text stringlengths 332 3.61k | label int64 0 12 |
|---|---|
35. The Government submitted that in his constitutional complaint before the Constitutional Court, which had been an effective domestic remedy concerning the conditions of detention, the applicant had only complained of inappropriate medical care and lack of personal space in detention, as well as the alleged discrimination following the decisions of the Bjelovar County Court. However, he had failed to raise any other argument or complaint concerning the conditions of his detention and had thus failed to observe the principle of subsidiarity with regard to the other complaints he had brought before the Court. Furthermore, he had not invoked any of the provisions of the Constitution guaranteeing protection from ill-treatment and respect for human dignity, notably Articles 23 and 25 (see paragraph 30 above); nor, for that matter, had he invoked Article <mask> of the Convention. In addition, he had not sufficiently substantiated his constitutional complaint. The Government also pointed out that the applicant had been legally represented and that it had been incumbent on his lawyer to properly use the constitutional complaint before the Constitutional Court. Had he done that appropriately, it would also have been open for the applicant to lodge a civil action for damages in the event that a violation of his rights had been found by the Constitutional Court. | 5 |
113. The applicant complained under Article <mask> of the Convention that he had not been provided with adequate medical assistance while serving his sentence in correctional colony IK-4, Tula Region. He further complained under Article 13 of the Convention that no effective domestic remedy had been available to him in this regard. Articles 3 and 13 were both cited above (see paragraph 90 above). | 5 |
46. The applicant complained that his forced transfer to Hungary would subject him to treatment contrary to Article <mask> of the Convention. Relying on Article 5, he further complained that he would be likely to be detained after his transfer to Hungary, which would subject him to inhuman and degrading treatment. The Court considers that the complaint regarding the detention conditions in Hungary in fact also falls under Article 3, and will consequently be examined under that head. Article 3 reads as follows: | 5 |
30. The Government submitted that the applicant had failed to exhaust available domestic remedies in respect of her complaint under Article <mask> of the Convention. In particular, she could have lodged a civil court action seeking compensation for the alleged violation, similar to those brought successfully by the applicants in the above-cited cases of Drugaliov, Gristiuc, Ipate and Ciorap. Moreover, she did not submit a complaint concerning the alleged inadequacy of her medical treatment to any of the domestic authorities, such as the Penitentiaries' Department. The only complaint made was addressed to the investigating judge, who was not competent to decide on that issue. That competence lay with the civil court examining any complaints seeking compensation for damage caused. | 5 |
24. The applicants complained under Article <mask> of the Convention that the length of the proceedings had caused them stress and that their reputation in society had been damaged by the case. They further complained under Article 14 of the Convention on the basis of the same facts. Finally, the applicants complained under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 that at the end of the proceedings they had managed to obtain only a partial result to stop the unlawful occupation of their land. | 5 |
271. The Government argued that the applicant had had effective domestic remedies at his disposal in respect of the alleged violations of his rights, and that the Russian authorities had not prevented him from using those remedies. In particular, the applicant had been granted victim status in criminal cases nos. 21088 and 61857 opened into his allegations of ill‑treatment and the theft and destruction of his property respectively and could have availed himself of his procedural rights which had been explained to him. According to the Government, the applicant had received reasoned replies to all his queries in the context of the criminal proceedings, and therefore had had effective domestic remedies as regards his complaints under Article <mask> of the Convention. | 5 |
115. The applicant further argued that, in view of the reasons for the respondent Government's adoption in July 2006 of a moratorium on decisions on asylum requests and on expulsions of Libyan nationals, the boldness with which the respondent Government maintained their denial of the existence of a “real risk” under Article <mask> of the Convention in his case was questionable. | 5 |
95. The applicant submitted that she had been subjected to an act of police brutality which had been completely unprovoked by her. The clubbing she received amounted to inhuman and degrading treatment under Article <mask> of the Convention. She further submitted that the domestic authorities failed to proceed with a prompt, comprehensive and effective official investigation capable of leading to the identification and punishment of the police officers responsible. | 5 |
110. The Government submitted that the second applicant had failed to exhaust available domestic remedies. According to them, he could have applied to the domestic courts with claims for compensation in respect of any nonpecuniary damage allegedly resulting from the conditions of his detention. The Government also considered that the conditions of detention in the prisons concerned had not been incompatible with Article <mask> of the Convention. | 5 |
41. The Government accepted the first medical assessment submitted by the applicant, prepared by a clinical psychologist (see paragraph 37 above), but argued that it did not prove that he had been subjected to treatment contrary to Article <mask> of the Convention. On the other hand, the Government contested the statement by A.Z., on the grounds that she had not been registered with the Bulgarian Medical Union as a medical practitioner. On these grounds, the Government contended that the first applicant had abused his right to individual application and urged the Court to dismiss his complaints in accordance with Article 35 § 3 (a) of the Convention. | 5 |
68. The applicants alleged a breached of Article <mask> of the Convention on account of their forced expulsion from their village. They had mentally suffered as a result of the actions of the members of security forces, who had burned their family houses. Under Article 8 of the Convention, they complained about the destruction of their property. Furthermore, under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1, they maintained that the destruction of their houses and their forced eviction from the village had violated their right to the peaceful enjoyment of their possessions. The provisions of Articles 3 and 8 of the Convention are set out above at paragraph 59, and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 provides, insofar as relevant, as follows: | 5 |
13. The applicant complained that the conditions of his detention in the remand section of Ljubljana prison amounted to a violation of Article <mask> of the Convention. In particular, he complained of severe overcrowding which had led to a lack of personal space, poor sanitary conditions and inadequate ventilation, as well as excessive restriction on out-of-cell time and high temperatures in the cells. | 5 |
110. The applicants complained under Article <mask> of the Convention that they had been subjected to ill-treatment and torture. They referred, in particular, to the methods of ill-treatment to which they had been subjected in Ingushetia and in Khankala, to the conditions of detention in Khankala and to the threats of execution. The applicants also complained under Article 3 that the authorities had failed to conduct an effective investigation into their allegations of ill-treatment. Article 3 of the Convention reads as follows: | 5 |
130. The applicant complained under Article <mask> of the Convention of inhuman and degrading treatment on account of the material conditions of detention and the lack of adequate medical care in the various prisons where he had been detained. In particular, he complained of severe overcrowding, insalubrious sanitary facilities, the presence of lice, poor quality food, lack of hot or cold running water, lack of adequate activities and excessive restrictions on out-of-cell time. He further complained of inadequate health care and that in response to his repeated requests for dental care he was told that there were not enough funds. | 5 |
18. The applicant complained that the low amount of compensation awarded to him in the domestic civil proceedings had not provided him with proper redress for the violation of his right not to be subjected to treatment proscribed under Article <mask> of the Convention, and that he was therefore still a victim under that Convention provision, which reads as follows: | 5 |
67. The applicants relied on Article <mask> of the Convention, submitting that as a result of their son's abduction and killing and the State's failure to investigate it properly, they had endured mental suffering in breach of Article 3 of the Convention. They also stated that it was highly probable that Mr Anzor Sambiyev had been subjected to treatment contrary to Article 3 of the Convention, which reads as follows: | 5 |
33. The applicant alleged under Article <mask> of the Convention that he had been subjected to torture while in police custody. He also complained about the length of the criminal proceedings against the police officers and the suspension of the pronouncement of the judgment, which in his view had resulted in impunity. The applicant relied upon Articles 3 and 6 of the Convention. | 5 |
37. The applicant complained under Article <mask> of the Convention that his appointment to a lower post and the imposition of sanctions constituted degrading treatment. He further complained under Articles 6 § 1 and 13 of the impossibility to institute a criminal case against the command of his military unit. Relying on Article 6 the applicant complained about a violation of his right of access to court referring to the domestic courts’ refusal to consider on the merits his complaints about the non-enforcement of the judgment in his favour. The applicant also complained under Article 6 of the Convention about an unfair hearing and the outcome of the proceedings in the civil case concerning his dismissal. He finally invoked Articles 14 and 17 of the Convention without any further specification. | 5 |
31. The Government conceded that from 7 August 2003 to 3 December 2004 the floor space available to each detainee in the applicant’s cell had been below the sanitary requirement of four square metres and that that situation had been in breach of Article <mask> of the Convention. The Court observes that the Government only cited the average number of detainees in the cell, which implies that at times the actual number of detainees had been higher. This coincides with the applicant’s submission that he had been obliged to share the cell with up to thirty-five individuals. As the Government only produced the cover page of the register and the page concerning the applicant alone, it is impossible to establish the exact number of detainees during the relevant period. Nevertheless, it is obvious that the cell was severely overcrowded and that detainees were afforded less than three square metres of floor space per person. | 5 |
72. The Government further took the view that the applicant's continued preventive detention on the basis of a judgment delivered in 1985 had not violated Article <mask> of the Convention. The applicant's preventive detention for an indefinite duration did not amount to an irreducible life sentence because the courts responsible for the execution of sentences had to examine at least every two years whether the applicant was still liable to commit serious offences and had to release him if that was not the case. The fact that the applicant may have supposed at the time of his conviction that he could not be placed in preventive detention for more than ten years did not warrant protection because in accordance with Article 2 § 6 of the Criminal Code (see paragraph 34), the maximum duration of preventive detention had always been susceptible to be changed. It was only the Court's new case-law developed in M. v. Germany which led to the conclusion that the said provision could only be applied to a limited extent in respect of preventive detention. | 5 |
23. The applicant complained that conditions of her detention in remand prison IZ-52/1 between 23 August and 20 December 2007 had been in breach of the requirements of Article <mask> of the Convention. She further invoked under Article 34 of the Convention alleging hindrance with her right to individual petition on account of undue restrictions on access to her representative before the Court. The relevant provisions read as follows: | 5 |
35. The Government pointed out that the procedural obligation imposed on the States with regard to Article <mask> of the Convention was an obligation of means and not of result. In their submission, the investigative procedures brought before the two investigating judges were sufficient to consider that the Spanish State had fulfilled its obligations, irrespective of the fact that the police officers were ultimately not convicted. | 5 |
37. The Government have not sought to invoke convincing security reasons requiring the applicants’ isolation. Likewise, they have not said why it was not possible to revise their situation so as to permit adequate possibilities for human contact and meaningful activities outside the cell. While they stated that the applicants could take part in collective activities, apart from mentioning the library and the prison chapel, they did not specify what those activities were, or their frequency. The Court notes in this connection the CPT’s findings in its reports on its 2012, 2014 and 2015 visits to Burgas Prison, namely that there appeared to be little or no structurally planned intervention on the part of staff to attempt to provide appropriate mental and physical stimulation to life prisoners and that the vast majority of inmates had no access to organised out-of-cell activities and were left idle for up to 23 hours a day. It appears that this situation is to a great extent a result of the automatic application of the legal provisions regulating the applicants’ prison regime. In its recent judgment in Harakchiev and Tolumov (cited above, §§ 203-09), the Court found that such automatic isolation, even in application of the relevant statutory provisions, was incompatible with Article <mask> of the Convention. It sees no reason to hold otherwise in the present case. | 5 |
91. The applicant complained that his inability to receive conjugal visits from his wife during his pre-trial detention had caused him intolerable mental and physical suffering and had threatened to break up his family. He was also displeased that his entitlement in that respect had been more restricted than that of a convicted person serving a prison sentence. He alleged that Article <mask> of the Convention had been breached. | 5 |
33. The Government argued, firstly, that the applicant had failed to exhaust domestic remedies in respect of his complaint as he could have applied to a court for compensation of damages caused by allegedly poor conditions of detention. The procedure for making claims was established in Chapter 25 of the Russian Code of Civil Procedure, as clarified by the Supreme Court’s Ruling no. 2 of 10 February 2009. They further claimed that the conditions of the applicant’s detention in IZ-16/1 of Kazan had been fully compatible with the standards of Article <mask> of the Convention. They also asserted that the applicant, in their opinion, had failed to substantiate his allegations by any evidence, such as, for example, statements of other inmates who had shared the cells with him. | 5 |
34. The applicant contested the Government’s submissions. He submitted that even if the physical injuries inflicted on him were not very severe, the assessment of the severity threshold required under Article <mask> of the Convention should take account of the racist motive for the violent acts and the possible effects of such motivation, namely feelings of fear, anguish and inferiority. | 5 |
88. The Government disagreed with their allegations and argued that the investigation had not established that the applicants had been subjected to inhuman or degrading treatment prohibited by Article <mask> of the Convention. They further contended that the first applicant's allegations had been unsubstantiated because the medical documents confirming his injuries had been obtained by him at a much later date. | 5 |
60. The applicant’s allegation, as set out in his complaint to the prosecuting authorities, that the police had subjected him to treatment contrary to Article <mask> of the Convention in the course of his arrest was arguable. It was made shortly after the events and was supported by medical evidence, which showed extensive bruising on his body and limbs, as well as other material (see paragraph 15 above). The authorities were therefore required to carry out an effective investigation into the applicant’s alleged ill-treatment. | 5 |
73. The applicant reiterated his complaint in respect of the Pazardzhik Regional Investigation Service and contended that the conditions of detention in which he had been held were inadequate and amounted to inhuman and degrading treatment under Article <mask> of the Convention. He did not sustain or substantiate any complaints in respect of the conditions of detention at the Pazardzhik Prison. | 5 |
104. The applicant complained, under Article <mask> of the Convention (cited in paragraph 76 above), of inhuman and degrading conditions of detention in a severely overcrowded cell at the Mozhaiskiy District police station of Moscow between 30 July and 6 August 2013. He alleged, in particular, that the cell in which he had been held for almost seven days had been originally designed for short periods of detention not exceeding several hours, and that it had been severely overcrowded. | 5 |
130. The Government claimed that the applicant had failed to lodge his complaints under Article <mask> of the Convention within six months from the date of the final decision within the meaning of Article 35 § 1 of the Convention. More precisely, the applicant was entitled under Article 290 of the CCP (see paragraph 114 above) to contest the decisions of the investigating authority before the domestic courts. The applicant successfully exercised this right by instituting two sets of proceedings: the first one contesting the investigator’s decision of 7 June 2004 rejecting his allegations of ill-treatment and the second one contesting the prosecutor’s decision of 30 August 2004 terminating the criminal proceedings against him. The six months period must be calculated from the date of the final decision in the first set of proceedings, which was taken by the Court of Cassation on 24 September 2004. The application, which had been lodged with the Court only on 10 November 2005, was therefore out of time. The Government argued that the applicant’s submission that the six months period must be calculated from the date of the final decision in the second set of proceedings, namely 13 May 2005, was ill-founded, since those proceedings concerned a different issue, namely the termination of the criminal proceedings, and none of the court decisions taken in those proceedings concerned the applicant’s request to institute criminal proceedings against the alleged perpetrators of ill-treatment or contained any ruling on the applicant’s allegations of ill-treatment. | 5 |
74. The applicant complained of inadequate conditions of detention in Bjelovar Prison. He alleged that he had been allocated less than 3 sq. m of personal space for several non-consecutive periods amounting in total to fifty days, and that there had also been several non-consecutive periods in which he was allocated between 3 and 4 sq. m of personal space in the cells. In this connection he also alleged poor sanitary and hygiene conditions and nutrition, a lack of work opportunities, and insufficient access to recreational and educational activities. He relied on Article <mask> of the Convention, which reads as follows: | 5 |
101. The Government drew attention to the minimum threshold bringing Article <mask> of the Convention into play, which in their view had not been reached, and to the limited extent of the State’s positive obligations under that Article. They pointed out that there had been no intention to deny the applicants access to safe medicinal products. The experimental product that they wished to use had not been authorised in any country, and had not undergone clinical trials. Its safety and efficacy had not been established. Not being given the opportunity to use it could not therefore be regarded as inhuman treatment. On the contrary, its use, which would have amounted to a medical experiment, might have resulted in a breach of Article 3. | 5 |
100. The Government argued, first of all, that the third applicant’s submissions as to the origin of his injuries had been inconsistent: having alleged on 13 March 1999 at the trauma unit that he had fallen down a fire escape, he later reported on 19 March 1999 he that he had been beaten up by the police officers. Besides, his allegations had not been brought to the attention of the domestic authorities in due time. In any event, they had been addressed by the Prosecutor’s Office, which on 19 January 2001 had refused to institute criminal proceedings against the police officers, a decision which the applicant had not challenged before a court. Subsequently, the applicant had been afforded an opportunity to make submissions regarding the alleged beatings and to question those who had allegedly taken part in them. The police officers who had been questioned had denied having applied any physical force against the applicant, for which reason on 28 February 2001 the criminal prosecution against them had been terminated for lack of corpus delicti. The trial court had also examined the applicant’s allegations and found them to be unsubstantiated. The Government concluded that the domestic authorities had undertaken all necessary measures in order to investigate the circumstances in question. However, it had not been established that the applicant had been subjected to any treatment contrary to Article <mask> of the Convention. | 5 |
28. The applicant complained under Article <mask> of the Convention that she had been subjected by the police officers to degrading and humiliating treatment. In particular, she complained that she had been thrown to the muddy ground and then handcuffed and taken straight to the police station. She had been placed in a dirty cell, where she had been kept for approximately twelve hours without any food, water or bedding. The next day she had been taken to the court and publicly exposed in the same muddy clothes. Article 3, in so far as relevant, reads as follows: | 5 |
34. The applicant complained, relying on numerous articles of the Convention, that he was beaten by the police officers when he was detained on 19 December 1996 and that there was a lack of an effective investigation by the authorities relating to the aforementioned. The Court finds that, considering the specific circumstances of the present case, these complaints fall to be examined under Article <mask> of the Convention, which provides the following: | 5 |
36. The applicant complained that the delays in the criminal proceedings against the individuals who raped her or participated were at variance with the respondent State’s obligation to provide an effective system of prosecution of the criminal offences committed against her, as required by Article <mask> of the Convention. She also relied on Articles 6 § 1 and 13 of the Convention, alleging that her right to trial within a reasonable time had been violated in these proceedings. | 5 |
42. The applicants further maintained that on 16 May 1998 they had been beaten by the police. They pointed out that the Government had acknowledged that the incident in question had taken place, and had failed to contest the applicants’ arguments that the perpetrators had been police officers. The applicants insisted therefore that they had been subjected to ill-treatment in breach of Article <mask> of the Convention. | 5 |
81. The applicant also complained of an infringement of Article <mask> of the Convention, since the unreasonably long investigation, which had not produced any result, had caused her moral and physical suffering. She alleged that the further lack of investigation had made her despair of any effective outcome of the investigation. She stated that her complaints had been ignored. This provision reads as follows: | 5 |
81. The Government posited that as regards the applicant’s complaint that he had no prospect of release and that the pardon option was inadequate and ineffective, the applicant could no longer be considered a “victim” of a violation of Article <mask> of the Convention, within the meaning of Article 34, since he had been released from prison after a request for pardon had been granted on 31 March 2014. | 5 |
162. The applicants complained that Muslim Nenkayev had been subjected to treatment in violation of Article <mask> of the Convention and that the authorities had failed to investigate the ill-treatment. They further complained that the anguish and distress suffered by them as a result of their relative’s disappearance and the authorities’ reaction amounted to treatment in violation of Article 3 of the Convention, which reads as follows: | 5 |
99. The Government stressed that the general situation in the prison complained of by the applicant, namely space, sanitation, catering and health-care conditions, was compatible with the requirements of Article <mask> of the Convention. As regards the applicant’s complaint about the lack of recreational activities, the Government submitted that detainees were provided free of charge with newspapers and, once a week, could choose books from the prison library. During 1998 the following cultural and recreational events were organised: several sports tournaments, four theatre productions, fourteen concerts, two art exhibitions, two television game shows, six visits by national celebrities, eighty cinema screenings and 200 video shows, as well as eighty-two religious services. The Government disputed that the applicant had not been afforded adequate medical assistance on 11 June 1998 or immediately thereafter, because no request for such assistance had been made via the special telephone line, as required by the Interim Prison Rules. Overall, the Government considered that the general conditions in the prison were compatible with Article 3. | 5 |
33. The applicant complained that the State had failed to discharge their positive obligation under Article <mask> of the Convention to protect her from domestic violence and to prevent the reoccurrence of such violence. She was a particularly vulnerable person given that, at the age of 72, twenty-two years after divorcing A.M., she had to endure his physical and verbal attacks. | 5 |
190. The applicant complained that in remand prison SIZO 77/1 in Moscow he had regularly been beaten by his cellmates and threatened with murder, allegedly with the consent or even under the instructions of the prison and investigative authorities, who had tried to force him into self-incrimination. The Court shall examine the complaint under Article <mask> of the Convention, which reads as follows: | 5 |
71. The Government merely submitted that the conditions of the applicant’s detention had complied with the guarantees of Article <mask> of the Convention. He had an individual sleeping place and bedding and received food which corresponded to sanitary norms. Relying on medical records and reports, they further argued that the applicant had received necessary medical assistance and had only been released from the prison hospital after his leg had recovered. | 5 |
77. The Government denied that the applicants had been subjected to ill-treatment within the meaning of Article <mask> of the Convention. In the Government’s opinion the applicants and other inmates had caused a riot, opened fire at the soldiers, set fire to their dormitories and corridors and attacked the soldiers by throwing stones at them and hitting them with sticks. It had not been possible to provide medical assistance to the applicants until after the riot was over, because they had continued rioting even after they were injured. | 5 |
61. The applicant submitted that, for the reasons set out above, the situation in his case was completely different from that in the case of H. v. Iceland, cited above. He reiterated that in the present case the reopening of the criminal proceedings based on sections 655 to 657 of the Criminal Procedure Law was not to be regarded as “an extraordinary remedy” (he referred to Withey v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 59493/00, ECHR 2003‑X), but in fact appeared to be the only remedy available to him by which to obtain redress for the breach of his rights enshrined in Article <mask> of the Convention. | 5 |
39. The applicant complained about the material conditions of his detention, including the lack of separation between smokers and non‑smokers, in the Bacău Police Department’s detention facility and Bacău Prison. He alleged, in particular, that the detention facility had been overcrowded, squalid and unhygienic; the sanitary facilities had been defective; the noise made by the other detainees had prevented him from sleeping; the food was of poor quality and insufficient; there had been insufficient opportunities to take outdoor exercise; the cells had lacked ventilation, beds, cutlery, furniture at which to take meals, blankets, pillows and bed linen; and he had had to share the cell with smokers. He relied on Article <mask> of the Convention, which reads as follows: | 5 |
26. The Government contested the applicant's allegations. In particular, they submitted that the physical findings noted in the medical reports did not attain a sufficient level of severity to fall within the scope of Article <mask> of the Convention. In addition, the Government maintained that an effective investigation had been conducted into the circumstances of the case. In this connection, they referred to the steps undertaken by the public prosecutor. | 5 |
22. The applicants complained under Article <mask> of the Convention that they had been subjected to torture whilst in police custody. Relying on Articles 6 and 13, they further alleged that the criminal and administrative responsibilities of the accused police officers had not been established as the criminal proceedings had not been concluded within a reasonable time, so had ultimately become time-barred. They had therefore not been fair. The police officers had also not been suspended from duty, which had allowed them to enjoy impunity during the criminal proceedings. | 5 |
112. The applicants relied on Article <mask> of the Convention, alleging that following their abduction Beslan, Rizvan, Rizavdi and Shuddi Dolsayev had been subjected to inhuman or degrading treatment. The applicants further complained that as a result of their relatives' disappearance and the State's failure to investigate it properly, they had endured mental suffering in breach of Article 3 of the Convention. Article 3 reads: | 5 |
22. The Government did not contest the fact that the injuries on the applicant's body had been caused by the police. However, they stressed that the arresting police officers' actions had been justified in the circumstances because the applicant had used a firearm and resisted arrest. In the Government's opinion, the gravity of the situation had been proved by the injuries later found on the body of one of the arresting police officers. The Government also pointed out that the applicant was dangerous because he had practised judo and that the use of force against him by one the arresting police officers had been a last resort in order to neutralise and arrest the applicant. Moreover, the injuries received by the applicant were light injuries, exactly like those received by one of the arresting police officers, which proved that the ill-treatment had not reached such a level of severity as to trigger a violation of Article <mask> of the Convention. Finally, the Government submitted that the applicant had been passive in pursuing his case before the domestic authorities because he had challenged the prosecutor's decision not to initiate criminal proceedings only after eight months, despite having been immediately informed of it. | 5 |
40. The applicant complained under Article <mask> of the Convention that he had been handcuffed whilst being taken from official buildings to court during his pre-trial detention. The press had been present and had immediately started to ask him questions about his detention. He considered that this treatment had been disproportionate and had not been necessary in the circumstances of the case. Article 3 reads as follows: | 5 |
43. The Government submitted that the applicant had made use of his general right of complaint under section 36(1) g) of Law-Decree no. 11 of 1979 (see paragraph 14 above) which entitled him to request the review of the reasons for his security classification by a body independent of the penitentiary service and authorised to take action. The Borsod-Abaúj-Zemplén County Public Prosecutor’s Office had held that the conditions of the applicant’s detention had not violated his rights under Article <mask> of the Convention and provided detailed reasoning. | 5 |
91. The Government submitted that the complaint under Article 2 was incompatible ratione materiae with the provisions of the Convention, because that Article could not be construed as requiring the State to allow access to unauthorised medicinal products. The same was true for the complaint under Article <mask> of the Convention. The refusal to allow the applicants access to the experimental product MBVax Coley Fluid, whose safety and efficacy had not been established, could not be regarded as inhuman treatment. | 5 |
93. The applicants relied on Article <mask> of the Convention, alleging that upon their abduction Abubakar and Salman Bantayev were subjected to inhuman or degrading treatment. The applicants further complained that as a result of their relatives’ disappearance and the State’s failure to investigate it properly, they had endured mental suffering in breach of Article 3 of the Convention. Article 3 reads: | 5 |
55. The Government asserted that in her original application of 22 May 2006, the applicant had only complained of a violation of her right to trial within a reasonable time in the criminal proceedings. She had only raised the complaint under Article <mask> of the Convention in her submissions made on 23 June 2009, in which she had claimed that the State had failed to provide her with effective vindication of her right not to be subjected to inhuman or degrading treatment by conducting unduly long criminal proceedings against the perpetrators of the criminal acts against her. Accordingly, in the opinion of the Government, the applicant’s latter complaint was lodged after the expiry of the six-month period and was therefore inadmissible. | 5 |
25. The applicant, relying on Articles 3 and 8 of the Convention, complained that the conditions of his detention were inadequate and that his state of health was incompatible with incarceration. The Court, being master of the characterisation to be given in law to the facts of the case (see Bouyid v. Belgium [GC], no. 23380/09, § 55, ECHR 2015) considers that this complaint falls to be examined only under Article <mask> of the Convention, which reads as follows: | 5 |
59. The Government asserted that the conditions of the applicant's detention in facility IZ-61/1 of Rostov-on-Don, and the conditions of her transport to and confinement at the courthouse, had complied with both the requirements of domestic law and Article <mask> of the Convention. The Government were unable to provide exact information on the number of persons detained simultaneously with the applicant in each cell due to the destruction of registration logs upon expiry of the time-limit for storing them. They submitted, however, that notwithstanding the existing overpopulation of facility IZ-61/1 in 2001-2005, the cells for female convicts had not been overcrowded given the small number of female inmates at the material time. | 5 |
114. The Government referred to the Court’s case-law concerning Article <mask> of the Convention and its application to detainees. In similar cases (in particular, Keenan, cited above, and Aerts, cited above), the Court had held that the assessment of whether the treatment or punishment concerned was incompatible with the standards of Article 3 had, in the case of mentally ill persons, to take into consideration their vulnerability and their inability, in some cases, to complain about how they were being affected by any particular treatment. | 5 |
82. The Government further submitted that that the applicant’s continued detention was not contrary to Article <mask> of the Convention. They pointed out that in order for a punishment to be degrading and in breach of Article 3, the humiliation or debasement involved had to attain a particular level and in any event had to be other than the usual element of humiliation inherent in any punishment (they cited Tyrer v. the United Kingdom, judgment of 25 April 1978, Series A no. 26, and Kudła v. Poland [GC], no. 30210/96, § 37, ECHR 2000-XI). | 5 |
45. The applicants complained under Article <mask> of the Convention that the first applicant’s life had been put at risk and that he had been ill-treated by police officers, who had beaten him with truncheons, had punched and kicked in the face, head, stomach and back. They further complained under this Article that there had been no effective investigation into his allegations. Relying on Article 13, they complained that there had been no effective remedy in respect of their complaints under Article 3 of the Convention. Lastly, they complained under Article 6 that they had been denied the right of access to court due to the failure of the public prosecutor to reject the criminal complaint by means of a formal decision. The Court considers that this last complaint falls to be examined under Article 13 of the Convention, as it concerns a particular aspect of the right to an effective remedy under this provision. It further considers that the applicants’ complaint concerning the risk to the first applicant’s life should be examined under Article 2 of the Convention. Articles 2 (the applicability of which the Court will examine, see below), 3 and 13 of the Convention read as follows: | 5 |
82. The Government argued that the conditions in the detention centres where the applicant had been detained during the period under consideration could not be considered to amount to “inhuman or degrading treatment” within the meaning of Article <mask> of the Convention. They pointed out that the sanitary conditions in all the cells where the applicant had been detained were satisfactory. In particular, in cell no. 101 at the Volokolamsk detention centre the applicant had been provided with an individual sleeping berth. From 11 January 2004 the number of bunk beds in cell no. 101 had been reduced to 8 and no more than 8 detainees had been kept in that cell. According to a certificate signed by the head of the administration of the Volokolamsk detention centre, cell no. 101 was in compliance with sanitary and hygiene standards and no parasite insects had been detected there. The applicant had been in good health; he had undergone a medical examination upon arrival and during his detention had made no request for medical assistance. The applicant had been given the necessary bedding and crockery. | 5 |
93. The Government submitted that the allegation of politically motivated persecution of the applicant had been assessed by the Russian courts when examining his appeals against the extradition order, and rejected as unfounded. The Russian courts had relied on the statement from the Prosecutor General's Office of Uzbekistan to the effect that the applicant would face no risk of ill-treatment if he were to be extradited to Uzbekistan and on the fact that the Russian authorities such as the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and the FSB did not have any information confirming his allegation. Referring to the assurances from the Uzbek authorities the Government argued that the applicant would not be subjected to ill‑treatment or punishment contrary to Article <mask> of the Convention. | 5 |
107. The Government argued that the applicant had failed to exhaust an effective remedy that had been open for him to complain about the alleged violations of his rights under Article <mask> of the Convention, at least in so far as he complained of a lack of bedding and food and insufficient light and ventilation. They considered that a complaint to the prosecutor’s office would have allowed the competent authority to resolve his situation. | 5 |
60. The applicant complained under Article <mask> of the Convention that he had been ill-treated by police officers after the arrest and that there had been no effective investigation in that respect. He further complained that the courts convicted him relying on the self-incriminatory statements obtained from him by the investigating authorities through ill-treatment. Lastly, the applicant complained under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, Articles 2 and 4 of Protocol No. 7 that the court had misinterpreted the facts and wrongly applied the law in his case. | 5 |
169. The applicant complained under Article <mask> of the Convention that he had been ill-treated in police custody upon his arrest; under Article 6 that he had not been informed of the charges against him and had not been presumed innocent in that he was held in custody merely on the ground of the seriousness of the charges against him; that the tribunal which convicted him on 17 May 2004 had been unlawful; that two members of the Supreme Court had on several occasions participated in the review of his pre-trial detention and conviction at second instance and, therefore, could not have been impartial in their decisions. He further complained that the Supreme Court had not read out the full text of the appeal decision of 10 March 2005. Lastly, the applicant complained under Article 13 about the lack of an effective domestic remedy with regard to the alleged violations. | 5 |
49. The applicant complained that he required specialised medical care and direct and constant assistance from another person in his daily activities, which had not been provided to him during his detention in Poznań Remand Centre. Considering his particular health condition, namely severe epilepsy and other neurological disorders, the lack of adequate medical treatment and assistance, constituted, in the applicant’s opinion, a breach of the prohibition of inhuman and degrading treatment as provided in Article <mask> of the Convention, which reads as follows: | 5 |
35. The applicants complained that they all suffered from mental health problems and that deportation of the first, second and fourth applicants to Kosovo or Serbia would amount to treatment in violation of Article <mask> of the Convention both in respect of the third applicant’s health, since to separate him from the rest of the family would jeopardise his chances of getting well, and also in respect of the other applicants’ health. | 5 |
47. The Government submitted that the police had dispatched officers to ensure the safety of the participants in the Sofia Gay Pride parade, in view in particular of the threats made against them. The group of fifty to seventy persons intercepted by the police behind the National Palace of Culture had been armed with knuckledusters, torches, empty bottles, rocks and wooden sticks. Their failure to heed the officers’ orders and their provocative conduct had prompted the police to arrest the most aggressive among them, including the applicant, and take them to a police station. The officer who had arrested the applicant had now been identified and had stated that neither he nor his colleagues had used force or gear other than handcuffs in the course of that operation. Based on that, the Government submitted that there was no evidence showing beyond a reasonable doubt that the police had used disproportionate force when arresting the applicant, or that he had been subjected to treatment contrary to Article <mask> of the Convention. | 5 |
84. The applicant maintained her complaint, stating that she was Mr Khanpasha Dzhabrailov’s mother, had witnessed him being abducted and had actively searched for him. She argued that the way the domestic authorities had treated her applications had amounted to treatment in breach of Article <mask> of the Convention, given, in particular, that she had not received adequate information concerning the fate of her son or the course of the investigation into his disappearance. | 5 |
51. The applicant also complained under Article <mask> of the Convention of his ill-treatment by unspecified police officers with the aim of extracting a confession from him and that the conditions of his detention in the ITT had been inhuman. Relying on Article 5 § 1 (c) of the Convention, the applicant complained that he had been unlawfully detained between 21 January and 9 February 2000. The applicant stated that he had been unlawfully sentenced to life imprisonment, as in 1999, when he had committed the crimes, such a punishment had not existed. The applicant cited Article 7 of the Convention in that regard. | 5 |
50. The Government submitted that a special prison van, in which the applicant had been transported on 11 December 2002, was designed for twenty-four people. They annexed a certificate issued by the Board for Security of Suspects and Accused, according to which the conditions of the applicant’s transportation had been satisfactory; there had been twenty-three detainees and one police officer in the van. The travel time had been around 30 minutes. According to the Government, the conditions of the applicant’s transport had been compatible with Article <mask> of the Convention. Furthermore, the Government emphasised that the applicant had never lodged any complaint in respect of the conditions of his transportation. | 5 |
43. The applicant complained that on 22 June 2001 he had been subjected to treatment incompatible with Article <mask> of the Convention and that the authorities had not carried out an effective investigation of that incident, which amounted to a breach of Article 13 of the Convention. The Court will examine this complaint from the standpoint of the State’s negative and positive obligations flowing from Article 3, which reads as follows: | 5 |
41. The Government argued that the fact that the applicant’s flat had been sold did not constitute such a substantial change in her circumstances that it was unreasonable to expect the applicant to continue to live in her home country. Nor did the continuous, gradual weakening of health of a relative due to ageing constitute such a substantial change in that person’s circumstances to make it unreasonable to expect that the person continue to live in his or her home country. The applicant had not substantiated her allegation that she had no access to the necessary medical treatment in Russia in her own language. In the event of execution of the deportation order, the executing authority would examine whether the state of health of the deported person affected the deportation. In such cases the transportation could be, and had been, organised by ambulance, for example. Therefore, in the Government’s view, the applicant could receive the treatment she required in Russia. There was no violation of Article <mask> of the Convention. | 5 |
93. The applicants complained under Article <mask> of the Convention that Cemal Sevli, Reşit Sevli, Aşur Seçkin, Salih Şengül, Yusuf Çelik, Naci Şengül and Kemal İzci had been beaten by members of the security forces before being arrested. Zübeyda Uysal and Emine Çelik also complained under Articles 2 and 3 of the Convention that they had both suffered miscarriages as a result of the violence to which they had been subjected by members of the security forces. The applicants maintained under Article 8 of the Convention that on the day of the events giving rise to the present application the security forces had conducted searches of their houses, seized their belongings illegally and subsequently destroyed the houses. The applicants further submitted under Article 13 of the Convention that they had been denied an effective remedy in respect of their aforementioned allegations. They also complained of violations of a number of rights in respect of Casım Çelik, Aşur Seçkin, Cemal Sevli, Yusuf Çelik, Mirhaç Çelik, Naci Şengül, Seddık Şengül, Reşit Sevli, Kemal İzci, Hayrullah Öztürk, Salih Şengül, Hurşit Taşkın and Abdullah İnan under Article 6 of the Convention. The applicants finally complained, under Article 14 of the Convention, that all the alleged breaches of their rights enshrined in the Convention had been motivated by their Kurdish ethnic origin. | 5 |
87. The applicant had informed the Russian authorities that he had feared persecution because of his alleged involvement in Hizb ut-Tahrir's activities. In particular, on 22 August 2008 he had informed the Moscow City Court that in 2001 he had been told that upon his return to Tajikistan he would be arrested. The applicant had been on a wanted list since 2001, which was proven by the fact that on 27 October 2001 he had been detained with a view to extradition as a person wanted in Tajikistan. The applicant stated that when questioned by the Moscow City Court on 22 August 2008 he had not been assisted by a lawyer and thus could not understand the legal consequences of his statement that he had arrived in Russia to look for employment. He also asserted that he had had a right to apply for refugee status at any time, not necessarily immediately upon his arrival in Russia. The applicant doubted the validity of the diplomatic assurances given in his case. In sum, the applicant claimed that his extradition to Tajikistan would be in breach of Article <mask> of the Convention. | 5 |
41. The applicant claimed that the treatment which he had been subjected to by the police officers in the form of punches, slaps, kicks, electric shocks to his genitals and verbal insults had attained the minimum level of severity and had amounted to ill-treatment within the meaning of Article <mask> of the Convention. He maintained that despite his numerous complaints to the administrative and judicial authorities and the medical reports indicating the presence of injuries on his body, which had rendered him unfit for work for three days, no meaningful investigation had been carried out and that those who had inflicted ill-treatment on him had escaped justice without any punishment. | 5 |
95. The Government argued that the applicant had failed to exhaust the domestic remedies available to him under Article 125 of the Russian Code of Criminal Procedure. They stressed that he had not appealed against the decision of 17 June 2002 to the competent domestic court. In the alternative, the Government submitted that there was no objective evidence showing that the applicant had been subjected to treatment contrary to the requirement of Article <mask> of the Convention. In particular, the expert medical reports, including the most recent one of 4 May 2006, confirmed that the applicant’s illnesses were congenital or had been acquired in childhood. The illnesses could not have resulted from traumas allegedly caused during his military service. At the same time the Government acknowledged that one of the expert reports, namely the one issued by the Military Medical Commission of Medical Clinical Hospital no. 442, stated that the applicant had “acquired the illness during his military service”. However, the Government, relying on Regulation 46 of the Regulations on Military Medical Examinations, provided the following interpretation of the expert finding. They insisted that by virtue of Regulation 46, a military medical commission issued a conclusion that an illness had been acquired during military service even if that illness had been present before conscription for military service, but had been diagnosed during military service. In the Government’s opinion the phrase “acquired during military service” did not mean that the individual, in the present case the applicant, had been injured (or felt sick) during military service. | 5 |
75. The Government alleged that the applicant had not made an arguable claim concerning the incompatibility of the conditions of his detention with Article <mask> of the Convention. His complaints under Article 13 were therefore likewise unsubstantiated. They noted, in particular, that, as regards the conditions of detention in the Odessa SIZO, the applicant’s complaint was very general. He had neither described in detail the conditions in which he had been detained, nor elaborated on the nature and extent of the distress he had suffered. Likewise, he had not elaborated on the conditions of his detention during transit to the Kryvyy Rig Colony. They further contested the applicant’s allegation that the prison authorities had refused to dispatch his mail and submitted that the applicant had first deposited his hunger-strike declaration on 30 October 2006. He had been medically supervised as from that date. Following a proper medical report concluding that his health had deteriorated, the applicant had been force-fed from 8 to 15 November 2006. He had not complained about the manner in which he had been force-fed. Lastly, as regards the conditions of detention in the Kryvyy Rig Colony, the applicant had not lodged any relevant complaints either with the domestic authorities or with the Court. This part of the application was therefore incompatible ratione personae with the Convention provisions. | 5 |
57. The Government did not dispute that the injuries sustained by the applicant reached the minimum threshold required under Article <mask> of the Convention. However, they considered that no responsibility could be attributed to the State, given the fact that the prison governor, as established in the course of the compensation proceedings, had not been alerted to the alleged aggressiveness of the bull. Nor there had been any information in the records of the veterinary hospital responsible for the livestock in the prison that the bull had been aggressive. In addition, the bull’s behaviour had been unpredictable and the authorities should not have the impossible burden placed upon them of preventing every claimed risk from materialising. | 5 |
162. The applicants complained of a violation of the positive and negative obligations in Article <mask> of the Convention given the impact on them of the restrictions on abortion and of travelling abroad for an abortion. They maintained that the criminalisation of abortion was discriminatory (crude stereotyping and prejudice against women), caused an affront to women’s dignity and stigmatised women, increasing feelings of anxiety. The applicants argued that the two options open to women – overcoming taboos to seek an abortion abroad and aftercare at home or maintaining the pregnancy in their situations – were degrading and a deliberate affront to their dignity. While the stigma and taboo effect of the criminalisation of abortion was denied by the Government, the applicants submitted that there was much evidence confirming this effect on women. Indeed, the applicants contended that the State was under a positive obligation to protect them from such hardship and degrading treatment. | 5 |
109. The applicant complained that, contrary to Article <mask> of the Convention, the care and conditions of his detention from 7 January 2001 to 28 February 2001, from 1 September 2003 to 26 May 2004 and from 2 September 2005 to 18 June 2008 had been incompatible with his special needs, in view of his paraplegia. That provision reads as follows: | 5 |
45. The applicant submitted a number of complaints under Article <mask> of the Convention. First of all, he argued that he had not received adequate medical assistance while in detention. He also complained of the conditions of his transfer to and from the court-house and the conditions of detention in the convoy room of the Moscow City Court. Lastly, he stated that his confinement in glass cabins during the court hearing had amounted to inhuman and degrading treatment. Article 3 of the Convention reads as follows: | 5 |
57. The applicant was assigned to Unit 6. The precise number of prisoners in the unit is a matter of dispute between the parties. While the recent certificates obtained from the facility director and the original documents gave the maximum number as eighty-six persons, the applicant maintained that the unit population had exceeded one hundred individuals. The floor plan indicates that the dormitory of the applicant’s unit measured 164 square metres. It follows that, even if the lower occupancy figure were to be accepted, the available personal space per prisoner fell even below the domestic statutory requirement of two square metres. In previous cases against Russia concerning conditions of detention in correctional colonies, the Court has found a violation of Article <mask> of the Convention in similar circumstances (see Sergey Babushkin, cited above, § 56; Yepishin v. Russia, no. 591/07, § 65, 27 June 2013, and Kulikov, cited above, § 37). | 5 |
106. The Government submitted that there was an inevitable element of suffering inflicted on the applicant inherent to the imprisonment and that he had not been subjected to any premeditated form of ill-treatment that fell foul of the standards required by Article <mask> of the Convention. The conditions of the applicant’s detention were the same as those of other prisoners, were compatible with respect for his human dignity, and did not subject him to distress and hardship of an intensity exceeding the unavoidable level of suffering in detention. | 5 |
91. The Government explained the overcrowding in the cells by the fact that at that time the courts of Sevastopol had been considering an extensive number of criminal cases and all persons detained in the ITT had been taking part in their respective criminal proceedings in the courts. The Government further noted that as for other conditions of the applicant’s detention, they did not reach the minimum threshold of severity required by Article <mask> of the Convention, as the applicant had been detained in the ITT for the short periods of 10 and 4 days, respectively. The applicant’s situation was not different from the situation of any other person suffering from limitations related to the deprivation of liberty. | 5 |
35. The applicant also complained under Article <mask> of the Convention about being ill-treated by the police and under Article 5 of the Convention about his unlawful arrest. Referring to Article 6 of the Convention the applicant further complained about unfair trial, in particular, that he did not have a lawyer between 24 and 30 May 2002. The applicant further complained under Article 13 of the Convention about an ineffective investigation following his complaints about ill-treatment. The applicant finally invoked Articles 3, 5 and 6 of the Convention in respect to the first set of criminal proceedings. | 5 |
16. The applicant complained that he had been subjected to ill-treatment by the police officers and substantiated his complaint with medical documents attesting to abrasions on his forehead. The applicant’s claim was therefore shown to be “arguable” and the domestic authorities were under an obligation to conduct an effective investigation satisfying the requirements of Article <mask> of the Convention (see, most recently, Manzhos v. Russia, no. 64752/09, §§ 33-35, 24 May 2016, and the case-law cited therein). | 5 |
80. The Government submitted that the burden of proof in cases of treatment or punishment allegedly incompatible with Article <mask> of the Convention rested on the applicant; however, in the present case the applicant had failed to provide sufficient substantiation of his allegations. Upon his arrival at the SIZO in August 2001 the applicant had been examined by a doctor and found to be healthy. He had been diagnosed with tuberculosis only one year later and prior to August 2002 he had not complained of coughing or of any pain in his chest. After the applicant had been diagnosed with tuberculosis, he had been immediately transferred to the special tuberculosis ward of the SIZO where he had stayed until 13 November 2004. | 5 |
23. The Government contested the applicant's argument. They stated that his allegations of ill-treatment had been thoroughly examined. It had been established, however, that the police officers had not subjected the applicant to torture or inhuman or degrading treatment. Accordingly, there had been no violation of the applicant's rights set out in Article <mask> of the Convention, either under the substantive or the procedural limb. | 5 |
95. The applicants complained of a violation of Article <mask> of the Convention on account of the mental suffering caused to them by the disappearance of their relatives. All of the applicants complained of a violation of Article 5 of the Convention on account of the unlawfulness of their relatives’ detention. The applicants also argued that, contrary to Article 13 of the Convention, there were no domestic remedies available to them against the alleged violations, in particular those under Articles 2 and 3 of the Convention. Those Articles read, in so far as relevant: | 5 |
55. The applicant complained of a failure by the domestic authorities to carry out an effective investigation into his allegations of ill-treatment, contrary to the requirements of Article <mask> of the Convention. His complaint was not immediately forwarded to the prosecutor’s office and no medical examination was carried out immediately in order to verify the presence of injuries before they disappeared. Moreover, video materials from the prison which could reveal whether he had in fact resisted the prison staff and attacked them was not requested from the prison authorities and was allowed to be destroyed. | 5 |
57. The applicant complained that while in the custody of the police he was subjected to ill-treatment amounting to torture within the meaning of Article <mask> of the Convention. Under the same Article he also alleged that he had been ill-treated in the course of his transfer to prison. Invoking Article 13 of the Convention the applicant complained that the authorities had failed to carry out an effective investigation into his allegations of ill‑treatment and had thus deprived him of an effective remedy. | 5 |
58. The Government considered that the mere fact of detention in one cell of a number of inmates exceeding the designed capacity of that cell was not in itself a ground for finding a violation of the applicant's rights under Article <mask> of the Convention, since other aspects of his detention had been in compliance with the requirements of the Convention. In particular, during his detention the applicant had been provided with an individual sleeping place and bedding. Moreover, overcrowding in remand prisons was a common problem for many member States of the Council of Europe. In the Russian Federation the overcrowding was due to a high level of criminality and limited capacity of remand prisons. The remand prison administration had not had any intention to humiliate the applicant. The Government considered that the overcrowding of the cells in which the applicant had been detained could not in itself be a ground for drawing a conclusion about inhuman treatment of the applicant. In sum, the conditions of the applicant's detention in remand prisons nos. 52/1 and 77/3 had complied with the requirements of Article 3 of the Convention. | 5 |
171. The Government argued that the measures used in respect of the applicant had been therapeutic and necessary. Turning to the events of 25 January 2005, they submitted that the social workers had decided on their own to tie down the applicant as they had been afraid for her life. Although the exact length of time that the applicant had been tied up for was not clear, it could have lasted for only fifteen to thirty minutes and had not continued any longer than necessary. During the incident the applicant had been forcibly injected with 10 mg of Haloperidol, whilst the average therapeutic dosage of the said medication is 12 mg. Haloperidol is a common antipsychotic medicament prescribed for individuals suffering from schizophrenia in order to eliminate the symptoms of psychosis. According to the generally accepted principles of psychiatry, medical necessity had fully justified the treatment in issue. The Government also drew the Court’s attention to the prosecutor’s decision of 31 July 2006 to discontinue the pre-trial investigation in connection with the applicant’s forced restraint. They also noted the absence of any other similar incidents at the Kėdainiai Home in respect of the applicant. The Government summed up that even if the treatment of the applicant on 25 January 2005 had had unpleasant effects, it had not reached the minimum level of severity required under Article <mask> of the Convention. | 5 |
83. The applicants in five recent cases against France – R.M. and Others v. France (no. 33201/11, 12 July 2016), A.B. and Others v. France (no. 11593/12, 12 July 2016), A.M. and Others v. France (no. 24587/12, 12 July 2016), R.K. and Others v. France (no. 68264/14, 12 July 2016) and R.C. and V.C. v. France (no. 76491/14, 12 July 2016) – had been between four months and four years old, and had been detained for periods ranging between seven and eighteen days. The Court noted that unlike the detention facility at issue in Popov (cited above), the material conditions in the two detention facilities concerned in those five cases had not been problematic. They had been adapted for families that had been kept apart from other detainees and provided with specially fitted rooms and child-care materials. However, one of the facilities had been situated right next to the runways of an airport, and so had exposed the applicants to particularly high noise levels. In the other facility, the internal yard had been separated from the zone for male detainees by only a net, and the noise levels had also been significant. That had affected the children considerably. Another source of anxiety had been the constraints inherent in a place of detention and the conditions in which the facilities had been organised. Although over a short period of time those factors had not been sufficient to attain the threshold of severity engaging Article <mask> of the Convention, over a longer period their effects would necessarily have affected a young child to the point of exceeding that threshold. Since the periods of detention had been, in the Court’s view, long enough in all five cases, it found breaches of Article 3 in each of them (see R.M. and Others v. France, §§ 72-76; A.B. and Others v. France, §§ 111-15; A.M. and Others v. France, §§ 48-53; R.K. and Others v. France, §§ 68-72; and R.C. and V.C. v. France, §§ 36-40, all cited above). | 5 |
73. The applicant complained that her detention for approximately twenty hours in a cell for administrative detainees at the District Department of the Interior’s premises on 8 and 9 December 2001 was incompatible with Article <mask> of the Convention in that she had been injured and had slept on the floor and had not been given any food or drink. | 5 |
39. The Government further argued that they themselves had responded to the three questions put by the Court in its decision of 16 October 2014. The Court notes in this connection that in view of the vital role played by interim measures in the Convention system, they must be strictly complied with by the State concerned. The Court cannot conceive, therefore, of allowing the authorities to circumvent an interim measure such as the one indicated in the present case by replacing expert medical opinion with their own assessment of the applicant’s situation. Yet that is exactly what the Government did in the present case (see paragraphs 20-23 above). In so doing, the State has frustrated the purpose of the interim measure, which sought to enable the Court, on the basis of relevant, independent medical opinion, to effectively respond to and, if need be, prevent the possible continued exposure of the applicant to physical and mental suffering in violation of the guarantees of Article <mask> of the Convention (see Khloyev v. Russia, no. 46404/13, § 67, 5 February 2015, and Salakhov and Islyamova v. Ukraine, no. 28005/08, § 222, 14 March 2013. | 5 |
49. The Government submitted that the handcuffing had been aimed at protecting the applicant, in particular from any further attempt at self-mutilation. The handcuffing had been connected with a lawful arrest and detention and thus as such did not run counter to the requirements of Article <mask> of the Convention, in particular given the appropriate conditions of the applicant's detention (see paragraph 10 above). | 5 |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.