[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback] | ||
European Court of Human Rights |
||
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> European Court of Human Rights >> ANANYEV and OTHERS v. RUSSIA - 42525/07 [2012] ECHR 21 (10 January 2012) URL: http://www.bailii.org/eu/cases/ECHR/2012/21.html Cite as: [2012] ECHR 21, (2012) 55 EHRR 18, 55 EHRR 18 |
[New search] [Contents list] [Context] [View without highlighting] [Printable RTF version] [Help]
FIRST SECTION
CASE OF ANANYEV and OTHERS v. RUSSIA
(Applications nos. 42525/07 and 60800/08)
JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
10 January 2012
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 Ananyev and Others v. Russia,
The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting as a Chamber composed of:
Nina Vajić,
President,
Anatoly Kovler,
Peer Lorenzen,
Mirjana
Lazarova Trajkovska,
Julia Laffranque,
Linos-Alexandre
Sicilianos,
Erik Møse, judges,
and Søren
Nielsen, Section
Registrar,
Having deliberated in private on 6 December 2011,
Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
PROCEDURE
THE FACTS
I. THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE
A. The case of Mr Ananyev
B. The case of Mr Bashirov and Ms Bashirova
cell 15: 23 square metres and 10 sleeping places;
cell 35: 25 square metres and 10 sleeping places;
cells 69 and 83: 24 square metres and 12 sleeping places;
cell 79: 25 square metres and 12 sleeping places.
cell 52: 24 square metres and 10 sleeping places;
cell 50: 22 square metres and 10 sleeping places;
cell 45: 19 square metres and 6 sleeping places.
“According to the data of the Federal Penitentiary Service in the Astrakhan Region, the situation in the regional remand prisons deteriorated in 2005 and elementary rights of detainees were not respected. The number of suspects and defendants significantly increased in both remand prisons; at the end of the year their number was twice the norm. Thus, prison no. [IZ-30/]1 in the city of Astrakhan has the maximum capacity of 642 detainees; during the year it accommodated on average 1,031 persons (in 2004 – 750 persons) and at the end of the year 1,300 persons. The situation in prison no. [IZ-30/]2 in the town of Narimanov is similar... For that reason, cells in the remand prisons have constantly been overcrowded; whereas the sanitary norm is four square metres per person, the actual space was approximately two square metres. Detainees suffered from a shortage of sleeping places and were forced to take turns to sleep.”
“Unfortunately, it must be stated that there have been no noticeable changes for the better in 2006. Thus, a warning sent on 25 September 2006 by the Astrakhan Regional prosecutor’s office to the director of the Federal Penitentiary Service in the Astrakhan Region indicated that the conditions of detention in prisons no. 1 (Astrakhan) and no. 2 (Narimanov) ‘did not meet the hygienic, sanitary or fire-safety requirements’... The situation has further been aggravated by an extreme decrepitude of the buildings (especially in the case of prison no. 1 built in 1822) and a significant exceeding of the design capacity. The three-year trend of overcrowding is a reflection of a worsening situation and the figures clearly show this:
Remand prison |
Maximum capacity (persons) |
Actual prison population at the end of the year |
||
2004 |
2005 |
2006 |
||
IZ-30/1 |
642 |
750 |
1,300 |
1,518 |
IZ-30/2 |
267 |
321 |
588 |
700 |
“The officially recognised maximum capacity of remand prisons which is considered acceptable raises questions. It is considered that the capacity of prison IZ-30/1 is 651 persons. Yet the global living surface of all cells is 2,232.4 square metres. A simple division of this number by 4 sq. m (the legal sanitary norm of cell space per detainee) gives us the maximum prison capacity of 558 persons. However, on 31 January 2008 the actual number of detainees in prison no. 1 was 689.”
“On 29 February [sic] 2008 a deputy district prosecutor and deputy heads of prison no. 1 in charge of logistics, the detention regime and the medical unit carried out a comprehensive technical examination of cell 79. At the time of the examination, cell 79 had twelve sleeping places but housed fifteen persons. The above-mentioned examination of cell 79 also established that similar violations had occurred in a majority of cells of the prison. In connection with the overcrowding, dilapidated state of the building and other violations of the Pre-trial Detention Act, the district prosecutor’s office sent two warnings to the director of the Federal Penitentiary Service in the Astrakhan Region already in the first quarter of 2008...”
II. RELEVANT DOMESTIC LAW AND PRACTICE
A. Constitution of the Russian Federation
No one may be subject to torture, violence or any other cruel or degrading treatment or punishment (Article 21 § 2).
B. Pre-trial Detention Act (Federal Law no. 103 FZ of 15 July 1995)
to ask the prison governor for an appointment and to ask the same of the prison supervisors during their visit to the prison (section 17 § 3);
to send suggestions, applications and complaints to authorities, including courts, concerning the lawfulness of their detention and violations of their lawful rights and interests (section 17 § 7);
to receive free food, daily necessities and medical assistance, including during the time when they take part in investigative acts or court hearings (section 17 § 9);
to have an eight-hour uninterrupted sleep at night time and a one-hour period of daily exercise (section 17 §§ 10 and 11).
C. Ombudsman Act (Federal Law no. 1-FKZ of 26 February 1997)
D. Prosecutors Act (Federal Law no. 2202-1 of 17 January 1992)
E. Code of Civil Procedure: Complaints about unlawful decisions
F. Civil Code
G. Code of Criminal Procedure on placement in custody
H. Statistics on placement in custody and trial outcomes
|
2007 |
2008 |
2009 |
20101 |
Applications for a detention order granted (% total) |
223,412 |
207,456 |
187,793 |
148,156 |
Applications for a detention order rejected (% total) |
22,936 |
22,813 |
20,623 |
16,398 |
Applications for an extension order granted (% total) |
194,307 |
201,499 |
208,760 |
180,686 |
Applications for an extension order rejected (% total) |
3,013 |
3,921 |
4,059 |
3,857 |
Cases in which defendant(s) was in custody on opening date of trial |
206,281 |
191,696 |
177,047 |
n/a |
Total persons convicted |
931,057 |
941,936 |
906,664 |
861,694 |
Total persons acquitted |
10,216 |
10,027 |
9,179 |
9,138 |
I. Federal Programme for Development of the Penitentiary
1. Description of the problem
“The contemporary criminal justice and penitentiary system is a complex of institutions and organs that enforces various types of penalties. It comprises 1,060 institutions, including 844 correctional facilities, 7 prisons and 209 remand prisons. At present more than 812,000 individuals are being held in those institutions.
The number of suspects and defendants who were remanded in custody and are held in remand prisons (hereinafter – “untried prisoners”) and the number of convicted defendants in correctional facilities (hereinafter – “convicted prisoners”) do not depend on the functioning of the Federal Penitentiary Service and are chiefly determined by the level of crime in the country and the judicial practice.
...
Pursuant to the requirements of the Russian Federation’s laws, untried and convicted prisoners must be allocated to cells, taking into account their character and psychological compatibility, as well as their gender and age... The sanitary norm is four square metres of floor space per untried prisoner.
As a consequence of construction and renovation work carried out in remand prisons in the framework of the federal expenditure programme ‘Reform of the penitentiary system in 2002-2006’, the number of places in remand prisons in which the conditions of detention are compatible with the requirements of Russian laws will reach 94.4% by the end of 2006. The federal expenditure programme ‘Development of the Criminal Justice and Penitentiary System in 2007-2016’ (hereinafter – “the Programme”) will be a logical continuation of this work.
At present only the facilities in forty Russian regions are actually capable of providing accommodation that is compatible with the sanitary norm of floor space per inmate. It follows that the remand prison population exceeds the established prison capacity, and in certain regions it does so to a significant extent. In twenty Russian regions the sanitary norm of cell surface per detainee is less than four square metres, in eighteen regions (Altay, Tyva, Sakha (Yakutiya), Chuvash and Udmurt Republics, Krasnodar, Perm, Khabarovsk, Astrakhan, Kaluga, Kostroma, Kurgan, Moscow, Novosibirsk, Sverdlovsk, Smolensk, Tomsk and Tula Regions) it is less than three square metres, which is a violation of the rights of untried prisoners.
Three Russian regions (Khakassiya Republic, Yevreyskiy and Yamalo-Nenetskiy Regions) have no remand prisons, which leads to various excesses in enforcing custodial measures and carrying out investigative acts.
A majority of remand prisons are located in old buildings. In recent years, constructions have collapsed in remand prisons of the Astrakhan, Magadan, Moscow, Tambov, Chita and other regions owing to their unsatisfactory condition. It is now being debated whether twelve remand prisons (Dagestan, Karelia and Chuvash Republics, Astrakhan, Belgorod, Vologda, Voronezh, Kamchatka, Kostroma, Sverdlovsk, Tambov and Tula Regions) should be put out of operation...
Since Russia acceded to the Council of Europe in 1996 and ratified the European Convention on Human Rights in 1998, it has become an urgent objective to bring the penitentiary system into compliance with the Council of Europe’s legal standards, which have significantly evolved in recent years with respect to prison management and treatment of detainees... Taking into account the fact that the minimum sanitary norm per detainee is set by the [Committee for the Prevention of Torture, “CPT”] at seven square metres, the European Court refers in its judgments to this approximate standard for prisoners’ accommodation. The Council of Europe’s commentary on the European Prison Rules gives reasons to believe that the [CPT] will set the sanitary norm per inmate in the range of nine or ten square metres.
At present the sanitary norm per inmate meets the international standard only in three remand prisons (Dagestan and Kalmykiya Republics, Kamchatka Region); however, two of them (Dagestan and Kamchatka) are under threat of collapse and will have to be closed...
2. Main objective and goals, time-limits
for implementation and
the most important targets of the
Programme
The Programme’s objective is to bring the conditions of detention of untried and convicted prisoners in line with Russian laws with a view to attaining international standards for the detention of defendants in remand prisons.
The Programme’s goals are:
reconstruction and construction of remand prisons in which the conditions of detention of untried prisoners are compatible with Russian laws...
construction of twenty-six remand prisons, in which the conditions of detention are compatible with international standards.
The most important targets of the Programme are [Annex 1]:
Target name |
2007 |
2008 |
2009 |
2010 |
2011 |
2012 |
2013 |
2014 |
2015 |
2016 |
Percentage of remand prisons compatible with Russian standards |
53.7 |
53.9 |
54.2 |
57.5 |
60 |
61.1 |
72.8 |
84.9 |
95.6 |
100 |
Percentage of remand prisons compatible with international standards |
0.5 |
0.5 |
0.5 |
0.5 |
0.9 |
1.4 |
1.8 |
2.7 |
6.2 |
11.4 |
3. The Programme’s measures
In 2007-2009, the construction of seven new remand prisons will be completed; they will offer conditions of detention compatible with Russian standards. In addition, the construction of thirty-two remand prisons that has begun in the framework of the 2002-2006 federal expenditure programme, is about to be completed. Starting from 2010, the conditions of detention in ninety-seven old-style remand prisons will be brought into compliance with Russian laws. New-style remand prisons are being built in twenty-four Russian regions (Dagestan, Karelia, Tyva, Khakassiya and Chuvash Republics, Krasnodar, Perm, Stavropol, Astrakhan, Vladimir, Voronezh, Kamchatka, Kemerovo, Kostroma, Moscow, Novosibirsk, Samara, Leningrad, Sverdlovsk, Tomsk, Tula, Chita, Yamalo-Nenetskiy and Yevreyskiy Regions, St Petersburg). The conditions of detention in those facilities will meet the international standards (sanitary norm of seven square metres per detainee).
By 2017 the total number of remand prisons – taking into account the fact that twelve prisons will probably be closed – will grow to 230. The conditions of detention will be compatible with Russian laws, and in 26 prisons also with international standards...
4. Allocation of resources to the Programme
Resources will be allocated to the Programme at the expense of the federal budget. The total amount of the financing represents 54,588,200,000 roubles [approximately 1,350,000,000 euros]...”
III. RELEVANT INTERNATIONAL MATERIAL
“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...”
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...”
“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.”
“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.”
IV. COMMITTEE OF MINISTERS’ INTERIM RESOLUTIONS
“Noting that the general measures required by the present judgment are closely connected to the ongoing reform of the Russian Federation’s criminal policy and the penitentiary system and welcoming progress achieved so far in this respect;
Noting in particular with satisfaction the significant decrease of the overcrowding in pre-trial detention facilities (SIZOs) and the ensuing improvement of sanitary conditions, as demonstrated by the recent statistics submitted to the Committee by the Russian authorities [];
Considering however that further measures are required in this field to remedy the structural problems highlighted by the present judgment;
Stressing in particular the importance of prompt action by the authorities to remedy the overcrowding in those SIZOs where this problem still remains (57 out of the 89 Russian regions) and to align the sanitary conditions of detention on the requirements of the Convention,
CALLS UPON the Russian authorities to continue and enhance the ongoing reforms with a view to aligning the conditions of all pre-trial detention on the requirements of the Convention, particularly as set out in the Kalashnikov judgment, so as effectively to prevent new, similar violations...”
“Having regard to the judgments in which the Court has found violations of Article 3 of the Convention in respect of the conditions under which the applicants were detained in remand prisons (SIZOs) which amounted to degrading treatment due, in particular, to the severe lack of personal space or to the combination of the space factor with other deficiencies of the physical detention conditions such as the impossibility of using the toilet in private, lack of ventilation, lack of access to natural light and fresh air, inadequate heating arrangements, and non-compliance with basic sanitary requirements;
Recalling further that in a number of judgments the Court found violations of Article 5 due to the unlawful detention of the applicants, its excessive length in the absence of relevant and sufficient grounds for prolonged detention and the lack of effective judicial review of the lawfulness of detention;
Recalling finally that the Court also found violations of Article 13 of the Convention due to the lack of an effective domestic remedy in respect of conditions of detention on remand;
Recalling that the existence of structural problems and the pressing need for comprehensive general measures were stressed by the Committee and acknowledged by the Russian authorities since the adoption by the Court of the judgment in the case of Kalashnikov against Russia in 2002...
As regards material conditions of detention:
...
Recalling that... the creation of new places of detention cannot in itself provide a lasting solution to the problem of prison overcrowding, and that this measure should be closely supported by others aimed at reducing the overall number of remand prisoners;
Noting with satisfaction in this respect the Russian authorities’ position that there should be an integrated approach to finding solutions to the problem of overcrowding in remand prisons, including in particular changes to the legal framework, practices and attitudes;
As regards the number of remand prisoners:
Recalling the constant position of the Committee of Ministers that, in view both of presumption of innocence and the presumption in favour of liberty, remand in custody shall be the exception rather than the norm and only a measure of last resort, and that to avoid inappropriate use of remand in custody the widest possible range of alternative, less restrictive measures shall be made available;
Noting the repeated statements by the President of the Russian Federation and high-ranked officials, including the Prosecutor General and the Minister of Justice, that thousands of persons detained on remand – up to 30 % of those currently detained – should not have been deprived of their liberty, being suspected or accused of offences of low or medium gravity;
Welcoming the unambiguous commitment, renewed at the highest political level, to change this unacceptable situation and to adopt urgent legislative and other measures to that effect...
Noting that the statistical data provided demonstrates a slight but constant decrease in the overall number of remand prisoners;
Further noting that the statistics nonetheless demonstrate wider yet still limited recourse to alternative preventive measures by the Russian courts, prosecutors and investigators...
As regards remedies in respect of conditions of detention on remand:
Recalling the Court’s consistent position that available remedies are considered effective if they could have prevented violations from occurring or continuing, or could have afforded the applicant appropriate redress;
Noting that the statistics and several cases presented to the Committee demonstrate a developing practice before domestic courts on compensation for non-pecuniary damage sustained in relation to poor conditions of detention in remand prisons;
Noting further that in view of the problems at issue, any compensatory remedy should as far as possible be supplemented by other remedies capable of preventing violations of Article 3 of the Convention;
Noting in this respect information on the avenues provided by Russian legislation to address the violations of Article 3 at issue;
Noting in particular the provisions of Chapter 25 of the Code of Civil Procedure and the Ruling of the Supreme Court of Russia of 10 February 2009 providing the possibility to challenge before courts acts or inaction of remand prison administrations concerning improper detention conditions;
Considering however that the effectiveness of this remedy in particular with regard to overcrowding, has not yet been demonstrated;
ENCOURAGES the Russian authorities to pursue the ongoing reforms with a view to aligning the conditions of detention in remand prisons with the requirements of the Convention, taking also into account the relevant standards and recommendations of the European Committee for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment,
EXPRESSES CONCERN that notwithstanding the measures adopted, a number of remand prisons in Russia still do not afford the personal space guaranteed by domestic legislation, and remain overpopulated;
STRONGLY ENCOURAGES the Russian authorities to give priority to reforms aiming at reducing the number of persons detained on remand and to other measures combating the overcrowding of remand facilities by
• ensuring that judges, prosecutors and investigators consider and use detention on remand as a solution of last resort and make wider use of alternative preventive measures;
• ensuring the availability at the national level of effective preventive and compensatory remedies allowing adequate and sufficient redress for any violation of Article 3 resulting from poor conditions of detention on remand...”
V. PILOT-JUDGMENT PROCEEDINGS CONCERNING THE OVERCROWDING PROBLEM IN POLAND
THE LAW
I. JOINDER OF THE APPLICATIONS
II. ADMISSIBILITY
A. The applicants’ complaints concerning their conditions of detention and the alleged absence of an effective domestic remedy
“The Court may only deal with the matter after all domestic remedies have been exhausted, according to the generally recognised rules of international law, and within a period of six months from the date on which the final decision was taken.”
1. Exhaustion of domestic remedies
2. Compliance with the six-month time-limit
3. Preliminary conclusion as to the admissibility of the complaints relating to the conditions of detention and the existence of an effective remedy
B. The remainder of the applicants’ complaints
C. Conclusion as to the admissibility
III. PARTIES’ SUBMISSIONS ON THE MERITS OF THE CASE
A. The Government
B. The applicants
IV. EXHAUSTION OF DOMESTIC REMEDIES AND ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 13 OF THE CONVENTION
A. General principles
B. Analysis of existing remedies
1. Complaint to the prison authorities
2. Complaint to a prosecutor
3. Complaint to an ombudsman
4. Judicial complaints about infringements of rights and freedoms
5. Claim for compensation
C. Conclusion
V. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 3 OF THE CONVENTION
“No one shall be subjected to torture or to inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.”
A. Assessment of evidence and establishment of facts
1. General considerations
2. Findings of fact in respect of individual cases
(a) The case of Mr Ananyev
(b) The case of Mr Bashirov
B. Compliance with Article 3
1. General principles
(a) Overcrowding
(a) each detainee must have an individual sleeping place in the cell;
(b) each detainee must dispose of at least three square metres of floor space; and
(c) the overall surface of the cell must be such as to allow the detainees to move freely between the furniture items.
The absence of any of the above elements creates in itself a strong presumption that the conditions of detention amounted to degrading treatment and were in breach of Article 3.
(b) Other aspects
(i) Outdoor exercise
152. The physical characteristics of outdoor exercise facilities also featured prominently in the Court’s analysis. In Moiseyev v. Russia, the exercise yards in a Moscow prison were just two square metres larger than the cells and hardly afforded any real possibility for exercise. The yards were surrounded by three-metre-high walls with an opening to the sky protected with metal bars and a thick net. The Court considered that the restricted space coupled with the lack of openings undermined the facilities available for recreation and recuperation (see Moiseyev v. Russia, no. 62936/00, § 125, 9 October 2008).
(ii) Access to natural light and fresh air
(iii) Sanitary facilities and hygiene
2. Application in the present case
(a) Personal space
(b) Other aspects
(c) Conclusion
VI. APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION
“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. Pecuniary damage
B. Non-pecuniary damage
C. Costs and expenses
D. Default interest
VII. APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 46 OF THE CONVENTION
“1. The High Contracting Parties undertake to abide by the final judgment of the Court in any case to which they are parties.
2. The final judgment of the Court shall be transmitted to the Committee of Ministers, which shall supervise its execution...”
A. General principles
B. Existence of a structural problem warranting the application of the pilot-judgment procedure
C. Origin of the problem and general measures required to address it
1. Avenues for improvement of detention conditions
(a) Reducing recourse to pre-trial detention
(b) Provisional arrangements for preventing and alleviating overcrowding
Setting-up of effective remedies
(a) Preventive remedies
(b) Compensatory remedy
3. Time-limit for making effective domestic remedies available
D. Redress to be granted in similar cases
FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT UNANIMOUSLY
(a) that the respondent State is to pay, within three months from the date on which the judgment becomes final in accordance with Article 44 § 2 of the Convention, the following amounts, plus any tax that may be chargeable, to be converted into Russian roubles at the rate applicable at the date of settlement:
(i) Mr Ananyev EUR 2,000 (two thousand euros) in respect of non-pecuniary damage;
(ii) Mr Bashirov EUR 13,000 (thirteen thousand euros) in respect of non-pecuniary damage and EUR 850 (eight hundred and fifty euros) 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 amounts 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 10 January 2012, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
Søren Nielsen Nina
Vajić
Registrar President
Annex. List of judgments
The following is a list of final judgments against Russia in which at least one violation of Article 3 of the Convention was found on account of inadequate conditions of the applicant’s detention in a remand centre (SIZO). The number of each remand centre, the city or region where it was located and the years when the applicant was held in that centre are given in brackets.
Kalashnikov v. Russia, no. 47095/99, ECHR 2002 VI (IZ 47/1, Magadan, 1999-2000)
Mayzit v. Russia, no. 63378/00, 20 January 2005 (IZ 39/1, Kaliningrad, 2000-2001)
Novoselov v. Russia, no. 66460/01, 2 June 2005 (IZ 18/3, Novorossiysk, 1998-1999)
Labzov v. Russia, no. 62208/00, 16 June 2005 (IZ 21/2, Tsivilsk, Chuvashiya, 2000)
Romanov v. Russia, no. 63993/00, 20 October 2005 (IZ 48/2, Moscow, 1999-2000)
Khudoyorov v. Russia, no. 6847/02, ECHR 2005 X (extracts) (OD 1/T-2, Vladimir, 2000-2004)
Mamedova v. Russia, no. 7064/05, 1 June 2006 (IZ 33/1, Vladimir, 2004-2005)
Popov v. Russia, no. 26853/04, 13 July 2006 (IZ 77/1, Moscow, 2002-2004)
Belevitskiy v. Russia, no. 72967/01, 1 March 2007 (IZ 77/3, Moscow, 2001-2002)
Andrey Frolov v. Russia, no. 205/02, 29 March 2007 (IZ 47/1, St Petersburg, 1999-2003)
Benediktov v. Russia, no. 106/02, 10 May 2007 (IZ 77/2 and IZ 77/3, Moscow, 1999- 2001)
Igor Ivanov v. Russia, no. 34000/02, 7 June 2007 (IZ 77/1 and IZ 77/2, Moscow, 2000-2002)
Trepashkin v. Russia, no. 36898/03, 19 July 2007 (IZ 50/2, Moscow Region, 2005)
Babushkin v. Russia, no. 67253/01, 18 October 2007 (IZ 52/1, Nizhny Novgorod, 2000)
Mironov v. Russia, no. 22625/02, 8 November 2007 (IZ 50/9, Moscow Region, 2002)
Grishin v. Russia, no. 30983/02, 15 November 2007 (IZ 24/1, Krasnoyarsk, 1999-2000)
Bagel v. Russia, no. 37810/03, 15 November 2007 (IZ 17/1, Barnaul, 2000-2003)
Lind v. Russia, no. 25664/05, 6 December 2007 (IZ 77/2, Moscow, 2004-2005)
Dorokhov v. Russia, no. 66802/01, 14 February 2008 (IZ 48/1, Moscow, 1999)
Korobov and Others v. Russia, no. 67086/01, 27 March 2008 (IZ 37/1, Ivanovo, 1999-2001)
Sukhovoy v. Russia, no. 63955/00, 27 March 2008 (IZ 33/1, Vladimir, 2000)
Gusev v. Russia, no. 67542/01, 15 May 2008 (IZ 47/1, St Petersburg, 2000)
Vlasov v. Russia, no. 78146/01, 12 June 2008 (IZ 99/1 (aka IZ 48/4), Moscow, 1999-2002)
Guliyev v. Russia, no. 24650/02, 19 June 2008 (IZ 7/2, Sosnogorsk, Komi Republic, 2000-2002)
Seleznev v. Russia, no. 15591/03, 26 June 2008 (IZ 47/1, St Petersburg, 2001-2003)
Sudarkov v. Russia, no. 3130/03, 10 July 2008 (IZ 77/2 and IZ 77/3, Moscow, 2000-2002)
Starokadomskiy v. Russia, no. 42239/02, 31 July 2008 (IZ 77/1, Moscow, 2001-2005)
Moiseyev v. Russia, no. 62936/00, 9 October 2008 (“Lefortovo”, Moscow, 2000-2002)
Buzychkin v. Russia, no. 68337/01, 14 October 2008 (IZ 52/1, Nizhny Novgorod, 1998-1999, and IZ 48/3, Moscow, 1999)
Belashev v. Russia, no. 28617/03, 4 December 2008 (IZ 77/3, Moscow, 2002-2003)
Matyush v. Russia, no. 14850/03, 9 December 2008 (IZ 55/1, Omsk 1999-2003)
Maltabar and Maltabar v. Russia, no. 6954/02, 29 January 2009 (IZ 69/1, Tver, 2000-2001)
Andreyevskiy v. Russia, no. 1750/03, 29 January 2009 (IZ 77/1, Moscow, 2002-2005)
Antropov v. Russia, no. 22107/03, 29 January 2009 (IZ 25/2, Ussuriysk, Primorye, 2001-2003)
Novinskiy v. Russia, no. 11982/02, 10 February 2009 (IZ 63/1, Samara, 2001, and IZ 77/3, Moscow, 2001)
Denisenko and Bogdanchikov v. Russia, no. 3811/02, 12 February 2009 (IZ 77/2, Moscow, 2001-2002)
Bychkov v. Russia, no. 39420/03, 5 March 2009 (IZ 77/2 and IZ 77/3, Moscow, 2000-2003)
Aleksandr Makarov v. Russia, no. 15217/07, 12 March 2009 (IZ 70/1, Tomsk, 2006-2007)
Lyubimenko v. Russia, no. 6270/06, 19 March 2009 (IZ 34/1, Volgograd, 2003- 2008)
Grigoryevskikh v. Russia, no. 22/03, 9 April 2009 (IZ 36/2, Borisoglebsk, 2001-2002)
Popov and Vorobyev v. Russia, no. 1606/02, 23 April 2009 (IZ 25/1, Vladivostok, 2000-2001)
Gubkin v. Russia, no. 36941/02, 23 April 2009 (IZ 61/1, Rostov-on-Don, 1998- 2005)
Kokoshkina v. Russia, no. 2052/08, 28 May 2009 (IZ 50/3, Serpukhov, Moscow Region, 2006-2008)
Shteyn (Stein) v. Russia, no. 23691/06, 18 June 2009 (IZ 70/1, Tomsk, 2004-2005)
Bakhmutskiy v. Russia, no. 36932/02, 25 June 2009 (IZ 61/1, Rostov-on-Don, 1999-2005)
Ananyin v. Russia, no. 13659/06, 30 July 2009 (IZ 34/1, Volgograd, 2003-2007)
Bordikov v. Russia, no. 921/03, 8 October 2009 (IZ 61/1, Rostov-on-Don, 2001- 2003)
Buzhinayev v. Russia, no. 17679/03, 15 October 2009 (IZ 4/1, Ulan-Ude, Buryatiya, 1998-2002, and IZ 77/3, Moscow, 2002)
Nazarov v. Russia, no. 13591/05, 26 November 2009 (IZ 33/1, Vladimir, 2004-2005)
Shilbergs v. Russia, no. 20075/03, 17 December 2009 (IZ 39/1, Kaliningrad, 2001-2003)
Skorobogatykh v. Russia, no. 4871/03, 22 December 2009 (IZ 39/1, Kaliningrad, 1998)
Melnikov v. Russia, no. 23610/03, 14 January 2010 (IZ 69/1, Tver, 2003-2004)
Salakhutdinov v. Russia, no. 43589/02, 11 February 2010 (IZ 16/3, Bugulma, Tatarstan, 2002)
Gultyayeva v. Russia, no. 67413/01, 1 April 2010 (IZ 62/1, Yuzhno-Sakhalinsk, Sakhalin, 2000-2002)
Pavlenko v. Russia, no. 42371/02, 1 April 2010 (IZ 22/1, Barnaul, 2002)
Lutokhin v. Russia, no. 12008/03, 8 April 2010 (IZ 47/1, St Petersburg, 2001-2003)
Goroshchenya v. Russia, no. 38711/03, 22 April 2010 (IZ 47/1, IZ 47/4, St Petersburg, 1999-2004)
Kositsyn v. Russia, no. 69535/01, 12 May 2010 (IZ 39/1, Kaliningrad, 1999-2000)
Vladimir Kozlov v. Russia, no. 21503/04, 20 May 2010 (IZ 77/3, Moscow, 2001-2003)
Artyomov v. Russia, no. 14146/02, 27 May 2010 (IZ 39/1, Kaliningrad, 1999-2000 and 2003-2004)
Mukhutdinov v. Russia, no. 13173/02, 10 June 2010 (IZ 16/1 and IZ 16/2, Kazan, Tatarstan, 1999-2000)
Zakharkin v. Russia, no. 1555/04, 10 June 2010 (IZ 66/1, Yekaterinburg, 1999-2003)
Ovchinnikov v. Russia, no. 9807/02, 17 June 2010 (IZ 49/1 (formerly IZ 47/1), Magadan, 1999-2003)
Shcherbakov v. Russia, no. 23939/02, 17 June 2010 (IZ 71/1, Tula, 2000-2002)
Gubin v. Russia, no. 8217/04, 17 June 2010 (IZ 77/1, Moscow, 2003-2004)
Veliyev v. Russia, no. 24202/05, 24 June 2010 (IZ 33/1, Vladimir, 2004-2007)
Aleksandr Matveyev v. Russia, no. 14797/02, 8 July 2010 (IZ 47/4, St Petersburg, 2000-2002, and IZ 77/3, Moscow, 2001-2002)
Vladimir Krivonosov v. Russia, no. 7772/04, 15 July 2010 (IZ 61/1, Rostov-on-Don, 2001-2005)
Danilin v. Russia, no. 4176/03, 16 September 2010 (IZ 77/3 and IZ 77/5, Moscow, 2000-2002)
Aleksandr Leonidovich Ivanov v. Russia, no. 33929/03, 23 September 2010 (IZ 55/1, Omsk, 2001-2003)
Skachkov v. Russia, no. 25432/05, 7 October 2010 (IZ 77/2, Moscow, 2001-2005)
Volchkov v. Russia, no. 45196/04, 14 October 2010 (IZ 67/1, Smolensk, 1996-1998, 2004-2006)
Arefyev v. Russia, no. 29464/03, 4 November 2010 (IZ 37/1, Ivanovo, 2003)
Roman Karasev v. Russia, no. 30251/03, 25 November 2010 (IZ 39/1, Kaliningrad, 1999-2002)
Kovaleva v. Russia, no. 7782/04, 2 December 2010 (IZ 61/1, Rostov-on-Don, 2001-2005)
Svetlana Kazmina v. Russia, no. 8609/04, 2 December 2010 (IZ 61/1, Rostov-on-Don, 2001-2005)
Kozhokar v. Russia, no. 33099/08, 16 December 2010 (IZ 71/1, Tula, 2006-2007)
Romokhov v. Russia, no. 4532/04, 16 December 2010 (IZ 77/2 and IZ 77/3, Moscow, 2002-2003)
Trepashkin v. Russia (no. 2), no. 14248/05, 16 December 2010 (IZ 77/1, Moscow, 2003-2004, and IZ 50/2, Moscow Region, 2004-2005)
Gladkiy v. Russia, no. 3242/03, 21 December 2010 (IZ 39/1, Kaliningrad, 1998-2002)
Petrenko v. Russia, no. 30112/04, 20 January 2011 (IZ 47/1, St Petersburg, 2001-2004)
Yevgeniy Alekseyenko v. Russia, no. 41833/04, 27 January 2011 (IZ 18/1, Izhevsk, 2002-2004)
Dorogaykin v. Russia, no. 1066/05, 10 February 2011 (IZ 22/1, Barnaul, 2004-2005)
Tsarenko v. Russia, no. 5235/09, 3 March 2011 (IZ 47/1, St Petersburg, 2007-2009)
Vladimir Sokolov v. Russia, no. 31242/05, 29 March 2011 (IZ 52/1, Nizhniy Novgorod, 2003-2006, and IZ 77/3, Moscow, 2005)
Ilyadi v. Russia, no. 6642/05, 5 May 2011 (IZ 77/2, Moscow, 2003-2004)
Popandopulo v. Russia, no. 4512/09, 10 May 2011 (IZ 47/1, St Petersburg, 2005-2008)
Vadim Kovalev v. Russia, no. 20326/04, 10 May 2011 (IZ 61/1, Rostov-on-Don, 2004-2006)
Khodorkovskiy v. Russia, no. 5829/04, 31 May 2011 (IZ-77/1, Moscow, 2005)
Chudun v. Russia, no. 20641/04, 21 June 2011 (IZ-17/1, Kyzyl, 2000-2004)
1. The 2010 data was extracted from the operative report for the 12 months of 2010.