sures are required, they should never involve depriving the prisoners concerned of natural light and fresh air. The latter are basic elements of life which every prisoner is entitled to enjoy..."
THE LAW
I. Alleged violation of Article 3 of the Convention
63. Under Article 3 of the Convention the applicant complained that the conditions of his detention in SIZO No. 4 in St Petersburg and SIZO No. 3 between April 2000 and March 2002 in Moscow had been deplorable. Article 3 provides as follows:
"No one shall be subjected to torture or to inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment."
A. Submissions of the parties
64. The Government submitted that the applicant had failed to exhaust available domestic remedies. According to them, he could have applied to the domestic courts with claims for compensation in respect of any non-pecuniary damage allegedly resulting from the conditions of his detention. The Government also considered that the conditions of detention in the prisons concerned had not been incompatible with Article 3 of the Convention.
65. The applicant disagreed and maintained his complaints. He argued that the data and figures provided by the Government were inaccurate.
B. The Court's assessment
1. Admissibility
66. In as much as the Government claim that the applicant has not complied with the rule on exhaustion of domestic remedies, the Court finds that the Government have not specified with sufficient clarity the type of action which would have been an effective remedy in their view, nor have they provided any further information as to how such action could have prevented the alleged violation or its continuation or provided the applicant with adequate redress. Even if the applicant, who at the relevant time was still in detention pending trial, had been successful, it is unclear how the claim for damages could have afforded him immediate and effective redress. In the absence of such evidence and having regard to the above-mentioned principles, the Court finds that the Government have not substantiated their claim that the remedy or remedies the applicant allegedly failed to exhaust were effective ones (see, among other authorities, Kranz v. Poland, No. 6214/02, § 23, 17 February 2004, and Skawinska v. Poland (dec.), No. 42096/98, 4 March 2003). For the above reasons, the Court finds that this part of the application cannot be rejected for non-exhaustion of domestic remedies (see also Popov v. Russia, No. 26853/04, §§ 204 - 06, 13 July 2006; Mamedova v. Russia, No. 7064/05, §§ 55 - 58, 1 June 2006; and Kalashnikov v. Russia (dec.), No. 47095/99, ECHR 2001-XI (extracts)).
67. The Court accepts the accuracy of the dates of the applicant's detention, as submitted by the Government, and notes the essentially continuous character of the applicant's detention from 20 April 2000 to 13 March 2002 in SIZO No. 3 and SIZO No. 4, interrupted by prison transfers only on two occasions, in September 2001 and in January 2002, for the overall period of mere three days. It further notes that his grievances about the mentioned detention facilities all concern the same problem of overcrowding and the general lack of living space. In view of this, the Court finds that the mentioned period of time should be regarded as a "continuing situation" for the purposes of calculation of the six-month time-limit. It thus finds that the applicant lodged his complaints about the conditions of detention in SIZO No. 3 and SIZO No. 4 in good time.
68. In the light of the parties' submissions, the Court finds that the applicant's complaints raise serious issues of fact and law under the Convention, the determination of which requires an examination of the merits. The Court concludes that these complaints are not manifestly il
> 1 2 3 ... 7 8 9 10 ... 11 12
Zaki.ru законы и право
поиск по сайту
каталог документов
добавить сайт Zaki.ru в избранное
Правовые акты международные
Правовые акты Российской Федерации
