ent for the Execution of Sentences about the allegedly degrading conditions of his detention, referring in particular to the overpopulation in the remand centre and lack of access to natural light and airflow in the cells. By a letter of 2 March 2004, the Penitentiary Office acknowledged the overpopulation problem in "certain cells" in the remand centre in 2001 and 2002 and stated that in 1999 the metal shutters had been partly removed from the cell windows and had been completed removed in March 2003.
THE LAW
I. Alleged violation of Article 3 of the Convention
18. The applicant complained that the conditions of his detention in Omsk remand centre No. 55/1, where he had been detained from March 2001 to June 2003, had been in breach of Article 3 of the Convention, which reads as follows:
"No one shall be subjected to torture or to inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment."
A. Admissibility
19. The Government considered that only the period of detention from 10 March to 10 June 2003 fell within the scope of the six-month rule under Article 35 § 1 of the Convention. They also submitted that the applicant, who was at the time assisted by a lawyer, should have exhausted domestic remedies by lodging a complaint before a prosecutor's office or a civil action for compensation in respect of pecuniary and/or non-pecuniary damage caused by the conditions of detention.
20. The applicant made no specific comment.
21. As to the exhaustion of domestic remedies, the Court first observes that the applicant did raise his grievance about the conditions of detention before various national authorities (see paragraphs 16 and 17 above). As to a complaint to a prosecutor's office or an eventual civil action for damages, the Court has already examined the same argument by the Russian Government and dismissed it in a number of cases (see, among others, Benediktov v. Russia, No. 106/02, § 30, 10 May 2007, and Matyush v. Russia, No. 14850/03, § 47, 9 December 2008). Nothing in the Government's submissions in the present case persuades the Court to depart from that finding. It therefore concludes that this complaint cannot be rejected for failure to exhaust domestic remedies.
22. Moreover, given that the applicant was kept in the remand centre from March 2001 to June 2003, he should be considered as having complied with the six-month rule by lodging on 10 September 2003 a complaint before the Court about conditions of detention there.
23. The Court concludes that this complaint is not manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 of the Convention. It further notes that it is not inadmissible on any other grounds. It must therefore be declared admissible.
B. Merits
1. The parties' submissions
24. The Government argued that the applicant had failed to provide any prima facie evidence, for instance statements from cellmates in support of his allegations of appalling conditions of detention, in particular on account of the alleged overcrowding problem. The applicant had been detained most of the time in a cell assigned to former law enforcement officers. The admission made by the Penitentiary Office did not specifically concern the cell(s) in which he had been detained (see paragraph 17 above). For their part, the Government had substantiated their refutation of the above allegations with reference to statements made by public officials issued in the domain of their competence and being aware of criminal liability for forgery of official documents (see paragraphs 10 - 14 above). There was no legitimate reason to doubt their authenticity or credibility. The Government also explained that the relevant logbooks or registers of the remand centre had already been destroyed owing to the expiry of their retention
> 1 2 3 4 5 ... 6 7
Zaki.ru законы и право
поиск по сайту
каталог документов
добавить сайт Zaki.ru в избранное
Правовые акты международные
Правовые акты Российской Федерации
