Главная страницаZaki.ru законы и право Поиск законов поиск по сайту Каталог документов каталог документов Добавить в избранное добавить сайт Zaki.ru в избранное




Постановление Европейского суда по правам человека от 15.07.2010 <Дело Владимир Кривоносов (Vladimir Krivonosov) против России» [англ.]





for their storage, albeit regrettable, cannot in itself be regarded as an unsatisfactory explanation for the failure to submit them (see Novinskiy v. Russia, No. 11982/02, § 102, 10 February 2009). The Court also has to look at the timing of that act as well as other relevant factual circumstances. In particular, regard should be had to whether the authorities appeared to have been acting with due care in this respect (see Novinskiy, cited above, § 102, and Oleg Nikitin v. Russia, No. 36410/02, §§ 48 - 49, 9 October 2008).
90. Turning to the present case, the Court observes that the Government have provided documents attesting to the destruction of registration logs recording the cell population in IZ-61/1 between 2001 and 2003. However, no pertinent information was provided as regards the logbooks for the years 2004 and 2005. In such circumstances, the Court cannot accept that the Government have accounted properly for their failure to submit the original records concerning the number of inmates detained with the applicant.
91. In so far as the Government relied on the certificates issued by the remand prison administration, the Court observes that those documents were prepared more than three and a half years after the time of the applicant's detention in the remand prison. On several previous occasions when the Government have failed to submit original records, the Court has held that documents prepared after a considerable period of time cannot be viewed as sufficiently reliable given the time that has passed (see Novinskiy, cited above, § 105, and, more recently, Bordikov v. Russia, No. 921/03, § 58, 8 October 2009). The Court opines that these considerations hold true in the present case. The certificates prepared by the Russian authorities more than three and a half years after the events in question cannot qualify as sufficiently reliable sources of data.
92. Accordingly, the Court will examine the issue concerning the alleged overcrowding of the cells on the basis of the applicant's submissions.
93. The Court agrees with the applicant that the cells in the remand prison where he was detained pending trial were constantly overcrowded. The space they afforded did not exceed 2 square metres per person. On certain occasions it was as little as 0.5 square metres. Besides, the number of sleeping places was insufficient and the inmates had to take turns to sleep. The applicant spent over three years in such conditions.
94. The Court reiterates that irrespective of the reasons for the overcrowding, it is incumbent on the respondent Government to organise their custodial system in such a way as to ensure respect for the dignity of detainees, regardless of financial or logistical difficulties (see Mamedova, cited above, § 63, and Benediktov, cited above, § 37).
95. The Court has frequently found a violation of Article 3 of the Convention on account of lack of personal space afforded to detainees (see Benediktov, cited above, §§ 33 et seq.; 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; and Kalashnikov v. Russia, No. 47095/99, §§ 97 et seq., ECHR 2002-VI).
96. The Court has also on a number of occasions found a violation of Article 3 of the Convention on account of lack of personal space afforded to detainees in detention facility IZ-61/1 of Rostov-on-Don (see Gubkin v. Russia, No. 36941/02, §§ 92 - 101, 23 April 2009; Bakhmutskiy v. Russia, No. 36932/02, §§ 88 - 97, 25 June 2009; and, most recently, Bordikov, cited above, §§ 55 - 64).
97. Having regard to its case-law on the subject and the material in its possession, the Court notes that the Government have not put forward any fact or argument capable of persuading it to reach



> 1 2 3 ... 11 12 13 ... 22 23 24

Поделиться:

Опубликовать в своем блоге livejournal.com
0.124 с