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

t each cell was illuminated with a bulb of 75- up to 100-watt in the day and with a 25-watt bulb in the night.
81. According to the applicant, she was the only non-smoker in the cells where all the other detainees smoked. There was no mechanical ventilation in any of the cells. The cells were damp, with concrete floors. In the winter the temperature in the cells did not exceed 12 °C whilst in the summer it was stiflingly hot inside and the temperature reached 24 - 26 °C. In the Government's submission, each cell was equipped with mechanical ventilation and the average temperature was maintained at the level of 20 - 22 °C with a humidity level of 55.3 per cent. They relied on a report reflecting the results of measurement on 17 August 2007 of temperature and humidity level in cells Nos. 49, 020 and 54 of the IZ-65/1. The report was drawn up by a regional authority for hygiene and epidemiology and indicated that the temperature in the cells ranged between 23.5 and 23.9 °C with the humidity level ranging between 54.4 and 58.4 per cent. The Government accepted that at least for some time the applicant had had to share a cell with smokers, but insisted that she had not endured severe suffering in this connection, given that a cell had been 3 metres high and had had natural and mechanical ventilation. They also submitted that on 29 May 2000, at the applicant's request, she had been transferred to cell No. 020, where she was held alone, and a month later she was transferred to cell No. 54, which she shared with a non-smoker.
82. It was not in dispute between the parties that each cell was equipped with a sink and a lavatory pan, that cold running water was available around the clock and that the detainees were also regularly provided with drinking water. The Government also submitted that detainees were provided daily with hot water for hygienic purposes. As regards the toilet, the applicant submitted that it had had no flush system and the inmates washed it with water from a bucket. The Government stated that the toilet in cells Nos. 49, 020 and 54 had a flush system which filled with water run from a tap. The applicant also submitted that during the period of her detention in cell No. 54 the toilet was not disinfected even once.
83. According to the applicant, the lavatory pan was separated by a partition from the sink but not from the living area and dining table. The detainees' attempts to separate the toilet from them with curtains made of sheets were suppressed by the prison authorities. In the Government's submission, the sanitary installations were separated from the living area with a partition which was one metre high and offered privacy. The photographs show that the lavatory pan is separated from the living area by a thick partition and that in cells Nos. 49 and 54 there is also a curtain in front of the pan.
84. According to the applicant, the cells were overrun with cockroaches, mice and rats. The Government stated that all the cells were disinfected twice a month during the summer period and once a month in the winter.
85. The parties did not dispute the fact that throughout the period of the applicant's detention in the IZ-62/1 she had had a personal sleeping place. According to the applicant, she was provided with a mattress, although it was of poor quality, and was allowed to take her own warm blanket, pillow and bed linen. The Government insisted that the prison authorities had provided the applicant with bedding, including a mattress, a pillow, a semi-woollen blanket, three sheets, two pillowcases and a towel, and that she had signed for these in a register of provision of detainees with bedding. They did not submit the document relied on. A certificate of 21 August 2007 indicates that the relevant documentation cannot be provided, since the time-limit for its storage does not exceed five years. According to the Government, the bed linen wa

> 1 2 3 ... 7 8 9 ... 24 25 26

0.151 с