rtition measuring one metre in height and the inmates had to use the bedding supplied by their relatives to secure at least some privacy. The wardens routinely removed their hand-made partitions so that the applicant had to answer the needs of nature in view of other inmates. Moreover, because of the overcrowding the toilet was always occupied and he could not always have access to it in case of need. The toilet was two metres from the table at which the inmates had their meals. The food was of poor quality and had an unpleasant smell. The inmates went on hunger strike several times in protest at the poor quality of the food.
33. Detainees were allowed to take showers only once every eight to ten days, in a communal shower. Seventy-five to one hundred inmates were at the same time given half an hour for a shower while only ten to twelve taps were working properly. They could not wash themselves or their clothes properly and had to negotiate with wardens who agreed for money to extend the shower time to one hour.
34. The applicant received no medical treatment, in particular in respect of his acute tooth pain. He was first given dental treatment only when he arrived at the correctional colony in June 2005.
35. Once a day the applicant was allowed to take a forty-minute walk in a stone courtyard measuring 20 - 25 square metres, at the same time as up to ninety others.
36. On many occasions the applicant complained about the conditions of detention to the administration of the remand centre but his complaints were left without reply.
37. In support of his description of the conditions of detention the applicant produced written statements by Messrs N., D., Po. and Pe. who had been detained in the same remand centre at the relevant time and confirmed his submissions concerning, in particular, overcrowding, lack of individual sleeping places and bedding and inadequate medical assistance. The applicant also submitted sketched plans and photographs of cell No. 106 and the courtyard. He also furnished an article dated 28 December 2005 and published on the internet site newsru.com, summarising the results of the checks carried out by the Moscow City Prosecutor's office in 2005 and concerning conditions of detention at remand centres in Moscow. With reference to the results of the check-ups, it was stated that although the overall number of inmates held in the six remand centres of Moscow had decreased over a five-year period, it was still twice the design capacity. A considerable number of detainees were not provided with individual sleeping places.
2. The Government's account
38. According to the Government, throughout his detention in the remand centre the applicant was held in the following cells:
- cell No. 106 measuring 57.8 square metres, having 34 bunks and accommodating 34 inmates;
- cell No. 118 measuring 32.3 square metres, having 34 bunks and accommodating 35 inmates;
- cell. No. 122 measuring 52.7 square metres, having 20 bunks and accommodating 20 inmates;
- cell No. 146 measuring 46.57 square metres, having 22 bunks and accommodating 22 inmates;
- cell No. 238 measuring 21.31 square metres, having 6 bunks and accommodating 6 inmates.
39. The cells had central heating, water supply and drainage; each cell was equipped with a toilet and a wash basin. The toilet was separated from the living area by a brick partition not less than one metre in height and fully securing the necessary privacy. Depending on their size, the cells had one or two windows with bars; the windows were glazed and permitted the inmates to read and work by natural light. The artificial lighting conformed to the relevant standards and at night its brightness was reduced to a level permitting supervision of the detainees. During the applicant's detention there had been no artificial ventilat
> 1 2 3 ... 22 23 24 ... 33 34 35
Zaki.ru законы и право
поиск по сайту
каталог документов
добавить сайт Zaki.ru в избранное
Правовые акты международные
Правовые акты Российской Федерации
