4.  The applicant was born in 1979 and lives in Novosibirsk. 5.  The applicant was charged with and subsequently found guilty of murdering his father and uncle. The final decision on the matter was taken by the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation on 31 October 2002. 6.  On 18 April 2003 the applicant lodged an application with the Court in which he complained of the unfairness of the criminal proceedings against him. In particular, he alleged that he had not been provided with legal assistance in the appeal proceedings (application no. 21272/03). 7.  On 26 March 2007 the Court gave notification of the application to the Russian Government. 8.  On 4 July 2007 the Presidium of the Supreme Court quashed the appeal judgment of 31 October 2002 by way of a supervisory review and remitted the matter for fresh consideration. 9.  On 29 November 2007 the Supreme Court held a new appeal hearing in which the applicant took part by means of a video link and was represented by State-appointed counsel, A. The court upheld, in substance, the applicant’s conviction. The applicant had been allowed fifteen minutes to confer with his counsel by means of video link prior to the hearing. 10.  On 15 January 2009 the Court examined the admissibility and merits of the case and held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (c) of the Convention in that the applicant had not received effective legal assistance during the appeal proceedings in his criminal case. 11.  On 14 September 2009 a panel of the Grand Chamber accepted the Government’s request for the case to be referred to the Grand Chamber. 12.  On 22 September 2010 the Grand Chamber delivered a new judgment in the applicant’s case. Noting that the applicant had been unable to enjoy effective legal assistance before the appellate court, it found a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention taken in conjunction with Article 6 § 3 (c) thereof. In particular, the Grand Chamber concluded that the time allotted to the applicant for communication with his counsel had been insufficient and that the means of such communication had not ensured the requisite privacy. 13.  On 13 October 2011 the President of the Supreme Court, referring to the Court’s judgment in the applicant’s case, asked the Presidium of the Supreme Court to reopen the proceedings. 14.  On 23 November 2011 the Presidium of the Supreme Court granted the President’s request, quashed the judgment of 29 November 2007 and remitted the matter to the appellate court for fresh consideration. 15.  On an unspecified date the Supreme Court appointed Ms K., a lawyer practising in Moscow, to represent the applicant. On 15 February and 1 March 2012 lawyer K. studied the applicant’s case file. 16.  On 15 March 2012 the Supreme Court held a hearing in the applicant’s case. The applicant complained that he had not been provided with an opportunity to discuss his case with State-appointed counsel without running a risk of being overheard by a third party. The court adjourned the hearing in order to arrange for communication between the applicant and his lawyer. 17.  On 22 March 2012 the applicant communicated with his lawyer by means of a video link. According to the Government, only counsel K. was present in the room during the video conference. The court’s employee responsible for the functioning of the video link was located outside the room in which counsel K. was present. The applicant was also alone in the video conference room. A guard was stationed outside. 18.  On 5 April 2012 the Supreme Court upheld, in substance, the applicant’s conviction on appeal. Counsel K. attended the hearing. She did not submit fresh grounds for appeal and made submissions to the court that appeared to be based on the grounds for appeal originally filed by the applicant and counsel A. The applicant, who was detained in Novosibirsk, took part in the hearing by means of a video link. He had agreed to be represented by counsel K. and confirmed that he had been provided with sufficient time to communicate with her to discuss his case. He also agreed to pay her a legal fee. 19.  From 7 February to 29 May 2012 the applicant was detained in remand prison SIZO-1 in Novosibirsk. According to excerpts from the remand prison population records submitted by the Government, he was held in the following cells:
Cell no.
Period of detention
Cell size (square metres)
Number of sleeping places
Number of inmates
322
From 7 to 8 February 20.  According to the Government, the cells in which the applicant was detained were furnished with a sink, a table, a bench, a cupboard for storing food products, a coat stand, a mirror, a drinking water tank, a rubbish bin, wash basins, a heater, an electric plug and an alarm button. There was a toilet cabin which ensured complete privacy for the person using it. The windows in the cells had small vents, which could be kept open to ensure access to fresh air. There were no grilles or shutters on the windows preventing access to daylight. During the daytime the cells were lit with a 95-watt electric bulb. During the night the cells were lit with a 60-watt electric bulb. The central heating system was always in a good working order. The temperature in the cells was maintained at +22 to +25oC in the summer and +19 to +21oC in the winter. The cells were cleaned once a week. The bed sheets were changed each time the inmates took a shower. Once a month the cells were disinfected, which ensured that they were free of insects or rodents. 21.  According to the applicant, cells nos. 48 and 18 were overcrowded throughout the time he was detained there. During his detention in cell no. 48 he was not always provided with an individual bed. He did not have bed sheets, cutlery or toiletries. The cell was infested with bedbugs. The lighting was insufficient. The dining table was too small to accommodate all inmates. The applicant had to eat sitting on the floor. The table was located 1 metre away from the toilet. The toilet was separated from the living area of the cell by a brick wall that was 35 centimetres high. The flush was broken and the toilet caused a constant unpleasant smell in the cell. The ventilation system did not function. The food was of low quality. The inmates had to do their laundry in the cell. Some of the inmates had lice. The daily outdoor exercise lasted no more than 35 to 45 minutes. The exercise area was too small and often overcrowded. 22.  On 15 March 2012 the applicant brought a civil action against the remand prison, alleging that he had been detained in inhuman and degrading conditions there. 23.  On 14 March 2013 the Dzerzhinskiy District Court of Novosibirsk dismissed the applicant’s claims. The applicant appealed, challenging the District Court’s findings as regards the conditions of his detention in cell no. 48. 24.  On 10 September 2013 the Novosibirsk Regional Court quashed the judgment of 14 March 2013 and granted the applicant’s claims in part. The court acknowledged that the applicant had been detained in cramped conditions in cell no. 48 and awarded him compensation for non-pecuniary damage in the amount of 10,000 Russian roubles (RUB). In particular, the court held as follows:
“Regard being had to the evidence submitted, [it follows] that during the period under consideration the personal space afforded to each inmate in the cell where the applicant was detained ... was 2.6 sq. m. From 7 February to 16 March 2012 ... the cell was overpopulated and the personal space afforded to the inmates was 2.2 sq. m, 1.95 sq. m and 1.7 sq. m. ...
In view of the above, [the court] considers that it has been established that during the period under consideration the personal space afforded to the applicant in cell no. 48 in remand prison no. 1 in Novosibirsk was below the standards set forth in the national legislation and in the case-law of the ECHR.” 25.  According to the applicant, he received the compensation awarded to him by the judgment of 10 September 2013 in July 2016.