s from occurring or continuing, or that they could have afforded the applicant appropriate redress (see, to the same effect, Melnik v. Ukraine, No. 72286/01, §§ 70 - 71, 28 March 2006; Dvoynykh v. Ukraine, No. 72277/01, § 72, 12 October 2006; and Ostrovar v. Moldova, No. 35207/03, § 112, 13 September 2005)."
83. These findings apply a fortiori to the present case, in which the Government did not point to any domestic remedy by which the applicant could have obtained redress for the allegedly inhuman and degrading conditions of his detention in the remand prison and at the courthouse or put forward any argument as to its efficiency.
84. Accordingly, the Court rejects the Government's argument as to the exhaustion of domestic remedies and concludes that there has been a violation of Article 13 of the Convention on account of the lack of an effective and accessible remedy under domestic law for the applicant to complain about the conditions of his detention.
(b) Article 3 of the Convention
85. The Court reiterates that to be regarded as degrading or inhuman for the purposes of Article 3 of the Convention a given form of treatment must attain a minimum level of severity (see Price v. the United Kingdom, No. 33394/96, § 24, ECHR 2001-VII). When assessing conditions of detention, account must be taken of the cumulative effects of those conditions, as well as the specific allegations made by the applicant (see Dougoz v. Greece, No. 40907/98, § 46, ECHR 2001-II).
(i) Conditions of the applicant's detention in IZ-61/1 of Rostov-on-Don
86. The Court notes that the parties disagreed as to most aspects of the conditions of the applicant's detention in detention facility IZ-61/1. However, there is no need for the Court to establish the truthfulness of each and every allegation, as the case file contains sufficient evidence to confirm the applicant's allegations of severe overcrowding at the detention facility, which is in itself sufficient for finding a violation of his rights set out in Article 3.
87. The Court notes that the applicant challenged the measurements of the cells as provided by the Government and stated that the cells in question had been severely overcrowded throughout the whole period of his stay in IZ-61/1. The applicant submitted, in particular, that the number of detainees had exceeded the design capacity of the cells by several times and that the detainees had had to take turns to rest. The applicant confirmed his account with reference to statements by fellow prisoners who had shared various cells with him throughout his stay in the detention facility (see paragraph 39 above). The Government, relying on certificates issued by the director of IZ-61/1 and information provided by prison wardens (see paragraph 31 above), argued that the design capacity of the cells had not been exceeded. The Government further submitted that the relevant documents indicating the exact number of inmates in the cells had been destroyed after the expiry of the time-limit for storing them (see paragraphs 23 and 31 above).
88. The Court observes that in certain instances the respondent Government alone have access to information capable of firmly corroborating or refuting allegations under Article 3 of the Convention and that 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 {Ozkan} and Others v. Turkey, No. 21689/93, § 426, 6 April 2004). Thus, the first issue to be examined is whether on the basis of the facts of the present case the Government's failure to submit copies of the relevant prison documentation has been properly accounted for.
89. In this connection, the Court would note that the destruction of the relevant documents due to the expiry of the time-limit
> 1 2 3 ... 10 11 12 ... 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
