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

itories inevitably imply a lack of privacy for prisoners in their everyday lives... All these problems are exacerbated when the numbers held go beyond a reasonable occupancy level; further, in such a situation the excessive burden on communal facilities such as washbasins or lavatories and the insufficient ventilation for so many persons will often lead to deplorable conditions.
30. The CPT frequently encounters devices, such as metal shutters, slats, or plates fitted to cell windows, which deprive prisoners of access to natural light and prevent fresh air from entering the accommodation. They are a particularly common feature of establishments holding pre-trial prisoners. The CPT fully accepts that specific security measures designed to prevent the risk of collusion and/or criminal activities may well be required in respect of certain prisoners... [E]ven when such measures are required, they should never involve depriving the prisoners concerned of natural light and fresh air. The latter are basic elements of life which every prisoner is entitled to enjoy..."

THE LAW

I. Alleged violation of Article 3 of the Convention

63. Under Article 3 of the Convention the applicant complained that the conditions of his detention in the detention facility in the town of Magadan from December 1999 to August 2003 had been deplorable. Article 3 provides as follows:
"No one shall be subjected to torture or to inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment."

A. Submissions of the parties

64. The Government contested that argument and considered that the conditions of detention in that prison had not been incompatible with Article 3 of the Convention.
65. The applicant disagreed and maintained his complaints. He argued that the data and figures provided by the Government were inaccurate.

B. The Court's assessment

1. Admissibility

66. 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.

2. Merits

67. The Court would note that the parties disagree on just about every aspect of the conditions of the applicant's detention, including the size of the cells and the number of beds and detainees in each. Most importantly, the Government deny that the cells in question were overcrowded or cramped, and have submitted official certificates and drawings of the cells provided by the authorities of the detention centre in question to that effect, whereas the applicant insists on his initial account of events.
68. 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 applicant's allegations of severe overcrowding in pre-trial detention facility 49/1, which is in itself sufficient to conclude that Article 3 of the Convention has been breached.
69. The Court notes that in its judgment in the case of Kalashnikov v. Russia, No. 47095/99, §§ 92 - 103, ECHR 2002-VI, it examined the conditions of detention in the same facility between June 1995 and October 1999 and found them, in the part falling within the Court's competence ratione temporis, to have been incompatible with the requirements of Article 3 of the Convention on account of severe overcrowding.
70. Since the Government did not support its own submissions with reference to any original documentation, the Court is prepared to accept its previous findings as sufficient confirmation that the overcrowding of cells was a problem in IZ-49/1 at about the same time as the applic

> 1 2 3 ... 5 6 7 8