Постановление Европейского суда по правам человека от 30.07.2009 «Дело Ананьин (Ananyin) против России» [англ.]

s.
The court is not convinced by the defendants' argument that they have not been granted access to the materials submitted by the prosecution in support of their requests for extension. The court has at its disposal only the materials from the criminal case file, which had been studied by the defendants.
The court considers that the grounds for the detention of the defendants, who are charged with serious and particularly serious criminal offences, are relevant and sufficient. Their detention serves the interest of society, as it prevents the commission of similar criminal offences and ensures high-quality and effective examination of the present criminal case.
The criminal case file contains sufficient evidence against each defendant justifying an extension of their detention..."
39. On 7 July 2008 the Volgograd Regional Court extended the defendants' detention until 12 October 2008, repeating verbatim the decision of 8 April 2008.
40. On 10 October 2008 the Volgograd Regional Court extended the defendant's detention until 12 January 2009, repeating verbatim the decision of 8 April 2008.
41. The proceedings are still pending before the trial court. The applicant remains in custody.

B. Conditions of the applicant's detention

42. The applicant is detained in detention facility SIZO No. 1 (IZ-34/1) in Volgograd.
43. The applicant stated that the cells were overcrowded. There were not sufficient bunks for the inmates and they had to take turns to sleep. There was no lavatory bowl; instead there was a hole in the floor which inmates used to relieve themselves. The eighty-centimetre partition separating the toilet facilities from the living area did not offer sufficient privacy and the person using the toilet was in view of the other inmates and the wardens. The dining table was very close to the toilet. Only four persons could sit at it, and the other inmates ate sitting on the floor or on the bunks. There was not much food. Inmates were not provided with adequate medical care. As a result, the applicant's health deteriorated.
44. According to a certificate of 2 April 2008 issued by the facility administration and submitted by the Government, from 30 September 2002 to 23 December 2003 the applicant was held in cells No. 7, 19, 53, 181 and 189, measuring 17.1 sq. m, 19.2 sq. m, 20.6 sq. m, 55.8 sq. m and 22.4 sq. m respectively. It was not possible to establish the number of inmates in each cell, as the detention facility registers for that period had been destroyed on expiry of the statutory storage time-limit.
45. Since 26 December 2003 the applicant has been held in seventeen different cells. They were described as follows:
- cell No. 189 where the applicant was held from 26 December 2003 to 4 July 2004 and from 26 July to 6 November 2004 measured 22.4 sq. m and housed five to twelve inmates;
- cell No. 13 where the applicant was held from 4 to 26 July 2004 measured 16.4 sq. m and housed seven to eleven inmates;
- punishment cell No. 6 where the applicant was held alone from 6 to 8 November 2004 measured 8.41 sq. m;
- punishment cell No. 9 where the applicant was held alone from 19 to 22 November 2004 measured 8.41 sq. m;
- cell No. 181 where the applicant was held from 22 November 2004 to 11 July 2005 measured 44.8 sq. m and housed seven to twenty inmates;
- cell No. 200 where the applicant was held from 11 July 2005 to 1 March 2006 measured 22 sq. m and housed seven to twelve inmates;
- cells nos. 193 and 201 where the applicant was held alone or together with another inmate from 1 to 17 March 2006 measured 5 sq. m;
- cell No. 186 where the applicant was held from 17 March to 7 April 2006 measured 22.4 sq. m and housed nine to twelve inmates;
- cell No. 86 where the applicant was hel

> 1 ... 2 3 4 5 ... 16 17 18