the detainee is charged with a serious or particularly serious criminal offence. No extension beyond eighteen months is possible (Article 109 §§ 1 - 3). The period of detention "during the investigation" is calculated up to the day when the prosecutor sends the case to the trial court (Article 109 § 9).
55. From the date the prosecutor forwards the case to the trial court, the defendant's detention is "before the court" (or "during the trial"). The period of detention "during the trial" is calculated up to the date the judgment is given. It may not normally exceed six months, but if the case concerns serious or particularly serious criminal offences, the trial court may approve one or more extensions of no longer than three months each (Article 255 §§ 2 and 3).
56. An appeal may be lodged with a higher court within three days against a judicial decision ordering or extending detention. The appeal court must decide on the appeal within three days of its receipt (Article 108 § 10).
57. The appeal court must examine the criminal case within a month of the receipt of the case file (Article 374).
58. Section 22 of the Detention of Suspects Act (Federal Law No. 103-FZ of 15 July 1995) provides that detainees should be given free food sufficient to maintain them in good health according to standards established by the Government of the Russian Federation. Section 23 provides that detainees should be kept in conditions which satisfy sanitary and hygienic requirements. They should be provided with an individual sleeping place and given bedding, tableware and toiletries. Each inmate should have no less than four square metres of personal space in his or her cell.
THE LAW
I. Alleged violation of Article 3 of the Convention
59. The applicant complained that the conditions of his detention in detention facility No. IZ-34/1 in Volgograd had been in breach of Article 3 of the Convention, which provides:
"No one shall be subjected to torture or to inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment."
A. Admissibility
60. The Government argued that the applicant had not exhausted the domestic remedies available to him. In particular, he had not sought compensation for non-pecuniary damage before a court. To prove the effectiveness of that remedy, they referred to two judgments awarding Mr S. and Mr D. monetary compensation for inadequate conditions of detention. It had been also open for the applicant to complain to a prosecutor, such a complaint being, in the Government's opinion, an effective remedy. They referred to improvements in the conditions of detention which had been made in response to complaints lodged with the prosecutor's office by Mr D., Mr Sh. and Mr Z. (a medical unit had been created, medicines purchased and maintenance works carried out). They stated that 13% of complaints about the allegedly inadequate conditions of detention had been considered well-founded in 2007, while in the first half of 2006 the prosecutors had recognised 18% of such complaints as well-founded.
61. The Government further submitted that the Court had competence to examine the conditions of the applicant's detention only during the six months preceding the submission of his application form. They argued that the applicant's detention was not a continuing situation, as he had been repeatedly transferred from one cell to another and the conditions of his detention had varied in different cells. Moreover, 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 14 February 2006 (sic.) for non-compliance with the six-month rule.
> 1 2 3 ... 5 6 7 ... 16 17 18
Zaki.ru законы и право
поиск по сайту
каталог документов
добавить сайт Zaki.ru в избранное
Правовые акты международные
Правовые акты Российской Федерации
