In the case of Samartsev v. Russia,
The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting as
a Chamber composed of:
Isabelle Berro-Lefèvre, President,
Khanlar Hajiyev,
Mirjana Lazarova Trajkovska,
Julia Laffranque,
Erik Møse,
Ksenija Turković,
Dmitry Dedov, judges,
and Søren Nielsen, Section Registrar,
Having deliberated in private on 9 April 2013,
Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that
date:
PROCEDURE
The case originated in an application (no.
44283/06) 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 Sergey Aleksandrovich Samartsev
(“the applicant”), on 22 July 2006.
The applicant, who had been granted legal aid,
was represented by Ms O. Druzhkova, a lawyer practising in Strasbourg. The Russian Government (“the Government”) were represented by Mr G. Matyushkin,
Representative of the Russian Federation at the European Court of Human Rights.
Referring to the events which
allegedly took place in May and June 2005, the applicant complained that police
officers had beaten him. The applicant also submitted that the conditions of
his detention between 3 May 2005 and 27 February 2006
had been appalling. In his letter of 9 June 2011 the applicant also complained
that the police had ill-treated him on 4 August 2005 and had
subsequently failed to investigate that incident.
On 6 December 2010 the application was
communicated to the Government. It was also decided to rule on the
admissibility and merits of the application at the same time (Article 29 § 1).
THE FACTS
I. THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE
The applicant was born in 1970. He is serving a prison sentence in detention facility no. IK-10,
located in the town of Mendeleyevsk, the Republic of Tatarstan.
On 1 May 2005 the applicant was arrested by the
police of the town of Naberezhnye Chelny on suspicion of having taken part in
several robberies and murders.
The applicant was detained pending criminal
proceedings and on 13 April 2006 the Supreme Court of the Republic of Tatarstan found the applicant guilty of two murders. The judgment was upheld
on appeal by the Supreme Court of Russia on 3 October 2006.
The applicant alleged that on three separate
occasions during the course of criminal proceedings against him police officers
ill-treated him.
A. Incident of 4-5 May 2005 and related investigation
According to the applicant, in
the morning of 4 May 2005 police officers B. and N. had taken him to the fourth
floor of a police station and put pressure on him to confess. They had put a
plastic bag on his head and punched him in the stomach and neck, preventing him
from breathing. At around 10 p.m. he had been taken back to his cell.
The applicant also submitted that
at around 7 a.m. the next morning he had passed out in an interview room as a
result of those beatings and stress. On regaining consciousness, he had found a
wound on his head. Later he had been provided with first aid, administered by
ambulance doctors.
On 5 May 2005, having
examined the applicant, one of the ambulance doctors made the following entry
in the medical record:
“... reason for the call [of the ambulance]: epilepsy...
Diagnosis [of the applicant]: following a syncope, bruising of the forehead ...
measuring around 2 to 0.2 cm. The wound is not bleeding...Complaints [of the
applicant]: weakness and vertigo. According to the [applicant’s] statements, he
lost consciousness and during the fall, injured himself against a doorpost. He
connects this to a stuffy room and three nights of insomnia ...”
On 10 May 2005 the applicant asked the Naberezhnye Chelny Town Prosecutor (“the prosecutor’s
office”) to institute criminal proceedings in respect of the alleged
ill-treatment by the police officers.
In response, the prosecutor’s
office questioned police officers B. and N., who denied the applicant’s
allegations. They referred to the interrogation records in which the applicant had
made no complaints of ill-treatment.
On 20 May 2005 the prosecutor’s
office dismissed the applicant’s request, having found as follows:
“... The applicant’s allegations are not confirmed by the
results of the investigation carried out by the prosecutor’s office ... On 5
May 2005 [the applicant] went to the police voluntarily and submitted
statements of confession... During his interrogation he confessed to the crime
in the presence of his defence counsel. He confirmed these statements during a
reconstruction performed at the crime scene ... On 19 May 2005 during a cross-examination
with witness Z., [the applicant] again confirmed his statements of confession
in the presence of his defence counsel. No complaints were made by him [at that
time].
Police officers ... B. and N. were also questioned in the
context of the investigation carried out by the prosecutor’s office. They
submitted that during the interview with [the applicant] they had not put
pressure on him and had not applied force against him. [The applicant] had confessed
to the crime voluntarily. Moreover, in accordance with the interrogation
records, [the applicant] had no complaints against the police officers or the prosecutor’s
office ...”
In June and August 2005 the applicant resubmitted
his complaint to the prosecutor’s office. He requested the questioning of five
of his cellmates, who he said could confirm his submissions.
By decisions of 20 June, 29
July and 4 August 2005 the applicant’s complaints were dismissed. In all three
decisions the prosecutor’s office decided not to carry out further
investigations, holding that the claims were substantially the same as those
which had been previously examined.
The decision of 20 June 2005 stated that:
“... During the check the arguments of the applicant about the
use of physical violence by police officers remain without objective
confirmation. In such circumstances the complaint ... cannot be accepted.”
The decision of 29 July 2005
stated that:
“... An earlier complaint of this kind about the actions of
policemen had been examined by the prosecutor’s office of the town of Naberezhnye Chelny. Upon its results, the decision of 20 May 2005 refusing to institute
criminal proceedings is taken. The allegations of the [applicant] remained
without substance ...”
The applicant also raised the complaint about
the ill-treatment by police officers before the trial court in his criminal
case.
By a first instance judgment
of 13 April 2006 the Supreme Court of the Republic of Tatarstan found the
applicant guilty of having murdered two persons. In respect of his complaint of
ill-treatment on 4-5 May 2005, the court noted, among other things, that:
“... during the forensic examination of 20 May 2005 [the
applicant] did not have any bodily injuries. This expert examination is carried
on the next day after the investigation action with the participation of [the
applicant] during which he confessed to his involvement in the murder ... and
confirmed his earlier confessions ...
The medical certificates from the detention ward submitted to
the court on request from the defence about the detention of [the applicant]
and the fact of a call for the emergency doctors does not confirm that any
physical violence has been applied to him. [The applicant] submitted in this
connection that ... these injuries he received as a result of the fall in his
cell in the state of the loss of consciousness ...
In such circumstances the court considers the complaint of [the
applicant] in the trial hearing about the use of violence by policemen ... as a
way to try to avoid responsibility for the acts committed [by him] ...”
The judgment was upheld on appeal by the Supreme
Court of Russia on 3 October 2006.
In the meantime, on 9 September 2006, the
applicant contested the decision of 20 May 2005 before the Naberezhnye Chelny
Town Court. He stated that the investigation in respect of his complaint had
been seriously deficient.
On 5 February 2007 the Town Court disallowed his complaint concerning ill-treatment and the related investigation.
It held that the applicant’s submissions had already been examined in the
context of the criminal case against him.
On 23 March 2007 the Supreme Court of the Republic of Tatarstan upheld that decision on appeal.
The applicant also tried to challenge the
decision of 29 July 2005 (see paragraphs 16 and 18) in court, but to no avail.
The Supreme Court of the Republic of Tatarstan dismissed the applicant’s complaint
by a final decision of 17 August 2007. The court noted that:
“... The complaint of [the applicant] about the use of
inadmissible methods of investigation has already been examined by the courts
in two instances... [the relevant decisions being properly reasoned]. In such
circumstances, [the court] does not see any grounds for [accepting the
applicant’s appeal] ...”
B. Incident of 28-29 June 2005 and related investigation
The applicant submits that on 28 June 2005
police officers ill-treated him, forcing to acknowledge his involvement in a
different criminal episode. He was allegedly hit in the neck and on the head,
and later put in a metal cage, where he spent the whole night.
The applicant submitted
that the next morning he was handcuffed in a remote room of the police station,
a plastic bag was placed over his head and he was beaten up again. After being punched
in the perineum, he fell on the floor and cut his wrists with a razor. He was
then provided with medical aid by doctor G.
On 30 June 2005 the
applicant was examined by a doctor, who drew up report no. 2647:
“... According to [the applicant’s] statements, he has been
detained from 1 May 2005. [Allegedly] the police officers did not beat him up. On
29 June 2005 he slashed his wrists with a razor. The wounds were bandaged in a
detention facility.
Objectively: on the inside of the lower third of the right
forearm and around the wrist there are [six] linear transversal wounds with
smooth lips and pointed ends, the base of which are covered with dried blood, measuring
respectively 3, 3, 3, 4, 2 and 0.5 cm. On the inside of the lower third of
the left forearm there is a linear transversal wound with smooth lips, pointed
left end and “M”-shaped right end, the base of which is covered with dried
blood. The depth of the wound is 0.3 cm. On the upper abdomen there are [four]
parallel linear transversal scratches, covered with a brown crust at skin level,
measuring respectively 6, 4, 4 and 4 cm. On the forehead there are transversal
scratches, covered with an emergent brown crust with disrupted ends and desquamation.
The scratches on the left side of the forehead measure respectively 2 and 5 cm.
The scratches on the right side of the forehead measure respectively 4 and 2 cm.
There is a similar scratch on the cheekbone measuring 7 cm. There is an oval
transversal violet bruise on the right side of the tip of the nose. The bruise
measures 1 to 0.5 cm. It has blurred borders. On the lower third of the
front-left shoulder there is a round violet bruise with blurred borders
measuring 6 by 6 cm. On the front right shoulder there is an area of dark-red focal
haemorrhage measuring 5 by 5 cm.
Conclusions: ...the wounds to the right wrist and left forearm
were inflicted by a sharp object from one to three days before the expert
examination. The scratches on the stomach were inflicted by being hit with
blunt hard objects with a limited rough surface from two to three days before
the expert examination. The scratches on the head were inflicted by being hit
with blunt hard objects with a limited damage-causing surface from five
to seven days before the expert examination. The bruises on the head, left shoulder,
and right shoulder were inflicted by being hit with blunt hard objects with a
limited damage-causing surface from one to three days before the expert
examination ...”
After the above-mentioned events, the applicant lodged a complaint with the prosecutor’s office alleging that he had
beaten up by police officers on 28-29 June 2005.
On 7 July 2005 the prosecutor’s
office dismissed the complaint, finding no evidence of ill-treatment. The relevant
part of the decision read as follows:
“At around 9.30 a.m. on 29 June 2005 in an office of the detention
ward, [the applicant] slashed his wrists.
In the course of the investigation it was established that [the
applicant] had been charged with the murder of L. and that he was being detained
pending trial.
Y. [apparently a police officer], who was interrogated in
connection with these events, stated that no unlawful actions and no physical
force or pressure had been used against [the applicant].
F. [possibly one of the doctors], who was interrogated in
connection with these events, stated that two wounds had been found on the
wrists of [the applicant].
[The applicant], who was interrogated in connection with these
events, stated that on 29 June 2005, during his interrogation in an interview
room, he had found a paperclip [the applicant previously mentioned a razor] which
he had used to slash his wrists as he had not wanted to talk with the police
officers. He had made no complaints to anybody.
During the expert examination of 30 June 2005 [the applicant]
explained that the police officers had not beaten him and that on 29 June 2005
he slashed his veins with a razor. The wounds were bandaged.
According to the results of the medical examination of the
applicant of 30 June 2005, no. 2647 ... the injuries ... did not damage
his health.
Taking into account the aforementioned circumstances, there are
no grounds for instituting criminal proceeding...”
It appears that the same allegations were
rejected by the prosecutor’s office also in its decision of 9 February 2006,
holding that essentially the same complaint had already been dealt with. That
decision was upheld by the Town Court on 3 August 2007 and it does not appear
that the applicant brought appeal proceedings against the decision of 3 August
2007.
On 4 December 2007 the decision
of 7 July 2005 was upheld by the Town Court. The decision stated as follows:
“... There was a check into [the applicant’s] allegations ...
at the same time eyewitnesses were questioned, including [the applicant
himself], who did not make any complaints... The decision itself is reasoned...
based on objective data and on the merits is correct ...”
This decision was later
upheld on appeal by the Supreme Court of the Republic of Tatarstan on 25
December 2007. The court noted that:
“...As could be seen from the case file materials, the decision
... is reasoned and ... well-justified in view of the collected objective data ...”
C. Incident of 4 August 2005 and related investigation
In his observations of 9
June 2011, the applicant stated that on 4 August 2005 he had been ill-treated
by prison officers in the detention ward.
On 11 August 2005 the applicant lodged a complaint
about that incident with the prosecutor’s office.
The prosecutor’s office refused to institute
criminal proceedings in respect of the applicant’s allegations. On 23 March
2007 the refusal was upheld by a final decision of the Supreme Court of the Republic of Tatarstan.
D. Conditions of the applicant’s detention on remand
Since his arrest on 1 May 2005 the applicant has
remained in detention. He was initially held in the temporary detention ward of
the Department of the Interior in the town of Naberezhnye Chelny, Republic of Tatarstan (“the detention ward”).
The parties agree that the
applicant was held in the detention ward on the following dates:
|
Start date
|
End date
|
|
3 May
|
7 September 2005
|
|
19 September
|
14 October 2005
|
|
19 October
|
28 October 2005
|
|
30 November
|
9 December 2005
|
|
14 December
|
23 December 2005
|
|
26 December 2005
|
11 January 2006
|
|
13 January
|
30 January 2006
|
|
1 February
|
27 February 2006
|
It appears from the case file that in the
intervals between the above-mentioned periods of detention, the applicant
took part in various investigative measures carried out in the context of his
criminal case.
On 27 February 2006 the applicant was
transported to another prison facility.
The parties presented different accounts of the
conditions in the detention ward.
1. The applicant’s account
. The
applicant provided the following information concerning the conditions of his
detention:
|
Period of detention
|
Cell no.
|
Surface area
(in square metres)
|
Number of inmates
|
|
From 3 May to 6 June 2005
|
7
|
9
|
-8
|
|
From 6 to 16 June 2005
|
disciplinary cell
|
-
|
|
|
From 16 June to 3 August
2005
|
4
|
81
|
-6
|
|
From 3 August to 7 September 2005
|
2
|
4
|
-10
|
|
From 19 to 21 September 2005
|
7
|
9
|
-8
|
|
From 21 September to 14 October and from 19 to
28 October 2005
|
16
|
6
|
-16
|
|
From 30 November to
9 December 2005
|
22
|
2
|
-16
|
|
From 14 to 23 and from 26 to
27 December 2005
|
6
|
3
|
-7
|
|
From 27 to 30 December 2005
|
2
|
4
|
-10
|
|
From 30 December 2005 to
11 January 2006; from 13 to
30 January; and from 1 to
27 February 2006
|
22
|
2
|
-16
|
43. The
applicant alleged that the conditions of his detention in the cells had not
varied. Inmates had taken turns to sleep owing to the shortage of sleeping
places. No bedding had been provided. The cells had been infested with insects.
There had only been cold water in the showers. It had been difficult to breathe
in the cells owing to the smoke and high humidity. Inmates had been provided
with food once a day on plastic plates, sent by their relatives. He had had no access
to fresh air and exercise.
The applicant maintained that each cell had had a
window measuring 25 cm by 25 cm, protected by an iron grill. The cell had been lit
by a small bulb, which was constantly switched on. In several cells the toilet
area had not been partitioned from the living area and had been close to
sleeping places and a table. The ventilation had been poor. There had been no
heating in winter. In the summer it had been very hot in the cells.
Furthermore, some of the applicant’s inmates had been infected by HIV,
tuberculosis and hepatitis C.
2. The Government’s account
The Government did not dispute that during the
relevant time the detention ward, which was designed for 110 detainees, had contained
184 detainees who had had no possibility of taking walks. The Government did
not submit information about the cells in which the applicant had been detained
and the number of inmates in each of those cells. According to the Government,
cell no. 4 had two sleeping places, and cells no. 6, 7, and 22 had four
sleeping places. They submitted that at all times the applicant had had an
individual sleeping place and bedding. Each cell had had one window measuring 25
cm wide by 25 cm high, and had been equipped with one lamp. The toilets in the
cells had been separated from the living area by a 1.2-metre high wall. All
cells in the detention ward had been equipped with mandatory ventilation in
good working order. The heating system had functioned properly. The temperature
in the cells had been between 18ºC and 20ºC in the winter and between 26ºC and
28ºC in the summer. The cells had been disinfected every three months. The
applicant had had access to hot water, a laundry and a regular bath service. He
had been provided with nutrition and tableware in line with the requirements of
the domestic law.
3. Proceedings concerning the conditions of the
applicant’s detention
In his letters of 23 and 30 May 2006 the
applicant complained to the Prosecutor’s office about the conditions in which
he had been held in the detention ward.
On 26 July 2005 and 6
June 2006 respectively the prosecutor’s office rejected the complaints, having acknowledged
the problem of overcrowding, lack of sleeping places and poor sanitation. The
decision of 26 July 2005 stated:
“... The inquiry established that during June 2005 ... the
cells were overcrowded from 1,5 to 2 times. The full capacity [of the facility]
is 110 persons, whilst in reality during the inquiry there were 162 persons [in
it]. The inmates do not have access to information - there are no means of
radio broadcasting. The disinfection of the cells ... does not allow to attend
the established norms of hygiene and sanitary norms ...”
The decision of 6 June 2006 gave a similar description of the
situation in the facility in question and also stated that:
“... the prison administration is [objectively] unable to
provide each inmate with a sleeping place, as specified in [the relevant rules]
...
It follows that there were no breaches of the law in the
actions of the [relevant prison officials] and there are no grounds to take any
measures [by the prosecutor’s office] in this connection ...”
In both decisions the prosecutor drew the attention of the
prison authorities to those issues, without taking any other measure in
connection with the problem.
On 2 November 2006 the applicant and several of
his fellow inmates lodged a collective complaint concerning the same
grievances.
In its reply of 20 November
2006, the prosecutor’s office held that there was no need to intervene, despite
the overcrowding of the detention ward. The decision stated:
“... in order to bring [the prison] in line with the federal
legislation, a complete overhaul of it is required. The maximum capacity is
110, but due to [various reasons it is not rare for it to contain] up to 140
persons... for these reasons the prison administration is unable to provide
each inmate with a separate sleeping place ...”
In his letter of 15 January 2008 addressed to
the prosecutor’s office, the applicant repeated his complaints about the
conditions in which he had been held in the detention ward.
The prosecutor’s office dismissed his claim on 8
February 2008.
On 26 June 2008 the applicant resubmitted the
same complaints to the prosecutor’s office.
By a decision of 30 June 2008 the claim was
again dismissed. The prosecutor’s office noted that the authorities were
planning to renovate the detention ward and also stated that:
“... The inquiry carried out showed that there were no socio-medical
counter-indications in respect of the continued detention of inmates in
[that facility]. The conditions of detention ... are incompliance with the
respective standards, set out for this category of establishments ...”
II. RELEVANT DOMESTIC LAW
A. Criminal Code of the Russian Federation of 13 June
1996
Article 116 § 1 of the Criminal Code of the
Russian Federation of 13 June 1996 provides that the application to
another person of physical force which has caused physical pain but has not
resulted in any health damage is punishable by a fine, compulsory or
correctional labour or arrest for a period of up to three months.
Article 286 § 3 (a) of the Criminal Code
provides that actions of a public official which clearly exceed his authority
and entail a substantial violation of the rights and lawful interests of
citizens, committed with violence or the threat of violence, are punishable by
three to ten years’ imprisonment, with a prohibition on occupying certain posts
or engaging in certain activities for a period of three years.
B. Detention of Suspects Act (Federal Law no. 103-FZ
of 15 July 1995)
Under the Detention of Suspects Act 1995,
detainees should be kept in conditions that satisfy health and hygiene
requirements. They should be provided with an individual sleeping place and be
given bedding, tableware and toiletries. Each inmate should have no less than
four square metres of personal space in his or her cell (Section 23).
Detainees should be given sufficient free food to keep them in good health, in
line with the standards established by the Government of the Russian Federation (Section 22).
C. Code of Criminal Procedure of the Russian Federation
Article 144 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of
the Russian Federation (“the CCP”) provides that prosecutors, investigators and
inquiry bodies must consider applications and information about any crime
committed or being prepared, and take a decision on that information within
three days. In exceptional cases, that time-limit can be extended to ten days.
The decision should be one of the following: (a) to institute criminal
proceedings; (b) to refuse to institute criminal proceedings; or (c) to
transmit the information to another competent authority (Article 145 of the
CCP).
Article 125 of the CCP provides that the
decision of an investigator or a prosecutor to dispense with or terminate
criminal proceedings, and other decisions and acts or omissions which are
liable to infringe the constitutional rights and freedoms of the parties to
criminal proceedings or to impede citizens’ access to justice, may be appealed
against to a District Court, which is empowered to check the lawfulness and
grounds of the impugned decisions.
Article 213 of the CCP provides that, in order
to terminate the proceedings, the investigator should adopt a reasoned decision
with a statement of the substance of the case and the reasons for its
termination. A copy of the decision to terminate the proceedings should be
forwarded by the investigator to the prosecutor’s office. The investigator
should also notify the victim and the complainant in writing of the termination
of the proceedings.
Under Article 221 of the CCP, the prosecutor’s
office is responsible for general supervision of the investigation. In
particular, the prosecutor’s office may order that specific investigative measures
be carried out, transfer the case from one investigator to another, or reverse
unlawful and unsubstantiated decisions taken by investigators and inquiry
bodies.
III. RELEVANT INTERNATIONAL MATERIAL
The Standard
Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners, adopted by the First United
Nations Congress on the Prevention of Crime and the Treatment of Offenders,
held at Geneva in 1955, and approved by the Economic and Social Council by its
resolution 663 C (XXIV) of 31 July 1957 and 2076 (LXII) of 13 May 1977,
provide, in particular, as follows:
“10. All accommodation provided for the use of
prisoners and in particular all sleeping accommodation shall meet all
requirements of health, due regard being paid to climatic conditions and
particularly to cubic content of air, minimum floor space, lighting, heating
and ventilation ...
11. In all places where prisoners are required to
live or work,
(a) The windows shall be large enough to enable the
prisoners to read or work by natural light, and shall be so constructed that
they can allow the entrance of fresh air whether or not there is artificial
ventilation;
(b) Artificial light shall be provided sufficient
for the prisoners to read or work without injury to eyesight.
12. The sanitary installations shall be adequate to
enable every prisoner to comply with the needs of nature when necessary and in
a clean and decent manner.
13. Adequate bathing and shower installations shall
be provided so that every prisoner may be enabled and required to have a bath
or shower, at a temperature suitable to the climate, as frequently as necessary
for general hygiene according to season and geographical region, but at least
once a week in a temperate climate.
14. All pans of an institution regularly used by
prisoners shall be properly maintained and kept scrupulously clean at all time.
15. Prisoners shall be required to keep their
persons clean, and to this end they shall be provided with water and with such
toilet articles as are necessary for health and cleanliness ...
19. Every prisoner shall, in accordance with local
or national standards, be provided with a separate bed, and with separate and
sufficient bedding which shall be clean when issued, kept in good order and
changed often enough to ensure its cleanliness.
20.(1) Every prisoner shall be provided by the
administration at the usual hours with food of nutritional value adequate for
health and strength, of wholesome quality and well prepared and served.
(2) Drinking water shall be available to every
prisoner whenever he needs it.
21.(1) Every prisoner who is not employed in outdoor
work shall have at least one hour of suitable exercise in the open air daily if
the weather permits.
45 ... (2) The transport of prisoners in conveyances
with inadequate ventilation or light, or in any way which would subject them to
unnecessary physical hardship, shall be prohibited ...”
The relevant extracts
from the General Reports prepared by the European Committee for the Prevention
of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (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
and whenever possible offer shelter from inclement weather ...
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 ...
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; moreover, the absence of these elements
generates conditions favourable to the spread of diseases and in particular
tuberculosis ...”
On 30 September 1999 the
Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe adopted Recommendation No. R
(99) 22 concerning prison overcrowding and prison population inflation, which
provides in particular as follows:
“Considering that prison overcrowding and prison population
growth represent a major challenge to prison administrations and the criminal
justice system as a whole, both in terms of human rights and of the efficient
management of penal institutions;
Considering that the efficient management of the prison
population is contingent on such matters as the overall crime situation,
priorities in crime control, the range of penalties available on the law books,
the severity of the sentences imposed, the frequency of use of community
sanctions and measures, the use of pre-trial detention, the effectiveness and
efficiency of criminal justice agencies and not least public attitudes towards
crime and punishment ...
Recommends that governments of member states:
- take all appropriate measures, when reviewing their
legislation and practice in relation to prison overcrowding and prison
population inflation, to apply the principles set out in the appendix to this
recommendation ...
Appendix to Recommendation No. R (99) 22
I. Basic
principles
1. Deprivation of liberty should be regarded as a
sanction or measure of last resort and should therefore be provided for only,
where the seriousness of the offence would make any other sanction or measure
clearly inadequate.
2. The extension of the prison estate should rather
be an exceptional measure, as it is generally unlikely to offer a lasting
solution to the problem of overcrowding. Countries whose prison capacity may be
sufficient in overall terms but poorly adapted to local needs should try to
achieve a more rational distribution of prison capacity...
II. Coping with a
shortage of prison places
6. In order to avoid
excessive levels of overcrowding a maximum capacity for penal institutions
should be set.
7. Where conditions of overcrowding occur, special
emphasis should be placed on the precepts of human dignity, the commitment of
prison administrations to apply humane and positive treatment, the full recognition
of staff roles and effective modem management approaches. In conformity with
the European Prison Rules, particular attention should be paid to the amount of
space available to prisoners, to hygiene and sanitation, to the provision of
sufficient and suitably prepared and presented food, to prisoners’ health care
and to the opportunity for outdoor exercise.
8. In order to counteract some of the negative
consequences of prison overcrowding, contacts of inmates with their families
should be facilitated to the extent possible and maximum use of support from
the community should be made...
III. Measures relating to the pre-trial stage
Avoiding criminal proceedings - Reducing recourse to
pre-trial detention
10. Appropriate measures should be taken with a view
to fully implementing the principles laid down in Recommendation No R (87) 18
concerning the simplification of criminal justice, this would involve in
particular that member states, while taking into account their own
constitutional principles or legal tradition, resort to the principle of
discretionary prosecution (or measures having the same purpose) and make use of
simplified procedures and out-of court settlements as alternatives to
prosecution in suitable cases, in order to avoid full criminal proceedings.
11. The application of pre-trial detention and its
length should be reduced to the minimum compatible with the interests of
justice. To this effect, member states should ensure that their law and
practice are in conformity with the relevant provisions of the European
Convention on Human Rights and the case-law of its control organs, and be
guided by the principles set out in Recommendation No R (80) 11 concerning
custody pending trial, in particular as regards the grounds on which pre-trial
detention can be ordered.
12. The widest possible use should be made of
alternatives to pre-trial detention, such as the requirement of the suspected
offender to reside at a specified address, a restriction on leaving or entering
a specified place without authorisation, the provision of bail or supervision
and assistance by an agency specified by the judicial authority. In this
connection attention should be paid to the possibilities tor supervising a
requirement to remain in a specified place through electronic surveillance
devices.
13. In order to assist the efficient and humane use
of pre-trial detention, adequate financial and human resources should be made
available and appropriate procedural means and managerial techniques be
developed, as necessary.”
On 11 January
2006 the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe adopted Recommendation
Rec(2006)2 to member States on the European Prison Rules, which replaced Recommendation
No. R (87) 3 on the European Prison Rules accounting for the developments which
had occurred in penal policy, sentencing practice and the overall management of
prisons in Europe. The amended European Prison Rules lay down the following
guidelines:
“1. All persons deprived of their liberty shall be
treated with respect for their human rights.
2. Persons deprived of their liberty retain all
rights that are not lawfully taken away by the decision sentencing them or
remanding them in custody.
3. Restrictions placed on persons deprived of their
liberty shall be the minimum necessary and proportionate to the legitimate
objective for which they are imposed.
4. Prison conditions that infringe prisoners’ human
rights are not justified by lack of resources.
...
10.1. The European Prison Rules apply to persons who
have been remanded in custody by a judicial authority or who have been deprived
of their liberty following conviction.”
Allocation and accommodation
“18.1. The accommodation provided for prisoners, and
in particular all sleeping accommodation, shall respect human dignity and, as
far as possible, privacy, and meet the requirements of health and hygiene, due
regard being paid to climatic conditions and especially to floor space, cubic
content of air, lighting, heating and ventilation.
18.2. In all buildings where prisoners are required
to live, work or congregate:
a. the windows shall be large enough to enable the
prisoners to read or work by natural light in normal conditions and shall allow
the entrance of fresh air except where there is an adequate air conditioning
system;
b. artificial light shall satisfy recognised
technical standards; and
c. there shall be an alarm system that enables
prisoners to contact the staff without delay.
18.4. National law shall provide mechanisms for
ensuring that these minimum requirements are not breached by the overcrowding
of prisons.
18.5. Prisoners shall normally be accommodated
during the night in individual cells except where it is preferable for them to
share sleeping accommodation.
19.3. Prisoners shall have ready access to sanitary
facilities that are hygienic and respect privacy.
19.4. Adequate facilities shall be provided so that
every prisoner may have a bath or shower, at a temperature suitable to the
climate, if possible daily but at least twice a week (or more frequently if
necessary) in the interest of general hygiene.
22.1. Prisoners shall be provided with a nutritious
diet that takes into account their age, health, physical condition, religion,
culture and the nature of their work.
22.4. There shall be three meals a day with
reasonable intervals between them.
22.5. Clean drinking water shall be available to
prisoners at all times.
27.1. Every prisoner shall be provided with the
opportunity of at least one hour of exercise every day in the open air, if the
weather permits.
27.2. When the weather is inclement alternative
arrangements shall be made to allow prisoners to exercise.”
THE LAW
I. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 3 OF THE
CONVENTION ON ACCOUNT OF ILL-TREATMENT AND RELATED INVESTIGATIONS
The applicant complained that he had been
ill-treated by police officers on three separate occasions: 4-5 May, 28-29 June
and 4 August 2005. He also complained that the authorities had failed to carry
out a proper investigation in this connection. The Court finds it appropriate
to examine those grievances under Article 3 of the Convention, which reads as
follows:
“No one shall be subjected to torture or to inhuman or
degrading treatment or punishment.”
A. The parties’ submissions
The Government submitted that the applicant had
not been subjected to the alleged ill-treatments. With reference to the first
episode they explained that the applicant had sustained a
wound to the head during an epilepsy seizure. They also argued that in
the course of the domestic proceedings the applicant’s allegations of ill-treatment
had been thoroughly investigated and found to have been unproven.
The applicant maintained his complaints. In
particular, he claimed that the case file contained sufficient evidence of
ill-treatment and that the ensuing investigation had fallen short of the
requirements of Article 3 of the Convention under its procedural head. In
particular, he referred to medical certificates showing that he had not been
diagnosed with epilepsy before the first incident.
B. The Court’s assessment
1. Admissibility
The Court must first determine whether the
applicant has complied with the six-month time-limit established by Article 35
§ 1 of the Convention, as it is not open to the Court to set aside the
application of the six-month rule solely because a Government have not made a
preliminary objection based on it (see Walker v. the United Kingdom (dec.),
no. 34979/97, ECHR 2000-I).
The Court notes that the applicant’s complaints
about the events of 4 August 2005 were raised before the Court for the
first time in his observations dated 9 June 2011 (see paragraph 3). Given that
the final domestic decision in connection with those grievances was taken on 23 March
2007 (see paragraph 34), which is more than six months before the date of
introduction, the Court finds that the complaint is inadmissible as belated.
The Court notes that the remaining complaints are
not manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 (a) of
the Convention. It further notes that they are not inadmissible on any other
grounds. They must therefore be declared admissible.
2. Merits
(a) General principles
The Court has stated on many occasions that
Article 3 enshrines one of the most fundamental values of democratic societies.
Even in the most difficult circumstances, such as the fight against terrorism
and organised crime, the Convention prohibits in absolute terms torture and
inhuman and degrading treatment or punishment, irrespective of the victim’s
conduct (see, among many other authorities, Labita v. Italy [GC], no. 26772/95,
§ 119, ECHR 2000-IV, and Selmouni
v. France [GC], no. 25803/94, § 95, ECHR 1999-V).
Allegations of ill-treatment must be supported
by appropriate evidence (see, mutatis mutandis, Klaas v. Germany, 22
September 1993, § 30, Series A no. 269). To assess this evidence, the
Court adopts the standard of proof “beyond reasonable doubt”, but adds that
such proof may follow from the coexistence of sufficiently strong, clear and
concordant inferences or of similar unrebutted presumptions of fact (see Ireland
v. the United Kingdom, 18 January 1978, § 161, Series A no. 25).
Where an individual claims to have been injured
as a result of ill-treatment in custody, the Government are under an
obligation to provide a complete and sufficient explanation as to how the
injuries were caused (see
Ribitsch
v. Austria, 4 December 1995, § 34, Series A no. 336).
In the context of detainees, the Court has
emphasised that persons in custody are in a vulnerable position and that the
authorities are under a duty to protect their physical well-being (see Tarariyeva v. Russia, no. 4353/03,
§ 73, ECHR 2006-XV (extracts); Sarban v.
Moldova, no. 3456/05, § 77, 4 October 2005; and Mouisel v. France, no. 67263/01, § 40,
ECHR 2002-IX).
The Court reiterates that where an individual
raises an arguable claim that he has been seriously ill-treated by the police
or other such agents of the State unlawfully and in breach of Article 3, that
provision, read in conjunction with the State’s general duty under Article 1 of
the Convention to “secure to everyone within [its] jurisdiction the rights and
freedoms defined in ... [the] Convention”, requires by implication that there
should be an effective official investigation. This investigation should be
capable of leading to the identification and punishment of those responsible
(see Assenov and Others v. Bulgaria, 28 October 1998, § 102, Reports
of Judgments and Decisions 1998-VIII).
An obligation to investigate “is not an
obligation of result, but of means”: not every investigation should necessarily
be successful or come to a conclusion which coincides with the claimant’s
account of events; however, it should in principle be capable of leading to the
establishment of the facts of the case and, if the allegations prove to be
true, to the identification and punishment of those responsible (see Paul
and Audrey Edwards v. the United Kingdom, no. 46477/99, § 71, ECHR
2002-II, and Mahmut
Kaya v. Turkey, no. 22535/93, § 124, ECHR 2000-III).
An investigation into serious allegations of
ill-treatment must be thorough. That means that the authorities must always
make a serious attempt to find out what happened and should not rely on hasty
or ill-founded conclusions to close their investigation or as the basis
for their decisions (see Assenov
and Others, cited above, §§ 103 et seq.). They must take all
reasonable steps available to them to secure evidence concerning the incident,
including,
inter alia, eyewitness testimony and forensic evidence (see, mutatis
mutandis, Salman
v. Turkey [GC], no. 21986/93, § 106, ECHR 2000-VII; Tanrıkulu
v. Turkey [GC], no. 23763/94, §§ 104 et seq., ECHR 1999-IV; and Gül
v. Turkey, no. 22676/93, § 89, 14 December 2000). Any
deficiency in the investigation which undermines its ability to establish the
cause of injuries or the identity of the persons responsible will risk falling
foul of this standard.
Furthermore, the investigation must be
expeditious. In cases examined under Articles 2 and 3 of the Convention, where
the effectiveness of the official investigation is at issue, the Court has
often assessed whether the authorities reacted promptly to the complaints at
the relevant time (see Labita,
cited above, §§ 133 et seq.). Consideration has been given to the starting of
investigations, delays in taking statements (see Timurtaş
v. Turkey, no. 23531/94, § 89, ECHR 2000-VI, and Tekin
v. Turkey, 9 June 1998, § 67, Reports
1998-IV), and the length of time taken to complete the initial
investigation (see Indelicato
v. Italy, no. 31143/96, § 37, 18 October 2001).
(b) Application of these principles
(i) Incident of 4-5 May 2005
(α) Alleged ill-treatment
As regards the
applicant’s allegations about the events of 4-5 May 2005 (see paragraphs 9
and 10), the Court observes that the medical evidence submitted by the
applicant (see paragraph 11) confirms that he sustained an injury on 5 May
2005.
Even assuming that the degree of injury was
sufficiently serious to amount to ill-treatment within the scope of Article 3,
the Court is unable, on the basis of the material submitted by the applicant,
to find prima facie that he was subjected to the alleged ill-treatment
by the police officers.
According to the applicant’s version of the
events, he was severely beaten in the stomach and neck. It is clear that the
alleged ill-treatment should have resulted in certain visible signs on his body
(see paragraph 9). However, the ambulance doctor established that the applicant
had sustained only one wound located on his forehead, which had apparently been
caused by a fall during an epilepsy seizure, and no wounds on his stomach and
neck (see paragraph 11).
In respect of that injury, the doctor -
apparently citing the applicant’s explanations - indicated that the applicant
had lost consciousness and injured himself against a doorpost (see paragraph 11).
Since the medical examination does not appear to have been deficient or
incomplete, the Court discerns no reasons to doubt the information contained in
the medical certificate issued by an ambulance doctor.
Furthermore, the Court notes that the applicant’s
position in the domestic proceedings in relation to this incident was to a
certain extent self-contradictory. The applicant had initially stated that no
physical pressure had been put on him by the authorities (see paragraph 14),
but later changed his position and complained about coercion and ill-treatment
(see paragraph 20).
Having regard to the above, the Court cannot but
conclude that it has not been established beyond reasonable doubt that the
applicant was ill-treated on 4-5 May 2005 (see, for example, Dmitriyev
v. Russia, no. 13418/03, § 59-61, 24 January
2012, and Sharkunov and Mezentsev v. Russia,
no. 75330/01, § 83-86, 10 June 2010).
Accordingly, there has
been no breach of Article 3 of the Convention in this respect.
(β) Adequacy of the investigation
. The
Court considers that the medical evidence (see paragraph 11) and the fact that
the applicant sustained the injury in the police building during early stages
of criminal investigation against him (see paragraphs 9 and 10) give rise to a
reasonable suspicion that the injuries he sustained may have been attributable
to the police. Accordingly, the Court is satisfied that the applicant raised an
arguable claim concerning the alleged ill-treatment and it was incumbent on the
domestic authorities to conduct an effective official investigation in this
connection.
Whilst the Court accepts that the authorities
promptly reacted to the applicant’s complaint of 10 May 2005 (see paragraphs 13
and 14), it is not convinced that the investigation was sufficiently thorough
to meet the requirements of Article 3, for the following reasons.
The investigation carried out by the prosecutor’s
office was limited to interviewing the two police officers against whom the
applicant had made his allegations and examining the medical certificate issued
by the ambulance doctor (see paragraphs 11 and 13). The fact that the police
officers obviously had a potential interest in the outcome of the case and in
exonerating themselves was not taken into account.
It appears that the applicant himself was not
questioned by the investigative authorities and consequently he had no
opportunity to participate in the inquiry in question in a meaningful way (see
paragraphs 13 and 14).
The Court further observes that the
investigation required a meticulous comparison of the evidence in relation to
specific details, as well as a series of cross-examinations, confrontations or
possibly crime-scene reconstructions, which were not carried out in that
context. Taking into account the important role of
investigative interviews in obtaining information from suspects, witnesses and
victims and, ultimately, the discovery of the truth about the matter under
investigation, the Court also notes that the investigative authorities never
interviewed the ambulance doctor, who had established the injury, his
counsel or the applicant’s cellmates who were in contact with him after the
alleged incident (see paragraph 14).
Accordingly, the Court notes that the prosecutor’s
office did not make appropriate efforts thoroughly to verify the substance of
his allegations (see, for example, Ablyazov v. Russia, no. 22867/05, §§
53-59, 30 October 2012).
The Court further notes that the applicant’s
allegations were subsequently examined by the prosecution authorities and the
trial and appeal courts in the criminal case against him. In this connection, the
Court observes that the national courts merely upheld the findings of the
prosecutor’s office. They did not summon the alleged perpetrators to question
them in person and to present the applicant with an opportunity to confront officers
B. and N. (see paragraph 20).
Overall, the Court is under the impression that
the domestic authorities took a selective approach to the evidence by
disregarding the applicant’s allegations and basing their conclusions solely on
the testimonies of the implicated police officers. Having regard to the above,
the Court considers that the investigation cannot be said to have been
diligent, thorough and “effective”. There has accordingly been a violation of
Article 3 of the Convention under its procedural limb.
(ii) Incident of 28-29 June 2005
(α) Alleged ill-treatment
It is undisputed between the parties that in
June 2005 the applicant sustained injuries to his face, stomach, arms and
wrists. In the Court’s view, those injuries were sufficiently serious to reach
the “minimum level of severity” under Article 3 of the Convention. It remains
to be considered whether the State should be held responsible under Article 3
for the injuries.
By contrast to its earlier conclusions in
respect of the events of 4-5 May 2005 (see paragraphs 79-85), the
Court finds that the applicant’s account of the events of 28-29 June 2005 (see
paragraphs 20 and 27) was largely consistent with the medical examination of 30
June 2005 (see paragraph 28). Since the Government did not dispute the validity
of medical report no. 2647, the Court accepts that the applicant made a prima
facie case in support of his complaint of ill-treatment. The burden
therefore rests on the Government to provide a plausible explanation of how the
injury was caused (see Ablyazov, cited above, § 49).
The Court further observes that neither the
authorities conducting the inquiry into the applicant’s allegations nor the
Government have provided a plausible explanation of the origin of the injuries
to his face, stomach and shoulders established by the medical expert on 30 June
2005 (see Kazantsev v. Russia, no. 14880/05, § 40-47, 3 April 2012).
In the absence of such an explanation, the Court
concludes that those injuries were caused either entirely or in part by the
ill-treatment which the applicant underwent while in the hands of the police.
In the light of the foregoing considerations, the Court accepts the applicant’s
account of events in so far as he alleged that he had been beaten up by the
police after his arrest at some point between 28 and 29 August 2005.
Having regard to all the circumstances of the
treatment as such, its physical and mental effects and the applicant’s health
condition, the Court concludes that the ill-treatment at issue amounted to
inhuman and degrading treatment in violation of Article 3 of the Convention.
There has therefore been a violation of Article
3 of the Convention under its substantive limb.
(β) Adequacy of the investigation
The Court first observes that the applicant’s
injuries and his allegations against State agents were sufficiently serious and
credible to require some form of investigation on the part of the national
authorities.
The Court acknowledges that the authorities did
not remain idle. A few consecutive inquiries were conducted and a medical
examination of the applicant was performed (see paragraphs 28-32).
However, it appears that the investigation was
flawed in the following respects. Firstly, the inquiry into the circumstances
in which the applicant’s injuries could have been sustained was quite limited.
It does not appear that the authorities made any attempts to investigate the
applicant’s relevant complaints any further than simply collecting statements
from the allegedly implicated officers. The authorities did not check the credibility
of the officers’ statements by, for instance, organising confrontations between
them and the applicant (see paragraphs 30 and 32).
The Court also notes that the authorities did
not interview any of the doctors who provided the applicant with first aid and
did not interrogate the applicant’s cellmates, who could have provided
information relevant to the establishment of the circumstances in which the
applicant had sustained his injuries (see paragraph 30). The Court thus
considers that the inquiry into his allegations of ill-treatment was superficial
and formalistic.
Lastly, the Court takes note of the legal
decision which summarised the findings of the investigation (see paragraph 30)
as well as the court’s decisions given in the present case (see also paragraphs
32 and 33) from which it is clear that the authorities failed to address the
issue of the cause of the applicant’s injuries and to offer any plausible
explanation in this connection (see Nechto v. Russia, no. 24893/05, § 90, 24 January 2012, and Vanfuli
v. Russia, no. 24885/05, § 82, 3 November 2011).
The foregoing
considerations are sufficient to enable the Court to conclude that the
investigation into the applicant’s complaint of ill-treatment cannot be
considered to have been “effective”. There has therefore been a violation of
Article 3 of the Convention under its procedural limb.
II. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 3 OF THE
CONVENTION ON ACCOUNT OF THE CONDITIONS OF THE APPLICANT’S DETENTION
Under Article 3 of the Convention the applicant
complained that the conditions in which he had been held in the detention ward
from 3 May 2005 to 27 February 2006 had been deplorable.
A. The parties’ submissions
The Government argued
that the conditions of the applicant’s detention did not reach the threshold of
treatment prohibited by Article 3. They admitted that the detention ward had
been overcrowded.
The applicant maintained his complaints.
B. The Court’s assessment
1. Admissibility
The Court notes that this complaint is not
manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 (a) of the
Convention. It further notes that it is not inadmissible on any other grounds.
It must therefore be declared admissible.
2. Merits
The Court notes that the parties disagree on
some aspects of the conditions of the applicant’s detention, but that the
Government agree that the applicant was held in the detention ward in question
between 3 May 2005 and 27 February 2006 and that the detention facility was
overcrowded (see paragraph 107).
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 sees no fact or argument
capable of persuading it to reach a different conclusion in the present case,
given in particular the admissions of the authorities in this connection made
domestically (see paragraphs 47 and 49). Although in the present case there is
no indication that there was an intention of humiliating or debasing the
applicant, the Court finds that the fact that the applicant had to spend the
overall period of almost eight months in the overcrowded cells of the detention ward (see paragraph 38) 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 anguish and inferiority capable
of humiliating and debasing him.
In view of the above, the Court does not
consider it necessary to examine the remainder of the parties’ submissions
concerning other aspects of the conditions of the applicant’s detention.
There has accordingly been a violation of
Article 3 of the Convention, as the Court finds the conditions in which the applicant
was held in the detention ward to have been inhuman and degrading within the
meaning of this provision.
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 101,800 euro (EUR) in
respect of pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage.
The Government considered the claim
unsubstantiated and excessive.
The Court does not find any causal link between
the alleged pecuniary losses and the violations found. It therefore dismisses
the applicant’s pecuniary claim. As regards his claim in respect of non-pecuniary
damage, the Court considers that the applicant must have sustained stress and
frustration as a result of the violations found. Making an assessment on an
equitable basis, the Court awards the applicant EUR 9,000 in respect of
non-pecuniary damage, plus any tax that may be chargeable.
B. Costs and expenses
The applicant also claimed EUR 2,600 for the
costs and expenses incurred before the Court.
The Government submitted that this claim was
generally excessive.
Regard being had to the information in its
possession and the Government’s submissions, the Court finds it appropriate to
grant the applicant EUR 1,750, which represents the requested sum, less EUR
850, already paid to the applicant’s lawyer in legal aid.
C. Default interest
The Court considers it appropriate that the
default interest rate should be based on the marginal lending rate of the
European Central Bank, to which should be added three percentage points.
FOR THESE RASONS, THE COURT UNANIMOUSLY
1. Declares the complaints concerning events
of 4-5 May and of 28-29 June 2005 and the related criminal
investigations, the complaint regarding conditions of the applicant’s detention
in the detention ward admissible and the remainder of the application
inadmissible;
2. Holds that there has been no violation of
Article 3 of the Convention under its substantive limb on account of the
applicant’s allegations of ill-treatment on 4-5 May 2005;
3. Holds that there has been a violation of Article
3 of the Convention under its procedural limb on account of the authorities’
failure to carry out an effective and thorough investigation into the applicant’s
allegations of ill-treatment on 4-5 May 2005;
4. Holds that there has been a violation of
Article 3 of the Convention under its substantive limb on account of the
applicant’s allegations of ill-treatment on 28-29 June 2005;
5. Holds that there has been a violation of
Article 3 of the Convention under its procedural limb on account of the authorities’
failure to carry out an effective and thorough investigation into the applicant’s
allegations of ill-treatment on 28-29 June 2005;
6. Holds that there has been a violation of
Article 3 of the Convention on account of the conditions of the applicant’s
detention between 3 May 2005 and 27 February 2006 in the temporary detention
ward of the Department of the Interior of the town of Naberezhnye Chelny in the
Republic of Tatarstan;
7. Holds
(a) that the respondent State is to pay the
applicant, within three months of the date on which the judgment becomes final,
in accordance with Article 44 § 2 of the Convention, the following
amounts, to be converted into the currency of the respondent State at the rate
applicable at the date of settlement:
(i) EUR 9,000 (nine
thousand euros), plus any tax that may be chargeable on the above amount, in
respect of non-pecuniary damage;
(ii) EUR 1,750 (one
thousand seven hundred and fifty euros), plus any tax that may be chargeable to
the applicant on the above amount, in respect of costs and expenses;
(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;
8. Dismisses the remainder of the applicant’s
claim for just satisfaction.
Done in English, and notified
in writing on 2 May 2013, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of
Court.
Søren Nielsen Isabelle
Berro-Lefèvre
Registrar President
