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_794::58 | In a statement of 27 April 2006 Mr V.V. Slivin mentioned that he had been detained from 1997 to 2002 in IZ-63/1 in overcrowded cells. According to Mr Slivin, the Government’s factual submissions could not reflect the true conditions in IZ-63/1 any earlier than 2003.
60. The Government objected to this statement, as t... | passage_794 | 58 | 26,026 | 26,482 | |
passage_794::59 | Slivin had witnessed the conditions of detention in IZ-63/1 from 1997 to 2002.
60. The Government objected to this statement, as the applicant and Mr V.V. Slivin had never been detained in IZ-63/1 simultaneously. The Government did not appear to dispute that Mr V.V. Slivin had witnessed the conditions of detention in... | passage_794 | 59 | 26,483 | 26,835 | |
passage_794::60 | In a statement of 24 August 2006 Mr Slivin said that he had been detained in IZ-63/1 from 1997 to 2002, that he personally had had no complaints about the conditions of detention there and that he had promised no support to the applicant. Mr Slivin confirmed that he had previously supported the applicant only in so far... | passage_794 | 60 | 26,837 | 27,208 | |
passage_794::61 | In a statement of 24 August 2006 Mr Slivin said that he had been detained in IZ-63/1 from 1997 to 2002, that he personally had had no complaints about the conditions of detention there and that he had promised no support to the applicant. Mr Slivin confirmed that he had previously supported the applicant only in so far... | passage_794 | 61 | 27,210 | 27,653 | |
passage_794::62 | Slivin stated that he had never supported the application and described the applicant’s allegation concerning pressure by the prison authorities as unfounded. He also wrote that “all references to him” were “without basis”.
8. Statement by Mr A.A. Zotov
8. Statement by Mr A.A. Zotov
8. Statement by Mr A.A. Zotov
... | passage_794 | 62 | 27,654 | 28,016 | |
passage_794::63 | Zotov confirmed that in 1998 and 1999 the conditions of detention in IZ-63/1 had been similar to the applicant’s description and that in 2003 some renovation work had been carried out by the prison authorities.
64. The Government also stated that Mr A.A. Zotov had never been detained in the same cell of the same pris... | passage_794 | 63 | 28,017 | 28,490 | |
passage_794::64 | 9. Statement by Mr I.V. Katkov
9. Statement by Mr I.V. Katkov
65. In a statement of 12 May 2006 Mr I.V. Katkov said that the prisons in question had suffered from overcrowding both in 2005 and in 2006.
66. The Government questioned this statement, submitting that Mr I.V. Katkov had never been detained simultaneo... | passage_794 | 64 | 28,492 | 28,938 | |
passage_794::65 | The Government questioned this statement, submitting that Mr I.V. Katkov had never been detained simultaneously with the applicant. They did not appear to dispute that Mr I.V. Katkov had been detained in IZ63/1 in 2005 and 2006.
67. The Government also submitted a statement by Mr I.V. Katkov dated 24 August 2006 in w... | passage_794 | 65 | 28,940 | 29,394 | |
passage_794::66 | The applicant submitted a number of further statements from his fellow inmates in support of his application, along with his observations on the merits of the case.
68. The applicant submitted a number of further statements from his fellow inmates in support of his application, along with his observations on the meri... | passage_794 | 66 | 29,396 | 29,816 | |
passage_794::67 | Kondratyev, who had served their sentences along with the applicant in IK-26, confirmed the applicant’s description of the cells in IZ63/1, including the fact that they had been equipped with two-tier bunk beds, and the overcrowding in all of the cells in which he had been detained. Mr S.V. Yunoshev had not been detain... | passage_794 | 67 | 29,817 | 30,262 | |
passage_794::68 | He also confirmed the applicant’s version of events in respect of the abortive visit by the applicant’s wife on 19 February 2007 (see paragraphs 81-82 below).
D. Alleged interference with the applicant’s right of individual petition
1. Alleged pressure on witnesses
70. By letter of 13 September 2006 the applicant... | passage_794 | 68 | 30,263 | 30,760 | |
passage_794::69 | In the same letter he also alleged that the authorities had put “silent pressure” on him by refusing him access to work corresponding to his skills and preferences, that other prisoners had approached him with disguised threats, that there had been a general tightening of the prison regime “with reference to the applic... | passage_794 | 69 | 30,762 | 31,201 | |
passage_794::70 | In the same letter he also alleged that the authorities had put “silent pressure” on him by refusing him access to work corresponding to his skills and preferences, that other prisoners had approached him with disguised threats, that there had been a general tightening of the prison regime “with reference to the applic... | passage_794 | 70 | 31,203 | 31,642 | |
passage_794::71 | The Government in their letter of 20 February 2007 gave a detailed response to the applicant’s complaints and flatly denied his allegations, including those concerning the alleged pressure and tightening of the prison regime, claiming them to be unfounded. According to them, no pressure had been put on either Mr Sidorc... | passage_794 | 71 | 31,644 | 32,244 | |
passage_794::72 | According to them, no pressure had been put on either Mr Sidorchuk or Mr Slivin.
72. The Government in their letter of 20 February 2007 gave a detailed response to the applicant’s complaints and flatly denied his allegations, including those concerning the alleged pressure and tightening of the prison regime, claimin... | passage_794 | 72 | 32,245 | 32,803 | |
passage_794::73 | Ilyin, Mr I.A. Bokurskiy and Mr V.A. Myatlev, and statements from the applicant’s “good friends” Mr A.A. Skachkov, Mr A.S. Kobelev, Mr M.A. Cherantayev, Mr V.V. Gromadskiy and Mr V.E. Litvinov, who all confirmed that no pressure had been put on the applicant during his detention, that there had been no tightening of th... | passage_794 | 73 | 32,804 | 33,216 | |
passage_794::74 | The Government further submitted statements dated 6 February 2007 by the applicant’s fellow prisoners Mr V.V. Andreyev, Mr A.V. Ilyin, Mr I.A. Bokurskiy and Mr V.A. Myatlev, and statements from the applicant’s “good friends” Mr A.A. Skachkov, Mr A.S. Kobelev, Mr M.A. Cherantayev, Mr V.V. Gromadskiy and Mr V.E. | passage_794 | 74 | 33,218 | 33,529 | |
passage_794::75 | Litvinov, who all confirmed that no pressure had been put on the applicant during his detention, that there had been no tightening of the prison regime or that at least the applicant had never spoken to them on the subject.
74. Similar statements had been made by a foreman of the applicant’s prison group, Mr A.V. Tem... | passage_794 | 75 | 33,530 | 33,930 | |
passage_794::76 | On 6 February 2007 the applicant too had made a statement to the prison authorities to the effect that no pressure had been put on him since his transfer to prison IK-26 on 23 September 2006.
75. On 6 February 2007 the applicant too had made a statement to the prison authorities to the effect that no pressure had bee... | passage_794 | 76 | 33,932 | 34,399 | |
passage_794::77 | Gromadskiy dated 27 November 2007 (see paragraph 73 above), explaining that the prison authorities had been putting pressure on him and other prisoners in connection with the applicant’s case and that the statement dated 6 February 2007 had been written as dictated by the head of prison IK-26.
2. Transfer from IK-13 ... | passage_794 | 77 | 34,400 | 34,751 | |
passage_794::78 | The applicant also submitted that the pressure placed on him by the authorities had been demonstrated by his allegedly unjustified transfer to prison facility IK-26 in August 2006 as well as the refusal of permission for a visit by his wife in mid-February 2007.
77. The applicant also submitted that the pressure plac... | passage_794 | 78 | 34,753 | 35,289 | |
passage_794::79 | The Government commented on these allegations by stating the following.
78. The Government commented on these allegations by stating the following.
79. In respect of the applicant’s transfer from IK-13 to IK-26 on 23 August 2006, they submitted an official certificate issued by V.S., head of the Central Department ... | passage_794 | 79 | 35,291 | 35,939 | |
passage_794::80 | With a view to executing this legislative provision, [IK-13] was reorganised into a strict-regime correctional facility for dangerous recidivists, whilst [IK-26] was reorganised into a strict-regime correctional facility for persons sentenced to imprisonment for the first time. In view of this reform ..., [the applican... | passage_794 | 80 | 35,941 | 36,437 | |
passage_794::81 | The above-mentioned establishments are situated in the same area, within 200 metres of each other.”
80. In his observations on the merits of the case, the applicant stated that this explanation was inadequate and simply untrue. He submitted that his transfer had been arbitrary, since some of the prisoners who would o... | passage_794 | 81 | 36,439 | 36,958 | |
passage_794::82 | At the same time, some fellow prisoners in IK-26 had not been serving prison terms for the first time and hence, according to the Government’s logic, should not have remained there. The applicant also pointed out that the Government had obtained the retraction of statements by the witnesses S.V. Sidorchuk, I.V. Katkov ... | passage_794 | 82 | 36,959 | 37,468 | |
passage_794::83 | Refusal of permission for visit
81. As regards the visit of the applicant’s wife, the Government submitted that on 19 February 2007 the applicant had asked for leave to see his wife, that on the same date leave had been granted (a copy of the applicant’s handwritten request with the prison officer’s stamp of approval... | passage_794 | 83 | 37,470 | 38,116 | |
passage_794::84 | 81. As regards the visit of the applicant’s wife, the Government submitted that on 19 February 2007 the applicant had asked for leave to see his wife, that on the same date leave had been granted (a copy of the applicant’s handwritten request with the prison officer’s stamp of approval on it was submitted), that the p... | passage_794 | 84 | 38,118 | 38,736 | |
passage_794::85 | As regards the visit of the applicant’s wife, the Government submitted that on 19 February 2007 the applicant had asked for leave to see his wife, that on the same date leave had been granted (a copy of the applicant’s handwritten request with the prison officer’s stamp of approval on it was submitted), that the prison... | passage_794 | 85 | 38,738 | 39,351 | |
passage_794::86 | The applicant stated that his wife had wished to visit him on that date not in her private capacity but as his legal representative, with a view to collecting various documents for the purposes of submitting them to the Court. Permission for the visit was refused ostensibly because the applicant’s wife was not a lawyer... | passage_794 | 86 | 39,353 | 40,034 | |
passage_794::87 | On 21 February 2007 the applicant’s wife had to hire a local lawyer, Ms Nechayeva, who later visited the applicant and successfully collected the documents in question. The applicant also joined his wife’s written statement dated 27 January 2008, confirming the course of events as described, and a copy of the order aut... | passage_794 | 87 | 40,035 | 40,542 | |
passage_794::88 | 148 of 12 May 2000)
83. Rule 42 provided that all suspects and accused persons in detention had to be given, among other things: a sleeping place, bedding, including one mattress, a pillow and one blanket; bed linen, including two sheets and a pillow case; a towel; tableware and cutlery, including a bowl, a mug and a... | passage_794 | 88 | 40,543 | 40,939 | |
passage_794::89 | Rule 44 stated that cells in pre-trial detention centres were to be equipped, among other things, with a table and benches with a number of seating places corresponding to the number of inmates, sanitation facilities, tap water and lamps to provide day-time and night-time illumination.
85. Rule 46 provided that priso... | passage_794 | 89 | 40,941 | 41,549 | |
passage_794::90 | Rule 143 provided that inmates could be visited by their lawyer, family members or other persons, with the written permission of an investigator or an investigative body. The number of visits was limited to two per month.
B. Order No. 7 of the Federal Service for the Execution of Sentences dated 31 January 2005
88. ... | passage_794 | 90 | 41,551 | 42,040 | |
passage_794::91 | The programme is aimed at improving the functioning of pre-trial detention centres so as to ensure their compliance with the requirements of Russian legislation. It expressly acknowledges the issue of overcrowding in pre-trial detention centres and seeks to reduce and stabilise the number of detainees in order to resol... | passage_794 | 91 | 42,042 | 42,468 | |
passage_794::92 | In particular, the programme states that, on 1 July 2004, the detention centre had a capacity of 1,109 inmates and in reality housed 1,562 detainees, in other words, 48.9% more than the permitted number.
III. Relevant Council of documents
91. | passage_794 | 92 | 42,469 | 42,715 | |
passage_794::93 | The relevant extracts from the General Reports of the European Committee for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (“the CPT”) read as follows:
Extracts from the 2nd General Report [CPT/Inf (92) 3]
“46. Overcrowding is an issue of direct relevance to the CPT’s mandate. All the se... | passage_794 | 93 | 42,717 | 43,272 | |
passage_794::94 | Moreover, the level of overcrowding in a prison, or in a particular part of it, might be such as to be in itself inhuman or degrading from a physical standpoint.
47. A satisfactory programme of activities (work, education, sport, etc.) is of crucial importance for the well-being of prisoners ... [P]risoners cannot si... | passage_794 | 94 | 43,273 | 43,750 | |
passage_794::95 | The CPT considers that one should aim at ensuring that prisoners in remand establishments are able to spend a reasonable part of the day (8 hours or more) outside their cells, engaged in purposeful activity of a varied nature ...
48. Specific mention should be made of outdoor exercise. The requirement that prisoners b... | passage_794 | 95 | 43,751 | 44,422 | |
passage_794::96 | The CPT would add that it is particularly concerned when it finds a combination of overcrowding, poor regime activities and inadequate access to toilet/washing facilities in the same establishment. The cumulative effect of such conditions can prove extremely detrimental to prisoners.
51. It is also very important for ... | passage_794 | 96 | 44,424 | 44,928 | |
passage_794::97 | The guiding principle should be the promotion of contact with the outside world; any limitations upon such contact should be based exclusively on security concerns of an appreciable nature or resource considerations ...”
Extracts from the 7th General Report [CPT/Inf (97) 10]
“13. As the CPT pointed out in its 2nd Ge... | passage_794 | 97 | 44,929 | 45,377 | |
passage_794::98 | An overcrowded prison entails cramped and unhygienic accommodation; a constant lack of privacy (even when performing such basic tasks as using a sanitary facility); reduced out-of-cell activities, due to demand outstripping the staff and facilities available; overburdened health-care services; increased tension and hen... | passage_794 | 98 | 45,378 | 45,799 | |
passage_794::99 | The CPT has been led to conclude on more than one occasion that the adverse effects of overcrowding have resulted in inhuman and degrading conditions of detention ...”
Extracts from the 11th General Report [CPT/Inf (2001) 16]
“28. The phenomenon of prison overcrowding continues to blight penitentiary systems across ... | passage_794 | 99 | 45,801 | 46,302 | |
passage_794::100 | In a number of countries visited by the CPT, particularly in central and eastern Europe, inmate accommodation often consists of large capacity dormitories which contain all or most of the facilities used by prisoners on a daily basis, such as sleeping and living areas as well as sanitary facilities. | passage_794 | 100 | 46,304 | 46,604 | |
passage_794::101 | The CPT has objections to the very principle of such accommodation arrangements in closed prisons and those objections are reinforced when, as is frequently the case, the dormitories in question are found to hold prisoners under extremely cramped and insalubrious conditions ... Large-capacity dormitories inevitably imp... | passage_794 | 101 | 46,605 | 47,289 | |
passage_794::102 | The CPT frequently encounters devices, such as metal shutters, slats, or plates fitted to cell windows, which deprive prisoners of access to natural light and prevent fresh air from entering the accommodation. They are a particularly common feature of establishments holding pre-trial prisoners. The CPT fully accepts tha... | passage_794 | 102 | 47,291 | 47,896 | |
passage_794::103 | The latter are basic elements of life which every prisoner is entitled to enjoy ...”
THE LAW
I. THE STANDING OF THE APPLICANT’S WIDOW TO CONTINUE THE CASE
92. The Court notes at the outset that the applicant died on 2 January 2009, after having lodged his application under Article 34 of the Convention. | passage_794 | 103 | 47,897 | 48,205 | |
passage_794::104 | It recalls that in various cases in which an applicant died in the course of the Convention proceedings it took into account the statements of the applicant’s heirs or of close members of his family expressing their wish to pursue the application (see, among other authorities, Kalló v. Hungary, no. 30081/02, § 24, 11 A... | passage_794 | 104 | 48,206 | 48,755 | |
passage_794::105 | Accordingly, the Court finds that the applicant’s widow has standing to continue the present proceedings.
II. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 3 OF THE CONVENTION
94. Under Article 3 of the Convention the applicant complained that the conditions of his detention in pre-trial detention centres IZ-63/1 (from 11 to 16 Jun... | passage_794 | 105 | 48,757 | 49,186 | |
passage_794::106 | Article 3 provides as follows:
“No one shall be subjected to torture or to inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.”
A. Submissions of the parties
95. As regards IZ-63/1, the Government considered that the conditions of detention in that prison had not been incompatible with Article 3 of the Convention. As re... | passage_794 | 106 | 49,187 | 49,723 | |
passage_794::107 | In their view, the mere fact of holding the applicant in an overcrowded cell, provided that all other conditions of detention were observed, was not incompatible with Article 3. They also challenged the statements of the applicant’s former inmates as erroneous and irrelevant.
96. The applicant disagreed and maintaine... | passage_794 | 107 | 49,724 | 50,358 | |
passage_794::108 | Since the applicant was initially detained in IZ-63/1, then transferred to IZ-77/3 and after that re-detained in IZ-63/1, the Court will first examine the applicant’s submissions concerning his detention in pre-trial detention centre IZ-63/1 from 11 to 16 June 2001 and from 13 November to 5 December 2001, and then turn... | passage_794 | 108 | 50,360 | 50,746 | |
passage_794::109 | The Court will conclude by providing an overall assessment of the applicant’s detention between 11 June and 5 December 2001 in both prisons.
1. The conditions of detention in pre-trial detention centre IZ-63/1
99. The parties mostly disagreed as to the specific conditions of the applicant’s detention in cell no. 36... | passage_794 | 109 | 50,747 | 51,068 | |
passage_794::110 | However, there is no need for the Court to establish the truthfulness of each and every allegation, as the case file contains sufficient documentary evidence to confirm the applicants’ allegations of severe overcrowding in pre-trial detention centre IZ-63/1, which is in itself sufficient to conclude that Article 3 of t... | passage_794 | 110 | 51,069 | 51,554 | |
passage_794::111 | However, the applicant claimed that the cell had been equipped with eight two-tier beds for 16 persons and that the cell population exceeded the capacity for which the cells had been designed. The applicant also stated that overcrowding of cells had been a problem throughout the prison and confirmed his point with refe... | passage_794 | 111 | 51,555 | 52,087 | |
passage_794::112 | IZ-63/1 (see paragraph 25 above) and the certificate issued by the head of IZ-63/1 (see paragraph 24 above), argued that the cell had only had eight sleeping places and that the applicant had not been detained with more than seven inmates throughout his stay in that cell. The Government further submitted that the relev... | passage_794 | 112 | 52,088 | 52,570 | |
passage_794::113 | The Court observes that in certain instances the respondent Government alone have access to information capable of firmly corroborating or refuting allegations under Article 3 of the Convention and that a failure on a Government’s part to submit such information without a satisfactory explanation may give rise to the d... | passage_794 | 113 | 52,572 | 53,045 | |
passage_794::114 | Thus, the first issue to be examined is whether on the basis of the facts of the present case the Government’s failure to submit copies of the relevant prison documentation has been properly accounted for.
102. In this connection, the Court would note that the destruction of the relevant documents due to expiry of th... | passage_794 | 114 | 53,046 | 53,613 | |
passage_794::115 | In particular, regard should be had to whether the authorities appeared to have been acting with due care in this respect (see, for example, Oleg Nikitin v. Russia, no. 36410/02, §§ 48-49, 9 October 2008).
103. | passage_794 | 115 | 53,614 | 53,825 | |
passage_794::116 | Having examined the copies of materials submitted by the Government, the Court notes with regret that they reveal that the authorities did not display sufficient diligence in handling the relevant prison documentation in the Strasbourg proceedings, since some of the relevant documents, and in particular registration lo... | passage_794 | 116 | 53,827 | 54,362 | |
passage_794::117 | Having examined the copies of materials submitted by the Government, the Court notes with regret that they reveal that the authorities did not display sufficient diligence in handling the relevant prison documentation in the Strasbourg proceedings, since some of the relevant documents, and in particular registration lo... | passage_794 | 117 | 54,364 | 54,981 | |
passage_794::118 | dated 10 January 2008 as having evidentiary value and acting as a substitute for the original prison documentation, the Court would reiterate that on several previous occasions it has declined to accept the validity of similar statements on the ground that they could not be viewed as sufficiently reliable given the lap... | passage_794 | 118 | 54,982 | 55,404 | |
passage_794::119 | 28617/03, § 52, 13 November 2007). The Court finds that these considerations hold true in the circumstances of the present case, since the events at issue had taken place around seven years before officers D.K. and D.S. gave their statements, and it is clear from the way the statements are formulated that the officers ... | passage_794 | 119 | 55,405 | 55,798 | |
passage_794::120 | Furthermore, the Government were requested to provide data in respect of each day of the applicant’s detention in IZ-63/1, whereas the officers merely stated that the number of inmates had not exceeded a certain figure. The Court finds that in the circumstances of the case and given the lack of any original prison docu... | passage_794 | 120 | 55,799 | 56,349 | |
passage_794::121 | and D.S., but it finds no objective reason to attach greater weight to those statements compared to those made, for instance, by the inmates referred to by the applicant. Overall, the Court finds that the Government have not accounted properly for their failure to submit detailed information supported by copies of the ... | passage_794 | 121 | 56,350 | 56,859 | |
passage_794::122 | dated 10 January 2008 as having evidentiary value and acting as a substitute for the original prison documentation, the Court would reiterate that on several previous occasions it has declined to accept the validity of similar statements on the ground that they could not be viewed as sufficiently reliable given the lap... | passage_794 | 122 | 56,860 | 57,282 | |
passage_794::123 | 28617/03, § 52, 13 November 2007). The Court finds that these considerations hold true in the circumstances of the present case, since the events at issue had taken place around seven years before officers D.K. and D.S. gave their statements, and it is clear from the way the statements are formulated that the officers ... | passage_794 | 123 | 57,283 | 57,676 | |
passage_794::124 | Furthermore, the Government were requested to provide data in respect of each day of the applicant’s detention in IZ-63/1, whereas the officers merely stated that the number of inmates had not exceeded a certain figure. The Court finds that in the circumstances of the case and given the lack of any original prison docu... | passage_794 | 124 | 57,677 | 58,227 | |
passage_794::125 | and D.S., but it finds no objective reason to attach greater weight to those statements compared to those made, for instance, by the inmates referred to by the applicant. Overall, the Court finds that the Government have not accounted properly for their failure to submit detailed information supported by copies of the ... | passage_794 | 125 | 58,228 | 58,940 | |
passage_794::126 | In particular, former detainees S.N. Vasilyev (see paragraphs 37-39 above), A.V. Bogolyubov (see paragraph 40 above), S.A. Rassokhin (see paragraphs 43 and 46 above), V.I. Molochkov (see paragraphs 56 and 57 above), S.V. Sidorchuk (see paragraphs 47 and 50 above as well as the Court’s conclusions under Article 34 in pa... | passage_794 | 126 | 58,941 | 59,287 | |
passage_794::127 | Slivin (see paragraphs 59 and 61 above), in their largely uncontested statements relating to various dates between 1997 and 2002, all confirmed the fact that IZ-63/1 was severely overcrowded during their stay there. The Court is aware of the Government’s objection that none of the persons mentioned above was detained i... | passage_794 | 127 | 59,288 | 59,826 | |
passage_794::128 | Furthermore, being mindful of the objective difficulties experienced by applicants in substantiating their grievances in respect of the conditions of pre-trial detention in Russia, the Court is prepared to accept the above statements as sufficient confirmation of the applicant’s point that the overcrowding of cells was... | passage_794 | 128 | 59,827 | 60,283 | |
passage_794::129 | The existence of this deplorable state of affairs may also be inferred from the information contained in an official newspaper of the Central Department for the Execution of Sentences of the Ministry of Justice, which estimated the population of the detention centre at over three thousand detainees, despite being desig... | passage_794 | 129 | 60,284 | 60,977 | |
passage_794::130 | In particular, former detainees S.N. Vasilyev (see paragraphs 37-39 above), A.V. Bogolyubov (see paragraph 40 above), S.A. Rassokhin (see paragraphs 43 and 46 above), V.I. Molochkov (see paragraphs 56 and 57 above), S.V. Sidorchuk (see paragraphs 47 and 50 above as well as the Court’s conclusions under Article 34 in pa... | passage_794 | 130 | 60,978 | 61,324 | |
passage_794::131 | Slivin (see paragraphs 59 and 61 above), in their largely uncontested statements relating to various dates between 1997 and 2002, all confirmed the fact that IZ-63/1 was severely overcrowded during their stay there. The Court is aware of the Government’s objection that none of the persons mentioned above was detained i... | passage_794 | 131 | 61,325 | 61,863 | |
passage_794::132 | Furthermore, being mindful of the objective difficulties experienced by applicants in substantiating their grievances in respect of the conditions of pre-trial detention in Russia, the Court is prepared to accept the above statements as sufficient confirmation of the applicant’s point that the overcrowding of cells was... | passage_794 | 132 | 61,864 | 62,320 | |
passage_794::133 | The existence of this deplorable state of affairs may also be inferred from the information contained in an official newspaper of the Central Department for the Execution of Sentences of the Ministry of Justice, which estimated the population of the detention centre at over three thousand detainees, despite being desig... | passage_794 | 133 | 62,321 | 62,729 | |
passage_794::134 | , even disregarding the statements by Mr Yunoshev and Mr Kondratiyev, as the period to which they refer is unclear (see paragraph 69 above), the statements of Mr Zotov and Mr Katkov, as they do not relate to the relevant period of time (see paragraphs 63 to 67 above) and the joint statements in the applicant’s support,... | passage_794 | 134 | 62,735 | 63,294 | |
passage_794::135 | between 1.9 and 2.4 square metres of space per person. | passage_794 | 135 | 63,294 | 63,349 | |
passage_794::136 | The applicant was held in these conditions for five days in June 2001 and for three weeks in November and December 2001.
2. The conditions of detention in pre-trial detention centre IZ-77/3
107. The Court reiterates that between 16 June and 12 November 2001 the applicant was detained in IZ-77/3.
108. The Court no... | passage_794 | 136 | 63,350 | 63,768 | |
passage_794::137 | However, there is no need for the Court to establish the truthfulness of each and every allegation, because it finds a violation of Article 3 on the basis of the facts that have been presented by the respondent Government, for the following reasons.
108. The Court notes that the parties disputed the actual conditions... | passage_794 | 137 | 63,769 | 64,392 | |
passage_794::138 | The Court notes that the parties disputed the actual conditions of the applicant’s detention in that facility. However, there is no need for the Court to establish the truthfulness of each and every allegation, because it finds a violation of Article 3 on the basis of the facts that have been presented by the responden... | passage_794 | 138 | 64,394 | 64,894 | |
passage_794::139 | 523 and 524, measuring 35.8 and 32.8 square metres respectively, with no more than 28 co-detainees at any given time (see paragraph 31 above), it follows that the detainees, including the applicant, were afforded less than 1.3 and 1.2 square metres of personal space in their respective cells.
3. The overall conclusio... | passage_794 | 139 | 64,895 | 65,283 | |
passage_794::140 | The Court has frequently found a violation of Article 3 of the Convention on account of lack of personal space afforded to detainees (see Khudoyorov v. Russia, no. 6847/02, §§ 104 et seq., ECHR 2005-X (extracts); Labzov v. Russia, no. 62208/00, §§ 44 et seq., 16 June 2005; Novoselov v. Russia, no. | passage_794 | 140 | 65,285 | 65,583 | |
passage_794::141 | 66460/01, §§ 41 et seq., 2 June 2005; Mayzit v. , no. 63378/00, §§ 39 et seq., 20 January 2005; Kalashnikov v. , no. 47095/99, §§ 97 et seq., ECHR 2002-VI; and Peers v. , no. 28524/95, §§ 69 et seq., ECHR 2001-III). | passage_794 | 141 | 65,584 | 65,799 | |
passage_794::142 | 111. Having regard to its case-law on the subject and the material submitted by the parties, the Court notes that the Government have not put forward any fact or argument capable of persuading it to reach a different conclusion in the present case. | passage_794 | 142 | 65,801 | 66,050 | |
passage_794::143 | Although in the present case there is no indication that there was a positive intention to humiliate or debase the applicant, the Court finds that the fact that the applicant was obliged to live, sleep and use the toilet in the same cell as so many other inmates for an overall period of five months and twenty-five days... | passage_794 | 143 | 66,051 | 66,671 | |
passage_794::144 | There has therefore been a violation of Article 3 of the Convention, as the applicant was subjected to inhuman treatment on account of the conditions of his detention from 11 June to 5 December 2001 in facilities IZ-63/1 and IZ-77/3.
III. ALLEGATION OF HINDRANCE OF THE RIGHT OF INDIVIDUAL PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 34 O... | passage_794 | 144 | 66,673 | 67,015 | |
passage_794::145 | Lastly, the applicant complained that the prison authority had put pressure on him by transferring him from IK-13 to IK-26 in mid-February 2006 and also by refusing permission for his wife to visit on 19 February 2007 in connection with his application to the Court. He also complained that some of his fellow prisoners ... | passage_794 | 145 | 67,017 | 67,399 | |
passage_794::146 | The Court will examine this complaint under Article 34 of the Convention, which provides as follows:
“The Court may receive applications from any person, non-governmental organisation or group of individuals claiming to be the victim of a violation by one of the High Contracting Parties of the rights set forth in the ... | passage_794 | 146 | 67,400 | 67,895 | |
passage_794::147 | The Government denied the applicant’s allegations and submitted explanatory information, including notes by the officials allegedly involved (see paragraphs 47-55, 72-74 and 78-79 above).
115. The applicant disagreed and maintained his initial submissions.
B. The Court’s assessment
116. | passage_794 | 147 | 67,897 | 68,189 | |
passage_794::148 | Court reiterates that it is of the utmost importance for the effective operation of the system of individual petition instituted by Article 34 that applicants or potential applicants should be able to communicate freely with the Court without being subjected to any form of pressure from the authorities to withdraw or ... | passage_794 | 148 | 68,194 | 68,714 | |
passage_794::149 | Reports 1996-VI). | passage_794 | 149 | 68,714 | 68,732 | |
passage_794::150 | In this context, “pressure” includes not only direct coercion and flagrant acts of intimidation but also other improper indirect acts or contacts designed to dissuade or discourage applicants from pursuing a Convention remedy (see Kurt v. Turkey, 25 May 1998, § 159, Reports 1998III).
117. Furthermore, whether or not ... | passage_794 | 150 | 68,733 | 69,254 | |
passage_794::151 | In this respect, regard must be had to the vulnerability of the complainant and his or her susceptibility to influence exerted by the authorities (see Akdivar and Others and Kurt, both cited above, § 105 and § 160 respectively). The applicant may be in a particularly vulnerable position when he is being held in custody... | passage_794 | 151 | 69,255 | 69,698 | |
passage_794::152 | Furthermore, whether or not contacts between the authorities and an applicant are tantamount to unacceptable practices from the standpoint of Article 34 must be determined in the light of the particular circumstances of the case. In this respect, regard must be had to the vulnerability of the complainant and his or her... | passage_794 | 152 | 69,700 | 70,337 | |
passage_794::153 | 38565/97, § 71, 3 June 2003).
118. Turning to the circumstances surrounding the various statements given by Mr S.V. Sidorchuk (see paragraphs 47-55 above), the Court notes with regret that the situation does give rise to genuine concerns as regards the authorities’ compliance with their undertakings under Article 34 ... | passage_794 | 153 | 70,338 | 70,682 | |
passage_794::154 | The Court would recall that even though the main purpose of that provision is to protect applicants or potential applicants, in certain cases the effective exercise of an applicant’s right of individual petition depends to a large extent on his or her ability to substantiate the claims by providing, among other things,... | passage_794 | 154 | 70,684 | 71,075 | |
passage_794::155 | It is especially true in conditions-of-detention cases where the Government alone have access to information capable of firmly corroborating or refuting the allegations and where, if they fail to provide such information, the factual findings by this Court are made extremely difficult, if not sometimes impossible (see ... | passage_794 | 155 | 71,076 | 71,763 | |
passage_794::156 | Sidorchuk, played a crucial role in determination of the factual background to the applicant’s Article 3 complaints (see paragraph 105 above).
121. The Court further notes that the Government essentially did not dispute that they had interviewed Mr S.V. Sidorchuk twice while the latter was still in prison (in August ... | passage_794 | 156 | 71,764 | 72,175 | |
passage_794::157 | Whilst not denying that the Government might have checked the relevant statements of this witness by contacting and interviewing him directly, the Court cannot avoid the impression that the relevant officials went beyond mere verification of his statements and acted in a manner which could have been reasonably perceive... | passage_794 | 157 | 72,176 | 72,766 |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.