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

ember 2000. The cell had both natural and artificial ventilation systems.
25. According to the prison administration, on 25 December 2000, the date of the first applicant's departure from cell No. 42, there had been eight inmates in the cell.
(iii) Conditions of detention in cell No. 54
26. According to the first applicant, cell No. 54 measured 16 square metres, had nine beds and accommodated between ten and twelve detainees.
27. The Government submitted that the cell in question measured 27.6 square metres and had seven sleeping places. It had a system of natural and artificial ventilation and was lit by four 40-watt day lamps. The prison administration submitted a letter in which it certified that there had been seven inmates in the cell on 23 January 2001 and that on 19 March 2001, the date of the first applicant's departure from cell No. 54, there had been six inmates in the cell.
(iv) Conditions of detention in cell No. 60
28. According to the first applicant, cell No. 60 measured 16 square meters, with six beds, and had held between twelve and fourteen infected detainees at the time of the applicant's detention. It had a constantly high level of humidity as it was situated right above the prison baths. Also, every other night the only toilet in the cell was decontaminated with half a bucket of chlorine-based reagent. Since the toilet flush was inactive during the night, the chlorine-based reagent combined with the humidity and urine caused corrosive damage to detainees' lungs and eyes.
29. According to the Government, the cell in question measured 22.4 square metres, had both artificial and natural ventilation systems and five sleeping places and was lit by four 80-watt day lamps. The prison administration submitted a letter in which it certified that there had been three inmates in the cell on 20 December 2000.
(v) Conditions of detention in punishment cell
30. The first applicant submitted that the punishment cell measured 4 square metres, with only one sleeping place and eleven inmates. The applicant submitted that there had no toilet in the cell and that detainees had used a bucket, which had been emptied once a day but had never been washed or decontaminated.
31. The Government submitted that this cell measured 8.8 square metres, had two sleeping places, both natural and artificial ventilation, and was lit by one 150-watt bulb. The prison administration submitted a letter in which it certified that on 11 March 2001 there had been two inmates in the cell.
(b) The second applicant
32. Between 16 December 2000 and 17 April 2001 the second applicant was detained first in cell No. 102 and then in No. 84. During the period between 17 April and 30 July 2001 he was held in cell No. 21. For fourteen days in May 2001 the second applicant was detained in the punishment cell.
33. The Government submitted that on 16 December 2000 the second applicant had been detained in cell No. 102. As of 28 December 2000 he was placed in cell No. 84. On 17 April 2000 he was transferred to cell No. 21. As of 17 May 2001 he was transferred to cell No. 117. From 24 May to 31 July 2001 he was detained in cell No. 21.
34. From the above it follows that the parties agree that the second applicant spent some time in cells Nos. 21, 84 and 102. In addition, the second applicant maintains that he had spent 14 days in a punishment cell and the Government maintained that he had spent some seven days in cell No. 117.
(i) Conditions of detention in cell No. 21
35. The second applicant submitted that cell No. 21 measured 17 square metres, had twelve sleeping places and was occupied by more than 43 inmates.
36. The Government submitted that the same cell measured 20.7 square metres, had five sleeping places, artificial and natural ventilation systems, and was lit by two 1

> 1 2 3 4 ... 10 11 12