4.  The applicant was born in 1957 and lives in Moscow. He is a former FSB (Russian security service) officer. 5.  On 19 May 2004 the Military Court of the Moscow Circuit found the applicant guilty of the disclosure of State secrets and the illegal possession of ammunition and sentenced him to four years’ imprisonment. 6.  On 13 September 2004 the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation upheld the applicant’s conviction on appeal. 7.  According to the Government, on 26 May 2005 the Federal Penitentiary Service of the Russian Federation (the “FSIN”) decided that the applicant should serve his sentence in correctional settlement facility (колония-поселение) no. IK-13 in Nizhniy Tagil, Sverdlovsk Region, located approximately 1,800 km away from his family home in Moscow. The Government did not submit a copy of this decision. 8.  On 19 August 2005 the Tagilstroyevskiy District Court of Nizhniy Tagil ordered the applicant’s release on parole. The court heard a representative of the prison administration and the prosecutor, who considered the applicant’s release on parole to be possible. The prosecutor did not appeal and on 29 August 2005 the relevant decision became final. On 30 August 2005 the applicant was released. 9.  On 31 August 2005 the prosecutor asked the District Court to reinstate the requisite time-limit to permit him to appeal against the decision of 19 August 2005, noting that he had received a copy thereof only five days after its delivery. 10.  On 1 September 2005 the District Court reinstated a time-limit for the prosecutor’s appeal. The court relied on the relevant provision of the rules of criminal procedure which provided for such reinstatement if there had been a delay of at least five days before a party to the proceedings had received a copy of the impugned decision. 11.  On 16 September 2005 the Sverdlovsk Regional Court dismissed the applicant’s appeal against the decision of 1 September 2005 and quashed the decision of 19 August 2005, remitting the matter for fresh consideration. 12.  On 18 September 2005 a group of police officers broke arrested the applicant in his flat in Moscow. 13.  On 21 September 2005 the applicant was transported back to correctional settlement facility no. IK-13 and was placed in a disciplinary cell. 14.  On 24 November 2005 the District Court re-examined the applicant’s application for parole and dismissed it. 15.  On 15 March 2006 the Regional Court upheld the decision of 24 November 2005 on appeal. 16.  Upon arrival at the facility on 28 July 2005 the applicant was placed in cell no. 8 in the disciplinary block. On 9 August 2005 he was transferred to one of the dormitories. He was released from the facility on 30 August 2005. 17.  Following his arrest on 18 September 2005, the applicant was taken back to the facility on 22 September 2005. Upon arrival, he was again placed in cell no. 8 in the disciplinary block. On 30 September 2005 he was transferred to one of the dormitories. 18.  According to the Government, cell no. 8 measured 8 sq. m and was equipped with four sleeping places. From 28 July to 8 August 2005 the applicant was detained in the cell alone and from 8 to 9 August 2005 two other inmates were held together with the applicant. The cell was equipped with both natural and artificial ventilation. 19.  At all times the applicant was provided with an individual sleeping place and bed sheets. He was allowed two hours’ exercise per day in a specially designated area. 20.  The cell had windows with opening vents. The metal bars on the windows did not prevent daylight from entering the cell. The electric light in the cell was on constantly and at night low-voltage bulbs were used to maintain lighting. The cell had central heating and a cold water supply system. There was a tank with boiled potable water. A 110 cm high brick wall and a plywood door separated the toilet from the living area of the cell. The distance between the toilet and the dining table/nearest sleeping place was at least 1.5 m. Hygiene and food provision both met the statutory standards. 21.  According to the applicant and statements from other inmates submitted by the applicant, cell no. 8 measured 2.5 m by 3.5 m and housed between 3 and 7 inmates. A large part of the cell was occupied by a cupboard where mattresses and pillows were stored during the daytime. No bed linen was provided. There was no toilet paper, soap or detergent for cleaning the toilet. There was no place to keep personal belongings. The cell was infested with mice and woodlice. The electric light was permanently on. 22.  In the summer, the cell was very hot and humid and the ventilation did not work. The electric lighting was insufficient. There was no drinking water available. The only source of water was a tap above the toilet, which was a hole in the floor. The tap water was used for “flushing” away faeces, washing and drinking. It was of very poor quality. The toilet was not separated from the living area of the cell. Once a week the inmates received a basin of hot water for washing their clothes. 23.  From 6 a.m. to 10 p.m. the bunk beds were folded up and attached to the wall. The inmates could only stand or squat, or sit on a narrow ledge which ran along the edge of the cell in order to let their feet rest. 24.  The inmates did not receive newspapers. Nor was there a radio in the cell. Food was of very poor quality and scarce. The daily outdoor exercise lasted between fifteen and forty minutes. 25.  On an unspecified date the applicant complained to the prosecutor, alleging that detaining him in such a disciplinary cell was in contravention of the applicable laws. 26.  On 22 November 2005 the prosecutor dismissed the complaint. He advised the applicant that at the material time the facility did not have a quarantine area in which newly arrived convicts could be placed for the purpose of medical checks. He further informed the applicant that, following a report by the prosecutor, the administration had made the necessary arrangements to set up a proper quarantine area in the facility. Lastly, the prosecutor explained that the applicant was entitled to contest the prosecutor’s findings in a court or before a superior prosecutor.