tween 2002 and 2005.
32. According to the applicant, one hearing was held in December 2006, four in January 2007, seven in February 2007, three in March 2007, two in April 2007, two in May 2007, three in June 2007, one in July 2007, one in August 2007, two in September 2007, one in October 2007, four in November 2007, three in December 2007, four in January 2008, three in February 2008, four in March 2008, one in April 2008 and one in May 2008.
33. Thirty-six persons were questioned as witnesses and voluminous written evidence was presented at the trial. On 11 September 2007 the prosecutor completed the presentation of evidence. The defence produced evidence from 2 October 2007 to 10 January 2008. On unspecified dates, the prosecutor dropped the charge of membership of a criminal gang in respect of the applicant and the charge of drug trafficking in relation to one episode. On 30 July 2008 the Regional Court convicted the applicant on the remaining charges and sentenced him to twelve years' imprisonment. The applicant appealed. On 5 March 2009 the Supreme Court of Russia amended the trial judgment and reduced the applicant's sentence to eleven years' imprisonment.
C. Conditions of detention
34. From 10 December 2004 to 11 April 2005 the applicant was detained in Remand Centre IZ-70/1 of Tomsk. From 11 to 25 April 2005 the applicant was kept in Tomsk Prison No. 3, part of which was used as a remand centre. He maintained that, after his arrival there, his head was shaven. A body search disclosed that the applicant had been in possession of a razor blade. On 12 April 2005 the governor of the remand centre ordered his placement in a punishment cell for ten days.
35. Since 25 April 2005 the applicant has been in Remand Centre IZ-70/1.
1. The applicant's account
36. The initial description of the conditions of detention made by the applicant in his application to the Court in 2006 is as follows:
"The applicant spent seven months in a cell measuring five square metres and designed for two persons. The toilet was not separated from the living area and offered no privacy; there was no lavatory and the table was placed next to the toilet. The following five months he spent in a cell measuring eighteen square metres together with eleven to thirteen detainees. The detainees had to sleep in shifts because the cell had only eight beds. The radio and light remained on day and night. He was allowed to take a shower once a week. Subsequently, he was detained in a cell measuring seven square metres together with three to five detainees. The cell had only three beds and the detainees had to sleep in shifts. All cells were infested with lice and bugs."
37. The applicant subsequently submitted that from 10 to 12 December 2004 he was kept in cell No. 90 housing six to eight persons. No mattresses, bedding or tableware were supplied. From 12 to 15 December 2004 he was in cell No. 33 together with another inmate. The lavatory was not separated from the living area; there was no sink so he had to wash himself using a tap above the lavatory. From 15 December 2004 to 11 April 2005 he shared cell No. 41 with another detainee. The material conditions were similar to those in cell No. 33. From 25 April to 29 June 2005 the applicant was in cell No. 41 with another person. From 29 June to 11 October 2005 he was in cell No. 280 which then housed four to eleven persons. The cell had ten beds, one of which was used to store the detainees' belongings. During the summer period the temperature in the cell reached + 50 °C. From 11 October to 8 December 2005 the applicant was in cell No. 267 which then housed ten to fourteen persons. The cell had nine beds, one of which was used to store the detainees' belongings. The windows were covered with metal shutters barring access to natural light. During the win
> 1 2 3 ... 5 6 7 ... 24 25 26