br />
50. Article 91 of the 1997 Code of Execution of Sentences has provided since December 2003 that a detainee's correspondence with the European Court of Human Rights cannot be opened and inspected.
51. On 30 July 2001 the Ministry of Justice adopted the Internal Prison Regulations. As amended in March 2004, they provided that the incoming and outgoing correspondence of detainees had to be censured by prison staff, except for a detainee's correspondence with a court, prosecutor, a supervising public authority or the European Court of Human Rights. The Internal Regulations were revoked in 2005.
THE LAW
I. Alleged violation of Article 3 of the Convention
52. The applicant complained that the conditions of his detention on 4 June 2002 in the Moscow remand centre had been in breach of Article 3 of the Convention, which reads as follows:
"No one shall be subjected to torture or to inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment."
53. The Government submitted that the applicant had been detained in cell No. 521 in acceptable conditions (see paragraph 39 above). They accepted however that the conditions in another unnumbered cell measuring 18.6 square metres had not been as good (see paragraph 38 above). They also argued that the applicant should have lodged a court action for compensation on account of the conditions of his detention.
54. The applicant maintained his complaint concerning the unnumbered cell.
55. The Court observes at the outset that the applicant's complaint is limited to the conditions of his detention on 4 June 2002, the date of the appeal hearing in his criminal case. Having examined the parties' submissions, the Court does not find it necessary to deal with the exhaustion issue because the complaint is in any event inadmissible.
56. Having regard to the findings made at the time by the national authorities (see paragraph 42 above) and the applicant's own contention, the Court finds it established that he was kept in the unnumbered cell measuring 18.6 square metres. The Government submitted no proof to challenge the applicant's allegation that he had been kept there with at least fifteen other persons. Thus, the Court is inclined to accept the applicant's contention. It is uncontested that this cell had no windows, ventilation, sanitary installations or water supply. Air access was ensured by an opening in the cell door.
57. The Court reiterates, however, that it must be satisfied, on the basis of the materials before it, that the conditions of the applicant's detention constituted treatment which exceeded the minimum threshold for Article 3 of the Convention to apply. Even though the above conditions could potentially raise an issue under Article 3 of the Convention, it is to be observed that the applicant was only kept in such conditions for some hours (see, in a similar context, Seleznev v. Russia, No. 15591/03, § 61, 26 June 2008; see also Fedotov v. Russia, No. 5140/02, §§ 66 - 70, 25 October 2005; Salmanov v. Russia, No. 3522/04, § 63, 31 July 2008; and Moiseyev v. Russia, No. 62936/00, §§ 140 - 143, 9 October 2008).
58. Given the above considerations, the Court concludes that the distress and hardship the applicant may have endured on 4 June 2002 did not attain a minimum level of severity under Article 3 of the Convention (compare Andrei Georgiev v. Bulgaria, No. 61507/00, § 61, 26 July 2007).
59. Lastly, the Government indicated that the applicant had also been kept in cell No. 521. However, the applicant raised no grievance in relation to that cell (see paragraph 36 above). In any event, it does not appear that the conditions there were such as to raise an issue under Article 3 of the Convention.
60. It follows that this complaint is manifestly ill-founded and must be rejected in accordance
> 1 2 3 ... 6 7 8 ... 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
