60. Having regard to its case-law on the subject and the material in its possession, 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 there is no indication in the present case that there was an intention on the part of the authorities to humiliate or debase the applicant, the Court finds that the fact that he was obliged to live, sleep and use facilities in the same cell as so many other inmates for almost thirteen months 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 of humiliating and debasing him.
61. There has therefore been a violation of Article 3 of the Convention on account of the conditions of the applicant's detention in remand prison No. 77/1 in Moscow between 20 August 2003 and 11 September 2004, which it considers to have been inhuman and degrading within the meaning of this provision.
62. In view of the above finding, the Court does not consider it necessary to examine the remainder of the parties' submissions concerning other aspects of the conditions of the applicant's detention at remand prison No. 77/1 in Moscow.
II. Alleged violation of Article 5 § 4 of the Convention
The applicant complained under Article 13 of the Convention that the appeal hearing concerning the extension of his pre-trial detention on 3 November 2003 had been held in his absence and in the absence of his counsel. The Court will examine this complaint under Article 5 § 4 of the Convention which reads as follows:
"Everyone who is deprived of his liberty by arrest or detention shall be entitled to take proceedings by which the lawfulness of his detention shall be decided speedily by a court and his release ordered if the detention is not lawful."
A. Admissibility
63. The Court notes that this complaint is not manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 of the Convention. It further notes that it is not inadmissible on any other grounds. It must therefore be declared admissible.
B. Merits
64. The Government conceded that the appeal court's failure to ensure the presence of the applicant and his lawyer at the appeal hearing on 3 November 2003 had been in contravention of Article 5 § 4 of the Convention.
65. The applicant maintained his complaint.
66. The Court reiterates that, by virtue of Article 5 § 4, an arrested or detained person is entitled to bring proceedings for the review by a court of the procedural and substantive conditions which are essential for the "lawfulness", in the sense of Article 5 § 1, of his or her deprivation of liberty (see Brogan and Others v. the United Kingdom, 29 November 1988, § 65, Series A No. 145-B). Although it is not always necessary that the procedure under Article 5 § 4 be attended by the same guarantees as those required under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention for criminal or civil litigation, it must have a judicial character and provide guarantees appropriate to the kind of deprivation of liberty in question (see Reinprecht v. Austria, No. 67175/01, § 31, ECHR 2005-XII, with further references). The proceedings must be adversarial and must always ensure equality of arms between the parties. In the case of a person whose detention falls within the ambit of Article 5 § 1 (c), a hearing is required (see Trzaska v. Poland, No. 25792/94, § 74, 11 July 2000). The possibility for a detainee to be heard either in person or through some form of representation features among the fundamental guarantees of procedure applied in matters of deprivation of liberty (see Kampanis v. Greece, 13 July 1995, § 47, Series A No. 318-B).
> 1 2 3 ... 7 8 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
