CEDH · CASELAW;JUDGMENTS;CHAMBER;ENG — 28 juin 2007

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s7BE5FA78 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:center; font-size:11pt } .sE208486F { font-family:Arial; color:#ff0000 } .s598389FF { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:18pt } .sF5E1C6CF { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline; color:#ff0000 } .s491F5244 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic; color:#ff0000 } .s85016119 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; font-size:11pt } .s4ACA9207 { page-break-before:always; clear:both; mso-break-type:section-break } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sB9D5CABB { width:28.35pt; display:inline-block } .s61ED8A2B { width:14.36pt; display:inline-block } .s61E420C2 { font-family:Arial; font-variant:small-caps } .s84D0D60A { width:8.36pt; display:inline-block } .sEC177689 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:36pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s967D43C6 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s87F05BA2 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s4BAE41EE { font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt } .sC443675D { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:30pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s46B3B71C { margin-top:30pt; margin-left:17.85pt; margin-bottom:30pt; text-indent:-17.85pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s3C0142D3 { margin-top:30pt; margin-left:29.2pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17.6pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s11869A80 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s7EE1C8F0 { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:29.2pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17.6pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sE7C30868 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .sC702907E { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:36.6pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-15.05pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s984A15CA { margin-top:6pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .sD5DF731 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s93EDF1FF { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:17.85pt; margin-bottom:30pt; text-indent:-17.85pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s401C450A { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s9F223FEE { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:17.85pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17.85pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s684F2214 { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:29.2pt; margin-bottom:24pt; text-indent:-17.6pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s25BD2B45 { margin-top:24pt; margin-left:36.6pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-15.05pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s8F4EE4B8 { margin-top:6pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .sD2857263 { margin-top:30pt; margin-left:17.85pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17.85pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s507703F { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .sA1CDB767 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .s281358E1 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .sFD4D42B6 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .s1913A4C6 { margin-top:6pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .sB6F98828 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:36.6pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-indent:-15.05pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s360DA689 { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:48.75pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-17pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .s8378218E { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:48.75pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-17pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .s9D48DD53 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .s6477A72F { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .sB1BD30C0 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:24pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .sC31874BD { margin-top:24pt; margin-left:29.2pt; margin-bottom:24pt; text-indent:-17.6pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s5CA8D2DF { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:17.85pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17.85pt; text-align:justify; page-break-after:avoid } .s194D2FA4 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; page-break-after:avoid } .sF3637C98 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:24pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; font-size:10pt } .s804EF768 { margin-top:24pt; margin-left:29.2pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17.6pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s3B3A5DE9 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:36pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .sAB173E38 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:17pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-17pt; text-align:justify } .s127C7598 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:17pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-17pt; text-align:justify } .sD66C1369 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:17.3pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s81CCF55C { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:17pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17pt; text-align:justify } .s48DB3670 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:36pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s69DCC830 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sB4145D37 { width:34.69pt; display:inline-block } .s38C76525 { width:172.98pt; display:inline-block } .s8EFC8F8 { width:32.36pt; display:inline-block } .sC0ADED72 { width:219.66pt; display:inline-block }     FIFTH SECTION     CASE OF MALECHKOV v. BULGARIA     (Application no. 57830/00 )       JUDGMENT     STRASBOURG     28 June 2007       FINAL     28/09/2007     This judgment will become final in the circumstances set out in Article   44 §   2 of the Convention. It may be subject to editorial revision. In the case of Malechkov v. Bulgaria, The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting as a Chamber composed of:   Mr   P. Lorenzen , President ,   Mrs   S. Botoucharova ,   Mr   K. Jungwiert ,   Mr   R. Maruste ,   Mr   J. Borrego Borrego ,   Mrs   R. Jaeger ,   Mr   M. Villiger, judges , and Mrs C. Westerdiek , Section Registrar , Having deliberated in private on 5 June 2007, Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date: PROCEDURE 1.     The case originated in an application (no. 57830/00) against the Republic of Bulgaria lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) by a Bulgarian national, Mr Ivan Stoyanov Malechkov (“the applicant”), who was born in 1966 and lives in Aleko Konstantinovo, on 7 January 2000. 2.     The applicant was represented by Mr V. Stoyanov and Mrs   V.   Kelcheva, lawyers practising in Pazardzhik. 3.     The Bulgarian Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Ms M. Karadjova, of the Ministry of Justice. 4.     The applicant alleged a number of violations of his rights under Article   5 of the Convention and claimed that he had been subjected to inhuman and degrading treatment as a result of having been detained in allegedly inadequate conditions of detention at the Pazardzhik Regional Investigation Service and the Pazardzhik Prison. 5.     On 20 May 2005 the Court decided to give notice of the application to the Government. Under the provisions of Article 29 § 3 of the Convention, it decided to examine the merits of the application at the same time as its admissibility. THE FACTS I.     THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE A.     The criminal proceedings against the applicant and his detention in the context of these proceedings 6.     The applicant was placed in preliminary detention on 3 July 1998 under an order of an investigator on the suspicion of having raped a minor on the previous day, 2   July 1998. The arrest was undertaken on the basis of a complaint filed by the victim whereby she had identified the applicant as one of the persons who had raped her. On the same day, the preliminary detention of the applicant was extended until 6 July 1998 by order of a prosecutor. 7.     Based on the complaint filed by the victim and the evidence collected by the police, a preliminary investigation was opened against the applicant on 6 July 1998. On the same day, he was charged with aggravated rape of a defenceless minor perpetrated on two occasions on 2 July 1998 together with another two individuals. By virtue of the same order, confirmed by the Prosecutor's Office later in the day, the applicant was detained on remand. He was presented with the aforesaid order and countersigned it on the same day. 8.     On 13 and 15 July 1998 the applicant filed appeals against his detention, which were examined and dismissed by the Pazardzhik Regional Court by decision of 20 July 1998. The court found that because the applicant was charged with a serious intentional offence there was a risk that he might abscond. 9.     The charges against the applicant were amended on 14 May and 24   June 1999. On both occasions the detention on remand was maintained on the grounds of the applicant's personality and the seriousness of the offence. 10.     On 28 June 1999 the preliminary investigation was concluded with a proposal that an indictment be filed against the accused. 11.     The Pazardzhik Regional Prosecutor's Office amended the charges against the applicant on 29 June 1999. 12.     The Pazardzhik Regional Prosecutor's Office entered an indictment against the applicant on 7 July 1999 charging him with being an accomplice to the rape of a minor using threats or force (Article 152 § 3 (1), in conjunction with § 2 (1) and § 1 (2) of the Bulgarian Criminal Code). 13.     On an unspecified date the victim joined the proceedings as a civil claimant. 14.     On 10 or 11 August 1999 the applicant appealed against his detention claiming, inter alia , that he had a permanent address and that the worsening financial situation of his family would preclude any possibility that he might abscond. With a resolution of 10 September 1999 the Pazardzhik District Court decreed that the appeal would be examined at the next court hearing. 15.     At a hearing on 4 October 1999 the Pazardzhik District Court dismissed the applicant's appeal. It considered that there were no new circumstances following his previous appeal of July 1998, that he was still charged with a serious intentional offence and, therefore, that there was still a risk that he might abscond, attempt to intimidate the victim and the other witnesses, and obstruct the discovery process in the proceedings. The lack of employment of the applicant was considered a contributory element to the risk that he might abscond. The court did not consider the length of the detention to be a reason onto itself which might justify a reassessment of the justification of the applicant's deprivation of liberty. 16.     On 10 November 1999, on appeal by the applicant of 6 October 1999, the Pazardzhik Regional Court upheld the lower court's decision on similar grounds. 17.     On 6 December 1999 the applicant filed another appeal against his detention. 18.     At the court hearing on the same day, the Pazardzhik District Court dismissed the appeal as it considered that the seriousness of the offence still inferred that he might abscond and re-offend. The court also considered that the length of the applicant's detention could not in itself warrant his release. At the end of the hearing, the court withdrew to deliver its judgment. 19.     In a judgment of 7 December 1999 the Pazardzhik District Court found the applicant and his two accomplices guilty as charged. He was sentenced to seven years' imprisonment and ordered to pay damages to the victim. 20.     The applicant appealed against the judgment on 4 January 2000 claiming that the imposed sentence was unjustified and unsupported by the evidence in the case. 21.     The hearings of 16 and 30 May 2000 before the Pazardzhik Regional Court were postponed due to improper summons of the civil claimant. 22.     The applicant's appeal was examined at the next hearing on 27 June 2000. 23.     In a judgment of 27 September 2000 the applicant's appeal was dismissed by the Pazardzhik Regional Court. The applicant did not appeal further and the aforementioned judgment became final on 27 October 2000. B.     The conditions of the applicant's detention 24.     The applicant was held at the Pazardzhik Regional Investigation Service from 3 July to 10 November 1998. He was then transferred to the Pazardzhik Prison where he remained until 11 January 2001 before being moved to the Sofia Prison. It is unclear when he was released. 1.     Pazardzhik Regional Investigation Service 25.     The applicant claimed, which the Government subsequently challenged, that at this detention facility (1) there had been insufficient fresh air and sunlight in the cells; (2) there had been no exercise or healthy food; (3) hygiene had been lacking; (4) he had been denied access to newspapers, books, radio and television; (5) he could not meet with his representative in private, and (6) he could not maintain an active correspondence. In support of his assertions, the applicant submitted signed declarations from himself and another detainee, Mr D.G. 26.     In his declaration, the applicant claimed that he had been held in isolation for the duration of his detention at this facility in a cell which measured 6 ‑ 7 sq. m. There had been two wooden beds covered with worn and torn mattresses, blankets and pillows. There had been fleas, cockroaches and mice. There had been no windows and the only fresh air entering the cell had come from the corridor through a grate above the door. There had been only artificial light which had been constantly switched on. The applicant had to satisfy the needs of nature in a bucket inside the cell, the contents of which were removed twice a day. He had access to sanitary facilities twice a day for three to five minutes during which time he had to throw out the bucket and pour himself drinking water in a dirty plastic bottle. The applicant bathed and shaved once a week with cold water. The food had been insufficient and lacked any meat. The applicant received half a kilogram of bread every day. He had to eat without cutlery from dirty plastic dishes. No exercise had been provided and he had not been allowed to read newspapers, magazines and books. 27.     Mr D.G., in his declaration, corroborated the applicant's statements. 2.     Pazardzhik Prison 28.     The applicant claimed, which the Government subsequently challenged, that at this detention facility (1) there had been insufficient fresh air and sunlight in the cells; (2) there had been no exercise or healthy food; (3) hygiene had been lacking; (4) he had been denied access to newspapers, books, radio and television; (5) he could not meet with his representative in private, and (6) he could not maintain an active correspondence. The applicant also submitted signed declarations from himself and another detainee, Mr I.S. 29.     In his declaration, the applicant stated that the conditions in the Pazardzhik Prison had initially been similar to those at the Pazardzhik Regional Investigation Service, but that they had improved in 1999. In addition and contrary to some of his complaints, he stated that he had been allowed to have visitors, that the food had consisted of meat or fish several times a week, that he had the ability to watch television, listen to the radio and read books and newspapers. The applicant also stated that he had access to other pastimes at this detention facility, that the sanitary facilities had been situated in the cell itself and that pest extermination activities had been undertaken on a regular basis. 30.     Mr I.S., in his declaration, corroborated the applicant's statements. II.     RELEVANT DOMESTIC LAW AND PRACTICE A.     Grounds for detention 31.     The relevant provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure (the “CCP”) and the Bulgarian courts' practice before 1 January 2000 are summarised in the Court's judgments in several similar cases (see, among others, Nikolova v. Bulgaria [GC], no. 31195/96, §§ 25-36, ECHR 1999-II; Ilijkov v. Bulgaria , no. 33977/96, §§ 55-59, 26 July 2001; and Yankov v.   Bulgaria , no. 39084/97, §§ 79-88, ECHR 2003-XII (extracts)). B.     Scope of judicial control on pre-trial detention 32.     On the basis of the relevant law before 1 January 2000, when ruling on appeals against pre-trial detention of a person charged with having committed a “serious” offence, the domestic courts generally disregarded facts and arguments concerning the existence or absence of a danger of the accused person's absconding or committing offences and stated that every person accused of having committed a serious offence must be remanded in custody unless exceptional circumstances dictated otherwise (see decisions of the domestic authorities criticised by the Court in the cases of Nikolova and Ilijkov , both cited above, and Zaprianov v. Bulgaria , no. 41171/98, 30   September 2004). C.     The State Responsibility for Damage Act 33.     The State Responsibility for Damage Act of 1988 (the “SRDA”) provides that the State is liable for damage caused to private persons by (a)   the illegal orders, actions or omissions of government bodies and officials acting within the scope of, or in connection with, their administrative duties; and (b) the organs of the investigation, the prosecution and the courts for unlawful pre ‑ trial detention, if the detention order has been set aside for lack of lawful grounds (sections 1-2). 34.     In respect of the regime of detention and conditions of detention, the relevant domestic law and practice under sections 1 and 2 of the SRDA has been summarised in the cases of Iovchev v. Bulgaria (no. 41211/98, §§   76 ‑ 80, 2 February 2006) and Hamanov v. Bulgaria (no. 44062/98, §§   56 ‑ 60, 8 April 2004). III.     REPORTS OF THE EUROPEAN COMMITTEE FOR THE PREVENTION OF TORTURE AND INHUMAN OR DEGRADING TREATMENT OR PUNISHMENT (“THE CPT”) 35.     The CPT visited Bulgaria in 1995, 1999, 2002, 2003 and 2006. All but its most recent visit report have since been made public. 36.     The Pazardzhik Prison was visited by the CPT in 1995, while the Pazardzhik Regional Investigation Service was visited both in 1995 and in 2006. The report from the latter visit has not yet been made public. 37.     There are also general observations about the problems in all Investigation Service detention facilities in the 1995, 1999 and 2002 visit reports. A.     Relevant findings of the 1995 report (made public in 1997) 1.     General observations 38.     The CPT found that most, albeit not all, of the Investigation Service detention facilities were overcrowded. With the exception of one detention facility where conditions were slightly better, the conditions were as follows: cells did not have access to natural light; the artificial lighting was too weak to read by and was left on permanently; ventilation was inadequate; the cleanliness of the bedding and the cells as a whole left much to be desired; detainees could access a sanitary facility twice a day (morning and evening) for a few minutes and could take a weekly shower; outside of the two daily visits to the toilets, detainees had to satisfy the needs of nature in buckets inside the cells; although according to the establishments' internal regulations detainees were entitled to a “daily walk” of up to thirty minutes, it was often reduced to five to ten minutes or not allowed at all; no other form of out-of-cell activity was provided to persons detained. 39.     The CPT further noted that food was of poor quality and in insufficient quantity. In particular, the day's “hot meal” generally consisted of a watery soup (often lukewarm) and inadequate quantities of bread. At the other meals, detainees only received bread and a little cheese or halva. Meat and fruit were rarely included on the menu. Detainees had to eat from bowls without cutlery – not even a spoon was provided. 40.     The CPT also noted that family visits and correspondence were only possible with express permission by a public prosecutor and that, as a result, detainees' contacts with the outside world were very limited. There was no radio or television. 41.     The CPT concluded that the Bulgarian authorities had failed in their obligation to provide detention conditions which were consistent with the inherent dignity of the human person and that “almost without exception, the conditions in the Investigation Service detention facilities visited could fairly be described as inhuman and degrading”. In reaction, the Bulgarian authorities agreed that the CPT delegation's assessment had been “objective and correctly presented” but indicated that the options for improvement were limited by the country's difficult financial circumstances. 42.     In 1995 the CPT recommended to the Bulgarian authorities, inter alia , that sufficient food and drink and safe eating utensils be provided, that mattresses and blankets be cleaned regularly, that detainees be provided with personal hygiene products (soap, toothpaste, etc.), that custodial staff be instructed that detainees should be allowed to leave their cells during the day for the purpose of using a toilet facility unless overriding security considerations required otherwise, that the regulation providing for thirty minutes' exercise per day be fully respected in practice, that cell lighting and ventilation be improved, that the regime of family visits be revised and that pre-trial detainees be more often transferred to prison even before the preliminary investigation was completed. The possibility of offering detainees at least one hour's outdoor exercise per day was to be examined as a matter of urgency. 2.     Pazardzhik Regional Investigation Service 43.     The CPT established that the Pazardzhik Regional Investigation Service had fifteen cells, situated in the basement, and at the time of the visit accommodated thirty detainees, including two women in a separate cell. 44.     Six cells measuring approximately twelve square metres were designed to accommodate two detainees; the other nine, intended for three occupants, measured some sixteen-and-a-half square metres. This occupancy rate was being complied with at the time of the visit and from the living space standpoint was deemed acceptable by the CPT. However, all the remaining shortcomings observed in the other Investigation Service detention facilities – dirty and tattered bedding, no access to natural light, absence of activities, limited access to sanitary facilities, etc. – also applied there. Even the thirty-minute exercise rule, provided for in the internal regulations and actually posted on cell doors, was not observed. 3.     Pazardzhik Prison 45.     In this report the CPT found, inter alia , that the prison was seriously overcrowded and that prisoners were obliged to spend most of the day in their dormitories, mostly confined to their beds because of lack of space. It also found the central heating to be inadequate and that only some of the dormitories were fitted with sanitary facilities. B.     Relevant findings of the 1999 report (made public in 2002) 46.     The CPT noted that new rules providing for better conditions had been enacted but had not yet resulted in significant improvements. 47.     In most investigation detention facilities visited in 1999, with the exception of a newly opened detention facility in Sofia, conditions of detention were generally the same as those observed during the CPT's 1995 visit, as regards poor hygiene, overcrowding, problematic access to toilet/shower facilities and a total absence of outdoor exercise and out ‑ of ‑ cell activities. In some places, the situation had even deteriorated. 48.     In the Plovdiv Regional Investigation detention facility, as well as in two other places, detainees “had to eat with their fingers, not having been provided with appropriate cutlery”. C.     Relevant findings of the 2002 report (made public in 2004) 49.     During the 2002 visit some improvements were noted in the country's investigation detention facilities, severely criticised in previous reports. However, a great deal remained to be done: most detainees continued to spend months on end locked up in overcrowded cells twenty-four hours a day. 50.     Concerning prisons, the CPT drew attention to the problem of overcrowding and to the shortage of work and other activities for inmates. THE LAW I.     ALLEGED VIOLATIONS OF ARTICLE   5 OF THE CONVENTION 51.     The applicant made several complaints falling under Article 5 of the Convention, the relevant part of which provides: “1.     Everyone has the right to liberty and security of person. No one shall be deprived of his liberty save in the following cases and in accordance with a procedure prescribed by law: ... (c)     the lawful arrest or detention of a person effected for the purpose of bringing him before the competent legal authority on reasonable suspicion of having committed an offence or when it is reasonably considered necessary to prevent his committing an offence or fleeing after having done so; ... 2.     Everyone who is arrested shall be informed promptly, in a language which he understands, of the reasons for his arrest and of any charge against him. 3.     Everyone arrested or detained in accordance with the provisions of paragraph   1   (c) of this Article shall be brought promptly before a judge or other officer authorised by law to exercise judicial power and shall be entitled to trial within a reasonable time or to release pending trial. Release may be conditioned by guarantees to appear for trial. 4.     Everyone who is deprived of his liberty by arrest or detention shall be entitled to take proceedings by which the lawfulness of his detention shall be decided speedily by a court and his release ordered if the detention is not lawful. 5.     Everyone who has been the victim of arrest or detention in contravention of the provisions of this Article   shall have an enforceable right to compensation.” 52.     The applicant also relied on Article 13 of the Convention in respect of his complaints under Article 5 of the Convention. However, the Court considers that, as it relates to Article 5 §§ 1-3 of the Convention, this complaint should be understood as referring to the applicant's inability to effectively challenge his detention under Article 5 § 4 of the Convention and to the alleged lack of an enforceable right to compensation under Article 5 § 5 of the Convention. In addition, the Court observes that Article   5 §§ 4 and 5 of the Convention constitute lex specialis in relation to the more general requirements of Article 13 (see Nikolova , cited above, §   69, and Tsirlis and Kouloumpas v. Greece , judgment of 29 May 1997, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1997 ‑ III, p. 927, § 73). Accordingly, the Court will examine the complaint that the applicant lacked effective domestic remedies only under Article 5 §§ 4 and 5 of the Convention. A.     Complaint under Article 5 § 3 of the Convention that the applicant was not brought promptly before a judge or other officer authorised by law to exercise judicial power 53.     The applicant complained under Article 5 § 3 of the Convention that he had not been brought promptly before a judge or other officer authorised by law to exercise judicial power after his arrest on 3 July 1998. 54.     The Court notes that from the parties' submissions it is clear that in response to the applicant's appeals of 13 and 15 July 1998 a court hearing was conducted on 20 July 1998 when he was brought before a judge (see paragraph 8 above). The six-month period therefore started to run not later than on that date, for the purposes of Article 35 § 1 of the Convention (see, among others, Hristov v. Bulgaria (dec.), no. 35436/97, 19 September 2000). The applicant sent his first letter to the Court on 7 January 2000. 55.     It follows that this complaint is introduced out of time and must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 §§ 1 and 4 of the Convention. B.     Complaint under Article 5 § 1 of the Convention regarding the lawfulness of the applicant's detention 56.     The applicant complained under Article 5 § 1 of the Convention that he had been unlawfully detained, that the evidence against him had not been sufficient to lead to the conclusion that he was guilty of an offence and considered that several domestic provisions had been breached. 57.     The Court recognises that the applicant's detention up to 7   December 1999 fell within the ambit of Article 5 § 1 (c) of the Convention, as it was imposed for the purpose of bringing him before the competent legal authority on suspicion of having committed an offence. There is nothing to indicate that the formalities required by domestic law were not observed. 58.     As regards the alleged lack of reasonable suspicion, the Court reiterates that the standard imposed by Article 5 § 1 (c) of the Convention does not presuppose the existence of sufficient evidence to bring charges, or find guilt, at the time of arrest. Facts which raise a suspicion need not be of the same level as those necessary to bring a charge (see O'Hara v.   the   United Kingdom , no. 37555/97, § 36, ECHR 2001-X). In the present case, the Court considers that the authorities had sufficient information to ground a “reasonable” suspicion against the applicant because the victim had identified him as one of the persons who had raped her on 2 July 1998 (see paragraph 6 above). 59.     It follows that the complaint is manifestly ill-founded and must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 §§ 3 and 4 of the Convention. C.     Complaint under Article 5 § 2 of the Convention that the applicant was not informed promptly of the reasons for his arrest 60.     The applicant complained under Article 5 § 2 of the Convention that he had not been informed promptly of the reasons for his arrest and of the charges against him at the time of his arrest on 3 July 1998. 61.     The Court notes that from the parties' submissions it is clear that the applicant was informed of the reasons for his arrest and of the charges against him on 6 July 1998, at the latest (see paragraph 7 above). That day is, therefore, the point when the six-month period started to run, for the purposes of Article 35 § 1 of the Convention. The applicant sent his first letter to the Court on 7 January 2000. 62.     It follows that this complaint is introduced out of time and must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 §§ 1 and 4 of the Convention. D.     Complaint under Article 5 § 3 of the Convention regarding the applicant's right to trial within a reasonable time or release pending trial 63.     The applicant complained under Article 5 § 3 of the Convention that his detention had been unjustified and excessively lengthy. 64.     The Government disagreed with the applicant. They noted that the preliminary investigation had been completed on 28 June 1999 and that an indictment had been filed against the applicant on 7 July 1999. The Government also noted that the first instance court delivered its judgment on 7 December 1999, at which time they calculated the applicant to have been in detention for a year, five months and four days. Finally, they noted that the appeal proceedings had been completed within a further ten months and twenty days. The Government therefore argued that the investigation and trial stage of the criminal proceedings had been completed quickly and effectively. Thus, they considered that the applicant's right to be tried within a reasonable time had not been violated. 65.     In respect of the need for the continued detention of the applicant, the Government stated that that had been justified considering that he had been charged with a serious intentional offence against a minor. Moreover, they alleged that the authorities and the courts had justifiably maintained the said detention of the applicant in the interest of the community, the likelihood that he might abscond and considering the fragile state of the victim who might have been threatened or intimidated if he had been released. 1.     Admissibility 66.     The Court notes that this complaint is not manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 of the Convention. It further notes that it is not inadmissible on any other grounds. It must therefore be declared admissible. 2.     Merits 67.     The Court recognises that from 3 July 1998 to 7 December 1999 the applicant's detention fell within the ambit of Article 5 § 1 (c) of the Convention, a period of one year, five months and five days. 68.     The Court further notes that the complaint is similar to those in previous cases against Bulgaria where violations were found (see, for example, Ilijkov , cited above, §§ 67-87, and Shishkov v. Bulgaria , no.   38822/97, §§ 57-67, ECHR 2003 ‑ I (extracts)). Likewise, in the decisions of the authorities of 14 May and 24 June 1999 to maintain the applicant's detention they failed to cite any reasons and to assess specific facts and evidence about a possible danger of the applicant absconding, re-offending or obstructing the investigation (see paragraph 9 above). In so far as the authorities did not consider it necessary to justify the continuation of the applicant's detention on each and every occasion they seem to have considered his detention mandatory and to have primarily relied on the statutory provisions requiring such detention for serious intentional offences. 69.     In view of the above, the Court finds that there has been a violation of Article 5 § 3 of the Convention on account of the authorities' failure to justify the applicant's continued detention. E.     Complaint under Article 5 § 4 of the Convention regarding the scope and nature of the judicial control of lawfulness of the applicant's detention 70.     The applicant complained under Article 5 § 4 of the Convention that the courts failed to examine all factors relevant to the lawfulness of his detention and that his appeal of 10 or 11 August 1999 had been decided in violation of the requirement for a speedy decision. 71.     The Government challenged the assertions of the applicant. They noted that the Pazardzhik District Court, in its decision of 4 October 1999 for dismissing the applicant's appeal against his detention of 10 or 11   August 1999, had established that there was a risk of the applicant absconding, obstructing the investigation or intimidating the victim. In addition, the Government stressed that the court had examined the personal situation of the applicant in that he did not have stable employment which contributed to the likelihood that he might abscond. Finally, they noted that the decision of the Pazardzhik District Court had been upheld on appeal by the Pazardzhik Regional Court. The Government therefore considered that the domestic courts had examined all factors relevant to the lawfulness of the applicant's detention. 72.     In respect of the speediness of the decision, the Government noted that by resolution of 10 September 1999 the Pazardzhik District Court had decreed to examine the appeal at the next public hearing rather than in camera. 1.     Admissibility 73.     The Court notes at the outset that the applicant sent his first letter on 7 January 2000. Accordingly, it can only assess the conformity with the requirements of Article 5 § 4 of the Convention of the domestic courts' examinations of the applicant's appeals for the period after 7 July 1999, which would be within the six months' time limit under Article 35 § 1 of the Convention. 74.     Thus, the complaints under Article 5 § 4 of the Convention in respect of the applicant's appeals against his detention of detention of 13   and 15 July 1998 were introduced out of time and must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 §§ 1 and 4 of the Convention. 75.     The Court, however, notes that the applicant's appeal of 10 or 11   August 1999 was introduced within the six months' time limit under Article 35 § 1 of the Convention and is not manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 of the Convention. It also notes that it is not inadmissible on any other grounds. It must therefore be declared admissible. 2.     Merits (a)     Scope of the judicial review of the lawfulness of the applicant's detention 76.     The Court notes at the outset that this complaint is very similar to those in previous cases against Bulgaria where violations were found (see Nikolova , §§ 54 ‑ 66, and Ilijkov , §§ 88 ‑ 106, both cited above). 77.     Likewise, the Court finds that the Pazardzhik District Court, when examining the applicant's appeal against his detention on 4 October 1999, primarily relied on the alleged lack of new circumstances following his last appeal in July 1998 and the seriousness of the charges against him (see paragraph 15 above). It did not cite any specifics facts or evidence about the possible danger of the applicant absconding, re-offending or obstructing the investigation other than the assumption that the lack of employment would allegedly be a contributory factor. The court's findings were upheld on appeal by the Pazardzhik Regional Court on 10 November 1999 (see paragraph 15 above). 78.     Thus, it appears that the domestic courts predominantly relied on the statutory provisions requiring mandatory detention for serious intentional offences and the Supreme Court's practice which excluded any examination of the question whether there was a “reasonable suspicion” against the detainee and of facts concerning the likelihood of flight or re-offending (see paragraph 32 above). 79.     In view of the aforesaid, the Court finds that the Pazardzhik District and Regional Courts, in their decisions of 4 October and 10 November 1999, had denied the applicant the guarantees provided for in Article 5 § 4 of the Convention on account of the limited scope and nature of the judicial control of lawfulness of his detention. Thus, there has been a violation of the said provision in that respect. (b)     Speed of the judicial review of the lawfulness of the applicant's detention 80.     The Court observes that the applicant's appeal of 10 or 11 August 1999 was examined by the trial court almost two months later on 4 October 1999 (see paragraphs 4 and 15 above). 81.     The Court considers this period in breach of the requirement for a speedy decision under Article 5 § 4 of the Convention (see Kadem v. Malta , no.   55263/00, §§ 43-45, 9 January 2003, where the Court found a period of seventeen days for examining an appeal against detention as being too long; and Rehbock v. Slovenia , no. 29462/95, §§ 82-86, ECHR 2000 ‑ XII, where two such periods of twenty-three days were considered excessive). 82.     It follows that in respect of the applicant's appeal of 10 or 11 August 1999 there has also been a violation of the applicant's right to a speedy judicial decision concerning the lawfulness of detention in breach of Article   5 § 4 of the Convention. F.     Complaint under Article 5 § 5 of the Convention 83.     The applicant complained under Article 5 § 5 of the Convention that he had not had an enforceable right to seek compensation for being a victim of arrest or detention in breach of the provisions of Article 5 of the Convention. 84.     The Government disagreed and alleged that the applicant had available a procedure under the SRDA whereby he could have claimed and obtained compensation for having been unlawfully detained. They also stated, however, that that would not have been possible in the present case as the applicant's detention had been in conformity with domestic legislation. 1.     Admissibility 85.     The Court observes at the outset the similarity of the complaint to those in a number of other cases against Bulgaria where violations where found (see, for example, Yankov , cited above, and Belchev v. Bulgaria , no.   39270/98, 8 April 2004). 86.     The Court further observes that it has already found that the authorities failed to justify the applicant's continued detention (see paragraph 69 above) and that in response to his appeal of 10 or 11 August 1999 they denied him the guarantees provided for in Article 5 § 4 of the Convention (see paragraph 79 above) and violated his right to a speedy judicial decision (see paragraph 82 above). Thus, Article 5 § 5 of the Convention is applicable. 87.     The Court also notes that this complaint is not manifestly ill ‑ founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 of the Convention. It further notes that it is not inadmissible on any other grounds. It must therefore be declared admissible. 2.     Merits 88.     In view of the above, the Court must establish whether or not Bulgarian law afforded the applicant an enforceable right to compensation for the breaches of Article 5 of the Convention in his case. 89.     The Court notes that by section 2 (1) of the SRDA, a person who has been remanded in custody may seek compensation only if the detention order has been set aside “for lack of lawful grounds”, which refers to unlawfulness under domestic law (see paragraphs 33-34 above). 90.     In the present case, the applicant's detention on remand was considered by the domestic courts as being in full compliance with the requirements of domestic law. Therefore, the applicant did not have a right to compensation under section 2(1) of the SRDA. Nor does section 2(2) apply (see paragraphs 33-34 above). 91.     It follows that in the applicant's case the SRDA did not provide for an enforceable right to compensation. Furthermore, it does not appear that such a right is secured under any other provision of Bulgarian law (see paragraphs 33-34 above). 92.     Thus, the Court finds that Bulgarian law did not afford the applicant an enforceable right to compensation, as required by Article 5 § 5 of the Convention. There has therefore been a violation of that provision. II.     ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 6 § 1 OF THE CONVENTION 93.     The applicant complained of the excessive length of the criminal proceedings against him. He relied on Article 6 of the Convention, the relevant part of which provides: “In the determination of ... any criminal charge against him, everyone is entitled to a ... hearing within a reasonable time by [a] ... tribunal...” 94.     The Government disagreed and argued that the overall length of the proceedings against the applicant had been reasonable as they had lasted from 6 July 1998 to 27 October 2000, a period of two years, three months and twenty days. During this period the preliminary investigation had been concluded and the trial stage had passed through two levels of jurisdiction. In addition, the Government argued that there were no unreasonable delays attributable to the authorities, that the courts had scheduled hearings at regular intervals and had examined the case with the required level of diligence. 95.     The Court notes, at the outset, that the criminal proceedings against the applicant started on 3 July 1998 when he was arrested, as it should be considered that as of this day he became substantially affected by actions taken by the prosecuting authorities as a result of a suspicion against him (see Pedersen and Baadsgaard v. Denmark [GC], no. 49017/99, § 44, ECHR 2004 ‑ XI). They ended on 27 October 2000 when the judgment of the Pazardzhik Regional Court of 27 September 2000 became final. Thus, the overall length of the criminal proceedings against the applicant was two years, three months and twenty five days for two levels of jurisdiction. 96.     Applying its established case-law (see Pélissier and Sassi v. France [GC], no. 25444/94, § 67, ECHR 1999 ‑ II; Kudła v. Poland [GC], no.   30210/96, § 124, ECHR 2000 ‑ XI; and Pedersen and Baadsgaard , cited above, § 45) to the facts of the present case and, in particular, noting that the overall length of the criminal proceedings had been two years and four months for concluding a preliminary investigation and a trial involving two levels of jurisdiction, the Court does not find that the “reasonable time” requirement of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention was breached. 97.     It follows that this complaint is manifestly ill-founded and must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 §§ 3 and 4 of the Convention. III.     ALLEGED VIOLATIONS OF ARTICLE 3 OF THE CONVENTION 98.     The applicant complained under Article 3 of the Convention that he had been subjected to inhuman or degrading treatment as a result of being detained at the Pazardzhik Regional Investigation Service and the Pazardzhik Prison. Article 3 of the Convention provides: “No one shall be subjected to torture or to inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.” A.     The parties' submissions 1.     The Government 99.     The Government challenged the applicant's submissions. They argued that his grievances in respect of the conditions of his detention were formulated in a very general manner and that they lacked coherent and precise elements supported by evidence of a violation. (a)     Pazardzhik Regional Investigation Service 100.     In respect of the Pazardzhik Regional Investigation Service the Government presented a letter, dated 5 August 2005, from the Head of the Pazardzhik Investigation Service Detention Facilities Unit of the Enforcement of Judgments Division of the Ministry of Justice (the “letter”). The letter informed of the conditions of the applicant's detention at the Pazardzhik Regional Investigation Service and is summarised herein below. 101.     The applicant had been held at this detention facility from 6 July to 10   November 1998. He had been accommodated alone in a cell measuring 2.9 m long by 2.7 m wide by 3 m high, which had been ventilated naturally and by an aspirator. There had been two wooden beds in the cell, each of which had a mattress, pillow and a blanket. Detainees had been required to bathe once a week. They had been allowed access to the sanitary facilities three times a day for fifteen to twenty minutes. The heating in the detention facility had been provided by the central heating of the Pazardzhik District Police Station. Lighting had been provided by two incandescent light bulbs of 75 W or 100 W placed above the cell's door, which had been switched on permanently. The lack of a designated area for exercise had been compensated with an extended time for visiting the sanitary facilities. The food of the detainees had been prepared at the Pazardzhik Prison and had been of sufficient quantity and quality. The possibility of having visits from a lawyer or a relative, as well as having correspondence and receiving newspapers, magazines and other literature had been subject to the permission of the i