nmates diagnosed with tuberculosis was established following an NGO's complaint on behalf of a Mr B. In the Khabarovsk Region the administration of the prison where Mssrs Sh. and Z. were detained renovated the shower and laundry rooms, upgraded the ventilation system in the disciplinary block and set up an area for medical consultations. Alternatively, in the Government's opinion, the applicant could have brought a civil action for damages resulting from the conditions of his detention. The Government cited three cases in this connection. The Yoshkar-Ola Town Court in the Mariy El Republic granted a Mr S.'s action for compensation for non-pecuniary damage resulting from a violation of his rights set forth in Article 3 of the Convention on account of the appalling conditions of his detention in a remand prison. A Mr D. had been awarded 25,000 Russian roubles (RUB) in compensation for non-pecuniary damage arising from the unsatisfactory conditions of his pre-trial detention. On 23 April 2004 the Zheleznodorozhniy District Court of Oryol found that a Mr R.'s pre-trial detention had been unlawful that he had not received food for five days of his detention. The court awarded Mr R. RUB 30,000.
29. The applicant contested that argument. He submitted that the information provided by the Government was insufficient to substantiate their allegations that an effective remedy in fact existed in respect of the complaint about the conditions of his detention in 2001 - 2003.
2. The Court's assessment
30. In so far as the applicant's complaint concerns his confinement at the courthouse during the trial which ended on 18 July 2001, the Court reiterates that it may only deal with a matter within a period of six months from the date on which the final decision was taken or the event occurred. The applicant lodged his application on 10 March 2004. It follows that this complaint has been lodged out of time and must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 §§ 1 and 4 of the Convention.
31. As regards the Government's objection concerning the applicant's alleged failure to exhaust domestic remedies in respect of his complaint about the conditions of his detention in remand prison No. IZ-77/3, the Court observes that in the case of Benediktov, in comparable circumstances, it found that the Government had failed to demonstrate what redress could have been afforded to the applicant by a prosecutor or a court, taking into account that the problems arising from the conditions of the applicant's detention had apparently been of a structural nature and had not concerned the applicant's personal situation alone (see Benediktov v. Russia No. 106/02, §§ 29 - 30, 10 May 2007).
32. The Court also notes that the Government have already raised the issue of non-exhaustion, referring to the same domestic case-law in a number of Russian cases concerning conditions of detention in Russia. The Court has examined and dismissed them, finding the said remedies ineffective (see, for example, Aleksandr Makarov v. Russia, No. 15217/07, §§ 76 - 91, 12 March 2009). The Court discerns nothing in the Government's submissions which would persuade it to depart from its earlier finding. It follows that the applicant was not required to exhaust the domestic remedies, indicated by the Government, and the Government's objection must be dismissed.
33. The Court further notes that this complaint is not manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 of the Convention and that it is not inadmissible on any other grounds. It must therefore be declared admissible.
B. Merits
1. Submissions by the parties
34. Relying on the certificates issued by the remand prison administration in August and September 2008, the Government submitted that the conditions of the applicant's
> 1 ... 2 3 4 5 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
