e present case is too speculative to be deemed an effective remedy (see Zhu v. the United Kingdom (dec.), No. 36790/97, 2 September 2000, and Horvat v. Croatia, No. 51585/99, § 44, ECHR 2001-VIII). Thus, the Court dismisses the Government's objection.
72. The Court notes that the applicant's complaint is not manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 of the Convention and that it is not inadmissible on any other grounds. It must therefore be declared admissible.
2. Merits
73. The Court observes that the Government disputed that the applicant had been detained at the Severnoye Medvedkovo police station from 21 to 23 May 2002. They submitted that, according to the information provided by the Prosecutor General's office, at the relevant time he had been detained in the temporary detention facility of the Losinoostrovskiy police station. They were, however, unable to substantiate their submissions, because the relevant logs had been destroyed after the expiry of their retention period.
74. The Court is not persuaded by the Government's submission. Firstly, it notes that the registration log of detained persons to which they refer was not listed among the documents to be destroyed in the destruction record submitted by them (see paragraph 67 above). Secondly, it seems peculiar to the Court that, the above documents being destroyed, the Prosecutor General's Office, on whose information the Government relied, was able to ascertain that the applicant had been detained at the relevant time in the temporary isolation ward of the Losinoostrovskiy police station, the Government being unable to indicate the source of that information (compare Sudarkov v. Russia, No. 3130/03, § 42, 10 July 2008).
75. At the same time, it follows from the certificate issued by the head of the same temporary detention facility, whose authenticity and accuracy the Government did not contest, that the applicant was detained at the Severnoye Medvedkovo police station after his arrest on 21 May 2002 until his transfer to the Losinoostrovskiy police station on 23 May 2002 at 10.40 p.m. (see paragraph 26 above). Furthermore, the applicant consistently submitted before this Court and in his complaints to the domestic authorities that during his detention at the Severnoye Medvedkovo police station from 21 to 23 May 2002 he had not been given food and drink (see paragraph 27 above). Having regard to the foregoing, the Court is inclined to accept the applicant's submission that from noon on 21 May 2002 to 10 p.m. on 23 May 2002 he was detained at the Severnoye Medvedkovo police station, without food or drink being provided to him and without the opportunity to sleep due to the lack of a proper sleeping place (see Fedotov v. Russia, No. 5140/02, §§ 60 - 61, 25 October 2005).
76. The Court reiterates that ill-treatment must attain a minimum level of severity if it is to fall within the scope of Article 3 of the Convention. The assessment of this level is relative; it depends on all the circumstances of the case, such as the duration of the treatment, its physical and mental effects and, in some cases, the sex, age and state of health of the victim (see, among many other authorities, {Kudla} v. Poland [GC], No. 30210/96, § 91, ECHR 2000-XI).
77. The Court reiterates that it has found a violation of Article 3 in a case where an applicant had been kept for twenty-two hours in an administrative detention cell at a police station without food or drink or unrestricted access to a toilet, and where the unsatisfactory conditions of his detention had been further exacerbated by the mental anguish caused by the unlawful nature of his detention (see Fedotov, cited above, § 67). In another case it held that the mere fact of holding the applicant in custody for three months in a detention facility designed only for short-term detention disclosed a
> 1 2 3 ... 30 31 32 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
