, failing which they will lack the requisite accessibility and effectiveness. Article 35 § 1 also requires that the complaints intended to be brought subsequently before the Court should have been made to the appropriate domestic body, at least in substance and in compliance with the formal requirements laid down in domestic law (see Guliyev v. Russia, No. 24650/02, § 51, 19 June 2008, with further references).
68. The Court notes the Government's argument that the applicant failed to lodge an action before a court complaining about the allegedly appalling conditions of his detention. The Court has already on a number of occasions examined the same objection by the Russian Government and dismissed it (see Guliyev, cited above, § 34). The Court sees no reason to depart from that finding in the present case.
69. Thus, the Court concludes that the applicant's complaint cannot be dismissed for failure to exhaust domestic remedies.
(b) Continuing situation and six-month rule
70. The Court is satisfied that the applicant's complaint concerned his detention in the remand centre from December 2004 onwards (see paragraph 36 above). However, it further observes that the applicant's detention in this remand centre was interrupted from 11 to 25 April 2005, when he was kept in another detention facility. Having regard to the findings in paragraph 66 above and the applicable principles, the Court considers that this period was such as to bar the Court's competence by virtue of the six-month rule in respect of the complaint regarding the conditions of detention from 10 December 2004 to 11 April 2005 (compare Benediktov, cited above, § 31; Igor Ivanov v. Russia, No. 34000/02, § 30, 7 June 2007; and Guliyev, cited above, §§ 31 - 33; see also, mutatis mutandis, Solmaz v. Turkey, No. 27561/02, §§ 32 - 37, ECHR 2007-... (extracts)).
71. Furthermore, the Court observes that the applicant lodged before the Court a complaint about the conditions of his detention while still being in the same detention facility. He also remained there after notice of the application had been given to the respondent Government. Thus, it is open to the Court to examine the conditions of the applicant's detention from 25 April 2005 onwards.
3. Conclusion on admissibility
72. The Court finds that the applicant's complaint regarding the conditions of his detention in the remand centre 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 as regards the conditions of the applicant's detention in the remand centre from 25 April 2005 onwards.
B. Merits
73. The Court observes that the parties' accounts of the conditions of detention differ. Some of the applicant's allegations are not supported by sufficient evidence and have therefore not been proved beyond reasonable doubt. However, the Court does not consider it necessary to establish the truthfulness of each and every allegation made by the applicant. Instead, the Court will concentrate on the specific allegations that have not been disputed by the respondent Government, or those in respect of which the Government did not comment (see Trepashkin v. Russia, No. 36898/03, § 85, 19 July 2007). The Court will first examine the issue that lends itself to more or less precise quantification, namely the cell space afforded to the applicant during the various periods of his detention.
74. The Government provided no information as to the source of their information regarding the cell population, except for certain short periods of the applicant's detention in cells Nos. 41 and 280. The Court observes, however, that it is common ground between the parties that between 25 April 2005 and 11 October 200
> 1 2 3 ... 10 11 12 ... 24 25 26
Zaki.ru законы и право
поиск по сайту
каталог документов
добавить сайт Zaki.ru в избранное
Правовые акты международные
Правовые акты Российской Федерации
