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

br /> 162. The Court also takes note of the applicant's argument that the cells were infested with cockroaches and that the prison authorities made no attempts to exterminate them. It considers this allegation to be reliable, given that the applicant raised a complaint to that end in her letter of 24 April 2000 to a regional prosecutor and was advised to address her complaints concerning sanitary conditions of the cells to the prison authorities (see paragraphs 92 and 93 above). The Government's assertion that the cells were regularly disinfected, on the contrary, was not supported by any documentation pertaining to the relevant period. The sanitary conditions in the cells where the applicant was held cannot therefore be considered satisfactory.
163. Moreover, when in custody, the applicant often suffered from various health problems, as is clear from her medical file. The Court would not exclude in this connection that the aforementioned aspects of the applicant's detention may have had a deleterious impact on her health, even though the inadequacy of the medical assistance in detention alleged by the applicant does not appear to raise, as such, any issue in the circumstances of the present case - a copy of the applicant's medical file submitted by the Government reveals that she received medical attention in respect of each of her health complaints and was also given an opportunity to be examined by independent doctors (see, by contrast, Ostrovar v. Moldova, No. 35207/03, § 86, 13 September 2005).
164. The Court has consistently stressed that, in accordance with Article 3 of the Convention, the State must ensure that a person is detained under conditions which are compatible with respect for his human dignity and that the manner and method of the execution of the measure do not subject him to distress or hardship exceeding the unavoidable level of suffering inherent in detention (see {Kudla} v. Poland [GC], No. 30210/96, §§ 92 - 94, ECHR 2000-XI). When assessing conditions of detention, account has to be taken of the cumulative effects of those conditions and the duration of the detention (see Dougoz v. Greece, No. 40907/98, § 46, ECHR 2001-II and Kalashnikov, cited above, § 102).
165. In the light of these principles, and having regard to the cumulative effects of the conditions in the cell, the exposure to cigarette smoke for a period of at least two months, the time spent in detention and the specific impact which these conditions could have had on the applicant's health, the Court considers there is no need for it to establish the truthfulness or otherwise of the parties' allegations concerning other aspects of the applicant's detention, as all the factors listed above are sufficient to enable the Court to conclude that the applicant's distress must have been of an intensity exceeding the unavoidable level of suffering inherent in detention, and must have aroused in her feelings of fear, anguish and inferiority capable of humiliating and debasing her.
166. The Court there finds that the conditions of the applicant's detention in the Yuzhno-Sakhalinsk IZ-62/1 remand centre amounted to a degrading treatment. There has accordingly been a violation of Article 3 of the Convention on that account.

3. Conditions of the applicant's transportation

167. The applicant also complained under Article 3 of the Convention that the conditions of transportation between the remand centre and the court-house had been inhuman and degrading.
168. The applicant submitted no evidence that she raised her relevant complaint before the domestic authorities. Assuming that no effective remedies were available to her at the domestic level (see Moiseyev (dec.), cited above), the Court observes that the proceedings in the applicant's case which necessitated her transportation to and from the courthouse e



> 1 2 3 ... 17 18 19 ... 24 25 26

	Поделиться:	Tweet