61/1 of Rostov-on-Don complied with the requirements of domestic penitentiary law and fell far short of "inhuman treatment" as developed in the Convention case-law. So did the conditions of the applicant's confinement at the courthouse.
77. The applicant challenged the Government's descriptions of the conditions of his detention and confinement at the courthouse as factually inaccurate.
B. The Court's assessment
1. Admissibility
78. The Court observes that the applicant was held in detention facility IZ-61/1 of Rostov-on-Don during two periods: from 25 May to 8 December 2001, and from 11 February 2002 to 23 April 2005. As regards the first period, the applicant's complaint was introduced outside the six-month time-limit and must be dismissed pursuant to Article 35 §§ 1 and 4 of the Convention.
79. As regards the remaining period, the Court observes that the Government raised an objection of non-exhaustion of domestic remedies by the applicant. The Court considers that the issue of exhaustion of domestic remedies is closely linked to the merits of the applicant's complaint that he did not have at his disposal an effective remedy for complaining about the inhuman and degrading conditions of his detention. Thus, the Court finds it necessary to join the Government's objection to the merits of the applicant's complaint under Article 13 of the Convention.
80. The Court further notes that the applicant's complaints under Articles 3 and 13 of the Convention in so far as they relate to the period from 11 February 2002 to 23 April 2005 are not manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 of the Convention and that they are not inadmissible on any other grounds. They must therefore be declared admissible.
2. Merits
(a) Article 13 of the Convention
81. The Court points out that Article 13 of the Convention guarantees the availability at national level of a remedy to enforce the substance of Convention rights and freedoms in whatever form they might happen to be secured in the domestic legal order. The effect of Article 13 is thus to require the provision of a domestic remedy to deal with the substance of an "arguable complaint" under the Convention and to grant appropriate relief (see, among many other authorities, {Kudla} v. Poland [GC], No. 30210/96, § 157, ECHR 2000-XI). The scope of the obligation under Article 13 varies depending on the nature of the applicant's complaint under the Convention. Nevertheless, the remedy required by Article 13 must be effective in practice as well as in law.
82. The Court reiterates that it has already found a violation of Article 13 on account of the absence of an effective remedy for inhuman and degrading conditions of detention, finding as follows (see Benediktov v. Russia, No. 106/02, § 29, 10 May 2007, and Vlasov v. Russia, No. 78146/01, § 87, 12 June 2008):
"[T]he Government did not demonstrate what redress could have been afforded to the applicant by a prosecutor, a court or other State agencies, taking into account that the problems arising from the conditions of the applicant's detention were apparently of a structural nature and did not only concern the applicant's personal situation (cf. Moiseyev v. Russia (dec.), No. 62936/00, 9 December 2004; Kalashnikov v. Russia (dec.), No. 47095/99, 18 September 2001; and, most recently, Mamedova v. Russia, No. 7064/05, § 57, 1 June 2006). The Government have failed to submit evidence as to the existence of any domestic remedy by which the applicant could have complained about the general conditions of his detention, in particular with regard to the structural problem of overcrowding in Russian detention facilities, or that the remedies available to him were effective, that is to say that they could have prevented violation
> 1 2 3 ... 9 10 11 ... 22 23 24
Zaki.ru законы и право
поиск по сайту
каталог документов
добавить сайт Zaki.ru в избранное
Правовые акты международные
Правовые акты Российской Федерации
