CENBAUER v. CROATIA JUDGMENT 9 Section 78 “(3) Inmates shall be served at least three meals daily with a calorific value of at least 3,000 kcal per day. The content and the nutritional value of the food shall be supervised by a doctor or other medically qualified person.” THE LAW I. THE GOVERNMENT'S PRELIMINARY OBJECTION 25. The Government maintained that the applicant had failed to exhaust domestic remedies as required by Article 35 of the Convention, the relevant parts of which provide: “1. The Court may only deal with the matter after all domestic remedies have been exhausted, according to the generally recognised rules of international law ... ... 4. The Court shall reject any application which it considers inadmissible under this Article. It may do so at any stage of the proceedings.” 26. The Government argued that the applicant should have lodged a complaint with the judge responsible for the execution of sentences (sudac izvršenja) under section 17 of the Enforcement of Prison Terms Act. In this connection, they produced the copy of a decision of the Varaždin County Court (Županijski sud u Varaždinu) dated 17 December 2003, in which that court had accepted a similar complaint in the case of V.Š., an inmate serving his term at LSP. It had found that V.Š. had been in a cell smaller than the minimum size prescribed by law, that this fact violated his rights, and that he was to be transferred to another cell of appropriate size. With regard to his claim for damages, the Varaždin County Court had instructed V.Š. to institute civil proceedings against the State. 27. The Government considered that the above decision proved the effectiveness of a complaint under section 17 of the Act in respect of poor prison conditions. Since the submitted decision had been given shortly after the applicant had served his prison term, the Government claimed that the applicant should also have filed such a complaint prior to the lodging of his application. 28. The applicant disagreed with the Government. He maintained that the submitted decision was of no relevance to his case as it had in any event been given after he had been released from LSP.