ngs against him and three subsequent months and held that it was open to the applicant's wife to recover legal costs incurred in connection with the applicant's criminal prosecution.
59. The Court further notes that the applicant was able to participate in the proceedings for compensation, personally and through his counsel, and the domestic courts, in two sets of proceedings and at two instances, carefully examined the applicant's situation, took into account his personal characteristics, the intensity of his psychological and physical suffering, the particular circumstances in which the harm had been caused and the evidence submitted by the applicant to that effect. The Court finds that the domestic courts reached reasoned conclusions as to the amount of the compensation and their award does not appear unreasonable or arbitrary even in domestic terms.
60. Further, the Court observes that the court decision of 7 February 2003 awarding the applicant pecuniary damages, as upheld on appeal on 6 May 2003, was fully enforced shortly after it had become final and there is nothing in the case file to suggest that the applicant was unable to obtain enforcement of the judgment of 19 December 2005, as upheld on appeal on 2 March 2006 within a reasonable time after its entry into force.
61. In view of the finding that the applicant's detention and criminal prosecution were unlawful in their entirety, the Court is prepared to accept that as a result of these proceedings the domestic courts explicitly recognised violations of the applicant's rights under Articles 5, 6 and 8 of the Convention.
62. At the same time, the Court is unable to reach the same conclusion in respect of his complaints under Article 3. Despite the applicant's claims in this respect, the domestic courts failed to examine his allegations concerning the conditions of his detention in remand prison IZ 71/1 and there is nothing in their decisions to suggest that they took account of them in assessing the overall amount of compensation to be paid to the applicant in connection with his unlawful prosecution.
63. Thus, the Court finds that the domestic authorities acknowledged, in substance, violations of the applicant's rights under Articles 5, 6 and 8 of the Convention and afforded him appropriate and sufficient redress. The Court thus accepts the Government's argument concerning the loss of the applicant's victim status in respect of these complaints. Accordingly, this part of the application is incompatible ratione personae with the provisions of the Convention and must be rejected pursuant to Article 35, §§ 3 and 4. Accordingly, the Court need not examine the rest of the parties' arguments in respect of this part of the application.
64. The Court rejects the Government's request in respect of the applicant's Article 3 complaints and finds that the applicant may still claim to be a victim within the meaning of Article 34 of the Convention.
II. Alleged violation of Article 3 of the Convention
65. The applicant complained about the conditions of his detention in the Tula IZ-71/1 remand centre. He relied on Article 3 of the Convention, which, in so far as relevant, reads as follows:
Article 3
"No one shall be subjected to torture or to inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment."
A. Admissibility
66. The Government submitted that the applicant had failed to exhaust domestic remedies in so far as he had never complained about the conditions of his detention to a competent domestic authority, such as a local prosecutor's office or the prison administration.
67. The applicant disagreed, having maintained his initial submissions. He specified that he had never complained about conditions of his detention to the prosecutor's office or th
> 1 2 3 ... 10 11 12 13 ... 14 15
Zaki.ru законы и право
поиск по сайту
каталог документов
добавить сайт Zaki.ru в избранное
Правовые акты международные
Правовые акты Российской Федерации
