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 IGOR IVANOV v. RUSSIA
(Application
no. 34000/02)
JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
7 June
2007
This
judgment will become final in the circumstances set out in Article 44
§ 2 of the Convention. It may be subject to editorial
revision.
In the case of Igor Ivanov v. Russia,
The
European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting as a Chamber
composed of:
Mr C.L. Rozakis, President,
Mr L.
Loucaides,
Mrs N. Vajić,
Mr A.
Kovler,
Mrs E. Steiner,
Mr S.E. Jebens,
Mr G.
Malinverni, judges,
and Mr S. Nielsen, Section
Registrar,
Having
deliberated in private on 15 May 2007,
Delivers
the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
PROCEDURE
- The
case originated in an application (no. 34000/02) 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 Igor Sergeyevich Ivanov
(“the applicant”), on 5 August 2002.
- The
Russian Government (“the Government”) were represented by
Mr P. Laptev, the Representative of the Russian Federation at the
European Court of Human Rights.
- On
4 November 2005 the Court decided to give notice of the application
to the Government. Under the provisions of Article 29 § 3 of the
Convention, it decided to examine the merits of the application at
the same time as its admissibility.
- The
Government objected to the joint examination of the admissibility and
merits of the application. Having examined the Government's
objection, the Court dismissed it.
THE FACTS
I. THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE
- The
applicant was born in 1963 and lives in the village of Savvino in the
Moscow Region.
A. The criminal proceedings against the applicant
- On
26 December 2000 the applicant was arrested on suspicion of
aggravated robbery, extortion and abuse of position. He was remanded
in custody three days later.
- On
23 January 2002 the Kuzminskiy District Court of Moscow found the
applicant guilty of aggravated robbery and abuse of position,
acquitted him of the remainder of the charges and sentenced him to
eleven years' imprisonment. The judgment became final on 23 April
2002 when the Moscow City Court upheld it on appeal.
- On
6 November 2003 the Presidium of the Moscow City Court, acting on a
request from the applicant in supervisory review proceedings, amended
the judgments of 23 January and 23 April 2002, reducing the sentence
to six years' imprisonment. The applicant was released on parole on
25 March 2005.
B. Conditions of the applicant's detention
- From
29 December 2000 to 28 June 2002 the applicant was detained in
facilities nos. IZ-77/1 and IZ-77/3 in Moscow.
1. Facility no. IZ-77/1
(a) Number of inmates per cell
- According to certificates issued on 21 December 2005
by the acting director of the facility and produced by the
Government, the applicant was kept in cell no. 402, which measured
23.4 square metres. According to the Government, the information on
the number of inmates in the cell was not available as the documents
had been destroyed. At the same time the Government noted that
warders working in the facility while the applicant was detained
there had stated that the applicant had shared the cell with five or
six other detainees. The Government, relying on the certificates of
21 December 2005, further submitted that the applicant had had
an individual bunk and bedding at all times.
- The
applicant did not dispute the cell measurements. However, he alleged
that the cell had had twelve bunks and had accommodated 25 inmates.
Given the lack of beds, inmates had slept in shifts.
(b) Sanitary conditions, installations and
food
- The
Government, relying on the information provided by the acting
director of the facility, submitted that the cell received natural
light and ventilation through the two windows, which were glazed and
measured 0.75 metres in width and 1.1 metres in height. The
facility authorities inspected the cell on a daily basis. The
Government further argued that the temperature in the cell was
maintained at normal levels. The cell was equipped with lamps which
functioned day and night. The cell was disinfected once a week. It
was equipped with a lavatory pan, a sink and a tap for running water.
The pan was separated from the living area by a one metre high
brick wall. Inmates were allowed to take a shower once a week. The
Government, relying on the information provided by the Office of the
Prosecutor General of the Russian Federation, further stated that the
applicant was provided with food three times a day “in
accordance with the established norms”. Medical personnel at
the facility checked the quality of the food three times a day and
made entries in registration logs. The Government submitted copies of
the registration logs for certain months in 2001 and 2002. According
to the Government, detainees had made no complaints about the quality
of the food.
- The
applicant disagreed with the Government's description and submitted
that the sanitary conditions had been unsatisfactory. There were rats
in the cell, which was only dimly lit. The windows were not glazed
and the food was of extremely poor quality and in scarce supply.
(c) Medical assistance
- On
his admission to the detention facility the applicant was examined by
a doctor, who noted that the applicant was healthy. On 31 January
2001 the applicant complained to the prison doctor of muscle pain.
The doctor diagnosed myositis and prescribed treatment. From 22 to 24
May 2001 the applicant was treated for a common cold,
a mild viral
infectious
disease of the upper
respiratory
system. On 26 October 2001 the
applicant complained of back pain and was diagnosed with disseminated
pyoderma, a bacterial skin infection. He was transferred to the
genito urinary dermatology department of the facility hospital,
where he stayed until 15 November 2001. The Government gave a
detailed description of the treatment administered to the applicant,
including the type of medicine, dose and frequency. They also
furnished a copy of the applicant's medical record and medical
certificates.
- The
applicant argued that the appalling conditions of his detention had
resulted in a serious deterioration of his health. He had contracted
several skin and infectious diseases and had not been adequately
treated.
2. Facility no. IZ-77/3
- On 28 January 2002 the applicant was transferred to
facility no. IZ 77/3 and placed in cell no. 524, measuring 32.74
square metres. The Government, relying on a certificate issued by the
director of the facility on 20 December 2005, argued that the
cell housed seven or eight inmates. However, it is clear from the
certificate that the applicant was detained together with at least
seven or eight other inmates. The Government also included
certificates issued in 2004 indicating that the documents showing the
number of inmates had been destroyed.
- The
Government further provided a description of the conditions of the
applicant's detention in facility no. IZ-77/3 which was similar to
the description of conditions in facility IZ-77/1 except for two
aspects: (i) the cell windows measured 0.89 metres in width and 0.94
metres in height and (ii) the applicant did not request medical
assistance in facility no. IZ-77/3.
- The
applicant submitted that cell no. 524 had accommodated 38 inmates. He
further described the conditions of his detention in facility
no. IZ-77/3 as “identical” to those in facility no.
IZ-77/1, with one difference: the authorities in facility no. IZ-77/3
had been “respectful and kind”.
3. Complaints about the conditions of the applicant's
detention
- According
to the applicant, he had complained to various domestic authorities
about the appalling conditions of his detention. He had received no
response.
- The
Government submitted that the applicant had not complained to a
prosecutor or to a higher-ranking official of the Federal Service for
the Execution of Sentences.
II. RELEVANT DOMESTIC LAW
- Section
22 of the Detention of Suspects Act (Federal Law no. 103-FZ of 15
July 1995) provides that detainees should be given free food
sufficient to maintain them in good health according to standards
established by the Government of the Russian Federation. Section 23
provides that detainees should be kept in conditions which satisfy
sanitary and hygienic requirements. They should be provided with an
individual sleeping place and given bedding, tableware and
toiletries. Each inmate should have no less than four square metres
of personal space in his or her cell.
III. RELEVANT INTERNATIONAL DOCUMENT
- The
European Committee for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman or
Degrading Treatment or Punishment (CPT) visited the Russian
Federation from 2 to 17 December 2001. The section of its Report to
the Russian Government (CPT/Inf (2003) 30) dealing with the
conditions of detention in remand establishments and the complaints
procedure reads as follows:
“45. It should be stressed at the outset that the
CPT was pleased to note the progress being made on an issue of great
concern for the Russian penitentiary system: overcrowding.
When the CPT first visited the Russian Federation in
November 1998, overcrowding was identified as the most important and
urgent challenge facing the prison system. At the beginning of the
2001 visit, the delegation was informed that the remand prison
population had decreased by 30,000 since 1 January 2000. An example
of that trend was SIZO No 1 in Vladivostok, which had registered a
30% decrease in the remand prison population over a period of three
years.
...
The CPT welcomes the measures taken in recent years by
the Russian authorities to address the problem of overcrowding,
including instructions issued by the Prosecutor General's Office,
aimed at a more selective use of the preventive measure of remand in
custody. Nevertheless, the information gathered by the Committee's
delegation shows that much remains to be done. In particular,
overcrowding is still rampant and regime activities are
underdeveloped. In this respect, the CPT reiterates the
recommendations made in its previous reports (cf. paragraphs 25 and
30 of the report on the 1998 visit, CPT (99) 26; paragraphs 48 and 50
of the report on the 1999 visit, CPT (2000) 7; paragraph 52 of the
report on the 2000 visit, CPT (2001) 2).
...
125. As during previous visits, many prisoners
expressed scepticism about the operation of the complaints procedure.
In particular, the view was expressed that it was not possible to
complain in a confidential manner to an outside authority. In fact,
all complaints, regardless of the addressee, were registered by staff
in a special book which also contained references to the nature of
the complaint. At Colony No 8, the supervising prosecutor indicated
that, during his inspections, he was usually accompanied by senior
staff members and prisoners would normally not request to meet him in
private 'because they know that all complaints usually pass through
the colony's administration'.
In the light of the
above, the CPT reiterates its recommendation that the Russian
authorities review the application of complaints procedures, with a
view to ensuring that they are operating effectively. If necessary,
the existing arrangements should be modified in order to guarantee
that prisoners can make complaints to outside bodies on a truly
confidential basis.”
THE LAW
I. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 3 OF THE CONVENTION
- The
applicant complained that his detention from 29 December 2000 to 28
June 2002 in appalling conditions was in breach of Article 3 of the
Convention, which reads as follows:
“No one shall be subjected to torture or to
inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.”
A. Admissibility
- The Government argued that the applicant had not
exhausted the domestic remedies available to him. In particular, he
had not complained about the conditions of his detention to a
prosecutor or an official of the Federal Service for the Execution of
Sentences.
- The applicant submitted that he had complained
unsuccessfully to various domestic authorities about the appalling
conditions of his detention.
- The
Court observes that it has already on a number of occasions examined
the same objection by the Russian Government and dismissed it. In
particular, the Court held in the relevant cases that the Government
had not demonstrated what redress could have been afforded to the
applicant by a prosecutor, a court or other State agency, bearing in
mind that the problems arising from the conditions of the applicant's
detention were apparently of a structural nature and did not concern
the applicant's personal situation alone (see Moiseyev v. Russia
(dec.), no. 62936/00, 9 December 2004; Kalashnikov v.
Russia (dec.), no. 47095/99, 18 September 2001; and, most
recently, Mamedova v. Russia, no. 7064/05, § 57, 1
June 2006). The Court sees no reason to depart from that finding in
the present case and therefore considers that this complaint cannot
be rejected for failure to exhaust domestic remedies.
- The Court notes that this complaint is not manifestly
ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 of the
Convention and is not inadmissible on any other grounds. It must
therefore be declared admissible.
B. Merits
1. The parties' submissions
- The Government submitted that the applicant had been
detained in satisfactory sanitary conditions. The food met the
applicable standards. The applicant had been provided with adequate
medical assistance. The Government further submitted that they were
not in possession of any documents showing the number of inmates in
the cells in which the applicant had been detained because those
documents had been destroyed. However, they considered that the fact
that the applicant might have been detained in overcrowded cells
could not by itself serve as a basis for finding a violation of
Article 3 of the Convention, as the remaining aspects of the
applicant's detention had been satisfactory. The Government pointed
out that overcrowding was a general problem in many member States of
the Council of Europe.
- The
applicant challenged the Government's description of the conditions
in the detention facility as factually inaccurate. He maintained his
complaints.
2. The Court's assessment
- The
Court observes that the continuous nature of the applicant's
detention on remand and the parties' identical descriptions of the
general conditions of the applicant's detention in both facilities
warrant examining his detention from 29 December 2000 to 28 June
2002 without dividing it into separate periods.
- The
parties disagreed as to the specific conditions of the applicant's
detention. However, there is no need for the Court to establish the
truthfulness of each and every allegation, as it finds that there has
been a violation of Article 3 on the basis of the facts which have
been presented and which the respondent Government have failed to
refute.
- The
main characteristic which the parties did agree upon was the size of
the cells. However, the applicant claimed that the cell population
considerably exceeded the capacity for which the cells had been
designed. The Government, relying on the information provided by the
warders of facility no. IZ-77/1 (see paragraph 10 above) and the
certificate issued by the director of facility no. IZ-77/3 (see
paragraph 16 above), argued that the applicant had been detained
together with five or six other inmates in the first facility and
with no more than eight other inmates in the second facility. The
Government further submitted that the relevant documents indicating
the exact number of inmates in the cells had been destroyed.
- In this connection the Court observes that Convention
proceedings, such as the present application, do not in all cases
lend themselves to a rigorous application of the principle affirmanti
incumbit probatio (he who alleges something must prove that
allegation), as in certain instances the respondent Government alone
have access to information capable of corroborating or refuting
allegations. A failure on a Government's part to submit such
information without a satisfactory explanation may give rise to the
drawing of inferences as to the well-foundedness of the applicant's
allegations (see Ahmet Özkan and Others v. Turkey, no.
21689/93, § 426, 6 April 2004).
- Turning
to the facts of the present case, the Court notes that the
Government, in their plea concerning the destruction of the relevant
documents, cited the statements by the warders and the facility's
director indicating the number of the applicant's fellow inmates.
However, the Court finds it extraordinary that in December 2005, that
is, more than three years after the applicant's detention in those
facilities had come to an end and in the absence of any documentary
evidence, the officials were able to recollect the exact number of
inmates who had been detained together with the applicant. The Court
further observes that the Government misinterpreted the certificate
of 20 December 2005 issued by the director of facility no.
IZ 77/3 (see paragraph 16 above). The Government argued that the
applicant had been detained together with seven or eight other
inmates. However, it is clear that the certificate in question
indicated the minimum number of inmates in the applicant's cell
without providing any information on the maximum possible number of
detainees.
- Having
regard to the principles indicated in paragraph 33 above, together
with the fact that the Government did not submit any convincing
relevant information and that they agreed in principle that the cells
might have been overcrowded (see paragraph 28 above), the Court will
examine the issue concerning the number of inmates in the cells on
the basis of the applicant's submissions.
- According
to the applicant, the occupants of the cells in both detention
facilities were afforded less than 1 sq. m of personal space. The
number of detainees was greater than the number of available bunks.
It follows that the detainees, including the applicant, had to share
the sleeping facilities, taking turns to rest. Hence, for
approximately a year and a half the applicant was confined to his
cell day and night.
- Irrespective
of the reasons for the overcrowding, the Court considers that it is
incumbent on the respondent Government to organise its penitentiary
system in such a way as to ensure respect for the dignity of
detainees, regardless of financial or logistical difficulties (see
Mamedova, cited above, § 63).
- The
Court has frequently found a violation of Article 3 of the Convention
on account of lack of personal space afforded to detainees (see
Khudoyorov v. Russia, no. 6847/02, § 104 et seq.,
ECHR 2005-... (extracts); Labzov v. Russia, no. 62208/00, § 44
et seq., 16 June 2005; Novoselov v. Russia, no. 66460/01,
§ 41 et seq., 2 June 2005; Mayzit v. Russia,
no. 63378/00, § 39 et seq., 20 January 2005;
Kalashnikov v. Russia, no. 47095/99, §§ 97
et seq., ECHR 2002-VI; and Peers v. Greece, no. 28524/95,
§§ 69 et seq., ECHR 2001-III).
- Having
regard to its case-law on the subject and the material submitted by
the parties, the Court notes that the Government have not put forward
any fact or argument capable of persuading it to reach a different
conclusion in the present case. Although in the present case there is
no indication that there was a positive intention to humiliate or
debase the applicant, the Court finds that the fact that the
applicant was obliged to live, sleep and use the toilet in the same
cell as so many other inmates for almost eighteen months 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.
- In
addition, the Court observes that the applicant was diagnosed with a
serious skin disease in facility no. IZ-77/1 and that it appears most
likely that he was infected while in detention. Although this fact in
itself does not imply a violation of Article 3 given, in particular,
the fact that the applicant received treatment (see Alver v.
Estonia, no. 64812/01, § 54, 8 November 2005 and,
mutatis mutandis, Khokhlich v. Ukraine, no.
41707/98, 29 April 2003) and that he fully recovered, the Court
considers that these aspects, while not in themselves capable of
justifying the notion of “inhuman” treatment, are
relevant in addition to the pivotal factor of severe overcrowding in
demonstrating that the applicant's conditions of detention went
beyond the threshold tolerated by Article 3 of the Convention
(compare Novoselov, cited above, § 44).
- There
has therefore been a violation of Article 3 of the Convention because
the applicant was subjected to inhuman treatment on account of the
conditions of his detention from 29 December 2000 to 28 June 2002 in
facilities nos. IZ-77/1 and IZ-77/3.
II. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 5 OF THE CONVENTION
- Relying
on Article 5 of the Convention, the applicant complained of the
unlawfulness and excessive length of his detention on remand. Article
5, in so far as relevant, reads as follows:
“1. Everyone has the right to liberty
and security of person. No one shall be deprived of his liberty save
in the following cases and in accordance with a procedure prescribed
by law:
...
(c) the lawful arrest or detention of a
person effected for the purpose of bringing him before the competent
legal authority on reasonable suspicion of having committed an
offence or when it is reasonably considered necessary to prevent his
committing an offence or fleeing after having done so;
...
3. Everyone arrested or detained in
accordance with the provisions of paragraph 1 (c) of this
Article shall be brought promptly before a judge or other officer
authorised by law to exercise judicial power and shall be entitled to
trial within a reasonable time or to release pending trial. Release
may be conditioned by guarantees to appear for trial.”
- As
regards the applicant's complaints, the Court is not required to
decide whether or not they disclose an appearance of a violation of
the Convention. The Court reiterates that, according to Article 35 of
the Convention, the Court may only deal with the matter within a
period of six months from the date on which the final decision was
taken. It observes that the applicant was convicted on 23 January
2002 and that after that date his detention no longer fell within the
ambit of Article 5 § 1 (c) but within the scope of Article 5 §
1 (a) of the Convention (see, for instance, Fedosov v. Russia
(dec.), no. 42237/02, 25 January 2007, with further references).
The applicant lodged his application before the Court on 5 August
2002, that is, more than six months after his detention on remand had
ended.
- It
follows that the present complaint was introduced out of time and
must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 §§ 1 and 4
of the Convention.
III. OTHER ALLEGED VIOLATIONS OF THE CONVENTION
- The
applicant complained under Article 6 of the Convention that the
courts had incorrectly assessed evidence and incorrectly applied the
domestic law, that they had not thoroughly considered his arguments
and that the authorities had forged documents in the case file and
had not provided him with a copy of the final judgment.
- Having
regard to all the material in its possession, and in so far as these
complaints fall within its competence ratione materiae, the
Court finds that the evidence discloses no appearance of a violation
of the rights and freedoms set out in the Convention or its
Protocols. It follows that this part of the application must be
rejected as being manifestly ill-founded, pursuant to Article 35 §§
3 and 4 of the Convention.
IV. APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION
- Article 41 of the Convention provides:
“If the Court finds that there has been a
violation of the Convention or the Protocols thereto, and if the
internal law of the High Contracting Party concerned allows only
partial reparation to be made, the Court shall, if necessary, afford
just satisfaction to the injured party.”
- The
Court points out that under Rule 60 of the Rules of Court any claim
for just satisfaction must be itemised and submitted in writing
together with the relevant supporting documents or vouchers, “failing
which the Chamber may reject the claim in whole or in part”.
- On
2 February 2006 the Court invited the applicant to submit his claims
for just satisfaction. He did not submit any such claims within the
required time-limits.
- In
such circumstances the Court would usually make no award. In the
present case, however, the Court has found a violation of the
applicant's right not to be subjected to inhuman treatment. Since
this right is of absolute character, the Court finds it possible to
award the applicant 5,000 euros (EUR) by way of non-pecuniary
damage (compare Mayzit v. Russia, no. 63378/00, §§
87-88, 20 January 2005), plus any tax that may be chargeable.
- 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 from 29 December 2000 to 28 June
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 5,000 (five
thousand euros) in respect of non-pecuniary damage, to be converted
into Russian roubles at the rate applicable at the date of the
settlement, plus any tax that may be chargeable;
(b) that
from the expiry of the above-mentioned three months until settlement
simple interest shall be payable on the above amount at a rate equal
to the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank during the
default period plus three percentage points.
Done in English, and notified in writing on 7 June 2007, pursuant to
Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
Søren Nielsen Christos Rozakis
Registrar President
