Постановление Европейского суда по правам человека от 29.01.2009 «Дело Малтабарь и Малтабарь (Maltabar and Maltabar) против России» [англ.]

verse effects of overcrowding have resulted in inhuman and degrading conditions of detention..."
Extracts from the 11th General Report [CPT/Inf (2001) 16]
"28. The phenomenon of prison overcrowding continues to blight penitentiary systems across Europe and seriously undermines attempts to improve conditions of detention. The negative effects of prison overcrowding have already been highlighted in previous General Reports...
29. In a number of countries visited by the CPT, particularly in central and eastern Europe, inmate accommodation often consists of large capacity dormitories which contain all or most of the facilities used by prisoners on a daily basis, such as sleeping and living areas as well as sanitary facilities. The CPT has objections to the very principle of such accommodation arrangements in closed prisons and those objections are reinforced when, as is frequently the case, the dormitories in question are found to hold prisoners under extremely cramped and insalubrious conditions... Large-capacity dormitories inevitably imply a lack of privacy for prisoners in their everyday lives... All these problems are exacerbated when the numbers held go beyond a reasonable occupancy level; further, in such a situation the excessive burden on communal facilities such as washbasins or lavatories and the insufficient ventilation for so many persons will often lead to deplorable conditions.
30. The CPT frequently encounters devices, such as metal shutters, slats, or plates fitted to cell windows, which deprive prisoners of access to natural light and prevent fresh air from entering the accommodation. They are a particularly common feature of establishments holding pre-trial prisoners. The CPT fully accepts that specific security measures designed to prevent the risk of collusion and/or criminal activities may well be required in respect of certain prisoners... [E]ven when such measures are required, they should never involve depriving the prisoners concerned of natural light and fresh air. The latter are basic elements of life which every prisoner is entitled to enjoy..."

THE LAW

I. The government's preliminary objection

72. In their observations on the merits of the case the Government argued that the complaint about the conditions of transportation was inadmissible on grounds of the applicant's failure to exhaust domestic remedies in that connection.
73. The Court observes that a similar argument has already been examined and rejected by it in its admissibility decision of 28 June 2007.
74. The Court would again underline that the Government merely noted that the applicants had not lodged any complaints with the domestic authorities concerning the conditions of transportation. The Government neither specified what type of petition would, in their view, have been an effective remedy nor provided any further information as to how such a petition could have prevented the alleged violation or its continuation or provided the applicants with adequate redress. In the absence of such evidence, the Court finds that the Government have not substantiated their claim that the remedy the applicants had allegedly failed to exhaust was an effective one (see, among other authorities, Kranz v. Poland, No. 6214/02, § 23, 17 February 2004; Skawinska v. Poland (dec.), No. 42096/98, 4 March 2003; and Maltabar and Maltabar v. Russia (dec.), No. 6954/02, 28 June 2007).
75. The Court rejects the Government's preliminary objection accordingly.

II. Alleged violation of Article 3 of the Convention

76. Relying on Article 3 of the Convention, the applicants complained of the appalling conditions of their detention pending trial. They also specifically mentioned the allegedly deplorable conditions of their transportation to and from court hearings. Article 3 provides a



> 1 2 3 ... 7 8 9 10 ... 11 12

	Поделиться:	Tweet