Постановление Европейского суда по правам человека от 19.03.2009 «Дело Любименко (Lyubimenko) против России» [англ.]

nly if the detainee is charged with a serious or particularly serious criminal offence. No extension beyond eighteen months is possible (Article 109 §§ 1 - 3). The period of detention "during the investigation" is calculated up to the day when the prosecutor sends the case to the trial court (Article 109 § 9).
46. From the date the prosecutor forwards the case to the trial court, the defendant's detention is "before the court" (or "during the trial"). The period of detention "during the trial" is calculated up to the date the judgment is given. It may not normally exceed six months, but if the case concerns serious or particularly serious criminal offences, the trial court may approve one or more extensions of no longer than three months each (Article 255 §§ 2 and 3).
47. Section 22 of the Detention of Suspects Act (Federal Law No. 103-FZ of 15 July 1995) provides that detainees should be given free food sufficient to maintain them in good health according to standards established by the Government of the Russian Federation. Section 23 provides that detainees should be kept in conditions which satisfy sanitary and hygienic requirements. They should be provided with an individual sleeping place and given bedding, tableware and toiletries. Each inmate should have no less than four square metres of personal space in his or her cell.

THE LAW

I. Alleged violation of Article 3 of the Convention

48. The applicant complained that that the conditions of his detention in detention facility No. IZ-34/1 in Volgograd had been in breach of Article 3 of the Convention, which provides:
"No one shall be subjected to torture or to inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment."

A. Admissibility

49. The Government argued that the applicant had not exhausted the domestic remedies available to him. In particular, he had not sought compensation for non-pecuniary damage before a court. To prove the effectiveness of that remedy, they referred to an article in a Russian newspaper, reporting on the case of Mr D., who had contracted scabies while in detention and had been awarded 25,000 Russian roubles (RUB) by the Novgorod Town Court in respect of non-pecuniary damage. They further referred to the judgment of the Zheleznodorozhniy District Court of Orel of 2 June 2004, awarding Mr R. RUB 30,000 as compensation for unlawful detention lasting fifty-six days, for four of which he had been without food.
50. The Government further submitted that the Court had competence to examine the conditions of the applicant's detention only during the six months preceding the submission of his application form. They argued that the applicant's detention was not a continuing situation, as he had been repeatedly transferred from one cell to another and the conditions of his detention had varied in different cells. Moreover, if detainees were allowed to complain about long periods of detention, this would impose a disproportionate burden on the authorities to store detention facility registers indefinitely. Accordingly, the Government invited the Court to reject the applicant's complaints relating to the period prior to 15 September 2005 for non-compliance with the six-month rule.
51. The Court observes that in the case of Benediktov v. Russia (No. 106/02, §§ 29 - 30, 10 May 2007), in comparable circumstances, it found that the Government had failed to demonstrate what redress could have been afforded to the applicant by a prosecutor or a court, taking into account that the problems arising from the conditions of the applicant's detention had apparently been of a structural nature and had not concerned the applicant's personal situation alone. In the case at hand, the Government submitted no evidence to enable the Court to depart from these findings with regard to the existence of an effecti

> 1 2 ... 3 4 5 6 ... 11 12 13