Постановление Европейского суда по правам человека от 17.06.2010 «Дело Щербаков (Shcherbakov) против России» [англ.]

n} and Others v. Turkey, No. 21689/93, § 426, 6 April 2004). Thus, the first issue to be examined is whether on the basis of the facts of the present case the Government's failure to submit copies of the relevant prison documentation has been properly accounted for.
77. In this connection, the Court would note that the destruction of the relevant documents due to expiry of the time-limit for their storage, albeit regrettable, cannot in itself be regarded as an unsatisfactory explanation for the failure to submit them relevant documents. The Court also has to look at the timing of that act as well as other relevant factual circumstances. In particular, regard should be had whether the authorities appeared to have been acting with due care in this respect (see, for example, Oleg Nikitin v. Russia, No. 36410/02, §§ 48 and 49, 9 October 2008).
78. Having examined the copies of materials submitted by the Government, the Court notes with regret that they reveal that the authorities did not display sufficient diligence in handling the relevant prison documentation in the Strasbourg proceedings, since some of the relevant documents were destroyed in June 2006, that is to say after the case had been communicated to the respondent Government for comments on 28 October 2005.
79. In so far as the Government referred to the certificates issued by the prison administration and dated 23 December 2005 as having evidentiary value and acting as a substitute for the original prison documentation, the Court would reiterate that on several previous occasions it has declined to accept the validity of similar statements on the ground that they could not be viewed as sufficiently reliable given the lapse of time involved (see Igor Ivanov v. Russia, No. 34000/02, § 34, 7 June 2007, and Belashev v. Russia, No. 28617/03, § 52, 13 November 2007). The Court finds that these considerations hold true in the circumstances of the present case, since the events at issue had taken place several years before, and it is clear that these statements are not based on any objective data. Furthermore, the Government were requested to provide data in respect of each day of the applicant's detention in IZ-71/1, whereas the certificates merely stated that the applicant had been provided with an individual sleeping place. The Court finds that in the circumstances of the case and given the lack of any original prison documentation, such an answer is too vague and unspecific to enable the Court to make a firm finding regarding the alleged lack of overcrowding in the facility in question. Thus, the Court takes note of these certificates, but it finds no objective reason to attach greater weight to them than to the statements made by the persons referred to by the applicant. Overall, the Court finds that the Government have not accounted properly for their failure to submit detailed information supported by copies of the original prison documentation, with the result that the Court may draw inferences from their conduct.
80. Having observed the documents submitted by the parties, the Court finds that it need not resolve the parties' disagreement on all of the aforementioned aspects as the case file contains sufficient documentary evidence to confirm the applicants' allegations of severe overcrowding in pre-trial detention centre IZ-71/1, which is in itself sufficient to conclude that Article 3 of the Convention has been breached.
81. In the light of the above finding and having regard also to the evidence submitted by the parties, the Court observes that the case file contains sufficient indication that the prison in question was experiencing severe overcrowding of its premises during the applicant's stay there. In particular, former detainees K. and M. and police officer S. (see paragraphs 16 - 18 above) in their uncontested statements relating to various dates between 1996 and 2002, all confirmed the

> 1 2 3 ... 12 13 14 15