5.  The first applicant was born in 1968 and is detained in Lukiškės Remand Prison; the second applicant was born in 1975 and is detained in Vilnius Correctional Facility.
6.  In February 2014 the first applicant lodged a petition with the Parliamentary Commission on Petitions (“the Commission”), requesting a change to the wording of the provision of the Code for the Execution of Sentences in order that it would read that electronic items could be given to inmates by their friends and acquaintances as well as by their spouses, partners and close relatives. In March 2014 the Commission decided not to examine the first applicant’s petition as it was not clear enough. In March 2014 the first applicant lodged a new petition with the Commission. In April 2014 the Commission informed the first applicant that his petition would be examined. In June 2014 the Commission examined the first applicant’s petition and decided to dismiss it. Addressing the first applicant’s proposal that Article 96 § 1 of the Code for the Execution of Sentences be amended so that it would permit inmates to receive electronic items from their acquaintances or friends, as well as from their spouses, partners or close relatives, the Commission held that the existing regulation was aimed at preventing inmates from receiving items acquired by criminal means – for example, by their accomplices in crime. In June 2014 the Lithuanian Parliament dismissed the first applicant’s proposal that Article 96 § 1 of the Code for the Execution of Sentences be amended.
7.  It appears from the information provided by the Government that from 2007 onwards the first applicant had a computer game player, a computer game, and a television set; moreover, in November 2014 he purchased a laptop with his own money. It also appears from the information submitted by the Government that the applicant has a sister, a brother, an aunt, an uncle and a cousin (that is to say close relatives).
8.  On 17 September 2013 the second applicant lodged a complaint with the Vilnius Regional Administrative Court alleging overcrowding and other inadequate sanitary conditions in the Prison Hospital. He alleged that he had been confined to the Prison Hospital from 22 March until 4 April 2010, from 25 February until 4 March 2011, from 21 until 27 September 2011, and from 17 until 24 January 2014. He subsequently provided a specified complaint (patikslintas skundas – that is to say a complaint in which he clarified certain issues).
9.  On 19 May 2014 the Vilnius Regional Administrative Court ascertained that the second applicant had been confined to the Prison Hospital from 22 March until 13 April 2010, from 25 February until 4 March 2011, from 21 until 27 September 2011 and from 17 until 24 January 2014. The court also applied the three-year statutory time‑limit to part of the second applicant’s complaint. It held that the second applicant had been placed in overcrowded wards for fifteen days and awarded him 100 Lithuanian litai (LTL – approximately 29 euros (EUR)) in compensation for the fifteen days that he had spent in overcrowded wards during the periods from 21 until 27 September 2011 and from 17 until 24 January 2014. The second applicant’s other grievances were dismissed as unsubstantiated.
10.  The second applicant appealed, and on 9 December 2014 the Supreme Administrative Court upheld the first-instance decision. However, it held that the first-instance court had erred in determining the relevant amount of personal space. The court held that under domestic regulations, a person confined to the Prison Hospital had to have at least 5.1 square metres of personal space. The court recalculated the number of days and held that between 25 February 2011 and 4 March 2011 the second applicant had had 4.05 square metres of personal space at his disposal, and that between 17 and 24 January 2014 he had had 2.83 square metres of personal space. The court held that it was impossible to determine how much personal space the second applicant had had between 21 and 27 September 2011; accordingly, it calculated in favour of the second applicant the number of days during which he had not had enough personal space (that is to say the court calculated the number of such days and, in the absence of specific data, stated that the applicant had been held in overcrowded cells for more days than he probably had been held there). It then ruled that he had not had enough personal space for twenty days in total. However, he had been able to move around the Prison Hospital from 6 a.m. until 10 p.m., and he had also been able spend time outside.
11.  On 15 July 2013 the second applicant lodged a request with the administration of Vilnius Correctional Facility to be allowed to receive a portable digital music (MP3) player from J.G., a person who was not his relative. On 17 July 2013 his request was refused.
12.  In July 2013, the second applicant lodged a complaint about the above‑mentioned refusal with the Prison Department, which replied in August 2013 that the administration of Vilnius Correctional Facility had acted in accordance with domestic law.
13.  On 20 August 2013 the second applicant lodged a complaint with the Vilnius Regional Administrative Court regarding the refusal of the administration of Vilnius Correctional Facility to allow him to receive an MP3 player from someone to whom he was not related. He asked the court to oblige the Correctional Facility administration to issue him with permission to receive equipment and other items from acquaintances in view of the fact that his relatives were not visiting him, and to award him compensation for non‑pecuniary damage in the amount of EUR 10,137.
14.  On 13 January 2014 the Vilnius Regional Administrative Court ruled that the second applicant could receive an MP3 player from his spouse, partner or a close relative. However, as the person who had offered to bring him the player did not fall within the category of such persons, the refusal of the Vilnius Correctional Facility administration had been lawful. The court had no doubts about the relevant provisions of domestic law and observed that they were designed to motivate inmates to work, to communicate with their relatives and to enhance their social ties. The court furthermore observed that (among other items) MP3 players did not constitute essential items but rather entertainment items. It therefore dismissed the second applicant’s complaint.
15.  The second applicant appealed, and on 30 October 2014 the Supreme Administrative Court upheld the first-instance decision. The court held that the second applicant had not denied that he had close relatives, but had simply submitted that they were not visiting him. The second applicant found himself in the same position as that of other inmates. His right to have an MP3 player had not been denied, as he could have purchased one. It was not prohibited for persons other than close relatives to give money to convicted inmates; thus, the second applicant could have received money with which to buy an MP3 player.
16.  It appears from the information provided by the Government that the second applicant had been working in Vilnius Correctional Facility from 2 July 2012 until 31 March 2014 and had been receiving remuneration for his work.
17.  On 8 April 2014 the second applicant asked the administration of Vilnius Correctional Facility to allow him to receive an MP3 player by post from his mother, J.U. On 5 May 2014 his request was refused because domestic law did not provide the possibility to send items to inmates by post.
18.  On 24 March 2015 the second applicant lodged a request with the administration of Vilnius Correctional Facility to be allowed to receive certain electronic items (a television monitor and related parts, such as headphones) from his partner, K.J. His request was granted.
19.  It appears from the information provided by the Government that the second applicant received a personal computer in January 2011 (which he returned to his relatives in June 2011); another personal computer, a monitor and headphones in June 2011 (which he returned to his relatives in July 2016); and a USB key (which was destroyed at the second applicant’s request in December 2016) and a laptop in August 2016.
20.  From the information provided by the Government it appears that the applicant was able to watch television as there were specially equipped rooms which the inmates could use at any time, given that they could freely move around the premises of Vilnius Correctional Facility.