that his weight gain was the result of the extremely cramped conditions of his detention, in which lack of personal space was coupled with lack of physical exercise and low-quality high-calorie food.
B. The Court's assessment
1. Admissibility
62. The Court notes from the outset that even though the applicant has been detained in two different detention facilities, it will nevertheless examine the issue of the conditions of the applicant's detention from 14 October 1999 to 3 April 2004, without dividing it into separate periods, given the continuous nature of the alleged violation, the identical description of the general conditions of the detention and the allegation of severe overcrowding as the main characteristic of conditions in the both detention facilities (see Guliyev v. Russia, No. 24650/02, §§ 31 - 33, 19 June 2008; Buzhinayev v. Russia, No. 17679/03, § 23, 15 October 2009; and, most recently, Nazarov v. Russia, No. 13591/05, § 78, 26 November 2009).
63. 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.
2. Merits
64. The Court observes that the parties have disputed certain aspects of the conditions of the applicant's detention in facilities Nos. IZ-47/1 and IZ-47/4 in St Petersburg. However, there is no need for the Court to establish the veracity of each and every allegation, because it finds a violation of Article 3 on the basis of the facts which have been presented to it and which the respondent Government have failed to refute.
65. The focal point for the Court's assessment is the living space afforded to the applicant in the detention facilities. The main characteristic which the parties did agree upon in principle was the size of the cells in which the applicant had been detained. The applicant, supporting his account with the inmates' written statements, claimed that the number of detainees in the cells had considerably exceeded their design capacity. The Government disagreed.
66. The Court notes that the Government, citing destruction of the relevant documents, were unable to indicate the exact number of inmates detained together with the applicant. However, relying on certificates issued by the directors of the two detention facilities more than six and three years respectively after the applicant's detention in those facilities had come to an end, the Government submitted that the applicant had an individual sleeping place at all times. In this connection the Court notes that on several previous occasions when the Government have failed to submit original records the Court has held that documents prepared after a considerable period of time cannot be viewed as sufficiently reliable, given the length of time that has elapsed (see, among recent authorities, Novinskiy v. Russia, No. 11982/02, § 105, 10 February 2009, and Shilbergs v. Russia, No. 20075/03, § 91, 7 December 2009). The Court is of the view that these considerations hold true in the present case. The certificates prepared by the Russian authorities more than six and three years respectively after the events in question cannot be regarded as sufficiently reliable sources of data. The Court is therefore not convinced by the Government's submission.
67. In this connection the Court reiterates that Convention proceedings, such as those arising from the present application, do not in all cases lend themselves to a rigorous application of the principle affirmanti incumbit probatio (he who alleges something must prove that allegation), as in certain instances the respondent Government alone have access to information capable of corroborating or refuting allegations. A failure on a Government's part t
> 1 2 3 ... 9 10 11 ... 16 17 18
Zaki.ru законы и право
поиск по сайту
каталог документов
добавить сайт Zaki.ru в избранное
Правовые акты международные
Правовые акты Российской Федерации
