3.  According to a medical report issued on 29 June 2004 by the Gaziantep university hospital, the applicant’s state of health required him to follow one diet for his diabetes and another one for his coronary disease, and to live in a well-ventilated environment free of tobacco smoke. 4.  On 30 April 2008 the applicant was placed in the Erzurum H-type prison, where he remained until 6 March 2009, serving a term for terrorist offences. 5.  On 17 July 2008 the applicant was taken to the cardiology department of the Atatürk university hospital in Erzurum (“Erzurum hospital”) for blood tests and an echocardiogram. 6.  A report drawn up on 24 July 2008 by the Erzurum hospital’s health board pointed out that owing to his cardiac issues the applicant had to adhere to a special anti-cholesterol diet with high poultry meat and vegetable content and low levels of beef and saturated fats. The report mentioned that if the prison in which the applicant had been placed offered a wide choice of daily menus it would be unnecessary to transfer the applicant to another prison providing such facilities. It added that on the other hand, if the prison only offered one standard menu, the Erzurum hospital’s health board would hold a further meeting in order to decide whether the applicant should be transferred to another prison, after ascertaining the view of a dietician on the cholesterol content of the standard menu. 7.  On an unspecified date the applicant, arguing that the meal served in prison was incompatible with his medically prescribed diet, asked the prison authorities to send samples to the Ministry of Justice and the Human Rights Commission of the Grande National Assembly of Turkey. 8.  On 24 October 2008 the prison disciplinary board rejected his request on the grounds that the foodstuffs would spoil very quickly, before reaching their destination. That board pointed out that the applicant could lodge a complaint by mail with the aforementioned institutions in order to inform them of his grievances concerning the meals served in prison. 9.  The applicant appealed against that decision. On 7 November 2008 the Erzurum judge responsible for the execution of sentences (“the judge responsible for the execution of sentences”) dismissed the appeal. On 5 December 2008 the Erzurum Assize Court (“the Assize Court”) upheld the dismissal decision given by the judge responsible for the execution of sentences.
  10.  Meanwhile, on 24 November 2008, the applicant had been taken to the emergency department of Erzurum hospital complaining of chest pains. On 5 December 2008 he underwent an exercise electrocardiogram. 11.  On an unspecified date the applicant lodged a complaint with the judge responsible for the execution of sentences about the refusal by the prison authorities, despite his many requests, to provide him with meals compatible with his medically prescribed diet, which he said formed an integral part of his medical treatment. He also complained about his difficulties in obtaining medication. The applicant stated the following, inter alia:
“... my state of health [is poor]; the prison authorities informed me that I would be provided with meals compatible with my diet, but that has not happened; this can be noted from surveillance camera footage; I was not provided with the menu list when I wanted to submit it to the Ministry for examination.” 12.  On 2 January 2009 the judge responsible for the execution of sentences allowed the applicant’s request. That judge referred in his decision to a document which the prison authorities had drawn up for the attention of the Erzurum public prosecutor’s office, stating the following:
“... medically prescribed diets cannot be prepared in [our] prison’s kitchen; we can only cook unsalted and unspiced versions of the meals prepared for the other [prisoners]. Extra potatoes, boiled eggs and tomatoes are sometimes provided.” 13.  The judge responsible for the execution of sentences pointed out that the prison had not indicated in that document whether or not the meals contained fats, which made it impossible to assess their cholesterol content. In view of the impossibility of ascertaining whether meals prepared in that manner were compatible with the medical prescriptions in question, he ordered that the standard menu should be examined by a dietician and, if that menu proved incompatible with the applicant’s diet, that the applicant should be provided with an appropriate menu. 14.  On 5 January 2009 the Erzurum public prosecutor (“the prosecutor”) appealed against the decision of 2 January 2009. On 8 January 2009 the judge responsible for the execution of sentences dismissed that appeal. 15.  On the same day the prosecutor lodged a fresh appeal against the decision of 8 January 2009, this time with the Assize Court. He argued as follows: the meals were prepared in the prison kitchen; the daily allowance per prisoner, which totalled three Turkish liras (TRY – about 1.40 euro at the material time), was only sufficient to prepare one type of meal per day, which meant that the prisoners could not be offered several types of menus; menus could not be prepared for the medically prescribed diets for a total of thirty-eight individuals detained in the same prison, and only an unsalted, fat-free and unspiced version of the standard menu was on offer. According to the prosecutor, the prison would only be able to improve its service in that respect if the amount of the daily allowance were increased. 16.  On 9 January 2009 the Assize Court followed the prosecutor’s reasoning and quashed the decisions given by the judge responsible for the execution of sentences on 2 and 8 January 2009. 17.  Furthermore, according to the weekly lists of standard menus for the weeks of 24 February 2009 and 3 March 2009, the meals served to prisoners in the Erzurum Prison had mainly consisted of beef, fried food and starches: poultry meat had only been served once a week and the menus had comprised minimal fresh vegetables.