domestic remedies. To prove the effectiveness of that remedy, they mentioned the case of Mr D., who had challenged the inadequate conditions of his detention in a correctional colony and had been awarded 25,000 Russian roubles (RUB) by the Novgorod Town Court in respect of non-pecuniary damage.
29. The Government further submitted that detention conditions in IK-3 and prison hospital had been adequate. They relied on certificates issued by the Federal Service for the Execution of Sentences confirming that in both facilities the applicant had been provided with an individual sleeping place, sufficient food, clothes and bedding; and that the sanitary, hygienic and temperature norms had been met (set out in paragraphs 12 - 14 and 19 - 20 above) and claimed that detention conditions in both penitentiary facilities had been compatible with Article 3 of the Convention. The Government enclosed statements by several inmates who confirmed that in IK-3 there had been sufficient heating and that the detainees had never slept in their clothes.
2. The applicant
30. The applicant challenged the Government's description of the conditions in IK-3 and the prison hospital and insisted that they had been unacceptable. He submitted that in both facilities the heating had been insufficient, that the toilet in IK-3 had not been heated at all, and that the lighting had been dim. While he agreed with the Government's account on the clothes provided to him, he underlined that these clothes had obviously not been sufficient. The same concerned bedding - the applicant stated that he had received bedding only once in IK-3 and that after repeated washing it had become unfit for use. The mattress had been of poor quality.
31. With respect to conditions in the prison hospital, the applicant particularly underlined severe overcrowding, lack of fresh air and light, and the fact that the pail which had served as a toilet had not been separated from the living area. His account of the detention conditions in both facilities is set out in paragraphs 10 - 11 and 16 - 18 above.
32. In so far as the Government relied on witness statements which contradicted those submitted by the applicant, he pointed out that the Government had only obtained statements from persons who were still in detention and therefore within the power of the prison authorities, who could exert pressure on them.
B. The Court's assessment
1. Admissibility
(a) Exhaustion of domestic remedies
33. The Court observes that in a number of cases against Russia it found that the Government had failed to demonstrate what redress could have been afforded to the applicants by a prosecutor or a court, taking into account that the problems arising from the conditions of their detention had apparently been of a structural nature and had not concerned their personal situations alone (see, for example, Benediktov v. Russia (No. 106/02, §§ 29 - 30, 10 May 2007, Moiseyev v. Russia (dec.), No. 62936/00, 9 December 2004, and Mamedova v. Russia, No. 7064/05, § 57, 1 June 2006). In the instant case, 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 a case in which a domestic court had granted a detainee compensation for non-pecuniary damage incurred due to inadequate conditions of detention, the Court notes that the Government did not produce a copy of the judgment to which they referred, and thus it is unclear on what grounds the damages were awarded. Accordingly, the Court dismisses the Government's objection as to non-exhaustion of domestic remedies.
(b) Compliance with the six-month rule
34. In so far as the Government objected to th
> 1 2 3 ... 16 17 18 ... 21 22 23
Zaki.ru законы и право
поиск по сайту
каталог документов
добавить сайт Zaki.ru в избранное
Правовые акты международные
Правовые акты Российской Федерации
