IVS
146. The parties disagreed as to whether the applicant had been held in the IVS. The applicant insisted that she had been kept in this detention facility from 28 February until 29 March 2000, whereas the Government in their observations of 7 September 2007 stated in essence that throughout the entire period of her detention the applicant had been kept in the IZ-62/1 (see paragraphs 71 and 74 above).
147. Assuming that the applicant is correct in her claim that she was kept at the IVS from 28 February until 29 March 2000, the Court observes that she lodged her application on 4 October 2000 which is more than six months later. In the absence of any remedies capable of providing redress in so far as the conditions in Russian detention facilities are concerned (see Kalashnikov v. Russia (dec.), No. 47095/99, 18 September 2001; Moiseyev v. Russia (dec.), No. 62936/00, 9 December 2004; Mamedova v. Russia, No. 7064/05, § 57, 1 June 2006; or Benediktov v. Russia, No. 106/02, § 29, 10 May 2007), a question of the applicant's compliance with the six-month criterion in respect of the period of her detention in the IVS arises.
148. The Court observes that the IVS and the IZ-62/1, where the applicant was subsequently transferred, were situated in different buildings located in different places, the applicant's detention in these facilities ended on clearly identifiable dates and nothing in the applicant's submissions suggests that any relevant characteristics of the conditions in the two facilities were identical or particularly similar. On the contrary, the applicant's description of the conditions of her confinement in the IVS significantly differs in many aspects (such as, for example, the absence of windows and toilet installations in the cells, the absence of bedding and the lack of opportunity to take exercise) from the descriptions of the conditions in the IZ-62/1. The Court therefore can discern no special circumstances which would enable it to construe the applicant's detention in the IVS and her subsequent detention in the IZ-62/1 as a "continuing situation" which could bring the events complained of by the applicant within the Court's competence (see Novinskiy v. Russia (dec.), No. 11982/02, 6 December 2007; Maltabar and Maltabar v. Russia, No. 6954/02, § 83, 29 January 2009 and, by contrast, Igor Ivanov v. Russia, No. 34000/02, § 30, 7 June 2007; Benediktov, cited above, § 31; and Guliyev v. Russia, No. 24650/02, § 33, 19 June 2008).
149. It follows that this complaint was lodged out of time and must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 §§ 1 and 4 of the Convention.
2. Conditions of the applicant's detention in the IZ-62/1
(a) Admissibility
150. The Court notes that this part of 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
151. The Court is faced with the parties' conflicting descriptions of the conditions of the applicant's detention in the IZ-62/1. It reiterates in this connection that in certain instances the respondent Government alone have access to information capable of corroborating or refuting allegations under the Convention and that a failure on the Government's part to 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, in the context of former Article 28 § 1 of the Convention, Ahmet {Ozkan} <*> and Others v. Turkey, No. 21689/93, § 426, 6 April 2004).
--------------------------------
<*> Здесь и далее по тексту слова на национальном языке набраны латинским шрифтом и выделены фигурными скобками.
152. In th
> 1 2 3 ... 13 14 15 ... 24 25 26
Zaki.ru законы и право
поиск по сайту
каталог документов
добавить сайт Zaki.ru в избранное
Правовые акты международные
Правовые акты Российской Федерации
