l-founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 of the Convention. No other grounds for declaring them inadmissible have been established.
2. Merits
69. The Court would note that the parties disagree on many aspects of the applicants' conditions of detention, including the size of the cells, the number of beds as well the number of detainees in the cells. Most importantly, the Government deny that the cells in question were overcrowded or cramped, and have submitted official certificates to that effect provided by the authorities of the detention centres in question, whereas the applicant insists on his initial account of events.
70. Having observed the documents submitted by the parties, the Court finds that it need not resolve the parties' disagreement on all of the aforementioned points as the case file contains sufficient documentary evidence to confirm the applicant's allegations of severe overcrowding in pre-trial detention facilities SIZO No. 4 in St Petersburg and SIZO No. 3 in Moscow, which is in itself sufficient to conclude that Article 3 of the Convention has been breached.
71. The Court would note that as regards both detention centres the existence of a deplorable state of affairs may be inferred from the information contained in Order No. 7 of the Federal Service for the Execution of Sentences of 31 January 2005 (see paragraph 61 above), which expressly acknowledges the issue of overcrowding in these detention centres in 2004.
72. The Court also recalls that in its judgments in the cases of Belevitskiy v. Russia, No. 72967/01, §§ 73 - 79, 1 March 2007; Benediktov v. Russia, No. 106/02, §§ 31 - 41, 10 May 2007; Igor Ivanov v. Russia, No. 34000/02, §§ 30 - 41, 7 June 2007; Sudarkov v. Russia, No. 3130/03, §§ 40 - 51, 10 July 2008; Belashev v. Russia, No. 28617/03, §§ 50 - 60, 4 December 2008; Novinskiy v. Russia, No. 11982/02, §§ 106 - 108, 10 February 2009; Bychkov v. Russia, No. 39420/03, §§ 33 - 43, 5 March 2009; and Buzhinayev v. Russia, No. 17679/03, §§ 26 - 36, 15 October 2009, it has previously examined the conditions of detention in SIZO No. 3 in 2000 - 2003 and found them to have been incompatible with the requirements of Article 3 of the Convention on account of severe overcrowding.
73. Since the Government did not support its own submissions with reference to any original documentation, the Court is prepared to accept the mentioned indications as sufficient confirmation of the applicant's point that the overcrowding of cells was a problem in both detention facilities at the time the applicant was detained there.
74. The Court has frequently found a violation of Article 3 of the Convention on account of a 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. 66460/01, §§ 41 et seq., 2 June 2005; Mayzit v. Russia, No. 63378/00, §§ 39 et seq., 20 January 2005; Kalashnikov v. Russia, No. 47095/99, §§ 97 et seq., ECHR 2002-VI; and Peers v. Greece, No. 28524/95, §§ 69 et seq., ECHR 2001-III).
75. 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. 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 had to spend at least 1 year, 10 months and 20 days in overcrowded cells at SIZO No. 4 in St Petersburg and SIZO No. 3 in Moscow was itself sufficient to cause distress or hardship of an intensity exceeding the unavoidable level of suffering inherent in detention, and to arouse in him feelings of fear, anguish and inferiority capable
> 1 2 3 ... 8 9 10 11 ... 12
Zaki.ru законы и право
поиск по сайту
каталог документов
добавить сайт Zaki.ru в избранное
Правовые акты международные
Правовые акты Российской Федерации
