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

as many, the Court took cognisance of the original data submitted by the Government to refute the applicant's contention. However, the Court notes that the information submitted by the Government is rather scarce. The Government submitted excerpts from the remand prison population register in respect of five days only. No explanation as to how the samples had been chosen was provided. While the Court accepts that on those five days the number of inmates in the cell where the applicant was detained was indeed below the capacity it was designed for and that the cell was not overcrowded, it cannot accept that the Government's contention that there was no overcrowding is sufficiently substantiated in respect of the remaining almost thirteen months the applicant spent in detention. Furthermore, the Court cannot but notice that even the extract from the register showed that on one occasion the number of the inmates detained in the cell exceeded the number of sleeping places available (see paragraph 29 above).
55. The Court further notes that the domestic authorities did in fact concede that the applicant had been detained in an overcrowded cell (see paragraph 38 above). However, the Government offered no comment as to that fact.
56. In connection with the above inconsistencies and the incompleteness of the data submitted by the Government on the issue, the Court reiterates that Convention proceedings such as the present application do not in all cases lend themselves to a rigorous application of the principle affirmanti incumbit probatio (he who alleges something must prove that allegation), as in certain instances the respondent Government alone have access to information capable of corroborating or refuting allegations. A failure on the part of a Government to submit such information without a satisfactory explanation may give rise to the drawing of inferences as to the well-foundedness of the applicant's allegations (see {Timurtas} v. Turkey, No. 23531/94, § 66 in fine, ECHR 2000-VI).
57. Having regard to the above, the Court does not accept that the Government have fully substantiated their argument that the number of the inmates in the cell where the applicant was detained did not exceed the capacity it was designed for and that it had not been overcrowded. Accordingly, the Court agrees with the applicant, the truthfulness of whose allegations were in fact established by the domestic authorities, that the cells in the remand prison where he was detained were overcrowded. At times, as the applicant submitted, the space the cells afforded did not exceed 1 sq. m per person. Moreover, the number of beds was insufficient and the applicant had to take turns with other inmates to sleep. The applicant remained confined in such conditions practically all day for almost thirteen months.
58. The Court observes that the Moscow City Department of Corrections cited renovation work in the remand prison as the cause of the overcrowding in the cell where the applicant was detained (see paragraph 38 above). In this connection, 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 v. Russia, No. 7064/05, § 63, 1 June 2006, and Benediktov v. Russia, cited above, § 37).
59. The Court has frequently found a violation of Article 3 of the Convention on account of the lack of personal space afforded to detainees (see, among other authorities, Kalashnikov v. Russia, No. 47095/99, §§ 97 et seq., ECHR 2002-VI; Khudoyorov v. Russia, No. 6847/02, §§ 104 et seq., ECHR 2005-X; Labzov v. Russia, No. 62208/00, §§ 44 et seq., 16 June 2005; Mayzit v. Russia, No. 63378/00, §§ 39 et seq., 20 January 2005; and Novoselov v. Russia, No. 66460/01, §§ 41 et seq., 2 June 2005).

> 1 2 3 ... 6 7 8 9 ... 10 11

0.0368 с