rdeveloped. In this respect, the CPT reiterates the recommendations made in its previous reports (cf. paragraphs 25 and 30 of the report on the 1998 visit, CPT (99) 26; paragraphs 48 and 50 of the report on the 1999 visit, CPT (2000) 7; paragraph 52 of the report on the 2000 visit, CPT (2001) 2).
...
125. As during previous visits, many prisoners expressed scepticism about the operation of the complaints procedure. In particular, the view was expressed that it was not possible to complain in a confidential manner to an outside authority. In fact, all complaints, regardless of the addressee, were registered by staff in a special book which also contained references to the nature of the complaint. At Colony No 8, the supervising prosecutor indicated that, during his inspections, he was usually accompanied by senior staff members and prisoners would normally not request to meet him in private "because they know that all complaints usually pass through the colony's administration".
In the light of the above, the CPT reiterates its recommendation that the Russian authorities review the application of complaints procedures, with a view to ensuring that they are operating effectively. If necessary, the existing arrangements should be modified in order to guarantee that prisoners can make complaints to outside bodies on a truly confidential basis."
THE LAW
I. Alleged violation of Article 3 of the Convention
on account of the conditions of the applicant's detention in
the detention unit of the Neman town police department
63. The applicant complained that the conditions of his detention in the detention unit of the Neman town police department 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."
A. Submissions by the parties
64. The Government commented on the conditions of the applicant's detention. In particular, they submitted that, in violation of the domestic requirements, the applicant had usually been afforded less than four square metres of personal space during his detention in the unit. At the same time the Government, citing the court's judgment in the case of Kemmache v. France (No. 3) (24 November 1994, Series A No. 296-C), argued that the applicant could no longer claim to be a victim of the violation of his rights under Article 3 of the Convention, as the domestic courts had acknowledged the violation and had redressed it by allowing the applicant's action against the facility management and awarding him compensation for non-pecuniary damage.
65. The applicant insisted that the conditions of his detention had been inhuman and degrading. He further argued that, despite the fact that the domestic courts had acknowledged the violation of his rights, he had not lost his "victim" status, as the compensation of RUB 1,500 for more than three months of detention in appalling conditions could hardly be considered adequate redress.
B. The Court's assessment
1. Admissibility
(a) The Government's objection concerning the applicant's lack of "victim status"
66. The Court notes the Government's argument that in the light of the domestic courts' ruling awarding the applicant compensation for non-pecuniary damage caused as a result of his detention in the Neman town detention unit, he could no longer claim to be a victim of a violation of Article 3 of the Convention within the meaning of Article 34 of the Convention. In this respect, the Court reiterates that Article 34 of the Convention, in its relevant part, provides:
"The Court may receive applications from any person... claiming to be the victim of a violation by one of
> 1 2 3 ... 11 12 13 ... 23 24 25
Zaki.ru законы и право
поиск по сайту
каталог документов
добавить сайт Zaki.ru в избранное
Правовые акты международные
Правовые акты Российской Федерации
