4.  The applicant was born in 1984. He is currently serving a prison sentence in Valmiera.
5.  On several occasions between 2009 and 2011 the applicant was escorted to court hearings from various detention facilities where he was being held. During these transfers the applicant was subjected to strip-searches. According to the applicant, he was ordered to strip naked in the presence of other inmates and escorting officers, to assume embarrassing positions (squatting), and to submit to a visual inspection of his body.
6.  The strip-searches of the applicant were carried out on 9 December 2009, 8 and 11 June 2010, 22 February and 8 June 2011.
7.  The applicant lodged several applications with the administrative courts concerning the strip-searches. They were all joined in one set of administrative proceedings (no. A420533911).
8.  On 20 June 2012 the Administrative District Court (Administratīvā rajona tiesa) dismissed the applicant’s complaints and terminated the proceedings. It held that the strip-searches had been objectively justified on security grounds and the manner in which they had been conducted had not gone beyond what had been required to ensure the efficacy of those searches. Therefore these searches had not “significantly interfere[d]” with the applicant’s rights and had not constituted an “action of a public authority” (see paragraphs 17 and 18 below). The applicant appealed.
9.  On 13 September 2012 the Administrative Regional Court (Administratīvā apgabaltiesa) dismissed the applicant’s appeal and upheld the ruling of the lower court.
10.  On 5 November 2012 the Senate of the Supreme Court (Augstākās tiesas Senāts) quashed the ruling of the appeal court and remitted the case to the first-instance court. The Senate of the Supreme Court found that the strip-searches had had a legitimate goal, namely ensuring public safety, and had not been carried out in an abusive manner. However, the lower courts had not sufficiently addressed the applicant’s argument that he had been subjected to strip-searches in the presence of other persons.
11.  On 27 February and 11 April 2013 hearings took place before the first-instance court. In order to clarify the facts eleven witnesses – seven escorting officers and four prisoners – were called.
12.  On 13 May 2013 the Administrative District Court dismissed the applicant’s complaints and terminated the proceedings.
13.  As concerns the strip-searches carried out on 9 December 2009, 8 and 11 June 2010, the court, on the basis of witness testimony, found that the applicant had been searched in the presence of one inmate and at least one additional escorting officer. However, taking into account that the applicant had not voiced any concerns in this regard during the first round of proceedings, the court concluded that “the strip-searches ... had not humiliated the applicant in the eyes of others or in his [own] eyes”. Accordingly, the court could not establish a “significant violation” of the human rights guaranteed under Article 95 of the Constitution and Article 3 of the Convention.
14.  As concerns the strip-searches carried out on 22 February and 8 June 2011, the court found that the evidence did not support the applicant’s allegation that he had been searched in the presence of other persons. The court dismissed the applicant’s further allegations (the presence of female officers, being exposed to the court’s staff and passers-by, unsanitary touching of his food) as unsubstantiated.
15.   On 9 July 2013 the Senate of the Supreme Court, by a final decision, dismissed the applicant’s appeal and upheld the ruling of the lower court.