Постановление Европейского суда по правам человека от 08.04.2010 «Дело Лутохин (lutokhin) против России» [англ.]

Город принятия

EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS
FIRST SECTION
CASE OF LUTOKHIN v. RUSSIA
(Application No. 12008/03)
JUDGMENT*
(Strasbourg, 8.IV.2010)
____________________________
*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 Lutokhin v. Russia,

The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting as a Chamber composed of:

Christos Rozakis, President,

Anatoly Kovler,

Elisabeth Steiner,

Dean Spielmann,

Sverre Erik Jebens,

Giorgio Malinverni,

George Nicolaou, judges,

and {Soren}*Nielsen, Section Registrar,

____________________________
*Здесь и далее по тексту слова на национальном языке набраны латинским шрифтом и выделены фигурными скобками.

Having deliberated in private on 18 March 2010,

Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:

PROCEDURE
1. The case originated in an application (No. 12008/03) 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 Andrey Borisovich Lutokhin ("the applicant"), on 12 March 2003.

2. The applicant, who had been granted legal aid, was represented by Ms O. Preobrazhenskaya. The Russian Government ("the Government") were represented by Mr P. Laptev and Mrs V. Milinchuk, former Representatives of the Russian Federation at the European Court of Human Rights.

3. On 18 September 2006 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 § 3). 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
4. The applicant was born in 1968 and lives in Gatchina, Leningrad Region.

A. Criminal proceedings
5. On 10 July 2002 the Leningrad Regional Court convicted the applicant of abduction, robbery, aggravated robbery and extortion, and sentenced him to seven years' imprisonment.

6. The conviction and sentence were upheld on appeal on 19 December 2002.

7. By a decision of 27 October 2006 the Volgograd Town Court of the Volgograd Region released the applicant on parole.

B. Conditions of the applicant's detention
8. The applicant was apprehended on 12 April 2001 and was placed in a temporary confinement ward of the police department of Gatchina (изолятор временного содержания отдела внутренних дел г. Гатчины). On 16 April 2001 he was transferred to remand centre IZ-47/1 of Saint Petersburg (следственный изолятор ИЗ-47/1 г. Санкт-Петербурга) where he was detained until 11 March 2003.

9. The parties' descriptions of the conditions of his detention differ on a number of counts.

1. The applicant's account
10. The applicant submitted that his cell in the temporary confinement
ward of the police department of Gatchina ("the temporary confinement
2
ward") had measured 20 m , had been equipped with twenty-four sleeping
places and had been shared by thirty-six people at the time. Inmates had
received no bedding. The only window had been blocked with an iron blind
that had allowed almost no ventilation.

11. As regards his detention in the remand centre, he had been held in
2
six cells that had measured 8 m and had had six sleeping places. One of
them, used for transfer purposes, had been shared by twenty-five people.

The others had accommodated from eight to thirteen people. Inmates had
received no individual bedding.

12. Ventilation had hardly been existent. The cells had been stuffy and damp. Iron blinds attached to cell windows had become extremely hot in the summer. During the winter time, inefficient heating had resulted in icing up of the exterior wall. The average inside temperature in the summer had risen up to + 50 °C and had fallen to - 10 °C in the winter.

13. The lighting had been insufficient and had been turned on round the clock.

14. A forty-minute walk in a small yard had been allowed only occasionally.

15. He had never witnessed any disinfection measures.

16. Hygiene conditions had been inadequate. A lavatory pan in the cells had not been partitioned from the living room and had allowed no privacy. It had not worked properly for a lack of pressure. Hot water had not been provided in the cells. Detainees had been allowed to shower in a common room for fifteen minutes once in ten-twelve days.

17. The nutrition and medical assistance had been poor.

2. The Government's account
18. The Government submitted no information as regards the conditions of the applicant's detention in the temporary confinement ward.

19. As to his detention in the remand centre, during the relevant
period of time the applicant had been held in six cells. The size of the
2
cells had been 8 m . The exact number of inmates could not be established
owing to a destruction of the facility's relevant records.

20. All cells had been equipped with six sleeping places and a dining table. A sink and a lavatory pan installed in the cells had been separated from the living area by a partition.

2
21. Each cell had had a window measured 1 x 1,1 m and had been
equipped with ventilating shafts.

22. The cells had been lit with artificial lighting. The natural light coming through the windows had been sufficient to allow reading.

23. The applicant had been provided with an individual sleeping place and bedding.

24. Sanitary inspections, with regard to the monitoring of the average inside temperature and of the overall sanitary state of the cells, had been carried out on a regular basis.

25. Meals had been served three times a day. The nourishment had met official standards. The quality of the food had been controlled by a medical unit of the facility.

26. The applicant had received parcels. His state of health had regularly been monitored and he had been provided with medical assistance when that had been necessary.

27. He had never complained about conditions of his detention while in the remand centre.

II. Relevant domestic law
Law on Detention on Remand
28. Article 8 of the Law on Detention on Remand (Federal Law No. 103-FZ of 15 July 1995) provides that persons detained in accordance with a court order should be held in remand centres.

29. According to Article 9, persons whose detention pending trial has not yet been ordered by the competent court should be held in temporary confinement wards. In exceptional circumstances, persons detained in remand centres can be transferred to and detained in temporary confinement wards for a period of no longer than ten days during a month (Article 13).

30. Article 23 provides that 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. Detainees should be given free of charge sufficient food for maintaining them in good health in line with the standards established by the Government of the Russian Federation (Article 22).

III. Relevant international documents
31. The European Committee for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (CPT) visited the Russian Federation from 2 to 17 December 2001. The section of its Report to the Russian Government (CPT/Inf (2003) 30) dealing with the conditions of detention in remand establishments and the complaints procedure 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
32. The applicant complained that the conditions of his pre-trial detention had been 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. The parties' submissions
1. The Government's submissions
33. The Government stated that the detention conditions in remand centre IZ-47/1 of Saint Petersburg had been compatible with Article 3 of the Convention. In support of their assertion, the Government adduced certificates by the governor of the centre confirming that the applicant had been provided with an individual sleeping place, bedding, sufficient nutrition and medical assistance and that the sanitary, hygiene and temperature norms had been duly met.

34. They further submitted that the applicant had never challenged the adequateness of the conditions of his detention before the domestic authorities. He could have complained to a prosecutor's office or to administrative authorities of the Federal Service for the Execution of Sentences but had failed to avail himself of these opportunities.

35. For these reasons the Government concluded that, apart from being manifestly ill-founded, the applicant's complaint was also inadmissible for his failure to exhaust domestic remedies.

2. The applicant's submissions
36. The applicant contested the Government's description of his
detention conditions as factually incorrect. He claimed in particular that
2
the cell in the temporary confinement ward had allowed 0,5 m of personal
space per inmate. At the remand centre, in five cells the personal space
2 2
available to detainees in average had fluctuated between 0,5 m and 0,8 m .

He had spent one day in the remand centre's "transfer" cell that had
2
measured 8 m and had housed at the time twenty-five people.

37. In addition to the severe overcrowding, the applicant underlined the lack of fresh air and lighting and the fact that a toilet in the cells in the remand centre had not afforded any privacy and had not functioned properly. His account of the conditions in both detention facilities is set out in paragraphs 10 - 17 above. In support of his allegations, the applicant adduced photographs picturing two cells and a recreation yard.

38. As regards the Governments' objection of non-exhaustion, he stated, as a matter of fact, that any remedies in respect of detention conditions envisaged under domestic law had proved to be ineffective. In particular, he referred to the Court's case-law concerning conditions in Russian penitentiary facilities. He also alleged that on a number of occasions he had appealed to competent officials but to no avail.

39. The applicant accordingly maintained his complaint.

B. The Court's assessment
1. Admissibility
(a) Simultaneous examination of the complaints about the conditions of detention in both detention facilities
40. The Court observes that the applicant complained of two periods of detention in poor conditions, that is from 12 to 16 April 2001 in the temporary detention facility of the police department of Gatchina and from 16 April 2001 to 11 March 2003 in remand centre IZ-47/1 of Saint Petersburg. In describing the conditions of his detention, he primarily alleged overcrowding beyond the design capacity and shortage of sleeping places in both facilities. According to the applicant, during the two years of his detention he was afforded less than 1 square metre of personal space, irrespective of the place of his detention.

41. It is noted that the application was lodged on 12 March 2003 that is approximately two years after the applicant's detention at the police department of Gatchina had ended.

42. The Court reiterates that continuous detention in similar conditions,