ight of the Government's argument that certain aspects of the conditions of the applicant's detention varied in different cells. However, it does not consider that those differences are sufficient to allow it to distinguish between the conditions of the applicant's detention or for his detention to be separated into several periods depending on the cell in which he was kept. The Court therefore dismisses the Government's objection as to non-compliance with the six-month rule.
79. Lastly, the Court considers that this complaint is not manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 of the Convention. It further notes that it is not inadmissible on any other grounds. It must therefore be declared admissible.
2. Merits
80. The Court observes at the outset that the parties disputed certain aspects of the conditions of the applicant's detention in the remand prison. However, there is no need for the Court to establish the truthfulness of each and every allegation, because it finds a violation of Article 3 on the basis of the facts that have been presented or are undisputed by the respondent Government, for the following reasons.
81. The parties agreed that during certain periods of his detention the applicant was kept in overcrowded cells. For the majority of his detention in the remand prison, which lasted more than two years, the applicant was afforded less than 3 sq. m of personal space. The Government accepted that at times the applicant had less than 2 sq. m of personal space, while in cells Nos. 51 and 56 his personal space was at times reduced to less than 1.4 sq. m (see paragraphs 56 and 55 above). The applicant was confined to his cell day and night, save for one hour of daily outdoor exercise. The Court reiterates in this connection that in previous cases where the applicants disposed of less than 3 sq. m of personal space, it found that the overcrowding was severe enough to justify, in its own right, a finding of a violation of Article 3 of the Convention. Accordingly, it was not necessary to assess other aspects of the material conditions of detention (see, for example, Lind v. Russia, No. 25664/05, § 59, 6 December 2007; Kantyrev v. Russia, No. 37213/02, §§ 50 - 51, 21 June 2007; Andrey Frolov v. Russia, No. 205/02, §§ 47 - 49, 29 March 2007; Mayzit v. Russia, No. 63378/00, § 40, 20 January 2005; and Labzov v. Russia, No. 62208/00, § 44, 16 June 2005).
82. Having regard to its case-law on the subject and the material submitted by the parties, the Court notes that the Government have not put forward any fact or argument capable of persuading it to reach a different conclusion in the present case. That the applicant was obliged to live, sleep and use the toilet in the same cell with so many other inmates was itself sufficient to cause distress or hardship of an intensity exceeding the unavoidable level of suffering inherent in detention, and arouse in him feelings of fear, anguish and inferiority capable of humiliating and debasing him.
83. The Court concludes that by keeping the applicant in overcrowded cells, the domestic authorities subjected him to inhuman and degrading treatment. There has therefore been a violation of Article 3 of the Convention on account of the conditions of the applicant's detention in the remand prison.
II. Alleged violation of Article 5 § 1 of the Convention
84. The applicant complained under Article 5 § 1 of the Convention that his detention after 4 August 2004 had not been based on a court decision, and was thus "unlawful". He further complained that his detention starting from 1 February 2005 had been "unlawful" because the district court had not given any reasons for the extension of the term of detention. Article 5 § 1 reads, in so far as relevant, as follows:
"1. Everyone has the right to liberty and security of pe
> 1 2 3 ... 25 26 27 ... 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
