extent his feelings of distress, anguish and fear. However, assessing the relevant facts as a whole and taking into account the fact that the applicant was at all times provided with medical assistance appropriate to his condition, the Court does not find it established that he was subjected to ill-treatment that attained a sufficient level of severity to come within the scope of Article 3 of the Convention.
108. It follows from the above that this complaint is manifestly ill-founded and must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 §§ 3 and 4 of the Convention.
B. Conditions of transport
109. The Government submitted that the conditions of the applicant's transport had been compatible with Article 3 of the Convention. The prison van had been technically in good order, had been heated and ventilated. It had not been overcrowded. The applicant's medical record showed that he had been fit to be transported and that he could be transported unaccompanied by a doctor.
110. The applicant maintained his claims.
111. The Court observes that it has found a violation of Article 3 in a case where a post-operative patient was transported in a standard prison van in unfit conditions (see Tarariyeva v. Russia, No. 4353/03, §§ 112 to 117, ECHR 2006-... (extracts). A violation of that Article was also found in cases where an applicant was transported many times to the courthouse and back in extremely cramped conditions (see Moiseyev v. Russia, No. 62936/00, §§ 131 to 136, 9 October 2008, where the applicant was transported on more than one hundred and fifty days; Starokadomskiy v. Russia, No. 42239/02, §§ 53 to 60, 31 July 2008, where the applicant was transported on one hundred and ninety-five days; Vlasov v. Russia, No. 78146/01, § 92 to 99, 12 June 2008, where the applicant was transported on more than one hundred days; and Khudoyorov v. Russia, No. 6847/02, §§ 118 to 120, ECHR 2005-X (extracts), where the applicant was transported on about two hundred days).
112. The present case is different. In contrast to the case of Tarariyeva (cited above), the applicant's condition was stable, he could sit, was able to walk using support and was considered by doctors to be fit to be transported (see paragraphs 67 and 73 above). Unlike the applicants in the cases of Moiseyev, Starokadomskiy, Vlasov and Khudoyorov (all cited above), the applicant in the present case was transported in a prison van which was occupied below its design capacity and was not overcrowded. The applicant's allegation that the heating and lights had not functioned was convincingly refuted by the Government, who submitted a report by the maintenance technician showing that on 21 December 2007 the van had been technically in good order (see paragraph 73 above).
113. The Court considers that it would have been preferable for the applicant, who was hemiplegic, to have been transported in a hospital van rather than a standard prison van. However, there is no evidence that the treatment complained of, which was of a short duration and did not have any negative consequences for the applicant's state of health, attained the minimum level of severity necessary to come within the scope of Article 3 of the Convention.
114. It follows that this part of the application is manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 of the Convention, and that it must be rejected pursuant to Article 35 § 4.
II. Alleged violation of Article 5 § 3 of the Convention
115. The applicant complained of a violation of his right to trial within a reasonable time and alleged that the orders for his detention had not been founded on sufficient reasons. He relied on Article 5 § 3 of the Convention, which provides:
"Everyone arrested or detained in accordance with the provisions of paragraph 1 (c) of this Article shall be ... e
> 1 2 3 ... 12 13 14 ... 20 21 22
Zaki.ru законы и право
поиск по сайту
каталог документов
добавить сайт Zaki.ru в избранное
Правовые акты международные
Правовые акты Российской Федерации
