Постановление Европейского суда по правам человека от 18.06.2009 «Дело Штейн (Shteyn (Stein)) против России» [англ.]

umber of detainees in order to resolve the problem.

THE LAW

I. Alleged violation of Article 3 of the Convention

63. The applicant complained that the conditions of his detention in Tomsk Remand Centre amounted to inhuman and degrading treatment in breach of Article 3 of the Convention. He also complained that he had been placed in a punishment cell in Tomsk Prison and that his head had been shaven. Article 3 reads as follows:
"No one shall be subjected to torture or to inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment."
64. The Government considered that the applicant's complaint had concerned only his detention from 25 April 2005 onwards, while he had had no objection to the conditions of detention in the same facility from 10 December 2004 to 11 April 2005. They conceded that the conditions during both periods had been identical. However, they concluded that the applicant had not complied with the six-month rule in respect of the first period. They also contended that he had not complained about the conditions to any public authority, while being represented by counsel in the criminal proceedings. In particular, he could have lodged a claim for compensation in respect of non-pecuniary damage. The Government acknowledged the insufficiency of cell space afforded to the applicant between December 2004 and mid-October 2005. However, they contended that the applicant had been given an individual sleeping berth and bedding. They submitted that the cell-space factor was an insufficient basis on which to conclude that there had been a violation of Article 3 of the Convention as regards Tomsk Remand Centre.
As regards Tomsk Prison, the Government submitted that the applicant had been kept there from 11 to 25 April 2005. A body search disclosed that he had been in possession of a razor blade. He had therefore been placed in a punishment cell; his head had not been shaven.
65. The applicant affirmed that he was complaining about the conditions of his detention from December 2004 onwards. He submitted that he had raised the matter with the detention judge and the prosecutor present at several detention extension hearings. The applicant's mother had complained on his behalf to various public authorities such as the Regional Prosecutor's Office and the Prosecutor General's Office. However, those complaints had not been examined in substance. There had been no amelioration in the material conditions of detention; renovation works had started only in 2007.

A. Admissibility

1. Tomsk Prison No. 3

66. The Court observes at the outset that the applicant made no complaint about the material conditions of his detention in Tomsk Prison from 11 to 25 April 2005. Even assuming that he complied with the six months rule and the exhaustion requirement, it has not been established that he was subjected to any proscribed treatment there in breach of Article 3 of the Convention. Neither is the mere fact of placement in a punishment cell as a penalty for having violated prison discipline sufficient to constitute degrading or inhuman punishment (see Costello-Roberts v. the United Kingdom, 25 March 1993, §§ 30 - 32, Series A No. 247-C). It follows that this part of the application is manifestly ill-founded and must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 §§ 3 and 4 of the Convention.

2. Tomsk Remand Centre No. 70/1

(a) Exhaustion of domestic remedies
67. The Court reiterates that the rule of exhaustion of domestic remedies referred to in Article 35 § 1 of the Convention obliges applicants to use the remedies that are normally available and sufficient in the domestic legal system to enable them to obtain redress for the breaches alleged. The existence of the remedies must be sufficiently certain, in practice as well as in theory



> 1 2 3 ... 9 10 11 ... 24 25 26

	Поделиться:	Tweet