were taken from the corridor through the door, which was ajar. One of the photographs shows cell 44, with the list of cell equipment on the door indicating that it contains “six two-tier beds”. The inside of the cell is not visible. The applicants denied that the photographs showed the cells in which they had been held because those cells had not had the vaulted ceilings that were visible in the photographs. 16.  On 14 December 2010 the Kirovskiy District Court of Rostov‑on‑Don convicted the applicants and their co-defendants of illegal banking operations and forgery, and sentenced them to six years’ imprisonment and a fine. The court ordered the forfeiture of the applicants’ money as “the proceeds of crime”. 17.  On 13 March 2012 the Rostov Regional Court amended the judgment on appeal, reducing the sentences and revoking the forfeiture order on the grounds that the relevant provisions of criminal law had been enacted after the commission of the crimes. 18.  The applicants lodged several claims for the return of their property. On 21 March 2013 and 10 February 2014 the Kirovskiy District Court ordered the return of part of the money to the applicants, which they received shortly thereafter. The court considered that the rest of the money was to be forfeited to the State. 19.  The applicants appealed and by a final decision of 16 December 2015 the Rostov Regional Court ordered the rest of the applicants’ property to be returned to them, finding that the District Court’s forfeiture order had been unlawful and procedurally defective. 20.  The applicants recovered the remaining amounts on 20 January and 18 February 2016.