re poor. They provided a relevant statement signed by K., the court-appointed lawyer who had represented the applicant at the time. As regards the postal receipts submitted by the applicant as proof that his complaints about the conditions of his detention had been dispatched to the domestic authorities, the Government noted that those letters had been addressed to the judicial qualifications' board and had nothing to do with the applicant's grievances concerning the conditions of his detention.
17. The applicant submitted that he had complained repeatedly to the prosecutor and the court about the conditions of his detention. However, all his complaints had been to no avail. The district prosecutor had informed him that it had been impossible to transfer him to a remand prison because of a lack of funds or plane tickets. The regional prosecutor and the district court had remitted his complaints to the district prosecutor's office. The regional court had sent the complaint to the district court which, in its turn, remitted it to the district prosecutor. As regards K.'s statement submitted by the Government, the applicant considered it irrelevant. The purpose of the lawyer's visits had been to discuss his client's defence. Moreover, the attempts by the Government to make the lawyer divulge confidential information concerning meetings with his client had been a flagrant breach of attorney-client privilege.
18. The Court notes that the Government have already raised the same arguments in respect of the issue of exhaustion of domestic remedies in a number of cases concerning conditions of detention in Russia. The Court has examined and dismissed them, finding the remedies ineffective (see, for example, Aleksandr Makarov v. Russia, No. 15217/07, §§ 84 - 91, 12 March 2009). The Court discerns nothing in the Government's submissions to depart from its earlier findings. It follows that the Government's objection must be dismissed.
19. The Court notes that the application is not manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 of the Convention. It further notes that it is not inadmissible on any other grounds. It must therefore be declared admissible.
B. Merits
1. The parties' submissions
20. The Government acknowledged that the conditions of the applicant's detention at the temporary detention facility had not been in compliance with the standards set forth in Article 3 of the Convention. The premises had not been suitable for long-term detention. Nor had there been any funds allocated from the federal budget for their reconstruction until 2006. In 2006, as part of ongoing reconstruction work, the temporary detention facility had been equipped with an outdoor exercise area. Meanwhile, a ventilation system, a water supply system and toilets had started to be installed before the applicant had lodged his complaint with the Court.
21. The applicant maintained his complaint and noted that his allegations had been confirmed by the inquiry conducted by the authorities on 7 July 2006. He further contended that the lack of finance could not have justified the appalling conditions in the temporary detention facility. As regards the measures implemented by the authorities to upgrade the temporary detention facility, they had been taken only after he had lodged his complaints with the Court. Lastly, he considered that his detention had amounted to torture and resulted in the deterioration of his health.
2. The Court's assessment
22. Article 3, as the Court has observed on many occasions, enshrines one of the fundamental values of democratic society. The Convention prohibits in absolute terms torture or inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, irrespective of the circumstances or the victim's behaviour (see Balogh v. Hungary, No.
> 1 ... 2 3 4 5 6
Zaki.ru законы и право
поиск по сайту
каталог документов
добавить сайт Zaki.ru в избранное
Правовые акты международные
Правовые акты Российской Федерации
