CEDH · CASELAW;JUDGMENTS;CHAMBER;ENG — 15 juillet 2002

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sE208486F { font-family:Arial; color:#ff0000 } .s598389FF { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:18pt } .sF5E1C6CF { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline; color:#ff0000 } .s6CCEAD68 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; color:#ff0000 } .s491F5244 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic; color:#ff0000 } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s4ACA9207 { page-break-before:always; clear:both; mso-break-type:section-break } .s9793A85B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .s701081D1 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:left } .s8FB79571 { width:14.15pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .sF2492270 { width:14.36pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .s61E420C2 { font-family:Arial; font-variant:small-caps } .s85325123 { width:28.35pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .s9B9C8843 { width:13.68pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .s8E1BF532 { width:8.36pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .s145A69D6 { width:34.2pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .sBB5E682E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:36pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .sF604F523 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; font-size:14pt } .sB8987CE9 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .s377C1984 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .s3C38CC87 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:19.85pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-19.85pt; text-align:left } .s275CCCF2 { width:5.86pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .sE01501FE { width:2.52pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .s91CF3560 { width:228.81pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .sCE95629F { width:224.81pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .sD86A583 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:19.85pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-19.85pt; text-align:left } .s5D5DC104 { width:5.51pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .s65D3C4F9 { width:76.05pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .sBFF1D8C7 { width:193.44pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .s812A4BBF { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:30pt; font-size:14pt } .s4EDC3409 { margin-top:30pt; margin-left:17.85pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17.85pt } .s4B773175 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .sDEA336FF { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:29.2pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17.6pt } .sDCCC0E43 { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:17.85pt; margin-bottom:30pt; text-indent:-17.85pt } .sDB3CA5CD { margin-top:30pt; margin-left:17.85pt; margin-bottom:30pt; text-indent:-17.85pt } .s345E2258 { margin-top:30pt; margin-left:29.2pt; margin-bottom:24pt; text-indent:-17.6pt } .sB04853D1 { margin-top:24pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; font-size:10pt } .sF0B473AD { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:20.15pt; margin-bottom:24pt; text-indent:8.8pt; font-size:10pt } .sB20C2835 { margin-top:24pt; margin-left:29.2pt; margin-bottom:24pt; text-indent:-17.6pt } .s97B7A20 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:20.15pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-indent:8.8pt; font-size:10pt } .s71BC72F4 { margin-top:18pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; font-size:10pt } .sEEE3CE35 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:20.15pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:8.8pt; font-size:10pt } .s149391E6 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:20.15pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:8.8pt; text-align:center; font-size:10pt } .sC2A09190 { margin-top:24pt; margin-left:29.2pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-15pt } .sF66B8D08 { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:17.85pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17.85pt } .s9019FD2F { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .s31CA8E2D { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:20.15pt; margin-bottom:42pt; text-indent:8.8pt; font-size:10pt } .s706B362D { margin-top:42pt; margin-bottom:30pt; font-size:14pt } .s8AD34D0 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:20.15pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:8.8pt; font-size:10pt } .s451A1BF5 { margin-top:6pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .s83BE5C30 { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; vertical-align:super } .s397ED72C { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:20.15pt; margin-bottom:24pt; text-indent:8.8pt; font-size:10pt } .sB3DB1E9C { margin-top:24pt; margin-left:29.2pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17.6pt } .s48D61AB0 { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:29.2pt; margin-bottom:24pt; text-indent:-17.6pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sEC533701 { margin-top:24pt; margin-left:36.6pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-15.05pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sDFC5B1C5 { margin-top:6pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sDD5D58F7 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sA845BF37 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:36.6pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-indent:-15.05pt } .s99668499 { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:48.75pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-17pt; font-size:10pt } .s97982B8 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:48.75pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-indent:-17pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .s99A9BAAC { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:59.5pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-17.85pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .sECFD7610 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:59.5pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-indent:-17.85pt; font-size:10pt } .sA2D93C82 { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:68.65pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-16.75pt; font-size:10pt } .s2E81CF26 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:68.65pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-16.75pt; font-size:10pt } .sFE6327B5 { margin-top:6pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .s9922FEC8 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .s9C230781 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:36.6pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-15.05pt } .sBB48EB84 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:36.6pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-indent:-22.4pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s55D550F5 { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:48.75pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-17pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .sAF0B4C7 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:48.75pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-17pt; font-size:10pt } .sA20670C4 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:48.75pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-17pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .s4AD8A65C { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:14.2pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s498509A2 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:20.15pt; margin-bottom:24pt; text-indent:8.8pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .s145CCEB3 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:36pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .s6E97E8AF { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:17pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-17pt } .s583D00FA { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:17pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-17pt } .s26FF04E7 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:17.3pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s5D08A2D6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:34.6pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sFB9B94DE { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:17.3pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17.3pt } .sFDE7661F { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.4pt } .sD85D3081 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:left; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s8BD2CFA4 { width:35.21pt; display:inline-block } .sD5EF6EC4 { width:234.82pt; display:inline-block } .s7602FED2 { width:18.21pt; display:inline-block } .s60570E66 { width:233.81pt; display:inline-block } .s2452CEB3 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:36pt; text-indent:14.4pt } .s379BC09C { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .s523616E0 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; font-size:14pt } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .s662121A1 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center }     THIRD SECTION     CASE OF KALASHNIKOV v. RUSSIA     (Application no. 47095/99)     JUDGMENT     STRASBOURG   15 July 2002         FINAL   15/10/2002           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 Kalashnikov v. Russia, The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting as a Chamber composed of:   Mr   J.-P. Costa , President ,   Mr   W. Fuhrmann ,   Mr   L. Loucaides ,   Sir   Nicolas Bratza ,   Mrs   H.S. Greve ,   Mr   K. Traja ,   Mr   A. Kovler , judges ,   and Mrs   S. Dollé , Section Registrar , Having deliberated in private on 18 September 2001 and 24   June   2002, Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on the last ‑ mentioned date: PROCEDURE 1.     The case originated in an application (no.   47095/99) 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, Valeriy Yermilovich Kalashnikov (“the applicant”), on 1 December 1998. 2.     The applicant complained, in particular, about his conditions of detention, the length of his detention and the length of the criminal proceedings against him. 3.     The application was allocated to the former Third Section of the Court (Rule   52 §   1 of the Rules of Court). Within that Section, the Chamber that would consider the case (Article 27 § 1 of the Convention) was constituted as provided in Rule 26 § 1 of the Rules of Court. 4.     The applicant and the Government each filed observations on the admissibility and merits (Rule 54 § 3(b)). The parties replied in writing to each other's observations. 5.     A hearing on the admissibility and merits took place in public in the Human Rights Building, Strasbourg, on 18 September 2001 (Rule 54 § 4).   There appeared before the Court: (a)     for the Government Mr   P. Laptev , Representative of the Russian Federation before the ECHR , Mr   Y. Berestnev , Mr   S. Volkovsky, Mr   S. Razumov, Mr   Y. Kalinin,   Advisers ; Mr   K. Bahtiarov, Mr   O. Ankudinov, Mr   V. Vlasihin,   Experts; (b)     for the applicant Mrs   K. Moskalenko , of the Moscow International Protection Centre Mr   N. Sonkin , of the Moscow Regional Bar   Counsel , Mr   V. Kalashnikov ,   Applicant.   6.     The Court heard addresses by Mr P. Laptev, Mrs K Moskalenko and Mr   N. Sonkin, and the replies of Mr V. Vlasihin, Mr P. Laptev and Mrs   K.   Moskalenko to questions from three judges. At the Court's request, the Government had submitted photographs of the cell in which the applicant was detained. They also provided a video recorded film of the renovated cell and nearby area, which renovation had been made after the applicant's release. 7.     By a decision of 18 September 2001, the Court declared the application partly admissible. It thereafter considered that an on-site inspection or “fact-finding mission” was not necessary, as it had sufficient material in the case-file on which to reach its conclusions. In particular, it considered that no useful purpose would be served by such an exercise because the present conditions of the cell, as shown in the video, no longer bore any resemblance to those at the time of the applicant's detention, as confirmed by the contemporary photographs. 8.     On 1 November 2001 the Court changed the composition of its Sections (Rule 25 § 1), but this case remained with the Chamber constituted within former Section III. 9.     The parties filed no further observations on the merits of the application. 10.     On 28 December 2001 the applicant filed claims for just satisfaction under Article 41 of the Convention, on which the Government submitted comments. THE FACTS I.     THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE 11.     The applicant was born in 1955 and lives in Moscow. At the material time he was the president of the North East Commercial Bank ( Северо – Восточный Акционерный Банк ). 12.     On 8 February 1995 criminal proceedings were initiated against the applicant, the details of which are set out under sub-heading B below. On 29   June 1995 the applicant was taken into custody and, by a judgment of the Magadan City Court ( Магаданский городской суд ) of 3 August 1999, he was convicted of embezzlement and sentenced to a term of imprisonment. A.     The conditions of detention 13.     From 29 June 1995 to 20 October 1999 the applicant was kept in the detention facility IZ-47/1 in the city of Magadan (Investigatory Isolation Ward No. 1 ( СИЗО-1 )). On 20 October 1999 he was sent to serve his sentence, following the City Court judgment of 3   August   1999, to the penitentiary establishment AV-261/3 in the village of Talaya. On 9   December   1999 he was transferred back to the detention facility in Magadan where he stayed until his release on 26 June 2000.   1)     The applicant's submissions on the facts   14.     As regards the first period of his detention in the Magadan detention facility, the applicant alleged that     he had been kept in a cell measuring 17 square meters (“m²”) where there were 8 bunk beds. However, it nearly always held 24   inmates; only rarely did the number fall to 18. As there were three men to every bunk, the inmates slept taking turns. The others would lie or sit on the floor or cardboard boxes waiting for their turn. It was impossible to sleep properly as the television was on around the clock and, during the day, there was much commotion in the cell. The light in the cell was never turned off. 15.     The lavatory pan in the corner of the cell offered no privacy. A partition separated it from a wash stand, but not from the living area and dining table. The lavatory pan was elevated from the floor by half a meter while the partition measured 1,1 meters in height. Therefore, the person using the toilet was in the view of both his cellmates and a prison guard observing the inmates through a peep-hole in the door. The inmates had to eat their meals in the cell at a dining table which was only a meter away from the toilet. The meals were of poor quality. 16.     The cell, which had no ventilation, was stiflingly hot in summer and very cold in winter. Because of the poor quality of the air in the cell, a window had to remain open all the time. Being surrounded by heavy smokers, the applicant was forced to become a passive smoker. The applicant claims that he was never given proper bedding, dishes or kitchen utensils. He only received a quilted mattress and a thin flannel blanket from the administration, and had to borrow kitchenware from cell-mates who had received these items from relatives. 17.     The cells of the detention facility were overrun with cockroaches and ants, but no attempt was made to exterminate them. The only sanitary precaution taken was that once a week the guards gave the inmates a litre of chloride disinfectant for the lavatory. 18.     He contracted a variety of skin diseases and fungal infections, losing his toenails and some of his fingernails. During the trial from 11   November   1996 to 23 April 1997 and from 15 April 1999 to 3   August   1999, a recess was ordered so that he could be treated for scabies. On six occasions detainees, with tuberculosis and syphilis were placed in his cell and he received prophylactic antibiotic injections. 19.     The applicant submitted that he could only take a walk outside his cell one hour per day and that usually he was only able to take a hot shower twice a month. 20.     Finally, the applicant stated that, following his transfer back to the same facility on 9 December 1999, the detention conditions had not materially improved. He was not provided with proper bedding, towels or kitchenware. There was no treatment available for his skin disease due to a lack of proper medication. His cell was still overrun with cockroaches and there had been no anti-infestation treatment for 5 years. However, in March-April 2000 the number of inmates in his 8-bed cell was reduced to 11.   2)     The Government's submissions on the facts   21.     The Government claimed that the applicant's cell measured 20,8 m². The applicant had a separate sleeping berth, bedding, kitchen utensils and access to health care. The cell was designed for 8 inmates. In connection with the general overcrowding of the detention facility, each bed in the cells was used by 2 or 3 inmates. In the applicant's cell there were 11 or more inmates at any given time. Normally the number of inmates was 14. The beds were used in turn by several prisoners on the basis of eight hour shifts of sleep per prisoner. All inmates were provided with wadded mattresses, cotton blankets and sheets. 22.     The applicant's cell was equipped with a sanitary unit, including a lavatory pan and a wash stand. The lavatory pan was situated in the corner of the cell and was separated from the dwelling place by a partition - 1,1 meters high - ensuring privacy. Such standards have been set by the “Directives on Planning and Constructing Pre-Trial Detention Facilities of the USSR Ministry of the Interior”, approved on 25 January 1971. The Government submitted photographs to the Court showing the applicant's cell, which the applicant claimed had been improved slightly since the beginning of his detention. The Government also provided a video recording of the facilities after the applicant's release and their major renovation. 23.     The cell had windows providing fresh air and daylight. There was no possibility to equip the cell with a ventilation system. In hot weather a window of the cell door could be opened for better ventilation. Inmates also had the opportunity to have compact fans delivered to them by relatives. 24.     There was a television in the cell which belonged to the applicant who could control when to switch it on or off. Programmes were only transmitted during part of the day in the region. 25.     On 11 February 1998 an inmate in the applicant's cell was diagnosed with syphilis. The inmate was immediately removed to a separate cell and underwent a complete course of treatment for the disease. The other inmates, including the applicant, who had shared the cell with this person, were subjected to appropriate preventive treatment on 26 February 1998 and to serological control measures. This was done pursuant to the “Guidelines on Medical Care for Persons Held in Pre-Trial Detention Facilities and Correctional Labour Institutions of the USSR Ministry of the Interior”, approved on 17 November 1989. In January 1999 one of the blocks in the detention facility was closed for repairs and the detainees were transferred to vacant places in other cells. The detainees who were moved to the applicant's cell stayed there for a week and some of them were ill with tuberculosis. However, in the opinion of the medical personnel, the latter did not present a danger to other inmates as these persons were undergoing out-patient medical treatment. On 2 June 1999, an inmate who was observed to have residual tuberculosis was placed in the applicant's cell. The inmate underwent the   relapse prevention treatment for a period of two months. As he did not suffer from tuberculosis in its open form, there was no danger of its transmission to other inmates. The applicant underwent repeated fluorographic examinations which showed no abnormality of his thorax. On 15 June 1999, an inmate who was undergoing treatment for syphilis was placed in the applicant's cell. Medical examinations performed subsequently showed negative results. Blood tests which were performed in this connection on the applicant also revealed negative results. 26.     The applicant was systematically examined by the medical personnel and he received medical assistance from a dermatologist, therapeutist and stomatologist. When the applicant was diagnosed with different diseases (neurocirulatory dystonia, scabies and fungal infection) he received immediate medical care. There were recesses announced during the trial in order to provide medical treatment for the applicant. 27.     The applicant could shower every 7 days and was permitted to walk outside his cell for up to 2 hours a day. 28.     Finally, the Government submitted that, in order to prevent the appearance of infectious diseases, pre-trial detention facilities take prophylactic disinfection measures to secure the timely extermination of pathogenic micro-organisms, arthoropoda and rodents, pursuant to the above-mentioned ministerial guidelines of 1989. It was conceded, however, that the infestation of detention facilities with insects was a problem.   3)     Medical records and an expert report   29.     According to the applicant's medical records, he had scabies in December 1996, allergic dermatitis in July and August 1997, a fungal infection on his feet in June 1999, a fungal infection on his finger nail in August 1999, mycosis in September 1999 and a fungal infection on his feet, hands and groin in October 1999. The records also state that the applicant received treatment for these medical conditions. 30.     A report by medical experts issued in July 1999 stated that the applicant was suffering from neurocirculatory dystonia, astheno-neurotic syndrome, chronic gastroduodenitis, a fungal infection on his feet, hands and groin and mycosis. B.     The criminal proceedings and appeals against pre-trial detention 31.     On 8 February 1995 the applicant became a suspect in the embezzlement of his bank's funds and was subjected to a preventive measure in the form of a ban on leaving a specified place. The criminal case was assigned the number 48529. 32.     On 17 February 1995 he was formally charged with misappropriating 2,050,000 shares of another company. 33.     On 29 June 1995, by an order of the investigator, which was approved by the prosecutor, the applicant was arrested and placed in detention on remand on the ground that he had obstructed the establishment of the truth in the criminal proceedings. In particular, it was stated in the order, with references to concrete instances, that the applicant had refused to turn over certain bank documents necessary for the investigation, he had brought pressure to bear on witnesses and had tampered with documents. The order also referred to the seriousness of the offence with which the applicant was charged. The applicant's detention was subsequently extended by the competent prosecutor on   unspecified dates. 34.     On 4 July 1995, 31   August 1995 and 26 September 1995, the applicant's defence lawyer filed applications for release from custody with the Magadan City Court, which rejected them on 14 July 1995, 9   September   1995 and 4   November 1995, respectively. 35.     The applicant contends that from August 1995 until November 1995 no investigative activity took place as the two investigators in charge of the case were on holiday, and the person to whom the case was temporarily assigned undertook no action. 36.     On 14 December 1995 the applicant was charged with 8 additional counts relating to the embezzlement of his bank's funds. 37.     On 6 February 1996 the preliminary investigation of the charges against the applicant was terminated and the case was sent to the Magadan City Court. 38.     On 1 March 1996 the applicant filed with the City Court a request for his release from custody, which was refused on 27 March 1996. 39.     On the same day the City Court decided to remit the case to the Magadan Regional Prosecutor for further investigation. The latter filed an appeal against the decision with the Magadan Regional Court ( Магаданский областной суд ) which, on 29 April 1996, rejected it. 40.     Following an additional investigation as of 15 May 1996, the Regional Prosecutor remitted the case to the City Court on 19 June 1996. 41.     In the meantime, on 16 May 1996, the applicant filed an application for release from custody with the City Court in which he stated that he was being held in poor conditions and that his health had deteriorated. His application for release was refused on 26 May 1996. On 23 June 1996 the applicant filed another request for release. 42.     On 11 November 1996 the City Court began its examination of the applicant's case. On the same day it rejected his request for release filed on 23 June 1996. 43.     At the hearing on 27 December 1996 the applicant asked the City Court to release him from custody on medical grounds. He stated that there were 21 inmates in his cell with just 8 beds; there was no ventilation in the cell where everybody smoked; the television was constantly blaring and he had contracted scabies. Upon receiving a medical certificate confirming the existence of the disease, the City Court adjourned the hearing until 14   January 1997. It refused to release the applicant from custody on the grounds of the seriousness of the offence with which he was charged and the danger of his obstructing the establishment of the truth while at liberty. 44.     The examination of the applicant's case by the City Court lasted until 23   April 1997. On 7 May 1997 the case was adjourned due to the removal from office of the presiding judge for improper conduct unrelated to the applicant's case. 45.     On 15 June 1997 the applicant filed another request for release, referring to the poor conditions in which he was being detained. 46.     In July 1997 the applicant's case was assigned to another judge who scheduled a hearing for 8 August 1997. On that day the hearing was postponed because the defence lawyer could not attend for health reasons. The applicant's request for release was rejected on the grounds of the seriousness of the offence with which he was charged and the danger of his obstructing the establishment of the truth in the criminal case. The applicant's further request for release from custody filed on 21   September 1997 was refused on 21 October 1997. 47.     On 22 October 1997 the applicant complained to the Magadan Regional Court about his case, asking for its transfer from the City Court to the Regional Court. He also submitted a complaint to the Supreme Court of Russia ( Верховный Суд Российской Федерации ) which forwarded it to the Magadan Regional Court for examination. By letters of 31 October 1997 and 25 November 1997, the Regional Court informed the applicant that there was no reason for it to assume jurisdiction and suggested he turn to the City Court with any questions relating to his case. It also requested the City Court to take measures for the examination of the applicant's case. 48.     On 21 November 1997 he made complaints to different authorities, in particular the Office of the President of the Russian Federation, the Magadan City Court, the High Qualification Board of Judges ( Высшая квалификационная коллегия судей Российской Федерации ) – a body dealing with questions of professional competence –   and the Prosecutor General. In his complaints, he submitted, inter alia , that he was being held in appalling conditions without any decision on the substance of the charges, that he had contracted various skin diseases, that his toenails had fallen off and that he was suffering from a heart condition. 49.     By letter of 5 February 1998, the president of the Magadan City Court informed the applicant that the court would resume its consideration of his case before 1 July 1998, referring to its complexity and the heavy workload of the judges. 50.     On 11 February 1998 the Magadan Regional Court forwarded to the City Court 11 complaints made by the applicant, which it had received from the Prosecutor General, the Supreme Court and other authorities. 51.     On 23 February 1998 the applicant commenced a hunger strike with a view to drawing the attention of the authorities to his lengthy detention and the absence of court hearings, which he continued until 17 March 1998. 52.     On 1 March 1998 the applicant complained about his case to the Office of the President of Russia and to a parliamentary committee of the State Duma, requesting their assistance in the transfer of his case to the Magadan Regional Court. 53.     On 3 March 1998 the Department of Justice of the Magadan Region, in response to the applicant's complaint addressed to the Ministry of Justice of Russia, stated that the court would be able to deal with his case in the second half of 1998. 54.     Meanwhile, the applicant lodged a request with the Constitutional Court ( Конституционный Суд Российской Федерации ) to review the constitutionality of the provisions of Articles 223-1 and 239 of the Code of Criminal Procedure concerning time-limits for the start of trials. By letter of 10 March 1998, the Constitutional Court informed the applicant that, since the impugned provisions did not lay down any time-limits with regard to the length of detention while a case is being considered by the courts, his request could not be considered. 55.     The applicant also complained to the High Qualification Board of Judges about the delay in the consideration of his case which, by letter of 30   March   1998, asked the Magadan Regional Court to investigate the matter. 56.     On 2 April 1998 the applicant filed a complaint with the Supreme Court about the delay in setting the date for his trial, in which he also referred to his poor conditions of detention. A copy of his complaint was sent to other authorities. All his complaints were forwarded by the addressee institutions to the Magadan City Court for examination. 57.     On 13 April 1998 the Magadan Regional Court informed the applicant that the City Court had been requested to take measures for the consideration of his case. It also stated that the case was to be tried by the City Court and that the Regional Court could only act as a court of cassation. 58.     On 25 May 1998 the applicant filed a petition with the City Court asking for his case to be transferred to the Regional Court for trial. By decision of the president of the Regional Court of 28 May 1998, the applicant's case was transferred to the Khasynskiy District Court ( Хасынский районный суд ) in order to expedite the proceedings. 59.     On 11 June 1998 the applicant complained about the delay in starting court hearings to the High Qualification Board of Judges. 60.     On 16 June 1998 the applicant filed a request for release from custody with the Khasynskiy District Court in which he stated that his health had deteriorated as a result of the overcrowding and the poor conditions in his cell in the detention facility. On the same day, he sent an application to the Khasynskiy District Court asking it to transfer his case to the Magadan Regional Court. He submitted that the transfer of his case to the Khasynskiy District Court was unlawful and that its distance from the city of Magadan would hamper an objective and fair examination of his case. 61.     On 1 July 1998 the applicant complained to the Regional Court that the Khasynskiy District Court had not yet set a hearing date and asked it to speed up the proceedings. 62.     On 3 July 1998 the case was remitted to the Magadan City Court as the applicant had expressed his disagreement with its transfer to the Khasynskiy District Court. 63.     On 8 July 1998 the applicant received a letter from the Regional Court informing him that there were no grounds for it to act as a court of first instance or to assume jurisdiction in the case. The next day the applicant requested the City Court to release him, referring to the poor conditions of detention. 64.     On 31 July 1998 the applicant complained to the High Qualification Board of Judges about the prolonged failure of the City Court to examine his case. On 19 August 1998 his complaint was transmitted to the Magadan Regional Court with a request to provide information both on the complaint and on the work of the City Court. On 27 August 1998 the Regional Court forwarded the applicant's complaint to the City Court. The applicant also submitted a complaint to the Magadan Regional Court about the delay in starting the trial hearings, which on 11   August   1998 transmitted the complaint to the City Court. 65.     On 7 September 1998 the applicant filed another complaint with the High Qualification Board of Judges stating that all his previous complaints had been sent by the Magadan Regional Court to the City Court without any measures being taken. On 23 September 1998 the applicant's complaint was forwarded to the Magadan Regional Court with a reminder about the request for information on the reasons for the prolonged delay in examining the applicant's case.     On 7 September 1998 the applicant also submitted a complaint about the delay in the proceedings to the Supreme Court. On 5 October 1998 the applicant submitted further complaints to the Regional and High Qualification Boards of Judges. 66.     On 13 November 1998 the City Court set the hearing date for 28   January   1999. 67.     On 25 November 1998 the applicant complained to the High Qualification Board of Judges about the actions of the President of the Magadan City Court, apparently requesting the institution of criminal proceedings against him. On 22 December 1998 the complaint was forwarded for examination to the president of the Magadan Regional Court with a request to submit a report to the competent Qualification Board in case the applicant's allegations proved substantiated. On 16 December 1998 the Magadan Regional Court forwarded another complaint by the applicant to the City Court. 68.     On 18 January 1999 the applicant submitted to the City Court a request for release from custody. 69.     On 28 January 1999 the Magadan City Court decided to send the applicant's case back to the prosecutor for further investigation due to the violation of procedural norms by the investigative authorities. These violations consisted of an incomplete presentation of the case materials to the accused at the end of the preliminary investigation, as well as an imprecise recording of file documents. The court refused the applicant's request for release having regard to the gravity of the charges against him and the danger of his obstructing the establisment of the truth while at liberty. The applicant lodged an appeal against the refusal with the Magadan Regional Court which, on 15 March 1999, dismissed it. The Regional Court however revoked the decision to send the case back to the investigative authorities as unfounded and ordered the City Court to proceed with the trial. In a separate decision, issued on the same day, it considered the lengthy delay unjustifiable in view of the fact that the case was not particularly complex, and requested the City Court to inform it within one month of the measures taken. 70.     On 17 March 1999 the applicant submitted to the City Court another request for release from custody. On the same day he complained to the High Qualification Board of Judges about his lengthy detention without a court judgment.     Five days later, the applicant submitted a similar complaint to the Regional Qualification Board of Judges. On 5 April 1999 the applicant filed another complaint with the High Qualification Board of Judges about the prolonged delay in the proceedings. 71.     On 15 April 1999 the City Court resumed its examination of the applicant's case. At the hearing on 20 April 1999 the prosecutor requested that, in view of the length of the applicant's detention, a psychiatric evaluation of the applicant be carried out in order to determine the state of his mental health. The City Court granted this request and adjourned the hearing until 30   April   1999. 72.     At the hearing on 30 April 1999 the applicant unsuccessfully applied for release from custody. He submitted that he was suffering from a lack of sleep. In his cell there were 18 inmates who had to sleep in shifts. He further argued that he could not obstruct the establishment of the truth in his case as all the investigative measures had already been taken. The prosecutor participating in the hearing asked the City Court to request the administration of the detention facility in which the applicant was being held to provide the applicant with conditions allowing normal sleep and rest during the court hearings. The prosecutor further stated that he would submit a similar request to the prosecutor in charge of supervising detention facilities. The applicant submits that subsequently the competent prosecutor came to his cell, acknowledged that the conditions were poor, but stated that the situation in other cells in the detention facility was no better and that there was no money to improve the conditions. 73.     At the hearing on 8 June 1999 the applicant requested his release. He stated that in his cell, where there were 18 inmates, he could not prepare himself adequately to testify before the trial court. He further submitted that he had contracted scabies twice and that his bed sheets were not changed. The applicant's request was rejected. 74.     At the hearing on 16 June 1999 the applicant filed another request for release, referring to the conditions of his detention. He submitted that he had a fungal infection and that his body was covered with sores caused by bites from bugs infesting his bed. He was sharing his bed with two other inmates. Inmates could shower once every two weeks. The atmosphere in the cell was stifling as everybody smoked. He was feeling unwell and suffering from a heart condition. His weight had dropped from 96 kg to 67   kg. He further submitted that he could not obstruct the examination of his case if released. The City Court decided not to examine the request because it was apparently made outside the context of the hearing. 75.     On 22 June 1999 the High Qualification Board of Judges removed the president of the Magadan City Court from office, as well as the president of the Regional Court and his two deputies, due to the delay in examining the applicant's case. 76.     At the hearing before the City Court on 23 June 1999, the applicant stated that he was feeling unwell and that he could not participate. The court ordered a medical examination of the applicant by a commission of experts in order to determine whether his state of health allowed him to take part in the proceedings and whether he should be hospitalised. In their conclusions issued on an unspecified date in July 1999, the experts found that the applicant was suffering from a number of medical conditions (see paragraph 30 above). They considered that the treatment of these conditions did not require hospitalisation and that the applicant could remain in the detention facility. They also considered that the applicant's state of health allowed him to attend the court hearings and to give testimony. 77.     At the hearing on 15 July 1999, the applicant requested the trial court to release him from custody. He stated that the court had nearly concluded the examination of the evidence and that he could not obstruct the establishment of the truth. His request was refused. 78.     In another ruling issued on the same day, the City Court noted that, in the period from 15 April until 15 July 1999, it had examined more than 30 applications submitted by the applicant, including repetitive applications on previously rejected motions. It noted that the applicant had stated that he would testify only if his applications were granted and considered that such a position amounted to a deliberate attempt to delay the proceedings. 79.     The City Court heard 9 of the 29 witnesses who were to be summoned before it. The testimonies of 12 absent witnesses, which had been given during the pre-trial investigation, were read out in open court. 80.     By a judgment of 3 August 1999, the City Court found the applicant guilty on one count and acquitted him on two of the counts contained in the indictment, which had preferred 9 separate charges. It sentenced him to 5 years and 6 months' imprisonment in a correctional colony with a general regime, his term running from 29 June 1995. The City Court considered that the preliminary investigation had been of poor quality and that the investigators had unjustifiably attempted to increase the number of counts in the indictment. It also found an infringement of procedural norms consisting, inter alia , of shortcomings in the presentation in due form of the relevant documents to the court. These shortcomings had had to be corrected at the trial, which had caused a delay. The court noted that, in the course of the investigation, there had been a lack of proper procedural supervision by those in charge of the investigation and the prosecutor's office of the Magadan Region. In a separate ruling on the same day, the City Court decided to send part of the indictment back to the prosecutor for an additional investigation.   The applicant appealed against the ruling to the Supreme Court, which on 30   September 1999 found the decision lawful. 81.     The City Court judgment of 3 August 1999 was open to appeal to the Regional Court within 7 days of its pronouncement. The applicant did not file an appeal in cassation as he considered that the Regional Court had contributed to his conviction and thus that an appeal had no prospects of success. On 11   August 1999 the judgment of the City Court entered into force. 82.     On 11 August 1999 the applicant submitted to the director of the detention facility where he was being held a request to transfer him to the logistical services team in the same facility to serve his sentence. 83.     On 25 October 1999 the applicant lodged an extraordinary appeal with the President of the Supreme Court of Russia for a review of the City Court judgment. On 11 November 1999 the appeal was dismissed. On 30 November 1999 the applicant filed another extraordinary appeal with the Supreme Court, which rejected it on 9 June 2000. 84.     On 24 September 1999, in the continuing criminal proceedings, the preventive custody measure was replaced by a ban on leaving a specified place. However, he remained in custody, serving his original sentence. 85.     On 29 September 1999 the proceedings concerning the remainder of the charges were terminated on the ground that the acts committed by the applicant did not constitute a criminal offence. On 30 September 1999, however, a new charge relating to the misappropriation of property in his capacity as the bank's president was brought against the applicant. 86.     On 19 October 1999, upon completion of the preliminary investigation, the competent prosecutor approved the bill of indictment and sent the case to the Magadan City Court for trial. The bill of indictment bore the original case no.   48529 and stated that the proceedings in that case had been initiated on 8   February 1995. The applicant's trial started on 20   December 1999. By a judgment of 31 March 2000 the City Court acquitted the applicant of the new charge. 87.     On 26 June 2000 the applicant was released from prison following an amnesty declared on 26 May 2000.     II.     RELEVANT DOMESTIC LAW 88.     A.     Constitution of the Russian Federation Point 6 (2) of Section 2 “Until criminal-procedural legislation of the Russian Federation has been brought into line with the provisions of this Constitution, the previous procedure for the arrest, detention and keeping in custody of persons suspected of committing a crime shall apply.” 89.     B.     Code of Criminal Procedure Article 11 (1): Personal inviolability “No one may be arrested otherwise than on the basis of a judicial decision or a prosecutor's order.” Article 89 (1): Application of preventive measures “When there are sufficient grounds for believing that an accused person may evade an inquiry, preliminary investigation or trial or will obstruct the establishment of the truth in a criminal case or will engage in criminal activity, as well as in order to secure the execution of a sentence, the person conducting the inquiry, the investigator, the prosecutor and the court may apply one of the following preventive measures in respect of the accused: a written undertaking not to leave a specified place, a personal guarantee or a guarantee by a public organisation, or placement in custody.” Article 92 : Order and decision on the application of a preventive measure “On the application of a preventive measure a person conducting an inquiry, an investigator and a prosecutor shall make a reasoned order, and a court shall give a reasoned decision specifying the criminal offence which the individual concerned is suspected of having committed, as well as the grounds for choosing the preventive measure applied. The order or decision shall be notified to the person concerned, to whom at the same time the procedure for appealing against the application of the preventive measure shall be explained. A copy of the order or decision on the application of the preventive measure shall be immediately handed to the person concerned.” Article 96: Placement in custody “Placement in custody as a preventive measure shall be done in accordance with the requirements of Article 11 of this Code concerning criminal offences for which the law prescribes a penalty in the form of deprivation of freedom for a period of more than one year. In exceptional cases, this preventive measure may be applied in criminal matters for which a penalty in the form of deprivation of freedom for a period of less than one year is prescribed by law.” Article 97: Time-limits for pre-trial detention “A period of detention during the investigation of offences in criminal cases may not last longer than two months. This time-limit may be extended by up to three   months by a district or municipal prosecutor ... if it is impossible to complete the investigation and there are no grounds for altering the preventive measure. A further extension of up to six months from the day of placement in custody may be effected only in cases of special complexity by a prosecutor of a constituent part of the Russian Federation ... An extension of the time-limit for such detention beyond six months shall be permissible in exceptional cases and solely in respect of persons accused of committing serious or very serious criminal offences. Such an extension shall be effected by a deputy of the Prosecutor General of the Russian Federation (up to one year) and by the Prosecutor General of the Russian Federation (up to 18 months). No further extension of the time-limit shall be permissible, and the accused held in custody shall be releasable immediately. The documents of a completed investigation in a criminal case shall be produced for consultation by the accused and his defence counsel not later than one month before the expiry of the maximum time-limit for remand in custody, as prescribed in the second paragraph of the present Article. In the event of the accused being unable to consult the case documents before the expiry of the maximum time-limit for remand in custody, the Prosecutor General of the Russian Federation, [or] a prosecutor of a constituent part of the Russian Federation ... may, not later than five days before the expiry of the maximum time-limit for remand in custody, apply to the judge of the “oblast”, “krai” or comparable court for an extension of this time-limit. Not later than five days from the day of receipt of the application, the judge must take one of the following decisions: 1.     to extend the time-limit for remand in custody until the accused and his counsel have consulted the case documents and the case has been referred to the trial court by the prosecutor but, anyway, for not more than six months; 2.     to reject the prosecutor's application and to release the person concerned from custody. Under the same procedure, the time-limit for remand in custody may be extended, if necessary, to accede to a request by the accused or his counsel to pursue the preliminary investigation further. If a court remits a case for further investigation when the time-limit for the accused's remand in custody has expired, but the circumstances of the case pr