had been detained nevertheless support the latter's assertion of a lack of personal space (see paragraph 38 above, when the District Court confirmed that the cells, measuring up to 8 square metres, had six sleeping places). The Court thus observes that even the domestic standard of a minimum of four square metres per detainee (see paragraph 51 above) was not met.
95. Irrespective of the reasons for the overcrowding, the Court reiterates that it is incumbent on the respondent Government to organise its penitentiary system in such a way as to ensure respect for the dignity of detainees, regardless of financial or logistical difficulties (see Mamedova v. Russia, No. 7064/05, § 63, 1 June 2006).
96. The Court has frequently found a violation of Article 3 of the Convention on account of a lack of personal space afforded to detainees (see Khudoyorov v. Russia, No. 6847/02, §§ 104 et seq., ECHR 2005-X (extracts); Labzov v. Russia, No. 62208/00, §§ 44 et seq., 16 June 2005; Novoselov v. Russia, No. 66460/01, §§ 41 et seq., 2 June 2005; Mayzit v. Russia, No. 63378/00, §§ 39 et seq., 20 January 2005; Kalashnikov v. Russia, No. 47095/99, §§ 97 et seq., ECHR 2002-VI; and Peers v. Greece, No. 28524/95, §§ 69 et seq., ECHR 2001-III). More specifically, the Court reiterates that it recently found a violation of Article 3 on account of an applicant's detention in overcrowded conditions in the same detention facility (see Mayzit, cited above, §§ 34 - 43).
97. The Court notes that the applicant's situation resulting from insufficient personal space was further exacerbated by the fact that he was not allowed to shower more than once every ten days during the entire period of his detention. Furthermore, the cells in which the applicant was held had no window in the proper sense of the word. At least until the end of 2002 they were covered with a layer of thick bars with so-called "eyelashes" and subsequently with latticed partitions to ensure, as the Government put it, "sound and visual insulation". Both arrangements cut off fresh air and also significantly reduced the amount of daylight that could penetrate the cells. The colour photographs of the two cells in which the applicant was detained in 2001 and 2002 support the applicant's submissions to that effect.
98. The Court observes that in the present case there is no indication that there was a positive intention to humiliate or debase the applicant. However, the Court finds that the fact that the applicant was obliged to live, sleep and use the toilet in the same cell as so many other inmates in these unsatisfactory conditions was itself sufficient to cause distress or hardship of an intensity exceeding the unavoidable level of suffering inherent in detention, and to arouse in him feelings of fear, anguish and inferiority capable of humiliating and debasing him.
99. The Court finds, accordingly, that there has been a violation of Article 3 of the Convention because the applicant was subjected to inhuman and degrading treatment on account of the conditions of his detention in facility No. IZ-39/1 in Kaliningrad.
III. Alleged violation of Article 6 of the Convention
on account of the applicant's absence from the hearings
in his civil cases
100. The applicant complained that the courts had refused to secure his attendance at the hearings in the two sets of proceedings concerning the conditions of his detention and in the proceedings pertaining to his defamation action. In addition, the applicant argued that he had not been served with copies of various documents presented by the defendant to the Tsentralniy District Court in the proceedings concerning his detention in facility No. IZ-39/1. He relied on Article 6 § 1, which provides, in so far as relevant, as follows:
"In the determination of his civil rights and obligations... everyone is entitled to
> 1 2 3 ... 17 18 19 ... 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
