[New search]
[Contents list]
[Printable RTF version]
[Help]
FIRST
SECTION
CASE OF DOROGAYKIN v. RUSSIA
(Application
no. 1066/05)
JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
10
February 2011
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 Dorogaykin v.
Russia,
The
European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting as a Chamber
composed of:
Christos Rozakis, President,
Nina
Vajić,
Anatoly Kovler,
Elisabeth
Steiner,
Khanlar Hajiyev,
Dean
Spielmann,
Sverre Erik Jebens, judges,
and Søren
Nielsen, Section
Registrar,
Having
deliberated in private on 18 January 2011,
Delivers
the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
PROCEDURE
- The
case originated in an application (no. 1066/05) 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 Vyacheslav Vladimirovich
Dorogaykin (“the applicant”), on 18 November 2004.
- The
Russian Government (“the Government”) were represented by
Mr G. Matyushkin, the representative of the
Russian Federation at the European Court of Human Rights.
- On
17 December 2008 the President of the First Section decided to give
notice of the application to the Government. It was also decided to
examine the merits of the application at the same time as its
admissibility (Article 29 § 1).
THE FACTS
I. THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE
- The applicant was born in 1974 and is currently serving
his sentence in correctional colony IK-10 in Rubtsovsk in the Altay
Region.
A. Criminal proceedings against the applicant
- On 10 July 2004 the applicant was
charged with manslaughter. On the same date by a decision of the
Leninskiy District Court of Barnaul (“District Court”) he
was placed in detention pending trial.
- On 27 April 2005 the District
Court convicted him as charged and sentenced him to eight years’
imprisonment. On 16 June 2005 the Altay Regional Court upheld the
trial court’s judgement with minor changes.
B. Conditions of the applicant’s detention
- In
the period from 13 July 2004 to 10 July 2005 the applicant was
detained in remand prison IZ-22/1 in Barnaul in the Altay Region.
- The
parties’ descriptions of his detention conditions differ on a
number of counts.
1. The applicant’s account
- According
to the applicant, he was detained in the following cells:
-
from 20 July to 25 October 2004 in cell no. 2 that housed from 9 to
16 inmates;
-
from 25 October to 3 December 2004 in cell no. 52 that housed from 19
to 25 inmates;
-
from 3 December 2004 to 27 April 2005 in cell no. 41 that housed from
14 to 18 inmates;
-
from 27 to 29 April 2005 in cell no. 29 that housed more than
15 inmates;
-
from 29 April to 10 July 2005 in cell no. 142 that housed from 18 to
24 inmates.
- The applicant did not provide a
detailed description of each cell but maintained in general terms
that all cells had been overcrowded, that he had not had an
individual sleeping place and that ventilation and sanitary
conditions had been inadequate. Owing to the unsatisfactory
sanitation, he had suffered skin diseases and psychological problems.
No adequate medical assistance had been provided to him.
- The
applicant complained about conditions of his detention in remand
prison IZ-22/1 to various authorities. On one occasion, the
Prosecution Office of the Altay Region commissioned an inspection to
investigate his allegations. According to a report of 18 February
2005, the inspector found that at the material time the applicant was
not provided with an individual sleeping place. He stated that the
failure of the prison authorities to provide detainees with
individual sleeping places was a continuous problem resulting from a
slum state of one of the prison wings. Other aspects of the
applicant’s detention, notably medical assistance, sanitation
and communication with authorities, were found to be satisfactory.
2. The Government’s account
- On the basis of certificates and photographs prepared
by the prison administration in February 2009, the Government
submitted that the applicant had been detained in the following
cells:
- from 13 July to 25 October 2004 in cell no. 2 measuring 12.8 square
metres and accommodating maximum three inmates;
- from 25 October to 3 December 2004 in cell no. 52 measuring
23.9 square metres and accommodating maximum five inmates;
- from 3 December 2004 to 27 April 2005 in cell no. 41 measuring
21 square metres and accommodating maximum five inmates;
- from 27 to 29 April 2005 in cell no. 29 measuring 19.7 square
metres and accommodating maximum four inmates;
- from 29 April to 10 July 2005 in cell no. 142 measuring 20.3 square
metres and accommodating maximum five inmates.
- The Government further stated that the applicant’s
cells had been ventilated through casement windows and had in
addition been equipped with ventilation shafts. The average
temperature and the average level of humidity had met sanitary and
hygiene requirements. Cleaning and disinfection of the cells and
checks on the correct operation of the systems of ventilation,
sewage, water-supply and heating had been carried out on a regular
basis.
- With reference to a certificate by the detention
facility’s governor and statements by officers B., G., and Ch.
– all documents dated February 2009 – the Government
stated that the applicant had been provided with an individual
sleeping place. Furthermore, a copy of his registration card
reflected that, upon arrival at the facility, he had been given
individual bedding items.
- The Government further asserted that all cells had
been equipped with a sink and a lavatory that had been separated from
the living area by a partition of 1.1 metre in height. Showers had
been available once a week with a simultaneous change of bedding.
- As to the applicant’s health, it had been
regularly monitored and he had been provided with adequate medical
assistance when that had been necessary.
- The applicant had never complained about the
unsatisfactory detention conditions. The facility’s authorities
had never caused any impediments in his communication with officials.
All his correspondence had been duly dispatched to addressees.
- The
Government did not comment on the report by the prosecution
authorities of 18 February 2005.
II. RELEVANT DOMESTIC LAW
A. Detention of Suspects Act (Federal Law no. 103-FZ of
15 July 1995)
- Detainees
should be kept in conditions which satisfy health and hygiene
requirements. They should be provided with an individual sleeping
place and be given bedding, tableware and toiletries. Each inmate
should have no less than four square metres of personal space in his
or her cell (Section 23). Detainees should be given sufficient
free food to keep them in good health in line with the standards
established by the Government of the Russian Federation (Section 22).
B. Rules on the prison regime in pre-trial detention
centres (as approved by Ministry of Justice Decree no. 148 of
12 May 2000)
- Rule
42 provided that all suspects and accused persons in detention had to
be given, among other things: a sleeping place, bedding, including
one mattress, a pillow and one blanket; bed linen, including two
sheets and a pillow case; a towel; tableware and cutlery, including a
bowl, a mug and a spoon; and seasonal clothes (if the inmate had no
clothes of his own).
- Rule
44 stated that cells in pre-trial detention centres were to be
equipped, among other things, with a table and benches with a number
of seating places corresponding to the number of inmates, sanitation
facilities, tap water and lamps to provide day-time and night-time
illumination.
- Rule
46 provided that prisoners were to be given three warm meals a day,
in accordance with the norms laid down by the Government of Russia.
- Under
Rule 47 inmates had the right to have a shower at least once a week
for at least fifteen minutes. They were to receive fresh linen after
taking their shower.
THE LAW
I. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 3 OF THE CONVENTION
- The
applicant complained that conditions of his detention in remand
prison IZ-22/1 in the town of Barnaul had been in breach of Article 3
of the Convention, which reads:
“No one shall be subjected to torture or to
inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.”
A. The parties’ submissions
- According
to the respondent Government, the conditions of the applicant’s
detention in the detention facility in question were satisfactory and
in compliance with applicable domestic norms and standards. In
support of their position, they presented a number of documents dated
February 2009.
- They
also claimed that the applicant had failed to prove beyond reasonable
doubt that his detention conditions had been in breach of Article 3
and that he had not supported his allegations by evidence.
- For
the above reasons, the Government invited the Court to dismiss his
complaint as manifestly ill-founded.
- The
applicant maintained his complaint. He stated in particular that the
level of overcrowding had been far more severe than submitted by the
Government, that he had not had an individual sleeping place, that he
had not received bedding and toiletries and that medical care had
been inadequate.
B. The Court’s assessment
1. Admissibility
- The
Court notes that the applicant’s complaint under Article 3 is
not manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3
of the Convention and is not inadmissible on any other grounds. It
must therefore be declared admissible.
2. Merits
(a) General principles
- The
Court reiterates that Article 3 of the Convention enshrines one of
the most fundamental values of a democratic society. It prohibits in
absolute terms torture and inhuman or degrading treatment or
punishment, irrespective of the circumstances and the victim’s
behaviour (see Labita v. Italy [GC], no. 26772/95, §
119, ECHR 2000-IV).
- As
the Court has held on many occasions, ill-treatment must attain a
minimum level of severity if it is to fall within the scope of
Article 3 of the Convention. 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. Furthermore, in considering whether a treatment is
“degrading” within the meaning of Article 3, the Court
will have regard to whether its object is to humiliate and debase the
person concerned and whether, as far as the consequences are
concerned, it adversely affected his or her personality in a manner
incompatible with Article 3. Although the question whether the
purpose of the treatment was to humiliate or debase the victim is a
factor to be taken into account, the absence of any such purpose
cannot conclusively rule out a finding of violation of Article 3 (see
Peers v. Greece, no. 28524/95, §§ 67-68, 74, ECHR
2001-III; Valašinas v. Lithuania, no. 44558/98, §
101, ECHR 2001-VIII).
- Measures
depriving a person of his liberty may often involve an inevitable
element of suffering or humiliation. Nevertheless, it is incumbent on
the State to ensure that a person is detained in conditions which are
compatible with respect for his human dignity, that the manner and
method of the 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, §§
92-94, ECHR 2000 XI).
- When
assessing conditions of detention, account has to be taken of the
cumulative effects of these conditions, as well as of specific
allegations made by the applicant (see Dougoz v. Greece, no.
40907/98, § 46, ECHR 2001-II). The length of the period
during which a person is detained in the particular conditions also
has to be considered (see Alver v. Estonia, no. 64812/01,
8 November 2005).
- The extreme lack of space in a prison cell weighs
heavily as an aspect to be taken into account for the purpose of
establishing whether the impugned detention conditions were
“degrading” from the point of view of Article 3 (see
Karalevičius v. Lithuania, no. 53254/99, 7 April 2005).
In its previous cases where applicants had at their disposal less
than 3 m² of personal space, the Court found that the
overcrowding was so severe as to justify of itself a finding of a
violation of Article 3 of the Convention (see, among many others,
Lind v. Russia, no. 25664/05, § 59, 6 December 2007;
Kantyrev v. Russia, no. 37213/02, §§ 50-51, 21 June
2007; Andrey Frolov v. Russia, no. 205/02, §§
47-49, 29 March 2007; Labzov v. Russia, no. 62208/00, §
44, 16 June 2005).
- In assessing the circumstances of the case and the
evidence presented, the Court has generally applied the standard of
proof “beyond reasonable doubt” (see Ireland v. the
United Kingdom, 18 January 1978, § 161, Series A no.
25). Such proof may follow from the coexistence of sufficiently
strong, clear and concordant inferences or of similar unrebutted
presumptions of fact. It should also be borne in mind that the
Convention proceedings 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 the applicant’s
allegations. A failure on this 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 these allegations
(see Ahmet Özkan and Others v. Turkey, no. 21689/93, §
426, 6 April 2004).
(b) Application of the general principles
to the present case
- The
Court observes that the parties’ descriptions of the conditions
of the applicant’s detention in Barnaul remand prison IZ-22/1
were different. The applicant submitted that the detention conditions
had fallen short of standards compatible with Article 3. In
particular, he claimed that he had been detained in severely
overcrowded cells. The Government, by contrast, argued that during
his detention the applicant had not suffered inhuman or degrading
treatment which attained the minimum level of severity within the
meaning of Article 3 of the Convention.
- The
Court considers that there is no need to establish the veracity of
each and every allegation, because it can find a violation of Article
3 on the basis of the facts presented to it by the applicant which
the respondent Government failed to refute (see Grigoryevskikh v.
Russia, no. 22/03, § 55, 9 April 2009). The focal point
for the Court’s assessment in the present case is the living
space afforded to the applicant in the prison cells.
- According
to the Government, the applicant was detained in five cells measuring
12.8, 23.9, 21, 19.7 and 20.3 square metres with maximum two, four,
four, three and four other inmates, respectively (see paragraph 12
above). The Court first notes that the Government did not indicate
the exact number of the persons per cell detained together with the
applicant. The reference to the notion of “maximum” does
not appear sufficiently conclusive. It is further noted that in their
submissions the national authorities relied on the certificates and
photographs prepared by the prison administration in February 2009,
that is more than three years after the applicant’s detention
ended. No copies of original records specifying the allocation of
inmates to the cells were submitted. The Court has earlier held that
documents prepared by the authorities after a considerable period of
time cannot be viewed as sufficiently reliable given the time that
has passed (see, among other authorities, see Novinskiy v. Russia,
no. 11982/02, § 105, 10 February
2009 and Buzhinayev v. Russia,
no. 17679/03, § 30, 15 October 2009). The Court opines
that these considerations hold true in the present case.
- A
further subject of criticism is the information in respect of the
provision of individual sleeping places presented by the Government.
The Court observes that they did not specify the design capacity of
the cells and a number of available beds. Nevertheless, referring to
the certificate by the prison governor and the prison officers’
statements, the Government claimed that the applicant had been
provided with an individual sleeping place. The Court finds that the
officers’ statements appear to be based on their personal
recollections and do not reflect objective data. As to the
certificate, it is not supported by the original records. In these
circumstances, the Court finds no justified reason to attach greater
weight to these documents compared to the statements of the
applicant. Besides, the Court takes cognisance of the findings made
in February 2005 by the Prosecution Office of the Altay Region that
the shortage of individual sleeping places in the facility in
question was a known problem and that the applicant did not have an
individual bed (see paragraph 11 above). The Court also notes that
the respondent Government refrained from any comments on this
document.
- In
the light of the principles indicated in paragraph 35 above, the
Court considers that the inconclusiveness of the documentation
presented by the national authorities, combined with the lack of any
original prison documentation, may give rise to the drawing of
inferences as to the well foundedness of the applicant’s
allegations regarding overcrowding and the lack of the individual
sleeping places. The Court, therefore, is prepared to examine the
merits of the complaint on the basis of the applicant’s
submissions.
- According
to the applicant, the number of detainees was greater than the number
of available beds. The floor area per inmate in his cells was
1 square metre in average. Given the fact that each cell was
equipped with bunks, a sink and a lavatory, which took up space, it
appears that the actual living area per inmate was extremely small.
- The
Court observes that it 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-X (extracts); Labzov v. Russia, no.
62208/00, §§ 44 et seq., 16 June 2005; Novoselov v.
Russia, no. 66460/01, §§ 41 et seq., 2 June 2005;
Mayzit v. Russia, no. 63378/00, §§ 39 et seq.,
20 January 2005; Kalashnikov v. Russia, no. 47095/99, §§
97 et seq., ECHR 2002-VI; and Peers v. Greece, no. 28524/95,
§§ 69 et seq., ECHR 2001-III). The Court has also
established that the problems arising from the conditions of
detention in Russian remand centres were of a structural nature (see
Mamedova v. Russia, no. 7064/05, § 57, 1 June 2006,
and Moiseyev v. Russia (dec.), no. 62936/00, 9 October
2008).
- Having
regard to its case-law on the subject, the material submitted by the
parties and the findings above, the Court concludes that, though not
ill-intentioned, the detention of the applicant for one year in
cramped conditions combined with the lack of the minimum comfort,
which a normal night-time sleep gives, must have caused him such
intense physical discomfort and mental suffering which the Court
considers amounted to inhuman treatment within the meaning of Article
3 of the Convention.
- In
view of this finding the Court sees no need to decide separately on
the issue of the alleged breach of the Convention in respect of other
deficiencies of detention conditions in Barnaul remand prison
IZ-22/1.
II. OTHER ALLEGED VIOLATIONS OF THE CONVENTION
- The
Court has examined the other complaints submitted by the applicant.
- Having
regard to all the material in its possession, the Court finds that
those complaints do not disclose any appearance of a violation of the
rights and freedoms set out in the Convention or its Protocols. It
follows that this part of the application must be rejected as being
manifestly ill-founded, pursuant to Article 35 §§ 3 and 4
of the Convention.
III. APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION
- Article 41 of the Convention provides:
“If the Court finds that there has been a
violation of the Convention or the Protocols thereto, and if the
internal law of the High Contracting Party concerned allows only
partial reparation to be made, the Court shall, if necessary, afford
just satisfaction to the injured party.”
- On
17 April 2009 the Court invited the applicant to submit his claims
for just satisfaction by 19 June 2009. He did not submit any such
claims within the required time-limits.
- In
such circumstances the Court would usually make no award. In the
present case, however, it has found a violation of the applicant’s
right not to be subjected to inhuman and degrading treatment. Having
regard to the absolute nature of this right and to the fact that the
applicant remained detained and unrepresented during the proceedings
before the Court, it finds it appropriate to award him 5,000 euros
(EUR) by way of non-pecuniary damage (compare Igor Ivanov v.
Russia, no. 34000/02, §§ 49-50, 7 June 2007; Chember
v. Russia, no. 7188/03, §§ 76-77, 3 July 2008; Nadrosov
v. Russia, no. 9297/02, §§ 53-54, 31 July 2008;
and Vladimir Fedorov v. Russia, no. 19223/04, §
86-87, 30 July 2009), plus any tax that may be chargeable.
- The
Court considers it appropriate that the default interest should be
based on the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank, to
which should be added three percentage points.
FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT UNANIMOUSLY
- Declares the complaint concerning the conditions
of the applicant’s detention in Barnaul IZ-22/1 remand centre
admissible and the remainder of the application inadmissible;
- Holds that there has been a violation of Article
3 of the Convention in respect of the applicant’s conditions of
detention;
- Holds
(a) that
the respondent State is to pay the applicant, within three months
from the date on which the judgment becomes final in accordance with
Article 44 § 2 of the Convention, EUR 5,000 (five
thousand euros) in respect of non-pecuniary damage, to be converted
into Russian roubles at the rate applicable at the date of
settlement, plus any tax that may be chargeable on that amount;
(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 10 February 2011,
pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
Søren Nielsen Christos Rozakis
Registrar President
