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

ates taking turns to sleep. All the cells he occupied were unventilated and poorly lit, with limited access to water and inmates who smoked heavily. The cells were infested with various insects and the inmates were given poor quality food. Mr M. also confirmed that cell No. 57 had been situated in an annex building and measured only 10 to 12 square metres.

2. The Government's account

19. According to certificates issued on 23 December 2005 by remand prison IZ - 71/1, the applicant was kept in nine cells described as follows: cell No. 12 (31 sq. m, twenty-two bunks, average population eight inmates), cell No. 19 (9.1 sq. m, six bunks, three inmates), cell No. 36 (33.8 sq. m, twenty-one bunks, nine inmates), cell No. 53 (9.8 sq. m, six bunks, three inmates), cell No. 57 (37.8 sq. m, six bunks, three inmates), cell No. 70 (35.7 sq. m, twenty-two bunks, ten inmates), cell No. 73 (28.3 sq. m, fourteen bunks, eight inmates), cell No. 83 (11.8 sq. m, nine bunks, four to ten inmates) and cell No. 139 (22.52 sq. m, eight bunks, six inmates). The certificate concerning the number of inmates per cell contains handwritten and illegible notes with numbers of inmates.
20. Relying on a certificate issued by the remand prison administration on 23 December 2005, the Government submitted that in each of the cells and at each period of his detention the applicant had been provided with an individual sleeping place, bedding and cutlery.
21. With reference to a report on the measurement of light levels issued on 19 June 2002 by the Sanitary and Epidemiological Supervision Centre of the Department of Execution of Sentences (Центр Госсанэпиднадзора при Управлении исполнения наказаний, "the supervision centre"), the Government stressed that the light level in the cells (in particular in cell No. 12) had been above the required minimum. In 2003 the metal shutters were removed from the windows. There was natural and combined extract-and-input ventilation. According to the report on measurement of the microclimate factors carried out by the supervision centre on 19 June 2002, the average air temperature in the cells during the relevant period was between + 22 °C and + 25 °C. The humidity level was in conformity with the relevant requirements.
22. According to a certificate issued by the remand prison on 23 December 2005, there were no interruptions in water supply throughout the applicant's detention, except for cases of routine repairs. In those situations the cells were provided with water from special reservoirs.
23. In a record produced on 23 December 2005 the head of the remand prison attested that there had been no insects or rodents in the applicant's cells. Another certificate issued by him on the same date specified that rat extermination in the remand prison common spaces had been carried out monthly. In addition, it was possible to exterminate rats in the cells on the inmates' request but the applicant had failed to make any such requests.
24. A record produced on 23 December 2005 by the remand prison further indicated that the applicant had addressed the medical unit with complaints concerning viral infections, gastritis, headache, dystonia, dyspepsia and contact dermatitis. On each occasion the applicant had been provided with the necessary medication. The contact dermatitis was an allergic reaction to an unspecified detergent.

C. Proceedings for compensation

25. According to the applicable domestic rules, the applicant was to make his claims for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damages separately in two different courts.

1. Proceedings for pecuniary damages
before the Regional Court

26. In October 2002 the applicant requested the Regional Court to compensate him for pecuniary damage in connection with the criminal prosecution. In particular,

> 1 2 3 4 ... 13 14 15