s at the time the applicant was detained there.
40. The Court has frequently found a violation of Article 3 of the Convention on account of a lack of personal space afforded to detainees (see Khudoyorov v. Russia, No. 6847/02, §§ 104 et seq., ECHR 2005-X (extracts); Labzov v. Russia, No. 62208/00, §§ 44 et seq., 16 June 2005; Novoselov v. Russia, No. 66460/01, §§ 41 et seq., 2 June 2005; Mayzit v. Russia, No. 63378/00, §§ 39 et seq., 20 January 2005; Kalashnikov v. Russia, No. 47095/99, §§ 97 et seq., ECHR 2002-VI; and Peers v. Greece, No. 28524/95, §§ 69 et seq., ECHR 2001-III).
41. Having regard to its case-law on the subject and the material submitted by the parties, the Court notes that the Government have not put forward any fact or argument capable of persuading it to reach a different conclusion in the present case. Although in the present case there is no indication that there was a positive intention to humiliate or debase the applicant, the Court finds that the fact that the applicant had to spend two years, three months and thirteen days in overcrowded cells in SIZO No. 3 and SIZO No. 5 in Moscow was itself sufficient to cause distress or hardship of an intensity exceeding the unavoidable level of suffering inherent in detention, and to arouse in him feelings of fear, anguish and inferiority capable of humiliating and debasing him.
42. There has therefore been a violation of Article 3 of the Convention as the Court finds the applicant's detention to have been inhuman and degrading within the meaning of this provision.
II. Other alleged violations of the Convention
43. In so far as the applicant also complained that his detention had been unlawful, the Court notes that these grievances have been brought too late. The applicant was convicted at first instance on 14 June 2002, whilst the application in this connection was introduced on 8 January 2003, which is more than six months later. In addition, the applicant failed to raise these complaints before the competent domestic authorities, as required by Article 35 § 1 of the Convention.
44. As regards the proceedings in his criminal case, the applicant complained that his trial had been unfair, that the courts had assessed the evidence and interpreted the domestic law wrongly and had used inadmissible evidence for his conviction. In this connection the Court reiterates that it is not its function to deal with errors of fact or of law allegedly committed by national courts unless and in so far as they may have infringed rights and freedoms protected by the Convention. While Article 6 guarantees the right to a fair hearing, it does not lay down any rules on the admissibility and assessment of evidence, which are primarily a matter for regulation under national law (see, among other authorities, Khan v. the United Kingdom, No. 35394/97, § 34, ECHR 2000-V). Furthermore, it is not the role of the Court to determine, as a matter of principle, whether a particular piece of evidence is necessary or essential to decide a case (see, for example, Elsholz v. Germany [GC], No. 25735/94, § 66, ECHR 2000-VIII) or, indeed, whether or not the applicant is guilty. The question which must be answered is whether the alleged defects impaired the fairness of the proceedings, taken as a whole. On the basis of the materials submitted by the applicant, the Court notes that he, personally and through his defence counsel, was fully able to present his case and contest the evidence that he considered false. Having regard to the facts as submitted by the applicant, the Court has not found any reason to believe that the proceedings did not comply with the fairness requirement of Article 6 of the Convention.
46. It follows that this part of the application should be rejected pursuant to Article 35 §§ 1, 3 and 4 of the Convention.
III. Application of Article 41 of the Convention
> 1 2 3 ... 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
