Постановление Европейского суда по правам человека от 17.12.2009 «Дело Шилбергс (Shilbergs) против России» [англ.]

plicant's detention in facility No. IZ-39/1 in Kaliningrad. However, there is no need for the Court to establish the veracity of each and every allegation, because it finds a violation of Article 3 on the basis of facts presented to it which the respondent Government did not dispute.
90. The focal point for the Court's assessment is the living space afforded to the applicant in the detention facility. The main characteristic which the parties did agree upon was the size of the fourteen cells in which the applicant had been detained. The applicant claimed that the number of detainees in the cells had considerably exceeded their design capacity. The Government disagreed.
91. The Court notes that the Government, in their plea concerning the number of detainees, relied on certificates issued by the facility director more than three years after the applicant's detention in that facility had come to an end. According to the findings of the Tsentralniy District Court of 24 November 2003, the accuracy of which was never challenged by the Government, there were no data available on the number of inmates detained together with the applicant (see paragraph 38 above). Despite this fact the Government, without giving any explanation, submitted that the number of inmates had not exceeded the number of sleeping places. In this connection the Court observes that the Government did not refer to any source of information which would have allowed that assertion to be verified. It was open to the Government to submit copies of registration logs showing the names of the inmates detained with the applicant. However, no such documents were presented. In this connection the Court notes that on several previous occasions when the Government have failed to submit original records, the Court has held that documents prepared after a considerable period of time cannot be viewed as sufficiently reliable given the length of time that has elapsed (see, among recent authorities, Novinskiy v. Russia, No. 11982/02, § 105, 10 February 2009). The Court is of the view that these considerations hold true in the present case. The certificates prepared by the Russian authorities more than three years after the events in question cannot be regarded as sufficiently reliable sources of data. The Court is therefore not convinced by the Government's submission.
92. In this connection the Court reiterates that Convention proceedings, such as those arising from the present application, do not in all cases lend themselves to a rigorous application of the principle affirmanti incumbit probatio (he who alleges something must prove that allegation), as in certain instances the respondent Government alone have access to information capable of corroborating or refuting allegations. A failure on a 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 Ahmet {Ozkan} and Others v. Turkey, No. 21689/93, § 426, 6 April 2004).
93. Having regard to the principle cited above, together with the fact that the Government did not submit any convincing relevant information, and taking into account the domestic courts' findings pertaining to the applicant's action in tort (see paragraph 38 above), the Court will examine the issue concerning the number of inmates in the cells in facility No. IZ-39/1 on the basis of the applicant's submissions.
94. According to the applicant, he was usually afforded less than two square metres of personal space throughout his detention. In this connection the Court considers it necessary to note that despite the fact that the Tsentralniy District Court was unable to establish the exact number of inmates detained together with the applicant, its findings in relation to the number of sleeping places in the smaller cells in which the applicant



> 1 2 3 ... 16 17 18 ... 23 24 25

	Поделиться:	Tweet