n relation to the alleged threats on 31 October 2000. On 29 March 2002 the Leninskiy District Court of Ivanovo discontinued the proceedings because the town prosecutor had never been asked to deal with the applicant's complaint. The court also held that the prosecutor's office had carried out inquiries but found no evidence of the alleged ill-treatment. Moreover, the District Court referred to the fact that the Regional Court had dealt with this issue at the applicant's trial and also found no evidence of the alleged ill-treatment. On 30 April 2002 the Regional Court upheld the decision of 29 March 2002, considering that only formal decisions were amenable to judicial review. In separate proceedings, the applicant complained about unlawful actions against him on 31 October 2000. On 15 May 2002 the Regional Court took the final decision to discontinue the case because there was no formal decision amenable to review. On 18 April 2003 the applicant again complained to a court about the alleged ill-treatment by the police and the inaction of the regional prosecutor's office. On 19 June 2003 the Regional Court took the final decision to discontinue the case.
C. Conditions of detention in the Moscow remand centre
35. From 31 October to 3 November 2000 the applicant was kept in a temporary detention centre in Ivanovo. It appears that from 3 November 2000 to 14 May 2002 he was detained in Ivanovo remand centre No. 1. The applicant was kept in Moscow remand centre No. 77/3 from 14 May to 2 August 2002 in relation to the appeal proceedings in his criminal case.
1. The applicant's account
36. The applicant submitted that on 4 June 2002 he had spent six hours in a small cell in the remand centre with fifteen other persons. The cell had been overheated and had no ventilation. While the temperature outside on 4 June 2002 had exceeded 30 °C, the temperature in the cell had reached over 50 °C. He had not been given water for six hours and had not been allowed to use the toilet.
37. The applicant subsequently submitted that the cell measured 18.6 square metres and that he had been detained with up to twenty other persons.
2. The Government's account
38. According to the Government, on 4 June 2002 the applicant had been placed in an "assembly cell" measuring 18.6 square metres. This cell had no windows, ventilation, sanitary installations or water supply. However, the prison staff allowed the detainees to go to the toilet outside the cell and provided them with drinking water. Air access was ensured by an opening in the cell door.
39. Later on the same day, the applicant had been transferred to cell No. 521 measuring 32.7 square metres for the purpose of participating in the appeal hearing before the Supreme Court by way of a video link. The cell was equipped with a ventilation system, water supply and a sink. Toilet facilities were separated from the main area. Drinking water had been made available to the applicant and the lights had been left on. During the summer period the window panes were removed and detainees were provided with fans. The outside temperature had not exceeded 21.4 °C on that day. The applicant had been provided with bedding and tableware in the remand centre. Detainees were provided with three hot meals a day.
3. The applicant's complaints to national authorities
40. The applicant and certain other detainees complained about the conditions of detention in the Moscow remand centre.
41. According to a letter from the Moscow Prosecutor's Office of 9 March 2004, the conditions of detention in cell No. 521 were acceptable; the outside temperature in Moscow on 4 June 2002 did not exceed + 18 °C, as indicated by the Moscow Weather Centre.
42. According to letters from the Moscow Prosec
> 1 2 ... 3 4 5 6 ... 12 13 14
Zaki.ru законы и право
поиск по сайту
каталог документов
добавить сайт Zaki.ru в избранное
Правовые акты международные
Правовые акты Российской Федерации
