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 ALEKSANDR MATVEYEV v. RUSSIA
(Application
no. 14797/02)
JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
8 July
2010
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 Aleksandr Matveyev
v. Russia,
The
European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting as a Chamber
composed of:
Christos Rozakis, President,
Nina
Vajić,
Anatoly Kovler,
Elisabeth
Steiner,
Khanlar Hajiyev,
Dean
Spielmann,
Sverre Erik Jebens, judges,
and Søren
Nielsen, Section
Registrar,
Having
deliberated in private on 17 June 2010,
Delivers
the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
PROCEDURE
- The
case originated in an application (no. 14797/02) 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 Aleksandr Vladimirovich
Matveyev (“the applicant”), on 27 February 2002.
- The Russian Government (“the
Government”) were represented by Mr P. Laptev, former
Representative of the Russian Federation at the European Court of
Human Rights.
- The
applicant alleged that he had been ill-treated after his arrest, that
the conditions of his detention on remand had been appalling and that
the criminal proceedings against him had been unfair. By letter of
2 December 2003 the applicant also complained that placing him
in the disciplinary cells of OYa-22/7 had restricted his rights.
- On
13 October 2005 the President of the Third Section decided to
communicate the complaints about the conditions of the applicant’s
detention on remand to the Government. It was also decided to examine
the merits of the application at the same time as its admissibility
(Article 29 § 1). The case was subsequently
transferred to First Section for examination.
THE FACTS
I. THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE
- The
applicant was born in 1974 and lives in the town of Pestovo in the
Novgorod Region.
A. The applicant’s arrest
1. The applicant’s arrest, as reflected in the
case file records
- On
the evening of 14 April 2000 the applicant was arrested on suspicion
of having committed murder and remanded in custody in detention
facility IVS of police station no. 36 in the Vyborgskiy District of
St Petersburg (ИВС
при 36
отделении
милиции
Выборгского
района
г. Санкт-Петербурга).
- The
arrest report drawn up on 15 April 2000 at 1 p.m. contains the typed
description of the applicant’s procedural rights, in particular
“the right to be represented by a lawyer from the moment of
drawing up of the arrest report” and “the right not to
incriminate oneself”. It was signed by the applicant and also
includes the applicant’s statement that he “wishes to
give evidence in the presence of counsel G.”. Lastly, the
report contains the following hand-written statement, also signed by
the applicant:
“I did commit, together with V., the murder of P.
on 5 April 2000.”
- A
record of the applicant’s questioning on 15 April 2000, signed
by the applicant and counsel G., according to which the applicant was
questioned from 1.15 to 4 p.m. in the presence of counsel G.,
contains a detailed description of the murder and robbery of P.
- According
to a subsequent record of 17 April 2000 signed by the applicant and
counsel G., the applicant “confirmed his testimony contained in
the record of 15 April 2000”.
- According
to the records of subsequent interviews, also signed by the applicant
and his representative, the applicant refused to give further
evidence and stated that he confirmed his confession, but only in
part.
- The
records do not contain any indication of or complaints about coercion
or ill-treatment.
- On
17 April 2000 the prosecutor of the Vyborgskiy District of
St Petersburg authorised the applicant’s further
detention.
- According
to the applicant, he was transferred to remand prison IZ45/4 in
St Petersburg (SIZO no. 4).
- The
Government submitted that the transfer had taken place on 20 April
2000.
2. The applicant’s account of events of 15 April
2000
- In his application to the Court the applicant gave the
following account of the events of 15 April 2000.
- The
applicant was escorted for questioning to an office, where he was
fettered to the floor with handcuffs and put in an uncomfortable
sitting position. The applicant was then beaten up by men who did not
state their names.
- The
applicant submitted that they had beaten him “professionally”,
inflicting blows in such a way as to leave no traces and using, in
particular, plastic bottles filled with water. They had also held a
knife to his throat, threatened him with death and promised to chop
his head off. At first, the officers had beaten the applicant without
asking him to do or say anything, but after some time they had
invited him to confess. When the applicant refused, they had shown
him a written statement of his friend V., who had been arrested in
connection with the same criminal case and had “confessed to
things he had never done”.
- The
applicant submitted that, being demoralised and fearing for his life,
he had confessed to a murder and a robbery but had refused to
incriminate V.
- The
applicant submitted that he had told his counsel about the
illtreatment but his counsel had failed to react.
- It does not appear that the applicant requested
medical assistance or complained to any domestic authority in
connection with the alleged illtreatment.
B. The applicant’s trial
1. First-instance proceedings
- By
a judgment of 5 December 2000 the St Petersburg City Court convicted
the applicant of having killed and robbed P. and having stolen his
passport. The court sentenced the applicant to eighteen years’
imprisonment in a high security prison and the confiscation of his
property.
- By
the same decision it acquitted him on a separate count of theft
because the prosecution had been based solely on the applicant’s
confession and the victim’s statement. Referring to the record
of the applicant’s psychiatric-psychological examination, the
court ordered his compulsory out-patient psychiatric treatment for
drug addiction.
- The
applicant was represented at the trial by counsel G. Throughout the
trial they consistently defended the view that the victim had in fact
been killed by a third person and not by the applicant.
- The
court rejected this argument by reference to the oral evidence given
by three witnesses and a police officer in charge of the
investigation and also to the discrepancies and contradictions in the
applicant’s own statements.
- The
court further cited the applicant’s and his co-accused’s
statements from the pre-trial stage describing in detail the killing
and robbery, and held that they “corresponded to the factual
circumstances of the case in part, concerning the preparation and
execution of the robbery of the victim P. and his especially cruel
murder by [the applicant]”. In finding the applicant guilty,
the court also referred to various pieces of evidence, including, in
particular, statements from four witnesses, the crime scene
inspection report, three identification parade reports, a record of
the identification of the stolen goods, seizure records, forensic
medical and biological reports and the applicant’s explanations
about the blood spots on his jacket.
- During the trial the defence argued that the applicant
had been forced by the authorities to confess, with threats of
violence. In this respect, the court established the following:
“As to [the applicant’s] allegations that,
by threatening him with violence and even death, the police officers
had forced him to confess to having killed and robbed P., witness Pe.
[the investigator] stated that no violence or threats were applied to
[either] co-accused throughout their arrest and questioning. They
gave evidence voluntarily, on some occasions in the presence of their
defence counsel.
In this connection Matveyev [the applicant] submitted at
a court hearing that Pe. had never threatened him at the pre-trial
investigation and that he [the applicant] did not know the names of
the police officers who had threatened him and would not be able to
identify them.”
- According to the minutes of the hearing, the applicant
and his counsel did not object to the conclusion of the trial in the
absence of witness M. The hearing transcript also contains no
indication that the applicant or his defence counsel requested the
court to summon witness K.
- It
appears that some time after the trial the defence changed their
counsel.
- The
applicant, his newly appointed counsel and his mother, admitted to
the appeal proceedings as a “public defender”, appealed
against the conviction. In his appeal submissions, the applicant’s
counsel alleged, among other things, that the trial court had failed
to summon and examine witnesses K. and M.; that in ordering the
applicant’s compulsory medical treatment it had failed to
properly take into account his state of health; and that it should
not have based the applicant’s conviction on his forced
pretrial statements and referred to the statement of the
investigator in rejecting his submission that the victim had been
killed by a third person. The applicant’s counsel further
contested at length the way in which the trial court had assessed the
evidence before it. In his own appeal submissions, the applicant
alleged that he had not killed P.
2. Decision on the applicant’s objections to the
transcript of the court hearings
- By
a decision of 18 April 2000, judge Sh. rejected the applicant’s
objections to the transcript of the court hearings as unfounded and
tending to revise the facts established by the trial court.
3. Appeal proceedings
- By
decision of 27 September 2001 the Supreme Court upheld the judgment
in respect of the applicant. The hearing was conducted by way of
videoconferencing. Both the applicant and his mother were given the
floor.
- The
court held, in particular, that:
“Having analysed the evidence gathered in the case
in its entirety, the first-instance court reached a well-founded
conclusion as to [the applicant]’s and [V.’s] guilt in
the crimes committed by them ... [,] having provided sufficient
reasons for its conclusions concerning their guilt and the
classification of the defendants’ acts.
The case was investigated and examined by the [trial]
court without any significant violations of the provisions of the
RSFSR CCrP which could have had prejudiced the court’s
judgment, including the issue of admissibility of evidence.”
C. Conditions of detention
- The
applicant submitted that he had been held in SIZO no. 4 in
St Petersburg and also in remand prison IZ-77/3 (SIZO no. 3) in
Moscow. In respect of the former facility, he submitted that he had
been detained there from 17 April 2000 to 8 September 2001 and from
January to March 2002. He did not submit specific dates concerning
his detention in SIZO no. 3, but suggested that it had taken
place between September 2001 and January 2002.
- The
Government submitted, with reference to prison records, that the
applicant’s detention in SIZO no. 4 had lasted from 20 April
2000 to 7 September 2001 and from 23 January 2002 to 13 March
2002, whilst his detention in SIZO no. 3 had taken place in between
the mentioned terms, from 10 September 2001 to 21 January 2002.
1. SIZO no. 4 in St Petersburg
- The
applicant gave the following account of the conditions of his
detention.
- At
all times the prison was heavily overcrowded. His cell measured
20 square metres and was meant to accommodate twelve inmates but
actually housed between forty and fifty. The bunk beds in the cell
had three “levels”, the applicant’s sleeping place
being on the top level, right under the ceiling. The inmates slept in
turns, two or three persons sharing one bed at a time. The applicant
slept on a worn-out mattress and was not provided with any bedding.
Because the detainees shared beds, they often contracted skin
infections and had lice. The inmates had a one-hour outside walk per
day. The lavatory pan was separated from the living area by a
makeshift partition. As such an arrangement was prohibited by the
prison authorities, it was ripped down in the course of every routine
check and then rebuilt by the inmates until the next check.
- The
windows had double bars and metal shutters which let almost no
natural light in. The electric lights were always switched on. For
the same reason there were problems of fresh air, especially in
summer when it was very hot. The windows had no glass and in winter
the detainees covered them in order to avoid freezing, so there was
even less fresh air.
- The
quality of the food was deplorable. The inmates were sometimes given
out-of-date biscuits from humanitarian supplies.
- The
applicant could not wash himself properly because the “washing
schedule” (once every 8-10 days) was rarely respected by the
prison authorities. Furthermore, the shower facility, a former
morgue, was in a disgusting state.
- On
several occasions tuberculosis or hepatitis sufferers and mentally
disturbed inmates had been placed in the applicant’s cell. The
applicant submitted that although the detainees underwent HIV and
AIDS tests upon their arrival in the detention facility, they were
informed of the results with a considerable delay.
- The applicant alleged that he suffered from epileptic
fits and nocturnal enuresis and could not count on adequate medical
assistance.
- He further stated that the regular searches in the
cells, assisted by members of the special forces (спецназ),
were usually accompanied by violence, especially throughout 2000. On
one such occasion the applicant’s fellow detainees were ordered
to leave the cell and the applicant was ordered to hand over any
prohibited items. When he refused, he was ordered to kneel down,
which he again refused to do because it was humiliating. In response,
persons wearing masks beat him up.
- It does not appear that the applicant complained about
the alleged incident or requested medical assistance at the time.
- The
Government disagreed with the above description and submitted that
the applicant had been provided with his own sleeping place, bedding
and cutlery. They also submitted that all original documentation
relating to the periods in question had been destroyed. They
submitted that the cells in the prison had had windows measuring
between 0.9 and 1 metre and had been equipped with light bulbs. They
admitted that the windows had been covered with metal shutters until
1 April 2003. The inmates had been able to wash themselves once a
week and also to wash their personal things. The Government denied
the applicant’s allegations concerning the detention of
mentally disturbed persons and persons infected with tuberculosis in
his cell, and submitted that such a situation was impossible, since
the applicable law did not allow it. There may have been HIV infected
persons in the applicant’s cell, but that was not in breach of
the domestic law or the European Convention on Human Rights. The
Government also submitted that the prison administration had taken
measures against the insects in the cells and that the quality of the
food had been in accordance with all relevant standards.
2. SIZO no. 3 in Moscow
- The
applicant submitted that the conditions of his detention in the
remand prison in Moscow had been better than in St Petersburg only in
two respects: he had been able to shower more regularly and he was
provided with a mattress. As to the rest, although there were fewer
inmates, the cell was overcrowded and the detainees slept in turns.
The ventilation was inadequate, there was lack of natural light and
the lights were always switched on. The cell was infested with
insects and cockroaches.
- The
Government disagreed and submitted that between 10 and 12 September
2001 the applicant had been detained in cell no. 417, which measured
14.98 square metres and was equipped with two-tier bunk beds for ten
persons. From 12 September 2001 to 21 January 2002 he was detained in
cell no. 414, measuring 15 square metres and equipped with ordinary
beds for eight persons. The original documentation concerning the
number of inmates in these cells at the relevant time was destroyed
on 20 February 2004, the regulatory time for its storage having
elapsed. The Government submitted that the conditions of detention
could not have been worse than those required by the Rules on the
prison regime in pre-trial detention centres (as approved by Ministry
of Justice Decree no. 148 of 12 May 2000 – see the
Relevant Domestic Law section below). The Government argued that the
cells had been properly lit, ventilated, and disinfected and had
generally been in good condition.
D. Events
following the applicant’s final conviction
- On
19 March 2002 the applicant arrived in the correctional colony
OYa-22/7 in Pankovka settlement in the Novgorod Region.
- Upon arrival, the applicant was placed in a
disciplinary cell for protesting about serving his sentence in the
Novgorod Region instead of the Yaroslavl Region as the authorities
had allegedly promised him.
- He
was kept in the disciplinary cell from 19 March to 22 June and from
19 September to 19 November 2002. According to the applicant, the
cell measured around 25 square metres and held six prisoners. He was
not allowed to have any personal belongings. He could shower once a
week and had a onehour walk per day. There was no table, bench
or washbasin and the applicant was not provided with a mattress or
bedding.
- Throughout
his confinement in the disciplinary cell the applicant was prohibited
from sending and receiving letters. He was also banned from smoking,
reading and receiving parcels.
- By
letter dated 28 June 2002 the head of the correctional colony OY22/7
informed the applicant’s father that the applicant was detained
in the disciplinary cell and that during his detention there all
correspondence and family visits were prohibited.
- The applicant submits that from 22 June to 19
September 2002 he was held in a “safe cell” (безопасное
место)
where correspondence was allowed and the restrictions imposed in the
disciplinary cell did not apply.
- On
23 July 2003 he was transferred to correctional colony YN-88/3 in
Uglich in the Yaroslavl Region.
II. Relevant domestic
law
A. Rules on the prison regime in pre-trial detention
centres (as approved by Ministry of Justice Decree no. 148 of 12 May
2000)
- Rule
42 provided that all suspects and accused persons in detention had to
be given, among other things: a sleeping place; bedding, including a
mattress, a pillow and one blanket; bed linen, including two sheets
and a pillow case; a towel; tableware and cutlery, including a bowl,
a mug and a spoon; and seasonal clothes (if the inmate had no clothes
of his own).
- Rule
44 stated that cells in pre-trial detention centres were to be
equipped, among other things, with a table and benches to seat the
number of inmates detained there, sanitation facilities, running
water and lighting for use in the daytime and at night.
- Rule
46 provided that prisoners were to be given three warm meals a day,
in accordance with the norms laid down by the Government of Russia.
- Under
Rule 47 inmates had the right to have a shower at least once a week
for at least fifteen minutes. They were to receive fresh linen after
taking their shower.
- Rule
143 provided that inmates could be visited by their lawyer, family
members or other persons, with the written permission of an
investigator or an investigative body. The number of visits was
limited to two per month.
B. Order no. 7 of the
Federal Service for the Execution of Sentences dated 31
January 2005
- Order
no. 7 of the Federal Service for the Execution of Sentences of
31 January 2005 deals with the implementation of the “Pre-trial
detention centres 2006” programme.
- The
programme is aimed at improving the functioning of pre-trial
detention centres so as to ensure their compliance with the
requirements of Russian legislation. It expressly acknowledges the
issue of overcrowding in pre-trial detention centres and seeks to
reduce and stabilise the number of detainees in order to resolve the
problem.
- Amongst those affected, the programme mentions
pre-trial detention centre SIZO no. 3. In particular, the programme
states that on 1 July 2004 the detention centre had a capacity of
1,109 inmates and in reality housed 1,562 detainees, in other
words, 48.9% more than the permitted number. The programme also
mentions SIZO no. 4, stating that on 1 July 2004 the detention centre
had a capacity of 1,032 inmates but actually housed 1,362 detainees,
or 31.9% more than the permitted number.
III. Relevant Council
of Europe documents
- The
relevant extracts from the General Reports of the European Committee
for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or
Punishment (“the CPT”) read as follows:
Extracts from the 2nd General Report [CPT/Inf (92) 3]
“46. Overcrowding is an issue of direct
relevance to the CPT’s mandate. All the services and activities
within a prison will be adversely affected if it is required to cater
for more prisoners than it was designed to accommodate; the overall
quality of life in the establishment will be lowered, perhaps
significantly. Moreover, the level of overcrowding in a prison,
or in a particular part of it, might be such as to be in itself
inhuman or degrading from a physical standpoint.
47. A satisfactory programme of activities
(work, education, sport, etc.) is of crucial importance for the
well-being of prisoners ... [P]risoners cannot simply be left to
languish for weeks, possibly months, locked up in their cells, and
this regardless of how good material conditions might be within the
cells. The CPT considers that one should aim at ensuring that
prisoners in remand establishments are able to spend a reasonable
part of the day (8 hours or more) outside their cells, engaged in
purposeful activity of a varied nature ...
48. Specific mention should be made of
outdoor exercise. The requirement that prisoners be allowed at least
one hour of exercise in the open air every day is widely accepted as
a basic safeguard ... It is also axiomatic that outdoor exercise
facilities should be reasonably spacious ...
49. Ready access to proper toilet facilities
and the maintenance of good standards of hygiene are essential
components of a humane environment ...
50. The CPT would add that it is particularly
concerned when it finds a combination of overcrowding, poor
regime activities and inadequate access to toilet/washing facilities
in the same establishment. The cumulative effect of such conditions
can prove extremely detrimental to prisoners.
51. It is also very important for prisoners
to maintain reasonably good contact with the outside world. Above
all, a prisoner must be given the means of safeguarding his
relationships with his family and close friends. The guiding
principle should be the promotion of contact with the outside world;
any limitations upon such contact should be based exclusively on
security concerns of an appreciable nature or resource considerations
...”
Extracts from the 7th General Report [CPT/Inf (97)
10]
“13. As the CPT pointed out in its 2nd
General Report, prison overcrowding is an issue of direct relevance
to the Committee’s mandate (cf. CPT/Inf (92) 3, paragraph 46).
An overcrowded prison entails cramped and unhygienic accommodation; a
constant lack of privacy (even when performing such basic tasks as
using a sanitary facility); reduced out-of-cell activities, due to
demand outstripping the staff and facilities available; overburdened
health-care services; increased tension and hence more violence
between prisoners and between prisoners and staff. This list is far
from exhaustive.
The CPT has been led to conclude on more than one
occasion that the adverse 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 ...
Largecapacity 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. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 3 OF THE CONVENTION
- Under
Article 3 of the Convention the applicant complained that the
conditions of his detention in SIZO no. 4 in St Petersburg and SIZO
no. 3 between April 2000 and March 2002 in Moscow had been
deplorable. Article 3 provides as follows:
“No one shall be subjected to torture or to
inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.”
A. Submissions of the parties
- The
Government submitted that the applicant had failed to exhaust
available domestic remedies. According to them, he could have applied
to the domestic courts with claims for compensation in respect of any
nonpecuniary damage allegedly resulting from the conditions of
his detention. The Government also considered that the conditions of
detention in the prisons concerned had not been incompatible with
Article 3 of the Convention.
- The
applicant disagreed and maintained his complaints. He argued that the
data and figures provided by the Government were inaccurate.
B. The Court’s assessment
1. Admissibility
- In as much as the Government
claim that the applicant has not complied with the rule on exhaustion
of domestic remedies, the Court finds that the Government have not
specified with sufficient clarity the type of action which would have
been an effective remedy in their view, nor have they provided any
further information as to how such action could have prevented the
alleged violation or its continuation or provided the applicant with
adequate redress. Even if the applicant, who at the relevant time was
still in detention pending trial, had been successful, it is unclear
how the claim for damages could have afforded him immediate and
effective redress. In the absence of such evidence and having regard
to the abovementioned principles, the Court finds that the
Government have not substantiated their claim that the remedy or
remedies the applicant allegedly failed to exhaust were effective
ones (see, among other authorities, Kranz
v. Poland, no. 6214/02, §
23, 17 February 2004, and Skawinska
v. Poland (dec.), no. 42096/98, 4
March 2003). For the above reasons, the Court finds that this
part of the application cannot be rejected for nonexhaustion of
domestic remedies (see also Popov v. Russia, no. 26853/04, §§
204-06, 13 July 2006; Mamedova v. Russia, no. 7064/05, §§
55-58, 1 June 2006; and Kalashnikov v. Russia (dec.), no.
47095/99, ECHR 2001 XI (extracts)).
- The Court accepts the accuracy
of the dates of the applicant’s detention, as submitted by the
Government, and notes the essentially continuous character of the
applicant’s detention from 20 April 2000 to 13 March
2002 in SIZO no. 3 and SIZO no. 4, interrupted by prison transfers
only on two occasions, in September 2001 and in January 2002, for the
overall period of mere three days. It further
notes that his grievances about the mentioned detention facilities
all concern the same problem of overcrowding and the general lack of
living space. In view of this, the Court finds that the mentioned
period of time should be regarded as a “continuing situation”
for the purposes of calculation of the six-month timelimit. It
thus finds that the applicant lodged his complaints about the
conditions of detention in SIZO no. 3 and SIZO no. 4 in good time.
- In the light of the parties’ submissions, the
Court finds that the applicant’s complaints raise serious
issues of fact and law under the Convention, the determination of
which requires an examination of the merits. The Court concludes that
these complaints are not manifestly illfounded within the
meaning of Article 35 § 3 of the Convention. No other grounds
for declaring them inadmissible have been established.
2. Merits
- The
Court would note that the parties disagree on many aspects of the
applicants’ conditions of detention, including the size of the
cells, the number of beds as well the number of detainees in the
cells. Most importantly, the Government deny that the cells in
question were overcrowded or cramped, and have submitted official
certificates to that effect provided by the authorities of the
detention centres in question, whereas the applicant insists on his
initial account of events.
- Having
observed the documents submitted by the parties, the Court finds that
it need not resolve the parties’ disagreement on all of the
aforementioned points as the case file contains sufficient
documentary evidence to confirm the applicant’s allegations of
severe overcrowding in pre-trial detention facilities SIZO no. 4 in
St Petersburg and SIZO no. 3 in Moscow, which is in itself sufficient
to conclude that Article 3 of the Convention has been breached.
- The
Court would note that as regards both detention centres the existence
of a deplorable state of affairs may be inferred from the information
contained in Order no. 7 of the Federal Service for the Execution of
Sentences of 31 January 2005 (see paragraph 61 above), which
expressly acknowledges the issue of overcrowding in these detention
centres in 2004.
- The Court also recalls that in its judgments in the
cases of Belevitskiy v. Russia, no. 72967/01, §§
73-79, 1 March 2007; Benediktov v. Russia, no. 106/02, §§
31-41, 10 May 2007; Igor Ivanov v. Russia, no. 34000/02,
§§ 3041, 7 June 2007; Sudarkov v. Russia,
no. 3130/03, §§ 40-51, 10 July 2008; Belashev
v. Russia, no. 28617/03, §§
50-60, 4 December 2008; Novinskiy v. Russia, no. 11982/02, §§
106-108, 10 February 2009; Bychkov v. Russia,
no. 39420/03, §§ 33-43, 5 March 2009; and Buzhinayev
v. Russia, no. 17679/03, §§
26-36, 15 October 2009, it has previously
examined the conditions of detention in SIZO no. 3 in 2000-2003 and
found them to have been incompatible with the requirements of Article
3 of the Convention on account of severe overcrowding.
- Since
the Government did not support its own submissions with reference to
any original documentation, the Court is prepared to accept the
mentioned indications as sufficient confirmation of the applicant’s
point that the overcrowding of cells was a problem in both detention
facilities at the time the applicant was detained there.
- The
Court has frequently found a violation of Article 3 of the Convention
on account of a lack of personal space afforded to detainees (see
Khudoyorov v. Russia, no. 6847/02, §§ 104 et seq.,
ECHR 2005-X (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 had to spend at least 1 year,
10 months and 20 days in overcrowded cells at SIZO no. 4 in
St Petersburg and SIZO no. 3 in Moscow 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.
- There has therefore been a violation of Article 3 of
the Convention as the Court finds the
applicant’s detention to have been inhuman and degrading within
the meaning of this provision.
II. OTHER ALLEGED VIOLATIONS OF THE CONVENTION
77. In so far as the
applicant also complained of ill-treatment after his arrest (see
paragraphs 15-20), the alleged lack of adequate medical
assistance in SIZO no. 4 (see paragraph 41), as well as an episode of
alleged ill-treatment by the special forces in 2000 (see paragraphs 42
and 43), the Court notes that these grievances have
not been made out and in any event the applicant failed to raise
these complaints before the competent domestic authorities
as required by Article 35 § 1 of the Convention.
- As
to the complaints about various aspects of the applicant’s
detention in disciplinary cells of the correctional colony OYa-22/7
(see paragraphs 48-52), the Court would note that the
first period in question ended in June, and the second on 19 November
2002. The grievances were first raised in his letter of 2 December
2003, that is more than six months later.
- As regards the proceedings in his criminal case, the
applicant was dissatisfied with the use of his pre-trial confession
by the courts, alleged bias on the part of the trial court, the
mistaken assessment of the evidence in his case as well as the
courts’ failure to call and question witnesses K. and M.
- The
Court reiterates that it is not its function to deal with errors of
fact or of law allegedly committed by national courts unless and in
so far as they may have infringed rights and freedoms protected by
the Convention. While Article 6 guarantees the right to a fair
hearing, it does not lay down any rules on the admissibility and
assessment of evidence, which are primarily a matter for regulation
under national law (see, among other authorities, Khan v. the
United Kingdom, no. 35394/97, § 34, ECHR 2000 V).
Furthermore, it is not the role of the Court to determine, as a
matter of principle, whether a particular piece of evidence is
necessary and essential to decide a case (see, for example, Elsholz
v. Germany [GC], no. 25735/94, § 66, ECHR 2000 VIII)
or, indeed, whether the applicant is guilty or not. The question
which must be answered is whether the alleged defects impaired the
fairness of the proceedings, taken as a whole. On the facts of the
present case, the Court observes that the applicant was fully able to
contest the authenticity and admissibility of the evidence at each
stage of the proceedings and the courts addressed these arguments
either by rectifying the alleged mistakes or rejecting his arguments
as unsubstantiated. Thus, in so far as the applicant complained about
the use of evidence obtained through coercion, the Court would note
firstly that at the trial the applicant seemed to have complained of
threats by the relevant officials, and not of physical force, the
latter argument having been raised much later in the application to
this Court. Further, the grievance has never been raised by the
applicant before a competent domestic authority which could
investigate the matter by way of a criminal inquiry (see also the
Court’s conclusions under Article 3 in paragraph 77 above). To
the extent that the applicant raised this argument before the courts
in his criminal case, the courts examined and rejected it as
unfounded (see paragraph 26) and there is nothing in the case file
which would enable the Court to depart from these conclusions. That
being so, and having regard to the extensive body of evidence which
was presented by both parties and then carefully examined by the
courts, the Court cannot conclude that the defects alleged by the
applicant, if any, adversely affected the fairness of the proceedings
as a whole.
- In
so far as the applicant complained that the domestic courts had
refused to call certain witnesses on his behalf and generally failed
to examine his case properly, the Court recalls that Article 6 §
3 (d) does not require as such the attendance and examination of
every witness on behalf of an accused and a court is justified in
refusing to summon witnesses whose statements could not be of any
relevance in the case (see, amongst other authorities, Vidal v.
Belgium, 22 April 1992, § 33, Series A no. 235 B).
The Court observes that the applicant failed to exhaust domestic
remedies in this respect, since he never raised this issue before the
trial court (see paragraph 27), and in any event did not
substantiate, either before the domestic appeal court of before this
Court, the necessity of calling this or that particular witness, and
that the domestic courts’ decisions in this respect do not
appear arbitrary or unreasonable. Having regard
to the facts as submitted by the applicant, the Court has not found
any reason to believe that the proceedings did not comply with
the fairness requirement of Article 6 of the Convention.
- It
follows that this part of the application should be rejected pursuant
to Article 35 §§ 1 and 4 of the Convention.
III. 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
compensation of 50,000 euros (EUR) in respect of non-pecuniary
damage.
- The Government submitted that
this claim was unfounded and generally excessive.
- The Court considers that the
applicant must have sustained stress and frustration as a result of
the violation found. Making an assessment on an equitable basis, the
Court awards the applicant EUR 12,300 in respect of non-pecuniary
damage, plus any tax that may be chargeable.
B. Costs and expenses
- The applicant also claimed a
lump sum of EUR 300 for the legal costs incurred before the Court.
- The Government contested the
applicant’s claim.
- According to the Court’s
case-law, an applicant is entitled to the reimbursement of costs and
expenses only in so far as it has been shown that these have been
actually and necessarily incurred and are reasonable as to quantum.
Having regard to the material in its possession, the Court considers
it reasonable to award the applicant the sum of EUR 300 for the legal
expenses incurred in relation to the proceedings before the Court.
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
- Declares the complaint concerning the conditions
of the applicant’s detention in SIZO no. 4 in St Petersburg
(from 20 April 2000 to 7 September 2001 and from 23 January to
13 March 2002) and SIZO no. 3 in Moscow (from 10 September 2001
to 21 January 2002) admissible and the remainder of the application
inadmissible;
- 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 12,300 (twelve
thousand three hundred euros) in respect of nonpecuniary damage
and EUR 300 (three hundred euros) in respect of costs and expenses,
plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicant on those amounts
which are to be converted into Russian roubles at the rate applicable
at the date of settlement;
(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 8 July 2010, pursuant to
Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
Søren Nielsen Christos
Rozakis
Registrar President
