ver, if detainees were allowed to complain about long periods of detention, this would impose a disproportionate burden on the authorities to store detention facility registers indefinitely. Accordingly, the Government invited the Court to reject the applicant's complaints relating to the period prior to 8 October 2004 for non-compliance with the six-month rule.
74. The Government conceded that certain cells had been overcrowded. In total, the applicant had been held in overcrowded cells nos. 8, 19, 50, 51 and 56 between 8 October 2004 and 27 June 2006, that is, for one year and three months. In all other cells the conditions of the applicant's detention had been satisfactory and in compliance with the requirements of Article 3. He had been provided with an individual bunk and bedding at all times. He had been able to exercise daily. The sanitary and hygienic norms had been met. There were no rodents or insects. The cells were ventilated. The applicant had at all times had access to drinking water and was provided with toiletries.
75. In sum, the Government argued that all conditions of the applicant's detention except for overcrowding of the cells were compatible with Article 3 of the Convention.
76. The applicant argued that the domestic remedies referred to by the Government had proven to be ineffective. He further stated that the material conditions of his detention in various cells were almost identical and insisted that the Court should take into account the whole period of his detention in the remand prison. The applicant maintained his claims concerning the poor conditions of his detention and argued that the number of inmates kept together with him was at all times considerably higher than the number indicated by the Government.
B. The Court's assessment
1. Admissibility
77. The Court observes that in the case of Benediktov v. Russia (No. 106/02, §§ 29 - 30, 10 May 2007), in comparable circumstances, it found that the Government had failed to demonstrate what redress could have been afforded to the applicant by a prosecutor or a court, taking into account that the problems arising from the conditions of the applicant's detention had apparently been of a structural nature and had not concerned the applicant's personal situation alone. In the case at hand, the Government submitted no evidence to enable the Court to depart from these findings with regard to the existence of an effective domestic remedy for the structural problem of overcrowding in Russian detention facilities. Although they referred to two cases in which the domestic courts granted detainees compensation for non-pecuniary damage arising from inadequate conditions of detention, the Court notes that in those cases compensation was awarded for a detainee's infection with scabies or a failure to provide a detainee with food. Neither of those cases concerned detention in overcrowded cells. Moreover, the Government did not produce copies of the judgments to which they referred. Accordingly, the Court dismisses the Government's objection as to non-exhaustion of domestic remedies.
78. As regards the Government's argument about non-compliance with the six-month rule, the Court notes that the applicant was detained in the same detention facility from 6 April 2004 until 27 June 2006. The continuous nature of his detention, his identical descriptions of the general conditions of detention in all the cells in the detention facility and the allegation of severe overcrowding as the main characteristic of conditions in all those cells warrant the examination of the applicant's detention from 6 April 2004 to 27 June 2006 as a whole, without dividing it into separate periods (see, for similar reasoning, Guliyev v. Russia, No. 24650/02, §§ 31 - 33, 19 June 2008; and Benediktov, cited above, § 31). The Court does not lose s
> 1 2 3 ... 24 25 26 ... 33 34 35
Zaki.ru законы и право
поиск по сайту
каталог документов
добавить сайт Zaki.ru в избранное
Правовые акты международные
Правовые акты Российской Федерации
