CENBAUER v. CROATIA JUDGMENT 11 of the Act concerning the judge responsible for the execution of sentences came into force (see paragraph 24 above). 35. In the present case, the Court notes that the applicant complained of the conditions of his imprisonment at LSP in the period between January 2001 and April 2003. He had therefore already served one year at LSP, in the conditions complained of, before the new remedy was created. Moreover, he lodged his complaint regarding poor prison conditions with the Court before that date. In these circumstances, the Court does not accept that the applicant was required to make use of the above remedy. 36. The Government's preliminary objection must therefore be dismissed. II. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 3 OF THE CONVENTION 37. The applicant complained that the conditions at LSP, where he served part of his prison sentence, amounted to inhuman and degrading treatment contrary to Article 3 of the Convention, which provides: “No one shall be subjected to torture or to inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.” 38. The Government contested this view. They maintained that, while the conditions in B wing before its renovation had not been ideal, they had not amounted to inhuman or degrading treatment. 39. The Government claimed that the applicant had failed to undertake steps to make his stay at LSP easier, since he had refused to work. The conditions of his imprisonment had been objectively better than those of Mr Benzan (see Benzan, cited above), because his cell had been situated further away from the common bathroom and had therefore been less damp. 40. Finally, the Government claimed that account should be taken of the fact that the State, within the limits of its financial capacity, had been continuously renovating LSP. They submitted that such positive intentions on the part of the Government distinguished the present case from Peers v. Greece (no. 28524/95, § 75, ECHR 2001-III), in which the competent authorities had failed to take measures aimed at improving the objectively unacceptable conditions for serving prison sentences. 41. The applicant maintained that the conditions of his imprisonment taken overall had amounted to inhuman and degrading treatment. 42. As the Court has held on many occasions, 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 Labita v. Italy [GC], no. 26772/95, § 119, ECHR 2000-IV). 43. This being said, ill-treatment must attain a minimum level of severity if it is to fall within the scope of Article 3. The assessment of this