Постановление Европейского суда по правам человека от 15.07.2010 <Дело Владимир Кривоносов (Vladimir Krivonosov) против России» [англ.]

applicant's case on appeal on 2 November 2000 (see paragraph 8 above) and had also examined, on 16 October 2003, the appeal against the decision of 26 June 2003 to extend the applicant's detention until 26 September 2003 (see paragraphs 14 - 15 above). One other judge had previously examined the applicant's case on appeal on 16 January 2002 (see paragraph 10 above). As to the applicant's allegation that the composition of the tribunal was unlawful, the court found that the trial had begun before 1 January 2004 and that the participation of two lay judges in the determination of the criminal charge against him had been in accordance with the principle of continuity of the trial.

B. Conditions of the applicant's detention

1. Conditions of detention in IZ-61/1 of Rostov-on-Don

22. From 25 May to 8 December 2001 and from 11 February 2002 to 23 April 2005 the applicant was held in detention facility IZ-61/1 of Rostov-on-Don (Учреждение ИЗ-61/1 г. Ростова-на-Дону УИН МЮ РФ). Throughout this period the applicant was held in the following cells:
(a) cell No. 21 measuring 54.5 square metres and designed to accommodate 13 - 16 detainees;
(b) cell No. 46 measuring 59.6 square metres and designed to accommodate 13 - 16 detainees;
(c) cell No. 48 measuring 54.2 square metres and designed to accommodate 10 - 15 detainees;
(d) cell No. 57 measuring 68.4 square metres and designed to accommodate 16 - 18 detainees;
(e) cell No. 90 measuring 58.2 square metres and designed to accommodate 16 - 18 detainees;
(f) cell No. 92 measuring 46.2 square metres and designed to accommodate 12 - 14 detainees;
(g) cell No. 109 measuring 54.2 square metres and designed to accommodate 11 - 14 detainees;
(h) cell No. 114 measuring 44.5 square metres and designed to accommodate 10 - 12 detainees; and
(i) cell No. 84 (punishment cell) measuring 6.6 square metres and designed for one person.
(a) The Government's account
23. The Government were unable to provide any precise information on the number of persons detained together with the applicant, because the relevant documents had been destroyed following the expiration of the time-limit for storing them. They submitted, however, that the design capacity of the cells had not been exceeded.
24. In each cell the applicant had an individual bed and was provided with bedding (two bed sheets, a pillowslip, a blanket, a mattress and a pillow) and tableware (a cup, a spoon and a plate).
25. The dimensions, number and location of the windows in the cells corresponded to the established legal norms and allowed sufficient access of daylight. Until December 2002 the windows were covered with metal screens (жалюзийные решетки) installed to prevent communication between cells.
26. The cells were illuminated with 60 - 75 watt filament lamps (four lamps per regular cell, one lamp per punishment cell), which were on from 6 a.m. to 10 p.m. At night-time the cells were lit by 60 - 75 watt security lights with tinted glass shades.
27. All cells were ventilated by a system of exhaust ventilation. Natural ventilation through windows was also available.
28. The cells were equipped with potable water tanks, cupboards for storage of foodstuffs, lavatory pans separated from the main area of the cells by partitions, water taps, dining tables and benches corresponding to the number of detainees, radio receivers, electric plugs and ventilation equipment.
29. The food was served three times a day in accordance with the established legal norms. The quality of the food was monitored on a regular basis by the medical staff of the detention facility.
30. The applicant was allowed a daily one-hour outside walk in a specially equipped exercise yard.
31. In support of th

> 1 2 3 4 ... 22 23 24