Постановление Европейского суда по правам человека от 21.10.2010 «Дело Марьин (Maryin) против России» [англ.]

tension of the applicant's detention
pending the third trial

29. The applicant remained in custody pending the third trial. On 24 August 2005 the Proletarskiy District Court of Saransk extended the applicant's detention for three months. The court noted that the applicant was charged with a serious crime and had tried to abscond during the investigation of the case. On 30 November 2005 the Supreme Court upheld the decision on appeal.

5. Detention at the courthouse

30. On 15 February and 15 March 2006 the applicant was transported to the Supreme Court of the Republic of Mordoviya for appeal hearings. He alleged that on those days he could not use his dry food ration because of the lack of facilities to boil water in the courthouse. On 4 April 2006 the Ministry of the Interior informed the applicant's father that the courthouse was indeed not equipped with a kettle and forwarded a copy of his complaint to the department responsible for the maintenance of courthouses.

6. The applicant's release

31. After having served a prison sentence, the applicant was released on 18 October 2006.

II. Relevant domestic law

Federal Law on Detention of Suspects and Defendants
charged with Criminal Offences

32. Physical force in respect of detainees may be employed in order to put an end to their misconduct or resistance to legitimate orders of detention officers if non-forceful alternatives are not feasible (section 44).
33. Rubber truncheons may be used in respect of detainees in the following circumstances (section 45):
(1) to put an end to an assault by the detainee on detention officers;
(2) to suppress mass uprisings or collective breaches of public order;
(3) to put an end to misconduct by the detainee in resisting the legitimate orders of detention officers;
(4) to free hostages;
(5) to put an end to the detainee's attempt to escape; or
(6) to put an end to the detainee's attempt to cause harm to others.

THE LAW

I. Alleged violation of Article 3 of the Convention

34. The applicant complained that on 30 July 2005 he was beaten up by the guards and that the ensuing investigation was not effective in contravention of Article 3 of the Convention, which reads as follows:
"No one shall be subjected to torture or to inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment."
35. The Government contested that argument. They argued that the use of force against the applicant had been lawful and justified. On numerous occasions he had failed to comply with internal regulations. He had been involved in fights and altercations with other inmates and refused to follow lawful orders given by the personnel of the remand prison and correctional colony. As regards the incident of 30 July 2005, the applicant had failed to comply with the lawful demands of the warden and the guards and the latter had responded accordingly to put an end to his attack. The altercation had taken place in the narrow doorway of the disciplinary cell. The guard who had used the truncheon against the applicant had had to react promptly since the others had been unable to help him because of the limited space. The guard duly warned the applicant and only after that used the rubber truncheon to restrain him. The use of the rubber truncheon against the applicant had lasted only a few seconds and could not be considered to be "inhuman or degrading treatment". Furthermore, the guards had immediately taken the applicant to the doctor, who had examined him and documented the injuries inflicted. The injuries had not been serious and had not caused any health problems. The applicant's allegations of ill-treatment had been verified by

> 1 ... 2 3 4 5 6 ... 7