Постановление Европейского суда по правам человека от 01.04.2010 «Дело Гултяева (Gultyayeva) против России» [англ.]

f all that in respect of the windows in the cells, their size was not specifically disputed by the parties and they do not appear in themselves to be too small (see paragraphs 79 and 80 above). However, and even assuming that, contrary to the applicant's assertion, none of the windows had ever been covered with plywood, as stated by the Government, the materials in the Court's possession, and namely the photographs of the cells submitted by the Government reveal that the windows were covered with metal grilles. Moreover, the Government conceded that the shutters which supplemented the grilles remained in place throughout the entire period of the applicant's detention, and were only removed in the period from January to March 2003, that is after the applicant's release (see paragraph 80 above). The Court has strong doubts that such arrangement enabled adequate penetration of natural light. In this respect the Court notes that the entries in the applicant's medical file reveal upon her arrival on 29 March 2000 at the IZ-62/1 she was found to be fit (see paragraph 102 above), whereas several weeks later, on 12 May 2000, she was diagnosed with slight myopia (see paragraph 109 above). The Court also attaches weight to the fact that in her complaint of 17 May 2000 the applicant stated that she was being detained in a poorly lit cell and that her sight was deteriorating (see paragraph 94 above). Overall, the Court is not convinced that the arrangements in the cells where the applicant was detained were sufficient to give the applicant adequate access to daylight.
160. Furthermore, the Court is sceptical about the Government's submission that the cells were properly ventilated. It notes that in her complaints to the head of the IZ-62/1 dated 3 August 2000 the applicant mentioned that her cell was never ventilated (see paragraph 97 above). The Government, for their part, did not produce any reliable evidence confirming their allegation that the cells were equipped with mechanical ventilation and that the alleged presence of a vent in each window ensured proper natural ventilation of the cells. In the latter respect the Court retains certain doubts that a small window vent could have ensured adequate natural ventilation of the cells, given that, as was established above, the windows were at all times covered with grilles and shutters. It therefore appears that the applicant was kept in cells which were either poorly ventilated or not ventilated at all. In addition, at least during the first two months of her detention the applicant, a non-smoker, had to share a cell with several smokers (see paragraphs 81, 92 and 94 above), which, in the Court's opinion, could have caused her considerable distress in the absence of adequate ventilation.
161. The applicant further alleged that during the winter the temperature in the cells where she was kept did not exceed 12 °C, whereas the Government insisted that the cells were heated and the average temperature was maintained at the level of 20 - 22 °C. They referred to a report of a regional authority for hygiene and epidemiology reflecting the results of measurement on 17 August 2007 of temperature and humidity level in cells Nos. 49, 020 and 54 of the IZ-62/1 (see paragraph 81 above). The Court cannot accept that the report has any evidentiary value, given that it concerns the results of a measurement carried out during the summer period several years after the relevant events. On the other hand, it observes that, according to the entries in the applicant's medical file, throughout her detention in the IZ-62/1 during the winter period she often suffered from various respiratory ailments (see paragraphs 124 and 126 - 130 above). In the Court's opinion, this fact suggests that the applicant's allegation concerning low temperature in her cells in the winter period are not devoid of foundation, it therefore accepts this allegation.<

> 1 2 3 ... 16 17 18 ... 24 25 26

0.1436 с