procedural rules. As to the alleged ill-treatment on 15 June 2001, the court of appeal referred to it as "acts of unidentified individuals". It held that there was no connection between this episode and the applicant's criminal conviction because the applicant had confessed to the murder before the events of 15 June 2001.
20. On 22 December 2002 the applicant lodged a complaint with a court alleging, among other complaints, ill-treatment and inaction by the prosecutor's office following his complaints.
21. On 5 February 2003 the Military Court of Ussuriysk Garrison examined this complaint and dismissed it. The court found that the prosecutor's office had conducted an investigation of the episode of ill-treatment and considered it thorough and sufficient. The applicant appealed.
22. On 18 February 2003 the applicant was informed that criminal proceedings against investigator D., operative officers T. and K. and members of G.'s family had been discontinued. He sent a complaint to the Military Prosecutor's Office of the Khabarovsk Garrison requesting access to the file relating to the discontinued criminal proceedings. In reply, on 17 March 2003, he was informed that there had been no grounds to reconsider previous decisions taken in respect of his complaints.
23. On an unspecified date the applicant challenged the closure of the criminal investigations of the ill-treatment before a court. On 14 April 2003 the court dismissed the applicant's claim, finding that the decision to discontinue prosecution of the officers and G.'s relatives had been lawful and reasonable. The applicant submitted that on 10 June 2003 he had appealed against this decision.
24. On 7 August 2003 the Military Court of the Dalnevostochniy Command examined the applicant's appeal against the decision of 5 February 2003, reversed the latter decision and decided to discontinue the proceedings on the grounds that the applicant's complaint was in fact a request for a supervisory review. On 13 March 2006 the same court examined the applicant's request for a supervisory review of the decision of 5 February 2003 and rejected it having found that the applicant's complaints were in essence an expression of his disagreement with his conviction.
25. On 17 March 2006 the same court examined and rejected the applicant's request for supervisory review of the decision of 14 April 2003. It upheld the earlier judicial assessment and the decision to discontinue criminal proceedings concerning the applicant's ill-treatment.
B. Conditions of the applicant's detention
26. The applicant was detained in the Ussuriysk No. IZ-25/2 detention facility:
- from 16 February to 15 June 2001 in cell No. 76, which measured 42 square metres;
- from 15 June 2001 to 5 March 2003 in cell No. 72, which measured 16.8 square metres (except for several short-term transfers to other facilities for the purposes of the criminal proceedings and an eight-month transfer to Moscow for the appeal hearing);
- from 27 February to 3 March 2003 in cell No. 11, which measured 21.4 square metres.
27. The conditions in the IZ-25/2 facility are partly in dispute between the parties.
28. According to the applicant, the cells were overcrowded and there was a shortage of sleeping places; the inmates slept on the concrete floor, huddled together to keep warm; there had been no, or insufficient, heating; the facility was overrun by rats; the light and water supply were often interrupted. In support of his claims he provided a copy of his letter to the Ussuriysk Prosecutor's Office dated 16 June 2001. In this letter the applicant complained that he was detained in cell No. 76, which was extremely overcrowded. He indicated that he shared the cell with thirty-eight other detainees and that there had
> 1 2 3 ... 16 17 18 ... 25 26 27
Zaki.ru законы и право
поиск по сайту
каталог документов
добавить сайт Zaki.ru в избранное
Правовые акты международные
Правовые акты Российской Федерации
