4.  The first applicant was born in 1952 in the Novosibirsk Region.
5.  On 25 January 1996 the Krasnoyarsk Regional Court convicted him of murder, assault on a public official and other crimes and sentenced him to death. By a Presidential pardon of 17 May 1999, the death sentence was commuted to life imprisonment.
6.  Since 24 December 1999 the first applicant has served his sentence in the IK-2 facility for life prisoners in the Perm Region. He has changed cell several times. It appears from the original registration logs and floor plans submitted by the Government that all the cells measured 10.5 or 11.3 square metres and were designed to accommodate up to three prisoners. The first applicant has never had more than two cellmates.
7.  As regards the conditions of his detention between 1999 and 2009, the first applicant submitted that the toilet was located in the corner of the cell, behind a one-metre-high partition. It was connected to the sewer directly, without a U-bend pipe, and foul smells stayed in the cell. The window did not open and access to natural light was restricted because of a metal sheet fixed directly outside the window.
8.  The first applicant stated that in 2009 major repair works had been carried out and the conditions had improved. The toilets and ventilation had been repaired, a higher partition and a door installed, the window shutters removed, and access to natural light and air had been improved.
9.  The second applicant was born in 1969 in Moscow.
10.  On 3 December 1997 the Moscow City Court found him guilty of several murders and rape, and sentenced him to life imprisonment.
11.  Since 10 March 1998 the second applicant has served his sentence in the IK-5 facility for life prisoners in the Vologda Region. The facility is located on an island in a former monastery that was built in 1810 and converted into a prison in 1996. Individual cells have no running water or sewerage. Prisoners have a water tank and a bucket instead.
12.  In 2011, a supervising prosecutor instituted infringement proceedings against the facility’s management under Article 45 of the Code of Civil Procedure, seeking to enforce compliance with legal requirements. The prosecutor noted that only the mess, kitchen, bathhouse and shared toilets on each floor had centralised water supply, whereas the individual cells had no running water or sewage connection. Water was supplied from an artesian well but it fell short of sanitary requirements because it contained too much iron and sediment. Cells had no ventilation. Prisoners were given buckets for their daily needs: one bucket of water for drinking and washing and one to use as a toilet. Every day prisoners took their toilet buckets to the toilet at the end of the corridor where they emptied and washed them. This had to do be done by the prisoners while their hands remained handcuffed behind their back, in compliance with standard practice. In 2009 the Federal Penitentiary Service had prepared an engineering and design blueprint for connecting all the cells to the mains and sewers but funding for the project had not been allocated. The prosecutor asked the court to require the facility’s management and the regional branch of the Federal Penitentiary Service to connect all the cells to the water supply and sewers, to install ventilation and to improve the quality of the water.
13.  By a judgment of 24 August 2011, the Belozerskiy District Court of the Vologda Region granted the prosecutor’s claim and directed the management of the prison to connect all the cells to the mains, sewers and a ventilation system within one year and to improve the water quality within six months.
14.  In 2013, the second applicant sued the Ministry of Finance for compensation for non-pecuniary damage caused by the substandard sanitary conditions at the IK-5 facility. By a judgment of 17 April 2013, upheld on appeal on 21 June 2013, the Belozerskiy District Court dismissed his claim as unfounded. It found that the cell was ventilated through a small opening in the window and that the temperature was normal, that there was a toilet consisting of a bucket with a lid, and a tank for drinking water, and that sanitary regulations did not require the installation of a sewage system “in territories where sewers were not available”. The court also noted that the claimant had not produced any evidence showing that the conditions of his detention in the period between 1998 and 2013 had been inadequate.