eir observations the Government provided several certificates issued by the director of IZ-61/1 on 7 November 2008 and statements by prison wardens (although not dated). They also submitted documents attesting to the destruction of registration logs in respect of the cells in IZ-61/1 (журналы покамерного размещения) for the years 2001 - 2003 following the expiry of the three-year time-limit for storing them.
(b) The applicant's account
32. The applicant claimed that the number of detainees exceeded the design capacity of the cells by three to five times and that the detainees had to sleep in shifts.
33. Most cells where the applicant was detained were equipped with a small window. Access to daylight was restricted by metal screens and the arrangement of the bunks in two or three tiers.
34. The electric lighting was too dim to enable the inmates to read.
35. The ventilation system did not function most of the time.
36. The bedding was hardly ever changed; no tableware, toilet paper or personal hygiene items were provided to the applicant.
37. The food was scarce and of poor quality. It was always poorly presented.
38. The exercise yards were unequipped and too small to accommodate all the detainees properly.
39. In support of his statements the applicant produced written depositions by four former cellmates who had been detained with him in different cells between 2001 and 2005. In particular, Mr B. stated that he had been detained with the applicant in cell No. 90. The population of the cell had exceeded its design capacity by three to five times. Mr G. stated that he had been detained with the applicant in cell No. 109, which accommodated from 22 to 46 detainees at any one time. Mr F. stated that he had been detained with the applicant in cell No. 109 in a later period. The cell used to accommodate up to 105 detainees. Finally, Mr V. submitted that he had been detained with the applicant in cell No. 114, which accommodated from 25 to 40 detainees. All of the above-mentioned witnesses testified that they and the other detainees had slept in shifts. They further testified to the appalling sanitary conditions in the cells, poor access to daylight, inadequate electric lighting, absence of natural ventilation and malfunctioning of the artificial ventilation system. The applicant further submitted a photograph of cell No. 114, taken on an unspecified date in 2004, in support of the above-mentioned statements.
2. Conditions of confinement in the courthouse
(a) The Government's account
40. The Government submitted that the detention unit (конвойное помещение) of the Rostov Regional Court is situated in the semi-basement of the premises. It has eight individual cells measuring 1 - 1.5 square metres and three collective cells measuring six, ten and twelve square metres and designed for two, six and eight detainees respectively. The detention unit is equipped with two lavatory pans and wash stands (one for detainees and one for those escorting them). All cells are equipped with benches, artificial ventilation and central heating. The cells are illuminated with filament lamps. The detainees are provided with dry rations (сухой паек) when taken to the courthouse. They receive hot food in accordance with the schedule before their departure from, and after their return to, the detention facility.
41. The Government supported their submissions with the results of an inspection of the technical equipment of the premises of the Rostov Regional Court of 21 March 2008, a certificate issued by the director of IZ-61/1 on 7 November 2008, the results of an inspection of the detention unit of the Rostov Regional Court of 12 November 2008 and recent photographs of the inspected premises (photocopies).
(b) The applicant's account
42. The applicant submitted that betwe
> 1 ... 2 3 4 5 ... 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
