amples from the domestic practice in support of their position: in response to a complaint by a Mr N, the Novosibirsk prosecutor's office had conducted an inquiry which confirmed his allegations that the food ration was insufficient and the water supply was irregular. As a result, the prison administration had renovated the prison and purchased medical supplies; in the Vladimir Region, a special section for the detention of inmates diagnosed with tuberculosis had been set up following an NGO's complaint in respect of a Mr B; in the Khabarovsk Region the administration of the prison where a Mr Sh. and a Mr Z. were detained had renovated the shower and laundry rooms, upgraded the ventilation system in the disciplinary block and set up an area for medical consultations. Alternatively, the applicant could have brought a civil action for damages resulting from the conditions of his detention. The Government cited two cases: a Mr S. had been awarded 250,000 roubles (RUB) in compensation for non-pecuniary damage resulting from the violation of his rights set forth in Article 3 of the Convention on account of the appalling conditions of his detention in a remand prison in the Mariy El Republic; a Mr D. had been awarded RUB 25,000 in compensation for non-pecuniary damage arising from the unsatisfactory conditions of his pre-trial detention.
43. The Government claimed that the conditions of the applicant's detention had been in compliance with the standards set forth in Article 3 of the Convention. They submitted that at all times the applicant had been provided with an individual bed and bedding. The Government referred to the copies of excerpts from the remand prison population register for the period from 18 April 2003 to 10 November 2003.
2. The applicant
44. The applicant maintained his complaint. He submitted that he had been detained in inhuman and degrading conditions for over a year and did not have an effective domestic remedy for the violation of his rights. In addition to his own description of the cell, he provided testimonies from five of his fellow inmates to substantiate his complaint. Referring to the Court's vast case-law (the cases of Kalashnikov v. Russia, No. 47095/99, ECHR 2002-VI; Labzov v. Russia, No. 62208/00, 16 June 2005; and Khudoyorov v. Russia, No. 6847/02, ECHR 2005-X (extracts)), the applicant considered that he had no effective remedies available at the domestic level. He considered that an application to the prosecutor or the court, as suggested by the Government, would be illusory and ineffective. In his view, the examples cited by the Government were isolated incidents and did not reflect the general approach of the Russian authorities. As regards his own attempts to bring his grievances to the attention of the authorities, the applicant submitted that the remand prison administration had refused to dispatch his complaints and had destroyed them. Only after his transfer to another remand prison had he been able complain to a prosecutor about the conditions of his detention. However, the complaint had been to no avail.
B. The Court's assessment
1. Admissibility
45. The Court considers that the issue of exhaustion of domestic remedies is closely linked to the merits of the complaint that the applicant did not have at his disposal an effective remedy for complaining about inhuman and degrading conditions during his detention. The Court therefore finds it necessary to join the Government's objection to the merits of the complaint under Article 13 of the Convention.
46. The Court further notes that the complaints under Articles 3 and 13 of the Convention are not manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 of the Convention and that they are not inadmissible on any other grounds. They must therefore be declared admissible
> 1 2 ... 3 4 5 6 ... 9 10 11
Zaki.ru законы и право
поиск по сайту
каталог документов
добавить сайт Zaki.ru в избранное
Правовые акты международные
Правовые акты Российской Федерации
