Постановление Европейского суда по правам человека от 29.04.2010 «Дело Христофоров (Khristoforov) против России» [англ.]

47940/99, § 44, 20 July 2004, and Labita v. Italy [GC], No. 26772/95, § 119, ECHR 2000-IV). The Court has consistently stressed that the suffering and humiliation involved must, for a violation to be found, go beyond that inevitable element of suffering or humiliation connected with a given form of legitimate treatment or punishment. Measures depriving a person of his liberty may often involve such an element. In accordance with Article 3 of the Convention, the State must ensure that a person is detained under conditions which are compatible with respect for his human dignity and that the manner and method of the execution of the measure do not subject him to distress or hardship exceeding the unavoidable level of suffering inherent in detention (see {Kudla} v. Poland [GC], No. 30210/96, §§ 92 - 94, ECHR 2000-XI).
23. The Court reiterates that it has on many occasions considered that the mere fact of holding an applicant in custody in a cell designed only for short-term detention disclosed a violation of Article 3 (see, for example, Kaja v. Greece, No. 32927/03, §§ 49 - 50, 27 July 2006, where the applicant was held for three months in detention without an opportunity to enjoy outdoor exercise, radio, television or free meals, and Shchebet v. Russia, No. 16074/07, §§ 84 - 96, 12 June 2008, where, for a month, the applicant was confined to a cell without a proper door (the cell had a sparse metal grille instead), window, toilet or sink and in the absence of any opportunity for outdoor exercise).
24. The Government did not dispute that the applicant had been detained pending investigation and trial at the police station in a cell designed only for short-term detention. Nor did they challenge the applicant's account of the conditions of his detention. They also conceded that those conditions had fallen short of the standards set forth in Article 3 of the Convention.
25. On the facts, the Court notes that the applicant could not be transferred to a remand prison because the nearest prison was located too far from Evensk and because the domestic authorities did not have the funds to pay for his transportation (see paragraph 8 above). This resulted in his detention taking place in premises which, from the legal and practical standpoint, were inappropriate for long-term detention (compare Shchebet, cited above, § 88).
26. The cell in which the applicant was held for over seven and a half months had been designed for short-term detention not exceeding ten days. Accordingly, it lacked the basic amenities indispensable for extended detention. The cell did not have a window and offered no access to natural light or air. There was no toilet or sink. At night, if the applicant wished to go to toilet, he had to use a bucket. Lastly, throughout that time the applicant was confined to his cell for practically twenty-four hours a day without any possibility to pursue physical and other out-of-cell activities.
27. In the Court's opinion, such conditions of detention must have caused him considerable mental and physical suffering diminishing his human dignity, which amounted to degrading treatment within the meaning of Article 3 of the Convention.
28. The Court further notes that there is no evidence in the present case of any positive intention to humiliate or debase the applicant. However, the absence of any such intention cannot exclude a finding of a violation of Article 3 of the Convention. Even if there had been no fault on the part of the administration of the temporary detention facility, it should be emphasised that the Governments are answerable under the Convention for the acts of any State agency, since what is in issue in all cases before the Court is the international responsibility of the State (see, among other authorities, Novoselov v. Russia, No. 66460/01, § 45, 2 June 2005).
29. There has accordingly been a violation of Article 3 of the Convention

> 1 2 ... 3 4 5 6