CEDH · CASELAW;JUDGMENTS;CHAMBER;ENG — 26 février 2015

.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 } .s598389FB { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:14pt } .sF5E1C6CF { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline; color:#ff0000 } .sB1AFDE2D { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left; font-size:14pt } .s2348ECBC { width:232.5pt; display:inline-block } .sE208486F { font-family:Arial; color:#ff0000 } .s598389F8 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:11pt } .s4ACA9207 { page-break-before:always; clear:both; mso-break-type:section-break } .s9793A85B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .sB9D5CABB { width:28.35pt; display:inline-block } .sF604F523 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; font-size:14pt } .s79DE5897 { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:17.85pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17.85pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sA8776625 { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:29.2pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17.6pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s39A7D870 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sF7A86111 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; font-size:10pt } .sDEA336FF { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:29.2pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17.6pt } .s72C8F48C { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:36.6pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-15.05pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s9C230781 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:36.6pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-15.05pt } .s8983A10C { margin-left:13.95pt; border:0.75pt solid #000000; border-collapse:collapse } .s41E9DBF5 { border-right-style:solid; border-right-width:0.75pt; border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s85646119 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; font-size:12pt } .s24AC208E { border-right-style:solid; border-right-width:0.75pt; border-left-style:solid; border-left-width:0.75pt; border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sF004B676 { border-left-style:solid; border-left-width:0.75pt; border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sB30C44B0 { border-top-style:solid; border-top-width:0.75pt; border-right-style:solid; border-right-width:0.75pt; border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sC3AB69A { border-style:solid; border-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s6A269875 { border-top-style:solid; border-top-width:0.75pt; border-left-style:solid; border-left-width:0.75pt; border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:middle } .s598389F9 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:12pt } .s2CECB0A7 { height:12.65pt } .sD87BB0A7 { height:11.45pt } .sF8C8B0A7 { height:15.55pt } .s546C9D04 { border-top-style:solid; border-top-width:0.75pt; border-right-style:solid; border-right-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s40B7A780 { border-top-style:solid; border-top-width:0.75pt; border-right-style:solid; border-right-width:0.75pt; border-left-style:solid; border-left-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sF66B8D08 { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:17.85pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17.85pt } .sAF0B4C7 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:48.75pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-17pt; font-size:10pt } .sA20670C4 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:48.75pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-17pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .sD3338BAA { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:59.5pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-17.85pt; font-size:10pt } .s2E81CF26 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:68.65pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-16.75pt; font-size:10pt } .s59DEA84 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:59.5pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-17.85pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .s583D00FA { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:17pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-17pt } .s26FF04E7 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:17.3pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s64E792FA { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:39.7pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sB8987CE9 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .sF7A4323 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .s507451D6 { width:4.53pt; display:inline-block } .s87E7BBAE { width:202.76pt; display:inline-block } .s7602FED2 { width:18.21pt; display:inline-block } .sC1AC44A4 { width:228.11pt; display:inline-block }       FIRST SECTION             CASE OF YEVGENIY BOGDANOV v. RUSSIA   (Application no. 22405/04)                       JUDGMENT     STRASBOURG   26 February 2015     FINAL   26/05/2015   This judgment has become final under Article 44 § 2 of the Convention. It may be subject to editorial revision. In the case of Yevgeniy Bogdanov v. Russia, The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting as a Chamber composed of:   Isabelle Berro, President,   Elisabeth Steiner,   Khanlar Hajiyev,   Mirjana Lazarova Trajkovska,   Julia Laffranque,   Paulo Pinto de Albuquerque,   Dmitry Dedov, judges, and Søren Nielsen, Section Registrar, Having deliberated in private on 3 February 2015, Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date: PROCEDURE 1.     The case originated in an application (no. 22405/04) against the Russian Federation lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) by a Russian national, Mr Yevgeniy Viktorovich Bogdanov (“the applicant”), on 8 May 2004. 2.     The Russian Government (“the Government”) were represented by Mr   G. Matyushkin, Representative of the Russian Federation at the European Court of Human Rights. 3.     The applicant alleged that his pre-trial detention had been unlawful, lengthy and unjustified, that the judicial review of the detention orders had not been prompt and that the conditions of his detention had been appalling. 4.     On 5 September 2008 the application was communicated to the Government. THE FACTS 5.     The applicant was born in 1983 and lives in the town of Akhtubinsk, in the Astrakhan Region. 6.     Since 2002 the applicant has been infected with hepatitis C. I.     THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE A.     The applicant’s arrest and detention 7.     On 20 December 2002 the applicant was arrested on suspicion of knifepoint rape with an accomplice. 8.     On 22 December 2002 the Astrakhan Region Akhtubinsk Town Court (“the Town Court”) remanded him in custody pending trial. The court noted that the applicant was suspected of a serious criminal offence, and held that if he remained at large he might abscond from the investigation and the court and continue his criminal activity. 9.     On 19 February 2003 the Town Court extended the applicant’s detention until 20 March 2003. 10 .     On 20 March 2003 the Town Court held that the preventive measure should remain unchanged and should be extended until 20 April 2003. The court reiterated that the applicant had been charged with a serious criminal offence and that the circumstances of the case gave grounds to believe that if released he might continue his criminal activity. In addition the court noted that he should not be released, because this might prevent the investigator from performing certain investigative actions. 11 .     On 18 April 2003 the Town Court ordered the extension of the applicant’s detention until 20 May 2003. It endorsed the reasons for the extension of his detention which had been given before. It also noted that the investigating authorities needed time to perform certain investigative actions, to draft a bill of indictment, and to provide him with an opportunity to study his case file. It further observed that the applicant’s neighbours had given negative references regarding his character. 12 .     On 12 May 2003 the Town Court granted the investigator’s request to extend the applicant’s detention. The request was based on the arguments that the applicant was suspected of a serious crime, and that if released he might abscond. The investigator also noted that he had to perform certain investigative actions and ensure that the applicant had the opportunity to acquaint himself with the case file. The applicant argued that he was a student who had a stable place of residence, and that he could not abscond as he required in-patient medical treatment for his hepatitis C. He also provided some positive references concerning his character. The court accepted the investigator’s arguments, and extended the detention until 20   June 2003. 13 .     The applicant appealed against the order of 12 May 2003, complaining that insufficient reasoning had been given for that decision. He also noted that his arguments had not been addressed by the Town Court, and that the investigating authorities had unnecessarily extended the period for his familiarisation with the case file. 14.     On 23 June 2003 the Astrakhan Regional Court (“the Regional Court”) dismissed the applicant’s claim. It held that his arguments could not constitute grounds for the overturning of the impugned order on appeal. 15 .     On 20 June 2003 the investigator applied for an extension of the applicant’s detention for two months to give the applicant an opportunity to study the case file. In response to the applicant’s arguments, the Town Court noted: “... The circumstances cited by the investigator [concerning the need to ensure the applicant’s familiarisation with the case file] were already [sufficient] grounds for the detention orders of 18 April and 12 May 2003. The case file contains the order of 16 June 2003, which provides that [the applicant] had until 30 June 2003 to study the case file. Accordingly, the extension of his detention for two months is an excessive measure. During the hearing the investigator and the prosecutor referred to their busy schedule, which prevented the authorities from ensuring [the applicant’s] familiarisation with his 400-page file on a daily basis. The study of the file required the applicant to be transported from a temporary detention facility to a court building. However, those arguments cannot be accepted by the court, as they are not compatible with the requirements of Article 5 § 3 of the Convention, which provides that everyone arrested or detained in accordance with the provisions of paragraph   1   (c) of this Article shall be ... entitled to trial within a reasonable time or to release pending trial. Release may be conditioned by guarantees to appear for trial.” The court finds that the investigating authorities unnecessarily extended the investigation. Accordingly, the request in question should be partly dismissed ...” Taking into account the above, the court extended the applicant’s detention for one month, until 20 July 2003. 16 .     On 11 July 2003 the Regional Court quashed the decision of 20 June 2003 on procedural grounds, finding that the Town Court only had power either to uphold the investigator’s request or to reject it. The Code of Criminal Procedure of Russia did not allow such requests to be granted in part. 17 .     On 18 July 2003 the Town Court extended the applicant’s detention until 20 August 2003. This decision referred to the fact that the applicant was accused of a serious offence and that there was a need to perform “certain investigative actions”. 18.     On 8 August 2003 the Regional Court upheld the decision of 18 July 2003 on appeal. It rejected the applicant’s arguments concerning the lack of grounds for his detention and stated that the lower court, when ordering the extension of his detention, had duly considered the circumstances of the case, information about the applicant’s character and the necessity to perform “some investigative actions”. 19.     On 2 July 2003 the applicant’s case file was remitted to the Town Court for examination on the merits. 20 .     By virtue of a decision of 14 July 2003 the Town Court ordered a preliminary court hearing in the applicant’s criminal case. In the descriptive part of this decision the court mentioned, among other things, that the measure of restraint which had been applied to the applicant must remain unchanged. The judge set no time-limits for the applicant’s detention. No separate court order with regard to the applicant’s detention was issued until 26 December 2003. 21 .     On 26 December 2003 the prosecution applied to the court for an extension of the applicant’s detention until 30 March 2004. It noted that the applicant was suspected of a serious criminal offence, and held that if released he might abscond from the investigation and the court and obstruct the establishment of the truth in the case. The applicant applied for release on bail, stating that he was suffering from hepatitis C and that there were no circumstances which would be capable of justifying the excessive length of his detention. The court refused his application. It held that the grounds for his detention remained unchanged and that he could receive medical treatment for hepatitis C in a detention facility. The applicant’s detention was extended until 30 March 2004. 22.     On 18 March 2004 the Town Court extended the applicant’s detention until 30 June 2004. The court once again relied on the seriousness of the charges against the applicant. No other grounds for his detention were provided by the court. 23.     On 15 June 2004 the Town Court extended the detention until 30   September 2004. This time the court referred to the seriousness of the charges and to the risk that if at liberty he could hamper the establishment of the truth in the case. 24 .     On 16 June 2004 the applicant appealed against the decision of 15   June 2004. His claim was received by the appeal court on 16 July 2004. 25 .     On 12 August 2004 the Regional Court upheld the impugned decision of 15 June 2004 on appeal. The appeal court added a new argument. It stated that the parties had significantly contributed to the length of the trial proceedings. This was due in particular to the fact that the last court hearing was adjourned owing to the absence of the defence lawyer, who was unwell. Taking into account the above and the information on the applicant’s character, the Regional Court found that his detention should not be lifted. By virtue of a decision of 14 January 2005 the higher court refused to review the applicant’s detention. 26.     On 29 September 2004 the Regional Court examined a new application by the prosecuting party for an extension of the detention. Relying on the seriousness of the charges and the risk of absconding, the court extended the applicant’s detention until 30 December 2004. 27 .     On 12 October 2004, referring to the progress of his hepatitis C, the applicant asked the court to change his detention to house arrest. The Town Court refused, observing that he had been offered medical treatment but had refused to undergo such treatment in the detention facility; he had thereby deliberately damaged his own health. 28 .     On 28 December 2004 the Town Court examined the investigator’s application for an extension of the applicant’s detention and the defence’s request for a change to the measure of restraint. The court restated its earlier reasoning, and approved the extension of the detention until 30 March 2005. 29.     On 12 January 2005 the Town Court ordered a psychiatric examination of the applicant. On 3 March 2005 he was transferred from the remand prison to a psychiatric hospital. 30.     On 30 March 2005, after the psychiatric examination, the applicant was returned to a temporary detention facility. 31 .     On 30 March 2005 the Town Court once again extended his detention and dismissed his request for the release on bail. It repeated that the grounds for the applicant’s detention remained unchanged, that the applicant was accused of a serious offence, and that if released he could obstruct the criminal investigation. The detention was extended until 30   June 2005. 32.     The applicant’s pre-trial detention ended on the day of his conviction, 30 May 2005. B.     Trial 33.     On 8 July 2003 the prosecution case file was received by the Town Court. 34.     On 30 May 2005 the Town Court convicted the applicant of knifepoint rape and sentenced him to eight years’ imprisonment. 35.     On an unspecified date in 2005 the Regional Court upheld the sentence on appeal. C.     Conditions of the applicant’s detention, transportation and medical treatment 36 .     After the applicant’s arrest of 20 December 2002 he was placed in the temporary detention facility of the Akhtubinsk Department of the Interior of the Astrakhan Region (“the Akhtubinsk IVS”) and then remand prison IZ-30/1. He was detained in these two facilities intermittently during two years, nine months and two days, up to 25 October 2005. It appears that the principal location of his detention during this period was IZ-30/1 and that he was held in the Akhtubinsk IVS or transported there on several occasions to enable him to take part in the investigation, acquaint himself with the criminal case file, attend hearings concerning the extension of his detention (on 22 December 2002, 20   March, 18   April, 12 May, 20 June, 18   July, 26 December 2003, 18 March, 15 June, 12   August, 29 September, 12 October and 28 December 2004 and 30 March 2005) and hearings of his criminal case (as a minimum 28 July, 7 and 22   August and 30 September 2003, 14 April, 5 and 17 May, 15   June, 29   September, 30 November and 1   and 16 December 2004, and 26   April and 30 May 2005). 1.     Akhtubinsk IVS 37 .     According to the applicant, his cell measured approximately 13.3   square metres and housed twelve to twenty persons, some of whom were suffering from tuberculosis. It was not equipped with individual sleeping places. The detainees had to sleep on a forty-centimetre podium which provided sleeping places for eight or nine of them. The interior walls were covered with rough cement. The cell was infested with rats, lice, ants, flies and other insects. It was filled with tobacco smoke, because the access of fresh air was blocked. The ventilation system did not work and the only window in the cell was covered by a metal sheet. The cell had only one 100 ‑ watt lamp, which was on day and night. During the summer the temperature in the cell was around 40 degrees Celsius. In the winter the detainees suffered from “terrible cold”.   They could not leave the cell without authorisation and were not allowed to move freely around the facility. Two or three times a day they were escorted to toilet facilities in groups of three to five. The cell was not equipped with a lavatory pan or running water. Inmates were provided with a single bucket for both waste and lavatory purposes. The bucket serving as a lavatory was not separated from the rest of the cell, and thus offered no privacy. The applicant and his cellmates had two meals a day of very poor quality at 2 p.m. and 6 p.m. All of them ate from one four-litre pan using five spoons. 38.     The applicant also submitted a formal warning of 15 June 2004 no.   16-43-2004, issued by the Akhtubinsk Prosecutor’s Office (“the Prosecutor’s Office”) and addressed to the Head of the Akhtubinsk IVS. It reads as follows: “The inspection report indicates that Akhtubinsk IVS does not satisfy the requirements of domestic legislation applicable to detention facilities. It is not equipped with medical staff. Accordingly, prophylactic and anti-epidemic measures are not performed. The detainees’ clothes and bedding are not disinfected on a   regular basis. The register of medical examinations, the sanitary register and the register of disinfection are not properly completed. The detainees are not examined on admission by a medical professional. The authorities do not ensure a weekly shower. The above leads to the detention of persons with various infections, sexually transmitted diseases, skin diseases, mental disorders and other diseases alongside healthy inmates. This causes the spread of diseases among the detainees ... and the staff members of the Akhtubinsk IVS. It has been stated that the Akhtubinsk Department of the Interior, Astrakhan Region, has a medical assistant who carries out superficial inspections of the Akhtubinsk IVS, and assesses whether the domestic standards are complied with. This is not so. This person cannot be considered an employee of the Akhtubinsk IVS, because he does not carry out the entirety of the duties of such a post. The Prosecutor’s Office has already warned the detention facility’s management about the inappropriate sanitary conditions in the Akhtubinsk IVS, but no effective action has been taken by the authorities. In view of the above, and the provisions of section 24 of the Federal Law pertaining to the Prosecutor’s Office (“the Prosecutor’s Office Act”)” I prescribe: 1.     An internal investigation to determine whether a disciplinary punishment should be applied to the responsible officials. 2.     Effective measures to prevent and put right violations of the Federal Law pertaining to detention of suspects and accused persons (“the Suspects and Accused Persons (Detention) Act”. 3.     Action to comply with this warning without delay: the Prosecutor’s Office to be informed within one month of the action that has been taken.” 39.     The Government argued that applicant’s cell was disinfected on a regular basis and that he was provided with meals in line with the expected standards. They agreed that overall the conditions of his detention in the Akhtubinsk IVS were incompatible with the requirements of Article 3 of the Convention. 2.     IZ-30/1 40 .     The applicant stated that the conditions of his detention in IZ-30/1 had been appalling. 41.     The Government noted that the applicant was held in IZ-30/1 on many occasions between 23 January 2003 and 25 October 2005. Their submissions as regards the conditions of detention in IZ-30/1 may be summarised as follows: Cell no. Cell surface area (square metres) Window sizes (centimetres) Number of cellmates 60 22.7 92 x 90 6 -10 13 22.6 114 x 107 56 22.9 134 x 119 109 29.9 90 x 134 61 25.5 125 x 171 64 27.1 127 x 172 35 25.2 125 x 162 100 29.9 130 x 130 87 29.7 no information 55 21.8 143 x 112 42.     According to the Government, the applicant was at all times provided with an individual bed and bedding, even though the personal space afforded to him was, on certain occasions, less than the statutory 4   sq.   m per person. The applicant was provided with three meals per day. The quality of the food was subject to the requisite quality control. 43.     Every cell in the remand prison where the applicant was detained was equipped with powered ventilation. The ventilation system was in working order. Natural ventilation was achieved by means of trickle vents in the windows. The temperature in the cells was between 18 and 25 degrees Celsius. The heating and water supply were in compliance with the applicable standards. There were no metal bars on the windows. Accordingly, access to daylight was not blocked. The artificial lighting was in compliance with the applicable specifications; there were two lamps, of 100 watts and 60 watts, which were on from 6 a.m. to 10 p.m. and from 10   p.m. to 6 a.m. respectively. 44.     The toilet was separated from the living area of the cell by a two metre high brick or metal screen ensuring privacy. The cells were regularly cleaned and disinfected. 45.     Detainees were permitted to take a shower at least once a week for not less than fifteen minutes. 46.     The Government lastly submitted that the detention facility had had a fully equipped medical station. 3.     Conditions of transportation 47.     The applicant submitted that he had been frequently transported between the Akhtubinsk IVS and IZ-30/1 during his detention in these two facilities and that the conditions of his transportation had been appalling. First, he was deprived of the opportunity to sleep, because he was taken out of his cell at 11 p.m. and returned there at 3 a.m. Secondly, on the days of transportation the applicant did not receive any food (including travel rations) or water and on every occasion the prison vans were severely overcrowded. Lastly, during the transfers the detainees had to use a bottle or a plastic bag to wash themselves. There was also no possibility to use the toilet. 48.     The Government provided the Court with the date of the applicant’s transfers (see paragraph 36 above), but did not submit any other information about the conditions of the applicant’s transportation. 4.     Medical treatment 49.     The applicant stated that before his arrest he had contracted hepatitis C. During pre-trial detention he was placed in a cell with other detainees who were infected with tuberculosis, leading to his contracting that disease. He further stated that during the detention he suffered from dermatosis and dental problems. According to the applicant, he was neither provided with adequate medical treatment nor with an appropriate diet. 50 .     In accordance with a medical report of an unspecified date, submitted by the Government, during the applicant’s detention he was provided with adequate medical treatment. The report reads as follows: “Retrospective analysis of the submitted medical records confirm that [the applicant] had been suffering from hepatitis C since 2002. During his detention [the applicant] underwent several medical examinations and received medical treatment. The last [in-patient] treatment was provided in August 2008 in the hospital of IZ-2. The results of his medical examination indicate that [the applicant] had chronic hepatitis C of low activity. In connection with this he underwent basic treatment and antivirus treatment. He was provided with hepatoprotectors and vitamins. At the present time [the applicant] continues to receive pathogenetic and aetiological treatment. On 23 January 2003 at admission to IZ-30/1 he underwent an X-ray examination, [which indicated no pathology] of the lungs. In 2003 and 2004 [the applicant] had two such examinations. During his stay in IZ-30/1 he was often transported to the Akhtubinsk IVS to take part in court hearings or investigative actions. In 2004 he complained of weakness, pain in the right part of his stomach and a bitter taste in his mouth. Owing to these complaints he was diagnosed with hepatitis and on 4 March 2004 he was sent to a regional hospital, were he underwent a complex medical examination. This examination indicated that he had infiltrative tuberculosis in the lower part of his right lung, pneumonia and hepatitis C. After anti-inflammation and anti-bacterial treatment the aforementioned diagnosis was confirmed. [The applicant] was transferred to [a special hospital] where he received specific complex anti-tuberculosis treatment from 30 March to 29 April 2004. Later, the patient refused further in-patient treatment and was transported to IZ ‑ 30/1. On 14 May 2004 an expert panel of the regional anti-tuberculosis clinic confirmed the diagnosis and concluded that his treatment had been prompt and adequate and had led to a positive health outcome. On 14 February 2005 the expert panel stated that the [applicant] had recovered from tuberculosis. Only some insignificant traces of the disease remained in his lungs. Until the patient’s departure for a penal colony on 25 October 2005, he received anti-relapse treatment. [The applicant’s] disease was apparently caused by his frequent transportation to the IVS, chronic stress, hepatitis C, his anti-social behaviour and smoking. The patient’s disease was promptly diagnosed by means of an X-ray examination, and efficiently treated in line with the relevant standards.” 51.     The Government also submitted the applicant’s voluminous medical records, covering the period from 2003 to 2008. They show that during his detention the applicant underwent ten X-ray examinations, several HIV tests, and a variety of other medical examinations, including blood tests. Besides the history of his tuberculosis and hepatitis treatment, the medical records contain information about the treatment of his skin diseases. Thus, in January 2004 following his complaints regarding itching, the applicant was examined by a doctor, diagnosed with streptodermosis and provided with an ointment. In February 2004 he was diagnosed with a recent dermatitis and was also provided with ointments and other medicines. From 2005 to 2008 he did not complain about skin problems. On one occasion in June 2004 the applicant complained of headache. In connection with this, he was examined by a psychiatrist, who confirmed that he had no mental disorders and prescribed him nootropil and vitamins. D.     The applicant’s complaints concerning the conditions of his detention and the quality of medical treatment 1.     Application to the Prosecutor’s Office 52.     On 17 September 2004 the applicant applied to the Prosecutor’s Office for criminal proceedings to be instituted against the management of the Akhtubinsk IVS, who had put him in the same cell as infected detainees and failed to ensure the compatibility of the conditions of his detention with the minimum standards set forth by domestic law, and had failed to provide him with adequate medical assistance. 53.     On 27 September 2004 the applicant’s complaint was dismissed. The Prosecutor’s Office agreed that the conditions of the applicant’s detention did not fully satisfy the requirements of domestic law and that there were some omissions on the part of the management. However, it concluded that the management’s actions did not amount to a criminal offence. The Prosecutor’s Office did not specify the established omissions of the prison authorities. 54.     On 12 December 2004 the applicant challenged the aforementioned decision in court under Article 125 of the Russian Code of Criminal Procedure. 55.     On 13 January 2004 the Town Court allowed the applicant’s claim and quashed the impugned decision, because the Prosecutor’s Office had not provided details of the management’s omissions. 56.     No further decisions concerning the outcome of the examination of the applicant’s complaints were submitted by the parties. 57.     There is no information about the examination of the applicant’s subsequent complaints of 16, 17, 19, 25, 26 and 27 July 2005, which were sent to the Prosecutor’s Office. 2.     Court claims 58.     On 7 and 14 September 2005 the applicant lodged two claims with the Town Court, seeking compensation for damage to his health and for non-pecuniary damage, which he alleged had been caused by the inadequate conditions of his detention in the Akhtubinsk IVS and remand prison   IZ ‑ 30/1. 59.     By decisions of 14 and 17 September 2005 the Town Court left the claims pending the awaited rectification of their procedural defects. The applicant was invited to clarify the list of the defendants and the factual circumstances of the alleged violations of his rights. 60.     Later the applicant’s claims were returned unexamined on the merits, as the Town Court concluded that he had failed to comply with the court’s recommendations. 61.     The applicant did not challenge the Town Court’s decisions on appeal. II.     RELEVANT DOMESTIC AND INTERNATIONAL LAW AND REPORTS A.     Extension of detention 62.     The Russian legal regulations in respect of detention during judicial proceedings are explained in the judgment of Isayev v. Russia (no.   20756/04, §§ 67-80, 22 October 2009), and Pyatkov v. Russia (no.   61767/08, § 59, 13 November 2012). 63 .     On 22 March 2005 the Constitutional Court emphasised the obligation on different state officials, particularly prosecutors, investigating authorities, courts and heads of detention facilities, to ensure that suspects and accused are detained only on the basis of a valid judicial decision and within the time-limit set by this decision, or else released immediately, and condemned the practice of holding defendants in detention solely on the ground that a bill of indictment had been lodged with the trial court; this interpretation of the relevant Articles of the CCrP was held to be incompatible with the Constitution and the European Court’s case-law. B.     Conditions of detention 64.     Section 23 of the Detention of Suspects Act of 15 July 1995 provides that detainees should be kept in conditions which satisfy sanitary and hygiene requirements. They should be provided with an individual sleeping place and given bedding, tableware and toiletries. Each inmate should have no less than four square metres of personal space in his or her cell. Moreover, detainees should be given, free of charge, sufficient food for the maintenance of good health in line with the standards established by the Government of the Russian Federation (section 22 of the Act). 65.     Article 99 of the Russian Code on the Execution of Criminal Sentences of 8 January 1997, as amended, provides that the personal space allocated to each individual in a dormitory should be no less than two square metres. Inmates are to be provided with individual sleeping places, bed linen, toiletries and clothing which is appropriate for the season. C.     Health care of detainees 66.     The relevant provisions of the domestic and international law on general health care of detainees are set out in the following judgments: Khudobin v. Russia , no. 59696/00, § 56, ECHR 2006 ‑ XII (extracts), and Vasyukov v. Russia , (no. 2974/05, §§ 36-50, 5 April 2011). THE LAW I.     ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 3 OF THE CONVENTION ON ACCOUNT OF THE CONDITIONS OF THE APPLICANT’S DETENTION AND OF ARTICLE 13 OF THE CONVENTION 67.     The applicant complained that the conditions of his detention in the Akhtubinsk IVS and IZ-30/1 between 20 December 2002 and 22 August 2005 were incompatible with Article 3 of the Convention. Article 3 of the Convention reads as follows: “No one shall be subjected to torture or to inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.” 68.     The applicant also claimed that he had not had at his disposal an effective remedy for the violation of the guarantee against ill-treatment, as required under Article 13 of the Convention, which reads as follows: “Everyone whose rights and freedoms as set forth in [the] Convention are violated shall have an effective remedy before a national authority ...” A.     Admissibility 69.     The Government submitted that the applicant had not exhausted the domestic remedies, because he had not properly raised his grievances before the domestic courts. 70.     The applicant argued that he had raised complaints concerning the conditions of his detention with the Prosecutor’s Office and before the Town Court, both of which refused to examine his claims on the merits. 71.     The Court has previously dismissed a similar argument of the Government (see Ananyev and Others v. Russia , nos. 42525/07 and 60800/08, §§ 70 and 100-19, 10 January 2012). The Court finds no reason to reach a different conclusion in the present case. 72.     The Court notes that these complaints are not manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 (a) of the Convention. It further notes that they are not inadmissible on any other grounds. They must therefore be declared admissible. B.     Merits 1.     Alleged violation of Article 13 of the Convention (a)     The parties’ submissions 73.     The Government noted that the applicant had failed to bring his grievances to the attention of the Russian courts, and submitted that his complaint should be rejected for failure to comply with the requirements of Article 35 § 1 of the Convention. In their opinion, it was open to the applicant to obtain adequate relief by addressing his grievances to a court. They cited two examples from domestic practice where claimants were awarded compensation for non-pecuniary damage for inadequate conditions of detention. Lastly, referring to the Court’s case-law (see Whiteside v.   the   United Kingdom , decision of 7 March 1994, application no. 20357/92, Decisions and Reports   76, p. 80), they pointed out that a mere doubt on the applicant’s part as to the prospect of success was not sufficient to exempt him from submitting his complaint to any of the above-mentioned competent national authorities. 74.     The applicant maintained his complaints. He argued that his grievances concerned structural problems within the Russian correctional system, and that therefore he had no effective remedies available to him. (b)     The Court’s assessment 75.     In the case of Ananyev and Others v. Russia (cited above, §§ 93-119) the Court carried out a thorough analysis of domestic remedies in the Russian legal system in respect of a complaint relating to the material conditions of detention in a remand prison. The Court concluded in that case that it was not shown that the Russian legal system offered an effective remedy that could be used to prevent a violation or prevent it from continuing once it had occurred, or to provide the applicant with adequate and sufficient redress in connection with a complaint of inadequate conditions of detention. Accordingly, the Court found that the applicants in that case did not have at their disposal an effective domestic remedy for their grievances, in breach of Article 13 of the Convention. 76.     Having examined the Government’s arguments, the Court finds no reason to depart from this conclusion in the present case. Noting that the applicant raises an “arguable” complaint under Article 3 of the Convention, the Court considers that there has been a violation of Article 13 of the Convention. 2.     Alleged violation of Article 3 of the Convention (a)     The parties’ submissions 77.     As regards the conditions of the detention in the Akhtubinsk IVS, the Government agreed that they were not in full compliance with the requirements of Article 3 of the Convention, although the cells where he was kept were disinfected on a regular basis and he was provided with meals in accordance with domestic standards. 78.     As regards IZ-30/1, the Government stated that the conditions of the applicant’s detention in this remand prison were in line with the provisions of Article 3 of the Convention. 79.     The applicant’s submissions are presented in paragraphs 37 and 40 above. In addition, he stated that the cells in IZ-30/1 were overcrowded and that the detainees were not provided with individual sleeping places. (b)     The Court’s assessment 80.     The Court will examine the merits of this part of the applicant’s complaint under Article 3 in the light of the applicable general principles reiterated in, among other cases, the case of Ananyev and Others (cited above, §§ 139-41). 81.     The Court observes at the outset that during the overall period of two years, nine months and two days between 23 January 2003 and 25 October 2005 the applicant was held in two detention facilities. Except for twenty eight days when he was transported to the Akhtubinsk IVS to attend court hearings or take part in investigative actions, the applicant was held in IZ ‑ 30/1. In IZ-30/1 he was held in ten different cells, whose size varied from 21.8 to 29.9 square metres for 6 to 10 cellmates. 82.     The Court further notes that it previously examined the conditions of detention in IZ-30/1 in 2005 and established that there was severe overcrowding in this facility (see Ananyev and Others, cited above, §§   134 ‑ 38). In its findings the Court referred to the Ombudsman’s report of 2005, which deplored the poor sanitary and hygienic conditions of detention in prison IZ-30/1, and indicated that “the prison was filled at all times well beyond its design capacity. The actual number of detainees at the end of 2005 and 2006 was more than double the capacity (see Ananyev and Others, cited above, §§ 20-21 and 134-38). 83.     Having regard to the Government’s submissions in relation to the overcrowding problem and to the fact that it has already found a violation of Article 3 of the Convention on account of an acute lack of personal space in the cells of IZ-30/1 in respect of the time during which the applicant was held there (see Ananyev and Others, cited above, § 166), the Court considers that the applicant’s cells were overcrowded. 84.     As regards the Akhtubinsk IVS, having regard to the information submitted by the parties, the Court finds it established that the applicant was detained in cramped conditions, given that the detainees had from 1.1 to 0.67   sq. m of cell space each. Moreover, the Government acknowledged the incompatibility of the conditions of detention in this facility. 85.     In view of the above, the Court finds that the applicant’s detention in these two facilities between 23 January 2003 and 25 October 2005 amounted to inhuman and degrading treatment. 86.     There has accordingly been a violation of Article 3 of the Convention. II.     ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 3 OF THE CONVENTION ON ACCOUNT OF INFECTION WITH TUBERCULOSIS AND ADEQUACY OF MEDICAL CARE 87.     The applicant complained under Article 3 of the Convention that the prison authorities had caused him to be infected with tuberculosis by placing him in a cell with detainees who had contracted this disease. He further claimed that the authorities had not ensured adequate treatment of his hepatitis and tuberculosis and had not provided him with an adequate diet. A.     The parties’ submissions 88.     The Government submitted that the applicant was provided with adequate and effective medical treatment. They referred to a medical report, cited above (see paragraph 50 above). 89.     The applicant maintained his complaints. B.     The Court’s assessment 1.     The infection with tuberculosis 90.     The Court reiterates its constant approach that even if an applicant had contracted tuberculosis while in detention, this in itself would not imply a violation of Article 3, provided that he received treatment for it (see Alver   v. Estonia , no. 64812/01, § 54, 8 November 2005, and Pitalev v.   Russia , no.   34393/03, § 53, 30 July 2009, with further references). 91.     Turning to the present case, the Court notes that during his detention the applicant underwent X-ray examinations on a regular basis. In March 2004 he was diagnosed with tuberculosis and provided with anti ‑ inflammatory, antibacterial, and complex anti-tuberculosis treatments, as well as anti-relapse treatment. On 14 February 2005 the expert panel established that he had recovered, and confirmed that his treatment had been prompt, adequate and effective (see paragraph 50 above). Given the lack of any evidence to the contrary in the case file, the Court accepts the aforementioned findings as valid. 92.     The Court concludes that the applicant’s complaint is manifestly ill ‑ founded and must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 §§ 3 and 4 of the Convention. 2.     The alleged inadequacy of medical treatment in prison 93.     The Court reiterates that an unsubstantiated allegation that medical care has been non-existent, delayed or otherwise unsatisfactory is normally insufficient to disclose an issue under Article 3 of the Convention. A credible complaint should normally include, among other things, sufficient reference to the medical condition in question, medical treatment that was sought, provided, or refused, and some evidence, such as, expert reports, which are capable of disclosing serious failings in the applicant’s medical care (see Valeriy Samoylov v. Russia , no. 57541/09, §   80, 24 January 2012). 94.     The Court observes that the applicant, who was represented at the national level by a lawyer, did not provide any evidence which would substantiate his allegations of the deficiency of medical care. Moreover, he did not provide plausible explanations for this omission. 95.     At the same time, the Government submitted various documents relating to the applicant’s medical treatment in detention and the expert report concerning the adequacy of the provided treatment (see paragraph 50 above). 96.     Since these materials disclose no shortcomings on the part of the national authorities in regard to the applicant’s treatment, the Court considers that his allegations in this respect are unsubstantiated and should be rejected as manifestly ill-founded pursuant to Article 35 §§ 3 (a) and 4 of the Convention. III.     ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 3 OF THE CONVENTION ON ACCOUNT OF THE APPLICANT’S CONDITIONS OF TRANSPORTATION 97.     The applicant was also dissatisfied with the conditions of his transportation to and from the Akhtubinsk IVS during his detention in remand prison IZ-30/1. The Court will examine this complaint under Article   3 of the Convention, the relevant text of which is set out above. A.     Submissions of the parties 98.     The Government denied that there had been any issues with the conditions of the transportation, but did not submit any specific information in connection with this complaint. 99.     The applicant disagreed and maintained his complaints (see paragraph 47 above). He submitted, in particular, that many of the impugned transfers took place during the court proceedings in his criminal case. In his view, the conditions of transportation affected his physical and mental state and his ability to concentrate on the proceedings. B.     The Court’s examination 1.     Admissibility 100.     The Court notes that this part of the case is not manifestly ill ‑ founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 (a) of the Convention. It further notes that it is not inadmissible on any other grounds. It must therefore be declared admissible. 2.     Merits 101.     The Court notes that the applicant submitted a detailed and coherent description of the conditions of his transportation in part relating to the duration and general conditions of travel. The respondent Government informed the Court about the dates of the applicant’s journeys to the Akhtubinsk IVS (see paragraph 36 above), but failed to submit any specific information concerning the number of inmates in the prison vans on each of the journeys, the original documentation on the catering arrangements on these days and the real length of each of the daily journeys. 102.     The Court observes that in certain instances the respondent Government alone have access to information capable of firmly corroborating or refuting allegations under Article 3 of the Convention and that a failure on a Government’s part to submit such information without a satisfactory explanation may give rise to the drawing of inferences as to the well-foundedness of the applicant’s allegations (see, for example, Ahmet   Özkan and Others v. Turkey , no. 21689/93, § 426, 6 April 2004). Thus, the first issue to be examined is whether on the basis of the facts of the present case the Government’s failure to submit copies of the relevant prison documentation has been properly accounted for. 103.     Given the Government’s silence on this point, the Court finds that they have not accounted properly for their failure to submit detailed information supported by copies of the original documentation concerning the applicant’s trips, with the result that the Court may draw inferences from their conduct (see Novinskiy v. Russia , no. 11982/02, §§ 101-03, 10   February 2009). In view of the above, the Court will exa