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

cell in the basement, a lack of daylight and extreme pollution caused by fumes from the adjacent garage resulted in serious distress and headaches.
27. The Government confirmed the size of the cell and also relied on the statement of prison officer K. of 17 February 2006, in which he recalled that there had been three inmates in the cell, the applicant included.

4. Cell No. 45

28. On 21 July 2000 the applicant was moved to cell No. 45 and stayed there until 9 April 2001.
29. According to him, the cell measured around 9.5 square metres and was designed for two inmates. The applicant was unable to recall the exact number of detainees in the cell, but submitted that the cell had been overcrowded at all times.
30. The Government confirmed the size of the cell and also relied on the statement of prison officer K. of 17 February 2006, in which he recalled that there had been two inmates, including the applicant, in that cell.

5. Cell No. 76

31. From 9 April to 25 August 2001 the applicant was kept in cell No. 76.
32. The applicant submitted that the cell had measured 7.14 square metres and had had two beds. The cell had been overcrowded.
33. The Government confirmed the size of the cell and also relied on the statement of prison officer K. of 17 February 2006, in which he recalled that there had been two inmates in the cell, the applicant included.

6. Cell No. 70

34. On 25 August 2001 the applicant was moved to cell No. 70 and stayed there until 26 August 2001.
35. According to him, the cell measured around 12.5 square metres and was designed for three inmates. The applicant was unable to recall the exact number of detainees in the cell, but submitted that the cell had been overcrowded at all times.
36. The Government confirmed the size of the cell and also relied on the statement of prison officer K. of 17 February 2006, in which he recalled that there had been three inmates in the cell, including the applicant.

7. Cell No. 76

37. From 26 August 2001 to 3 January 2002 the applicant was again kept in cell No. 76.
38. According to the applicant, the cell had been overcrowded.
39. The Government denied that allegation and, referring to the statement of prison officer K. of 17 February 2006, submitted that there had only been two inmates in the cell, the applicant included.

8. Cell No. 1

40. On 3 January 2002 he was admitted to cell No. 1, which measured 14 square metres. On 22 January 2002 the applicant was moved from this cell to the prison staff dormitory.
41. According to the certificate provided by the prison administration, the cell had three beds.
42. The applicant argued that it had had eight sleeping places and that the average number of inmates had not exceeded eight.
43. The Government confirmed the size of the cell and also relied on the statement of prison officer K. of 17 February 2006, in which he recalled that there had been three inmates in the cell, including the applicant.

9. Prison staff dormitory

44. From 22 to 23 January 2002 the applicant was held in the prison staff dormitory, which consisted of a room measuring 189.38 square metres and had 10 windows.
45. The applicant did not submit any specific information concerning his detention in the dormitory.
46. The Government relied on a certificate issued by the head of the prison on 17 April 2006 No. 49/1/12-1207, according to which the number of detainees held in the dormitory during the relevant period of time had been forty, including the applicant.

10. Cell No. 3

47. Between 23 January and 10 October 2002 he was held in cell No. 3, meas

> 1 2 3 4 ... 6 7 8