chunk_id stringlengths 12 16 | chunk stringlengths 1 797 | source_url stringclasses 200
values | title stringclasses 1
value | chunk_idx int64 0 573 | chunk_start_char int64 0 283k | chunk_end_char int64 57 283k |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
passage_375::17 | 5747/10, §§ 25 – 26, 9 January 2014 the Court found that the conditions in which the applicant was held in the semiopen section in Ljubljana prison, personal space (about 3.3 or 3.4 square metres) taken together with the time he could spend outside the cell (from Monday to Thursday fifteen hours and forty five minutes ... | passage_375 | 17 | 7,530 | 8,052 | |
passage_375::18 | the restricted space in the sleeping facilities was compensated by the freedom of movement enjoyed by the applicant during the day-time. | passage_375 | 18 | 8,052 | 8,189 | |
passage_375::19 | As regards the temperatures in cells in the summer of 2009, the Court found that although the applicant was imprisoned also in the second half of July and August 2009, his situation during that period could not be considered as being further exacerbated by high temperatures as he was held in the semi-open section and c... | passage_375 | 19 | 8,190 | 8,583 | |
passage_375::20 | In the present case, the applicant was held in the semi-open section with about 3.37 or 3.4 square metres of personal space and enjoyed the same out-of-cell time as the applicant in the case of Jevšnik v. Slovenia. As the conditions of the applicant’s detention in the semi-open section were the same as those of the app... | passage_375 | 20 | 8,585 | 9,092 | |
passage_375::21 | The Court reaches the same conclusion regarding the applicant’s detention in the open section, where the applicant had at least 6.7 square metres of personal space (or 10 square metres of personal space if sharing the cell with three other prisoners) and where the cells were open twentyfour hours per day, so that he co... | passage_375 | 21 | 9,094 | 9,629 | |
passage_375::22 | However, the Court finds that the applicant complained about the detention in Ljubljana prison and the open section Ig is a section of Ljubljana prison and in any event the conditions of detention there are not contrary to the Convention standards. Therefore, this part of the application must also be rejected as being ... | passage_375 | 22 | 9,630 | 10,037 | |
passage_375::23 | As the Court rejected the part of the application regarding the applicant’s detention in the semi-open and open sections from 23 January 2009 to 15 July 2009 for being manifestly ill-founded, the part of the application regarding the detention in the closed section from 24 November 2008 to 22 January 2009 should be rej... | passage_375 | 23 | 10,040 | 10,534 | |
passage_375::24 | 25. As regards the rest of the application, in the present case as well as in the case of Štrucl and Others and Praznik v. Slovenia, no. 6234/10, 28 June 2012, the Government raised an objection of non-exhaustion of domestic remedies, relying on the same arguments as in the above cases. In Štrucl and Others the Court ... | passage_375 | 24 | 10,536 | 10,974 | |
passage_375::25 | After finding a violation of the latter provision it rejected the Government’s objection (see Štrucl and Others, §§ 62 and 98-113). The Court sees no reason to reach a different conclusion in the present case. It further finds that this part of the complaint is not manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 3... | passage_375 | 25 | 10,975 | 11,526 | |
passage_375::26 | The parties in the present case adduced the same arguments as in Štrucl and Others, where the Court found the part of the application concerning inadequate health care, psychiatric support and insufficient security measures manifestly ill-founded (§§ 63-69). The Court decided the same in Praznik. In the absence of any ... | passage_375 | 26 | 11,528 | 12,103 | |
passage_375::27 | The parties relied on the same arguments as in the case of Štrucl and Others (cited above, §§ 70-79).
28. The Court refers as regards the relevant principles to paragraphs 7276 of its judgment in the case of Mandić and Jović v. Slovenia, nos. 5774/10 and 5985/10, 20 October 2011.
29. | passage_375 | 27 | 12,105 | 12,392 | |
passage_375::28 | The Court notes that the applicant was held in the closed section of Ljubljana prison from 15 July 2009 to 10 August 2009 with four other prisoners and with 3.26 square metres of personal space.
30. His personal space in the cells was further reduced by the amount of furniture (see Modarca v. Moldova, no. , § 63, 10 ... | passage_375 | 28 | 12,394 | 12,724 | |
passage_375::29 | As regards the Government’s suggestion that not all the beds in the cells were occupied all the time, the Court has already rejected it, finding that no official documents indicating the exact number of prisoners being held in a particular cell had been provided to substantiate it (see Štrucl and Others, cited above, §... | passage_375 | 29 | 12,725 | 13,055 | |
passage_375::30 | It was found in Praznik that the personal space of the applicant, which was for most of the period of his detention in the closed section about 3.3 square metres, and which was slightly larger than the space available to the prisoners in Štrucl and Others, still fell short of the recommendation of the European Committe... | passage_375 | 30 | 13,057 | 13,458 | |
passage_375::31 | It was further found in Praznik that the applicant’s situation was exacerbated by the very limited time which could be spent outside the cell and by high temperatures in the cell in the summer (see Praznik, cited above, § 20) therefore, it was concluded that the conditions of detention were contrary to Article 3 of the... | passage_375 | 31 | 13,459 | 13,796 | |
passage_375::32 | Likewise, in the present case the applicant was detained in the closed section for twenty-six days with 3.26 square metres of personal space and his situation was further exacerbated by the very limited time which could be spent outside the cell and by high temperatures in the cell in the summer. | passage_375 | 32 | 13,798 | 14,095 | |
passage_375::33 | Having regard to the cumulative effects of these conditions of the applicant’s detention, the Court considers, as in Praznik, that the hardship he endured appears to have exceeded the unavoidable level inherent in detention, and finds that the resulting suffering went beyond the threshold of severity under Article 3 of... | passage_375 | 33 | 14,096 | 14,561 | |
passage_375::34 | 28524/95, § 75, ECHR 2001III).
33. The Court therefore finds that the conditions of detention in which the applicant was held in the closed section from 15 July 2009 to 10 August 2009 were contrary to Article 3 of the Convention.
II. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 8 OF THE CONVENTION
34. The applicant complained th... | passage_375 | 34 | 14,562 | 14,986 | |
passage_375::35 | In addition, he complained about restrictions on telephone calls. As regards the latter, the applicant submitted that he had often been under pressure from other inmates to terminate his telephone conversations before the allotted time had expired.
35. Article 8 of the Convention reads as follows:
“1. Everyone has t... | passage_375 | 35 | 14,987 | 15,396 | |
passage_375::36 | There shall be no interference by a public authority with the exercise of this right except such as is in accordance with the law and is necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security, public safety or the economic well-being of the country, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the prot... | passage_375 | 36 | 15,397 | 16,020 | |
passage_375::37 | In view of the applicant’s submissions and having regard to the finding relating to Article 3, the Court considers that no separate issue arises under Article 8 in this regard (see Orchowski v. Poland, no. 17885/04, § 198, ECHR 2009... (extracts)). However, as regards the complaints under Article 8 overlapping with tho... | passage_375 | 37 | 16,021 | 16,560 | |
passage_375::38 | Therefore, this part of the application should be rejected as being manifestly ill-founded, pursuant to Article 35 §§ 3 (a) and 4 of the Convention.
37. As regards the applicant’s complaints concerning his contact with persons outside the prison, the Court notes that the parties adduced the same arguments as in the c... | passage_375 | 38 | 16,561 | 17,087 | |
passage_375::39 | These complaints should therefore be rejected as manifestly ill-founded, pursuant to Article 35 §§ 3 (a) and 4 of the Convention.
III. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 13 OF THE CONVENTION
38. The applicant complained that owing to the systemic nature of the inadequate prison conditions he did not have any effective re... | passage_375 | 39 | 17,088 | 17,681 | |
passage_375::40 | He cited Article 13 of the Convention, which reads as follows:
“Everyone whose rights and freedoms as set forth in [the] Convention are violated shall have an effective remedy before a national authority notwithstanding that the violation has been committed by persons acting in an official capacity.”
A. Admissibilit... | passage_375 | 40 | 17,682 | 18,008 | |
passage_375::41 | In so far as the applicant’s complaint under Article 13 of the Convention refers to the lack of effective remedies in respect of inadequate physical conditions of detention in the closed section from 15 July 2009 to 10 August 2009, as already found by the Court in Štrucl and Others and Praznik, this aspect of the compl... | passage_375 | 41 | 18,010 | 18,509 | |
passage_375::42 | to the lack of effective remedies in respect of inadequate physical conditions of detention in the semi-open and open sections of Ljubljana prison and in the closed section of Ljubljana prison from 24 November 2008 to 22 January 2009 and in respect of the allegedly inadequate medical and psychological care, inadequate... | passage_375 | 42 | 18,513 | 19,136 | |
passage_375::43 | loguzov v. Ukraine, no. | passage_375 | 43 | 19,136 | 19,159 | |
passage_375::44 | 32362/02, §§ 745, 20 May 2010). It follows that this aspect of the applicant’s complaint under Article 13 of the Convention should be rejected as manifestly illfounded, pursuant to Article 35 §§ 3 (a) and 4 of the Convention.
B. Merits
41. | passage_375 | 44 | 19,160 | 19,402 | |
passage_375::45 | The parties’ arguments are identical to those in the case of Štrucl and Others (§§ 101-117) in which the Court found that none of the remedies relied on by the Government could be regarded with a sufficient degree of certainty as constituting an effective remedy for the applicants (ibid., §§ 11833). | passage_375 | 45 | 19,404 | 19,704 | |
passage_375::46 | Since there appear to be no reasons to reach a different conclusion in the present case, the Court finds that there has been a violation of Article 13 of the Convention on account of the lack of an effective and accessible remedy under domestic law for the applicant’s complaints in respect of the conditions of his dete... | passage_375 | 46 | 19,705 | 20,338 | |
passage_375::47 | The applicant argued that his allegations related to a structural problem of overcrowding in Slovenian prisons. This assertion was disputed by the Government.
44. The parties’ arguments are identical to those in the case of Štrucl and Others. In the latter case the Court emphasized the need to take steps to reduce th... | passage_375 | 47 | 20,340 | 20,722 | |
passage_375::48 | In view of the fact that the applicant’s complaint of a structural problem applies to the same period of time that was addressed in Štrucl and others (2009), the Court considers that it raises no separate issue which would call for an examination under Article 46 in the present case.
V. APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF T... | passage_375 | 48 | 20,723 | 21,061 | |
passage_375::49 | Article 41 of the Convention provides:
“If the Court finds that there has been a violation of the Convention or the Protocols thereto, and if the internal law of the High Contracting Party concerned allows only partial reparation to be made, the Court shall, if necessary, afford just satisfaction to the injured party.... | passage_375 | 49 | 21,063 | 21,602 | |
passage_375::50 | B. Costs and expenses
49. The applicant also claimed EUR 1,520 for costs and expenses incurred before the Court. This sum consisted of EUR 1,500 in lawyer’s fees, which he claimed were calculated on the basis of statutory domestic rates and EUR 20 for material expenses.
50. The Government argued that this claim wa... | passage_375 | 50 | 21,604 | 22,171 | |
passage_375::51 | According to the Court’s case-law, an applicant is entitled to the reimbursement of costs and expenses only in so far as it has been shown that these have been actually and necessarily incurred and are reasonable as to quantum. With regard to an applicant’s Convention costs, the Court reiterates that it does not consid... | passage_375 | 51 | 22,173 | 22,652 | |
passage_375::52 | 21055/03, § 83, 21 July 2009, and Başkaya and Okçuoğlu v. Turkey [GC], nos. 23536/94 and 24408/94, § 98, ECHR 1999-IV). | passage_375 | 52 | 22,653 | 22,772 | |
passage_375::53 | In the present case, regard being had to the information in its possession and in particular the fact that the law firm representing the applicant has already been reimbursed in other cases for preparation of submissions almost identical to the present ones (see Mandić and Jović, cited above, §§ 133-35, Štrucl and Othe... | passage_375 | 53 | 22,773 | 23,273 | |
passage_375::54 | C. Default interest
52. The Court considers it appropriate that the default interest rate should be based on the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank, to which should be added three percentage points.
FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT UNANIMOUSLY
1. | passage_375 | 54 | 23,275 | 23,538 | |
passage_375::55 | Declares the complaint concerning the physical conditions of detention under Articles 3 and 8 of the Convention as regards the detention in the closed section from 15 July 2009 to 10 August 2009, as well as the complaint under Article 13 of the Convention relating to the complaint concerning the physical conditions of ... | passage_375 | 55 | 23,540 | 23,994 | |
passage_375::56 | Holds that there has been a violation of Article 3 of the Convention as regards the detention in the closed section from 15 July 2009 to 10 August 2009;
3. Holds that there is no need to examine the complaint concerning the physical conditions of detention in the closed section under Article 8 of the Convention;
4. ... | passage_375 | 56 | 23,996 | 24,391 | |
passage_375::57 | Holds
(a) that the respondent State is to pay the applicant, within three months of the date on which the judgment becomes final in accordance with Article 44 § 2 of the Convention, the following amounts:
(b) that from the expiry of the above-mentioned three months until settlement simple interest shall be payable ... | passage_375 | 57 | 24,393 | 24,940 | |
passage_375::58 | Done in English, and notified in writing on 3 April 2014, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court. | passage_375 | 58 | 24,942 | 25,053 | |
passage_794::0 | PROCEDURE
1. The case originated in an application (no. 11982/02) against the lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) by a Russian national, Mr Ernest Ernestovich Novinskiy (“the applicant”), on 21 February 2002. Before t... | passage_794 | 0 | 0 | 525 | |
passage_794::1 | For practical reasons Mr Ernest Ernestovich Novinskiy will continue to be called “the applicant” in this judgment, although Ms Olga Aleksandrovna Novinskaya is now to be regarded as such (Dalban v. Romania [GC], no. 28114/95, § 1, ECHR 1999VI).
2. The applicant, who had been granted legal aid, was represented by his ... | passage_794 | 1 | 526 | 943 | |
passage_794::2 | The Russian Government (“the Government”) were represented by Mr P. Laptev and Mrs V. Milinchuk, former Representatives of the at the European Court of Human Rights.
3. | passage_794 | 2 | 944 | 1,114 | |
passage_794::3 | The applicant alleged, in particular, that the conditions of his detention in IZ-63/1 (from 11 to 16 June 2001 and from 13 November to 5 December 2001) and IZ-77/3 (between 16 June and 13 November 2001) had been appalling and that the prison authorities had put pressure on him and some of his fellow prisoners in connec... | passage_794 | 3 | 1,116 | 1,568 | |
passage_794::4 | 5. The applicant and the Government each filed further written observations (Rule 59 § 1). The Chamber decided, after consulting the parties, that no hearing on the merits was required (Rule 59 § 3 in fine).
THE FACTS
I. THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE
6. The applicant was born in 1963 and previously resided in the... | passage_794 | 4 | 1,570 | 2,093 | |
passage_794::5 | Thereafter the applicant was remanded in custody pending the outcome of the criminal proceedings against him.
9. The applicant alleged that he had been tortured during the pre-trial investigation.
10. By a judgment of 1 November 2000 the convicted the applicant and a number of co-accused and sentenced them to vari... | passage_794 | 5 | 2,095 | 2,697 | |
passage_794::6 | The applicant, one of his co-accused and their counsel appealed against the judgment of 1 November 2000.
12. On 22 October 2001 the Supreme Court examined and partly allowed the defence appeals. The applicant was acquitted of some of the charges and his sentence was reduced to nineteen years’ imprisonment.
B. The a... | passage_794 | 6 | 2,699 | 3,239 | |
passage_794::7 | The applicant was initially arrested on 22 December 1999. He has remained in detention since that date. Pending criminal proceedings against him, he was detained intermittently in IVS-1, IZ-63/1, IZ-77/3 and IZ-63/2.
15. From 11 to 16 June 2001 he was detained in IZ-63/1. On 16 June 2001 the applicant was sent to IZ-... | passage_794 | 7 | 3,241 | 3,633 | |
passage_794::8 | On 13 November 2001 the authorities transferred the applicant back to IZ-63/1. The applicant remained there until 5 December 2001. On that date he was transferred to prison facility IK-13 of the Samara Region to serve his sentence of imprisonment. Some years later, on 23 August 2006, the applicant was transferred from ... | passage_794 | 8 | 3,634 | 4,072 | |
passage_794::9 | From 11 to 16 June 2001 and from 13 November to 5 December 2001 the applicant was detained in cell no. 36 of IZ-63/1.
(a) Information submitted by the parties at the admissibility stage of the proceedings
17. According to the Government, the cell measured 34.02 square metres (6.3 x 5.4 x 3.1 metres), had a window a... | passage_794 | 9 | 4,074 | 4,506 | |
passage_794::10 | The applicant stated that the cell measured around 30 square metres, contained ten two-tier beds designed for twenty detainees and a wooden table for ten persons. There were between 18 and 32 detainees in the cell at the relevant time. The prisoners were permitted daily outdoor exercise which lasted for 40 minutes. It ... | passage_794 | 10 | 4,508 | 4,931 | |
passage_794::11 | To support his allegations, the applicant referred to statements of support signed by a number of his fellow inmates who had witnessed the conditions of detention in the same cell or in other cells of IZ-63/1 (see paragraphs 37, 40, 43, 47, 56, 58, 59, 63 and 65 below).
20. The Government disputed the validity and ve... | passage_794 | 11 | 4,933 | 5,400 | |
passage_794::12 | (b) Information submitted by the parties at the post-admissibility stage of the proceedings
21. The Government were requested to submit specific information on the number of inmates and beds in pre-trial detention centre IZ-63/1 from 11 to 16 June 2001 and from 13 November to 5 December 2001. They were invited to pr... | passage_794 | 12 | 5,402 | 5,919 | |
passage_794::13 | 22. In response the Government submitted that no more than 1,100 inmates had been held in IZ-63/1 during the specified periods.
23. They could not submit copies of official logs and documentation as these documents had been destroyed following the expiry of the time-limit for their storage. | passage_794 | 13 | 5,921 | 6,215 | |
passage_794::14 | From the documents confirming the destruction it follows that the registration logs in respect of the cells for the following three periods – 3 June to 25 September 2001, 26 September to 22 November 2001 and 23 November 2001 to 5 March 2002 – were destroyed in January 2007. The duty sheet (постовая ведомость) for June ... | passage_794 | 14 | 6,216 | 6,591 | |
passage_794::15 | The certificates on daily movements of inmates (справки о движении заключённых за сутки), daily logs on the presence and movements of inmates (суточные сводки о наличии и движении заключённых) and lists of inmates’ moves between cells (списки перемещения заключённых из камеры в камеру) for the year 2001 were destroyed ... | passage_794 | 15 | 6,592 | 7,095 | |
passage_794::16 | From the documents confirming the destruction it follows that the registration logs in respect of the cells for the following three periods – 3 June to 25 September 2001, 26 September to 22 November 2001 and 23 November 2001 to 5 March 2002 – were destroyed in January 2007. The duty sheet (постовая ведомость) for June ... | passage_794 | 16 | 7,096 | 7,471 | |
passage_794::17 | The certificates on daily movements of inmates (справки о движении заключённых за сутки), daily logs on the presence and movements of inmates (суточные сводки о наличии и движении заключённых) and lists of inmates’ moves between cells (списки перемещения заключённых из камеры в камеру) for the year 2001 were destroyed ... | passage_794 | 17 | 7,472 | 7,915 | |
passage_794::18 | and D.S., who had both served in that prison at the relevant time:
“In accordance with decree no. 63 of the Ministry of Justice of the RF dated 19 February 2001, the capacity of pre-trial detention centre no. 1 of the town of was 1,100 inmates in 2001 and the overall number of inmates did not exceed that figure.
Cel... | passage_794 | 18 | 7,916 | 8,381 | |
passage_794::19 | 36 is equipped with eight sleeping places. In 2001 there were no more than eight inmates in the cell, including [the applicant].”
25. The Government also submitted, with reference to official certificates issued by the head of the prison authorities of IZ-63/1, that there had been 1,056 beds for inmates and 44 beds i... | passage_794 | 19 | 8,382 | 8,774 | |
passage_794::20 | 63 of the Ministry of Justice dated 19 February 2001 on, among other things, the capacity of pre-trial detention centres in . The order states specifically that IZ/63-1 had at the relevant time an overall living surface in cells of 4,400 square metres and was capable of accommodating 1,100 inmates.
25. | passage_794 | 20 | 8,775 | 9,079 | |
passage_794::21 | The Government also submitted, with reference to official certificates issued by the head of the prison authorities of IZ-63/1, that there had been 1,056 beds for inmates and 44 beds in the hospital unit of facility IZ-63/1. They also referred to order no. 63 of the Ministry of Justice dated 19 February 2001 on, among ... | passage_794 | 21 | 9,081 | 9,463 | |
passage_794::22 | The order states specifically that IZ/63-1 had at the relevant time an overall living surface in cells of 4,400 square metres and was capable of accommodating 1,100 inmates.
26. The applicant partly agreed and partly disagreed with the information submitted by the Government. He stated that he may have remembered the... | passage_794 | 22 | 9,464 | 9,998 | |
passage_794::23 | He also specified that there had been eight two-tier bunk beds which had provided a total of sixteen sleeping places.
27. He submitted further statements by former inmates Mr S.V. Sidorchuk and Mr S.A. Rassokhin, who both again confirmed their earlier support (see paragraphs 46 and 51 below).
27. He submitted furth... | passage_794 | 23 | 9,999 | 10,477 | |
passage_794::24 | The applicant also submitted an article dated 25 September 2006 entitled “SIZO-1 – The gates of the Samara Prison System” (СИЗО-1 – ворота Самарской УИС), from an official newspaper published by the Central Department for the Execution of Sentences of the Ministry of Justice called Prison and Freedom (Тюрьма и воля) (i... | passage_794 | 24 | 10,479 | 10,965 | |
passage_794::25 | They do so in difficult conditions. In the first place, they have to cope with overcrowding. Although it has a capacity of 1,200 persons, around 1,600 inmates are being held here, whilst a couple of years ago the number of inmates was in excess of 3,000. For continuous periods of time, not only male but also female inm... | passage_794 | 25 | 10,966 | 11,417 | |
passage_794::26 | Between 16 June and 12 November 2001 the applicant was held in IZ-77/3 in the city of .
30. The applicant submitted that he had been detained in cell no. 524, measuring 27 square metres and containing 24 bunk beds. During the period between June and November 2001 the cell held between 34 and 48 inmates. It was infest... | passage_794 | 26 | 11,419 | 11,880 | |
passage_794::27 | 524, measuring 27 square metres and containing 24 bunk beds. During the period between June and November 2001 the cell held between 34 and 48 inmates. It was infested with insects and had neither a separate toilet nor proper ventilation.
31. The Government submitted that the applicant had been detained in cells no. 5... | passage_794 | 27 | 11,881 | 12,351 | |
passage_794::28 | 524 measured 32.8 square metres, had 32 sleeping places and contained no more than 28 persons besides the applicant. Each of the cells had two windows.
32. The Government submitted handwritten statements by prison inspectors Kh. and L. dated 20 January 2006, in which they certified that in 2001 there had been no more... | passage_794 | 28 | 12,352 | 12,853 | |
passage_794::29 | At all the relevant times there were between 32 and 48 inmates in these cells. The prisoners had to sleep in turns. The cells were infested with insects, cockroaches and lice. The applicant admitted that some sanitation work had been carried out, but noted that it had been to no avail as the insects from the prisoners’... | passage_794 | 29 | 12,854 | 13,483 | |
passage_794::30 | 35. | passage_794 | 30 | 13,485 | 13,488 | |
passage_794::31 | respect of both prisons, the Government submitted that all prisoners had a fifteen-minute shower every seven days, that all the cells had been equipped with day-time as well as night-time lighting, that there had been a central heating system in the cells, that the inmates had been provided with food in accordance wit... | passage_794 | 31 | 13,492 | 14,211 | |
passage_794::32 | the domestic level. | passage_794 | 32 | 14,211 | 14,231 | |
passage_794::33 | C. Statements by the applicant’s fellow prisoners
36. In his observations on the admissibility of the case the applicant submitted a number of statements from his fellow prisoners.
1. Statements by Mr S.N. Vasilyev
1. Statements by Mr S.N. Vasilyev
1. Statements by Mr S.N. Vasilyev
37. In an undated statemen... | passage_794 | 33 | 14,233 | 14,779 | |
passage_794::34 | Vasilyev fully confirmed the applicant’s account of the conditions of detention, specifically supporting his submissions in respect of, among other things, conditions in IZ-63/1.
38. In a statement dated 28 April 2006 Mr S.N. Vasilyev contested the Government’s factual submissions in respect of IZ-63/1. He stated tha... | passage_794 | 34 | 14,780 | 15,285 | |
passage_794::35 | Vasilyev contested the Government’s factual submissions in respect of IZ-63/1. He stated that the Government’s presentation of the situation had been wrong, and he fully confirmed the applicant’s description of cells in IZ-63/1.
39. Mr S.N. Vasilyev is currently at liberty, living in the town of .
2. Statement by M... | passage_794 | 35 | 15,286 | 15,735 | |
passage_794::36 | Bogolyubov, who also spent some time in IZ-63/1 (although not simultaneously with the applicant), supported the applicant’s submissions in respect of that prison.
41. The Government also stated that one Mr A.V. Bogolyubov, whom they had traced to one of the prisons of the Samara Region, had never been detained in the... | passage_794 | 36 | 15,736 | 16,275 | |
passage_794::37 | The former is at liberty and currently resides in the town of .
3. Statement by Mr Rassokhin
3. Statement by Mr Rassokhin
3. Statement by Mr Rassokhin
43. In a statement of 3 March 2006 Mr S.A. Rassokhin confirmed the applicant’s account of the conditions of detention in IZ-63/1.
44. The Government also st... | passage_794 | 37 | 16,276 | 16,617 | |
passage_794::38 | Rassokhin, whom they had traced to one of the prisons of the Samara Region, had never been detained in the same cell of the same prison in the Samara Region together with the applicant.
45. It appears that the Mr S.A. Rassokhin referred to by the applicant is a different person from the one referred to by the Governm... | passage_794 | 38 | 16,618 | 17,214 | |
passage_794::39 | It appears that the Mr S.A. Rassokhin referred to by the applicant is a different person from the one referred to by the Government. The former is at liberty and currently resides in the town of .
46. | passage_794 | 39 | 17,216 | 17,417 | |
passage_794::40 | At the post-admissibility stage of the proceedings, the applicant submitted a fresh statement by Mr Rassokhin dated 27 January 2008, in which he said that he had been detained in IZ-63/1 in 2000-01 (although not in the same cell as the applicant) and had witnessed the fact that the actual number of beds in cells at tha... | passage_794 | 40 | 17,419 | 17,936 | |
passage_794::41 | Statement by Mr S.V. Sidorchuk
4. Statement by Mr S.V. Sidorchuk
4. Statement by Mr S.V. Sidorchuk
47. In a statement of 25 April 2006 Mr S.V. Sidorchuk said that he had spent some time in IZ-63/1 at approximately the same time as the applicant. Mr Sidorchuk confirmed the applicant’s account of the conditions of ... | passage_794 | 41 | 17,938 | 18,479 | |
passage_794::42 | They did not appear to dispute that Mr Sidorchuk had been detained in IZ-63/1 and had witnessed the conditions of detention in that prison.
49. Furthermore, the Government submitted a statement from Mr Sidorchuk dated 24 August 2006, in which he retracted his earlier statement in support of the applicant’s complaints... | passage_794 | 42 | 18,480 | 18,988 | |
passage_794::43 | Furthermore, the Government submitted a statement from Mr Sidorchuk dated 24 August 2006, in which he retracted his earlier statement in support of the applicant’s complaints.
50. In a statement of 6 February 2007 submitted by the Government, Mr Sidorchuk said that he remained a witness in the case, that he had not w... | passage_794 | 43 | 18,990 | 19,575 | |
passage_794::44 | In a statement of 6 February 2007 submitted by the Government, Mr Sidorchuk said that he remained a witness in the case, that he had not withdrawn his statement and that no pressure had been put on him by anyone. He added that he had never been detained at the same time as the applicant, with the result that his accoun... | passage_794 | 44 | 19,577 | 20,119 | |
passage_794::45 | Mr Sidorchuk was then at liberty and resided in the town of . He again confirmed the truth of the applicant’s factual allegations in respect of IZ-63/1. He also explained that his earlier retraction of the statement of 25 April 2006 had been due solely to the fact that at the relevant time he had applied for release on... | passage_794 | 45 | 20,120 | 20,615 | |
passage_794::46 | At the post-admissibility stage of the proceedings, the applicant submitted a fresh statement by Mr S.V. Sidorchuk dated 27 January 2008. Mr Sidorchuk was then at liberty and resided in the town of . He again confirmed the truth of the applicant’s factual allegations in respect of IZ-63/1. | passage_794 | 46 | 20,617 | 20,907 | |
passage_794::47 | He also explained that his earlier retraction of the statement of 25 April 2006 had been due solely to the fact that at the relevant time he had applied for release on parole and that the prison officials had made insinuations and disguised remarks to the effect that his application for release might not be granted unl... | passage_794 | 47 | 20,908 | 21,373 | |
passage_794::48 | Sidorchuk had been apprehended by police officers and had spent the next six hours in the local department of the interior (the fact that Mr Sidorchuk was there between 1 p.m. and 7.15 p.m. is confirmed by an official certificate). He was questioned there by an assistant to the prosecutor, Mr S. Sviridov, in connection... | passage_794 | 48 | 21,374 | 21,877 | |
passage_794::49 | on 10 March 2008 and was then escorted to the police station, where he waited four and a half hours to be questioned by Mr S. Sviridov. The interview concerned the applicant’s case before the Court and the statements made by Mr S.V. Sidorchuk in that connection. No direct threats or overt intimidation were used, but Mr... | passage_794 | 49 | 21,878 | 22,317 | |
passage_794::50 | Sidorchuk also submitted a copy of an interview record dated 10 March 2008 and a copy of the summons served on him by police officers on 10 March 2008. The interview record shows that he confirmed, among other things, the authenticity of his earlier statement dated 27 January 2008. The summons mentioned explicitly that... | passage_794 | 50 | 22,318 | 22,646 | |
passage_794::51 | Sidorchuk was invited to an interview as a witness within the meaning of the domestic Code of Criminal Procedure, that he could come with his lawyer if he so wished and that he could be brought to the investigator by force or fined if he ignored the summons.
54. Mr S.V. Sidorchuk also submitted a copy of an interview... | passage_794 | 51 | 22,647 | 23,202 | |
passage_794::52 | The summons mentioned explicitly that Mr S.V. Sidorchuk was invited to an interview as a witness within the meaning of the domestic Code of Criminal Procedure, that he could come with his lawyer if he so wished and that he could be brought to the investigator by force or fined if he ignored the summons.
55. The Gover... | passage_794 | 52 | 23,203 | 23,874 | |
passage_794::53 | 5. Statement by V.I. Molochkov
5. Statement by V.I. Molochkov
5. Statement by V.I. Molochkov
56. In a statement of 18 April 2006 Mr V.I. Molochkov supported the applicant’s submissions in so far as they concerned cell no. 36 in IZ-63/1. It appears that Mr Molochkov was detained in that cell in 2001 at the same t... | passage_794 | 53 | 23,876 | 24,300 | |
passage_794::54 | In a statement of 18 April 2006 Mr V.I. Molochkov supported the applicant’s submissions in so far as they concerned cell no. 36 in IZ-63/1. It appears that Mr Molochkov was detained in that cell in 2001 at the same time as the applicant and that there were between 20 and 24 detainees and only 20 beds at that time.
57.... | passage_794 | 54 | 24,302 | 24,783 | |
passage_794::55 | According to them, he had been detained in a different cell of IZ-63/1 from 8 December 2000 until an unspecified date.
6. Joint statement by nineteen prisoners
6. Joint statement by nineteen prisoners
6. Joint statement by nineteen prisoners
58. The following nineteen prisoners who were serving their sentence i... | passage_794 | 55 | 24,784 | 25,259 | |
passage_794::56 | Suleymanov (in respect of IZ-63/1), Mr D.V. Vodopyanov (in respect of the conditions of detention in IZ-63/1), Mr O.V. Tkachenko (all complaints), Mr M. Moiseyev (all complaints), Mr D.N. Kartashov (all complaints), Mr S.N. Smirnov (all complaints), Mr D.I. Karlov (all complaints), Mr A.V. Borodin (in respect of IZ-63/... | passage_794 | 56 | 25,260 | 25,636 | |
passage_794::57 | Kapitonov (all complaints), Mr V.S. Kalashnikov (all complaints), Mr A.V. Pronin (all complaints), Mr M.A. Mikhalkin (all complaints), Mr S.V. Sulkin (all complaints), Mr S.S. Kirzhenko (all complaints), Mr S.V. Karyakin (in respect of IZ-63/1), Mr S.V. Ashkhabekov (all complaints).
7. Statement of Mr V.V. Slivin
7.... | passage_794 | 57 | 25,637 | 26,024 |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.