, and K. or any search at their premises. Moreover, D., T. and K. were not required to specify the purpose of the applicant's detour from the detention facility, or to explain their own actions following the abduction in order to verify the allegations of their involvement.
50. The above deficiencies of the investigation have never been pointed out by the reviewing bodies, including the courts.
51. Accordingly, in view of the lack of promptness and thoroughness in following up the applicant's complaints, there has also been a violation of Article 3 of the Convention on account of the lack of an effective investigation of the incident of ill-treatment.
II. Alleged violation of Article 3 of the Convention
on account of the conditions of the applicant's detention
52. The applicant complained that the conditions of his detention in the Ussuriysk IZ-25/2 detention facility were in breach of Article 3 of the Convention, which reads as follows:
"No one shall be subjected to torture or to inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment."
A. Submissions by the parties
53. The Government argued that the applicant had not exhausted domestic remedies available to him. In particular, he had not complained to a prosecutor about the conditions of his detention. The Government further commented on the conditions of the applicant's detention. In particular, they submitted that the applicant had been detained in satisfactory sanitary conditions. Relying on certificates issued by the facility director, they pointed out that the applicant had not been detained in overcrowded cells. At all times he had had an individual sleeping place. The Government submitted that they were not in possession of any documents showing the names and exact number of inmates in the cells in which the applicant had been detained because the logs had been destroyed after the expiry of the archive time-limits.
54. The applicant maintained his complaints. He relied on the sanitary report of 1 July 2002, provided by the Government, which, as he alleged, confirmed the existence of overcrowding, the lack of sleeping facilities and unsatisfactory sanitary situation in the facility.
B. The Court's assessment
1. Admissibility
55. The Court notes the Government's argument that the applicant failed to complain to a prosecutor about the appalling conditions of his detention. In this connection, the Court observes that it has already on a number of occasions examined the same objection by the Russian Government and dismissed it. In particular, the Court held in the relevant cases that the Government had not demonstrated what redress could have been afforded to the applicant by a prosecutor, a court, or another State agency, bearing in mind that the problems arising from the conditions of the applicant's detention were apparently of a structural nature and did not concern the applicant's personal situation alone (see Moiseyev v. Russia (dec.), No. 62936/00, 9 December 2004; Kalashnikov v. Russia (dec.), No. 47095/99, 18 September 2001; and most recently, Andrey Frolov v. Russia, No. 205/02, § 39, 29 March 2007, and Sudarkov v. Russia, No. 3130/03, § 39, 10 July 2008). The Court sees no reason to depart from that finding in the present case. Moreover, it notes that the applicant in the present case had in fact complained to the prosecutor's office (see his complaint of 16 June 2001 referred to in paragraph 28 above), which did not appear to yield any response. The Court therefore considers that this complaint cannot be rejected for failure to exhaust domestic remedies.
56. The Court notes that this complaint is not manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 of the Convention and is not inadmissible on any other grounds. It
> 1 2 3 ... 22 23 24 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
