Постановление Европейского суда по правам человека от 30.07.2009 «Дело Ананьин (Ananyin) против России» [англ.]

/> 62. The Court observes that in the cases of Mamedova v. Russia (No. 7064/05, § 57, 1 June 2006) and 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 several judicial and prosecutor's decisions which had allegedly provided redress for inadequate conditions of detention, they did not produce copies of those decisions. Accordingly, the Court dismisses the Government's objection as to non-exhaustion of domestic remedies.
63. As regards the Government's argument about non-compliance with the six-month rule, the Court notes that the applicant has been detained in the same detention facility since 30 September 2002. 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 his detention conditions in all cells in which he was held warrant the examination of the applicant's detention as a whole, without dividing it into separate periods (see, for similar reasoning, Guliyev v. Russia, No. 24650/02, §§ 31 to 33, 19 June 2008, and Benediktov, cited above, § 31). The Court does not lose sight 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.
64. The Court notes 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.

B. Merits

65. The Government conceded that certain cells had been overcrowded and that the conditions of the applicant's detention had not therefore complied with the requirements of Article 3. In total, the applicant had been held in overcrowded cells for about one year and a half. They however submitted that all other aspects of the applicant's conditions of detention had been satisfactory. He had been provided with an individual bunk and bedding at all times. He had been able to exercise daily. Sanitary and hygienic norms had been met. The applicant had received adequate medical treatment on request.
66. The applicant maintained his claims.
67. The parties disputed certain aspects of the conditions of the applicant's detention in facility No. IZ-34/1 in Volgograd. 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.
68. The parties agreed about the cell measurements and the number of inmates in the cells. For a substantial part of his detention, which has lasted more than six years, the applicant has been afforded less than 2 sq. m of personal space. On occasions, he had less tha



> 1 2 3 ... 6 7 8 ... 16 17 18

	Поделиться:	Tweet