Постановление Европейского суда по правам человека от 08.04.2010 «Дело Лутохин (Lutokhin) против России» [англ.]

ment's submissions

33. The Government stated that the detention conditions in remand centre IZ-47/1 of Saint Petersburg had been compatible with Article 3 of the Convention. In support of their assertion, the Government adduced certificates by the governor of the centre confirming that the applicant had been provided with an individual sleeping place, bedding, sufficient nutrition and medical assistance and that the sanitary, hygiene and temperature norms had been duly met.
34. They further submitted that the applicant had never challenged the adequateness of the conditions of his detention before the domestic authorities. He could have complained to a prosecutor's office or to administrative authorities of the Federal Service for the Execution of Sentences but had failed to avail himself of these opportunities.
35. For these reasons the Government concluded that, apart from being manifestly ill-founded, the applicant's complaint was also inadmissible for his failure to exhaust domestic remedies.

2. The applicant's submissions

36. The applicant contested the Government's description of his
detention conditions as factually incorrect. He claimed in particular that
2
the cell in the temporary confinement ward had allowed 0,5 m of personal
space per inmate. At the remand centre, in five cells the personal space
2 2
available to detainees in average had fluctuated between 0,5 m and 0,8 m .
He had spent one day in the remand centre's "transfer" cell that had
2
measured 8 m and had housed at the time twenty-five people.
37. In addition to the severe overcrowding, the applicant underlined the lack of fresh air and lighting and the fact that a toilet in the cells in the remand centre had not afforded any privacy and had not functioned properly. His account of the conditions in both detention facilities is set out in paragraphs 10 - 17 above. In support of his allegations, the applicant adduced photographs picturing two cells and a recreation yard.
38. As regards the Governments' objection of non-exhaustion, he stated, as a matter of fact, that any remedies in respect of detention conditions envisaged under domestic law had proved to be ineffective. In particular, he referred to the Court's case-law concerning conditions in Russian penitentiary facilities. He also alleged that on a number of occasions he had appealed to competent officials but to no avail.
39. The applicant accordingly maintained his complaint.

B. The Court's assessment

1. Admissibility

(a) Simultaneous examination of the complaints about the conditions of detention in both detention facilities
40. The Court observes that the applicant complained of two periods of detention in poor conditions, that is from 12 to 16 April 2001 in the temporary detention facility of the police department of Gatchina and from 16 April 2001 to 11 March 2003 in remand centre IZ-47/1 of Saint Petersburg. In describing the conditions of his detention, he primarily alleged overcrowding beyond the design capacity and shortage of sleeping places in both facilities. According to the applicant, during the two years of his detention he was afforded less than 1 square metre of personal space, irrespective of the place of his detention.
41. It is noted that the application was lodged on 12 March 2003 that is approximately two years after the applicant's detention at the police department of Gatchina had ended.
42. The Court reiterates that continuous detention in similar conditions, though i

> 1 ... 2 3 4 5 6 ... 7 8