plicant's detention from 25 March 2002 to 26 December 2003 alleging that the relevant official records had been destroyed due to the expiry of the statutory time-limit for their storage. Nor did they produce the official records or offer any explanation in respect of the applicant's detention from 26 December 2003 to 25 August 2004 and from 2 to 13 January 2005.
49. In this connection 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 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 Ahmet {Ozkanet} and Others v. Turkey, No. 21689/93, § 426, 6 April 2004).
50. Having regard to the above-mentioned principle, together with the fact that the Government did not offer any convincing explanation for not submitting relevant information, the Court will examine the issue concerning the number of inmates in the cells on the basis of the applicant's submissions in respect of the period from 25 March 2002 to 25 August 2004.
51. According to the applicant, during the periods in question he was afforded no more than 0.8 sq. m of personal space. The applicant spent in those conditions more than two years and five months.
52. As regards the remaining periods of the applicant's detention, namely from 25 August 2004 to 2 January 2005 and from 13 January to 25 February 2005, the Court observes that the inmates were afforded from 2.66 to 3.9 sq. m of personal space, which is below the domestic statutory requirements (see paragraph 32 above). It was even lower on more than twenty-seven days, when the number of inmates per cell exceeded their designed capacity and they had to take turns to sleep (see paragraph 20 above).
53. In sum, the Court considers that even though during the periods from 25 August 2004 to 2 January 2005 and from 13 January to 25 February 2005 the number of inmates detained in the same cell as the applicant was considerably lower than in the preceding period, this was nevertheless insufficient for the Court to conclude that the problem of overcrowding had been alleviated by the authorities.
54. The Court further notes that apart from an hour's daily exercise, the applicant was confined to the cell for the rest of the time. The Court does not consider that occasional meetings the applicant had with his lawyer or family outside the cell or a fifteen-minute weekly use of the shower facilities significantly altered the conditions of his detention. In any event, the Government did not provide any specifics as to the number and duration of such meetings.
55. The Court reiterates that irrespective of the reasons for the overcrowding, it is incumbent on the respondent Government to organise their custodial system in such a way as to ensure respect for the dignity of detainees, regardless of financial or logistical difficulties (see Mamedova v. Russia, No. 7064/05, § 63, 1 June 2006, and Benediktov, cited above, § 37).
56. The Court has frequently found a violation of Article 3 of the Convention on account of lack of personal space afforded to detainees (see, among other authorities, Belevitskiy v. Russia, No. 72967/01, §§ 75 et seq., 1 March 2007; Kalashnikov v. Russia, No. 47095/99, §§ 97 et seq., ECHR 2002-VI; Khudoyorov v. Russia, No. 6847/02, §§ 104 et seq., ECHR 2005-X; Labzov v. Russia, No. 62208/00, §§ 44 et seq., 16 June 2005; Mayzit v. Russia, No. 63378/00, §§ 39 et seq., 20 January 2005; and Novoselov v. Russia, No. 66460/01, §§ 41 et seq.,
> 1 2 3 ... 7 8 9 10 ... 11
Zaki.ru законы и право
поиск по сайту
каталог документов
добавить сайт Zaki.ru в избранное
Правовые акты международные
Правовые акты Российской Федерации
