o 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).
68. Having regard to the principles cited above, together with the fact that the Government did not submit any convincing relevant information, the Court accepts the applicant's argument that the cells in facilities Nos. IZ-47/1 and IZ-47/4 where he had been detained for four and half years were overcrowded. In this connection, the Court also reiterates the Government's admission that even the domestic standard of a minimum of four square metres per detainee (see paragraph 36 above) was not met in the detention facility No. IZ-47/1, given the size of the cells and the number of sleeping places.
69. Irrespective of the reasons for the overcrowding, the Court reiterates that it is incumbent on the respondent Government to organise its penitentiary 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).
70. The Court has frequently found a violation of Article 3 of the Convention on account of lack of personal space afforded to detainees (see Khudoyorov v. Russia, No. 6847/02, §§ 104 et seq., ECHR 2005-... (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). More specifically, the Court reiterates that in a number of cases it has already found a violation of Article 3 on account of detention of applicants in overcrowded conditions in detention facility No. IZ-47/1 (see Andrey Frolov v. Russia, No. 205/02, §§ 3 - 51, 29 March 2007; Gusev v. Russia, No. 67542/01, §§ 51 - 61, 15 May 2008; and Seleznev v. Russia, No. 15591/03, §§ 38 - 48, 26 June 2008).
71. The Court notes that the applicant's situation resulting from insufficient personal space was further exacerbated by the fact that he was not allowed to shower more than once a week during the entire period of his detention. Furthermore, the cells in which the applicant was held had no window in the proper sense of the word. At least until the beginning of 2003 they were covered with a layer of thick bars with so-called "eyelashes". That arrangement cut off fresh air and also significantly reduced the amount of daylight that could penetrate the cells (see, for similar reasoning, Aleksandr Makarov v. Russia, No. 15217/07, § 96, 12 March 2009, and, more recently, Shilbergs, cited above, § 97).
72. The Court observes that in the present case there is no indication that there was a positive intention to humiliate or debase the applicant. However, the Court finds that the fact that the applicant was obliged to live, sleep and use the toilet in the same cell as so many other inmates in these unsatisfactory conditions was 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 fear, anguish and inferiority capable of humiliating and debasing him.
73. The Court finds, accordingly, that there has been a violation of Article 3 of the Convention because the applicant was subjected to inhuman and degrading treatment on account of the conditions of his detention in facilities Nos. IZ-47/1 and 47/4 in St Petersburg from 14 October 1999 to 3 April 2004.
II. Alleged violation of Article 5 § 3 of the Convention
74. The applicant complained that the length of his pre-trial detention was unreasonable, in breach of Article 5 § 3 of the Convent
> 1 2 3 ... 10 11 12 ... 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
