5.  The applicant was born in 1962 and lives in Sokołόw Małopolski. 6.  The applicant is a single mother and has three children. Prior to her application for an early‑retirement pension she had been employed by the same company for twenty years and paid social security contributions to the State. 7.  On 19 January 2001 the applicant filed an application with the Rzeszów Social Security Board (Zakład Ubezpieczeń Społecznych) to be granted the right to an early‑retirement pension for persons raising children who, due to the seriousness of their health condition, required constant care, the so‑called “EWK” pension”. 8.  Along with her application for a pension, the applicant submitted, among other documents concerning her daughter’s health condition, a medical certificate issued by a specialist medical centre. The certificate stated that the child (born in 1988) suffered from chronic asthma (przewlekła astma oskrzelowa) and that she had been in need of her parent’s constant care. 9.  On 29 January 2001 the Rzeszów Social Security Board (“the SSB”) issued a decision granting the applicant the right to an early‑retirement pension as of 1 January 2001 in the net amount of 593 Polish zlotys (PLN). 10.  The Social Security Board initially suspended the payment of the pension until 1 March 2001 due to the fact that the applicant was still working on the date of the decision. The applicant resigned from her job. 11.  On an unspecified date Rzeszów Social Security Board asked the Main Social Security Board’s doctor (Główny Lekarz Orzecznik) to inform it whether the applicant’s daughter required the permanent care of a parent. On 16 May 2002 the doctor stated that, on the basis of the medical documents, the child could not be considered as ever having required such care. 12.  On 27 May 2002 the Rzeszów Social Security Board issued simultaneously two decisions in respect of the applicant. By virtue of one decision, the payment of the applicant’s pension was discontinued with immediate effect. By virtue of the other decision, the Board reopened the proceedings, revoked the initial decision granting a pension and eventually refused to grant the applicant the right to an early‑retirement pension under the scheme provided for by the 1989 Ordinance. 13.  The applicant appealed against the respective decisions divesting her of the right to an early‑retirement pension. She submitted that she should receive the benefit because her child required constant care, as confirmed by the medical certificate attached to the applicant’s original application for a pension. Moreover, the applicant alleged that the revocation of her retirement pension was contrary to the principle of vested rights. 14.  On 1 August 2002 the Rzeszow Regional Court (Sąd Okręgowy) allowed the appeal and granted the applicant the EWK pension. The SSB appealed against the judgment. 15.  On 19 March 2003 the Rzeszow Court of Appeal allowed the appeal and remitted the case for reconsideration. 16.  On 20 November 2003 the Rzeszow Regional Court upheld the SSB’s decision of 27 May 2002 and dismissed the applicant’s appeal against it. The Regional Court concluded on the basis of the evidence that the applicant’s child did not require her mother’s permanent care since her health condition did not significantly impair her bodily functions. The domestic court held that the applicant had been rightfully divested of her right to a pension under the scheme provided by the 1989 Ordinance as she did not satisfy the requirement of necessary permanent care. 17.  The applicant further appealed against the first‑instance judgment. 18.  On 26 March 2004 the Rzeszów Court of Appeal (Sąd Apelacyjny) dismissed the appeal. 19.  The applicant did not lodge a cassation appeal with the Supreme Court. 20.  Following the social security proceedings the applicant was not ordered to return her early‑retirement benefits paid by the Social Security Board, despite the revocation of her right to an early‑retirement pension. 21.  The applicant submitted that after the revocation of the EWK pension she had not received any unemployment or other benefits from the State. 22.  The Government submitted that between 29 August 2006 and 24 August 2009 the applicant has been intermittently employed and was receiving a salary of approximately PLN 11,000 per year. In 2010 the applicant received unemployment benefit for a few months. In addition, the Government maintained that the applicant has been receiving child support payment, apparently from the father of her children, in the amount of PLN 7,500 per year. However, it is not clear how long she has been receiving such payment. 23.  The Government submitted that the applicant’s two adult children have been employed since 2006. Moreover, the child in respect of whom the applicant had been granted the EWK pension, now aged 21, started working in 2009. 24.  In addition, the Government submitted information as regards the various types of social benefits available in Poland. However, they did not specify which of those benefits, if any, were available in the applicant’s situation. 25.  Under the relevant laws currently in force, it appears that the applicant will qualify for a regular retirement pension in 2022. 26.  Some 130 applications arising from a similar fact pattern have been brought to the Court. The majority of the applicants form the Association of Victims of the SSB (Stowarzyszenie Osób Poszkodowanych przez ZUS) (“the Association”), an organisation monitoring the practices of the Social Security Board in Poland, in particular in the Podkarpacki region. 27.  Out of all applications lodged with the Court, about twenty‑four applicants decided not to lodge a cassation appeal against the judgment of the Court of Appeal given in their case. 28.  One hundred‑and‑four applicants lodged cassation appeals against the final judgments given in their cases. The Supreme Court entertained and dismissed on the merits fifteen appeals. In eighty‑one applications the Supreme Court refused to entertain cassation appeals on the ground that they did not raise any important legal issues or require the Supreme Court to give a new interpretation to legal provisions which raised serious doubts or gave rise to ambiguity in the jurisprudence of the domestic courts. In the remaining eight cases cassation appeals were rejected for failure to comply with various procedural requirements.


10.  The applicant was born in 1965. On 17 August 1998 he arrived in Russia from Tajikistan. He stayed in Vladimir at his cousin's flat. 11.  On 22 January 1999 the applicant was arrested on suspicion of the unlawful purchase and possession of drugs. A search was carried out in the flat where he was staying. 12.  On 30 January 1999 the applicant was charged under Article 228 § 1 of the Criminal Code with the unlawful purchase and possession of 3 grams of hashish. He pleaded not guilty and indicated that he did not need an interpreter because he had studied in Leningrad. 13.  On 12 March and 5 April 1999 the applicant's detention was extended until 11 July 1999. 14.  On 4 June 1999 the Leninskiy District Court of Vladimir refused the applicant's request for release on bail. It found that the applicant's detention had been extended in accordance with the law and that no grounds for releasing him could be established. The applicant did not appeal to the Regional Court. 15.  On 30 June and 2 September 1999 the applicant's detention was extended until 21 December 1999. 16.  On 2 December 1999 the acting Prosecutor General approved the extension of the applicant's detention until 21 June 2000. The applicant appealed to the Leninskiy District Court, which on 28 December 1999 dismissed the appeal, finding that the applicant had been charged with an particularly serious criminal offence and had resided in Vladimir only temporarily, his permanent residence being in Dushanbe, Tajikistan, so that there was good reason to suspect that he would abscond if released. The applicant did not appeal against that decision to the Regional Court. 17.  On 21 June 2000 the supervising prosecutor approved the bill of indictment and the case against the applicant and twenty co-defendants was sent to the Vladimir Regional Court for trial. 18.  On 23 June and 17 July 2000 the applicant requested the Vladimir Regional Court to review the lawfulness of his detention on remand. 19.  On 18 July 2000 the Vladimir Regional Court ordered the case to be remitted for an additional investigation because the bill of indictment had not been translated into the Tajik language, even though seven of the defendants were Tajik. The court held that the applicant and his co-defendants should remain in custody. 20.  On 24 July 2000 the prosecution appealed against the decision but subsequently withdrew their appeal. On 30 August 2000 the case was returned to the Vladimir Regional Court for examination on the merits. 21.  On 23 November 2000 the Vladimir Regional Court ordered the case to be remitted for an additional investigation because the rights of some of the defendants had been unlawfully restricted. The prosecution appealed. 22.  On 28 February 2001 the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation quashed the decision of 23 November 2000. It found that, after the case had been remitted for an additional investigation on 18 July 2000, the prosecution had not remedied the defects identified by the Regional Court. In particular, the prosecution had not arranged for translation of the bill of indictment or checked that the interpreter had the requisite skills. In view of these procedural defects, the Supreme Court held that all the subsequent judicial decisions had been unlawful and remitted the case to the Regional Court for implementation of the decision of 18 July 2000. 23.  On 4 April 2001 the case was remitted to the prosecutor of the Vladimir Region for an additional investigation. On the same day a deputy prosecutor of the Vladimir Region extended the applicant's detention on remand by one month, until 4 May 2001.
(b)  Extension of the applicant's detention for three months (until 4 September 2001) 24.  On 19 April 2001 the prosecutor of the Vladimir Region applied to the Vladimir Regional Court for an order extending the applicant's detention. The applicant lodged objections in which he alleged, inter alia, that the prosecution had thus far failed to perform any additional investigation. 25.  On 28 April 2001 the Vladimir Regional Court established that the bill of indictment had been translated into Tajik and that on 18 April 2001 the defendants and their lawyers had begun their examination of the case file. Noting the gravity of the charges against the applicant, his Tajik nationality and absence of a permanent residence in Vladimir, the Regional Court further remanded him in custody until 4 September 2001. 26.  On 4 and 17 May 2001 the applicant appealed against the decision of the Vladimir Regional Court.
(c)  Quashing of the decision to extend the applicant's detention until 4 September 2001 27.  On 8 August 2001 the Supreme Court established that one of the applicant's co-defendants had not been provided with an interpreter into Uzbek and that the applicant and other co-defendants had had no access to the materials examined by the Regional Court. It held as follows:
“The defects of the court hearing described above and the curtailing of the defendants' statutory rights... are substantial violations of the rules of criminal procedure, which could have affected the judge's conclusions; the decision [of 28 April 2001] must therefore be quashed and the materials of the case relating to the extension of the defendants' pre-trial detention must be referred for a new judicial examination. During the new examination of the prosecutor's request, the above defects shall be remedied... and the arguments by the defendants and their counsel, including those concerning the lawfulness of their detention, shall be reviewed... The preventive measure [imposed on, in particular, the applicant] shall remain unchanged”.
By an interim decision of the same date, the Supreme Court refused the applicant leave to appear at the appeal hearing.
(d)  Second examination of the request for an extension of the applicant's detention until 4 September 2001 28.  On 11 September and 30 November 2001 the Vladimir Regional Court adjourned hearings in order to afford the defendants additional time in which to read the case-file. 29.  On 27 February 2002 the Vladimir Regional Court upheld a challenge by the applicant against the presiding judge. 30.  On 11 and 13 March, 12 April, 17 and 18 June 2002 hearings were adjourned because of the absence of several lawyers, including the applicant's counsel. 31.  On 15 August 2002 the Vladimir Regional Court again granted the prosecutor's request (of 19 April 2001) for an extension of the defendants' detention on remand until 4 September 2001. It found that it was necessary for the applicant to remain in custody because he was a national of Tajikistan, was not registered as resident in Vladimir, and had been charged with a serious criminal offence. The court also referred to certain “conclusions” contained in the prosecutor's application to the effect that the applicant might abscond or obstruct justice. The content of these “conclusions” was not disclosed. 32.  On 23 September 2002 the applicant lodged an appeal against the decision of the Vladimir Regional Court. He claimed that the contested decision was “unlawful and unconstitutional” and requested leave to appear in person at the appeal hearing. 33.  On 23 January 2003 the Supreme Court upheld the decision of 15 August 2002, finding as follows:
“The judge came to a well-justified conclusion that the defendants... could not be [released pending trial]. The judge had regard to the fact that these persons were charged with serious and particularly serious criminal offences, he considered the information on their character and all the circumstances to which the prosecutor had referred in support of his application...
The fact that the above-mentioned decision on the prosecutor's application was [only] made after the defendants had spent that length of time in custody... is not a ground for quashing the decision of 15 August 2002 because the first judicial decision on this matter was quashed in accordance with the law and the prosecutor's application of 19 April 2001 was remitted for a new examination. The subsequent progress of the criminal case is, under these circumstances, of no relevance to a decision on the prosecutor's application.”
By an interim decision of the same date, the Supreme Court refused the applicant's request for leave to appear because the defendants' arguments were clearly set out in their grounds of appeal and their lawyers were present at the hearing while the prosecutor was not. 34.  Meanwhile, on 4 September 2001 the additional investigation was completed and the case sent to the Vladimir Regional Court. On or about that date the applicant asked the court to order his release pending the trial. 35.  On 9 January 2002 the Vladimir Regional Court fixed the first hearing for 5 February 2002 and held that the applicant should remain in custody pending trial:
“[The court] did not establish any grounds... to amend or revoke the preventive measure imposed on the accused given the gravity of the offence with which the defendants are charged. Furthermore, the fact that the court decision extending the detention on remand of several defendants in order to afford them [time] to examine the case materials was quashed on appeal is of no legal significance. [In its decision of 8 August 2001] the Supreme Court did not revoke the preventive measure, the case was referred to the [trial] court without delay and no other grounds for amending the preventive measure were established.” 36.  On 11 February 2002 the applicant lodged an appeal against the decision. He complained, in particular, that his detention was unlawful because it had significantly exceeded the maximum eighteen-month period permitted by law, that the conditions in which he was detained were poor and that he had been ill-treated by police officers, both at the time of his arrest and subsequently. He alleged that his notice of appeal had never been dispatched to the Supreme Court. 37.  On 5 February 2002 the hearing was adjourned until 26 February because three defendants had failed to appear. On 15 February 2002 the applicant prepared an appeal against the decision to adjourn the hearing; in the notice of appeal, he also repeated the points he had raised in his appeal of 11 February. He again stated that his notice of appeal had not been sent to the Supreme Court. 38.  On 13 March 2002 the Vladimir Regional Court established that the case was not ready for consideration on the merits because of a series of procedural defects: in particular, several defendants had not had sufficient time to study the case file, one defendant had not been provided with interpretation facilities into Uzbek, and the applicant had not been informed in good time of the expert examinations. The court remitted the case for an additional investigation and remanded the defendants in custody “in the light of the gravity and dangerous nature of the offences”. 39.  On 11 April 2002 the prosecution appealed against the decision of 13 March and the applicant did likewise on 29 April. The applicant submitted, in particular, that the domestic law did not permit extensions of detention “during the investigation” beyond the maximum period of eighteen months which had expired, in his case, on 4 April 2001. 40.  On 28 May 2002 the case-file was forwarded to the Supreme Court for examination of the issue of detention on remand. 41.  On 8 August 2002 the Supreme Court refused, in an interim decision, the applicant's request for leave to appear, holding that his position had been clearly and exhaustively stated in the grounds of appeal. 42.  On 12 September 2002 it examined the appeals lodged by the prosecutor, the applicant and his co-defendants and found that the defence rights had not been impaired. On this ground it quashed the decision of 13 March 2002 and instructed the Vladimir Regional Court to proceed with the trial. It held that the applicant and his co-defendants should remain in custody because “there were no legal grounds to amend the preventive measure given the gravity and dangerous nature of the offences”. 43.  On 7 October 2002 the case-file was returned to the Vladimir Regional Court. 44.  On 18 November 2002 the Vladimir Regional Court extended the applicant's detention on remand until 3 December 2002. It found as follows:
“The case was referred to the Vladimir Regional Court on 2 September 2001; on 13 March 2002 it was decided to remit the case for additional investigation. On 12 September 2002 the Supreme Court quashed that decision on appeal by the prosecutor. Thus, the defendants have remained in custody for 8 months and 16 days, starting from the date of the case's referral and excluding the period between [the end of the] examination on the merits and the quashing of the decision [of 13 March 2002] on appeal.
Regard being had to the fact that the defendant is charged with serious and particularly serious criminal offences, in order to secure the examination of the case and the enforcement of the conviction [sic], there are no grounds to [release the applicant]. Under these circumstances, pursuant to Article 255 § 3 of the Russian Code of Criminal Procedure, the defendant's detention on remand is extended for an additional three months”. 45.  On 4 December 2002 the Vladimir Regional Court granted a further extension of the applicant's detention for three months, that is to say until 3 March 2003 [the decision mistakenly indicates 2002]. The grounds invoked by the court were identical to those set out in the decision of 18 November 2002. 46.  On 22 and 26 November and 5 December 2002 the applicant's lawyers lodged appeals against the decisions of 18 November and 4 December with the Supreme Court. They submitted, in particular, that the six-month period of the applicant's detention which had started from the moment the case was referred for trial, had expired on 2 March 2002 but had been extended only two months and sixteen days later, on 18 November. Therefore, the applicant's detention from 13 March to 12 September 2002 had not been covered by any detention order: the prosecution had not assumed responsibility for the case, whilst the courts considered that the case had been remitted for an additional investigation and held the prosecution accountable for the applicant's detention. 47.  On 3 March, 28 May, 28 August and 27 November 2003 and 27 February 2004 the Vladimir Regional Court authorised further extensions of detention in respect of the applicant and 12 co-defendants, on each occasion for a period of three months. The reasons given in the decisions of 3 March, 28 May and 28 August 2003 were identical to those given in the decisions of 18 November and 4 December 2002 (see above). The decisions of 27 November 2003 and 27 February 2004 referred to the gravity of the charges and the existence of “sufficient reasons to believe that the defendants would abscond”.
The applicant submitted appeals against each of these decisions. 48.  Between May 2003 and 15 March 2004 the trial proceeded. On 19 April 2004 the parties began their final submissions. 49.  On 28 May 2004 the Vladimir Regional Court, by an interim decision, held that the applicant's detention on remand was not to be extended because the prosecution had reduced the charges against him. He appears to have been released from custody the same day. 50.  On 21 March 2005 the Supreme Court examined the applicant's and/or his co-defendants' appeals against the decisions of 18 November and 4 December 2002, 3 March, 28 May, 28 August and 27 November 2003 and 27 February 2004 extending their detention on remand.
The Supreme Court quashed the decisions of 18 November and 4 December 2002 and 3 March 2003 on the ground that they had been given by an incomplete formation: a single judge instead of a three-judge panel. As regards the applicant's situation, it further held:
“Since the judge's decision has been quashed because of a breach of the rules of criminal procedure, the court will not examine the arguments in the appeals alleging that the extension of the [applicant's] detention was unlawful on other grounds. The matter will not be remitted for a new examination because [the applicant] has been acquitted.”
The Supreme Court upheld the other decisions, finding that the Regional Court had correctly referred to the gravity of the charges and the existence of sufficient grounds to believe that the defendants would abscond during the trial. 51.  On 18 June 2004 the Vladimir Regional Court, by an interim decision, dismissed the charges of participation in an organised criminal enterprise and running an opium den against the applicant after they were withdrawn by the prosecution. 52.  By another interim decision of the same date, the court dismissed a charge against the applicant in respect of one incident of drug possession because of a recent change in the Russian criminal law that had decriminalised possession of negligible amounts of drugs. 53.  Finally, by a judgment of the same date, the court acquitted the applicant of the remaining drug-trafficking charges because his involvement in the commission of the offences could not be proven. Some of his co-defendants were convicted and sentenced to various terms of imprisonment. 54.  On 21 March 2005 the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation upheld, on appeal, the above judgment and decisions of the Vladimir Regional Court. 55.  On 10 December 2002 the Constitutional Court examined the applicant's complaint concerning his exclusion from the proceedings before the Supreme Court and confirmed that the applicant should have had the right to appear in person and plead his case before the court if a prosecutor was present. 56.  On 15 July 2003 the Constitutional Court issued decision (определение) no. 292-O on the applicant's complaint about the ex post facto extension of his “detention during trial” by the Regional Court's decision of 18 November 2002. It held as follows:
“Article 255 § 3 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of the Russian Federation provides that the [trial court] may... upon the expiry of six months after the case was sent to it, extend the defendant's detention for successive periods of up to three months. It does not contain, however, any provisions permitting the courts to take a decision extending the defendant's detention on remand once the previously authorised time-limit has expired, in which event the person is detained for a period without a judicial decision. Nor do other rules of criminal procedure provide for such a possibility. Moreover, Articles 10 § 2 and 109 § 4 of the Code of Criminal Procedure expressly require the court, prosecutor, investigator... to release anyone who is unlawfully held in custody beyond the time-limit established in the Code immediately. Such is also the requirement of Article 5 §§ 3 and 4 of the European Convention... which is an integral part of the legal system of the Russian Federation, pursuant to Article 15 § 4 of the Russian Constitution...” 57.  On 22 January 2004 the Constitutional Court delivered decision no. 66-O on the applicant's complaint about the Supreme Court's refusal to permit him to attend the appeal hearings on the issue of detention. It held:
“Article 376 of the Code of Criminal Procedure regulating the presence of a defendant remanded in custody before the appeal court... cannot be read as depriving the defendant held in custody... of the right to express his opinion to the appeal court, by way of his personal attendance at the hearing or by other lawful means, on matters relating to the examination of his complaint about a judicial decision affecting his constitutional rights and freedoms...” 58.  From 16 February 2000 to 28 May 2004 the applicant was held in detention facility no. OD-1/T-2 of the Vladimir Region (учреждение ОД‑1/Т-2 УИН МЮ РФ по Владимирской области), known as “Vladimirskiy Tsentral”. He stayed in various cells in wings nos. 3 and 4, built in 1870 and 1846, respectively.
(a)  Number of inmates per cell 59.  According to a certificate issued on 22 April 2004 by the facility director, and which the Government have produced, the applicant was kept in eight cells described as follows: cell no. 4-14 (12.1 square metres, 6 bunks, average population 4 to 6 inmates), cell no. 4-13 (12.3 sq. m, 6 bunks, 5 to 7 inmates), cell no. 4-9 (23.4 sq. m, 13 bunks, 13 to 20 inmates), cells nos. 3-3, 3-53, 3-54, 3-51 and 3-52 (35 to 36 sq. m, 16 bunks, 12 to 18 inmates). 60.  The applicant did not dispute the cell measurements or the number of bunks. He disagreed, however, with the figure given by the Government for the number of inmates. According to him, between February and December 2000 he stayed in cell no. 4-9 that housed 18 to 35 inmates and between December 2000 and May 2004 he was kept in cells measuring approximately 36 sq. m, together with 20 to 40 other detainees. After the new Code of Criminal Procedure came into effect on 1 July 2002, the number of inmates in his cell dropped to between 15 and 25. Given the lack of beds, inmates slept in eight-hour shifts. They waited for their turn sitting on the concrete floor or on a stool if one was available.
In support of his statements the applicant produced written depositions by three former cellmates, Mr Abdurakhmon Kayumov, Mr Sergey Gunin and Mr Yan Kelerman. They stated, in particular, that in 2003-2004 cell no. 3-52 had housed 20 to 30 inmates (Mr Kayumov's deposition) or even 25 to 35 (Mr Gunin's deposition), as had cells nos. 3-51 and 3-53. They also testified that they and the other detainees had slept in turns.
(b)  Sanitary conditions and installations 61.  The Government, relying on a certificate of 8 April 2004 from the facility director, submitted that the “sanitary and anti-epidemic condition of the facility remained satisfactory, including... in the cells where [the applicant] had been held”. Another certificate of 20 April 2004 showed that “the cells... were equipped with [a lavatory pan] placed no more than 10 cm above the floor and separated by a partition of 1.5 m in height with additional curtains”. Running tap water was available and detainees were permitted to use immersion heaters. 62.  The applicant conceded that there had been no outbreaks of contagious diseases or epidemics. Apart from that, the sanitary conditions were wholly unsatisfactory. Prisoners infected with tuberculosis, hepatitis, scabies and the human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) were occasionally held in his cell. The cells were infested by lice, bed-bugs, flies, mosquitoes, cockroaches, rats and mice, but the facility administration did not provide any repellents or insecticides. Detainees were not given any toiletries, such as soap, toothbrush, toothpaste or toilet paper, apart from 100 grams of caustic soda once a week and two plastic bottles of bleach (1.5 litres each) every two or three months. Cells had no ventilation systems. In winter they were cold and in summer it was hot, stuffy and excessively damp inside. 63.  The applicant challenged the Government's description of the toilet facilities as factually untrue. The cast-iron pan was raised on a pedestal about 50-80 cm high and separated from the living area from one side with a one-metre-high partition. The person using the toilet was in full view of other inmates. No curtains were provided; occasionally the inmates hung a sheet but wardens tore it down and disciplined those responsible. What is more, the lavatory pan had no seat or cover: inmates stuck an empty plastic bottle in the hole in order to prevent smells from spreading. The dining table was fixed to the floor just a few metres from the pan. His description was corroborated by written depositions by former cellmates, Mr Kayumov, Mr Gunin, Mr Kelerman and Mr Sergey Kalenik, and four colour photos showing the lavatory pan and the dining table from various angles.
(c)  Food 64.  The Government asserted that “the applicant was fed in accordance with the established legal norms”. It appears from an undated certificate signed by the facility director that his daily diet consisted of 100 g of meat, 100 g of fish, 100 g of groats, 20 g of pasta, 20 g of salt, 1 g of tea [sic], 0.5 kg of potatoes, 0.25 kg of vegetables, 0.55 kg of bread. 65.  The applicant submitted that the food was of an extremely low quality. Many a meal only contained so-called balanda, a soup-like mix of millet, barley and pasta without any fat. Meat was replaced with a soya substitute. No fresh vegetables were given, occasionally the evening meal included cooked beetroot, sauerkraut or pickled cucumbers. Salt and tea were never distributed. Written depositions by four of the applicant's former cellmates confirmed these submissions.
(d)  Outdoor exercise 66.  The parties agreed that the applicant had been entitled to a daily walk of about one hour. The applicant indicated, however, that he was not able to go outdoors on days when there were court hearings. 67.  The Government did not describe the outdoor conditions. The applicant, and four former cellmates in written depositions, portrayed the following picture of the exercise yards: The yards were closed premises measuring 12, 26 or 40 sq. m. The opening to the sky was covered with a metal roof with a one-metre gap between the roof and the top of the walls. In summer it was extremely hot and stifling inside as the sun heated the roof. The walls were coated with so-called shuba, a sort of abrasive concrete lining, designed to prevent detainees from leaning on the walls. The entire cell population was brought to the yard at once; occasionally it was impossible to move around, let alone to exercise, because of the sheer number of prisoners.
(e)  Other issues 68.  According to the applicant, metal blinds that prevented natural light getting into the cells were only removed on 28 December 2002 after a delegation that included a representative of the Council of Europe had paid a visit to Vladimir detention facilities. The Government did not contest that information.
(f)  Contact with the outside world 69.  The applicant's relatives were not permitted to see him throughout the pre-trial investigation. After the trial began, he was allowed four short visits by his wife, children, sister and brother. At these meetings the applicant and his parents were prohibited from talking in any language other than Russian. The applicant was likewise prohibited from corresponding with his relatives other than in Russian: the facility administration refused to dispatch or hand over letters written in Tajik. 70.  The Government explained that these restrictions had been due to the lack of a staff interpreter from Tajik in the facility. 71.  The applicant was transported from the remand centre to the Vladimir Regional Court for hearings on 205 occasions; of these hearings, 185 concerned the charges against him and 20 applications for extensions of detention. The applicant offered the following description of these days, which was corroborated by written depositions from four former cellmates. 72.  On the day of the hearing he was woken up at 4 or 5 a.m. At about 8 a.m. he was taken from his cell to the so-called “assembly cell”, together with other detainees who had a hearing on that day. Each “assembly cell” measured 9.2 to 9.9 sq. m and housed 10 to 20 prisoners. “Assembly cells” had no ventilation system and the air was soon heavy with smoke. At about 9 or 9.30 a.m. the applicant was taken to a van. 73.  The prison van had one collective compartment designed for four prisoners and six individual compartments of one sq. m. It was designed to carry ten prisoners. However, it transported between 15 and 20 and on one occasion 27 detainees. The applicant was put in an individual compartment together with another prisoner. Owing to the lack of space, one of them would sit on the bench and the other on his lap. The route to the Vladimir Regional Court took one hour and the van called at other facilities on its way. 74.  The applicant did not normally arrive back at the prison until 6 or 8 p.m. During the day he received no food or outdoor exercise and was liable to miss out on the shower he was allowed periodically. 75.  The Government submitted that the applicant had been transported in special prison vans that met the standard requirements. The route from facility no. OD-1/T-2 to the Vladimir Regional Court was eight kilometres long and took thirty minutes.


5.  The applicant was born in 1966 and lives in Westcliff on Sea. 6.  On 30 April 1994 the applicant was sentenced to eighteen years' imprisonment for serious crimes including attempted murder, which carried a maximum sentence of life imprisonment. Under the legislative regime applicable at the time, he became eligible for release on parole on 13 March 2002 and entitled to release on 18 March 2005 (see paragraphs 24 and 27 below). 7.  On 25 March 2002 the Parole Board recommended the applicant's release on parole on the grounds that the risk to the public had been significantly reduced; that the proposed resettlement plan would secure his rehabilitation; and that the applicant would comply with the licence conditions. 8.  Under the legislation in force at the time, the final decision on early release in cases involving prisoners serving determinate sentences (i.e. fixed-term sentences) of more than fifteen years' imprisonment lay with the Secretary of State (see paragraphs 27-29 below). For prisoners serving determinate sentences of less than fifteen years and for prisoners serving indeterminate (i.e. life) sentences, the approval of the Secretary of State following a positive recommendation of the Parole Board was not required. On 25 October 2002 the Secretary of State rejected the recommendation of the Parole Board in the applicant's case, concluding that the release of the applicant would present an unacceptable risk to the public. As a result, the applicant was not released. 9.  On 17 February 2003, the applicant was granted leave to bring judicial review proceedings in respect of the decision of the Secretary of State to refuse his early release. His principal ground of challenge was that it was a breach of Article 5 of the Convention taken together with Article 14 that the Secretary of State should retain the power to determine the release on parole licence of only one group of prisoners, i.e. those who were serving determinate terms of imprisonment of fifteen years or more (see paragraphs 23-31 below for details of the law in force at the relevant time). 10.  The Parole Board subsequently reconsidered the applicant's case and on 17 March 2003 did not recommend release. The Court has not been provided with details of the reasons for this decision. 11.  On 9 June 2003, the Divisional Court dismissed the applicant's judicial review claim. For the purposes of the proceedings, the Secretary of State accepted that the question of early release from a determinate sentence fell within the ambit of Article 5 of the Convention and that Article 14 was therefore engaged. Hooper J found that there was differential treatment between analogous groups, namely those serving sentences of fifteen years or more and those serving sentences of almost fifteen years, in that prisoners serving sentences of fifteen years or more had to secure a recommendation from the Parole Board and approval from the Secretary of State whereas those serving almost fifteen years needed only a recommendation from the Parole Board. However, he considered that the differential treatment pursued the legitimate aim of reserving to a politically and democratically accountable minister the power to control the release of those serving long determinate sentences. He further considered that the power was proportionate in light of the problems posed by such prisoners for public safety and public order. Accordingly, he found that there was no violation of Article 5 together with Article 14. 12.  On 30 October 2003, the applicant was granted leave to appeal to the Court of Appeal. 13.  The Parole Board subsequently reconsidered the applicant's case and on 25 February 2004 once again recommended the applicant's release. On this occasion the Secretary of State accepted the recommendation, and on 10 March 2004 Mr Clift was released on licence. 14.  On 29 April 2004, the Court of Appeal endorsed the judgment of Hooper J and dismissed the applicant's appeal. It found the question of release from a determinate sentence to be arguably within the ambit of Article 5 of the Convention and agreed with Hooper J that although there was differential treatment between two comparable groups, this difference in treatment was objectively justified in that it pursued a legitimate aim and was proportionate. 15.  The applicant was granted leave to appeal to the House of Lords. 16.  On 13 December 2006, their Lordships unanimously dismissed the applicant's appeal. They agreed that the right to seek early release, where domestic law provided for such a right, was clearly within the ambit of Article 5 of the Convention. Lord Bingham of Cornhill noted (at paragraphs 17-18):
“The Convention does not require member states to establish a scheme for early release of those sentenced to imprisonment. Prisoners may, consistently with the Convention, be required to serve every day of the sentence passed by the judge, or be detained until a predetermined period or proportion of the sentence has been served, if that is what domestic law provides. But this is not what the law of England and Wales provided, in respect of long-term determinate prisoners, at the times relevant to these appeals. That law provided for a time at which (subject to additional days of custody imposed for disciplinary breaches) a prisoner must, as a matter of right, be released, and an earlier time at which he might be released if it was judged safe to release him but at which he need not be released if it was not so judged.
  A number of grounds (economy and the need to relieve over-crowding in prisons) have doubtless been relied on when introducing pre-release schemes from determinate sentences such as those under consideration here. But one such consideration is recognition that neither the public interest nor the interest of the offender is well served by continuing to detain a prisoner until the end of his publicly pronounced sentence; that in some cases those interests will be best served by releasing the prisoner at the earlier, discretionary, stage; and that in those cases prisoners should regain their freedom (even if subject to restrictions) because there is judged to be no continuing interest in depriving them of it. I accordingly find that the right to seek early release, where domestic law provides for such a right, is clearly within the ambit of article 5, and differential treatment of one prisoner as compared with another, otherwise than on the merits of their respective cases, gives rise to a potential complaint under article 14.” 17.  However, unlike the lower courts, and with some hesitation, their Lordships did not find the difference in treatment in the applicant's case to be the result of his “status”, such as to fall within the prohibition on discrimination in Article 14 of the Convention. Lord Bingham said (at paragraph 28):
“I do not think that a personal characteristic can be defined by the differential treatment of which a person complains. But here Mr Clift does not complain of the sentence passed upon him, but of being denied a definitive Parole Board recommendation. Is his classification as a prisoner serving a determinate sentence of 15 years or more (but less than life) a personal characteristic? I find it difficult to apply so elusive a test. But I would incline to regard a life sentence as an acquired personal characteristic and a lifer as having an 'other status', and it is hard to see why the classification of Mr Clift, based on the length of his sentence and not the nature of his offences, should be differently regarded. I think, however, that a domestic court should hesitate to apply the Convention in a manner not, as I understand, explicitly or impliedly authorised by the Strasbourg jurisprudence, and I would accordingly, not without hesitation, resolve this question in favour of the Secretary of State and against Mr Clift.” 18.  Lord Hope of Craighead made similar observations (at paragraphs 46-49):
“It could be said in Mr Clift's case that the length of his sentence did confer a status on him which can be regarded as a personal characteristic. This is because prisoners are divided by the domestic system into broadly defined categories, or groups of people, according to the nature or the length of their sentences. These categories affect the way they are then dealt with throughout the period of their sentences. As a result they are regarded as having acquired a distinctive status which attaches itself to them personally for the purposes of the regime in which they are required to serve their sentences. This is most obviously so in the case of prisoners serving life sentences and where distinctions are drawn between short-term and long-term prisoners serving determinate sentences. It is less obviously so in the case of long-term prisoners serving determinate sentences of different lengths.
It must be accepted, as Lord Bingham points out, that a personal characteristic cannot be defined by the differential treatment of which a person complains. It is plain too that the category of long-term prisoner into which Mr Clift's case falls would not have been recognised as a separate category had it not been for the Order which treats prisoners in his group differently from others in the enjoyment of their fundamental right to liberty. But he had already been sentenced, and he had already acquired the status which that sentence gave him before the Order was made that denied prisoners in his group the right to release on the recommendation of the Parole Board. The question which his case raises is whether the distinguishing feature or characteristic which enables persons or a group of persons to be singled out for separate treatment must have been identified as a personal characteristic before it is used for this purpose by the discriminator.
The function of article 14, read with article 1 of the Convention, is to secure to everyone within the jurisdiction of the High Contracting Parties the enjoyment of the rights and freedoms set out in section 1 of the Convention without discrimination on grounds which, having regard to the underlying values of the Convention, must be regarded as unacceptable. This suggests that a generous meaning should be given to the words 'or other status' while recognising, of course, that the proscribed grounds are not unlimited. It seems to me, on this approach, that the protection of article 14 ought not to be denied just because the distinguishing feature which enabled the discriminator to treat persons or groups of persons differently in the enjoyment of their Convention rights had not previously been recognised.
But the Strasbourg jurisprudence has not yet addressed this question and, as my noble and learned friend Baroness Hale of Richmond points out, it is possible to regard what he has done, rather than who or what he is, as the true reason for the difference of treatment in Mr Clift's case ... [T]he duty of national courts is to keep pace with the Strasbourg jurisprudence as it evolves over time. A measure of self-restraint is needed, lest we stretch our own jurisprudence beyond that which is shared by all the States Parties to the Convention. I am persuaded, with some reluctance, that it is not open to us to resolve the second agreed issue in Mr Clift's favour.” 19.  Baroness Hale of Richmond considered (at paragraphs 62-63) that:
“it is plain ... that a different parole regime for foreigners who are liable to deportation from that applicable to citizens or others with the right to remain here, falls within the grounds proscribed by article 14 and thus ... requires objective justification. The same would surely apply to a difference in treatment based on race, sex or the colour of one's hair. But a difference in treatment based on the seriousness of the offence would fall outside those grounds. The real reason for the distinction is not a personal characteristic of the offender but what the offender has done.
The result is that the difference of treatment between Mr Clift and people sentenced either to shorter determinate sentences or to life imprisonment is not covered by article 14 at all. The law may look odd. But not every apparent anomaly is a breach of Convention rights. This one is the result of what the Home Secretary chose to do in relation to people sentenced to shorter terms of imprisonment and what he was obliged by the terms of article 5 itself to do in relation to life imprisonment. The law has since been changed and one can well understand why. But it is not for us to declare legislation which Parliament has passed incompatible with the Convention rights unless the Convention and its case law require us so to do. For the reasons given above, in amplification of those given by my noble and learned friend, Lord Bingham of Cornhill, we are not required to do so in this case.” 20.  Notwithstanding the conclusion of the House as to the applicability of Article 14, Lords Bingham and Brown of Eaton-under-Heywood went on to consider whether, had there been “status”, the difference in treatment would have been objectively justified. Lord Bingham (at paragraph 33) was of the view that:
“When, in October 2002, the Secretary of State rejected the Parole Board's recommendation that Mr Clift be released on parole, discretionary lifers and HMP detainees had already been brought within the definitive jurisdiction of the Parole Board, and Stafford v United Kingdom (2002) 35 EHRR 1121, requiring the same procedure for mandatory lifers, had already been decided. The differential treatment of prisoners serving 15 years or more had, in my opinion, become an anomaly. That would not, in itself, be a ground for holding it to be unjustified. Anomalies are commonplace. But by 2002 it had, in my opinion, become an indefensible anomaly because it had by then come to be recognised that assessment of the risk presented by any individual prisoner, in the application of publicly promulgated criteria, was a task with no political content and one to which the Secretary of State could not (and did not claim to) bring any superior expertise. I would accordingly resolve this issue in favour of Mr Clift and against the Secretary of State.” 21.  Lord Brown agreed with the conclusion of Lord Bingham.


4.  On 13 December 1994, the applicant sold a horse to A.G. for PLN 2,500. Two days later the buyer returned the horse claiming that it was ill. The applicant was therefore forced to pay the costs of the horse’s upkeep during the following year. As A.G. constantly refused to take the horse back, the applicant sold it to another buyer, as he could not afford the costs of upkeep. 5.  On 25 January 1995 A.G. lodged a suit against the applicant with the Tarnobrzeg District Court, claiming payment of the price. 6.  On 14 March 1995 the applicant lodged a counter-claim for costs of the upkeep of the horse. 7.  During the first hearing on 15 March 1995 the court admitted witness evidence and adjourned the case. 8.  On 5 April 1995 the court heard witnesses and adjourned the case. 9.  On 22 May 1995 the court admitted in evidence an opinion of a veterinary surgeon and adjourned the case. 10.  On 25 July 1995 the expert submitted the opinion, stating that the horse was well and had never been ill. 11.  On 6 September 1995 the court called an expert in agriculture, who estimated that the costs of upkeep of the horse had greatly exceeded its value. The court adjourned the case. 12.  On 2 October 1995 the court heard the parties. 13.  On 11 October 1995 the court delivered a judgment. Both parties appealed. 14.  On 28 March 1996 the Tarnobrzeg Regional Court returned the case file to the District Court to have it completed. 15.  On 5 September 1996 the Regional Court quashed the first-instance judgment and remitted the case for re-examination. 16.  On 16 January 1997 the parties declared that they could not reach a friendly settlement. 17.  On 9 October 1997 the court admitted the evidence of a witness and adjourned the case. 18.  On 10 February 1997 a witness was heard and the case was adjourned. 19.  On 9 April 1998 further witnesses were heard. 20.  On 2 June 1998 the court admitted in evidence another expert’s opinion. 21.  On 18 January 1999 the expert submitted the opinion. 22.  On 31 March 1999 the court summoned the expert and adjourned the case. 23.  On 5 May 1999 the court found that the plaintiff had not paid an advance for the expert’s opinion and adjourned the case until 2 June 1999. The expert failed to attend the hearing on that day and the case was adjourned until 25 June. 24.  On 19 November 1999 the District Court delivered a judgment, ordering PLN 4,690 to be paid by the applicant with interest from 1995, and 903 PLN to be paid by A.G. to the applicant. 25.  On 13 April 2000 the Tarnobrzeg Regional Court dismissed the appeals of both parties.


6.  The applicant was born in 1955 and lived until his arrest in the town of Astrakhan. 7.  On 2 March 2003 the office of the Chernoyarskiy District Prosecutor of Astrakhan opened a criminal investigation into the murder of Ms P. 8.  On 6 March 2003 the applicant was arrested and taken to the Chernoyarskiy District Police Department. According to the applicant, police officers severely beat him up to ferret out information and elicit a confession to the murder. Being unable to bear the beatings, on 8 March 2003 he wrote a statement confessing to having fired his rifle at a window of Ms P's house. He claimed that he had not intended to kill anyone. 9.  On 8 March 2003 an investigator drew up a report restating the applicant's confession. The applicant signed the report and filed a written request for provision of assistance by a lawyer, Mr C. He noted that he had confessed under duress and that the investigator had not informed him of his rights as an accused, in violation of Article 51 of the Russian Constitution. 10.  On the same day a deputy Chernoyarskiy District Prosecutor filed an application with the Chernoyarskiy District Court, seeking authorisation of the applicant's detention for an additional forty-eight hours. The applicant's lawyer, Mr C., disputed the necessity to detain the applicant. In addition, he drew the District Court's attention to the applicant's appearance, arguing that the police officers had maltreated the applicant to force him to confess to the murder. While accepting the deputy prosecutor's request, the District Court held, inter alia, that the applicant had left the crime scene and had hidden the crime weapon and that therefore he was liable to abscond and pervert the course of justice. 11.  On 11 March 2003 the Chernoyarskiy District Court authorised the applicant's further detention on remand, holding as follows:
“At the same time the court considers that the materials presented by the investigating authorities - records of investigative actions and operative measures - make it sufficiently clear that the arrest of [the applicant], that is the person who may have taken part in the above-mentioned criminal offence, was well-founded and taking into account the particular dangerousness of that criminal offence committed in grave circumstances, belonging to the category of particularly serious criminal offences, the court concludes that it is impossible to apply another, more lenient, preventive measure to [the applicant].”
The applicant and his lawyer, Mr C., attended the hearing. The decision was upheld on appeal on 20 March 2003. 12.  As shown by an extract from the registration log drawn up in the detention unit of the Chernoyarskiy District Police Department and presented by the Government, on 9 March 2003, at approximately 7.25 p.m., an ambulance was called to the applicant, who was complaining about a headache. The ambulance was called again at 11.55 a.m. and 9.30 p.m. on 12 March 2003. In response to the morning call an emergency doctor noted in the registration log that the applicant was suffering from neurasthenia syndrome and high blood pressure. On the latter occasion, a doctor made an entry in the registration log, noting that the applicant had refused a medical examination and assistance. According to the applicant, an emergency doctor did not want to record his head injury out of fear of reprisal. 13.  On 13 March 2003 a police officer working in the detention unit of the Chernoyarskiy District Police Department reported to the head of the police department as follows:
“... during my duty in the detention unit of the Chernoyarskiy District Police Department from 6.00 p.m. on 12 March 2003 to 9.00 a.m. on 13 March 2003 [the applicant] was in cell no. 1; [he] started hitting his head against a wall; [he] did not respond to orders [prompting him] to stop his actions. I reported to the officer on duty in the [police department] about [the applicant's] actions; after that [the applicant] was transferred to a cell for administrative arrestees. On 13 March 2003, at 8.50 a.m., during the replacement of duty officers, [the applicant] started hitting his head against the metal bar in the cell for administrative arrestees, thus causing a head injury.
I, together with a staff sergeant, police officer, Mr L., and police officer, Mr M., stopped his actions and applied special means, handcuffs. [The applicant] was provided with first aid. After that an ambulance was called.” 14.  On the same day an escorting police officer, Mr M., wrote a report addressed to the head of the Chernoyarskiy District Police Department. The report read as follows:
“[I] hereby inform you that on 13 March 2003, after the transfer, at approximately 8.50 a.m., an arrestee, [the applicant], was in a cell for administrative arrestees. [He] started hitting his head against a metal bar, thus causing injuries to himself. After that special means, handcuffs, were applied to [the applicant] and first aid was provided.”
Another escorting officer, Mr Po., submitted an identically worded report. 15.  An officer on duty made an entry in the registration log, stating that an ambulance was called to the applicant on 13 March 2003, at 9.40 a.m., in response to “a fit of hysteria, injuries to the scalp, brain concussion”. 16.  According to the applicant, his brother, who is a resuscitation specialist, visited him on 14 March 2003 in the detention unit and saw his numerous injuries. The applicant complained to his brother that police officers had repeatedly hit him on the head with a small plastic bottle filled with water. On the same day the applicant was taken to the Chernoyarskiy District Central Hospital. His state of health was considered to be critical. On the following day he was transferred to the resuscitation unit of the neurosurgery department of Astrakhan Regional Hospital no. 2. The applicant was in a coma of the second degree. The relevant part of an extract from medical history no. 1069/298 drawn up in the neurosurgery department read as follows:
“A patient [the applicant], was undergoing in-patient treatment from 15 March to 10 April 2003. When admitted [to the hospital], he did not make any complaints because of his grave condition. According to the escorting persons, a week before his admission [to the hospital], while under arrest, the patient had hit his head against bars... During the treatment the patient stated that he had been beaten up by police officers.
Objectively: The general condition is grave... Locally: [there are] vast bruises, measuring from 3 to 5 centimetres, on the skin of the frontoparietal sphere; [the bruises] are covered with brown scab. There are subcutaneous yellow haematomas, measuring 4 centimetres [in width] and 5 centimetres [in length], in the middle one-third of the right forearm; in the middle one-third of the left shoulder there is a subcutaneous yellow haematoma, measuring 2 centimetres [in width] and 2 centimetres [in length]. [There is] a subcutaneous haematoma, measuring 4 centimetres [in width] and 5 centimetres [in length], on the chest (with hemosiderin). [The patient] does not control the functions of his pelvic organs, he urinates uncontrollably...
Diagnosis: A brain injury of medium severity. A subarachnoid haematoma. Injuries, bruises to the head and extremities.”
On 19 April 2003 the applicant was transferred from the hospital back to the detention unit. 17.  In the meantime, on 15 March 2003 the head of the duty shift of the duty unit in the Chernoyarskiy District Police Department issued a report which read as follows:
“[I] hereby inform you that on 15 March 2003 information was received from the duty unit of the Chernoyarskiy District Police Department that [the applicant] had been arrested on suspicion of having committed a criminal offence proscribed by Article 105 of the Russian Criminal Code; [he], in the detention unit of the police department, had injured himself, having hit his head against the walls; after that [he] had been admitted to Chernoyarskiy District Central Hospital, from which, within a day, he had been transferred to a medical institution in Astrakhan – hospital no. 2; [he had been escorted] by two armed police officers... [The applicant's] preliminary diagnosis is a craniocerebral injury”. 18.  On the same day an investigator of the Chernoyarskiy District Prosecutor's office, in the presence of two attesting witnesses and an expert criminologist, examined the premises of the detention unit of the Chernoyarskiy District Police Department. The examination record contained a lengthy description of the corridors, duty offices and cells. The relevant part of the record read as follows:
“...the entrance to [the cell for administrative detainees] is through a metal lattice door which is built from metal reinforcement bars welded together. The cell is a room with concrete walls... During the examination of the cell entrance door a fallow stain, looking like blood [and] measuring 0.7 centimetre, was discovered on the door at a height of 1.30 metre from the floor, 0.85 metre from the upper part of the door and 1.15 metre from the right wall. During the examination of the metal bars of that cell a fallow stain, looking like blood and measuring 2 centimetres in width and 2.5 centimetres in length, was discovered at a height of 1.30 metre from the floor and 1.15 metre from the adjacent right wall. ... blood was collected from the scene and bagged.
...
During the examination of cell no. 1, fallow stains looking like blood and measuring 1 centimetre to 1 centimetre, 3 centimetres to 3 centimetres were discovered in the far right corner of the cell, on the right wall, 2.5 centimetres from the wall, facing the entrance, and 25 centimetres from the wooden bunk. Those stains are located 5 centimetres from each other. That substance was collected from the scene and bagged.” 19.  On 8 March 2003 the applicant's lawyer, Mr C., filed a complaint with the prosecution authorities, alleging that the applicant had been severely beaten up in the police station after his arrest and asking for the identification of the police officers who had participated in the beatings.
(a)  Decision of 17 March 2003 and subsequent court proceedings 20.  On 17 March 2003 an investigator of the Chernoyarskiy District prosecutor's office dismissed the complaint about the beatings as unsubstantiated. The investigator based his decision on the following evidence:
- Statements by the police officers who had claimed that on 12 March 2003 the applicant, who had been detained in cell no. 1, had begun hitting his head against a wall. He had ignored policemen's orders to discontinue the unlawful behaviour and had been transferred to a special cell for administrative detainees, so that the police officers could observe him and prevent him from hurting himself. In the cell for administrative detainees the applicant had once again begun hitting his head against metal bars. Handcuffs had been applied to him and he had been provided with medical assistance.
- Testimony by the applicant's fellow inmate, Mr I., who testified that on 12 March 2003 he had been detained in cell no. 1 together with the applicant. At approximately 10 p.m. the applicant had begun hitting his head against a wall. Mr I. had called the officer on duty and the applicant had been transferred to another cell. Mr I. noted that he had not seen or heard whether the policemen had beaten the applicant up.
- Testimony by an emergency doctor, Mr B., who stated that on 12 March 2003, at approximately 10.20 p.m., he had arrived at the Chernoyarkiy District Police Department. The officer on duty had asked him and his colleagues to provide the applicant with medical assistance. According to the officer on duty, the applicant had not felt well. Mr B. had attempted to examine the applicant, but the latter had refused any examination. During the visual examination of the applicant's head, Mr B. had not noticed any injuries. The applicant had been very agitated.
- Statements by an emergency doctor, Ms K., who stated that on 13 March 2003, at approximately 9.30 a.m., she had received a call from the Chernoyarskiy District Police Department. She had been informed that a detainee had hit his head against a wall. When she had arrived at the police department, she had seen the applicant sitting on a chair with his hands handcuffed behind his back and with his head on a pillow. The applicant had been very nervous and had tried to break away. She had examined him and discovered three parallel injuries in the fibrous part of his head. She had made a bandage and given him an injection of relanium. The applicant had been diagnosed with a fit of hysteria and prescribed an examination by a surgeon and a neuropathologist.
- The record of the examination of the detention unit, including the cells where the applicant had been detained, performed on 15 March 2003.
- An expert report, according to which stains discovered during the examination of the cells in the detention unit on 15 March 2003 consisted of the blood of a person, “not excluding the applicant”. 21.  The applicant only learned about the decision of 17 March 2003 in July 2003 and on 18 August 2003 his lawyer appealed against that decision to a court. 22.  On 22 August 2003 the Chernoyarskiy District Court annulled the decision of 17 March 2003, noting procedural defects in the investigator's decision, and ordered an additional investigation into the applicant's ill-treatment complaints.
(b)  Decision of 12 September 2003 23.  On 12 September 2003, following an additional investigation into the applicant's allegations of ill-treatment, an investigator of the Chernoyarskiy District Prosecutor's office refused to institute criminal proceedings against the police officers, finding no case to be answered. In addition to the witnesses' statements which had served as the basis for the decision of 17 March 2003, the investigator relied on the following evidence:
- Additional statements by an emergency doctor, Mr B., who stressed that the applicant had not had any visible injuries, including on the head, when Mr B. had seen him on 12 March 2003, at approximately 10.20 p.m..
- Statements by Mr S., who testified that he had been detained in cell no. 1 with the applicant and Mr I. On a date which Mr S. had been unable to recall, the applicant, lying on the bunk, had begun hitting his head against a wall. He had hit his head three or four times and had broken the skin on the head. Mr S. and Mr I. had called an officer on duty and asked to transfer the applicant to another cell. Their request had been satisfied. No force had been used against the applicant.
- Additional testimony by Mr I., who confirmed statements given by Mr S..
- Statements by a psychiatrist, Ms E., who submitted that on 14 March 2003 she had examined the applicant who had acted normally and answered her questions. He had complained about pain in a hip. She had examined him but had found no injuries on his hip. The applicant had had an injury on the fibrous part of his head. The injury had been medically treated.
- Statements by an escorting officer, Mr La., who noted that on 13 March 2003, at approximately 10.20 p.m., he had noticed that the applicant, who had been lying on the bunk, had started hitting his head against the wall. The applicant had been transferred to a cell for administrative arrestees. On 14 March 2003, at approximately 8.00 a.m., the applicant had grabbed the metal bars with his hands and had begun hitting his head against the bars. A police officer, Mr Lu., had stuck his hands between the bars to stop the applicant from hurting himself. At the same time, the applicant, trying to overcome Mr Lu.'s resistance, began throwing himself against the metal bars. Mr La. with the assistance from officers M. and Po. had dragged the applicant from the metal bars and had started holding him. The applicant had tried to resist the officers, attempting to hit his head against the bars. Mr Po. had run to the duty unit to call an ambulance. Mr La. had taken a towel and had attempted to stop the bleeding. Doctors had arrived at 9.20 p.m. They had unbound the injury and had applied on a bandage. After the doctors had left, soft items had been placed around the applicant and a pillow had been put under his head.
- Similar statements given by the police officer, Mr Po. 24.  On 25 September 2003 the Chernoyarskiy District Prosecutor annulled the decision of 12 September 2003 and ordered that an expert medical examination be performed and that an expert answer questions as to how the applicant had received the injuries, how grave the injuries had been and whether they could have resulted from his own actions.
(c)  Decision of 30 September 2003 25.  On 30 September 2003 an investigator of the Chernoyarskiy District Prosecutor's office once again dismissed the applicant's request for institution of criminal proceedings. The investigator based his decision on the statements by the witnesses which had appeared in the decisions of 17 March and 12 September 2003 and on an expert medical opinion. 26.  According to the expert report of 29 September 2003, the applicant had had the following injuries: a closed craniocerebral injury with a brain injury of medium severity, a subarachnoid haematoma in the right occipital region of the head, bruises on the frontoparietal sphere, an injury in the middle one-third of the right forearm and an injury in the middle one-third of the left shoulder. The head injuries had been caused by a firm blunt object (objects), as a result of the applicant's falling on a surface or owing to “free concussion of the head by a blunt object”. The expert concluded that the most probable cause of the closed craniocerebral injury had been the applicant's own actions, without any “external action”. As regards the remaining injuries, the expert considered that they had also been caused by the application of a firm blunt object (or objects) and that it had been impossible to establish the exact date when they had been caused. The expert did not exclude the possibility that the applicant could also have self-inflicted those injuries. 27.  The applicant's lawyers appealed against the decision of 30 September 2003 to the Chernoyarskiy District Court, arguing that no steps had been taken to investigate the applicant's allegations that he had been beaten between 6 and 8 March 2003, although that issue had already been raised before the prosecution authorities by the applicant's lawyer, Mr C., on 8 March 2003. They pointed to the fact that the investigators had never interviewed the applicant about the events in March 2003. 28.  On 25 November 2003 the Chernoyarskiy District Court held that the decision of 30 September 2003 had been lawful and substantiated. However, it noted that the investigator had not questioned the applicant in connection with his complaints about the confession under duress, neither had he questioned two police officers who had been present during the applicant's confession. The District Court concluded that the investigator should perform an additional investigation. 29.  On 10 December 2003 the prosecutor of the Chernoyarskiy District, relying on the court's decision of 25 November 2003, annulled the decision of 30 September 2003 and ordered an additional investigation into the applicant's complaints about beatings. 30.  On 22 January 2004 the Astrakhan Regional Court quashed the District Court's decision of 25 November 2003 and remitted the matter for a fresh examination. The Regional Court held that on 25 November 2003 the District Court had failed to substantiate its conclusions concerning the lawfulness of the investigator's decision of 30 September 2003. The Regional Court also pointed out that the District Court had made contradictory findings. 31.  On 18 February 2004 the Chernoyarskiy District Court re-examined the decision of 30 September 2003 and considered it to be lawful and well-founded. 32.  On 22 July 2004 the Astrakhan Regional Court upheld the decision of 18 February 2004. The Regional Court held that the District Court had taken into consideration and assessed all the circumstances of the applicant's case which could have influenced the District Court's conclusions.
(d)  Decision of 15 December 2003 33.  On 15 December 2003, following an additional investigation into the applicant's allegations of ill-treatment, an assistant Chernoyarskiy District Prosecutor dismissed the applicant's ill-treatment allegations. The assistant concluded that “no injuries had been caused to [the applicant] by the police officers in the period from 6 to 8 March 2003” and that the injuries which had been discovered on the applicant's body on 13 March 2003 had resulted from his own actions. The assistant based his decision on the same evidence as the decisions of 17 March, 12 and 30 September 2003. In addition, he had questioned the applicant, police officers who had witnessed the applicant confessing on 8 March 2003, the emergency doctor, Mr B., and an expert who had examined the applicant on 9 March 2003. Those statements were as follows:
- The applicant testified that between 6 and 8 March 2003 police officers had severely beaten him up in the police station in an attempt to extract a confession from him. On 8 March 2003, after the first meeting with his lawyer, Mr C., he had complained about the beatings to a prosecutor. On 9 March 2003 he had been examined by a medical expert. He had complained to the expert about pain in the head, neck, chest and right hip; however, the expert had only examined his head. On the same day he had again been beaten up by a police officer, Mr Po. According to the applicant, several days later two police officers had lifted him up and had thrown him against metal bars in a cell for administrative arrestees. The applicant had lost consciousness. When he had regained consciousness, he had discovered that he had been handcuffed to a metal bar. He had fainted again and had only regained consciousness in the hospital.
- Mr B., the emergency doctor, supplemented his previous statement. He noted that on 9 March 2003, at approximately 7.20 p.m., he had been called to the Chernoyarskiy District Police Department to assist the applicant who had been complaining about a headache. He had examined the applicant and had not discovered any injuries on his body and head. On 12 March 2003, at approximately 10.20 p.m., he had again been called to the Police Department to treat the applicant. The latter had not had any injuries.
- The expert stated that on 9 March 2003 an investigator and police officers had brought the applicant for a medical examination. In their presence he had examined the applicant, who had complained about the pain in the head and right hip. The applicant had refused to explain the nature and cause of the pain. The expert had examined the applicant's chest, stomach, back, legs, hands, head and neck and had not discovered any injuries. 34.  The decision of 15 December 2003 was not served on the applicant or his lawyer. On 29 and 30 December 2003 the lawyer unsuccessfully asked the prosecutor to issue him with a copy of the decision of 15 December 2003. 35.  On 7 October 2004, upon the applicant's complaint, the Chernoyarskiy District Court examined the decision of 15 December 2003 and considered it lawful. The District Court held as follows:
“Having heard the parties and studied the case-file, the court decides to dismiss the complaint. The court is taking this decision on the basis of the materials in the case-file submitted and examined at the court hearing.
On 10 December 2003 the Chernoyarskiy District Prosecutor decided to annul the decision of 30 September 2003 and to perform an additional investigation into the events concerning the infliction of injuries on [the applicant]. An assistant prosecutor, Ms S., was entrusted with the performance of the investigation. In the course of the investigation certain violations of the law, which had occurred during the investigation,... [leading] to the decision of 30 September 2003, were remedied. Thus [the investigator] questioned [the applicant], the police officers, the emergency doctors and other persons who had been present in the cell of the temporary detention unit of the Chernoyarskiy District Police Department during the infliction of injuries by [the applicant].
Assessing the foregoing, the court does not doubt the impartiality of the investigator Ms S. who performed the investigation... The statements by the police officers, the emergency doctors and staff of the temporary detention unit of the Chernoyarskiy District Police Department, as well as by the detainees Mr S. and Mr I., do not contradict each other and draw a full picture of the events leading to the self-infliction of the injuries by [the applicant]...” 36.  On 2 December 2004 the Astrakhan Regional Court quashed the decision of 7 October and remitted the matter for a fresh examination. 37.  On 11 February 2005 the Chernoyarskiy District Court again dismissed the applicant's complaint about the decision of 15 December 2003. The relevant part of the decision reads as follows:
“Having examined the arguments of the defence, as stated in their complaint, having heard the submissions of the Chernoyarskiy District Prosecutor, and having studied the material in the case-file, the court draws the following conclusion.
On 6 March 2003 [the applicant] was arrested on suspicion of having committed a criminal offence, as provided for by paragraph 2 of Article 105 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation. On 8 March 2003 he wrote a confession statement. The lawyer in his complaint argues that [the applicant] made this confession under duress inflicted by the police officers. However, this fact was not proven by the documents included with the material of the investigation. Upon the lawyer's request, a forensic medical examination was ordered; as shown by [the expert] report of 9 March 2003, at the time of his examination, [the applicant] did not have any injuries... Moreover, that expert examination fully excluded the possibility of [the applicant's] severe systematic beatings, torture and psychological pressure by the policemen in order to force him to confess to the murder of Ms P.
As shown by the material of the investigation examined by the court, [the applicant] received injuries on 13-14 March 2003; that is confirmed by the emergency doctor Ms K., the police officers Mr M., Mr Lu., Mr Sm., and by the forensic medical expert report of 29 September 2003. The determination of the means of infliction of injuries lies within the competence of the expert... The expert report can only be assessed in the course of the [applicant's] trial. The fact that [the applicant] caused the injuries to himself on 13-14 March 2003 is confirmed by the statements of Mr S. and Mr I. who had been detained together with [the applicant] in cell no. 1 in the temporary detention unit of the Chernoyarskiy District Police Department; [Mr S. and Mr I.] stated that [the applicant] had begun hitting his head against a wall without any apparent reason.
Moreover, the defence did not provide any reason for inflicting injuries on [the applicant] on 13-14 March 2003, that is after he had confessed to having murdered Ms P. (the confession statement was made on 8 March 2003), the defence did not substantiate what was the aim of torturing [the applicant] in the [later] period.
In such circumstances, the court is of the opinion that the defence's arguments about the unlawfulness and unreasonableness of the decision of 15 December 2003 of the assistant prosecutor Ms S. ... were not corroborated and the complaint is to be dismissed.” 38.  On 23 April 2003 the Chernoyarskiy District Court refused to release the applicant. While finding that the applicant had been charged with a particularly serious criminal offence and that there was a risk of his absconding and perverting the course of justice, having regard to his previous behaviour, the District Court also noted that the applicant had to undergo a forensic psychiatric examination. It thus concluded that he should remain in detention pending such an examination. During the hearing the applicant's lawyer argued that the applicant lived in a local village and could promptly arrive at the prosecutor's office when summoned. He was also in need of lengthy rehabilitation treatment in a neurosurgery department. Such treatment was not available in the temporary detention unit. The prosecutor's office provided the District Court with assurances that necessary medical assistance, including assistance by neurosurgeons, was available to the applicant in the local prison hospital. 39.  On 30 April 2003 the District Court extended the applicant's detention until 6 June 2003. It held that the applicant had been charged with a serious criminal offence, had fled the crime scene and had hidden the crime weapon. The District Court concluded that the materials presented by the prosecution and the results of investigative measures sufficiently corroborated the conclusion that the applicant was liable to abscond, influence witnesses and obstruct justice. It stressed that the investigating authorities had to perform a number of investigative actions with which the applicant could interfere if released. Moreover, the District Court once again noted that the applicant had to remain in detention pending the forensic psychiatric examination. 40.  On 3 June, 1 August and 1 September 2003 the Chernoyarskiy District Court, by decisions similarly worded to the one issued on 30 April 2003, extended the applicant's detention until 6 August, 6 September and 6 November 2003, respectively. Neither the applicant nor his lawyer appealed against those detention orders. 41.  On 15 October 2003 the Chernoyarskiy District Court dismissed the applicant's application for release, holding that he had been charged with a particularly serious criminal offence and was liable to obstruct justice and influence witnesses. The District Court also noted that the applicant was undergoing medical treatment in the Regional prison hospital and investigative actions could not be performed in his absence. 42.  On 13 November 2003 the Astrakhan Regional Court quashed the decision of 15 October 2003 and remitted the matter for fresh examination. The Regional Court noted that the District Court had not provided any reasoning for its findings and had also failed to examine the actual state of the applicant's health and whether he could be provided with adequate treatment in detention. It also pointed to the District Court's failure to address the possibility of the applicant's release under recognisance offered by local MPs and the Astrakhan Regional Ombudsman. 43.  On 24 November 2003 the Chernoyarskiy District Court dismissed the request for release. The relevant part of the decision reads as follows:
“Taking into consideration copies of the material in the criminal case file examined at the hearing - records of investigative actions and decisions of the pre-trial investigation organs and a court - the court notes that [the applicant] has been charged with a particularly serious criminal offence, which presents great public danger; as can be seen from the decision of 11 March 2003, when determining the issue of the preventive measure [to be imposed on the applicant], the pre-trial investigation bodies had provided the court with the material from the investigative actions which contained objective data allowing the conclusion that the accused, if released, could obstruct justice in the case and influence witnesses. During the pre-trial investigation in the case until the present time that information has existed among the material in the case file. The fact that the decision of 11 March 2003 became final confirms that [the applicant's] family situation, his place of residence and personal characteristics were taken into account when determining the possible preventive measure. The court notes that at the present time the family situation and the personal characteristics of the accused have not changed. [The applicant's] illness cannot serve as the reason for his release, under the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
Moreover, according to the decision of the Chernoyarskiy District Court of 31 October 2003 [the applicant's] detention on remand was extended until 6 December 2003. That decision was upheld on appeal by the Astrakhan Regional Court on 10 November 2003. Those decisions established that [the applicant's] detention had been authorised and extended reasonably and in accordance with the law on criminal procedure ...
The court notes that the fact that the pre-trial investigation ended and that the applicant started reading the case file cannot serve as evidence to show that the grounds for [the applicant's] detention in the present case ceased to exist ...” 44.  On 18 December 2003 the Astrakhan Regional Court disallowed the applicant's appeal against the decision of 24 November 2003 because the statement of appeal did not satisfy the requirements of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 45.  On 31 October 2003 the Chernoyarskiy District Court extended the applicant's detention until 6 December 2003, holding that the applicant had been charged with an especially serious criminal offence and that there had been grounds, as confirmed by the decision of 11 March 2003, to conclude that, if released, he was liable to obstruct justice and influence witnesses. On 10 November 2003 the Astrakhan Regional Court, endorsing the reasoning of the District Court, upheld the decision of 31 October 2003. 46.  On 26 November 2003 the Chernoyarskiy District Court dismissed the applicant's request for release, relying on similar reasons as had been invoked in the decision of 24 November 2003. The District Court also examined the guarantees provided by nine MPs and the Ombudsman of the Astrakhan Region. Those persons argued that the applicant had not been convicted or charged before, that he had two children and two minor grandchildren, that he was the head of a farm, that he had a permanent place of residence and that he was seriously ill. The MPs and the Ombudsman guaranteed that the applicant would not abscond and would actively participate in the pre-trial investigation and trial. The District Court concluded that the guarantees could not reduce the risk of the applicant's interfering with the course of the judicial proceedings by conniving with witnesses, etc. 47.  That decision was upheld by the Astrakhan Regional Court, acting on appeal, on 25 December 2003. The Regional Court reiterated the District Court's reasoning. 48.  On 5 December 2003 the Chernoyarskiy District Court, using the same reasoning as in the previous extension orders, extended the applicant's detention until 6 January 2004. The detention order was upheld on appeal on 17 December 2003. 49.  The applicant was committed to stand trial before the Chernoyarskiy District Court. 50.  On 9 January 2004 the Chernoyarskiy District Court fixed a preliminary trial hearing and, finding that the circumstances warranting the applicant's detention had not changed, held that the applicant should remain in detention. 51.  In response to the applicant's lawyer's letter enquiring about the grounds for the applicant's detention from 7 to 9 January 2004, on 21 January 2004 the acting head of the Chernoyarskiy District Police Department sent a letter informing him that after 6 January 2004 the applicant's detention was classified as “during judicial proceedings”. A week later the head of the Chernoyarskiy District temporary detention unit informed the applicant that since 7 January 2004 he had been detained on the basis of Article 255 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of the Russian Federation. 52.  At the beginning of February 2004 the applicant asked the Chernoyarskiy District Court to extend the time-limit for lodging an appeal against the decision of 9 January 2004 because he had not been promptly served with it. He also sought the quashing of the decision of 9 January 2004 and his release. 53.  On 22 April 2004 the Astrakhan Regional Court examined the merits of the applicant's appeal statement and upheld the decision of 9 January 2004. According to the applicant, who supported his claims with a written statement from his lawyer, Ms V., during the hearing the lawyer had raised the issue of the applicant's unlawful detention between 6 and 9 January 2004, pointing to the lack of any legal order. However, the Regional Court had allegedly refused to examine the lawyer's argument, concentrating on the grounds for the applicant's detention after 9 January 2004. The Government disputed the applicant's assertion, stating that the argument of the alleged unlawfulness of the detention between 6 and 9 January 2004 had never been raised before the Regional Court. 54.  In the meantime, on 9 February 2004, the case was transferred to the Akhtubinsk Town Court for trial. On 2 March 2004 the Town Court fixed a preliminary hearing for 15 March 2004 and noted that the applicant should remain in custody. 55.  On 17 March 2004 the Akhtubinsk Town Court dismissed the request for the applicant's release lodged during the hearing on that day. The Town Court noted that the applicant had been detained because he had been charged with a particularly serious criminal offence. His continued detention was ordered with reference to the failure of the applicant and his lawyer to study the case file promptly. The applicant had been charged with the murder of Ms P. and he could have threatened and influenced the victim's relatives and witnesses. 56.  On 2 April 2004 the Akhtubinsk Town Court scheduled the first trial hearing and extended the applicant's detention, noting that the reasons for the extension were the same as those listed in the decision of 17 March 2004. 57.  By an order of the acting head of the Akhtubinsk Town temporary detention unit the applicant was released on 13 July 2004, as, according to the Government, the maximum six-month period of detention prescribed by Article 255 of the Russian Code of Criminal Procedure had expired on that date. On 21 June 2004 the Town Court ordered that the applicant should pay 30,000 Russian roubles (RUB) in bail as security for his future attendance in court. The applicant did not appeal against the decision of 21 June 2004. 58.  In the trial hearing on 8 October 2004 a witness, Mr G., while testifying as to the circumstances surrounding the murder of Ms P., complained to the Town Court that the applicant accompanied by two other men, Mr Sh. and Mr D., had arrived at Mr G.'s house and had invited him to take a ride on a boat. After Mr G. had declined the invitation, Mr D. had hit Mr G. in the face and had forced him to board the boat. During the ride, the applicant had urged Mr G. to change his statements given to the investigating authorities, threatening him and his wife with murder if Mr G. did not comply. Mr G. had refused to make false statements and the men had thrown him out of the boat onto the bank. Mr G. insisted that his ear had been injured during the fall and had started bleeding. His wife, standing on the bank, had witnessed the incident. The applicant and the two men had spent the night in Mr G.'s house. Mr G.'s wife had asked the men about the incident on the boat but the latter had feigned surprise in response to the accusation of assaulting Mr G. On the day following the incident, Mr G. and his wife had lodged a complaint with a prosecutor's office, seeking institution of criminal proceedings against the applicant. Ms G. confirmed her husband's statements in open court. 59.  The applicant denied the accusations, stating that he had visited Mr G. a number of times and had spent the night of the alleged incident in his house. During his stay in the house Mr G., who had been heavily drunk, had tried to extort money from the applicant, alleging that he had had valuable information about Ms P.'s murder. However, the applicant had not believed Mr G. knowing that the latter had had a tendency to fabricate information in a state of alcoholic intoxication. The applicant insisted that he had never been informed about the accusations made by Mr G. although he had frequently met the latter in the village. 60.  In response to Mr G.'s testimony, a prosecutor asked the Town Court to remand the applicant in custody, fearing that the latter could continue his unlawful behaviour. The applicant's lawyer objected, arguing that there were no grounds for a change in the preventive measure. According to the lawyer, Mr G.'s accusations had not been corroborated by any evidence. 61.  On 8 October 2004 the Akhtubinsk Town Court accepted the prosecutor's request, holding as follows:
“Having studied the material presented by the prosecution..., having assessed the statements by witnesses, spouses Mr and Ms G., who had testified that physical force and threats had been used against Mr G., the court finds that the presented evidence confirms the fact that [the applicant] may obstruct the proceedings in the criminal case and that that circumstance is the ground for a change in the preventive measure; at the same time, taking into account the fact that the criminal offence with which [the applicant] is charged under Article 105 § 1 of the Russian Criminal Code belongs to the category of particularly serious offences and relying on the gravity of the charge, [the preventive measure should be changed] to detention on remand.” 62.  The Astraskhan Regional Court examined the applicant's lawyers' appeals lodged against the decision of 8 October 2004 and on 2 December 2004 confirmed the lawfulness and well-foundedness of the Town Court's findings. In particular, the Regional Court held:
“In order to substantiate its authorisation of the change in the preventive measure [imposed on the applicant]... [the Town] court relied on the [information] pertaining to [the applicant's] having committed actions which amount to obstruction of the judicial proceedings in the criminal case.
The above-mentioned conclusions of the [Town] court are well-founded as they are confirmed by the statements of the witnesses, Mr and Ms G.” 63.  The applicant's detention was further extended on 5 January, 8 April and 8 July 2005. Each time the Akhtubinsk Town Court cited similar grounds for the extension: the gravity of the charges and the applicant's liability to obstruct justice by influencing the victims and witnesses, as established by the decision of 8 October 2004. The applicant did not appeal against any of the detention orders. 64.  According to the applicant, on an unspecified date the criminal proceedings against him on the charge of tampering with witnesses had been discontinued. 65.  On 29 August 2005 the Akhtubinsk Town Court found the applicant guilty of murder and unlawful possession of a weapon and sentenced him to nine years and six months' imprisonment. It appears that the conviction was based, primarily, on statements by a number of witnesses, including Mr and Ms G., whom the applicant knew well. On 22 December 2005 the Astrakhan Regional Court upheld the judgment on appeal. The applicant was served with a copy of the appeal judgment in February 2006.


4.  The applicant was born in 1935 and lives in Yalta. 5.  In November 2000 the applicant instituted civil proceedings in the Yalta Court (Ялтинський міський суд) seeking to oblige the Yalta Council’s Executive Committee (Виконавчий комітет Ялтинської міської ради) to provide his family of five residing in a one-bedroom apartment with larger housing. In his statement of claim the applicant noted, in particular, that he had been placed on the special waiting list for disabled war veterans, which entitled him to obtain suitable housing within two years of the placement. 6.  On 4 May 2001 the court ordered the Executive Committee to provide the applicant’s family with an apartment meeting the standards established by Articles 48 and 50 of the Housing Code of Ukraine (Житловий кодекс України). By way of reasoning, the court dismissed the defendant’s allegations that no municipal housing was available at the time. The court observed in this regard that the applicant’s statutory right to obtain housing within two years of the date of the placement on the waiting list was unconditional. 7.  On 19 September 2002 the Supreme Court of Ukraine upheld this judgment following cassation review and it became final. 8.  On 17 December 2002 the Yalta Bailiffs (Відділ Державної виконавчої служби Ялтинського управління юстиції) initiated enforcement proceedings, having given the Executive Committee the time-limit of 17 January 2003 to comply with the judgment. 9.  In summer 2003 the enforcement proceedings were terminated on account that vacant municipal housing was lacking. 10.  On 23 March 2006 the Executive Committee decided to allocate a newly-constructed two-bedroom apartment and a one-bedroom apartment formerly belonging to a hostel to the applicant’s family. 11.  According to the applicant, the two-bedroom apartment at issue lacked necessary facilities, such as sanitary equipment and electric outlets. The apartment, which formerly belonged to a hostel, was unsuitable for establishing a permanent residence. 12.  According to the Government, the apartments at issue complied with applicable housing norms, which had been certified by competent commissions. On 27 October 2006 the applicant registered his residence in the new two-bedroom apartment.