Постановление Европейского суда по правам человека от 05.03.2009 «Дело Бычков (Bychkov) против России» [англ.]

f the applicant's detention amounted to treatment contrary to Article 3 of the Convention.
36. The Court notes that the Government did not submit any information on the measurements of the cells. It also notes that whilst the Government agreed that on several occasions the number of inmates exceeded the cells' designed capacity (see paragraphs 16 and 28 above), in their plea concerning the number of detainees they only indicated the average occupancy rate for each cell. The statements indicating the average number of the applicant's fellow inmates were supported by extracts from the registration logs showing the number of detainees for certain dates: one date in respect of each cell where the applicant had been detained (see paragraph 17 above). The Court finds it unconvincing that the Government preferred to submit the extracts for certain dates only and failed to refer to any source of information on the basis of which they had made the assertion on the average numbers of inmates in the cells. Neither have they submitted any documents on the basis of which their assertion could be verified. In the absence of such information, the extracts from the logs are of little evidential value for the Court. The Court further notes that the Government were unable to indicate the exact number of inmates in the cells from 5 June to 27 October 2000, alleging that the relevant documents had been destroyed.
37. In this respect, the Court observes that Convention proceedings, such as the present application, do not in all cases lend themselves to a rigorous application of the principle affirmanti incumbit probatio (he who alleges something must prove that allegation) because in certain instances the respondent Government alone have access to information capable of corroborating or refuting these allegations. A failure on a Government's part to submit such information without a satisfactory explanation may give rise to the drawing of inferences as to the well-foundedness of the applicant's allegations (see, among other authorities, Fadeyeva v. Russia, No. 55723/00, § 79, ECHR 2005-IV, and Ahmet {Ozkan} and Others v. Turkey, No. 21689/93, § 426, 6 April 2004).
38. Having regard to the above-mentioned principles, in the absence of sufficient official data as to the number of detainees, the Court will examine the issue concerning the number of inmates in the cells and the cell measurements on the basis of the applicant's submissions, confirmed by his former cell-mates Mr M. and Mr V.
39. It follows from the applicant's submissions concerning cell measurements and number of inmates per cell (see paragraphs 18 and 20 above) that the living area per inmate varied from 0.65 to 1.3 sq. m. Furthermore, as the number of detainees exceeded the number of beds, the applicant had to share the bed with other detainees, taking turns to sleep.
40. Irrespective of the reasons for the overcrowding, the Court considers that it is incumbent on the respondent Government to organise its prison system in such a way as to ensure respect for the dignity of detainees, regardless of financial or logistical difficulties (see Mamedova, cited above, § 63).
41. The Court has frequently found a violation of Article 3 of the Convention on account of a lack of personal space afforded to detainees (see Khudoyorov v. Russia, No. 6847/02, § 104 et seq., ECHR 2005-... (extracts); Labzov v. Russia, No. 62208/00, § 44 et seq., 16 June 2005; Novoselov v. Russia, No. 66460/01, § 41 et seq., 2 June 2005; Mayzit v. Russia, cited above, § 39 et seq.; and Kalashnikov v. Russia, cited above, § 97 et seq.). More specifically, the Court has recently found a violation of Article 3 on account of an applicant's detention in overcrowded conditions in the same detention facilities and approximately at the same time (see Benediktov, cited above, §§ 31 - 41, Igor Ivanov v. Russia, No. 34000/02, §§ 16

> 1 2 ... 3 4 5 6 7