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]
THIRD
SECTION
CASE OF BABUSHKIN v. RUSSIA
(Application
no. 67253/01)
JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
18 October
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 Babushkin v. Russia,
The
European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting as a Chamber
composed of:
Mr B.M. Zupančič,
President,
Mr C. Bîrsan,
Mr A. Kovler,
Mrs E.
Fura-Sandström,
Mrs A. Gyulumyan,
Mrs I.
Ziemele,
Mrs I. Berro-Lefèvre, judges,
and Mr S.
Quesada, Section Registrar,
Having
deliberated in private on 27 September 2007,
Delivers
the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
PROCEDURE
- The
case originated in an application (no. 67253/01) 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 Nikolay Aleksandrovich
Babushkin (“the applicant”), on 3 December 2000.
- The
applicant, who had been granted legal aid, was represented by
Ms K. Moskalenko, a lawyer practising in Moscow and
director of the Centre of Assistance to International Protection. The
Russian Government (“the Government”) were represented by
Mr P. Laptev, Representative of the Russian Federation at the
European Court of Human Rights.
- On
18 April 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 1959 and lives in Nizhniy Novgorod.
- He is currently serving his sentence in correction
facility UZ 62/12 in the village of Sherstki, located in the
Tonshaevskiy District of the Nizhniy Novgorod Region.
- The
facts of the case, which are partly disputed between the parties, may
be summarised as follows.
- On
25 January 2000 the applicant was arrested on suspicion of
aggravated robbery with violence.
- From
11 February 2000 to 17 July 2000 he was detained in detention
facility SIZO 32/1 (later renamed SIZO 52 1) in Nizhniy
Novgorod.
A. Conditions of the applicant's detention
1. Number of inmates per cell
- Throughout
his detention in SIZO 32/1 the applicant was held consecutively in
the following cells:
-
Cell no. 9/70, measuring 37.2 sq. m, intended for 22 inmates;
-
Cell no. 17/210, measuring 15.2 sq. m, intended for 8 inmates;
-
Cell no. 2/12, measuring 39.5 sq. m, intended for 22 inmates;
-
Cell no. 2/11, measuring 43.4 sq. m, intended for 24 inmates;
-
Cell no. 4/29, measuring 39 sq. m, intended for 22 inmates;
-
Cell no. 4/27, measuring 57.1 sq. m, intended for 34 inmates.
- Notwithstanding
the Court's specific enquiry, the Government did not indicate the
number of inmates actually held in the above cells at the material
time. However, they submitted that the applicant had at all times had
an individual bunk bed and bedding.
- The
applicant, on the other hand, maintained that the number of inmates
in the above cells varied between 50 and 70, and occasionally
increased to 90 men. Due to the shortage of beds inmates had to take
turns to sleep, which left them with no more than four hours of sleep
daily. For the rest of the time they had to stand around in the cell
because there was not enough room even to sit down. No separate
bedding was provided for individual detainees and the applicant had
to share bedding as well as the bed itself.
- In
support of his statement the applicant submitted a testimony by
Mr O., who was detained in SIZO 32/1 in 2003 and who alleged
that the cells were still severely overcrowded at the time of his
detention.
2. Light
- The
windows in all the cells were permanently covered with dense-mesh
metal blinds. In addition, there was a metal sheet fixed at a
distance of about one metre outside each window. The surface area of
the sheet exceeded that of the window, so that it screened off most
of the daylight.
- With
regard to the artificial lighting in the cells, the Government
submitted a copy of the inspection report of 20 January 2000 for
SIZO 32/1. According to the report, the level of artificial light in
all the cells, including all those in which the applicant was
subsequently detained, was between 100 and 115 lux (the minimum
regulatory standard being 100 lux).
- According
to the applicant, the cells were insufficiently lit, which led to a
deterioration of the inmates' eyesight. He relied on written
statements by Mr O. (see paragraph 13 above) and by Ms B., who
was detained in SIZO 32/1 in April 2001. Both inmates also complained
about the inadequate light in the cells.
3. Ventilation and temperature
- According
to the Government, the cells were equipped with an automatic
ventilation system and central heating. They submitted a copy of the
inspection report of 14 February 2000 for SIZO 32/1, which
stated that the temperature in all the cells of the facility was
between +19ºC and +23ºC, and that the humidity was between
47 and 56%. This, they claimed, lay within the standard range
required by the health regulations.
- The
applicant disagreed with the Government and submitted that, while the
cells might have been equipped with automatic ventilation, it had not
worked. He referred to the statement of Mr O., according to which the
ventilation system had not started functioning until the end of 2003.
He maintained that the air in the cell was stale, a situation which
was aggravated by the fact that most inmates smoked in the cell. He
claimed that he had had no access to fresh air. He further submitted
that the cell was permanently overheated and excessively humid due to
overcrowding.
4. Sanitary facilities
- The
cells were each equipped with a wash basin and a WC at floor level.
The Government, relying on the sanitary inspection report of
15 February 2000, submitted that all the cells had been
disinfected and disinfested and that no insects or rodents had been
discovered in SIZO 32/1. They also submitted that inmates were
allowed to take a shower once a week in a specially equipped shower
facility.
- The
applicant did not dispute that the cells were equipped with the above
sanitary facilities, but he contended that sharing one wash basin and
one WC with at least 50 other detainees meant that it was hard to
gain access to them and that they were permanently filthy. Likewise,
in the shower facility it was virtually impossible to get access to
water in the fifteen minutes given to all inmates (at least 50)
simultaneously, with only four shower heads functioning. He disagreed
with the Government's assertion as to the absence of insects or
rodents, claiming that the numbers of cockroaches, lice, bed bugs and
other pests were so high that they could not be controlled. He relied
on the statements made by Mr. O., who submitted that in 2003 the
cells were still heavily infested with cockroaches, lice and bed
bugs.
5. Food and eating facilities
- The
Government submitted that the quality and nutritional value of the
meals provided to inmates in SIZO 32/1 attained and even exceeded the
minimum standards. They claimed that the relevant inspection had
taken place on 13 March 2000 and that its conclusions had been
satisfactory. With regard to the arrangements in the cell for taking
meals, they submitted that each cell was furnished with a dining
table and seats where the inmates could take meals.
- The
applicant, meanwhile, claimed that the catering in the facility was
extremely poor and that inmates often made complaints about it. He
further maintained that the rations were inadequate in view of his
state of health. As to the furniture, he acknowledged that each cell
had a table and benches, but said that they could seat no more than
8-10 persons. He therefore had to stand while eating his meals in
order to eat while the food was still warm.
6. Tuberculosis
- On
the applicant's arrival in SIZO 32/1 he was interviewed about his
state of health. He denied having tuberculosis. On 14 February 2000
he had a compulsory x-ray which revealed pathology in the lower lung
fields.
- On
16 February 2000 the applicant was diagnosed with bilateral lower
lobe pneumonia and admitted to a prison medical ward. When questioned
by the medical personnel he explained that he had been suffering from
a cough, fever and headaches for two weeks.
- In
the next two weeks the applicant underwent intensive medical
treatment, and his condition was monitored by means of a further
x-ray on 25 February 2000 and a CT scan on 29 February 2000. On
the basis of the latter the tuberculosis specialist diagnosed the
applicant on 1 March 2000 with focal pneumonia in the upper lobe of
the right lung.
7. Alleged ill-treatment in SIZO 32/1
- The
applicant alleged that the regular searches in the cells and personal
searches of inmates were usually accompanied by violence on the part
of prison officers, including beating, insults and setting dogs on
inmates.
- According
to the Government, no violent practices had been recorded in SIZO
32/1 and no complaints of such practices had been made to the
competent prosecutor's office, either by the applicant or by other
detainees.
8. Complaints to the domestic authorities
- According
to the Government, no complaints were made by the applicant while he
was in pre-trial detention. The applicant, on the other hand,
submitted that he had filed numerous complaints about the harsh
conditions of detention with the Chief Officer of SIZO 32/1, without
success. He claimed that he had no copies of these complaints at his
disposal because he had had no means of taking copies in the
facility.
B. Court proceedings
- On
28 April 2000 the Sovetskiy District Court of Nizhniy
Novgorod began examining the applicant's case. According to the
applicant, he requested the court to summon a defence witness, but
his request was refused. On the same date the applicant was convicted
of aggravated robbery with violence and sentenced to eleven years and
six months' imprisonment and confiscation of property.
- The
applicant appealed. It is not clear whether the applicant raised
before the appeal court the complaint regarding the district court's
refusal to summon the defence witness.
- On
4 July 2000 the Nizhegorodskiy Regional Court examined the
appeal and upheld the first-instance judgment. The applicant was
present at the hearing.
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 of
charge sufficient food to maintain them in good health in line with
standards established by the Government of the Russian Federation.
Section 23 provides that detainees should be held in conditions which
satisfy health and hygiene requirements. They should be provided with
an individual sleeping place and given bedding, tableware and
toiletries. Each inmate should have no less than 4 square metres of
personal space in his or her cell.
III. RELEVANT INTERNATIONAL DOCUMENTS
- The
European Committee for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman or
Degrading Treatment or Punishment (CPT) visited the Russian
Federation from 2 to 17 December 2001. The section of its report to
the Russian Government (CPT/Inf (2003) 30) dealing with the
conditions of detention in pre-trial detention centres and the
complaints procedure read as follows:
“45. It should be stressed at the outset that the
CPT was pleased to note the progress being made on an issue of great
concern for the Russian penitentiary system: overcrowding.
When the CPT first visited the Russian Federation in
November 1998, overcrowding was identified as the most important and
urgent challenge facing the prison system. At the beginning of the
2001 visit, the delegation was informed that the remand prison
population had decreased by 30,000 since 1 January 2000. An example
of that trend was SIZO No 1 in Vladivostok, which had registered a
30% decrease in the remand prison population over a period of three
years.
...
The CPT welcomes the measures taken in recent years by
the Russian authorities to address the problem of overcrowding,
including instructions issued by the Prosecutor General's Office,
aimed at a more selective use of the preventive measure of remand in
custody. Nevertheless, the information gathered by the Committee's
delegation shows that much remains to be done. In particular,
overcrowding is still rampant and regime activities are
underdeveloped. In this respect, the CPT reiterates the
recommendations made in its previous reports (cf. paragraphs 25 and
30 of the report on the 1998 visit, CPT (99) 26; paragraphs 48 and 50
of the report on the 1999 visit, CPT (2000) 7; paragraph 52 of the
report on the 2000 visit, CPT (2001) 2).
...
125. As during previous visits, many prisoners
expressed scepticism about the operation of the complaints procedure.
In particular, the view was expressed that it was not possible to
complain in a confidential manner to an outside authority. In fact,
all complaints, regardless of the addressee, were registered by staff
in a special book which also contained references to the nature of
the complaint. At Colony No 8, the supervising prosecutor indicated
that, during his inspections, he was usually accompanied by senior
staff members and prisoners would normally not request to meet him in
private 'because they know that all complaints usually pass through
the colony's administration'.
In the light of the
above, the CPT reiterates its recommendation that the Russian
authorities review the application of complaints procedures, with a
view to ensuring that they are operating effectively. If necessary,
the existing arrangements should be modified in order to guarantee
that prisoners can make complaints to outside bodies on a truly
confidential basis.”
THE LAW
I. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 3 OF THE CONVENTION ON
ACCOUNT OF THE APPLICANT'S CONDITIONS OF DETENTION
- The
applicant complained that his detention in SIZO 32/1 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. Submissions by the parties
- The Government argued that the applicant had not
exhausted the domestic remedies available to him. Referring to the
information submitted by the Prosecutor General's Office, they
pointed out that he had not complained about the conditions of his
detention to the Nizhniy Novgorod Prosecutor's Office, or to the
department of the Prosecutor General's Office responsible for
supervising penitentiary institutions. The Government further
commented on the conditions of the applicant's detention, providing
the information set out in the Facts (section I-A above). In
particular, they submitted that the applicant had been detained in
satisfactory sanitary conditions which corresponded to the regulatory
norms and were enforced through regular inspections and maintenance.
- The
applicant claimed that he had made numerous oral and written
complaints to the facility authorities regarding various aspects of
the conditions in the facility. However, these complaints were not
followed up and it was systematically implied to the inmates that
persisting in their complaints would only complicate their life
further. For that reason he had felt discouraged from lodging
complaints with the prosecutor's office. He contested the
Government's assertion that the conditions in the facility complied
with the standard requirements, with particular reference to the
overcrowding of the cells, which were always filled to two or three
times their capacity. He also alleged that overcrowding made the use
of the sanitary facilities in the cells and of the communal showers
difficult and affected the air quality, which was in any event
extremely poor owing to the inadequate ventilation and the presence
of large numbers of smokers in the cells. He further alleged that the
poor light in the cells, the excessively high indoor temperature, the
fact that the cells were heavily infested with insects, the poor
quality of the food and the lack of places to sit while eating were
aggravating factors.
B. The Court's assessment
1. Admissibility
- Concerning
the Government's objection as to the non-exhaustion of domestic
remedies, the Court observes that the applicant did not lodge
separate complaints with the prosecutor's office. However, it appears
that he had in any event complained to the facility authorities, who
must therefore have been aware of the situation in the facility.
Moreover, the Government failed to demonstrate what redress could
have been afforded to the applicant by the prosecutor's office,
bearing in mind that the problems arising from the conditions of his
detention were apparently of a structural nature and did not concern
his personal situation alone (see Moiseyev v. Russia (dec.),
no. 62936/00, 9 December 2004; Kalashnikov v. Russia
(dec.), no. 47095/99, 18 September 2001; Mamedova
v. Russia, no. 7064/05, § 57, 1 June 2006;
and, most recently, Benedictov v. Russia, no. 106/02, 10 May
2007). The Government have failed to submit evidence as to the
existence of any domestic remedy by which the applicant could have
complained about the general conditions of his detention, in
particular with regard to the structural problem of overcrowding in
Russian detention facilities, or demonstrating that the remedies
available to him were effective, that is to say, that they could have
prevented violations from occurring or continuing, or that they could
have afforded the applicant appropriate redress (see, to the same
effect, Melnik v. Ukraine, no. 72286/01, §§ 70-71,
28 March 2006; Dvoynykh v. Ukraine, no. 72277/01, § 72,
12 October 2006; and Ostrovar v. Moldova, no. 35207/03,
§ 112, 13 September 2005).
- Accordingly,
the Court dismisses the Government's objection as to non-exhaustion
of domestic remedies.
- The
Court further notes that the applicant's complaints concerning the
conditions of his detention are not manifestly ill-founded within the
meaning of Article 35 § 3 of the Convention and that they are
not inadmissible on any other grounds. They must therefore be
declared admissible.
2. Merits
- The
Court observes that 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, since it considers that those facts that are not in
dispute give it sufficient grounds to make substantive conclusions on
whether the conditions of the applicant's detention amounted to
treatment contrary to Article 3 of the Convention.
- The
main characteristic which the parties did agree upon is the size of
the cells. The cells in which the applicant was held were designed to
afford inmates between 1.6 and 1.9 sq. m of personal space. However,
the applicant claimed that the cell population greatly exceeded the
capacity for which the cells were designed; the Government declined
to indicate the exact number of inmates actually held in these cells.
However, they maintained that the applicant was provided with an
individual bunk bed and bedding.
- In
this connection, the Court observes that Convention proceedings, such
as the present application, do not in all cases lend themselves to a
rigorous application of the principle affirmanti incumbit probatio
(he who alleges something must prove that allegation), because in
certain instances the respondent Government alone have access to
information capable of corroborating or refuting allegations. A
failure on a Government's part to submit such information without a
satisfactory explanation may give rise to the drawing of inferences
as to the well-foundedness of the applicant's allegations (see Ahmet
Özkan and Others v. Turkey, no. 21689/93, § 426,
6 April 2004).
- Having
regard to the abovementioned principles, together with the fact that
the Government did not offer any explanation for their failure to
submit information as to the number of inmates in the different
cells, 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 cells were constantly filled to twice their
capacity or even more, resulting in a situation where each inmate had
less than 1.0 sq. m of personal space and occasionally even less than
0.5 sq. m. Consequently, the detainees, including the applicant, had
to share the sleeping facilities, taking turns to rest, and had to
stand around in the cell for the rest of the time. The overcrowding
also meant that the only wash basin and the only toilet in the cell
were used by at least twice as many inmates as they were intended
for. Accordingly, access to them was quite limited and maintaining
hygiene in the cells was scarcely possible. It also appears that,
when it came to using the communal showering facilities, no allowance
was made for the excessive number of detainees or for the broken
equipment; this further contributed to the poor standard of hygiene.
Likewise, no arrangements were made to provide the cells with
additional furniture for the increased number of detainees, which
meant that inmates did not have sufficient space for taking their
meals, reading or writing.
- The
Court reiterates that irrespective of the reasons for the
overcrowding, 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, and
Benedictov v. Russia, cited above, § 37).
- 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 proof that there was a positive intention to humiliate or debase
the applicant, the Court finds that the fact that he was obliged to
live, sleep and use the sanitary and other facilities in the same
cell as so many other inmates for over five months in a severely
restricted space, was itself sufficient to cause distress or hardship
of an intensity exceeding the unavoidable level of suffering inherent
in detention, and to arouse in him feelings of fear, anguish and
inferiority capable of humiliating and debasing him.
- Furthermore,
the Government admitted that at the material time the cell windows
had been covered with metal shutters which blocked access to fresh
air and natural light. Hence the applicant's situation was aggravated
by the lack of natural light in the cell.
- Thus,
for over five months the applicant was confined to an extremely
congested cell, with limited access to sanitary facilities, poor
levels of hygiene and inadequate levels of daylight.
- It
follows that, while in the present case it cannot be established
“beyond reasonable doubt” that the ventilation, the
heating, the quality of the food and the pest control in the facility
were unacceptable from the standpoint of Article 3, the
foregoing considerations (see paragraphs 44, 48 and 49 above) are
sufficient to enable the Court to conclude that the applicant's
conditions of detention went beyond the threshold tolerated by
Article 3 of the Convention.
- There
has therefore been a violation of Article 3 of the Convention on
account of the conditions of the applicant's detention in the SIZO
32/1 facility.
II. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 3 OF THE CONVENTION ON
ACCOUNT OF THE ALLEGED ILL-TREATMENT OF THE APPLICANT AND HIS
CONTRACTING TUBERCULOSIS WHILE IN DETENTION
- The
applicant complained of a violation of Article 3 of the Convention,
claiming to have contracted tuberculosis in the detention facility
and to have been subjected to ill-treatment by prison officers
conducting cell searches.
A. Submissions by the parties
- The
Government maintained that the applicant had contracted tuberculosis
long before his detention. Relying on the medical reports, they
claimed that the symptoms he had displayed as of 1 March 2000 were
typical of tuberculosis that had been progressing for one or two
months. Accordingly, the applicant must have contracted tuberculosis
at least one month before his arrest. With regard to the allegations
of ill treatment, they contested them as entirely
unsubstantiated. They contended that no complaints to that effect had
been made by the applicant or other inmates of SIZO 32/1 at any time.
- The
applicant maintained his submissions as to the alleged ill treatment
but made no additional comments as to his allegedly having contracted
tuberculosis.
B. The Court's assessment
- The
Court notes that the applicant's allegations of ill-treatment by
detention facility officers during searches are not corroborated by
any evidence capable of satisfying the standard of proof “beyond
reasonable doubt”. In particular, the applicant omitted to
provide any description of specific occurrences of the alleged
ill-treatment; he failed to give even approximate dates of such
occurrences or to indicate their frequency or the number and identity
of the participants. At the material time the applicant did not file
any complaint on this subject either with the prison authorities or
with the prosecutor's office. In the absence of any reliable
information from the applicant, it cannot be said that his allegation
of ill-treatment is made out.
- As
regards the allegation that the applicant contracted tuberculosis in
the detention facility, the Court reiterates that 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). Furthermore, the Court takes note of the medical
certificates submitted by the Government which disclose that the
applicant was diagnosed with what appeared to be pneumonia within
three days of his placement in SIZO 32/1. About three weeks later
advanced symptoms of tuberculosis were discovered during the CT scan.
It follows that the disease began to manifest itself in the early
part of the applicant's detention, making it more than likely that he
had already been infected at the time of arrest. The Court therefore
accepts the Government's argument that there are no grounds for
holding the authorities responsible for the fact that the applicant
developed tuberculosis while in the detention facility.
- It follows that this part of the complaint is
manifestly ill-founded and must be rejected in accordance with
Article 35 §§ 3 and 4 of the Convention.
III. OTHER ALLEGED VIOLATIONS OF THE CONVENTION
- Lastly,
the applicant complained under Article 6 § 3 (d) of the
Convention that the court of first instance had refused to summon a
witness on his behalf.
- Having
regard to all the materials in its possession, the Court finds that
they do not disclose any appearance of a violation of the rights and
freedoms set out in the Convention or the Protocols thereto. 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
applicant did not submit a claim for just satisfaction either in
respect of pecuniary or non-pecuniary damage, or in respect of the
costs and expenses.
- 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 degrading treatment.
Since this right is of absolute character, the Court finds it
equitable, in the particular circumstances of this case, to award the
applicant 2,500 euros (EUR) by way of non-pecuniary
damage (see Mayzit v. Russia, cited above, § 88,
20 January 2005), plus any tax that may be chargeable.
FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT UNANIMOUSLY
- Declares the complaint under Article 3
concerning the conditions of the applicant's detention 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 2,500 (two thousand five hundred euros) in respect of
non-pecuniary damage, plus any tax that may be chargeable, to be
converted into Russian roubles at the rate applicable at the date of
settlement;
(b) that from the expiry of the above-mentioned three
months until settlement simple interest shall be payable on the above
amount at a rate equal to the marginal lending rate of the European
Central Bank during the default period plus three percentage points;
Done in English, and notified in writing on 18 October 2007, pursuant
to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
Santiago Quesada Boštjan M. Zupančič
Registrar President
