al space afforded to detainees. In this connection, the Court reiterates that in a number of cases in which detained applicants usually had less than three and a half square metres of personal space it has already found that the lack of personal space afforded to them was so extreme as to justify, in its own right, a violation of Article 3 of the Convention (see Kantyrev v. Russia, No. 37213/02, §§ 50 - 51, 21 June 2007; Igor Ivanov v. Russia, No. 34000/02, §§ 37 - 38, 7 June 2007; Benediktov v. Russia, No. 106/02, §§ 36 - 38, 10 May 2007; Andrey Frolov, cited above, §§ 47 - 49; Mayzit v. Russia, No. 63378/00, § 40, 20 January 2005; and Labzov v. Russia, No. 62208/00, § 44, 16 June 2005, among others). The Court also found that the problems arising from overcrowding in Russian pre-trial detention facilities were of a structural nature (see Moiseyev, cited above; Kalashnikov, cited above; and Mamedova v. Russia, No. 7064/05, § 57, 1 June 2006).
65. Having regard to its case-law on the subject and the material submitted by the parties, the Court notes that the Government have not put forward any fact or argument capable of persuading it to reach a different conclusion in the present case. Although in the present case there is no indication that there was a positive intention to humiliate or debase the applicant, the Court finds that the fact that the applicant was obliged to live, sleep and use the toilet in the same cell as so many other inmates for more than two years was itself sufficient to cause distress or hardship of an intensity exceeding the unavoidable level of suffering inherent in detention, and to arouse in him feelings of fear, anguish and inferiority capable of humiliating and debasing him.
66. Furthermore, while in the present case it cannot be established "beyond reasonable doubt" that the heating or sanitary conditions in the facility were unacceptable from the standpoint of Article 3, the Court nonetheless notes that presence of insects and rodents in the facility, as well as the dilapidated state of the sanitary equipment, are relevant in addition to the focal factor of the severe overcrowding, and show that the applicant's detention conditions went beyond the threshold tolerated by Article 3 of the Convention (see Novoselov v. Russia, No. 66460/01, § 44, 2 June 2005).
67. The Court finds accordingly that there has been a violation of Article 3 of the Convention because the applicant was subjected to inhuman and degrading treatment on account of the conditions of his detention from 16 February 2001 to 5 March 2003 in the Ussuriysk IZ-25/5 facility.
III. Other alleged violations of the Convention
68. Lastly, the applicant complained under Article 5 §§ 1 (a) and 3 (c) that his pre-trial detention had been both unlawful and excessively long. He also complained under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention about the length of the criminal proceedings and about of shortfalls in the trial, as well as in the investigation of his criminal case, and the courts' failure to remedy them. Under Article 6 § 3 (c) and (d), he complained that his right to defence and adequate time to prepare his defence had been violated. Under Article 4 § 1 of Protocol No. 7 he complained that he had been punished twice for the same offence, referring to the allegedly wrongful interpretation of some counts of his conviction.
69. In the light of all the material in its possession, and in so far as the matters complained of are within its competence, the Court finds that they do not disclose any appearance of a violation of the rights and freedoms set out in the Convention or its Protocols. It follows that this part of the application must be rejected as being manifestly ill-founded, pursuant to Article 35 §§ 3 and 4 of the Convention.
IV. Application of Article 41 of the Convention
70. Article 41 of the Convention pro
> 1 2 3 ... 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
