complains about the detention conditions in the prison hospital, in particular overcrowding, inadequate lighting, draughts and low temperatures in the cell, and inadequate sanitary arrangements. He further complains, under Article 3, that the medical treatment he received there was inadequate. Relying on Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life and the home), and Article 34 (right of individual petition), he lastly complains that one of the letters he received from the European Court of Human Rights was opened by a prison guard. G.B. and R.B. v. the Republic of Moldova (no. 16761/09) The applicants, G.B. and R.B., wife and husband, are Moldovan nationals who were born in 1968 and 1966 respectively and live in Ștefan Vodă (the Republic of Moldova). Giving birth to a child in May 2000, Ms B., aged 32 at the time, had a Caesarean section, during which the obstetrician removed her ovaries and Fallopian tubes without obtaining her permission. She has been in treatment to counteract the effects of early menopause since 2001 and has had health problems ever since, including depression and osteoporosis. The courts found the obstetrician guilty of medical negligence, but eventually absolved him of criminal responsibility in 2005. Mr and Ms B. brought civil proceedings against the hospital and the obstetrician, and were awarded damages in the amount of 600 euros. Relying on Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life), they complain of Ms B.’s sterilisation and of the low amount of compensation they were awarded. Gasanov v. the Republic of Moldova (no. 39441/09) The applicant, Zeinal Gasanov, is a Georgian national who was born in 1960 and lives in Taraclia (the Republic of Moldova). Arrested in February 2007 on suspicion of fraud and trespassing on private property, of which he was later convicted and sentenced to six years and four months’ imprisonment, he alleges that while in temporary detention he was ill-treated by the police with the aim of extracting a confession. In particular, he maintains that he was struck on the head with a blunt object, following which he lost consciousness. Relying on Article 3 (prohibition of torture and of inhuman or degrading treatment), he complains that he was ill-treated and that the authorities failed to conduct an effective investigation. He also makes some related complaints under Article 13 (right to an effective remedy). Aslakhanova and Others v. Russia (nos. 2944/06, 8300/07, 50184/07, 332/08 and 42509/10) The applicants are 16 Russian nationals, belonging to five families, all of whom live in Chechnya. The cases concern the disappearances of their eight male relatives in Grozny or the Grozny District between March 2002 and July 2004. All eight men were arrested by groups of armed and masked men at their homes or in the streets in a manner resembling a security operation. In each case a criminal investigation was opened by the local prosecutor’s office without having produced results as to the whereabouts of the applicants’ relatives or the identity of the perpetrators of the abductions. The applicants complain that there has been a violation of Article 2 (right to life) in respect of their relatives’ disappearance and on account of the authorities’ failure to conduct an effective investigation. They further allege a violation of Article 3 (prohibition of torture and of inhuman or degrading treatment) and Article 5 (right to liberty and security), in particular as a result of the mental suffering caused to them by their relatives’ disappearance and the unlawfulness of their detention. They argue that they did not have any effective remedy in Russia in respect of their complaints. Finally, the applicants point to the systemic nature of the failure to investigate such crimes and refer to Article 46 (binding force of the Court’s judgments). 3