n 1.5 sq. m of personal space, while in cell No. 30 his personal space was at times reduced to less than 1 sq. m. 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 so severe as 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 physical 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).
69. Having regard to its case-law on the subject, the material submitted by the parties, and the Government's acknowledgment of a violation of Article 3, the Court reaches the same 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 to arouse in him feelings of fear, anguish and inferiority capable of humiliating and debasing him.
70. 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 facility No. IZ-34/1.
II. Alleged violation of Article 5 § 3 of the Convention
71. The applicant complained of a violation of his right to trial within a reasonable time and alleged that detention orders 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... entitled to trial within a reasonable time or to release pending trial. Release may be conditioned by guarantees to appear for trial."
A. Admissibility
72. The Government argued that the Court had competence to examine the applicant's detention only from 14 August 2005 to 12 January 2007. The applicant had failed to exhaust domestic remedies in respect of the remaining periods, as he had not appealed against the extension orders issued at that time. Moreover, in their opinion the Court's competence was limited to the six months preceding the submission of the application form.
73. The Court first notes that a person alleging a violation of Article 5 § 3 of the Convention with respect to the length of his detention complains of a continuing situation which should be considered as a whole and not divided into separate periods in the manner suggested by the Government (see, mutatis mutandis, Solmaz v. Turkey, No. 27561/02, §§ 29 and 37, ECHR 2007-... (extracts)). Following his placement in custody on 29 April 2003 the applicant has continuously remained in detention. The Court therefore dismisses the Government's objection as to non-compliance with the six-month rule. For the same reasons, it will make a global assessment of the entire period of the applicant's detention in order to determine whether he exhausted domestic remedies.
74. Under the terms of Article 35 § 1 of the Convention the Court can only deal with the matter after all domestic remedies have been exhausted, according to the generally recognised rules of international law. The application of that rule must, however, make due allowance for the fact that it is being applied in the context of machiner
> 1 2 3 ... 7 8 9 ... 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
