a different conclusion in the present case.
98. There has therefore been a violation of Article 3 of the Convention on account of the conditions of the applicant's detention in facility IZ-61/1 in Rostov-on-Don in the period from 11 February 2002 to 23 April 2005, which the Court considers to be inhuman and degrading within the meaning of Article 3 of the Convention.
(ii) Conditions of the applicant's confinement at the Rostov Regional Court
99. The Court observes that the essence of the applicant's complaint concerned the conditions of his confinement in the detention unit of the courthouse and the fact that he did not receive food while detained there.
100. The Court has previously found a violation of Article 3 of the Convention in many Russian cases on account of applicants' confinement in cramped conditions in detention units of courthouses and lack of proper nutrition on the days of the hearings (see, among many other authorities, Starokadomskiy v. Russia, No. 42239/02, §§ 53 - 60, 31 July 2008; Salmanov v. Russia, No. 3522/04, §§ 60 - 65, 31 July 2008; Vlasov v. Russia, No. 78146/01, §§ 92 - 99, 12 June 2008; and, more recently, Denisenko and Bogdanchikov v. Russia, No. 3811/02, §§ 106 - 10, 12 February 2009).
101. Turning to the circumstances of the present case, the Court notes that the applicant furnished no detailed information as to the specific cell(s) where he had been detained at the Rostov Regional Court, the number of persons detained there simultaneously with him and the average duration of the confinement on each occasion. The Court further notes that he made no allegation of overcrowding in the cells in the detention unit.
102. In so far as the applicant's allegations concern the alleged inadequacy of the physical conditions in the cells of the detention unit of the Rostov Regional Court, including insufficient lighting, ventilation and heating, as well as the absence of lavatories and wash stands (see paragraph 44 above), the Court observes that they are rather generic and not corroborated by relevant details. On the other hand, the Government's submissions to this effect show that the detention unit was equipped with two lavatory pans and wash stands and that all cells were equipped with benches, artificial ventilation and central heating and illuminated with filament lamps (see paragraphs 40 - 41 above).
103. As regards the applicant's contention that he was not provided with food at the courthouse, the Court notes that, according to the certificate issued by the director of IZ-61/1 of Rostov-on-Don dated 7 November 2008, on the days he was taken to the court the applicant had been given dry rations. The Government submitted that the applicant could have breakfast before his departure from the detention facility and have dinner after his return from the courthouse. The applicant did not contest the Government's assertion to this effect (see Bagel v. Russia, No. 37810/03, §§ 67 - 71, 15 November 2007, and Nakhmanovich v. Russia (dec.), No. 55669/00, 28 October 2004).
104. Having regard to the foregoing considerations, the Court is unable to establish "beyond reasonable doubt", which is the standard of proof applied by the Court in respect of complaints about inhuman and degrading treatment, that the applicant's confinement at the Rostov Regional Court attained a minimum level of severity sufficient to bring the complaint within the scope of Article 3 of the Convention.
105. Accordingly, there has been no violation of Article 3 of the Convention on account of the applicant's conditions of confinement in the detention unit of the Rostov Regional Court.
II. Alleged violation of Article 5 § 1 of the Convention
106. The applicant complained under Article 5 § 1 (c) of the Convention that his detention on remand had not been lawful.
> 1 2 3 ... 12 13 14 ... 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
