below ground level, with only one bed and limited access to air and light. He stated that he was only permitted to leave the cell for half an hour twice a day to go to the toilet. 129. The Government alleged that the cell in which Mr Assenov was detained at Shoumen measured 4.6 by 3.5 metres and was shared with only one other detainee. 130. The Commission considered that the applicant’s allegations concerning the conditions of his detention, although initially raised under Article 5, should be examined in relation to Article 3. Having assessed all the facts, it did not find that the level of severity required for a breach of Article 3 had been attained. 131. The Court notes that the applicant has not expressly raised any complaint under Article 3 of the Convention (see paragraph 90 above) in connection with the conditions in which he was detained following his arrest in July 1995. He has, however, made certain allegations about these conditions in the context of his complaint about the legality of his detention under Article 5 § 1. 132. The Court recalls that it is master of the characterisation to be given in law to the facts of the case as declared admissible by the Commission (see the Guerra v. Italy judgment of 19 February 1998, Reports1998-…, p. …, § 44). It follows that it is open to it to consider the applicant’s allegations concerning his conditions of detention in the light of the guarantees against ill-treatment provided by Article 3. 133. The Court observes that Mr Assenov, then aged seventeen, was detained on remand for a total of almost eleven months at Shoumen police station. It notes that the precise conditions of his detention there are disputed between the applicant and the Government, particularly the dimensions of the cell in which he was held and the number of prisoners with whom it was shared, and that the Commission made no findings in respect of these detailed facts. 134. The Court notes with concern that, while still a juvenile, the applicant was held for almost eleven months in conditions which, in the view of the Chief Public Prosecutor’s Office, would be harmful to his physical and mental development if prolonged. It is noteworthy, moreover, that even after the decision was taken to move him, a further three and a half months were allowed to elapse before Mr Assenov was transferred to the Boychinovzi juvenile penitentiary (see paragraph 40 above). 135. It is the Court’s task, however, to assess whether these conditions were sufficiently severe to reach the level required for a finding of violation of Article 3 (see paragraph 94 above). In doing so, it must have regard to all the circumstances, such as the size of the cell and the degree of over-crowding, sanitary conditions, opportunities for recreation and exercise, medical treatment and supervision and the prisoner’s state of health. 136. Aside from the assertions of the parties, the Court has not been presented with any objective evidence relating to the applicant’s conditions of detention. It notes that the Commission made an overall assessment and did not find that the applicant’s conditions of detention were sufficiently severe as to violate Article 3. It further notes that the only medical