e examination of the conditions of the applicant's detention as a continuous situation and invited the Court not to examine the applicant's complaints relating to the period up to six months preceding the submission of his application (that is, prior to 24 March 2003), the Court reiterates that the concept of a "continuing situation" refers to a state of affairs in which there are continuous activities by or on the part of the State which render the applicant a victim (see Posti and Rahko v. Finland, No. 27824/95, § 39, ECHR 2002-VII), and in cases where there is a continuing situation, the six-month period runs from the cessation of that situation (see Koval v. Ukraine (dec.), No. 65550/01, 30 March 2004).
35. The Court has previously established that the continuous nature of detention, even in two different detention facilities with similar conditions, warranted examination of the detention without dividing it into separate periods (see Benediktov v. Russia, No. 106/02, § 31, 10 May 2007; Guliyev v. Russia, No. 24650/02, § 33, 19 June 2008; and Sudarkov v. Russia, No. 3130/03, § 40, 10 July 2008). In the present case between 3 December 2002 and 4 July 2003 the applicant was held in the same detention facility continuously. The Court does not see any reason to depart from its previous case-law and to divide a continuous situation into two parts based on the date when the application was submitted to the Court. Therefore, the Government's objection should be dismissed.
(c) Conclusion
36. 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.
2. Merits
(a) Conditions of detention in correctional colony IK-3
37. The Court recalls that Article 3 of the Convention enshrines one of the most fundamental values of democratic society. It prohibits in absolute terms torture or inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, irrespective of the circumstances and the victim's behaviour (see, among other authorities, Labita v. Italy [GC], no 26772/95, § 119, ECHR 2000-IV). However, in order to fall under Article 3, ill-treatment must attain a minimum level of severity (see Ireland v. the United Kingdom, judgment of 18 January 1978, Series A No. 25, § 162). The Court observes that, according to its constant case-law, measures depriving a person of his liberty may often involve an inevitable element of suffering or humiliation. Nevertheless, it is incumbent on the State to ensure that a person is detained in conditions which are compatible with respect for his human dignity, that the manner and method of the execution of the measure do not subject him to distress or hardship of an intensity exceeding the unavoidable level of suffering inherent in detention and that, given the practical demands of imprisonment, his health and well-being are adequately secured (see {Valasinas} v. Lithuania, No. 44558/98, §§ 101 - 02, ECHR 2001-VIII).
38. When examining conditions of detention, the Court draws a distinction between the cases concerning remand prisons and those concerning correctional colonies. In particular, allegations of overcrowding in the correctional institutions have been examined on the assumption that the personal space in the dormitory must be viewed in the context of the wide freedom of movement enjoyed by detainees in correctional colonies during the daytime, which ensures that they have unobstructed access to natural light and air (see Nurmagomedov v. Russia (dec.), No. 30138/02, 16 September 2004, and {Valasinas} v. Lithuania, No. 44558/98, §§ 103 and 107, ECHR 2001-VIII). For example, a complaint about conditions of detention, dismissed by the Court as manifestly ill-founded, concerned a correctional facility where the applicant was allocated 2.17 s
> 1 2 3 ... 17 18 19 ... 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
