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
SUKHOVOY v. RUSSIA
(Application
no. 63955/00)
JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
27 March 2008
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 Sukhovoy v. Russia,
The
European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting as a Chamber
composed of:
Christos
Rozakis,
President,
Nina
Vajić,
Anatoly
Kovler,
Khanlar
Hajiyev,
Dean
Spielmann,
Sverre
Erik Jebens,
Giorgio
Malinverni,
judges,
and
Søren Nielsen, Section
Registrar,
Having
deliberated in private on 6 March 2008,
Delivers
the following judgment, which was adopted on the last mentioned
date:
PROCEDURE
- The
case originated in an application (no. 63955/00) 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 Kirill Yuryevich
Sukhovoy (“the applicant”), on 8 August 2000.
- The
applicant, who had been granted legal aid, was represented by Ms E.
Liptser, a lawyer with the International Protection Centre in Moscow.
The Russian Government (“the Government”) were
represented by Mr P. Laptev, former Representative of the
Russian Federation at the European Court of Human Rights.
- The
applicant alleged, in particular, that the conditions of his
detention amounted to a violation of Article 3 of the Convention.
- By
a decision of 24 November 2005 the Court declared the application
partly admissible.
- The
applicant and the Government each filed further written observations
(Rule 59 § 1).
THE FACTS
- The applicant was born in 1982 and lives in Ivanovo.
- On
6 January 2000 the applicant was remanded in custody on
suspicion of having committed robbery. By a final judgment of
the Oktyabrskiy District Court of Ivanovo of 26 June 2000 he was
convicted of robbery and sentenced to eight years' imprisonment. On
20 July 2000 the Ivanovo Regional Court upheld the judgment.
- From
8 January 2000 to 2 August 2000 the applicant was held in pre trial
detention facility IZ 33/1 in Ivanovo, also
referred to as SIZO 33/1. He was first held in cells no. 50
and no. 53 and then, from 10 May 2000, in cell no. 42.
- The
parties' descriptions of the conditions of detention in IZ
33/1 were different.
A. The applicant's account
- The
applicant's cell held thirty-five detainees instead of the eight for
whom it was designed. As the number of detainees exceeded the number
of beds the detainees slept in turns, having five hours' sleep at
most. Cells were poorly lit and ventilated and were infested with
bed-bugs and lice. In many cells the floor was made of concrete.
Unhygienic conditions promoted the fast spread of skin and other
diseases. Food and medical care were below standard.
- On
12 March 2004 the applicant's lawyer obtained statements from two
individuals, M and T, who were detained in SIZO 33/1 at the same
time, from January 2000 to June-July 2000.
- According
to M, thirty-five persons were held in cell no. 82, in which there
were 14 bunks. Therefore the detainees slept in turns. The floor was
made of concrete. There were bed-bugs and lice. All the detainees
were infected with scabies more than once. The only access to
medication was if supplied by families. Bedding was also supplied by
families. Three shower cubicles were made available for thirty-five
detainees for a maximum of twenty minutes.
- According
to T, there were 14 bunks in a cell while the number of people was
two or three times higher. Therefore people slept in turns.
Medication was supplied by families. The cell was infested with
bed-bugs and lice. The 20 to 25 minutes allowed for a shower was
insufficient.
- Following
the applicant's complaint about the conditions of his detention, the
prosecutor's office of the Ivanovo Region examined his allegations.
Its letter no. 17-81-2000 of 16 October 2000 stated as follows:
“... In connection with significant overcrowding
of the detention facility [IZ 33/1] at
present, particularly during a period before July 2000, not all
prisoners were provided with an individual bunk and bedding. At the
same time, all prisoners under the age of 18 were provided with an
individual bunk and bedding...”
- The
prosecutor's office further stated that food complied with standards.
The medical centre was sufficiently supplied with medicines. The
premises were regularly disinfected. The conditions of detention were
subject to the regional prosecutor's monthly inspections to ensure
their compliance with statutory standards.
B. The Government's account
- According
to the Government, cell no. 50 measured 29.4 square metres and had 12
beds, cell no. 53 measured 22.6 sq. m and had 10 beds and cell no. 42
measured 20.46 sq. m and had 16 beds.
- The
average number of detainees in the facility was 1311 while its
maximum accommodation capacity was 1030 detainees. The average living
space per person was about 3.14 sq. m. The statutory standard of four
sq. m. per person could not be complied with during the period
in question for reasons beyond the prison administration's control.
The exact number of inmates could not be established because the
relevant documents had been destroyed after the expiry of the
time-limit for their storage.
- All
juvenile detainees had an individual bed and
bedding. They had at least two hours' daily exercise outside their
cells and access to bathing facilities for 15
to 20 minutes a week.
- The
sanitary condition of the cells was satisfactory. They were cleaned
daily and disinfected weekly. Natural
and electrical lighting complied with standards. Clothing and bedding
were regularly subjected to disinfection treatment. No
infectious or parasitic diseases were registered in the cells in
question.
THE LAW
I. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 3 OF THE CONVENTION
- The
applicant complained that the conditions of his detention in remand
facility IZ-33/1 in Ivanovo from 8
January to 2 August 2000 amounted to inhuman and degrading treatment.
He relied on Article 3 of the Convention which reads as follows:
“No one shall be subjected to torture or to
inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.”
- The
Government considered that the conditions of detention, as described
by them, did not infringe the applicant's rights guaranteed under
Article 3.
- The
applicant maintained his complaints. He noted that the Government's
information concerning the cells' size and the number of beds in the
cells suggested that there had been 2.45, 2.26
and 1.28 square metres per person in his cells.
- The
Court reiterates that Article 3 of the Convention enshrines one of
the most fundamental values of democratic society. It prohibits in
absolute terms torture or inhuman or degrading treatment or
punishment, irrespective of the circumstances and the victim's
behaviour (see, among other authorities, Labita v. Italy [GC],
no. 26772/95, § 119, ECHR 2000 IV). However, to fall under
Article 3, ill-treatment must attain a minimum level of severity. The
assessment of this minimum level of severity is relative; it depends
on all the circumstances of the case, such as the duration of the
treatment, its physical and mental effects and, in some cases, the
sex, age and state of health of the victim (see Valašinas
v. Lithuania, no. 44558/98, §§ 100-101, ECHR
2001-VIII).
- The
Court has consistently stressed that the suffering and humiliation
involved must in any event go beyond that inevitable element of
suffering or humiliation connected with a given form of legitimate
treatment or punishment (see Labzov v. Russia, no. 62208/00,
§ 42, 16 June 2005). Measures depriving a person of his
liberty may often involve such an element. Nevertheless, under this
provision the State must ensure that a person is detained in
conditions which are compatible with respect for his human dignity,
that the manner and method of execution of the measure do not subject
him to distress or hardship of an intensity exceeding the unavoidable
level of suffering inherent in detention and that, given the
practical demands of imprisonment, his health and well-being are
adequately secured (see Kudła v. Poland [GC],
no. 30210/96, § 94, ECHR 2000-XI).
- When
assessing conditions of detention, account has to be taken of the
cumulative effects of those conditions, as well as the specific
allegations made by the applicant (see Dougoz v. Greece, no.
40907/98, § 46, ECHR 2001-II).
- The
parties disagreed as to the specific conditions of the applicant's
detention. However, there is no need for the Court to establish the
truthfulness of each and every allegation, because it finds that
there has been a violation of Article 3 on the basis of the facts
which have been presented or undisputed by the respondent Government,
for the following reasons.
- The
main allegation, which the parties have in principle agreed upon, is
that the cells were overpopulated, although they gave different
information in this respect. The applicant alleged that the actual
number of detainees had been from two to four times higher than the
number of beds in the cells. The Government did not indicate the
exact number of detainees held in the applicant's cells. However they
submitted information on the cells' surface area and specified that
there had been between 10 and 16 beds in each cell. They also
acknowledged that the actual number of detainees at the material time
– 1311 persons – had exceeded the detention facility's
maximum accommodation capacity of 1030 persons. They further stated,
contrary to what was suggested by the applicant, that the juvenile
detainees, including the applicant, had all been provided with a
separate bed.
- Even
assuming, based on the above information and in the absence of any
indication to the contrary, that the number of detainees had been
equal to the number of beds, it can be seen from the information
submitted by the Government that there was 2.45
sq. m of space per inmate in cell no. 50, 2.26
sq. m per inmate in cell no. 53 and 1.28
sq. m per inmate in cell no. 42.
- The
Court observes further that the applicant was allowed two hours'
exercise outside his cell a day and 15 to 20 minutes' access to
bathing facilities once a week. For the rest of the time he was
confined to his cell.
- The
Court has frequently found a violation of Article 3 of the Convention
on account of the lack of personal space afforded to detainees (see,
in particular, Kalashnikov v. Russia, no. 47095/99, §§
97 et seq., ECHR 2002-VI; Labzov, cited above, §§ 44
et seq.; Mayzit v. Russia, no. 63378/00, §§ 39
et seq., 20 January 2005; Khudoyorov v. Russia, no. 6847/02,
§§ 104 et seq., 8 November 2005; Novoselov v. Russia,
no. 66460/01, §§ 41 et seq., 2 June 2005; and Popov
v. Russia, no. 26853/04, §§ 215 et seq., 13 July
2006). In those cases the Court considered the extreme lack of space
to be the focal point for its analysis of compatibility of the
conditions of applicants' detention with Article 3. It found that the
fact that an applicant was obliged to live, sleep, and use the toilet
in the same cell with so many other inmates was itself sufficient to
cause distress or hardship of an intensity exceeding the unavoidable
level of suffering inherent in detention, and arouse in him feelings
of fear, anguish and inferiority capable of humiliating and debasing
him.
- 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 v. Russia, no. 7064/05, §
63, 1 June 2006, and Benedictov v. Russia, no. 106/02, §
37, 10 May 2007).
- 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.
- In
the light of the above, having regard to the applicant's young age
and the duration of his detention, which lasted about seven months,
the Court finds that the applicant's conditions of detention amounted
to degrading treatment within the meaning of Article 3.
- Therefore,
there has been a violation of Article 3 of the Convention on account
of the conditions of the applicant's detention in remand facility
IZ-33/1 in Ivanovo from 8 January to 2 August 2000.
II. 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 submitted that during his detention in IZ-33/1 he had
developed chronic streptococcal impetigo and needed lengthy
treatment. On the basis of that allegation he claimed 5,000 euros
(EUR) in respect of non pecuniary damage.
- The
Government averred that the applicant had never been ill with chronic
streptococcal impetigo while in detention facility IZ-33/1 and his
submissions were therefore irrelevant to the present case. Since the
disease was the only ground for the applicant's claim this claim
should be dismissed.
- The
Court notes that the documents submitted by the applicant in support
of his allegation concerning his illness have no relation to the
applicant's detention in pre-trial detention facility IZ-33/1 in
respect of which the Court has found a violation of the Convention in
the present case. They concern his detention in penitentiary
establishment OK-3/6 in which he served his sentence. Furthermore,
according to a medical certificate of 9 August 2000, the
applicant was healthy and did not need any medical treatment upon his
arrival at establishment OK-3/6 on 2 August 2000, immediately after
his detention in IZ-33/1.
- However
the Court accepts that the applicant suffered humiliation and
distress because of the degrading conditions of his detention. Making
its assessment on an equitable basis, having regard to its case-law
on the subject and, taking into account, in particular, the length of
the applicant's detention, the Court awards the applicant EUR 3,000
in respect of non pecuniary damage, plus any tax that may be
chargeable on that amount.
B. Costs and expenses
- The
applicant also claimed EUR 2,000 for his representation before the
Court and EUR 300 for medication bought for him by his family in
connection with his chronic streptococcal impetigo.
- The
Government considered that the claim for medical expenses should be
rejected for reasons similar to those stated in paragraph 37 above.
The claim for legal expenses should be rejected because no agreement
for legal services was submitted. Moreover, two documents submitted
by the applicant's representative – a payment receipt for 2,500
Russian roubles of 25 October 2002 and a statement by the applicant's
mother Ms O.A. Sukhovaya in which she undertook to pay the
advocate Ms E. Liptser for the applicant's representation
before the Court in connection with the present application in case
of the Court's positive judgment – were signed by the
applicant's mother, who did not have any authority document from the
applicant. The Government further argued that no list of the
counsel's services or the cost of such services had been submitted to
the Court, which deprives the Court of the opportunity to assess
whether the expenses were reasonable as to quantum.
- According
to the Court's case-law, an applicant is entitled to reimbursement of
his costs and expenses only in so far as it has been shown that these
have been actually and necessarily incurred and are reasonable as to
quantum.
- As
regards the fees for the legal representation in the Strasbourg
proceedings, the Court observes that the applicant was granted EUR
701 in legal aid. It notes that the applicant failed to submit any
schedule of fees from his counsel which would describe services
provided and their cost. Nor did he submit any agreement between him
and his counsel which would indicate the total cost of the
applicant's representation by his counsel before the Court. In these
circumstances the Court considers that the applicant did not justify
having incurred any expenses exceeding the amount of the legal aid.
Therefore the Court makes no award under this head.
- As
regards the medical expenses, the Court rejects the claim since the
applicant's allegation that he had fallen ill with chronic
streptococcal impetigo in facility IZ-33/1 is manifestly ill-founded
(see paragraph 38 above).
C. Default interest
- The
Court considers it appropriate that the default interest should be
based on the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank, to
which should be added three percentage points.
FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT UNANIMOUSLY
- 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 3,000 (three thousand
euros) in respect of non-pecuniary damage, to be converted into the
national currency of the respondent State at the rate applicable at
the date of settlement, plus any tax that may be chargeable;
(b) that
from the expiry of the above-mentioned three months until settlement
simple interest shall be payable on the above amount at a rate equal
to the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank during the
default period plus three percentage points;
- Dismisses the remainder of the applicant's claim
for just satisfaction.
Done in English, and notified in writing on 27 March 2008, pursuant
to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
Søren Nielsen Christos Rozakis
Registrar President
