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

s follows:
"No one shall be subjected to torture or to inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment."

A. The parties' submissions

77. The Government submitted that the applicants' conditions of detention and transportation had been satisfactory. They commented on the applicants' factual allegations (see the statement of facts above) and denied any issues under Article 3.
78. The applicants disagreed and maintained their initial position. They referred to human rights reports of 1999, 2000 and 2001 by the Moscow Helsinki Group, to the order of the Federal Service of Execution of Sentences and to statements made by various officials which, in their view, confirmed their allegations. They also argued that the data and figures provided by the Government were erroneous.

B. The Court's assessment

79. The Court notes that the question of the applicants' compliance with the six-month rule in respect of the events in the local police station on 15 December 2000 arises.
80. The Court observes that it has previously held that it cannot set aside the application of the six-month rule solely because a government has not made a preliminary objection to that effect (see Walker v. the United Kingdom (dec.), No. 34979/97, ECHR 2000-I and, more recently, {Blecic} v. Croatia [GC], No. 59532/00, § 68, ECHR 2006-...).
81. Thus, the Court finds it necessary to examine whether the applicants' allegations in respect of their stay in the local police station on 15 December 2000 were lodged in time. The Court will then turn to the complaints about the conditions of detention in facility No. IZ-69/1 and the conditions of the applicants' transportation to and from court hearings.

1. The applicants' compliance with the six-month time-limit

82. The applicants' detention in the local police station ended on 16 December 2000, whereas the application was not lodged with the Court until 30 December 2001, which is more than six months later (see, inter alia, Nurmagomedov v. Russia (dec.), No. 30138/02, 16 September 2004).
83. Having regard to the difference in nature of the applicants' allegations in respect of the local police station, which concerned the deprivation of food and sleep, and their complaints in respect of facility No. IZ-69/1, the bulk of which dealt with the overcrowding in cells, the Court does not find any special circumstances which would enable it to construe the detention in the local police station and their subsequent detention in facility No. IZ-69/1 as a "continuing situation" which could bring the events complained of by the applicants within the Court's competence (see, by contrast, Igor Ivanov v. Russia, No. 34000/02, § 30, 7 June 2007; Benediktov v. Russia, No. 106/02, § 12, 10 May 2007; and Guliyev v. Russia, No. 24650/02, § 31, 19 June 2008).
84. It follows that the complaint in respect of the local police station was introduced out of time and must be rejected pursuant to Article 35 §§ 1 and 4 of the Convention.

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

85. The Court would note that the parties disagree on just about every aspect of the applicants' conditions of detention, including the dates of their detention in various cells of the detention centre, the size of the cells, the number of beds, and so on. Most importantly, the Government deny that the cells in question were overcrowded or cramped, and have submitted official certificates and drawings of the cells provided by the authorities of the detention centre in question to that effect, whereas the applicants insist on their initial account of events.
86. Having observed the documents submitted by the parties, the Court finds that it need not r

> 1 2 3 ... 8 9 10 11 ... 12