requests for medical assistance on several occasions, complaining of headaches and general weakness. Following the medical check-ups he always received appropriate treatment. In January 2001 the applicant complained of an earache and was diagnosed with left-side exudative pleurisy. From 23 January to 22 February 2001 he received treatment in the prison hospital.
45. In support of their observations the Government provided several certificates issued by the director of IZ-61/1 on 22 October and 26 October 2007, 26 May and 27 May 2008, an uncertified and undated table on the number of persons detained in different cells at the same time as the applicant in March 2002 - April 2005, the results of a laboratory examination of the microclimate of the cells (illumination, temperature, relative air humidity and air circulation), the results of bacteriological tests following water and sanitary inspections of the detention facility conducted in 2001 - 2005, statements by wardens (although not dated) and persons currently detained in IZ-61/1, a copy of the applicant's prison card stating that he had been provided with bed sheets, cutlery and clothes, as well as a number of certificates concerning the food ration during the relevant period.
2. The applicant's account
46. The applicant did not dispute the size of the cells as submitted by the Government. He claimed, however, that the number of detainees considerably exceeded the design capacity of the cells and that the detainees had to sleep in shifts.
47. The windows in the cells were either heavily barred (cells Nos. 44, 48, 43, 42, 50, 76 and 52), or covered with metal screens (cells Nos. 39 and 124), or entirely absent (cells Nos. 8, 76 and 74). The metal screens were still in place in 2003.
48. The arrangement of the bunks in two or three tiers left the detainees very limited space and access to daylight. The artificial light in the cells was on around the clock, and disturbed the applicant's sleep.
49. The lavatory in the corner of the cell, which had no flush system, was elevated above the floor and separated by a 1.1-metre partition from the wash basin, but not from the living area. The latter two standards had been set by the "Directives on Planning and Constructing Pre-Trial Detention Facilities of the USSR Ministry of the Interior", approved on 25 January 1971.
50. The applicant was never provided with any toiletries.
51. On the days when the applicant was taken to the courthouse he received no food, since he was taken from his cell before breakfast and brought back after dinner. No food (hot meal or dry ration) was served to the applicant in the courthouse. On such days the applicant was also deprived of outside walks and showers.
52. The exercise yard was very small and unequipped for physical exercise. The walls of the yard were covered with "shuba", a sort of abrasive concrete lining designed to prevent detainees from leaning against them.
53. The cells swarmed with cockroaches and bedbugs. Occasionally the detainees were taken to the "blind" cell No. 106 (with no windows, lavatory or water taps) except for two or three of them who stayed behind and treated the cell against bedbugs using a heating lamp or a torch made of newspapers, and against cockroaches using cockroach poison sent to the detainees by their relatives.
54. In support of his statements the applicant produced written depositions by three former cellmates, Mr A.R., Mr Y.T. and Mr Y.R. They stated, in particular, that in 2001 - 2004 cell No. 41, measuring approximately 30 square meters, had housed 45 to 50 inmates at any one time (Mr A.R.'s deposition), and that in 2002 - 2004 cell No. 46, measuring approximately 40 square meters, had housed over 30 inmates (Mr Y.T.'s deposition) or as many as 85 (Mr Y.R.'s deposition). They also testified that they
> 1 2 ... 3 4 5 6 ... 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
