First section

.  The general principles concerning the conditions of detention are well established in the Court’s case-law and have been summarised as follows (see Ananyev and Others v. Russia, nos. 42525/07 and 60800/08, 10 January 2012):

“139.  The Court reiterates that Article 3 of the Convention enshrines one of the most fundamental values of a democratic society. It prohibits in absolute terms torture or inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, irrespective of the circumstances and the victim’s behaviour (see, for example, Labita v. Italy [GC], no. 26772/95, § 119, ECHR 2000-IV). Ill-treatment must attain a minimum level of severity if it is to fall within the scope of Article 3. The assessment of this minimum is relative; it depends on all the circumstances of the case, such as the duration of the treatment, its physical and mental effects and, in some cases, the sex, age and state of health of the victim (see, among other authorities, Ireland v. the United Kingdom, 18 January 1978, § 162, Series A no. 25).

140.  Ill-treatment that attains such a minimum level of severity usually involves actual bodily injury or intense physical or mental suffering. However, even in the absence of these, where treatment humiliates or debases an individual, showing a lack of respect for or diminishing his or her human dignity, or arouses feelings of fear, anguish or inferiority capable of breaking an individual’s moral and physical resistance, it may be characterised as degrading and also fall within the prohibition of Article 3 (see Pretty v. the United Kingdom, no. 2346/02, § 52, ECHR 2002-III, with further references).

141.  In the context of deprivation of liberty the Court has consistently stressed that, to fall under Article 3, the suffering and humiliation involved must in any event go beyond that inevitable element of suffering and humiliation connected with the detention. The State must ensure that a person is detained in conditions which are compatible with respect for human dignity, that the manner and method of the execution of the measure do not subject him to distress or hardship of an intensity exceeding the unavoidable level of suffering inherent in detention and that, given the practical demands of imprisonment, his health and well-being are adequately secured (see Kudła, cited above, §§ 92-94, and Popov v. Russia, no. 26853/04, § 208, 13 July 2006).

142.  When assessing conditions of detention, account has to be taken of the cumulative effects of these conditions, as well as of specific allegations made by the applicant (see Dougoz v. Greece, no. 40907/98, § 46, ECHR 2001-II). The length of the period during which a person is detained in the particular conditions also has to be considered (see, among other authorities, Alver v. Estonia, no. 64812/01, 8 November 2005).”

.  Turning to the facts of the instant case, the Court observes that the parties disagreed as to most aspects of the conditions of the applicant’s detention. However, there is no need for the Court to establish the veracity of each and every allegation, because it can find a violation of Article 3 on the basis of the facts presented to it by the applicant which the respondent Government failed to refute (see Grigoryevskikh v. Russia, no. 22/03, § 55, 9 April 2009).

.  In particular, the Court notes that the applicant, although without citing the measurements of the cells where he had been detained, maintained his assertion that at all times the cells had been overcrowded. The Government did not contest the applicant’s argument. Without providing any detail as to the cells’ size or population, they merely claimed that the conditions of the applicant’s detention had been in compliance with the standards required by Article 3 of the Convention.

.  The Court takes also cognisance of the fact that on numerous previous occasions it has examined the issue of conditions of detention in remand prison no. IZ-77/3 in Moscow and found that the inmates had been detained there in severely overcrowded cells in contravention of the requirements set forth in Article 3 of the Convention (see, for example, Belevitskiy v. Russia, no. 72967/01, §§ 73-79, 1 March 2007, conditions of detention in 2001-02; Belashev v. Russia, no. 28617/03, §§ 50-60, 4 December 2008, conditions of detention in 2002-03; and Vladimir Kozlov v. Russia, no. 21503/04, §§ 36-46, 20 May 2010, conditions of detention in 2001-03). One of the more recent cases concerned the same time period as the present one (Vladimir Sokolov v. Russia, no. 31242/05, §§ 58-64, 29 March 2011, conditions of detention from 13 January to 5 December 2005).

.  The Court further reiterates that Convention proceedings such as the present application do not in all cases lend themselves to a rigorous application of the principle affirmanti incumbit probatio (he who alleges something must prove that allegation), as in certain instances the respondent Government alone have access to information capable of corroborating or refuting allegations. A failure on a Government’s part to submit such information without a satisfactory explanation may give rise to the drawing of inferences as to the well-foundedness of the applicant’s allegations (see Timurtaş v. Turkey, no. 23531/94, § 66 in fine, ECHR 2000-VI).

.  In the present case the Government failed to provide any original documents to refute the applicant’s allegations, claiming that they had been destroyed after the expiry of the statutory time-limit for their storage. Their submissions were based on the statements of the remand prison officers made some four years after the events under consideration. The Court cannot, however, view such documents as sufficiently reliable (see, among other authorities, Novinskiy v. Russia, no. 11982/02, § 105, 10 February 2009).

.  Accordingly, the Court accepts the applicant’s argument that the cells where he had been detained for almost a year had been overcrowded and that the personal space afforded to him had been insufficient. It also notes that the applicant had to spend twenty-three hours per day in such conditions.

.  The Court has frequently found a violation of Article 3 of the Convention on account of the lack of personal space afforded to detainees (see, among other authorities, Kalashnikov v. Russia, no. 47095/99, §§ 97 et seq., ECHR 2002VI; Khudoyorov v. Russia, no. 6847/02, §§ 104 et seq., ECHR 2005-X; Labzov v. Russia, no. 62208/00, §§ 44 et seq., 16 June 2005; Mayzit v. Russia, no. 63378/00, §§ 39 et seq., 20 January 2005; Novoselov v. Russia, no. 66460/01, §§ 41 et seq., 2 June 2005; and most recently Ananyev, cited above, §§ 120-66).

.  Having regard to the materials in its possession, 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. The Court concludes, therefore, that the applicant was subjected to inhuman and degrading treatment in breach of Article 3 of the Convention on account of the conditions of his detention in remand prison no. IZ-77/3 in Moscow between 24 December 2004 and 8 December 2005.

II.  ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 5 OF THE CONVENTION

.  The applicant complained under Article 5 § 1 (c) of the Convention that there had been no grounds on which to put him in detention pending his trial. Under Article 5 § 3, he complained of a violation of his right to trial within a reasonable time and alleged that there were not sufficient grounds for his detention.

The relevant parts of Article 5 read as follows:

“1.  Everyone has the right to liberty and security of person. No one shall be deprived of his liberty save in the following cases and in accordance with a procedure prescribed by law:

...

(c)  the lawful arrest or detention of a person effected for the purpose of bringing him before the competent legal authority on reasonable suspicion of having committed an offence or when it is reasonably considered necessary to prevent his committing an offence or fleeing after having done so;

3.  Everyone arrested or detained in accordance with the provisions of paragraph 1 (c) of this Article shall be ... entitled to trial within a reasonable time or to release pending trial. Release may be conditioned by guarantees to appear for trial.”

.  The Government contested that argument. They submitted that the applicant’s pre-trial detention had been in compliance with the requirements set forth in Article 5 of the Convention.