CAT/C/52/D/478/2011 2.3 The complainant submits that, while in detention in the temporary confinement ward, he was subjected to torture and inhuman treatment. He submits that most of the other detainees were smokers, and that he was exposed to passive smoking all the time. He was not allowed to leave the cell for walks and had no possibility of exercising. He was fed only once a day and the food was of bad quality. There was no plumbing, toilet or ventilation in the cell. Instead of a toilet, the detainees used a metal bucket, and he had no privacy when using it as there were other people present in the cell. There was no running water and the detainees were given a bucket of water. The detainees were taken to toilets outside the cell twice a day to empty their buckets and to get drinking water. The complainant also submits that he was not given bedding or basic toiletry items. The complainant contends that this was done on purpose, so he could not sleep and rest at night. The complainant submits that this was done in order to pressure him into admitting the crime of which he was accused. He also claims that because of the conditions in the temporary confinement ward, he was not able to prepare for his trial. 2.4 The complainant submits that his defence attorney, appointed ex officio, did not assist him properly during the trial, and refused to assist him in complaining about torture and inhuman treatment in the temporary confinement ward. 2.5 The complainant submits that he complained about ill-treatment to the first instance court during his trial, but that the court disregarded his complaints. 2.6 The complainant submits that, on an unspecified date, he filed a complaint with the Prosecutor’s Office regarding the duration and the inhuman conditions of his detention in the temporary confinement ward. On 26 June 2006, the Prosecutor’s Office of Samara Region responded in a letter that at the time of the complainant’s confinement, decisions regarding where and for how long to hold suspects in pretrial detention were under its jurisdiction. The letter confirmed that the complainant had been kept in the temporary confinement ward from 14 December 2000 to 2 May 2001 and that the conditions in the ward were substandard. The letter also stated that at the time of the inquiry the temporary confinement ward was closed for renovation, and that there was no possibility of subjecting any officials to disciplinary action because the prosecutor who was in charge at the time of the complainant’s detention had been dismissed in 2002 and the director of the ward had retired in 2003. 2.7 The complainant submits that, on an unspecified date, he filed a complaint with the Prosecutor’s Office requesting recognition that his lengthy confinement in the temporary confinement ward in inhuman conditions constituted torture and demanding prosecution of the officials responsible. His complaint was rejected on 27 December 2008 as a result of a ruling by an investigator. He appealed the rejection to Avtozavodsky District Court, however in a ruling made on 22 June 2009, the Court, while recognizing that the complainant had been detained for an excessive amount of time and in substandard conditions, refused to recognize that that treatment constituted torture and refused to order a criminal investigation. The complainant’s subsequent cassation appeal and request to Samara Regional Court for a supervisory review were also rejected, on 21 August 2009 and 20 November 2009 respectively. On 10 March 2010, the complainant’s final appeal was rejected by the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation. The complainant contends that he has exhausted all available and effective domestic remedies. The complaint 3.1 The complainant claims that the inhuman conditions of his detention at the temporary confinement ward amounted to torture. He submits that the sheer length of his detention also amounted to torture and degrading treatment, which was perpetrated by the State in order to elicit a confession, in violation of article 15 of the Convention. 3