5 the applicant was detained in conditions allowing for 1.37 to 2.51 square metres of cell space per detainee (except for several days in September 2005), including the space taken by the furniture.
75. As the Government made no submissions as to the number of persons detained with the applicant from 11 October 2005 onwards in cells Nos. 267, 184 and 183, the Court will base its assessment on the numbers supplied by the applicant (see paragraphs 36 and 37 above). Therefore, the Court finds that during the relevant period he was afforded 0.78 to 1.7 square metres in those cells, including the space taken by the furniture. Moreover, the Court accepts the applicant's assertion that when the number of detainees exceeded the number of beds in the cell, he had to sleep in shifts with other detainees. Even assuming that the cells were occupied up to their design capacity, the space afforded per detainee would still be insufficient.
76. Furthermore, the applicant submitted six colour photographs allegedly showing the interior of cell No. 183. The lavatory and a sink were situated next to one of the beds; the pan had no flushing system and no lid, and was not separated in any way from the living area. The Government submitted a faxed copy of photos showing a standard toilet with a curtain. The Court will not concern itself with the way in which the applicant obtained the photographs. Its only concern is to determine whether they reflect the truth, and if so, to draw the appropriate conclusions from them (see Mathew v. the Netherlands, No. 24919/03, § 159, ECHR 2005-IX). The Court has no reason to doubt that the photos submitted by the applicant showed the sanitary installations in one of the cells in which he was detained and finds that the sanitary arrangements were inappropriate.
77. Nothing in the parties' submissions made in 2008 indicates that the applicant was transferred to another detention facility or that his situation was otherwise improved, except - probably - regarding sanitary installations. The Court notes with satisfaction some indications as to improvement of the general conditions of detention in various buildings of the remand centre between 2004 and 2008, as stated in the certificate of 26 June 2008 produced by the Government. However, the Court is unable to assess whether any of those improvements directly affected the applicant. Accordingly, the Court concludes that the applicant was kept in cramped conditions up to and including 2008.
78. Lastly, the Court observes that save for one hour of daily outdoor exercise, except on the days of court hearings, the applicant was confined to his cell and was not allowed any other out-of-cell activity. That factor adds to the problem of the insufficient cell space (see {Karalevicius} v. Lithuania, No. 53254/99, § 36, 7 April 2005, and Khudoyorov v. Russia, No. 6847/02, § 105, ECHR 2005-... (extracts)).
79. The Court has on many occasions found a violation of Article 3 of the Convention on account of the lack of personal space afforded to detainees (see Peers v. Greece, No. 28524/95, §§ 69 et seq., ECHR 2001-III; Khudoyorov, cited above, §§ 104 et seq.; Labzov v. Russia, No. 62208/00, §§ 44 et seq., 16 June 2005; Novoselov v. Russia, No. 66460/01, §§ 41 et seq., 2 June 2005; Mayzit v. Russia, No. 63378/00, §§ 39 et seq., 20 January 2005; and Kalashnikov v. Russia, No. 47095/99, §§ 97 et seq., ECHR 2002-VI).
80. Having regard to its case-law on the subject and the material submitted by the parties, the Court notes that the Government have not put forward any fact or argument capable of persuading it to reach a different conclusion in the present case. Although in the present case there is no indication that the authorities intended to humiliate or debase the applicant, the Court finds that the fact that the applicant has been kept in cramped conditions is itself sufficient to cause distress or hardship of an
> 1 2 3 ... 11 12 13 ... 24 25 26