violation of Article 3 (see Kaja v. Greece, No. 32927/03, §§ 49 - 50, 27 July 2006). The Court has also emphasised on a number of occasions that it considers it unacceptable for a person to be detained in conditions in which no provision has been made to meet his or her basic needs (see Riad and Idiab v. Belgium, Nos. 29787/03 and 29810/03, § 106, ECHR 2008-... (extracts) and that the State's obligation to adequately secure the well-being of prisoners includes the obligation to provide them with appropriate nutrition and access to drinking water (see {Kadikis} v. Latvia (No. 2), No. 62393/00, § 55, 4 May 2006).
78. The Court observes that the applicant's description of the conditions of his detention at the police station coincides with the findings of the Committee for the Prevention of Torture (the CPT) which inspected administrative detention cells located within several police stations in Moscow the year before. The CPT found, in particular, that there had been no provision for supplying detainees with food and drinking water, that the cells had no equipment except a bench and the persons held there overnight had not been provided with mattresses and bedding. The CPT stated that such cells were totally unacceptable for periods of custody exceeding three hours (see paragraphs 45 and 46 above). In the present case the applicant was held for almost three days in a cell unfit for overnight stay, without food or drink or the opportunity to rest. In these circumstances the Court considers that the applicant was subjected to inhuman treatment in breach of Article 3 of the Convention. There has accordingly been a violation of that Article.
III. Alleged violation of Article 3 of the Convention
on account of the conditions of detention
in Moscow IZ-77/1 remand centre
79. The applicant also complained that the conditions of his detention in remand centre IZ-77/1 in Moscow had amounted to inhuman and degrading treatment in breach of Article 3 of the Convention.
A. Submissions by the parties
80. The Government acknowledged the overcrowding problem in the applicant's remand centre. They argued however that there had been no violation of Article 3 because the authorities had complied with all other requirements concerning conditions of detention. At all times the applicant had been provided with an individual sleeping place and bedding.
81. The applicant did not contest the measurements of the cells as presented by the Government but claimed that the level of overcrowding was far more severe than submitted by them. He also challenged as factually incorrect the Government's description of other conditions of his detention. He averred that he had been detained in overcrowded cells for almost three years and emphasised that the overcrowding had entailed further negative consequences. In particular, he had not had an individual sleeping place and had had to sleep in shifts and to share bedding with other inmates; the tables in the cells had always been occupied and he had not been able to prepare for trial; he had not had unlimited access to the toilet because it had been permanently occupied by other inmates.
B. The Court's assessment
1. Admissibility
82. 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
83. The Court observes that the parties' accounts of the conditions of the applicant's detention differ in several aspects. However, there is no need for the Court to establish the truthfulness of each and every allegation, because it finds a violation of Article 3 on the basis of the facts
> 1 2 3 ... 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
