ant was detained there. Furthermore, the Court cannot accept the statements made by various prison officials (see paragraphs 20, 24, 27, 30, 33, 36, 39, 43, 46, 49 and 52) as sufficiently conclusive, as they lack any reference to original prison records and are apparently based on personal recollections and not on any objective data (see Igor Ivanov v. Russia, No. 34000/02, § 34, 7 June 2007, and Belashev v. Russia, No. 28617/03, § 52, 13 November 2007).
71. The Court has frequently found a violation of Article 3 of the Convention on account of a lack of personal space afforded to detainees (see Khudoyorov v. Russia, No. 6847/02, §§ 104 et seq., ECHR 2005-X (extracts); Labzov v. Russia, No. 62208/00, §§ 44 et seq., 16 June 2005; Novoselov v. Russia, No. 66460/01, §§ 41 et seq., 2 June 2005; Mayzit v. Russia, No. 63378/00, §§ 39 et seq., 20 January 2005; Kalashnikov v. Russia, No. 47095/99, §§ 97 et seq., ECHR 2002-VI; and Peers v. Greece, No. 28524/95, §§ 69 et seq., ECHR 2001-III).
72. Having regard to its case-law on the subject and the material submitted by the parties, the Court notes that the Government have not put forward any fact or argument capable of persuading it to reach a different conclusion in the present case. Although in the present case there is no indication that there was a positive intention to humiliate or debase the applicant, the Court finds that the fact that the applicant had to spend 3 years, 7 months, and 29 days in the overcrowded cells of IZ-49/1 was in itself sufficient to cause distress or hardship of an intensity exceeding the unavoidable level of suffering inherent in detention, and to arouse in him feelings of anguish and inferiority capable of humiliating and debasing him.
73. There has therefore been a violation of Article 3 of the Convention as the Court finds the applicant's detention to have been inhuman and degrading within the meaning of this provision.
II. Other alleged violations of the Convention
74. The applicant further alleged that he had been ill-treated by the other detainees in cell No. 77 in IZ-49/1 (see paragraph 23). The Court notes that this allegation is unsubstantiated, as there is nothing in the case file to support it. As to the applicant's complaint about the legality of his detention on remand, the Court notes that the grievance was brought out of time. The applicant was convicted at first instance on 3 April 2001, whilst he complained about it in his application form of 1 February 2002, which is more than six months later. Lastly, the applicant's complaints about the alleged wiretapping of his telephone (see paragraph 7), the confiscation of his personal property (see paragraph 11) and the alleged interference with his correspondence (see paragraphs 55 and 56) have not been made out and in any event the applicant failed to raise these grievances before the competent domestic authorities, as required by Article 35 § 1 of the Convention. As regards the complaints about the alleged general unfairness of the criminal proceedings against him, having regard to the materials in its possession, the Court finds that they do not disclose any appearance of a violation of the rights and freedoms set out in the Convention or its Protocols.
75. It follows that this part of the application should be rejected pursuant to Article 35 §§ 1 and 4 of the Convention.
III. Application of Article 41 of the Convention
76. Article 41 of the Convention provides:
"If the Court finds that there has been a violation of the Convention or the Protocols thereto, and if the internal law of the High Contracting Party concerned allows only partial reparation to be made, the Court shall, if necessary, afford just satisfaction to the injured party."
A. Damage
77. The applicant asked for compensation for non-pecuniar
> 1 2 3 ... 6 7 8
Zaki.ru законы и право
поиск по сайту
каталог документов
добавить сайт Zaki.ru в избранное
Правовые акты международные
Правовые акты Российской Федерации
