must therefore be declared admissible.
2. Merits
57. The Court notes that the parties have disputed certain aspects of the conditions of the applicant's detention in the Ussuriysk IZ-25/2 detention facility. However, there is no need for the Court to establish the veracity of each and every allegation, because it finds a violation of Article 3 on the basis of facts presented to it which the respondent Government did not refute.
58. The focal point for the Court's assessment is the living space afforded to the applicant in the detention facility. The main characteristic which the parties did agree upon was the size of the cells. However, the applicant claimed that the cell population severely exceeded their design capacity. The Government argued that the applicant had not been detained in the overcrowded cells and that at all times he had had an individual bunk.
59. In this connection, the Court reiterates that Convention proceedings, such as those arising from the present application, do not in all cases lend themselves to a rigorous application of the principle affirmanti incumbit probatio (he who alleges something must prove that allegation), as in certain instances the respondent Government alone have access to information capable of corroborating or refuting allegations. A failure on a Government's part to submit such information without a satisfactory explanation may give rise to the drawing of inferences as to the well-foundedness of the applicant's allegations (see Ahmet {Ozkan} and Others v. Turkey, No. 21689/93, § 426, 6 April 2004).
60. The Court notes that the Government in their contestation of the applicant's complaint of overcrowding were unable to rely of the facility's registration logs claiming that they had been destroyed. However, the sanitary report of 1 July 2002 provided by the Government supported the applicant's allegations, rather than their own, because it stated that only 50% of inmates had had individual sleeping facilities. The Court further notes that the same sanitary report stated that the facility was overfilled by almost twice its capacity and that living space per inmate was as little as 2.31 square metres. It also confirmed the presence of insects and rodents in the facility, as well as the poor state of the sanitary equipment.
61. Having regard to the principle cited above, together with the fact that the Government did not submit any relevant information in support of their claim, the Court will examine the issue concerning the number of inmates in the cells in facility No. IZ-25/2 on the basis of the applicant's submissions.
62. According to the applicant, the cells were severely overcrowded at all times. Although he did not indicate how the allocation of the living space changed throughout the period of detention, the Court notes that in June 2001 he allegedly shared a cell measuring 42 square metres with 38 other detainees and was not provided with an individual sleeping place. The sanitary report drawn a year later, in July 2002 (see paragraph 30 above), shows an only marginal increase in living space and stated that there were only half as many sleeping places as they were detainees in the facility. The Court concludes that in the reference period the applicant was allowed about 2.31 square metres of personal space, even less on some occasions, and that there was a clear shortage of sleeping places.
63. Irrespective of the reasons for the overcrowding, the Court reiterates that it is incumbent on the respondent Government to organise its penitentiary system in such a way as to ensure respect for the dignity of detainees, regardless of financial or logistical difficulties (see Mamedova v. Russia, No. 7064/05, § 63, 1 June 2006).
64. The Court has frequently found a violation of Article 3 of the Convention on account of a lack of person
> 1 2 3 ... 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
