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

n different facilities, may in certain circumstances warrant examination of the period of detention as a whole (see Benediktov v. Russia, No. 106/02, § 31, 10 May 2007; Guliyev v. Russia, No. 24650/02, § 33, 19 June 2008; and Sudarkov v. Russia, No. 3130/03, § 40, 10 July 2008).
43. Having regard to the continuous nature of the applicant's detention and the allegation of severe overcrowding as the main characteristic of the detention conditions in both facilities, the Court finds that the two periods construe a "continuing situation" which brings the events concerning the applicant's detention at the police department of Gatchina within its competence.
(b) Exhaustion of domestic remedies
44. The Court reiterates that Article 35 § 1 of the Convention provides for a distribution of the burden of proof. It is incumbent on the Government claiming non-exhaustion to satisfy the Court that the remedy was an effective one available in theory and in practice at the relevant time, that is to say that it was accessible, capable of providing redress in respect of the applicant's complaints and offered reasonable prospects of success (see Selmouni v. France [GC], No. 25803/94, § 76, ECHR 1999-V, and Mifsud v. France (dec.), No. 57220/00, § 15, ECHR 2002-VIII). The Court further reiterates that the domestic remedies must be "effective" in the sense either of preventing the alleged violation or its continuation, or of providing adequate redress for any violation that had already occurred (see {Kudla} v. Poland [GC], No. 30210/96, §§ 157 and 159, ECHR 2000-XI).
45. In the present case the respondent Government indicated such remedies as complaining to a prosecutor's office and the Federal Service for the Execution of Sentences. The Court reiterates that it has already on a number of occasions examined the same objection by the Russian Government and dismissed it. The Court held in particular that the Government had not demonstrated what redress could have been afforded to the applicant by a prosecutor, a court, or another State agency, bearing in mind that the problems arising from the conditions of the applicant's detention were apparently of a structural nature and did not concern the applicant's personal situation alone (see Moiseyev v. Russia (dec.), No. 62936/00, 9 December 2004 and Guliyev, cited above § 34).
46. The Court observes that in the present case the Government also failed to substantiate the effectiveness of the suggested remedies and adduce satisfactory evidence. For that reason, it considers that the mere mention of a remedy is too speculative to be deemed a fulfilment of the Government's burden of proof. Accordingly, it dismisses their plea of non-exhaustion.
(c) Compliance with other admissibility criteria
47. On the basis of the material submitted, the Court observes that the applicant's 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

(a) General principles
48. The Court reiterates that Article 3 of the Convention enshrines one of the most fundamental values of a democratic society. It prohibits in absolute terms torture or inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, irrespective of the circumstances and the victim's behaviour (see, among other authorities, Labita v. Italy [GC], No. 26772/95, § 119, ECHR 2000-IV). However, in order to fall within the scope of Article 3, ill-treatment must attain a minimum level of severity. The assessment of this minimum level of severity is relative; it depends on all the circumstances of the case, such as the duration of the treatment, its physical and mental effects and, in some cases, the sex, age and state of health of the victim (see Ireland v. the Uni

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