y police station in Moscow and that on those days he had been transported to the Severnoye Medvedkovo police station for all investigative actions. The Losinoostrovskiy temporary detention facility had been put into operation in 2002 and conditions of detention there conformed to all relevant international standards. The Government were not able to produce the relevant documents concerning the Losinoostrovskiy police station, in particular the registration log of detainees, because they had been destroyed due to the expiry of their retention period. The Government produced a copy of a record of destruction of documents and case files of the Losinoostrovskiy police station dated 27 June 2005. The list of the documents to be destroyed did not contain any reference to the detainees' registration log. Finally, the Government submitted that the Severnoye Medvedkovo police station had been demolished in 2002.
68. The applicant emphasised that the fact of his detention from 21 to 23 May 2002 at the Severnoye Medvedkovo police station had been confirmed by a certificate of the head of the Losinoostrovskiy temporary detention ward, according to which he had been admitted to the latter at 10.40 p.m. on 23 May 2002. He further averred that his lawyer, his relatives and he himself had complained to various authorities about the conditions of his detention at the Severnoye Medvedkovo police station but in vain, also due to the fact that the administration of the remand centre, where he had been subsequently held, would not despatch his complaints. Despite his efforts to alert the authorities, they remained passive towards his complaints. Although the applicant did not dispute the existence of the remedy suggested by the Government, he insisted that it had not been effective, at least between 2002 and 2005. In particular, although the Court had frequently found violations of Articles 3 and 13 on account of conditions of detention in remand centres and lack of effective remedies, the situation for those detained in Russia had not changed.
B. The Court's assessment
1. Admissibility
69. With reference to the Court's judgment in the Rytsarev case the Government argued that the applicant should have complained under the 1993 Judicial Review Act about the conditions of his detention at the police station.
70. The Court reiterates that it is incumbent on the Government claiming non-exhaustion to satisfy the Court that the remedy was an effective one, available in theory and in practice at the relevant time, that is to say that it was accessible, capable of providing redress in respect of the applicant's complaints and offered reasonable prospects of success (see Akdivar and Others v. Turkey, 16 September 1996, § 68, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1996-IV, and Selmouni v. France [GC], No. 25803/94, § 76, ECHR 1999-V). The domestic remedies must be "effective" in the sense either of preventing the alleged violation or its continuation, or of providing adequate redress for any violation that had already occurred (see {Kudla} v. Poland [GC], No. 30210/96, § 158, ECHR-XI).
71. The Court observes that the Government have not shown that at the relevant time there was an established line of authority in Russian law where damages were in fact awarded under the 1993 Judicial Review Act in situations analogous to the present case. The Court cannot accept their reference to the Rytsarev case in which the domestic courts did not rely on the provisions of the above Act when awarding the applicant non-pecuniary damages in connection with his complaint about the conditions of detention at the police station (see Rytsarev v. Russia, No. 63332/00, §§ 20 - 22, 21 July 2005). Hence, in the Court's view, the mere and unsupported possibility of being awarded damages for conditions of the applicant's detention under the Judicial Review Act in th
> 1 2 3 ... 29 30 31 ... 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
