122. The Court further notes that Mr Assenov and his parents on his behalf made numerous requests for his release to the prosecuting authorities and the Shoumen District Court. In these circumstances, it considers that the applicant has satisfied the requirements of Article 26 (see paragraph 85 above). It follows that the Government’s preliminary objection must be rejected. 2. Alleged abuse of process 123. The Government further contended that the allegations concerning the events of and subsequent to July 1995 should have been declared inadmissible under Article 27 § 2 of the Convention (see paragraph 87 above) since they did not form part of the initial application to the Commission and were not causally linked to the matters originally complained of. 124. At the hearing before the Court, the Commission’s Delegate pointed out that the Government had not raised at the admissibility stage any objection concerning the alleged absence of connection between the applicant’s various complaints and observed that they should, therefore, be estopped from raising this objection before the Court. The Delegate stated that in any case applicants had the right to complain about any violation of their Convention rights; it was merely a procedural matter whether the complaints would be examined jointly or separately. 125. The Court agrees that since the Government’s preliminary objection concerning an alleged abuse of process was not raised before the Commission at the admissibility stage of the proceedings, the Government is estopped from raising it before the Court (see, amongst many authorities, the Loizidou v. Turkey (Preliminary Objections) judgment of 23 March 1995, Series A no. 310, p. 19, § 44). 126. The Government also contended that the allegations concerning the alleged failure by the State to respect the right of individual petition under Article 25 of the Convention had not been substantiated and were, therefore, manifestly ill-founded. 127. The Court finds no evidence of abuse of process in connection with the complaints in question. It therefore rejects the Government’s preliminary objection. B. Merits 1. Alleged violation of Article 3 of the Convention 128. In the context of his complaint under Article 5 § 1 (see paragraph 137 below) the applicant complained about the conditions of his detention at Shoumen police station. He claimed to have shared with two to four adult prisoners a cell which measured 3 by 1.8 metres and was situated