BAILII is celebrating 24 years of free online access to the law! Would you
consider making a contribution?
No donation is too small. If every visitor before 31 December gives just £1, it
will have a significant impact on BAILII's ability to continue providing free
access to the law.
Thank you very much for your support!
[New search]
[Contents list]
[Printable RTF version]
[Help]
FIRST
SECTION
CASE OF BENEDIKTOV v. RUSSIA
(Application
no. 106/02)
JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
10 May
2007
This
judgment will become final in the circumstances set out in Article 44
§ 2 of the Convention. It may be subject to editorial
revision.
In the case of Benediktov
v. Russia,
The
European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting as a Chamber
composed of:
Mr C.L. Rozakis, President,
Mr L.
Loucaides,
Mrs N. Vajić,
Mr A.
Kovler,
Mrs E. Steiner,
Mr K. Hajiyev,
Mr S.E.
Jebens, judges,
and Mr S. Nielsen, Section Registrar,
Having
deliberated in private on 10 April 2007,
Delivers
the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
PROCEDURE
- The
case originated in an application (no. 106/02) against the Russian
Federation lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention
for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the
Convention”) by a Russian national, Mr Vladimir Aleksandrovich
Benediktov (“the applicant”), on 23 November 2001.
- The
applicant, who had been granted legal aid, was represented by Ms M.
Arutyunyan and Ms O. Preobrazhenskaya, lawyers practising in Moscow.
The Russian Government (“the Government”) were
represented Mr P. Laptev, the Representative of the Russian
Federation at the European Court of Human Rights.
- On
2 September 2005 the Court decided to give notice of the application
to the Government. Under the provisions of Article 29 § 3 of the
Convention, it decided to examine the merits of the application at
the same time as its admissibility.
- The
Government objected to the joint examination of the admissibility and
merits of the application. Having examined the Government's
objection, the Court dismissed it.
THE FACTS
- The
applicant was born in 1973 and lived until his arrest in Moscow. He
is now serving his sentence in a correctional colony in the Mordoviya
Republic of the Russian Federation.
I. THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE
A. Criminal proceedings against the applicant
- On
16 December 1999, at approximately 11 a.m., the applicant was
arrested on suspicion of robbery. The report of his arrest was drawn
up six hours later. He was issued with a copy of the report only in
April 2000.
- An
investigator informed the applicant of his statutory defence rights.
The applicant countersigned a record indicating that he had
voluntarily refused legal assistance and decided to answer the
investigator's questions. On the same day he was confronted with the
victim, the co-defendant and a witness.
- On
17 December 1999 a prosecutor authorised the remand of the applicant
in custody, without the latter being present.
- In
December 1999 and January 2000 an investigator ordered three expert
examinations. According to the applicant, he was notified of these
examinations in April 2000.
- On
24 November 2000 the Zyuzinskiy District Court of Moscow found the
applicant guilty of robbery and sentenced him to nine years'
imprisonment in a high-security colony. The District Court based its
judgment on statements by the victim, several eyewitnesses, expert
reports and other material evidence. On 23 May 2001 the Moscow City
Court upheld the conviction, but remitted the decision concerning the
colony type for re-examination. On 3 July 2001 the
Zyuzinskiy District Court ordered that the applicant should serve his
sentence in a high-security colony.
B. Conditions of the applicant's detention
- From
19 December 1999 to November 2001 the applicant was detained in
facilities nos. IZ-77/2 and IZ-77/3 in Moscow.
1. Facility no. IZ-77/2
(a) Number of inmates per cell
- According
to certificates issued on 19 October 2005 by the acting facility
director, and produced by the Government, the applicant was kept in
three cells. From 19 to 22 December 1999 he was detained in cell no.
148 which measured 57.4 square metres. From 22 December 1999 to 10
March 2000 he was kept in a 12.7 sq. m cell, no. 85. According to the
Government, the information on the number of inmates in cells nos. 85
and 148 was not available as the documents had been destroyed. From
10 March to 28 November 2000 the applicant remained in cell no.
101, which measured 55.2 square metres. Between 22 September and 28
November 2000 that cell housed approximately 58 detainees. The
Government, relying on the certificates of 19 October 2005, further
submitted that at all times the applicant had had an individual bunk
and bedding. However, the facility was not able to produce the
applicant's record confirming the latter submission as it had been
sent to another detention facility in Moscow.
-
The applicant did not dispute the cell measurements. He, however,
alleged that he had shared cell no. 85 with five detainees. That cell
had five bunks. Cell no. 101 accommodated 70 to 80 inmates. Given the
lack of beds, inmates slept in shifts.
(b) Sanitary conditions, installations and
temperature
- The
Government, relying on the information provided by the office of the
Prosecutor General of the Russian Federation, submitted that all
cells were disinfected on a “regular basis”. Inmates were
allowed to take a shower once a week. The applicant was provided with
bedding. The cells were ventilated naturally through the windows.
Each cell also had a ventilating shaft. The Government further argued
that the temperature in the cells had been “normal”.
Additional window-frames with glass were inserted in winter. The
cells were equipped with lamps which functioned day and night.
- The
applicant disagreed with the Government's description and submitted
that the sanitary conditions had been unsatisfactory. The cells were
infected with bed-bugs and lice but the administration did not
provide any insecticides. Windows were not glazed and were covered
with thick metal bars that blocked access to natural light and fresh
air. It was extremely cold in winter and in summer it was hot, stuffy
and excessively damp inside. Inmates had an hour-long walk daily. On
admission to the facility the applicant was provided with bedding
which was dirty and smelt badly. The bedding was seized when he was
transferred to a hospital in the end of December 1999. When he
returned, he was not provided with bedding at all. No toiletries were
distributed.
2. Facility no. IZ-77/3
- According
to the applicant, from November 2000 to November 2001 he was kept in
detention facility no. IZ-77/3 in Moscow. He was detained in six
different cells, which were severely overcrowded. At all times the
number of detainees was greater than that of the available bunks. The
general conditions of his detention in that facility were similar to
those in facility no. IZ-77/2, save for one aspect. In summer
detainees were afforded a one-hour walk at night because it was
extremely hot and many inmates had suffered heart attacks.
- The
Government did not comment on this.
C. State of the applicant's health and medical
assistance
- According
to a certificate of the head of correctional colony no. 1 in the
Mordoviya Republic, in January 2000 the applicant was diagnosed with
viral hepatitis of type B and on the following day he was admitted to
an isolation ward in the facility hospital. The Government submitted
that he had undergone treatment until March 2000 and had been
transferred back to a cell after his full recovery. The Government
gave a detailed description of the treatment the applicant had been
provided with, including the type of medicine, dose and frequency.
They also furnished a copy of the applicant's medical record and
medical certificates. The Government further noted that the applicant
had never complained to the facility administration or any other
authority that medical assistance was lacking or was of poor quality.
- The
applicant argued that in late December 1999 he had been transferred
to the facility hospital because he had contracted hepatitis. He was
placed on a drip five or six times during his treatment and provided
with medication that did not help. Dietetic food was not provided and
he refused to eat the hospital food because it was too greasy. He
unsuccessfully complained to the head of the hospital about
inadequate medical assistance. The latter encouraged him to ask his
relatives to bring the necessary medicines because the hospital did
not have them. According to the applicant, he was released from the
hospital although he did not fully recover. On a number of
occasions he complained to a doctor in facility no. IZ-77/2
about a pain in his liver. The doctor allegedly told him that the
facility did not have the necessary medicines and that he should ask
relatives to buy them.
II. RELEVANT DOMESTIC LAW
- Section
22 of the Detention of Suspects Act (Federal Law no. 103-FZ of 15
July 1995) provides that detainees should be given free food
sufficient to maintain them in good health according to standards
established by the Government of the Russian Federation. Section 23
provides that detainees should be kept in conditions which satisfy
sanitary and hygienic requirements. They should be provided with an
individual sleeping place and given bedding, tableware and
toiletries. Each inmate should have no less than 4 square metres of
personal space in his or her cell.
III. RELEVANT INTERNATIONAL DOCUMENTS
- The
European Committee for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman or
Degrading Treatment or Punishment (CPT) visited the Russian
Federation from 2 to 17 December 2001. The section of its Report to
the Russian Government (CPT/Inf (2003) 30) dealing with the
conditions of detention in remand establishments and the complaints
procedure read as follows:
45. It should be stressed at the outset that the CPT was
pleased to note the progress being made on an issue of great concern
for the Russian penitentiary system: overcrowding.
When the CPT first visited the Russian Federation in
November 1998, overcrowding was identified as the most important and
urgent challenge facing the prison system. At the beginning of the
2001 visit, the delegation was informed that the remand prison
population had decreased by 30,000 since 1 January 2000. An example
of that trend was SIZO No 1 in Vladivostok, which had registered a
30% decrease in the remand prison population over a period of three
years.
...
The CPT welcomes the measures taken in recent years by
the Russian authorities to address the problem of overcrowding,
including instructions issued by the Prosecutor General's Office,
aimed at a more selective use of the preventive measure of remand in
custody. Nevertheless, the information gathered by the Committee's
delegation shows that much remains to be done. In particular,
overcrowding is still rampant and regime activities are
underdeveloped. In this respect, the CPT reiterates the
recommendations made in its previous reports (cf. paragraphs 25 and
30 of the report on the 1998 visit, CPT (99) 26; paragraphs 48 and 50
of the report on the 1999 visit, CPT (2000) 7; paragraph 52 of the
report on the 2000 visit, CPT (2001) 2).
...
125. As during previous visits, many prisoners
expressed scepticism about the operation of the complaints procedure.
In particular, the view was expressed that it was not possible to
complain in a confidential manner to an outside authority. In fact,
all complaints, regardless of the addressee, were registered by staff
in a special book which also contained references to the nature of
the complaint. At Colony No 8, the supervising prosecutor indicated
that, during his inspections, he was usually accompanied by senior
staff members and prisoners would normally not request to meet him in
private “because they know that all complaints usually pass
through the colony's administration”.
In the light of the
above, the CPT reiterates its recommendation that the Russian
authorities review the application of complaints procedures, with a
view to ensuring that they are operating effectively. If necessary,
the existing arrangements should be modified in order to guarantee
that prisoners can make complaints to outside bodies on a truly
confidential basis.”
THE LAW
I. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLES 3 AND 13 OF THE
CONVENTION
- The
applicant complained that his detention from 19 December 1999 to
November 2001 in appalling conditions, leading to hepatitis, was in
breach of Article 3 of the Convention which reads as follows:
“No one shall be subjected to torture or to
inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.”
He
also claimed that he did not have at his disposal an effective remedy
for the violation of the guarantee against ill-treatment, which is
required under Article 13 of the Convention:
“Everyone whose rights and freedoms as set forth
in [the] Convention are violated shall have an effective remedy
before a national authority ....”
A. Submissions by the parties
23. The Government argued that the applicant had not exhausted
the domestic remedies available to him. In particular, he had not
complained about the conditions of his detention to a prosecutor or
court. The Government further commented on the conditions of the
applicant's detention, but only in facility no. IZ-77/2. In
particular, they submitted that the applicant had been detained in
satisfactory sanitary conditions. The Government noted that the fact
that the applicant had been detained in the overcrowded cells could
not serve on its own as the basis for finding a violation of Article
3 of the Convention because the remaining aspects of the applicant's
detention had been satisfactory. The Government pointed out that
overcrowding was a general problem in many member States of the
Council of Europe.
- The applicant submitted that he had not applied to a
prosecutor or court because he had considered that such a complaint
would not have any prospect of success. On numerous occasions,
however, he had complained to the administrations about the appalling
conditions of his detention. Thus they were sufficiently aware of his
situation but no changes followed. He further challenged the
Government's description of his conditions of detention as factually
inaccurate. He insisted that the cells had at all times been severely
overcrowded. According to the applicant, the overcrowding problem had
been acknowledged by many Russian officials.
B. The Court's assessment
1. Admissibility
- The
Government raised the objection of non-exhaustion of domestic
remedies by the applicant. The Court considers that the issue of
exhaustion of domestic remedies is closely linked to the merits of
the applicant's complaint that he did not have at his disposal an
effective remedy for complaining about inhuman and degrading
conditions of his detention. Thus, the Court finds it necessary to
join the Government's objection to the merits of the applicant's
complaint under Article 13 of the Convention.
- The Court further notes that the applicant's
complaints under Article 3 and 13 of the Convention are not
manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 of
the Convention and that they are not inadmissible on any other
grounds. They must therefore be declared admissible.
2. Merits
(a) Article 13 of the Convention
- The
Court points out that Article 13 of the Convention guarantees
the availability at national level of a remedy to enforce the
substance of Convention rights and freedoms in whatever form they
might happen to be secured in the domestic legal order. The effect of
Article 13 is thus to require the provision of a domestic remedy to
deal with the substance of an “arguable complaint” under
the Convention and to grant appropriate relief (see, among many other
authorities, the Kudła v. Poland [GC], no. 30210/96,
§ 157, ECHR 2000 XI).
- The
scope of the obligation under Article 13 varies depending on the
nature of the applicant's complaint under the Convention.
Nevertheless, the remedy required by Article 13 must be
effective in practice as well as in law.
- Turning
to the facts of the present case, the Court considers that the
Government did not demonstrate what redress could have been afforded
to the applicant by a prosecutor, a court or other State agencies,
taking into account that the problems arising from the conditions of
the applicant's detention were apparently of a structural nature and
did not only concern the applicant's personal situation (cf. Moiseyev
v. Russia (dec.), no. 62936/00, 9 December 2004;
Kalashnikov v. Russia (dec.), no. 47095/99, 18 September
2001; and, most recently, Mamedova v. Russia, no.
7064/05, § 57, 1 June 2006). The Government have failed to
submit evidence as to the existence of any domestic remedy by which
the applicant could have complained about the general conditions of
his detention, in particular with regard to the structural problem of
overcrowding in Russian detention facilities, or that the remedies
available to him were effective, that is to say that they could have
prevented violations from occurring or continuing, or that they could
have afforded the applicant appropriate redress (see, to the same
effect, Melnik v. Ukraine, no. 72286/01, §§ 70-71,
28 March 2006; Dvoynykh v. Ukraine, no. 72277/01, § 72,
12 October 2006; and Ostrovar v. Moldova, no. 35207/03,
§ 112, 13 September 2005).
- Accordingly,
the Court rejects the Government's argument as to the exhaustion of
domestic remedies and concludes that there has been a violation of
Article 13 of the Convention on account of the lack of an
effective and accessible remedy under domestic law for the applicant
to complain about the general conditions of his detention.
(b) Article 3 of the Convention
- The
Court observes that the continuous nature of the applicant's
detention, his identical descriptions of the general conditions of
his detention in both facilities and the lack of arguments on the
Government's behalf concerning that assertion warrant the examination
of the applicant's detention from 19 December 1999 to November
2001 without dividing it into separate periods.
- The
parties disagreed as to the specific conditions of the applicant's
detention. However, there is no need for the Court to establish the
truthfulness of each and every allegation, because it finds that
there has been a violation of Article 3 on the basis of the facts
which have been presented and which, in principle, are not disputed
by the respondent Government, for the following reasons.
- The
main characteristic, which the parties did agree upon, is the size of
the cells. However, the applicant claimed that the cell population
severely exceeded the capacity for which they were designed; the
Government were unable to indicate the exact number of inmates in
certain cells, alleging that the relevant documents had been
destroyed. They also failed to provide any information concerning the
number of detainees in cell no. 101, save for the period from
22 September to 28 November 2000, and they did not describe
the conditions of the applicant's detention after 28 November
2000.
- In
this connection, the Court observes that Convention proceedings, such
as the present application, do not in all cases lend themselves to a
rigorous application of the principle affirmanti incumbit probatio
(he who alleges something must prove that allegation) because in
certain instances the respondent Government alone have access to
information capable of corroborating or refuting allegations. A
failure on a Government's part to submit such information without a
satisfactory explanation may give rise to the drawing of inferences
as to the well-foundedness of the applicant's allegations (see Ahmet
Özkan and Others v. Turkey, no. 21689/93, § 426,
6 April 2004).
- Having
regard to the abovementioned principles, together with the fact that
the Government did not offer any convincing explanation for their
failure to submit relevant information and that they, in principle,
agreed that the cells could have been overcrowded (see paragraph 23
above), the Court will examine the issue concerning the number of
inmates in the cells on the basis of the applicant's submissions.
- According
to the applicant, in the smallest cell of 12.7 sq. m, inmates were
afforded less than 2.2 sq. m of personal space. In a bigger 55.2 sq.
m cell, detainees had less than 1 sq. m of personal space, even
during the period when there were 58 inmates, as submitted by the
Government. The number of detainees was greater than that of
available bunks. It follows that the detainees, including the
applicant, had to share the sleeping facilities, taking turns to
rest. Thus, for approximately two years the applicant was confined to
his cell day and night, save for one hour of outdoor exercise.
- Irrespective
of the reasons for the overcrowding, the Court considers that it is
incumbent on the respondent Government to organise its penitentiary
system in such a way as to ensure respect for the dignity of
detainees, regardless of financial or logistical difficulties (see
Mamedova, cited above, § 63).
- The
Court has frequently found a violation of Article 3 of the Convention
on account of lack of personal space afforded to detainees (see
Khudoyorov v. Russia, no. 6847/02, § 104 et seq.,
ECHR 2005-... (extracts); Labzov v. Russia, no. 62208/00, § 44
et seq., 16 June 2005; Novoselov v. Russia, no. 66460/01,
§ 41 et seq., 2 June 2005; Mayzit v. Russia,
no. 63378/00, § 39 et seq., 20 January 2005;
Kalashnikov v. Russia, no. 47095/99, §§ 97
et seq., ECHR 2002-VI; and Peers v. Greece, no. 28524/95,
§§ 69 et seq., ECHR 2001-III).
- Having
regard to its case-law on the subject and the material submitted by
the parties, the Court notes that the Government have not put forward
any fact or argument capable of persuading it to reach a different
conclusion in the present case. Although in the present case there is
no indication that there was a positive intention to humiliate or
debase the applicant, the Court finds that the fact that the
applicant was obliged to live, sleep and use the toilet in the same
cell as so many other inmates for almost two years was itself
sufficient to cause distress or hardship of an intensity exceeding
the unavoidable level of suffering inherent in detention, and to
arouse in him feelings of fear, anguish and inferiority capable of
humiliating and debasing him.
- Furthermore,
while in the present case it cannot be established “beyond
reasonable doubt” that the ventilation, heating, lighting or
sanitary conditions in the facilities were unacceptable from the
standpoint of Article 3, the Court nonetheless notes that the
Government did not dispute that the cell windows had been covered
with metal shutters blocking access to fresh air and natural light.
In addition, the Court observes that the applicant was diagnosed with
hepatitis after his admission to facility no. IZ-77/2 and that it
appears to be most probable that he was infected while in detention.
Although this fact in itself does not imply a violation of Article 3,
given, in particular, the fact that the applicant received treatment
(see Alver v. Estonia, no. 64812/01, § 54, 8
November 2005 and, mutatis mutandis, Khokhlich v. Ukraine,
no. 41707/98, 29 April 2003) and that he fully recovered, the
Court considers that these aspects, while not in themselves capable
of justifying the notion of “degrading” treatment, are
relevant in addition to the focal factor of the severe overcrowding,
to show that the applicant's detention conditions went beyond the
threshold tolerated by Article 3 of the Convention (cf. Novoselov,
cited above, § 44).
- There
has therefore been a violation of Article 3 of the Convention on
account of the conditions of the applicant's detention from 19
December 1999 to November 2001 in facilities nos. IZ-77/2 and
IZ-77/3.
II. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 5 OF THE CONVENTION
- The
applicant further complained under Article 5 § 1 (c) and §
3 of the Convention that the report of his arrest had not been
promptly drawn up and notified to him and thus he had not been duly
informed of the reasons for his arrest, that the prosecutor had
authorised his detention on remand in his absence, and that the same
prosecutor had extended his remand period and taken other procedural
actions. Article 5, in so far as relevant, reads as follows:
“1. Everyone has the right to liberty
and security of person. No one shall be deprived of his liberty save
in the following cases and in accordance with a procedure prescribed
by law:
...
(c) the lawful arrest or detention of a
person effected for the purpose of bringing him before the competent
legal authority on reasonable suspicion of having committed an
offence or when it is reasonably considered necessary to prevent his
committing an offence or fleeing after having done so;
...
3. Everyone arrested or detained in
accordance with the provisions of paragraph 1 (c) of this
Article shall be brought promptly before a judge or other officer
authorised by law to exercise judicial power and shall be entitled to
trial within a reasonable time or to release pending trial. Release
may be conditioned by guarantees to appear for trial.”
- The Court observes that it is not required to decide
whether or not the applicant's complaints concerning his detention on
remand disclose an appearance of a violation of Article 5 of the
Convention. It reiterates that, according to Article 35 of the
Convention, the Court may only deal with the matter within a period
of six months from the date on which the final decision was taken. It
observes that the applicant's detention on remand ended on
24 November 2000 when the Zyuzinskiy District Court of Moscow
convicted him (see Labita v. Italy [GC], no. 26772/95,
§ 147, ECHR 2000 IV). After that date his detention no
longer fell within the ambit of Article 5 § 1 (c), but within
the scope of Article 5 § 1 (a) of the Convention (see, for
instance, B. v. Austria, judgment of 28 March 1990,
Series A no. 175, pp. 14-16, §§ 36-39). The
applicant lodged his application with the Court on 23 November 2001,
which is more than six months after his detention on remand had
ended.
- It
follows that this part of the application was lodged out of time and
must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 §§ 1 and 4
of the Convention.
III. OTHER ALLEGED VIOLATIONS OF THE CONVENTION
- The
applicant complained under Article 6 § 3 (c) and (d) of the
Convention that he had not been informed of his statutory rights as
an accused after his arrest, that he had not been assisted by counsel
during the first interrogation and the confrontation with the victim,
and that he had not been promptly notified of expert examinations.
- However,
having regard to all the material in its possession, the Court finds
that they do not disclose any appearance of a violation of the rights
and freedoms set out in the Convention or its Protocols. It follows
that this part of the application must be rejected as being
manifestly ill-founded, pursuant to Article 35 §§ 3 and 4
of the Convention.
IV. APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION
- Article 41 of the Convention provides:
“If the Court finds that there has been a
violation of the Convention or the Protocols thereto, and if the
internal law of the High Contracting Party concerned allows only
partial reparation to be made, the Court shall, if necessary, afford
just satisfaction to the injured party.”
A. Damage
- The
applicant claimed 15,000 euros in respect of non-pecuniary damage.
- The
Government averred that the claim was unsubstantiated because there
had been no violation of the applicant's Convention rights.
- The
Court accepts that the applicant suffered humiliation and distress
because of the degrading conditions of his detention and the absence
of an effective remedy in respect of his complaints about those
conditions. Making its assessment on an equitable basis, having
regard to its case-law on the subject and, taking into account, in
particular, the length of the applicant's detention, the Court awards
the applicant EUR 10,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage, plus any
tax that may be chargeable on that amount.
B. Costs and expenses
- The
applicant also claimed EUR 1,590 for his representation before the
Court and EUR 100 for his lawyers' postal expenses and charges for
telephone communications.
- The
Government argued that the applicant's lawyers had worked for him for
free and that he was not under any legal obligation, by virtue of a
contract or any other document, to pay them for their services.
- According
to the Court's case-law, an applicant is entitled to reimbursement of
his costs and expenses only in so far as it has been shown that these
have been actually and necessarily incurred and were reasonable as to
quantum.
- As
regards the fees for the legal representation in the Strasbourg
proceedings, the Court observes that the applicant was granted EUR
850 in legal aid. It considers that the applicant did not justify
having incurred any expenses exceeding that amount. Therefore the
Court makes no award under this head.
- As
regards the postal expenses and telephone charges, the Court notes
that neither the applicant nor his lawyers submitted any evidence
(bills, receipts, etc.) in support of that claim. Accordingly, the
Court rejects it.
C. Default interest
- The
Court considers it appropriate that the default interest should be
based on the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank, to
which should be added three percentage points.
FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT UNANIMOUSLY
- Decides to join to the merits the
Government's objection as to the exhaustion of domestic remedies in
respect of the applicant's complaint about the inhuman and degrading
conditions of his detention and rejects it;
2. Declares the complaints concerning the
conditions of the applicant's detention from 19 December 1999 to
November 2001 and the absence of an effective remedy in respect of
his complaint about the conditions of his detention admissible and
the remainder of the application inadmissible;
- Holds that there has been a violation of Article
13 of the Convention;
- Holds that there has been a violation of
Article 3 of the Convention;
- Holds
(a) that
the respondent State is to pay the applicant, within three months
from the date on which the judgment becomes final in accordance with
Article 44 § 2 of the Convention, EUR 10,000 (ten
thousand euros) in respect of non-pecuniary damage, to be converted
into Russian roubles at the rate applicable at the date of
settlement, plus any tax that may be chargeable;
(b) that
from the expiry of the above-mentioned three months until settlement
simple interest shall be payable on the above amount at a rate equal
to the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank during the
default period plus three percentage points;
- Dismisses the remainder of the applicant's claim
for just satisfaction.
Done in English, and notified in writing on 10 May 2007, pursuant to
Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
Søren Nielsen Christos Rozakis
Registrar President
