Постановление Европейского суда по правам человека от 29.01.2009 "Дело "Андреевский (Andreyevskiy) против Российской Федерации" [рус., англ.]

that have been presented or are undisputed by the Government, for the following reasons.
84. The focal point for the Court's assessment is the cell space afforded to the applicant. The main characteristic which the parties agreed upon is the size of the cells. However, whilst the Government acknowledged that the cells had been overcrowded, they submitted that the degree of overcrowding had not been as severe as was alleged by the applicant. They supported their contention with certificates issued by the remand centre in 2006. In this connection the Court notes that those certificates were not supported by any extracts from registration logs. Neither did they contain any reference to the source of information on the basis of which the head of the remand centre was able to indicate the number of inmates which had been held together with the applicant. The above certificates are thus of little evidential value for the Court (see Sudarkov, cited above, § 42, 10 July 2008).
85. Having regard to the foregoing, the Court is inclined to accept the applicant's detailed submissions, supported, among other things, by written statements from his co-inmates, that during his detention at the remand centre he was afforded from 0.5 to 0.6 square metres of floor space (compare Starokadomskiy v. Russia, No. 42239/02, §§ 40 - 42, 31 July 2008). The witness statements were not contested by the Government. The Court also does not lose sight of the fact that the applicant's cells were equipped with some furniture and contained such fittings as a toilet and a washbasin, which must have further reduced the floor space available to him.
86. In this connection the Court reiterates that in a number of cases in which detained applicants usually disposed of less than three and a half square metres of personal space it has already found that the lack of personal space afforded to them was so extreme as to justify, in itself, a finding of a violation of Article 3 of the Convention (see Guliyev v. Russia, No. 24650/02, § 32, 19 June 2008; Lind v. Russia, No. 25664/05, § 59, 6 December 2007; Kantyrev v. Russia, No. 37213/02, §§ 50 - 51, 21 June 2007; Andrey Frolov v. Russia, No. 205/02, §§ 47 - 49, 29 March 2007; Labzov v. Russia, No. 62208/00, § 44, 16 June 2005; and Mayzit v. Russia, No. 63378/00, § 40, 20 January 2005). For two years and nine months, except for hearing days, the applicant was confined to his cell twenty-four hours a day, except for a forty-minute daily walk.
87. Having regard to its case-law on the subject, the material submitted by the parties and the findings above, the Court notes that the Government have not put forward any fact or argument capable of persuading it to reach a different conclusion in the present case. In the present case there is no indication that there was a positive intention to humiliate or debase the first applicant. Nonetheless, the Court finds that the fact that he was obliged to live, sleep and use the toilet in the same cell as so many other inmates for two years and nine months was itself sufficient to cause distress or hardship of an intensity exceeding the unavoidable level of suffering inherent in detention, and to arouse in him feelings of fear, anguish and inferiority capable of humiliating and debasing him.
88. The Court finds, accordingly, that there has been a violation of Article 3 of the Convention because the first applicant was subjected to inhuman and degrading treatment on account of the conditions of his detention from 31 May 2002 to 28 March 2005 in remand centre IZ-77/1 in Moscow.

IV. Other alleged violations of the Convenion

89. In addition, the applicant complained under Articles 3, 5, 6, 8 and 13 of the Convention that he had been transported to the court for trial in appalling conditions; he had been arrested without proper authorisation; had not been informed of the reasons for his a

> 1 2 3 ... 32 33 34 35