n certain instances the respondent Government alone have access to information capable of corroborating or refuting the applicant's allegations under Article 3 of the Convention and that a failure on the Government's part 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 Ahmet {Ozkan} and Others v. Turkey, No. 21689/93, § 426, 6 April 2004). Accordingly, the Court will examine the issue concerning the alleged overcrowding of the cells on the basis of the applicant's submissions.
41. The Court accepts the applicant's statement that the cells in the remand prison where he was detained pending trial were constantly overcrowded. The space they afforded did not exceed 1.42 sq. m per person. On certain occasions it was as low as 0.7 sq. m. Besides, the number of sleeping places was insufficient and the inmates had to take turns to sleep. The applicant spent approximately two years and two months in such conditions.
42. 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, No. 106/02, § 37, 10 May 2007).
43. 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, Belevitskiy v. Russia, No. 72967/01, §§ 75 et seq., 1 March 2007; 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).
44. Having regard to its case-law on the subject and the materials in its possession, 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.
45. There has therefore been a violation of Article 3 of the Convention on account of the conditions of the applicant's detention in remand prison No. IZ-77/3 in Moscow between 17 August 2001 and October 2003, which it considers were inhuman and degrading within the meaning of this provision.
46. In view of the above finding, the Court does not consider it necessary to examine the remainder of the parties' submissions concerning other aspects of the conditions of the applicant's detention in remand prison No. 77/3 in Moscow.
II. Other alleged violations of the Convention
47. Lastly, the applicant complained under Article 3 of the Convention about the conditions of his detention in Lefortovo remand prison; under Article 5 § 3 of the Convention that his pre-trial detention had been unreasonably long; under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention about the length of the criminal proceedings against him; under Article 6 § 2 of the Convention that numerous publications and television programmes had portrayed him as an accessory to murder before he had been convicted; under Article 6 § 3 (c) of the Convention that he had been unable to prepare his defence due to the inhuman conditions of his pre-trial detention; and under Article 8 of the Convention that one of the television channels had showed a documentary about the case and that the court had admitted as evidence and watched a videotape featuring scenes from his private life.
48. However, having regard to all the material in its possession, and in so far as these complaints fall within its competence ratione temporis, the Court finds that there i
> 1 2 3 ... 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
