European Court of Human Rights
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> European Court of Human Rights >> SALAKHUTDINOV v. RUSSIA - 43589/02 [2010] ECHR 162 (11 February 2010)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/eu/cases/ECHR/2010/162.html
Cite as: [2010] ECHR 162
[New search] [Contents list] [Printable RTF version] [Help]
FIRST SECTION
CASE OF SALAKHUTDINOV v. RUSSIA
(Application no. 43589/02)
JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
11 February 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 Salakhutdinov 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,
George Nicolaou, judges,
and Søren
Nielsen, Section
Registrar,
Having deliberated in private on 21 January 2010,
Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
PROCEDURE
Ms O.V. Preobrazhenskaya, a lawyer living in Strasbourg. 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.
THE FACTS
I. THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE
8. During the relevant periods the applicant was detained in the following detention facilities. From 16 December 2001 to 9 January 2002 he was held in the temporary detention facility at Novosheshminskiy police station (изолятор временного содержания Новошешминского РОВД). He was then transferred to Bugulma IZ-16/03 remand centre (следственный изолятор ИЗ-16/3 Главного управления Федеральной службы исполнения наказаний по Республике Татарстан) where he was held from 9 January to 20 August 2002, except for a short period from 28 to 29 January 2002, which he spent in the temporary detention facility at Novosheshminskiy police station. From 20 August 2002 to 26 August 2003 he was held in Chistopol UE-148/T prison (тюрьма УЭ-148/Т г. Чистополя Республики Татарстан).
9. The parties’ descriptions of the conditions of the applicant’s pre-trial and post-trial detention significantly differ on a number of counts.
A. Conditions of detention in the temporary detention facility at Novosheshminskiy police station
1. The applicant’s account
10. The applicant was detained in the temporary detention facility at Novosheshminskiy police station, in two different cells, from 16 December 2001 to 9 January 2002.
11. As the facility was only used for temporary detention, the cells were not equipped with sanitary facilities. Therefore the applicant had restricted access to a toilet and was only able to go to the lavatory, under escort, to a special room, twice a day. The authorities did not allow his relatives to bring him any necessary toiletries, which meant that for twenty-four days he did not have toothpaste, a toothbrush or a shaver. Nor could he take a shower, because the facility did not have one.
12. The cell windows were fitted with grilles which restricted natural light. The artificial lighting was provided by 25-40-watt light bulbs. The ventilation in the cells was very poor, if there was any. The applicant was not allowed outdoor exercise even once during the entire period of his detention. He was given only one meal a day and was almost starving. Although he had been suffering from a cardio-vascular problem and coughing spells, he was refused medical assistance.
13. The applicant was again kept in this facility on 28-29 January 2002. Protesting against inhuman treatment, on 28 January he slit his wrists but was rescued. The next day he refused to return to Bugulma IZ-16/3 remand centre. His refusal angered the police officers, who beat him up and sent him back to the remand centre.
14. The applicant complained several times to prosecutors at different levels of authority of appalling conditions of detention and ill-treatment, but all to no avail. He particularly stressed that instead of the relatively short period of time which had been established by the relevant law, that is to say no more than ten days, he had been kept in a temporary detention facility for twenty-four days in appalling conditions.
2. The Government’s account
15. According to the Government, throughout the time he was in the temporary detention facility the applicant was held in cell no.1, measuring 6.048 square metres with four sleeping places and cell no. 2, measuring 5.88 square metres with two sleeping places. The exact number of inmates held with the applicant could not be established but, in any event, the design capacity of the cells was never exceeded. The applicant was provided with an individual sleeping place. Bedding was available on demand though it is unclear whether he chose to use any.
16. In view of the fact that the facility was intended for short-term detention, the cells were not equipped with sanitary facilities. Inmates were allowed to go to the toilet twice a day, or more often when necessary. A shower was not provided. The facility was monitored and regularly fumigated by a special sanitary service.
17. The cells had central heating. Information about the average inside temperature at the material time could not be provided owing to the destruction of the relevant files. However, according to a report issued by the management of the police station, on 29 December 2006 the temperature in the cells was 21 degrees Celsius and it was 9 degrees Celsius in the corridor.
18. The cells were lit with natural light coming from glazed windows measuring 60 x 80 centimetres and with incandescent lighting of 100 to 150 watts. In addition to the natural ventilation provided by the windows, the cells were equipped with ventilation shafts.
19. The applicant was allowed one hour’s exercise daily.
20. While he was detained there he was twice assisted with medical problems, on 16 December 2001 for alcohol withdrawal and on 28 January 2002 for a self-inflicted injury. Both times he was treated at the scene by ambulance staff and then taken to a local hospital.
21. No information was submitted by the Government in respect of the food provided to the inmates.
B. Conditions of the applicant’s detention in Bugulma IZ-16/3 detention facility
1. The applicant’s account
9 January to 20 August 2002, except for a short period from 28 to
29 January 2002.
2. The Government’s account
24. Relying on a certificate dated 27 December 2006 issued by the facility management, the Government submitted that the applicant had been held in five cells:
- cell no. 212, measuring 21 sq. m and accommodating five inmates including the applicant;
- cell no. 311, measuring 12 sq. m with six sleeping places;
- cell no. 312, measuring 12 sq. m with six sleeping places;
- cell no. 317, measuring 21 sq. m with fourteen sleeping places;
- cell no. 407, measuring 21 sq. m, with fourteen sleeping places.
25. In cell no. 212 the applicant was detained from 8 to 20 August 2002. Due to the destruction of the facility’s records on the expiry of the statutory storage time-limit, it was not possible to establish the exact periods during which the applicant was detained in the other four cells and the exact number of inmates detained with him.
26. All cells were equipped with a sink and a lavatory separated from the living area by a partition of not less than one metre in height. Showers were available once a week with a simultaneous change of bedding. The inmates were provided with washbowls for their hygiene needs. The water was supplied centrally and could be heated with electric heaters.
27. The cells were ventilated through casement windows and in addition were equipped with ventilation shafts. The cells were aired daily, while the inmates were having their exercise. The average temperature and level of humidity met sanitary and hygiene requirements.
28. The windows were not covered with metal shutters, as a result there was enough natural light to allow reading and writing. The cells were also equipped with lamps which could be turned on when necessary. The lamps were covered with a protective fitting. During the night, the artificial lighting was dimmed.
29. The cells were fumigated regularly, with the assistance of a special sanitary service when necessary, and the detainees never complained about insects or rats.
30. The food met official nutritional standards. The quality of the food was controlled by the facility’s medical unit. In addition, the applicant could receive parcels and could buy food and other things from the facility’s shop.
31. During his detention the applicant was provided with an individual sleeping place, bedding, cutlery and utensils. He had an hour’s daily exercise. His state of health was monitored regularly and he was provided with medical assistance when necessary. He never complained about the conditions of his detention while in Bugulma IZ-16/3.
C. Conditions of the applicant’s detention in Chistopol UE-148/T prison
1. The applicant’s account
32. According to the applicant, at the time of his detention, that is from 20 August 2002 to 26 August 2003, the facility served as a prison. Later it was converted into a pre-trial detention centre. Due to this, the size and the configuration of the cells changed.
33. At the material time the cells were severely overcrowded. Cell no. 13 measured 80 square metres and accommodated over forty inmates. Twenty two-tier bunks, three tables and a lavatory left almost no space in which to move. He did not have an individual sleeping place and had to share a bunk with other inmates. Due to the large number of people, access to the lavatory was restricted. The water supply was often cut off. There was no ventilation. Windows were completely sealed by metal shutters and let no air or daylight in. The inmates did not have enough oxygen. The cells were stuffy and unbearably hot during the summer months. The facility’s exercise yards were very small, surrounded by solid concrete walls which prevented the free flow of air. Therefore, outside exercise was scarcely any different from staying in.
34. The insufficient lighting, either natural or artificial, impaired the applicant’s eyesight which diminished by 1.5 dioptres and continued to deteriorate. The inmates had to wash their bedding and clothing themselves. For this each of them was given a small piece of soap and had to share with others one tiny electric heater for warming the water. The inmates were only allowed to shower irregularly, that is once every ten, fifteen or twenty days. These unhygienic conditions resulted in skin diseases.
35. The food was very poor and consisted mainly of green tomatoes, cabbage and soya products. The applicant was later diagnosed with dystrophy. Medical assistance was inadequate and it was very difficult to arrange appointments with specialists.
36. The convicts were treated very badly and were often beaten up. On 23 August 2003 special armed forces (“спецназ”) arrived in the colony and proceeded systematically to beat up the inmates, including the applicant.
2. The Government’s account
37. Referring to a certificate of 16 January 2007 issued by the management of the facility, the Government submitted that the applicant had been held in cell no. 13, measuring 48 sq. m and accommodating eleven inmates including the applicant, and in cell no. 17, measuring 30 sq. m and accommodating twelve inmates including the applicant.
38. The Government further submitted that, at the material time, according to a certificate of 26 December 2006 issued by the governor of the facility, the cells had been equipped with a sink and a lavatory separated from the living area by a partition at least one metre high. Showers were available once a week with a simultaneous change of bedding.
39. The ventilation was natural, through casements in the windows. In addition, the cells were equipped with ventilation shafts. The cells were aired on a daily basis, for more than one hour, while the inmates were having their outside exercise. Overall, the temperature and humidity levels met sanitary and hygienic requirements. The windows were not covered with metal shutters but were reinforced with metal grilles. The cells were equipped with lamps which were turned on when necessary. The lamps were covered with a protective fitting. During the night the artificial lighting was dimmed.
40. On arrival at the facility all convicts were provided with an individual sleeping place and bedding. The cells were fumigated regularly with the assistance of a special sanitary service when necessary, and the inmates had never complained about insects and rats.
41. Nutrition met official standards. Hot meals were provided three times a day. The quality of the food was controlled by a commission comprised of a worker from the facility’s medical unit and one of the governor’s deputies. During the first two months, the applicant was given health food.
42. The applicant had an hour and a half’s outside exercise every day. The space in the exercise yards was commensurate with the number of actual users.
43. During his imprisonment the applicant consulted doctors on a number of occasions and received all necessary and adequate medical treatment. The entries made in the applicant’s medical case file submitted by the Government reflected that in August, September and November 2002 and March, June and July 2003 he was attended by a general practitioner, a phthisiologist and an ophthalmologist; in July 2002 he was treated for bronchitis. Throughout the period in question he had three X-ray examinations and was prescribed various medicines, including antibiotics, antipyretic drugs and vitamins.
44. No special armed forces were sent to the facility on 23 August 2003.
II. RELEVANT DOMESTIC LAW
A. Law on Detention
45. Section 8 of the Law on Detention (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.
46. According to section 9, persons whose detention has not yet been ordered by a court with jurisdiction should be held in temporary detention facilities. In exceptional circumstances, persons detained in remand centres can be transferred to and detained in temporary detention facilities for a period of no longer than ten days in a month (section 13).
47. Section 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 sufficient free food to keep them in good health in line with the standards established by the Government of the Russian Federation (Article 22).
B. Russian Penitentiary Code
48. Article 99 § 1 provides for a minimum standard of 2 sq. m of personal space for male convicts in correctional colonies and 2.5 sq. m in prisons.
49. According to Article 131, prisoners are housed in locked shared cells to which they are assigned on the basis of perceived security risk. They are allowed out of their cells for sixty minutes a day if they are on the strict regime and ninety minutes if they are on the ordinary regime. The inmates exercise in cell groups and in a designated area. A prisoner’s exercise privileges can be stopped at any time if he breaks internal rules.
THE LAW
I. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 3 OF THE CONVENTION
“No one shall be subjected to torture or to inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.”
A. Submissions by the parties
52. In their further observations, the Government argued that the applicant had failed to exhaust domestic remedies available to him. They suggested in particular that a civil action for damages lodged with a court could have been an effective remedy for his complaint about the poor conditions of his detention.
B. The Court’s assessment
1. Admissibility
(a) Compliance with the six-month rule
16 December 2001 to 9 January 2002 in the temporary detention facility of the Novosheshminskiy police station, from 9 January to 20 August 2002 in Bugulma IZ-16/3 remand centre and from 20 August 2002 to 26 August 2003 in Chistopol UE-148/T prison.
16 October 2002, that is nine months and six days after his twenty-four-day detention at the Novosheshminskiy police station had ended.
(b) Exhaustion of domestic remedies
61. In the present case the Government indicated such remedy as bringing a civil action. They however failed to refer to a relevant legal basis. Nor did they suggest that there was an established line of authorities in domestic practice where damages had in fact been awarded in situations comparable to the present case.
62. The Court observes that it has recently dismissed the Government’s analogous argument in the case Aleksandr Makarov v. Russia (no. 15217/07, § 87, 12 March 2009). There is no cogent reason adduced convincingly by the Government in the present case for the Court to depart from the above finding. Accordingly, it dismisses their plea of non-exhaustion.
(c) Compliance with other admissibility criteria
63. In so far as the applicant’s complaint under Article 3 of the Convention concerns the conditions of his detention in Bugulma IZ-16/3 remand centre and Chistopol UE-148/T prison, the Court notes that they are not manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 of the Convention and that they are not inadmissible on any other grounds. They must therefore be declared admissible.
2. Merits
(a) General principles
68. It should also be reiterated that 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
(i) Conditions of the detention in Bugulma IZ-16/3 remand centre
21 square metres and accommodated five inmates including the applicant. It follows that the living area per inmate was about 4.2 square metres. In respect of the other four cells where the applicant was detained, namely nos. 311,312, 317 and 402, the Government did not produce information about the number of inmates. They reported, however, that the first two cells measured 12 sq. m and had six sleeping places and the last two measured
21 sq. m and had fourteen sleeping places. It follows therefore that on any account, the designed floor area per inmate was from 1.5 to 2 square metres. Given the fact that each cell was equipped with bunks, a dining table, benches, a sink and a lavatory, which took up space, it appears that the actual living area per inmate was extremely small. This state of affairs in itself constituted a violation of Article 3 of the Convention (see
§ 66 above).
(ii) Conditions of detention in Chistopol UE-148/T prison
76. The Government contested the applicant’s allegations. They made submissions to the effect that the facility had allowed from 2.5 to 4.36 sq. m per person, that the applicant had been provided with an individual sleeping place and bedding, that he had been afforded necessary medical assistance and that in all aspects the conditions in the facility complied with the standard requirements imposed by prison regulations and did not breach Article 3 of the Convention.
77. The Court observes that the applicant did not support his descriptions of the conditions in the facility with evidence which could be produced even in his prisoner status, for example, witness statements, complaints made to various authorities at the material time or official letters (see, by contrast, Generalov v. Russia, no. 24325/03, §§ 109-110, 9 July 2009). On the other hand, the respondent Government seem to have provided the Court with all available information: the dimensions of the cells, the number of inmates, the sanitary conditions and the cell clean regime, the ventilation, the lighting and the medical assistance (see §§ 37-44 above). Therefore, the Court will concentrate on the information submitted or undisputed by the national authorities.
78. It should be noted that in the present case the conditions of the applicant’s detention in the correctional institution were rather similar to those in the remand centre. For twelve months and six days, the applicant was kept in a locked cell almost around the clock. The only recreation allowed was daily exercise of sixty or ninety minutes with his cellmates.
80. In the light of the foregoing considerations, the Court is not convinced by the Government’s allegation that the prison conditions did not affect the applicant in a manner incompatible with Article 3. On the contrary, the Court is of the opinion that the conditions complained of diminished the applicant’s human dignity. In sum, the Court considers that the conditions of the applicant’s detention in UE-148/T prison amounted to inhuman treatment within the meaning of Article 3 of the Convention. There has accordingly been a breach of this provision also in respect of this period of detention.
II. OTHER ALLEGED VIOLATION OF THE CONVENTION
82. The applicant further complained under Article 6 of a violation of his right to examine certain witnesses and of the appeal court’s failure to apply the criminal law correctly. Having regard to the relevant material in its possession, the Court finds that they do not disclose any appearance of a violation of the rights and freedoms set out in the Convention or 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
“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
B. Costs and expenses
C. Default interest
FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT UNANIMOUSLY
3. Holds that there has been a violation of Article 3 of the Convention on account of the conditions of the applicant’s detention from 20 August 2002 to 26 August 2003 in Chistopol UE-148/T prison;
(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 15,000 (fifteen 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;
(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;
5. Dismisses the remainder of the applicant’s claim for just satisfaction.
Done in English, and notified in writing on 11 February 2010, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
Søren Nielsen Christos Rozakis Registrar President