4.  The applicant was born in 1966 and lives in Nizhnevartovsk, in the Khanty-Mansiyisk Region. 5.  At the material time the applicant leased a flat in a block of flats in Noyabrsk (a town in the Yamalo-Nenetskiy Region). On 16 February 2006 at about 6 a.m. the applicant’s neighbours called the police. They informed the police of loud screams that they had heard from the applicant’s flat. Two police officers arrived at 6 a.m. and took the applicant to the Noyabrsk police station (“the police station”). 6.  According to a logbook of people taken to the police station, the applicant arrived at the station at 7.05 a.m. and was handed over to an investigator “for further proceedings” at 7.55 a.m. on 16 February 2006. According to the applicant, the investigator, Ch., repeatedly questioned him as “a witness to the incident”. 7.  According to the applicant, he was released on 16 February 2006 at about 11 p.m. and summoned to appear before the investigator the next day at 2 p.m. The applicant alleges that he was under the constant supervision of police officers between 6 a.m. and 11 p.m. on 16 February 2006 and was not allowed to leave the police station. 8.  In 2011 the applicant sued the police station, claiming compensation for unrecorded detention. 9.  On 5 August 2011 the Noyabrsk Town Court of the Yamalo‑Nenetskiy Region dismissed his claim. 10.  On 5 September 2011 the applicant lodged an appeal against that decision. However, he was required to correct some errors in his claim. 11.  On 28 September 2011 the Noyabrsk Town Court returned the claim to the applicant, stating that he had failed to correct the errors in his claim. 12.  The applicant did not lodge an appeal against that decision. 13.  On 17 February 2006 the investigator opened a criminal investigation into an offence of rape. The applicant formally became a suspect. On the same day the investigator arrested him and drew up formal records of his arrest. Between 18 February 2006 and 22 June 2006 the applicant was kept in the temporary detention centre of the Noyabrsk police station (“the IVS”). 14.  The applicant provided the following description of the conditions in the IVS. He was held in cell no. 9 measuring 15 sq. m. The cell housed between nine and twelve inmates who took it in turns to sleep. The overcrowding caused a lot of conflict and tension between the inmates. 15.  The window of the cell measured 0.6 m by 0.3 m and was covered with metal blinds blocking access to daylight and fresh air. There was no ventilation in the cell. The lack of air was aggravated by the detainees’ smoking. 16.  There was no sink with a tap or toilet. The inmates had to use a bucket, which smelled very bad and was only emptied once a day in the morning. The bucket was not separated from the main area. The dining table was only 1.5 m away from the bucket. The detainees were provided with meals once a day. The quality of the food was completely unsatisfactory. There was not enough drinking water for everybody. 17.  The detainees were allowed to take a shower once every ten days for fifteen minutes, and there were three shower heads for nine to ten people. The drains in the shower room did not work, and the water temperature was not adjustable. There was no changing room, the detainees had to undress before the shower and dress after it in a corridor. Only twice during the applicant’s detention in the IVS was he allowed to have outdoor exercise. 18.  The ceiling of the cell was covered with mould. The cells were infested with bugs, lice, cockroaches and rats, and the administration did nothing to disinfect the facility. 19.  It was cold in winter (there was a maximum temperature of 6˚C) and hot in summer (a maximum temperature of 45˚C). 20.  The detainees were provided with neither bedding nor items of personal hygiene. They were also unable to buy them in the IVS. Mattresses had tar stains, and there was no possibility to wash clothes. Inmates were not provided with newspapers, reading material, or any information concerning their rights. The applicant was held in a cell with persistent offenders and ill persons. 21.  On 15 June 2006 the Noyabrsk Town Court convicted the applicant of rape and sentenced him to six and a half years’ imprisonment in a “strict‑regime correctional colony”. 22.  On 28 August 2006 the Yamalo-Nenetskiy Regional Court upheld the judgment of 15 June 2006 on appeal. Between 29 September 2006 and 16 June 2011 the applicant served his sentence in correctional colony IK-8 located in Labytnangi, in the Yamalo-Nenetskiy Region.
(a)  The applicant’s account 23.  The applicant provided the following description of the conditions of his detention in the correctional colony, and submitted a detailed plan of the accommodation, with a description. The dormitory where he lived consisted of two sections measuring 132 and 144 sq. m respectively and accommodated 230 to 250 individuals. 24.  The sanitary facilities were extremely busy: all the detainees had to use five taps and four toilets. There was not enough water. Water was only available from 5 a.m. to 7 a.m. and from 8 p.m. to 11 p.m. While there was no running water, the detainees had two water tanks at their disposal – one which contained drinking water and the other which contained water which was not drinkable. Per day, they could use 50 litres of drinking water and 300 litres of water which was not drinkable. This was clearly not enough, since the water in the tanks would be used up by about 10 a.m. The toilets smelled extremely unpleasant, since there was no water to flush them after 10 a.m. 25.  The floor of the dormitory was based on a frame made of used railway sleepers impregnated with creosote. It smelled so strongly that the detainees had to leave the windows open permanently, even in winter, to get rid of the smell. The smell caused headaches and the open windows caused colds. The roof of the dormitory had at least eighteen visible leaks and there would be puddles on the floor if it rained. The dining room in the dormitory measured 32 sq. m and was equipped with one electric stove with four burners, one refrigerator and four sockets. The dormitory was infested with rats. 26.  The detainees were allowed to take a shower once a week for fifteen minutes, and there were ten shower heads for up to forty people. Just before the applicant’s release, four extra shower heads were installed, but the time for washing was reduced to ten minutes. 27.  According to the applicant, in 2008 the detainees were provided with winter clothes only at the end of November when the temperature dropped below minus 28˚C.
(b)  The Government’s account 28.  As regards the conditions of the applicant’s detention in IK-8 in Labytnangi, the Government submitted information which can be summarised as follows:
 
 
Period of detention
 
 
Unit no.
 
 
 
Dormitory surface area in sq. m
 
 
Number of sleeping places
 
 
Number of inmates assigned to the dormitory
 
 
Number of washbasins and lavatories
 
29 September 2006 –
15 March 2007
 
9
330
No information
No information
8 and 12
 
15 March 2007 –
19 September 2008
 
1
143
No information
No information
5 and 6
 
19 September 2008 –
30 October 2009
7
321
No information
No information
6 and 4
30 October 2009 –
14 May 2010
10 (accommodated in building previously occupied by units 7 and 8)
321
122
119
6 and 4
18 May 2010 –
20 April 2011
10
321
96
95
6 and 4
25 April 2011 –
16 July 2011
10
321
84
81
6 and 4 29.  They also submitted that the toilets had been separated from the canteen and dormitory, and the units had been naturally ventilated and regularly disinfected. No failures in the water or electrical supply system had been identified. Detainees had taken showers weekly and had been provided with food and clothes “in accordance with the established schedule”. 30.  On an unspecified date in 2010, while serving his sentence in the correctional colony, the applicant brought civil proceedings against the Noyabrsk police station and the Russian Ministry of Finance, seeking compensation in respect of non-pecuniary damage resulting from the poor conditions of his detention in the IVS in 2006. The applicant was not represented in those proceedings. 31.  On 23 July 2010 the Noyabrskiy Town Court dismissed the applicant’s claim in his absence. 32.  On 30 August 2010 the applicant lodged an appeal against the decision of 23 July 2010. He complained in particular that he had not been allowed to personally address the court, despite a request he had made to this effect, and he asked the appeal court to arrange for him to attend the appeal hearing. 33.  On 25 November 2010 the Yamalo-Nenetskiy Regional Court upheld the decision of 23 July 2010 on appeal. It stated that the law did not make provision for transporting detainees to a civil court hearing.