collect the exact number of inmates that had been detained there with the applicant. In view of the above, the prison staff's certificates are therefore of little evidential value for the Court (see, for a similar approach, Vlasov v. Russia, No. 78146/01, § 93, 12 June 2008, and Kokoshkina v. Russia, No. 2052/08, § 60, 28 May 2009).
33. At the same time, it cannot be overlooked that despite the unavailability of the relevant registers the Government were able in 2008 to identify the applicant's co-inmates at the time and to produce their written statements in support of the Government's position concerning the conditions of detention in 2001 - 2003. Those persons stated that the conditions of detention had been acceptable and that there had been no problem of limited living space in the cell or any shortage of individual beds.
34. The applicant made no specific comment on the authenticity and reliability of those statements. It is also noted that there is no indication that, during the relevant period of detention or later, the applicant, who was assisted by a lawyer, sought to obtain any witness statements in support of his allegations of unsatisfactory conditions of detention. However, making a global assessment of all the available information, in particular that referred to in paragraph 15 above, the Court cannot overlook that in 2004 the national authorities acknowledged the existence of the overpopulation problem in the remand centre during 2001 and 2002 (see also Matyush, cited above, §§ 51 - 59, concerning the same detention facility during the relevant periods). Various certificates and reports supplied by the Government furnish contradictory information as to whether or not the actual population of the remand centre exceeded its design capacity by national standards or the number of beds (see paragraph 15 above). Thus, as the Government have not adduced appropriate and conclusive evidence, the Court considers that the applicant was affected by the general overpopulation problem in the remand centre.
35. In view of the foregoing assessment, having regard to the applicant's allegations, the Court finds that during the major part of his detention in the remand centre he was afforded at times less than two square metres of cell space. In addition, while there is insufficient evidence that the deterioration of his eyesight was due to the conditions of detention, the Court accepts that the applicant endured certain inconveniences owing to the presence of metal shutters on the window(s) of the cell.
36. The Court reiterates that in a number of cases the lack of personal space afforded to detainees in Russian remand centres was so extreme as to justify, in itself, a finding of a violation of Article 3 of the Convention. In those cases applicants were usually afforded less than three square metres of personal space (see, for example, Lind v. Russia, No. 25664/05, § 59, 6 December 2007; Kantyrev v. Russia, No. 37213/02, §§ 50 - 51, 21 June 2007; Andrey Frolov v. Russia, No. 205/02, §§ 47 - 49, 29 March 2007; Labzov v. Russia, No. 62208/00, § 44, 16 June 2005; and Mayzit v. Russia, No. 63378/00, § 40, 20 January 2005).
37. The foregoing considerations are sufficient to enable the Court to conclude that the conditions of the applicant's detention between March 2001 and June 2003 amounted to inhuman and degrading treatment. There has accordingly been a violation of Article 3 of the Convention.
II. Other alleged violations of the Convention
38. The applicant also complained under Article 3 of the Convention that he had been detained in the temporary detention centre with persons who were hostile to law enforcement officers and that he had been beaten up by police officers or interrogators. He complained that he had had to study the case file over three days without rest or food, in the presence of the investigator a
> 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
