British
and Irish Legal Information Institute
Freely Available British and Irish Public Legal Information
[
Home]
[
Databases]
[
World Law]
[
Multidatabase Search]
[
Help]
[
Feedback]
European Court of Human Rights
You are here:
BAILII >>
Databases >>
European Court of Human Rights >>
KHRISTOFOROV v. RUSSIA - 11336/06 [2010] ECHR 642 (29 April 2010)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/eu/cases/ECHR/2010/642.html
Cite as:
[2010] ECHR 642
[
New search]
[
Contents list]
[
Printable RTF version]
[
Help]
FIRST
SECTION
CASE OF KHRISTOFOROV v. RUSSIA
(Application
no. 11336/06)
JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
29 April
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 Khristoforov v.
Russia,
The
European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting as a Chamber
composed of:
Nina
Vajić,
President,
Anatoly
Kovler,
Elisabeth
Steiner,
Khanlar
Hajiyev,
Dean
Spielmann,
Giorgio
Malinverni,
George
Nicolaou, judges,
and André Wampach, Deputy
Section Registrar,
Having
deliberated in private on 30 March 2010,
Delivers
the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
PROCEDURE
The
case originated in an application (no. 11336/06) 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 Vladimir Nikolayevich
Khristoforov (“the applicant”), on 23 February 2006.
The
applicant, who had been granted legal aid, was represented by Ms O.
Druzhkova and Ms K. Moskalenko, lawyers practising in Moscow. The
Russian Government (“the Government”) were represented by
Mr P. Laptev, former Representative of the Russian
Federation at the European Court of Human Rights.
The
applicant alleged that he had been detained pending investigation and
trial in inhuman and degrading conditions.
On
22 May 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 a 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
The
applicant was born in 1961 and is serving a prison sentence in the
Magadan Region.
On 3 January 2005 the applicant was arrested on
suspicion of manslaughter and placed in a temporary detention
facility at the Severo-Evensk District police station in the Magadan
Region (ИВС Северо-Эвенского
РУВД). According to the applicant, he was
kept in a windowless cell without any other access to fresh air or
daylight. It was dim and stuffy. There was no ventilation. The cell
was not equipped with a toilet. During the day time, if requested,
the guards took the applicant to a bathroom in the hallway. At night,
if the applicant wished to go to toilet, he had to use a plastic
bucket. There was no outdoor exercise area at the police station, so
the applicant had to stay indoors all the time. His daily one-hour
walk took place in a room which measured thirty-seven square metres
and had two windows covered with metal bars.
The
supervising prosecutor visited the applicant every week. The
applicant complained to him about the conditions of his detention. On
25 March 2005 the applicant asked in writing for a transfer to a
remand centre in Magadan. The prosecutor dismissed his request,
referring to the distance between Severo-Evensk and Magadan and a
lack of funds.
The
applicant repeated his complaints in written applications to the
prosecutor and the courts. All of them were to no avail.
On
5 July 2005 the applicant was found guilty of manslaughter. On
23 August 2005 he was transferred to a remand prison in Magadan.
On
7 July 2006 the Magadan Regional Police Department conducted an
inquiry in response to the Government's request in connection with
the present application pending at the time before the Court. In
particular, Colonel S. in charge of the inquiry stated the following
in his report:
“The inquiry confirms the truthfulness of the
[applicant's] allegations about the lack of proper living conditions
in the temporary detention facility at the [police station] in the
Severo-Evensk District.
According to the technical passport, in March 1999 the
[police station] and the temporary detention facility were deployed
at the former premises of a [local] newspaper.
No funds, either from the federal or local budget, had
been allocated for the construction and equipping of the temporary
detention facility, so all the work had to be carried out by [police
station] personnel.
...
... Until 2006, no finance had been obtained for the
repair and reconstruction of the [police station]. Accordingly, at
the temporary detention facility, it had been impossible to comply
with the standards set forth in the [federal legislation].
There are four cells at the temporary detention
facility. The cells have no windows. There is no water supply or
sewage system. Nor is there an outdoor exercise area or surrounding
fence.
From 3 to 17 January and from 11 February
to 23 March 2005 [the applicant] was detained in cell no. 1,
which measured 7.2 square metres.
From 17 January to 11 February and from
23 March to 23 August 2005, he was detained in cell no. 2,
which measured 10.9 square metres.
All the cells at the temporary detention facility are
equipped with individual sleeping places. The detainees are provided
with bed linen, plates, janitorial supplies, soap, detergent and
drinking water tanks.
The cells are connected to the municipal central-heating
system. The lighting is provided by electricity.
At the time of the applicant's detention, cell no. 2
was equipped with a fan... installed above the door. Furthermore, the
cells are ventilated daily through the hatches in the doors. The
hallway... is equipped with extractor fans.
As there is no designated area for outdoor exercise, the
detainees (including [the applicant]) have a one-hour walk in a room
measuring thirty-seven square metres. In that room, there are two big
windows covered with metal bars. During the exercise break, the
window hatches are kept open.
The temporary detention facility has one lavatory. The
detainees are always taken there once in the morning and once in the
evening. Throughout the rest of the day, they may use the lavatory,
if they so request. At night, that is, between 10 p.m. and 6 a.m.,
they use plastic buckets provided in each cell.”
II. RELEVANT DOMESTIC LAW
The
Federal Law on Detention of Suspects and Defendants charged with
Criminal Offences, in effect, as amended, since 21 June 1995,
provides that suspects and defendants detained pending investigation
and trial are held in remand prisons (Article 8). They may be
transferred to temporary detention facilities if so required for the
purposes of investigation or trial and if transportation between a
remand prison and a police station or courthouse is not feasible
because of the distance between them. Such detention at a temporary
detention facility may not exceed ten days per month (Article 13).
Temporary detention facilities at police stations are designated for
the detention of persons arrested on suspicion of a criminal offence
(Article 9).
According
to the Internal Regulations of Temporary Detention Facilities,
approved by Order No. 41 of the Ministry of the Interior of the
Russian Federation on 26 January 1996, as amended (in force at
the time of the applicant's detention), the living space per detainee
should be four square metres (para. 3.3 of the Regulations). It also
made provision for cells in a temporary detention facility to be
equipped with a table, toilet, tap water faucet, shelf for
toiletries, drinking water tank, radio and refuse bin (para. 3.2 of
the Regulations). Furthermore, the Regulations made provision for the
detainees' right to outdoor exercise of at least one hour per day in
a designated exercise area (para. 6.1, 6.40, and 6.43 of the
Regulations).
III. RELEVANT INTERNATIONAL DOCUMENTS
The relevant extract from the 2nd General Report of
the European Committee for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman or
Degrading Treatment or Punishment (CPT) (CPT/Inf (92) 3) reads as
follows:
“42. Custody by the police is in principle of
relatively short duration ...However, certain elementary material
requirements should be met.
All police cells should be of a reasonable size for the
number of persons they are used to accommodate, and have adequate
lighting (i.e. sufficient to read by, sleeping periods excluded) and
ventilation; preferably, cells should enjoy natural light. Further,
cells should be equipped with a means of rest (e.g. a fixed chair or
bench), and persons obliged to stay overnight in custody should be
provided with a clean mattress and blankets.
Persons in custody should be allowed to comply with the
needs of nature when necessary in clean and decent conditions, and be
offered adequate washing facilities. They should be given food at
appropriate times, including at least one full meal (i.e. something
more substantial than a sandwich) every day.
43. The issue of what is a reasonable size
for a police cell (or any other type of detainee/prisoner
accommodation) is a difficult question. Many factors have to be taken
into account when making such an assessment. However, CPT delegations
felt the need for a rough guideline in this area. The following
criterion (seen as a desirable level rather than a minimum standard)
is currently being used when assessing police cells intended for
single occupancy for stays in excess of a few hours: in the order of
7 square metres, 2 metres or more between walls, 2.5 metres between
floor and ceiling.”
The
CPT reiterated the above conclusions in its 12th General Report
(CPT/Inf (2002) 15, § 47).
THE LAW
I. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 3 OF THE CONVENTION
The
applicant complained that he had been detained in appalling
conditions in a temporary detention facility at the Severo-Evensk
District police station in the Magadan Region in contravention 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. Admissibility
The
Government considered that the application should be dismissed
because the applicant had failed to exhaust domestic remedies. He had
not appealed against the decision of the district prosecutor to
dismiss his complaint. In particular, on 25 March 2005 the
district prosecutor had received the applicant's complaint about the
conditions of his detention. In response, the prosecutor had admitted
that the applicant's allegations were true and had advised the
applicant that the right existed to appeal against the decision to
dismiss the complaint. However, the applicant had not done so. The
Government further argued that the applicant had also had the
opportunity to bring a compensation action for non-pecuniary damage
resulting from the unsatisfactory conditions of detention. Lastly,
the applicant, who had had an opportunity to meet regularly with his
lawyer, could have complained to the latter that the conditions of
his detention were poor. They provided a relevant statement signed by
K., the court-appointed lawyer who had represented the applicant at
the time. As regards the postal receipts submitted by the applicant
as proof that his complaints about the conditions of his detention
had been dispatched to the domestic authorities, the Government noted
that those letters had been addressed to the judicial qualifications'
board and had nothing to do with the applicant's grievances
concerning the conditions of his detention.
The
applicant submitted that he had complained repeatedly to the
prosecutor and the court about the conditions of his detention.
However, all his complaints had been to no avail. The district
prosecutor had informed him that it had been impossible to transfer
him to a remand prison because of a lack of funds or plane tickets.
The regional prosecutor and the district court had remitted his
complaints to the district prosecutor's office. The regional court
had sent the complaint to the district court which, in its turn,
remitted it to the district prosecutor. As regards K.'s statement
submitted by the Government, the applicant considered it irrelevant.
The purpose of the lawyer's visits had been to discuss his client's
defence. Moreover, the attempts by the Government to make the lawyer
divulge confidential information concerning meetings with his client
had been a flagrant breach of attorney-client privilege.
The Court notes that the Government have already
raised the same arguments in respect of the issue of exhaustion of
domestic remedies in a number of cases concerning conditions of
detention in Russia. The Court has examined and dismissed them,
finding the remedies ineffective (see, for example, Aleksandr
Makarov v. Russia, no. 15217/07,
§§ 84-91, 12 March 2009). The Court discerns
nothing in the Government's submissions to depart from its earlier
findings. It follows that the Government's objection must be
dismissed.
The
Court notes that the application is not manifestly ill-founded within
the meaning of Article 35 § 3 of the Convention. It further
notes that it is not inadmissible on any other grounds. It must
therefore be declared admissible.
B. Merits
1. The parties' submissions
The
Government acknowledged that the conditions of the applicant's
detention at the temporary detention facility had not been in
compliance with the standards set forth in Article 3 of the
Convention. The premises had not been suitable for long-term
detention. Nor had there been any funds allocated from the federal
budget for their reconstruction until 2006. In 2006, as part of
ongoing reconstruction work, the temporary detention facility had
been equipped with an outdoor exercise area. Meanwhile, a ventilation
system, a water supply system and toilets had started to be installed
before the applicant had lodged his complaint with the Court.
The
applicant maintained his complaint and noted that his allegations had
been confirmed by the inquiry conducted by the authorities on 7 July
2006. He further contended that the lack of finance could not have
justified the appalling conditions in the temporary detention
facility. As regards the measures implemented by the authorities to
upgrade the temporary detention facility, they had been taken only
after he had lodged his complaints with the Court. Lastly, he
considered that his detention had amounted to torture and resulted in
the deterioration of his health.
2. The Court's assessment
Article 3,
as the Court has observed on many occasions, enshrines one of the
fundamental values of democratic society. The Convention prohibits in
absolute terms torture or inhuman or degrading treatment or
punishment, irrespective of the circumstances or the victim's
behaviour (see Balogh v. Hungary, no. 47940/99,
§ 44, 20 July 2004, and Labita v. Italy [GC],
no. 26772/95, § 119, ECHR 2000-IV). The Court has
consistently stressed that the suffering and humiliation involved
must, for a violation to be found, go beyond that inevitable element
of suffering or humiliation connected with a given form of legitimate
treatment or punishment. Measures depriving a person of his liberty
may often involve such an element. In accordance with Article 3 of
the Convention, the State must ensure that a person is detained under
conditions which are compatible with respect for his human dignity
and that the manner and method of the execution of the measure do not
subject him to distress or hardship exceeding the unavoidable level
of suffering inherent in detention (see Kudła v. Poland
[GC], no. 30210/96, §§ 92-94, ECHR 2000-XI).
The
Court reiterates that it has on many occasions considered that the
mere fact of holding an applicant in custody in a cell designed only
for short-term detention disclosed a violation of Article 3
(see, for example, Kaja v. Greece, no. 32927/03, §§
49-50, 27 July 2006, where the applicant was held for three months in
detention without an opportunity to enjoy outdoor exercise, radio,
television or free meals, and Shchebet v. Russia,
no. 16074/07, §§ 84-96, 12 June 2008, where, for
a month, the applicant was confined to a cell without a proper door
(the cell had a sparse metal grille instead), window, toilet or sink
and in the absence of any opportunity for outdoor exercise).
The
Government did not dispute that the applicant had been detained
pending investigation and trial at the police station in a cell
designed only for short-term detention. Nor did they challenge the
applicant's account of the conditions of his detention. They also
conceded that those conditions had fallen short of the standards set
forth in Article 3 of the Convention.
On the facts, the Court notes that the applicant could
not be transferred to a remand prison because the nearest prison was
located too far from Evensk and because the domestic authorities did
not have the funds to pay for his transportation (see paragraph 8
above). This resulted in his detention taking place in premises
which, from the legal and practical standpoint, were inappropriate
for long-term detention (compare Shchebet, cited above, §
88).
The
cell in which the applicant was held for over seven and a half months
had been designed for short-term detention not exceeding ten days.
Accordingly, it lacked the basic amenities indispensable for extended
detention. The cell did not have a window and offered no access to
natural light or air. There was no toilet or sink. At night, if the
applicant wished to go to toilet, he had to use a bucket. Lastly,
throughout that time the applicant was confined to his cell for
practically twenty-four hours a day without any possibility to pursue
physical and other out-of-cell activities.
In
the Court's opinion, such conditions of detention must have caused
him considerable mental and physical suffering diminishing his human
dignity, which amounted to degrading treatment within the meaning of
Article 3 of the Convention.
The
Court further notes that there is no evidence in the present case of
any positive intention to humiliate or debase the applicant. However,
the absence of any such intention cannot exclude a finding of a
violation of Article 3 of the Convention. Even if there had been
no fault on the part of the administration of the temporary detention
facility, it should be emphasised that the Governments are answerable
under the Convention for the acts of any State agency, since what is
in issue in all cases before the Court is the international
responsibility of the State (see, among other authorities, Novoselov
v. Russia, no. 66460/01, § 45, 2 June 2005).
There
has accordingly been a violation of Article 3 of the Convention
on account of the degrading conditions of the applicant's detention
in the temporary detention facility at the Severo-Evensk District
police station in the Magadan Region.
II. APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION
Article 41 of the Convention provides:
“If the Court finds that there has been a
violation of the Convention or the Protocols thereto, and if the
internal law of the High Contracting Party concerned allows only
partial reparation to be made, the Court shall, if necessary, afford
just satisfaction to the injured party.”
A. Damage
The
applicant claimed 25,000 euros (EUR) in respect of non-pecuniary
damage.
The
Government considered the applicant's claims excessive and suggested
that the acknowledgment of a violation would constitute adequate just
satisfaction.
The
Court observes that the applicant spent seven and a half months in
inhuman and degrading conditions. In these circumstances, the Court
considers that the applicant's suffering and frustration cannot be
compensated for by a mere finding of a violation. Making its
assessment on an equitable basis, it awards him EUR 10,000 in
respect of non-pecuniary damage, plus any tax that may be chargeable
on that amount.
B. Costs and expenses
The
applicant also claimed compensation, without specifying the amount,
for the legal costs incurred in the proceedings before the Court.
The
Government submitted that the applicant had failed to demonstrate
that he had actually and necessarily incurred any costs and expenses
in the proceedings before the Court.
According to the Court's case-law, an applicant is
entitled to the reimbursement of costs and expenses only in so far as
it has been shown that these have been actually and necessarily
incurred and are reasonable as to quantum. In the present case, the
amount of EUR 850 has already been paid to the applicant by way
of legal aid. In such circumstances, the Court does not consider it
necessary to make an award under this head.
C. Default interest
The
Court considers it appropriate that the default interest should be
based on the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank, to
which should be added three percentage points.
FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT UNANIMOUSLY
Declares the application admissible;
Holds that there has been a violation of Article
3 of the Convention;
Holds
(a) that
the respondent State is to pay the applicant, within three months of
the date on which the judgment becomes final in accordance with
Article 44 § 2 of the Convention, EUR 10,000 (ten
thousand euros) in respect of non-pecuniary damage, plus any tax that
may be chargeable, to be converted into Russian roubles at the rate
applicable on the date of settlement;
(b) that
from the expiry of the above-mentioned three months until settlement
simple interest shall be payable on the above amount at a rate equal
to the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank during the
default period plus three percentage points;
Dismisses the remainder of the applicant's claim
for just satisfaction.
Done in English, and notified in writing on 29 April 2010,
pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
André Wampach Nina
Vajić
Deputy Registrar President