Постановление Европейского суда по правам человека от 17.06.2010 «Дело Губин (Gubin) против России» [англ.]

2. Merits

(a) Article 13 of the Convention
47. The Court points out that Article 13 of the Convention guarantees the availability at national level of a remedy to enforce the substance of Convention rights and freedoms in whatever form they may happen to be secured in the domestic legal order. The effect of Article 13 is thus to require the provision of a domestic remedy to deal with the substance of an "arguable complaint" under the Convention and to grant appropriate relief (see, among many other authorities, {Kudla} v. Poland [GC], No. 30210/96, § 157, ECHR 2000-XI).
48. The scope of the obligation under Article 13 varies depending on the nature of the applicant's complaint under the Convention. Nevertheless, the remedy required by Article 13 must be effective in practice as well as in law.
49. As regards the Government's contention that the applicant could have obtained redress for the allegedly inhuman and degrading conditions of his detention by means of an application to a prosecutor or a court, the Court observes that it has previously found that the possibility of making such an application cannot be regarded as an effective domestic remedy (see, for example, Benediktov v. Russia, No. 106/02, §§ 27 - 30, 10 May 2007). Having regard to the material submitted by the Government, the Court notes that they have not put forward any fact or argument capable of persuading it to reach a different conclusion in the present case.
50. 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 enabling the applicant to complain about the general conditions of his detention.
(b) Article 3 of the Convention
51. The Court reiterates that Article 3 enshrines one of the fundamental values of a democratic society. The Convention prohibits torture or inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment in absolute terms, irrespective of the circumstances or the victim's behaviour (see, among other authorities, Labita v. Italy [GC], No. 26772/95, § 119, ECHR 2000-IV). The Court has consistently stressed that in order for a punishment or treatment associated with it to be "inhuman" or "degrading", the suffering and humiliation involved must in any event go beyond the inevitable element of suffering or humiliation connected with a given form of legitimate treatment or punishment. Although measures depriving a person of his liberty may often involve such an element, under Article 3 of the Convention the State must ensure that a person is detained under conditions which are compatible with respect for his human dignity and that the manner and method of the execution of the measure do not subject him to distress or hardship exceeding the unavoidable level of suffering inherent in detention (see {Kudla} v. Poland, cited above, §§ 92 - 94).
52. Turning to the facts of the instant case, the Court notes that the parties disagreed as to most aspects of the conditions of the applicant's detention. However, there is no need for the Court to establish the veracity of each and every allegation, because it can find a violation of Article 3 on the basis of the facts presented to it by the applicant which the respondent Government failed to refute (see Grigoryevskikh v. Russia, No. 22/03, § 55, 9 April 2009).
53. In particular, the Court observes that the Government did not provide any information as to the surface area of the cell where the applicant had been detained. Nor did they dispute the data submitted by the applicant on the issue.
54. As regards the applicant's argument that the cell had been overcrowded at all times and that, while it was equipped with eight sleeping places, the number of inmates held in it was twice



> 1 2 3 ... 5 6 7 ... 9 10 11

	Поделиться:	Tweet