text stringlengths 332 3.61k | label int64 0 12 |
|---|---|
39. The applicant had less than 3 sq. m of personal space during four non‑consecutive periods, which respectively lasted for one, two, thirty‑four and forty‑two days (see paragraph 30 above). The Court considers that the periods of one and two days can be considered of short duration (see Muršić, cited above, § 130). In the light of its earlier findings concerning the material conditions of the applicant’s detention, the freedom of movement outside the cell and out‑of‑cell activities available to him (see paragraph 38 above), the Court concludes that the lack of personal space during those two periods did not amount to degrading treatment prohibited by Article <mask> of the Convention. | 5 |
119. The Government considered that the security installations in question neither constituted degrading treatment nor caused significant discomfort. They submitted, in particular, that all detainees who were in pre-trial detention were routinely placed either in metal cages or in the glass cabins which were progressively replacing the metal cages in courtrooms. They considered that, unlike the metal cages, the glass cabins did not have an appearance that could by itself raise issues under Article <mask> of the Convention. They further submitted that after the initial complaints about the cramped conditions in hearing room no. 338, the trial was moved to hearing room no. 635, where the defendants had more space because there were two cabins. | 5 |
70. The Government did not comment on all of the applicant's complaints under Article <mask> of the Convention. Instead, they commented only on a few issues he raised. In particular, they submitted that as the applicant had mainly complained about the failure of the authorities to provide him with proper medical treatment and nutrition, they would address only those complaints. They denied the applicant's allegations and contended that he had not been subjected to inhuman and degrading treatment during his stay in the SIZO SBU and SIZO no. 13. They further contended that the conditions in which the applicant had been detained were in compliance with the provisions of Article 3 of the Convention and that there had therefore been no violation of that provision. | 5 |
89. The Government, in their additional observations in reply to those of the applicant (see paragraph 9 above), submitted that the applicant could no longer claim to be a victim of the alleged violation of Article <mask> of the Convention as he had left Cyprus illegally and had gone to Iraq. He therefore did not face a risk of deportation from Cyprus to Syria. Accordingly, they invited the Court to declare the applicant’s complaint under this provision inadmissible on this ground. In the alternative, the Government argued that the applicant had failed to exhaust domestic remedies. They noted in this respect that the applicant had not filed a recourse against the second decision of the Reviewing Authority dated 26 March 2011 nor had he lodged an appeal against the first instance judgment of the Supreme Court of 31 January 2012. Last but not least, they argued that the applicant following his departure, could have had filed a new administrative appeal or submitted new information before the authorities concerning his asylum appeal or lodged a fresh claim for asylum under the Refugee Law which had, in the meantime been amended (see A.H. and J.K., cited above, §§ 98-99). | 5 |
20. The Government submitted that the applicant could no longer be considered a victim of the alleged violation because, by virtue of the domestic court’s judgment of 27 June 2013 he had been awarded compensation of PLN 1,000 plus interest. Additionally, the domestic court relied on Article <mask> of the Convention and thus acknowledged a breach of the Convention. Moreover, it took into account the fact that the breach of the statutory minimum standard of 3 m² had not been significant. The Government relied, inter alia, on the inadmissibility decisions in the cases of B.G. v. Poland ((dec.), no. 61403/10 of 27 August 20013), and Dubjaková v. Slovakia ((dec.), no. 67299/01 of 19 October 2004) and argued that the applicant could no longer claim to be a victim of a violation of the Convention, as the compensation of PLN 1,000 was sufficient to compensate for his detention in overcrowded cells for three days. | 5 |
40. The applicant complained under Article <mask> of the Convention that he had been ill-treated during his arrest, that he had been tortured in the OCU's temporary detention facility, and that the conditions of his further detention at the Investigative Isolator No. 1 also amounted to ill-treatment. He also complained that his allegations of ill-treatment had not been investigated effectively, as required by the procedural obligation imposed by the same Article. Article 3 of the Convention provides as follows: | 5 |
98. The applicant complained of a violation of Article <mask> of the Convention, in that he remained in solitary confinement between 6 January 2006 and 31 January 2008. He submitted that the cell had been fitted with a narrow bed which was too short for him, that in winter the temperature in the cell fell below zero, and that he had not been allowed to use the library, attend mass or participate in other activities. The applicant also argued that he had been kept in isolation and had been prevented or restricted from receiving newspapers and books. | 5 |
59. The Government challenged the country information relied on by the applicant. They indicated that the situation in Sri Lanka had developed to such an extent since the publication of the April 2009 Guidelines, that the UNHCR had published a note on their applicability (see paragraph 21 above). The Government argued that, insofar as UNHCR recommended that Tamil asylum-seekers from the north should be granted asylum, that recommendation was based on information about the risk to Tamils “in the region” and there was no indication that the Note had in any way considered the risk in Colombo generally. Moreover, they submitted that, following NA., little weight should be attached to the UNHCR’s assessment as its comments were not focused on the question of whether there was a risk of ill-treatment contrary to Article <mask> of the Convention. Consequently, it provided no support for the applicant’s assertion that there was a real risk he would be subjected to treatment contrary to Article 3 of the Convention if he were returned to Colombo. Instead, the Government relied on the then most recent Country of Origin Information report, published by the United Kingdom Border Agency on 13 October 2009, which contained the most up-to-date publicly available information. | 5 |
40. The applicants complained under Article <mask> of the Convention about the impunity of officer A.C. as a result of the failure to prosecute him under applicable criminal-law provisions. They also complained, under the same Article, that the investigation of their forced undressing in front of V.D. had not been prompt and about the impunity of V.D. and M.T. Article 3 reads as follows: | 5 |
88. The Government contested those arguments and stated that in the course of proceedings under the Dublin Regulation the Austrian authorities were required to examine whether an applicant would face a real risk under Article <mask> of the Convention upon a transfer. Should the authority find that there was a danger that the applicant might be exposed to human rights violations in the event of his or her transfer, it was required to make use of the sovereignty clause. The Government referred to the fact that the Austrian authorities had repeatedly made use of the sovereignty clause in practice in respect of vulnerable people. | 5 |
85. The Government, however, asserted that the applicant had waived his procedural rights, relying on his written statements of 19 March 2004 (see paragraphs 15‑16 above). The Court reiterates in this connection that a waiver of a right guaranteed by the Convention – in so far as it is permissible – must not run counter to any important public interest, must be established in an unequivocal manner and must be attended by minimum safeguards commensurate to the waiver’s importance (see Sejdovic v. Italy [GC], no. 56581/00, § 86, ECHR 2006-II). In the circumstances of the present case it finds it impossible to agree with the Government’s waiver claim as the written statements of 19 March 2004 were clearly made after the statement of surrender and confession had been drawn up on 18 March 2004. Most importantly, the applicant cannot be said to have validly waived his privilege against self-incrimination in view of the Court’s finding in paragraph 69 above that he had sustained the ill-treatment in violation of Article <mask> of the Convention. | 5 |
116. The Government argued that the applicant's complaint was manifestly ill-founded, being linked to the manifestly ill-founded complaint under Article <mask> of the Convention. In any event, it had been open to the applicant to lodge a tort action with the Tsentralniy District Court of Kaliningrad and he had explored that avenue. The fact that the applicant was unsuccessful did not strip that avenue of its effectiveness. | 5 |
70. The Government submitted that the conditions of the applicant’s detention in the detention centre for aliens had been satisfactory and had complied with both the domestic regulations and Article <mask> of the Convention. He had had sufficient personal space, an individual sleeping place and unrestricted access to lavatory facilities. All sanitary and hygiene standards had been met. The applicant had been provided with hot meals three times per day, had been able to walk in the yard and to use the library. He had not been handcuffed or placed in a punishment cell as the centre for aliens did not have such cells. | 5 |
97. The applicants complained that their relatives had been ill-treated by State agents, and that no investigation had been carried out into the matter. They also complained that during a fortnight when their relatives remained missing they had suffered severe mental distress and anguish in connection with their relatives' disappearance. The applicants referred to Article <mask> of the Convention, which reads as follows: | 5 |
87. The applicant complained under Article <mask> of the Convention that the prison authorities had caused him to be infected with tuberculosis by placing him in a cell with detainees who had contracted this disease. He further claimed that the authorities had not ensured adequate treatment of his hepatitis and tuberculosis and had not provided him with an adequate diet. | 5 |
38. The applicant complained about the conditions of his detention during the investigation and trial and about the conditions of his transport to and from court. He also complained that on 26 December 2004 he had been beaten by police officers during his arrest and in police custody. He referred to Article <mask> of the Convention, which reads as follows: | 5 |
29. The Government maintained that the investigation carried out in the present case had met the requirements of the procedural aspect of Article <mask> of the Convention. In this connection they emphasised that, unlike in İlhan v. Turkey [GC], no. 22277/93, ECHR 2000‑VII, the Serbian authorities had heard not only the accused officers but also the applicant, a medical expert and several eye witnesses. The Government further referred to a 2009 report of the Commissioner for Human Rights, Thomas Hammarberg, on his visit to Serbia according to which ill-treatment by the police had decreased since 2004 (document no. CommDH(2009)8 of 11 March 2009, § 66). | 5 |
54. The applicant further complained under Article <mask> of the Convention that he had been subjected to ill-treatment in police custody in 1995 and that, during his detention in the Donetsk SIZO from November 1995 to December 1996 he had suffered from gravely inadequate conditions of detention. Lastly, the applicant alleged that his second trial after his acquittal in 1996 had been contrary to his rights under Article 4 of Protocol No. 7. | 5 |
94. The applicants relied on Article <mask> of the Convention, submitting that it was highly probable that after the abduction Ruslan Askhabov, Isa Dubayev and Isa Dokayev had been subjected to ill-treatment. The applicants also alleged that the third applicant was subjected to ill-treatment during the abduction. Further, the applicants 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 |
35. The Government argued that the conditions of transport had not gone beyond the inevitable element of suffering or humiliation connected with the applicant’s detention, and thus had not amounted to inhuman or degrading treatment under Article <mask> of the Convention. They emphasised that all the conditions and aspects of transport had to be assessed cumulatively, without there being an exclusive focus on floor space. The applicant had been placed alone in a single occupancy compartment with a floor area of 0.51 square metres. The compartment was at least 60 cm wide, 85 cm long and 149 cm high, and had a strong plastic seat on a metal frame attached to the floor. As for leg space, although narrow, it met the requirements of Directive 2001/85/EC (see paragraph 27 above). During the day, the compartments received natural daylight through the two roof hatches and windscreen; if it was dark, ceiling lights were switched on. The van had three separate adjustable air heating systems and zones, including one for transported prisoners. No seat belts or handles had been designed for the compartments. The Government noted that in Voicu v. Romania (no. 22015/10, 10 June 2014), the Court had found that the absence of seat belts alone could not lead to a violation of Article 3. Considering those conditions and the fact that the applicant was young and healthy and had not spent more than twenty minutes in the van, during which time it had not left the prison premises, the treatment had not reached the level of severity to come within the scope of Article 3. | 5 |
119. The Government disagreed with these allegations and argued that the investigation had not established that either applicant had been subjected to inhuman or degrading treatment prohibited by Article <mask> of the Convention. They also stated that the first applicant had sustained minor bodily injuries and that, under Russian law, an investigation into infliction of such injuries was opened upon a victim’s request. Since the first applicant had failed to lodge such a request, the investigation into infliction of minor bodily injuries on him had been commenced in case no. 26075. The first applicant had been granted victim status in that case and meticulously questioned about the circumstances of the infliction of injuries on him. He had undergone an expert medical examination. The investigation in this respect had not been completed. | 5 |
97. The applicants further relied on Article <mask> of the Convention, submitting that their sons had most likely been tortured after their arrest and that the first applicant had been beaten, but that no effective investigation had been carried out on that account. The applicants also claimed that as a result of their sons’ disappearance and the State’s failure to investigate those events properly, they had endured mental suffering in breach of Article 3 of the Convention. Article 3 reads: | 5 |
29. The Government noted that the Court had already dealt with the issue of the use of metal cages in courtrooms in Svinarenko and Slyadnev (cited above) and found that such a practice constituted in itself an affront to human dignity and amounted to degrading treatment prohibited by Article <mask> of the Convention. In view of the Court’s position on the matter, the Government acknowledged that there had been a violation of Article 3 of the Convention in the present three applications. | 5 |
35. The applicant maintained his complaint. He reiterated that he had been detained in severely overcrowded cells where he was afforded no more than 0.83-1.4 sq. m of personal space. He further referred to the case of Belevitskiy (see Belevitskiy v. Russia, no. 72967/01, 1 March 2007) where the Court had found a violation of the applicant's rights set out in Article <mask> of the Convention on account of severe overcrowding of the cells in the same remand prison. | 5 |
93. The applicants further argued that that there was no jurisprudence to show that they could have claimed compensation for the non-pecuniary damage suffered as a result of the alleged violation of Article <mask> of the Convention. Moreover, such a claim, in any event, could not have improved their conditions. As regards the claim to the Administrative Court, the applicants maintained that this remedy would have been ineffective as the claim would not have been resolved in due time. In support of this argument they referred to a decision no. U 1319/2003 of 11 May 2004 issued in proceedings concerning a transfer of a sentenced prisoner because of problems relating to his mental health and conflicts with other inmates. The Administrative Court had remitted the case for re-examination one year after the prisoner’s request had been rejected by the director-general of the Administration for the Execution of Penal Sentences. | 5 |
74. The applicant contended that her son had been subjected to treatment in violation of Article 3, in view of the known circumstances of his arrest, and that the authorities had failed to effectively investigate this complaint. Referring to the Court's established case-law, the applicant claimed that she was a victim of treatment falling within the scope of Article <mask> of the Convention as a result of the anguish and emotional distress she had suffered as a result of the disappearance of her son and the response of the authorities to her complaints. She relied on Article 3, which provides: | 5 |
97. The applicant disagreed with the Government’s contention that Article <mask> of the Convention did not cover the issues of provision of legal representation for him to enable him to participate effectively in the criminal proceedings concerning his alleged ill-treatment. He submitted that the procedural guarantees under Article 3 of the Convention would not be effective if the alleged victim of ill-treatment, usually a lay person, had not been able to estimate whether his right to procedural protection from ill-treatment had been adequately ensured by the authorities. | 5 |
38. The Government contended that Article 2 did not come into play in the present case since the victim was still alive. Admittedly, the police officers who were involved in the chase had made use of their weapons; however, they had not intended to kill him, but only to force him to stop his car and arrest him. Referring to earlier judgments of the Court, the Government argued that the applicant’s complaints fell to be examined under Article <mask> of the Convention instead. | 5 |
124. The Government submitted that there was no indication that the applicants had been subjected to treatment contrary to Article <mask> of the Convention. They also argued that in the absence of evidence of the involvement of State authorities in the disappearance of Mayrudin Khantiyev, there was no causal link between the applicants' alleged suffering and the actions of representatives of the State. | 5 |
20. The applicant complained of a breach of Article <mask> of the Convention since he had been detained in inhuman conditions and had not been provided with the medical assistance that his condition required. He also complained that his detention by unconstitutional authorities had been unlawful, contrary to Article 5, and that he had not had a fair trial since the “MRT” courts were not independent and impartial, thus amounting to a violation of Article 6 of the Convention. | 5 |
247. The Government contested the applicants’ claims. They stated in particular that the applicants’ mental suffering had not reached the minimum level of severity to fall within the scope of Article <mask> of the Convention, particularly on account of the fact that certain applicants were minors and there was no evidence of the applicants’ relatives’ arrests by State agents. Lastly, the Government averred that the domestic legislation, including Articles 124 and 125 of the Russian Code of Criminal Procedure, provided the applicants with effective remedies for their complaints. | 5 |
46. The applicant complained that because of his Uzbek ethnic origin, he was – and would remain, if removed to Kyrgyzstan – at a real risk of ill‑treatment. He argued that he belonged to an ethnic group whose members were systematically tortured by the Kyrgyz authorities and convicted in connection with the June 2010 mass disorder. He relied on Article <mask> of the Convention, which reads as follows: | 5 |
199. The applicant complained that the medical assistance available to him in remand prison SIZO 77/1 in Moscow had been inadequate. In particular, he alleged that after his arrest he did not receive regular medical supervision, including examination by specialists and specialised tests, as required following the resection of the tumour of the urinary bladder that he had undergone in 1994. He also alleged that he was not receiving the treatment appropriate to his condition and was only occasionally given painkillers. The applicant further complained about allegedly appalling material conditions of detention in remand prison SIZO 77/1 in Moscow. The applicant relied on Articles 2 and 3 of the Convention. The Court will examine the complaint under Article <mask> of the Convention. | 5 |
77. The applicant complained that he had been ill-treated by the police, and that the State had failed to investigate his allegations of police brutality. In this context, he complained that the criminal proceedings against the police officers had been protracted, unlike the proceedings against him, which had been completed rapidly. That signified bias on the part of the judges. Furthermore, in the criminal proceedings against the police officers, the public prosecutor had relied solely on the evidence produced by the DCPS. Being the master of the characterisation to be given in law to the facts of a case (see Dolenec v. Croatia, no. 25282/06, § 127, 26 November 2009), the Court finds it appropriate to examine these complaints under Article <mask> of the Convention, which reads as follows: | 5 |
35. The applicant died on 8 April 2015, while the case was pending before the Court. The applicant’s sister, Ms Artemyeva, wished to pursue the application after his death. The Government did not comment. The Court has already, in a number of cases in which applicants have died in the course of the proceedings, examined and confirmed the locus standi of their heirs or close relatives, such as brothers or sisters, to pursue the proceedings before the Court, including in cases brought under Article <mask> of the Convention (see, among many other authorities, Dalban v. Romania [GC], no. 28114/95, § 39, ECHR 1999‑VI; Malhous v. the Czech Republic (dec.) [GC], no. 33071/96, ECHR 2000-XII; Ergezen v. Turkey, no. 73359/10, § 29, 8 April 2014; Koryak v. Russia, no. 24677/10, §§ 58-68, 13 November 2012; Getiren v. Turkey, no. 10301/03, §§ 61-62, 22 July 2008; and Toteva v. Bulgaria, no. 42027/98, § 45, 19 May 2004). | 5 |
29. The applicant submitted that the prolonged imposition of the “dangerous detainee” regime had been in breach of Article <mask> of the Convention. In his opinion, there had been no reasonable grounds for applying the regime to him. He contested the allegation that he had been the leader of a collective protest. He had never been charged with or convicted of any such act. He admitted to having refused, on one occasion, to eat his breakfast while at the Opole Lubelskie Prison. | 5 |
41. The applicant complained under Article <mask> of the Convention that he had been subjected to acts of police brutality, which had caused him great physical and mental suffering amounting to torture, inhuman and/or degrading treatment. Furthermore, he alleged that he had been the victim of a procedural violation of the above Article since the prosecuting authorities had failed to carry out an effective or, indeed, any official investigation capable of leading to the identification and punishment of the police officers responsible for the treatment. Article 3 reads as follows: | 5 |
41. The applicant complained that holding him in detention on remand had constituted a danger to his life and health given his sleep disorder and the need to use a respirator. He alleged that he had not been provided with adequate medical care in detention. The applicant was very anxious about the possibility of a power cut in prison or his co-detainee unplugging his respirator which could be fatal. He reported to the authorities the fact that his respirator had been damaged by the prison guards but to no avail. He averred that his detention on remand had resulted in a serious deterioration of his mental and physical health. The applicant did not invoke any provision of the Convention. The Court considers that this complaint falls to be examined under Article <mask> of the Convention, which reads as follows: | 5 |
79. The applicant complained about the physical conditions of his detention and of a lack of adequate medical treatment in Colibaşi Prison. He alleged, in particular, overcrowding, unhygienic sanitary facilities, lice, extreme cold during winter, lack of running water and lack of activities. Moreover, he complained that at the time he was imprisoned he had been clinically healthy but that during detention he had been diagnosed with various conditions and with a Category 2 disability. Furthermore, he stated that he had not been treated adequately and his repeated requests for medicines had been refused, with lack of funds given as the reason. He relied on Article <mask> of the Convention, which reads as follows: | 5 |
107. The Government submitted that the applicant had failed to provide any reliable evidence to show that in the event of his extradition to Uzbekistan he would run the risk of being subjected to ill-treatment contrary to Article <mask> of the Convention. Uzbekistan had sought the applicant’s extradition in order to pursue criminal proceedings against him arising out of ordinary criminal charges. The applicant had not alleged that he belonged to any banned religious movement or any other vulnerable group which, according to reliable international sources, systematically endured the practice of ill-treatment in Uzbekistan. Moreover, in his explanations given to a Russian prosecutor on 29 June and 20 July 2010 and 2 June 2011 (see paragraphs 23 and 33 above) the applicant had stated that he had left Uzbekistan for Russia on business and had denied any persecution on political grounds there. He had never sought political asylum in Russia, or applied for Russian citizenship. The Government went on to note that the guarantees provided by the Prosecutor General of Uzbekistan were sufficient to protect the applicant from the risk of being subjected to treatment contrary to Article 3 of the Convention in the event of his extradition. | 5 |
58. The applicant complained that he had been beaten by the police and that despite medical evidence of his bodily injuries the domestic authorities had failed to conduct an independent and effective investigation into his ill‑treatment. He referred to Articles 3 and 13 of the Convention. The Court, which is master of the characterisation to be given in law to the facts of the case, decided to examine the problems raised by the applicant under Article <mask> of the Convention, which is the relevant provision and which provides as follows: | 5 |
30. The applicant argued that his complaint had not been premature. In 2008-09 he had actively sought the institution of criminal proceedings against the police officers, but the domestic authorities had repeatedly refused his requests after carrying out several pre-investigation inquiries. Judicial review of the investigating authorities’ refusals was inaccessible following the revocation of those decisions by the supervising authorities (see paragraph 15 above). The pre‑investigation inquiry under Article 144 of the Code of Criminal Procedure with its short time-limits and limited powers of an investigator could not be considered an effective remedy for the establishment of the facts and circumstances of his ill-treatment. The only potentially effective remedy against the violation of the applicant’s rights under Article <mask> of the Convention would have been the prompt institution of criminal proceedings against the police officers and the timely carrying out of a full-scale criminal investigation. However, it was only after the application had been communicated to the Russian Government that the domestic authorities had decided to open the criminal case in March 2011. The delay in the opening of the criminal case had resulted in the failure of the domestic authorities to investigate the incident of ill-treatment while the matter was still fresh. In particular, the identification of the police officers three years after the incident of ill-treatment had been extremely difficult. Further, not all the police officers who had been on duty at the Tsentralniy OVD on 7 March 2008 had been presented to the applicant for identification. Although a doctor had been appointed by the investigator, no forensic medical examination had been conducted in the course of the preliminary investigation, which would have allowed the applicant to put additional questions to the medical expert – a right he had not been able to exercise when the forensic medical examination had been conducted in the course of the pre-investigation inquiry (see paragraph 18 above). Regardless of the above, in July 2011 the preliminary investigation of the case had been suspended indefinitely due to the impossibility of identifying those responsible for the ill-treatment. | 5 |
44. The Government further denied that Article <mask> of the Convention had been violated in the present case and that the police officers had subjected the applicant to inhuman and degrading treatment. They referred to the results of the forensic expert examination of 15 October 2001, according to which the injuries complained of could not have been inflicted on 10 May 2001. With respect to the cause of the applicant's injuries the Government argued that the applicant had fallen down several times whilst escaping the crime scene. | 5 |
100. The Government argued that the applicants had failed to exhaust an effective remedy that had been open for them to complain about the alleged violations of their rights under Article <mask> of the Convention, in particular as regards the alleged lack of provisions, bedding, lighting and ventilation. They considered that a complaint to the prosecutor’s office would have allowed the competent authority to resolve their situation. | 5 |
43. The applicant complained that he had been tortured by a tax police officer, contrary to Article <mask> of the Convention. He further complained under Article 6 of the Convention that the investigation undertaken by the domestic authorities into these events had been insufficient. The applicant also complained under Article 13 of the Convention of a lack of effective remedies in respect of the above violations. | 5 |
62. The applicant complained under Article <mask> of the Convention of the lack of adequate medical assistance in correctional colony IK‑272/3. He alleged that the medical service was inadequate generally and, in particular, that there had been a failure to arrange for surgery on his prostate adenoma; he also complained of the ban on keeping medicines in the cell, which meant that he would have had to rely on the colony’s health care personnel in the event of a heart attack, a stroke or a deterioration in one of his other conditions. | 5 |
42. The applicant complained under Articles 3 and 13 of the Convention that he had been ill-treated on 20 June 2003 and that the investigation into his complaint had not been effective. The Court considers that the applicant's complaint should be examined under the substantive and procedural aspects of Article <mask> of the Convention only. This provision reads as follows: | 5 |
28. The Government noted that the applicant had failed to bring his grievances to the attention of a competent domestic authority and considered that his complaint should be rejected for failure to comply with the requirements of Article 35 § 1 of the Convention. In particular, they submitted that it had been open to the applicant to bring his grievances to the attention of the prosecutor. They cited the following examples from the domestic practice in support of their position. In response to a Mr N.'s complaint about the conditions of his detention the Novosibirsk prosecutor's office conducted an inquiry which confirmed N.'s allegations that the food rations had been insufficient and the water supply had been irregular. As a result, the prison administration renovated the detention facility and purchased medical supplies. In the Vladimir Region, a special section for detention of inmates diagnosed with tuberculosis was established following an NGO's complaint on behalf of a Mr B. In the Khabarovsk Region the administration of the prison where Mssrs Sh. and Z. were detained renovated the shower and laundry rooms, upgraded the ventilation system in the disciplinary block and set up an area for medical consultations. Alternatively, in the Government's opinion, the applicant could have brought a civil action for damages resulting from the conditions of his detention. The Government cited three cases in this connection. The Yoshkar-Ola Town Court in the Mariy El Republic granted a Mr S.'s action for compensation for non-pecuniary damage resulting from a violation of his rights set forth in Article <mask> of the Convention on account of the appalling conditions of his detention in a remand prison. A Mr D. had been awarded 25,000 Russian roubles (RUB) in compensation for non-pecuniary damage arising from the unsatisfactory conditions of his pre-trial detention. On 23 April 2004 the Zheleznodorozhniy District Court of Oryol found that a Mr R.'s pre-trial detention had been unlawful that he had not received food for five days of his detention. The court awarded Mr R. RUB 30,000. | 5 |
49. The applicant submitted that, while not disputing that he had been arrested and detained in the manner alleged by him, the Government did not explain in a plausible way the origin of the injuries noted on him the next day. It had to be borne in mind in this connection that his complaint comprised six relatively separate ways in which he had been ill-treated: the unjustified use of force to pin him to the ground for about half an hour upon his arrest; the wide publicity given to that, with no efforts to preserve his anonymity; the “stress position” in which he had been kept for about two hours in the corridor of the police station; his stay for several hours in an overcrowded and stuffy cell with no access to food, drink or medical care; the blows and kicks administered in the course of his arrest; and the blows and kicks administered in the corridor of the police station. Even though each of these acts, taken individually, fell afoul of Article <mask> of the Convention, there was no use to examine them in isolation, as the Government did not seek to justify any of them by reference to his conduct. It was true that the police operation in the course of which he was arrested had been intended to protect participants in the Sofia Gay Pride parade, and that in such circumstances the police could be given some latitude to tackle aggressive groups without assessing the dangerousness of each of their individual members in advance. However, this did not mean that they were free to flout the absolute prohibition of inhuman and degrading treatment. | 5 |
96. The Government submitted that the conditions of the applicant’s detention in the SIZO were adequate and did not reach the threshold required by Article <mask> of the Convention. In support of their statements, the Government submitted a document, certified by the SIZO Governor, which contained a description of the cells in which the applicant had been detained. In particular, the document says that in every cell there was a 120x40 centimetre window, with natural and artificial lighting and ventilation. | 5 |
28. The applicant submitted that the prolonged imposition of the “dangerous detainee” regime had been in breach of Article <mask> of the Convention. In his opinion, there had been no reasonable grounds for applying the regime to him. All of the decisions imposing and extending the regime lacked justification and did not refer to any individual circumstances attributable to him. The regime was imposed arbitrarily and extended automatically. Moreover, his good behaviour in the remand centre had not been taken into account by the penitentiary commission. | 5 |
120. The Government pointed out that the fact that the applicant had occasionally been detained in overcrowded cells could not serve as the basis for finding a violation of Article <mask> of the Convention because the remaining aspects of the detention conditions (availability of an individual sleeping place, bedding, compliance with sanitary norms, etc.) had been satisfactory. The Government further noted that the problem of overcrowding exists in the detention facilities of many member States of the Council of Europe. The Government submitted that the applicant had actively used available domestic remedies, in particular by lodging a number of tort actions against the administration of the detention facility. | 5 |
52. The applicant further complained that his defamation by fellow villagers amounted to his inhuman treatment in breach of Article <mask> of the Convention. He also complained under Article 6 § 1 about inadequate assessment of the facts by the courts. Relying on Article 8 of the Convention, he next complained about the respondent’s obtaining his medical certificate and its adducing to the case file. Lastly, referring to Article 13 of the Convention, the applicant complained that the dismissal of his cassation appeal in the first set of proceedings on the ground of missing the time-limit had constituted his deprivation of a domestic remedy and denial of the access to court. | 5 |
193. The applicant's prison cell is indisputably furnished to a standard that is beyond reproach. From the photographs in its possession and the findings of the delegates of the CPT, who inspected the applicant's prison during their visit to Turkey from 2 to 14 September 2001, the Court notes that the cell the applicant occupies alone is large enough to accommodate a prisoner and furnished with a bed, table, armchair and bookshelves. It is also air-conditioned, has washing and toilet facilities and a window overlooking an inner courtyard. The applicant appears to be under medical supervision that is both strict and regular. The Court considers that these conditions do not give rise to any issue under Article <mask> of the Convention. | 5 |
44. The Government argued that the applicant had not exhausted domestic remedies available to him, as required by Article 35 § 1 of the Convention. They raised a preliminary objection similar to that relied on in the case of Łatak v. Poland (see Łatak v. Poland (dec.) no. 52070/08, 12 October 2010, §§ 63-64). In particular, they stressed that the applicant had already been released on 26 September 2008. In these circumstances, the situation giving rise to the alleged breach of Article <mask> of the Convention no longer existed and the applicant should bring a civil action under Article 24 taken in conjunction with Article 448 of the Civil Code in order to seek compensation for the past violation. | 5 |
43. The Government contested that statement. They pointed out that, according to the Court’s case-law, damage to personal integrity did not necessarily require a criminal-law remedy, especially where the harm had been inflicted as a result of negligence. Hence, a lack of criminal-law remedies in itself could not constitute a breach of the State’s positive obligations under Article <mask> of the Convention. | 5 |
105. The applicant complained under Article <mask> of the Convention that he had been unlawfully classified as a “dangerous detainee” and that he had been treated in an inhuman and degrading manner for a period of 692 days. He referred, in particular, to routine humiliating strip-searches to which he was subjected three times a day and such restrictions as wearing shackles on his hands and feet at all times whenever he was outside his cell, frequent searches of his cell, excessive isolation from his family and the constant monitoring of his cell, including sanitary facilities, via CCTV cameras. He also submitted that the authorities attempted to isolate him to the maximum and that during the application of the regime he was constantly held in a solitary cell. | 5 |
93. The applicant complained of the allegedly inadequate medical assistance he had received in detention, the authorities’ refusal to release him on health grounds or transfer him to a civil hospital with a higher standard of care and the allegedly inhuman conditions of his transport on 21 December 2007. He relied on Article <mask> of the Convention, which reads as follows: | 5 |
261. The applicants further complained under Article <mask> of the Convention that Mr Shchiborshch had been subjected to ill-treatment which led to his death. They referred to forensic reports, which stated that in the course of the police operation he had sustained seventy injuries, including a craniocerebral multitrauma, stab and slash wounds to the neck and several fractured ribs. They also claimed that the investigation in this respect had not been effective. Article 3 reads as follows: | 5 |
40. The Government submitted that the domestic investigating authorities had conducted a thorough inquiry into the applicant’s allegations and had taken a decision to refuse to institute criminal proceedings in the absence of proof “beyond reasonable doubt” that the applicant had sustained his injuries at the hands of the police. The domestic court reviewed the conclusions reached by the investigating authorities and found them lawful. In such circumstances, the Government concluded that there had been no breach of Article <mask> of the Convention, under either its substantive or its procedural heads. | 5 |
94. The applicant complained under Article <mask> of the Convention that he had been beaten by the police following his arrest on 3 July 2009. Relying on Article 13 of the Convention, he also complained that there had not been any adequate domestic investigation into the matter. The applicant further complained under Article 3 that the physical conditions of his detention in the SIZO had been appalling, that he had unjustifiably been placed in a disciplinary cell on several occasions and that other coercive measures had been used on him. He also complained, with reference to Article 2 of the Convention, that he had not been provided with adequate medical care in detention. | 5 |
29. The Government argued that the applicant’s allegations of ill-treatment were ill-founded and stressed that the applicant had not undergone a medical check-up until some twenty-two days after his release, on 29 April 2009 at the Memoria centre. In any event, only medical reports issued by authorised forensic doctors could be taken into consideration, and therefore that report had no probative value. The Government expressed doubt as to conclusions of the Memoria centre as to the cause of the injuries found on the applicant’s body, and submitted that they could have been caused by acts of violence during the manifestations of 7 April 2009 or by co-detainees. In any event, according to the Government, the injuries found on the applicant’s body had not been not sufficiently serious as to raise an issue under Article <mask> of the Convention. As to the effectiveness of the investigation, the Government submitted that the prosecutors had done everything which it had been necessary to do in order to investigate the applicant’s allegations. Therefore, the investigation had been effective within the meaning of Article 3 of the Convention. | 5 |
38. The Government admitted that the applicant had indeed sustained minor physical injuries. However, the Government maintained that there were no indications that the applicant had ever been assaulted by the police officers. According to them, the injuries in question had been sustained by the applicant during his fight with the taxi drivers. The Government pointed out that although during the first medical examination of the applicant, which took place on 8 July 2002 at 1.25 a.m., it had been revealed that the applicant had had only some scratches on his forehead and a bruise to his eye, this examination had been limited to verifying whether the applicant had been intoxicated. Therefore, the doctor did not check whether the applicant had other injuries but noted only the most visible ones. The Government further submitted that it had only been when the applicant was hospitalised that he had been diagnosed with concussion because due to the applicant’s being under the influence of alcohol it had been impossible to diagnose it earlier. Moreover, once the applicant had complained that he was not feeling well an ambulance had immediately been called for him by the police officers. The Government further indicated that the applicant had changed his allegations several times as to who had beaten him up. On different occasions he had told doctors that he had been beaten by unknown persons, by the taxi drivers and by the police officers on his arrest but he had never stated that he had been beaten up in the police station. Furthermore, the Government maintained that the investigation in the applicant’s case had been adequate and effective. In particular, all important witnesses of the events at issue had been questioned (police officers, taxi drivers and passengers and so on). Although the outcome of the investigation had not been favourable for the applicant, this did not automatically mean that the investigation had been ineffective. Therefore, the Government contended that there had been no violation of Article <mask> of the Convention in the present case. | 5 |
93. The applicant’s second argument concerned the risk of his being subjected to the death penalty as a form of “punishment” in breach of Article <mask> of the Convention. However, it is common ground between the parties that the charges against the applicant under Article 139 § 1 of the Belarusian Criminal Code, as stated in the extradition request and as examined in the extradition order, do not carry the death penalty as a possible punishment (see paragraphs 61-62 above; see also, by contrast, Koktysh, cited above, § 61, in which case the applicant was charged under Article 139 § 2 of the Belarusian Criminal Code). | 5 |
24. The applicant insisted that the conditions of his detention had been inhuman and degrading. He further argued that, despite the fact that the domestic courts had acknowledged that the conditions of his detention in the ward had not met the requirements of Russian law, he had not lost his “victim” status, as his detention for an aggregate period of a month in appalling conditions could hardly be considered to have been adequately compensated with RUB 500. He also pointed out that the Government had not acknowledged that his rights had been violated under Article <mask> of the Convention. | 5 |
59. The Government submitted that the conditions of the applicant’s detention had been compatible with the standards set forth in Article <mask> of the Convention. The Government relied upon excerpts from the remand prison population register and certificates prepared by the administration of the remand prison in August 2010. The Government also considered that the applicant had an effective remedy in respect of his grievances under Article 3 of the Convention. He had lodged a civil action seeking damages resulting from his detention in the remand prison. His claims were duly considered and granted in part by domestic courts at two levels of jurisdiction which fact showed the accessibility and efficiency of the remedy. | 5 |
30. The applicant's lawyer submitted that as result of the police officers' actions the applicant had sustained a number of injuries which were sufficiently serious to amount to ill-treatment within the scope of Article <mask> of the Convention. The police had acted in a manner not appropriate to a person suffering from mental illness and had used excessive force against him, especially as regards the shot directed at the applicant's leg. According to the lawyer, the police should have used a restraining net to immobilise the applicant. | 5 |
74. The applicant complained that the conditions of his detention in Odessa and Kyiv SIZOs, Sokyriany Colony and in transit therefrom to Torez Colony, including physical, sanitary and healthcare arrangements had been incompatible with human dignity and that the prison and convoy authorities had treated the detainees in inhuman and degrading manner. He referred to Article <mask> of the Convention in this respect, which reads as follows: | 5 |
76. The Government did not dispute the principle that the Court was competent to give a set of facts a different legal characterisation by, for example, examining an alleged violation of Article 8 under Article <mask> of the Convention. However, this did not mean that the Court was entitled to discern, for example, from the documents provided by an applicant, facts that he or she had never complained of, and still less to do so against his or her wishes. | 5 |
64. The Government argued that the applicant had not exhausted domestic remedies available to him, as required by Article 35 § 1 of the Convention. They raised a preliminary objection similar to that relied on in the case of Łatak v. Poland (see Łatak v. Poland (dec.) no. 52070/08, 12 October 2010, §§ 63-64). In particular, they stressed that the applicant had been moved to a cell in which he had been secured at least the minimum standard space of 3 m2 per person shortly after the delivery of the Orchowski and Norbert Sikorski pilot judgments. In these circumstances, the situation giving rise to the alleged breach of Article <mask> of the Convention no longer existed and the applicant should have brought a civil action under Article 24 taken in conjunction with Article 448 of the Civil Code in order to seek compensation for the past violation. | 5 |
85. The Government, whilst not denying that the abduction of the applicant’s son must have caused considerable emotional distress to her, submitted that there was no causal link between the authorities’ actions and the applicant’s mental and emotional suffering, in the absence of any findings by the domestic investigation confirming the involvement of State agents in the aforementioned offence. According to them, the investigation had obtained no evidence that the applicant had been subjected to treatment prohibited by Article <mask> of the Convention. | 5 |
96. The Government submitted that the criminal proceedings were instituted in connection with the infliction of bodily injuries on the first applicant during the night of 26-27 May 2005. Throughout the proceedings all possible investigative measures were carried out to establish the circumstances of the alleged beatings. However, since it was impossible to identify the alleged perpetrators, the proceedings were discontinued. The Government concluded therefore that there had been no violation of either the substantive or the procedural aspect of Article <mask> of the Convention in the present case. | 5 |
117. The applicant further relied on Article <mask> of the Convention, submitting that her son had been ill-treated during his apprehension and that the State had failed to investigate properly the events. She also claimed that as a result of her son's disappearance and the State's failure to investigate the events, she had endured mental suffering in breach of Article 3 of the Convention, which reads as follows: | 5 |
38. The applicant also complained under Article <mask> of the Convention that he had been detained in the temporary detention centre with persons who were hostile to law enforcement officers and that he had been beaten up by police officers or interrogators. He complained that he had had to study the case file over three days without rest or food, in the presence of the investigator and convoy officers. He alleged that the length of the criminal proceedings and his pre-trial detention had been in breach of Article 3. The applicant also complained under Article 5 of the Convention about his detention until in April 2002. Lastly, he complained mainly under Article 6 of the Convention of a number of alleged irregularities, which, in his view, had made his trial unfair. | 5 |
39. The Government pointed out that in the applicants' case the alleged ill-treatment, resulting in minor injuries, had taken place in the course of the lawful arrest of the applicants' relatives. The applicants themselves had been actively involved in the conflict and had been obstructing the police officers in the performance of their lawful duties. Furthermore, the Government had serious doubts that the minor injuries sustained by the applicants reached a level of severity sufficient to bring them within the scope of Article <mask> of the Convention. Whilst admitting that any recourse to physical force against the applicants, if it had not been made strictly necessary by the applicants' own conduct, could be seen as a possible breach of Article 3 requirements, the Government also submitted that the force used by the police officers was strictly necessary and not excessive, according to the applicants' actions. Lastly, as regards the effectiveness of the investigation and the judicial proceedings, the Government argued that the investigation into the incident had been prompt, independent and thorough and that twenty-two witnesses had testified. Given that two sets of proceedings concerning precisely the same incident had been conducted and the investigators in both cases had shared the material, there was no reason to hold that any of the evidence had not been secured and the establishment of the truth thereby precluded. | 5 |
51. The applicants complained that the conditions of their detention in Ljubljana prison amounted to a violation of Article <mask> of the Convention. In particular, they complained of severe overcrowding, which had led to a lack of personal space, and poor sanitary conditions and inadequate ventilation, as well as excessive restrictions on out-of-cell time, high temperatures in the cell, inadequate health care and psychological assistance, and exposure to violence from other inmates due to insufficient security. | 5 |
63. The Government have not disputed that the injuries detailed in the medical reports of the three applicants had been caused while they were in the hands of agents of the State. In the absence of any explanation by the Government, who bear the burden of providing a plausible explanation for those injuries (see, in this connection, Salman v. Turkey [GC], no. 21986/93, § 100, ECHR 2000-VII), the Court concludes that there has been a violation of Article <mask> of the Convention in its substantive aspect in respect of the three applicants. | 5 |
124. The Government contested the first applicant’s arguments. They noted that, in the first place, the extradition request of 29 December 2010 had contained assurances that in Tajikistan the first applicant would not be subjected to inhuman treatment or punishment or persecuted on political or religious grounds and that he would only be prosecuted for the offences in respect of which the extradition request was granted. The Russian courts had examined the first applicant at the hearing and had studied the relevant materials; the first applicant’s lawyer had also been given an opportunity to present his position in the case. Furthermore, the first applicant had been living in Russia illegally for a long period of time. He had never applied for either a resident permit or a work permit, had not been in gainful employment, had not registered as a taxpayer and had only applied for temporary asylum on 15 December 2011. According to the Government, when deciding on the applicant’s extradition to Tajikistan all his arguments concerning the risk of ill-treatment had been duly examined by the Russian authorities and courts and found to be unsubstantiated. Therefore, his extradition would not be in breach of Article <mask> of the Convention. | 5 |
196. The Government submitted that the State had indeed honoured the positive obligation flowing from Article <mask> of the Convention to conduct an independent, impartial and thorough investigation. They affirmed that the authorities had adopted all the measures required by the Court’s case-law (see Gäfgen, cited above, §§ 115-116, and the references therein), to identify those responsible for the impugned ill-treatment and to impose on them penalties proportionate to the offences committed and to provide compensation to the victim. | 5 |
27. The applicant complained under Article <mask> of the Convention that he had been held in custody despite the fact that he was suffering from a number of ailments. He further alleged that he had been deprived of adequate medical treatment while held in custody and that the conditions of detention had been unsatisfactory. He complained under Article 5 of the Convention that his arrest and his detention had been unlawful. He also alleged under the same Article that his detention had been excessive in length. | 5 |
100. The applicant disagreed with the assertion that the Russian authorities had made a thorough assessment of the risk of ill-treatment in breach of Article <mask> of the Convention in his case, pointing out that the authorities’ conclusions in that respect had been based on the scant information obtained from a handful of official sources. He asserted that both the Russian Prosecutor General’s Office and the Moscow City Court had adopted an excessively formalistic approach towards the assessment of the evidence in his case. He referred to the general situation in Tajikistan, as reported by numerous sources, and highlighted the testimonies of the witnesses in support of his argument that he would undoubtedly be tortured if he were extradited to that country. He added that the statements of the witnesses allegedly renouncing their previous statements had been recorded by a law-enforcement officer in the absence of a lawyer. In addition, the prison records which the Government presented in respect of the detainees did not refute the witness statements, but only recorded the lack of marks of torture on the bodies of the individuals concerned in 2010, whereas the pre‑trial investigation had been carried out in 2007 and 2008. The applicant argued that his situation had been further endangered by the Russian authorities’ decision to divulge information to their counterparts in Tajikistan concerning his application for refugee status and asylum, as well as the statements of the witnesses with regard to the use of torture by Tajik investigative bodies (see paragraph 35 above). | 5 |
54. The applicant complained of the impunity his torturers had allegedly enjoyed following a trial he claimed itself violated the essence of the right enshrined in Article <mask> of the Convention. In connection with the same complaint, the applicant also relied on Article 13 of the Convention, while explaining that the main aim of the remedies he sought at the national level had not been to obtain damages but to establish the criminal and administrative responsibilities for what had happened. The Court considers that the complaint, as presented by the applicant, concerns the positive obligation under Article 3 of the Convention to protect people’s physical and psychological integrity through the law (see, mutatis mutandis, Öneryıldız v. Turkey [GC], no. 48939/99, § 95, ECHR 2004-XII). Article 3 reads: | 5 |
32. The Government submitted that the applicant had been afforded the necessary procedural guarantees within the meaning of Article <mask> of the Convention. An investigation had been conducted into the actions of the police officers, who had subsequently been brought to trial. At the end of that trial, one of the police officers had been convicted and the proceedings against the remaining two had been suspended. In the Government’s opinion, Law no. 4616 could not be regarded as an amnesty law and the suspension of the criminal proceedings against the two police officers did not mean that they were acquitted. | 5 |
28. The applicant complained that the anguish and distress suffered by her on account of the attitude of the authorities towards their duty to investigate the circumstances of her husband’s death, including their systematic failures to update her of the progress in the investigation and to respond to her inquiries and demands amounted to inhuman and degrading treatment within the meaning of Article <mask> of the Convention, which reads as follows: | 5 |
32. The Government next referred to the Court’s case-law, according to which the applicant had a duty to submit evidence capable of proving beyond reasonable doubt that she had been subjected to ill-treatment that had attained the minimum level of severity required for it to fall within the scope of Article <mask> of the Convention. In this regard, the Government submitted that the applicant had not submitted any credible statements or evidence concerning her situation in Iļģuciema Prison and that in any case her complaints were purely hypothetical and abstract. | 5 |
77. The Government submitted that the factual circumstances of the case did not disclose that the applicant had been subjected to torture or to inhuman or degrading treatment. There had been no evidence to substantiate or create any suspicion that the police officers had used violence against him, or that his injuries had been caused by them. The applicant’s statements did not constitute a “credible assertion”, as they were contradictory. The investigation had proved the fact that the applicant had been a protagonist in the physical dispute which had resulted in the use of beer bottles and other hard objects. Except for the applicant’s inconsistent statements, there had been no other statements saying that the police officers had used objects like these. There was no basis for saying that the applicant’s injuries had not been caused as a result of his physical dispute with the other people. Furthermore, the witnesses had not stated that they had had a physical dispute with the police. The standard of proof “beyond reasonable doubt” had not been met in the present case. The violence used by the police officers, if any, used with the aim of protecting others involved in the fight, could not be qualified as torture within the meaning of Article <mask> of the Convention. | 5 |
113. The applicant submitted under Article <mask> of the Convention that Cemal Uçar had been subjected to coercion while in police custody. He further maintained under Article 5 § 3 of the Convention that his son had been kept in police custody for nine days without being brought before a judge or other officer authorised by law to exercise judicial power. The applicant finally contended under Article 5 § 5 of the Convention that there was no remedy in domestic law to obtain compensation for the alleged violation of Article 5 § 3. | 5 |
102. The applicants also complained under Article <mask> of the Convention that their suffering on account of the death of their son, further exacerbated by the alleged lack of volition on the authorities’ part to establish the truth, amounted to inhuman and degrading treatment. Relying on Article 6 of the Convention, they further complained that the detention of their son had been unlawful and had lacked adequate judicial review. | 5 |
21. The applicant complained under Article <mask> of the Convention that, during his transfer between prisons and from prison to hospital, he had been subjected to strip-searches, including anal inspections, which had amounted to inhuman and degrading treatment. He further alleged that, because he had resisted such measures, he had been punished by solitary confinement, which had led to the deterioration of both his physical and psychological problems. Article 3 of the Convention provides as follows: | 5 |
70. The applicant complained under Article <mask> of the Convention that the authorities had not taken steps to safeguard his health and well-being, having failed to provide him with adequate medical assistance, despite his suffering from HIV/AIDS and tuberculosis. He further argued that the authorities’ persistent refusals to release him on medical grounds had exposed him to additional, continuous suffering amounting to torture. Article 3 of the Convention reads as follows: | 5 |
146. The applicants relied on Article <mask> of the Convention, submitting that, as a result of their relative’s disappearance and the State’s failure to investigate it properly, they had endured mental suffering in breach of Article 3 of the Convention. They also argued that they had serious grounds to believe that Mr Ali Khadayev had been subjected to torture and inhuman treatment when in detention and complained that no effective investigation had been conducted in this respect. Article 3 reads: | 5 |
109. The applicants complained under Article <mask> of the Convention that Visadi Shokkarov had been ill-treated while in police custody from 6 January to 2 February 2003, but that no effective investigation had been carried out on that account. The applicants also claimed that the death of Visadi Shokkarov and the disappearance of Visita Shokkarov and the authorities’ failure to properly investigate these incidents had caused them profound moral suffering. Article 3 reads: | 5 |
62. The applicants complained that the poor material conditions of their stay in the transit zone of Sheremetyevo Airport had been incompatible with the guarantees of Article <mask> of the Convention. They further complained that their confinement to the transit zone of Sheremetyevo Airport amounted to an unlawful deprivation of liberty in breach of Article 5 § 1 of the Convention. These Convention provisions read, in so far as relevant, as follows: | 5 |
57. The applicant complained that on 8, 22 and 28 June 2004 he had been subjected to violence by officers from the ORB police unit. He had then been transferred to correctional colony IK‑14 and during his detention there from July to November 2004 had been subjected to further violence by the police and prisoners acting on their instructions with the connivance of the prison administration. He argued that the violence had been used to make him confess to crimes, and had amounted to torture. Furthermore, no effective investigation had been carried out into his complaints. He relied on Article <mask> of the Convention, which reads as follows: | 5 |
27. The Government argued that there were several effective domestic remedies that had not been used by the applicant in the present case. In the first place, they alleged that the applicant had not requested a domestic court, under Article 24 and 33(1) of the Code of Administrative Procedure, to order the relevant authorities to take additional measures for the protection of his health in prison. Secondly, according to the Government the applicant should have sued the relevant State authority and requested compensation for non-pecuniary damage under Article 207 of the General Administrative Code and Article 413 of the Civil Code. Since neither of these judicial remedies were resorted to by the applicant, the Government were of the opinion that the complaint under Article <mask> of the Convention should be rejected under Article 35 §§ 1 and 4 for non-exhaustion of domestic remedies. | 5 |
179. The applicant’s second complaint under Article <mask> of the Convention concerned the harsh conditions of his detention. In particular, he complained about the lack of natural light and ventilation in the cell, which was very small, the fact that the authorities had provided him with light, inadequate clothes and the fact that the furniture was permanently fixed to the floor. He also submitted that during certain periods he had been kept in overcrowded cells. | 5 |
39. The applicant complained that his confinement in a metal cage in the remand prison for the purposes of his participating, by means of a video link, in the court’s examination of his appeals against the detention orders on 6 April and 28 June 2011 had violated his human dignity. The complaint falls to be examined under Article <mask> of the Convention, which provides as follows: | 5 |
88. The Government argued that there had been an effective investigation in response to the first applicant’s complaint about his alleged ill-treatment on 30 June 2004. They distinguished the present case from Labita v. Italy on the facts, stating that the actions of the Cēsis District Police Department had never been the subject of explicit media attention. Moreover, the applicants’ allegations had given rise to certain doubts as to their credibility. In this regard the Government referred to Avşar v. Turkey (no. 25657/94, ECHR 2001‑VII (extracts)), noting that the obligation under the procedural aspect of Article <mask> of the Convention was one of means, not result (ibid., § 394): an effective investigation could well end with a finding that no violation had taken place. | 5 |
132. The applicant complained, with reference to Article <mask> of the Convention, about the searches of his SIZO cell on 27 March and 3 April 2007, as having allegedly resulted in the seizure of his personal belongings, namely his copy of the Code of Criminal Procedure with comments and his notepad with some telephone numbers and other important information, as well as that some of his food had been spoiled. | 5 |
30. The applicant submitted that the police officers had subjected him to humiliating and degrading treatment during his arrest and detention. He complained that they had exposed him to the public in handcuffs and then taken him to his workplace and his home, still in handcuffs. He contended that the police officers' conduct during his time in their custody had been designed to humiliate and debase him in front of his colleagues, neighbours and family. He alleged that this humiliation had affected him to such an extent that he had lost all capacity to cope with it psychologically, had lost his job as a result and had been undergoing psychiatric treatment ever since. He relied on Article <mask> of the Convention, which provides: | 5 |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.