6.  The applicant was born in 1977 and is a life-sentenced prisoner. He has been detained in X Prison since 2008. 7.  The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows. 8.  Following a referral by the prison medical unit for the applicant to undergo a colonoscopy, the prison director issued an order on 9 November 2010 assigning a three-member escort team equipped with firearms, ammunition and bulletproof vests to take the applicant to Y Hospital. On the same date an escort plan (saateplaan) was drawn up, which included a section headed “Relevant circumstances for the execution of an escort task”. It gave an overview of the applicant’s past criminal behaviour, noting that he had been sentenced to life imprisonment for aggravated murder, and, while in prison, had been convicted for handling narcotic substances and repeatedly punished for acts of violence against public officials. The escort plan also included a personal risk assessment. It was noted that the applicant reacted aggressively to lawful orders of the officials when he thought that they were being unreasonable and also in situations where he felt cornered. He did not respect the prison regime and was prone to self-harm. Moreover, he was considered to become more dangerous in situations where he interpreted information in a manner expecting a favourable outcome for himself which nevertheless did not follow. The risk of his absconding was considered to be higher when outside prison. Against that background, it was considered necessary for the applicant to wear handcuffs and ankle cuffs. 9.  On the same day the applicant was transferred from the prison to a public hospital. The prison officers remained in the room with him during his examination and he was restrained by handcuffs and ankle cuffs. 10.  According to the applicant, he was not allowed to wear his own clothes during the visit. The members of the escort team could overhear the conversation between him and the doctor and were able to follow the examination of his internal organs on a monitor. 11.  According to the Government, the applicant had not requested to wear his own clothes during the visit. They submitted an explanation given on 11 August 2016 by a doctor at Y Hospital, who noted that he did not remember the particular visit, but asserted that although members of the escort team would normally stay in the examination room, a screen would be placed between them and the patient. The quality management specialist of the hospital confirmed that screens were commonly used, as they prevented prison officers from directly observing the examination, but allowed them to intervene if needed. The Government also submitted detailed information about the hospital’s floor plan and noted that the relevant examination room measured 40 square metres, so the prison officers had not been in the immediate vicinity of the applicant. 12.  Following a referral by the prison medical unit for the applicant to be taken to hospital for an examination by an ear, nose and throat specialist, the prison director issued an order on 27 October 2011 assigning a four-member escort team equipped with firearms and ammunition to take the applicant to Y Hospital. The information about the applicant’s criminal behaviour and personal risk assessment was repeated (see paragraph 8 above) and it was considered necessary for him to wear handcuffs and ankle cuffs during the visit. 13.  On the same day the applicant was transferred from prison to Y Hospital. 14.  According to the applicant, he was not allowed to wear his own clothes during the visit. In his application, he stated that the prison officers had remained in the room during the examination and could overhear the conversation between him and the doctor. In his observations he submitted that he had, very shortly after being taken to the hospital, asked to be returned to prison and had refused to go in to see the doctor as he had been embarrassed to be seen in handcuffs and ankle cuffs. 15.  The Government submitted that the applicant had not requested to wear his own clothes. They stated that although it appeared from the note in the applicant’s escort plan that he had refused to see a doctor at the hospital because of his handcuffs and ankle cuffs, his medical file nonetheless revealed that a short meeting between the applicant and the doctor might have taken place. According to information obtained from the hospital, the relevant doctor’s room had measured 33.5 square metres. 16.  On 30 January 2012 the deputy director of the prison granted the applicant’s request to visit his newborn daughter (who had undergone surgery and was in a serious condition) in hospital. The applicant had submitted a request to be allowed to wear his own clothes during the visit. A six-member team (four of whom were required to stay in the immediate vicinity of the applicant and two of whom had the task of “securing the convoy”) equipped with firearms and ammunition was assigned to escort the applicant. According to the escort plan, which contained information about the applicant’s criminal behaviour and personal risk assessment (see paragraph 8 above), it was considered necessary for him to wear handcuffs and ankle cuffs. The visit took place on 31 January 2012. 17.  According to the applicant, the prison officers had been aware that the visiting hours at the hospital were from 12 noon to 7 p.m., but he had been transferred to the hospital at around 11 a.m. His visit with his daughter had lasted only ten minutes because he had been there during the time that medical procedures were being performed on the patients. Furthermore, he had wanted to touch his child and the doctors had given their permission, but the prison officers had stopped him from doing so. The prison officers had remained with him at all times and could overhear the conversation between the applicant and the doctor regarding his daughter’s health. 18.  Relying on information provided by X Prison, the Government stated that in the relevant intensive care unit of the hospital the visiting hours were twenty-four hours a day. However, the time of the visit outside the hospital’s general visiting hours (from 12 noon to 7 p.m.) had been specifically agreed with the hospital so as to minimise contact between the applicant and other people. According to the escort plan, the applicant had arrived at the hospital at 10.50 a.m. and the visit had ended at 11.15 a.m. 19.  The Government submitted an explanation drafted on 2 April 2012 by the head of the escort team on duty on the day of the visit. It stated that no medical procedures had been performed on the applicant’s daughter during the visit and that the visit had not been terminated – the applicant had wished to leave the hospital himself. 20.  The Government also submitted an explanation given on 18 August 2016 by the head of the hospital board, who admitted not remembering the actual visit but stated that according to the hospital rules and code of good conduct, the intensive care unit was very quiet and any information was passed on quietly, so as not to disturb anyone. Staff had to be careful that the information was not heard by anyone other than the person concerned. Given the medical condition of the applicant’s daughter, it was unlikely that permission had been granted to touch or hold her as this could have worsened her condition. 21.  Following the dismissal of his claims by X Prison, the applicant lodged a claim with the Tartu Administrative Court on 5 February 2012, alleging that the conditions and circumstances of the above-described visits had been unlawful. 22.  On 16 April 2012 he lodged a claim with the Tartu Administrative Court requesting compensation for non-pecuniary damage in the amount of 30,000 euros (EUR), based on the same complaints. In this claim he argued, inter alia, that the limitations on the visit to see his daughter and the inability for him to touch her had been unlawful. The court joined the two sets of proceedings. 23.  By a judgment of 29 January 2013, the Tartu Administrative Court dismissed the applicant’s complaint in full. It held that the use of handcuffs and ankle cuffs had been permitted by law, based on preventive security considerations and, as such, had been proportionate. In the “facts and proceedings” (asjaolud ja menetluse käik) part of the judgment the court noted that the applicant had complained about the prison officers remaining in the examination room during the medical procedures and about his visit to see his daughter having taken place at the wrong time and being of limited duration. The court did not address these complaints in its reasoning part of the judgment. 24.  On 28 February 2013 the applicant lodged an appeal with the Tartu Court of Appeal, asking it to overturn the first-instance judgment and uphold his complaint in full. In the appeal he noted, inter alia, that the Tartu Administrative Court had failed to respond to the reasoning supporting his claims and had failed to address the breach of doctor-patient confidentiality in its judgment. 25.  By a judgment of 26 August 2014, the Tartu Court of Appeal dismissed the applicant’s complaint in full, but amended some of the reasoning provided by the first-instance court. It confirmed the Administrative Court’s conclusion about the use of handcuffs and ankle cuffs during the medical examination. It noted that in his appeal the applicant had claimed that the Administrative Court had failed to address the obligation to wear prison clothing, the manner in which the prison officers had carried their weapons and special equipment and the breach of doctor-patient confidentiality. The Court of Appeal dismissed the applicant’s complaint about the prison officers’ presence during his hospital visits, as the prison officers had had a duty under the Regulation of the Minister of Justice “Prisoner Escort Duties and Procedures” (see paragraph 36 below) to escort and guard him. The regulation also required that at least one member of the escort team maintain visual contact with the prisoner at all times. Even if they had overheard a conversation between the applicant and the doctor, they had had an official duty to maintain the confidentiality of that information. The court also addressed and dismissed the applicant’s complaints about the obligation to wear prison clothing and about the prison officers carrying firearms. In the “facts and proceedings” part of the judgment, the Court of Appeal noted that the applicant had, inter alia, complained that the visit to see his daughter had taken place at the wrong time, limiting his visit. The court did not address this complaint in its reasoning part of the judgment. 26.  On 26 September 2014 the applicant lodged an appeal on points of law with the Supreme Court. He reiterated his complaints about the handcuffs and ankle cuffs and the presence of the prison officers during the visits. The applicant also stated that the Court of Appeal had failed to address his complaint regarding the prison officers having taken him to see his child at the wrong time (thereby restricting the duration of the visit) and having stopped him from touching his daughter. 27.  On 15 January 2015 the Supreme Court refused to examine the applicant’s appeal on points of law.