Постановление Европейского суда по правам человека от 29.01.2009 «Дело Малтабарь и Малтабарь (Maltabar and Maltabar) против России» [англ.]

s of the applicants' pre-trial detention

13. On 15 December 2000 the applicants were arrested and placed in detention.

1. The detention in a local police station

14. The applicants specified that between 11 a.m. on 15 December and 3 a.m. on 16 December 2000 they had first been held in a local police station before being transferred to IZ-69/1. According to both applicants, they were refused food and an opportunity to sleep. They did not make any allegations concerning the overcrowding of cells in that facility.
15. Both parties agreed that the applicants had been transferred to pre-trial detention centre IZ-69/1 on 16 December 2000 and that they had first been held in the local police station.

2. The detention in pre-trial detention centre IZ-69/1

16. The applicants arrived at the pre-trial detention centre IZ-69/1 in the town of Tver on 16 December 2000. The first applicant remained there until 24 July 2001 and the second applicant until 31 July 2001.
(a) The first applicant
17. According to the first applicant, between 16 and 19 December 2000 he had been detained in cell No. 42.
18. On 20 December 2000 he was transferred to cell No. 60. Between 30 December 2000 and 23 January 2001 he was held in cell No. 42. From 23 January to 11 March 2001 he was detained in cell No. 54. For eleven days between 11 and 22 March 2001 he was detained in a punishment cell. On 22 March 2001 he was transferred back to cell No. 54 and remained there until 17 April 2001. Between 17 April and 24 July 2001 he was detained in cell No. 23. On 24 July 2001 the first applicant left facility No. IZ-69/1 for another penitentiary establishment to serve his prison sentence.
19. The Government submitted that the dates of detention in the various cells in facility No. IZ-69/1 given by the first applicant were erroneous. The first applicant had been placed in cell No. 42 on 15 December and had remained there for only one day. He was then transferred to cell No. 60, where he stayed until 19 December 2000. Between 20 and 24 December 2000 the first applicant was detained in cell No. 42. He was transferred to cell No. 54 on 25 December 2000 and remained there until 22 January 2001. Between 23 January and 10 March 2001 the first applicant was held in cell No. 120. From 11 to 18 March 2001 he was held in cell No. 54. On 19 March 2001 the first applicant was transferred to cell No. 23, where he remained until he left facility No. IZ-69/1 on 24 July 2001.
20. From the above, it follows that the parties agreed that the first applicant has been detained in cells No. 23, 42, 54 and 60. In addition, the first applicant maintained that he had spent 11 days in a punishment cell and the Government maintained that he had spent some 45 days in cell No. 120.
(i) Conditions of detention in cell No. 23
21. The applicant submitted that cell No. 23 measured 30 square metres. It had twenty-five sleeping places and accommodated between eighty and ninety detainees.
22. The Government submitted that the cell measured 45.3 square metres and had eleven sleeping places. It had a system of artificial and natural ventilation and was lit by four 40-watt daylight lamps. The prison administration submitted a letter in which it certified that there had been eleven inmates in the cell on 17 April 2001.
(ii) Conditions of detention in cell No. 42
23. According to the first applicant, the cell measured 24 square metres, had nineteen bunk beds and was occupied by between 45 and 50 detainees at all times during his stay there.
24. According to the Government, the cell measured 31.9 square metres, had eight bunk beds and was lit by four 80-watt day lamps. The prison administration submitted a letter in which it certified that there had been seven inmates in the cell on 16 Dec

> 1 2 3 ... 10 11 12