CEDH · CASELAW;JUDGMENTS;CHAMBER;ENG — 13 juillet 2006

.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 } .s58001146 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:center; font-size:9.5pt } .s61D46DEC { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:center } .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 } .s491F5244 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic; color:#ff0000 } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s6FE3CD19 { font-family:Arial; font-size:9.5pt; font-style:italic } .s4ACA9207 { page-break-before:always; clear:both; mso-break-type:section-break } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .sB9D5CABB { width:28.35pt; display:inline-block } .s61ED8A2B { width:14.36pt; display:inline-block } .s61E420C2 { font-family:Arial; font-variant:small-caps } .s84D0D60A { width:8.36pt; display:inline-block } .sEC177689 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:36pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s967D43C6 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s87F05BA2 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .sC443675D { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:30pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .sD2857263 { margin-top:30pt; margin-left:17.85pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17.85pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s401C450A { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s684F2214 { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:29.2pt; margin-bottom:24pt; text-indent:-17.6pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s25BD2B45 { margin-top:24pt; margin-left:36.6pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-15.05pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s984A15CA { margin-top:6pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .sD5DF731 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .sC702907E { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:36.6pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-15.05pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s6477A72F { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s1EFD787B { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:0.05pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .sA1CDB767 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .s281358E1 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .sFD4D42B6 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .s1913A4C6 { margin-top:6pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s8378218E { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:48.75pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-17pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .s11869A80 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s9D48DD53 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .sEC2CB098 { margin-top:6pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s8EB5F569 { font-family:Arial; font-size:6.67pt; vertical-align:super } .s8A9F351B { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:24pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .s6B505E72 { margin:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .sBB4B540F { margin-top:24pt; margin-left:29pt; margin-bottom:24pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:0.6pt; font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s7EE1C8F0 { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:29.2pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17.6pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sE7C30868 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s40E9DAE9 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .s7D2D15E { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .s8C771D24 { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:48.75pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .s13F94BDE { font-family:Arial; letter-spacing:-0.1pt } .s988F61DE { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .s3E2DB4A0 { margin-top:18pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .sCA92750 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:42pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .sD777C0A5 { margin-top:42pt; margin-bottom:30pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s9F223FEE { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:17.85pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17.85pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s88A92475 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sB04603A1 { margin-top:6pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s507703F { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s83BE5C30 { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; vertical-align:super } .sF0957490 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s8F4EE4B8 { margin-top:6pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .sB1BD30C0 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:24pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .s804EF768 { margin-top:24pt; margin-left:29.2pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17.6pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s8E011338 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s56E27C8 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:24pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .s3B3A5DE9 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:36pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .sAB173E38 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:17pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-17pt; text-align:justify } .s127C7598 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:17pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-17pt; text-align:justify } .sD66C1369 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:17.3pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s81CCF55C { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:17pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17pt; text-align:justify } .s7CB9076 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s8A7788FC { width:42.94pt; display:inline-block } .sD2F08BAA { width:176.3pt; display:inline-block } .sF2E32F9B { width:36.61pt; display:inline-block } .s5F32E900 { width:208.31pt; display:inline-block }     FIRST SECTION     CASE OF POPOV v. RUSSIA     (Application no. 26853/04)     JUDGMENT       STRASBOURG   13 July 2006       FINAL     11/12/2006       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 Popov v. Russia, The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting as a Chamber composed of:   Mr   C.L. Rozakis , President ,   Mr   L. Loucaides ,   Mrs   F. Tulkens ,   Mrs   N. Vajić ,   Mr   A. Kovler ,   Mrs   E. Steiner ,   Mr   K. Hajiyev, judges , and Mr S. Nielsen , Section Registrar , Having deliberated in private on 22 June 2006, Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date: PROCEDURE 1.     The case originated in an application (no. 26853/04) 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 Mikhail Yevgenyevich Popov (“the applicant”), on 14 July 2004. 2.     The applicant, who had been granted legal aid, was represented by Mr   M.I. Kogan, a lawyer practising in Moscow. The Russian Government (“the Government”) were represented by Mr P. Laptev, Representative of the Russian Federation at the European Court of Human Rights. 3.     On 13 December 2004 the Court decided to communicate the application to the Government. Under the provisions of Article 29 § 3 of the Convention, it decided to examine the merits of the application at the same time as its admissibility. 4.     On 9 February 2005 the Court decided to request the Government to provide additional factual information concerning the applicant's allegations of being threatened by State officials in connection with his application before the Court and censorship of his correspondence with his representative. 5.     On 25 March 2005 the Court decided to communicate to the Government the complaints concerning the alleged pressure from State officials and censorship of the applicant's correspondence with his representative and to put to them an additional question concerning the conditions of detention in the YaCh-91/5 ( ИТК ЯЧ-91/5 ) prison in Sarapul. 6.     On 1 September 2005 the Chamber decided to apply Rule 39 of the Rules of Court, indicating to the Government not to require the applicant to perform any physical activity in the YaCh-91/5 prison in Sarapul, including physical labour and physical exercise, until further notice. Furthermore, the Government were called upon to take the initiative of securing an independent medical examination of the applicant in a specialised uro-oncological institution within one month after receipt of the notice and further to secure such medical treatment as might be required according to the results of the examination. The Government were requested to inform the Court of the measures thus taken. 7.     On 24 November 2005 the Chamber decided to lift the interim measure previously indicated under Rule 39 of the Rules of Court in the part related to the medical examination and to prolong until further notice the interim measure in the part related to the exempting of the applicant from any physical activity in the YaCh-91/5 prison in Sarapul. 8.     On 22 June 2006 the Court decided that a hearing in the case was unnecessary (Rule 59 § 3 of the Rules of Court). It further dismissed the Government's objection concerning the application of Article   29 § 3 of the Convention and the applicant's request for investigative measures (Rule A1 of the Annex to the Rules of the Court). THE FACTS THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE 9.     The applicant was born in 1978 and lives in Moscow. He is currently serving his sentence in the YaCh-91/5 prison in Sarapul. A.     The facts of the case   1.     Pre-trial proceedings 10.     On 26 September 2001 at around 2 p.m. four teenagers attending a school for children with impaired hearing, while walking in Sokolniki park towards a tram stop, saw two young men fighting. One of the youths was later found dead. It was established that his death had occurred on the aforementioned date. The schoolboys described the event to their teacher. They noted that the alleged offender had been wearing a ponytail and a leather jacket. 11.     On 14 May 2002, at 12 noon, police officers came to the applicant's flat and asked him to accompany them to the police station. The applicant complied with the request. In the police station he was searched and placed in a cell. At 2 p.m. he was interviewed as a witness. The applicant stated, inter alia , that he did not know the victim and had never heard his name. At 3 p.m. the applicant took part in an identification parade before two of the four schoolboys, Z. and M., who identified him as a person they had seen fighting on 26 September 2001. At 4 p.m. the investigator ordered the applicant's detention. According to the applicant, the detention order was not given to him for his signature. In the order it was indicated that the applicant's mother had been notified about his detention. 12.     At 6.50 p.m. the investigator started the search in the applicant's flat. The applicant's desktop PC, mobile phone, photo album, notebook, a bag with diskettes, a leather jacket, two pairs of boots and two pairs of jeans were seized in the course of the search. 13.     Between 8.40 p.m. and 9.45 p.m. the applicant was interviewed as a suspect in connection with the murder committed on 26 September 2001. 14.     On 15 May 2002 the applicant was transferred to the temporary detention centre IVS   Sokolniki. 15.     On 17 May 2002 the investigator ordered the applicant to be taken into custody as a preventive measure. 16.     On 21 May 2002 the applicant took part in another identification parade before the other two schoolboys who had also witnessed the fight on 26   September 2001. One of the boys, F., stated he was not sure he had seen the applicant. The other boy, Sh., submitted that he had never seen him before. 17.     On 24 May 2002 the applicant was charged with murder. On the same date he was interviewed as the accused. He was assisted by an advocate K., appointed by the investigator. 18.     On 25 May 2002 the applicant was transferred to remand prison SIZO 77/1 in Moscow. 19.     On 21 June 2002 the advocate K. filed a complaint with the prosecutor concerning the conduct of the investigation. He alleged, inter alia , that the identification parades had been in breach of procedural requirements. In particular, the persons lined up with the applicant had been much older and the applicant had been the only one wearing a ponytail, which significantly decreased the evidential credibility of the identification. He further complained that the investigator had taken no steps to verify the applicant's alibi. In particular, Mrs R., the applicant's neighbour, who claimed to have seen him during the day on 26   September   2001, Mr Kh., the carpenter, who was performing work at the applicant's flat on that date, and Mrs K., the applicant's girlfriend's mother, had not been questioned. 20.     On 2 July 2002 the Prosecutor allowed the advocate K.'s motion to have Mrs R., Mr Kh. and Mrs K. examined as witnesses. However, neither Mrs R. nor Mr Kh. were examined in the course of the investigation. 21.     On 8 July 2002 the Preobrazhenskiy District Court of Moscow extended the term of the applicant's pre-trial detention until 13   September   2002 on the grounds that, being accused of a grave offence, he might abscond during the investigation and interfere with the establishment of the truth in the case. 22.     It appears that between July and September 2002 the applicant appointed as his representative advocate A. instead of advocate K., previously appointed by the investigator. Advocate A. assisted him throughout the rest of the proceedings. 23.     On 10 September 2002 the Preobrazhenskiy District Court extended the term of the applicant's pre-trial detention until 14 November 2002 on the same grounds as those indicated in its ruling of 8 July 2002. 24.     On 12 November 2002 the Preobrazhenskiy District Court extended the term of his pre-trial detention until 14 January 2003 on the same grounds as those indicated in its ruling of 8 July 2002. At the same hearing the court granted the applicant leave for his uncle's participation in the proceedings as his representative. 25.     On 21 November 2002 the applicant appealed against the extension of the term of his detention. 26.     It appears that on 2 December 2002 the order of 12   November 2002 was upheld on appeal. 27.     On 18 December 2002 the applicant was notified about the termination of the preliminary investigation. The applicant was again notified about the termination of the preliminary investigation on 30   December 2002. 28.     On 10 January 2003 the Prosecutor drew up a bill of indictment and referred the case to court. The bill of indictment stated that, on 26   September 2001 at around 2 p.m., near the entrance to the Sokolniki park, the applicant had quarrelled with the victim for unidentified reasons. The quarrel had turned into a fight. Due to “sudden personal hostility” the applicant had struck the victim at the nape with an unidentified blunt, hard object and had then cut his throat with an unidentified sharp object. The bill of indictment enumerated the items of evidence with reference to the pages of the case file. It contained no clarification as to their relevance. 2.     Court proceedings 29.     On 4 February 2003 the Preobrazhenskiy District Court scheduled the hearing for 17 February 2003 and ordered the preventive measure of restraint applied to the applicant to remain unchanged. The applicant appealed against the ruling. 30.     On 17 February 2003 the Preobrazhenskiy District Court allowed the advocate A.'s motion to call Mrs R. as a witness at the hearing. The court refused leave for the applicant's uncle to participate in the proceedings as his representative since he was represented by a lawyer. Mr Kh. appeared at the hearing among other witnesses. However, none of them was examined because the court adjourned the hearing on the merits owing to the appeal lodged against the ruling of 4 February 2003. 31.     On 22 April 2003 the Moscow City Court quashed the ruling of 4   February 2003 and remitted the matter for a fresh examination. 32.     On 10 May 2003 the Preobrazhenskiy District Court ruled that it would hold a preliminary hearing of the case on 19 May 2003 and ordered the preventive measure applied to the applicant to remain unchanged. 33.     On 19 May 2003 the Preobrazhenskiy District Court ruled that it would hold a hearing on the merits on 12 June 2003. On the same date the applicant filed a motion for the record of his interview on 14 May 2002 and the records of the identification parades to be excluded from the body of evidence as inadmissible. The prosecutor stated that he would leave it for the court to decide. The court held as follows: “[Mr] Popov's motion ... should be dismissed because the case has not yet been considered on the merits, the judicial investigation has not been conducted, therefore the assessment of all the evidence in the case, including the documents that [Mr]   Popov seeks to have excluded, shall be made when the case is considered on the merits.” The court scheduled the next hearing for 12 June 2003. 34.     The hearings of 12 and 18 June 2003 were adjourned. On 18   June   2003 the Preobrazhenskiy District Court extended the term of the applicant's detention until 18 September 2003 and refused leave for his uncle to participate in the proceedings as his representative on the ground that he was represented by a lawyer. The applicant appealed against the ruling. 35.     On 8 September 2003 the Preobrazhenskiy District Court held a hearing on the merits. The minutes of the hearing stated that witnesses had appeared and had been removed from the courtroom. The names of the witnesses were not specified. The applicant's counsel filed a motion to call Mrs R., the applicant's neighbour, at the hearing in order to confirm his alibi and provide information about his personality. The prosecutor objected on the grounds that the information about the applicant's personality would be obtained from his relatives. The court dismissed the motion without giving any reasons. 36.     At the hearing of 8 September 2003 the court heard evidence from three of the four schoolboys who had witnessed the events of 26 September 2001. M. confirmed that he had seen the applicant that day. Z.   stated that although he had identified him at the identification parade, he could not at present remember exactly what the offender had looked like. F.   submitted that he did not recognise the applicant. Their teacher, examined at the hearing, submitted that the schoolboys had good eyesight, although owing to the particularities of their mental state suffered from certain lapses of memory or forgetfulness, because of which they could not adequately recollect a situation after half a year. The court also heard evidence from the victim's parents. His father stated that he had received an anonymous call and had been told that the applicant had murdered their son. At 3.56 p.m. the judge adjourned the hearing until the next day. 37.     On 9 September 2003 the hearing continued. The record of the hearing did not contain information as to whether particular witnesses had attended. It appears that Mrs R. was present at the hearing because she placed her signature on a document dated 9 September 2003 to confirm that she had been notified of criminal responsibility for giving false evidence. The document was also signed by the trial judge. However, Mrs R. had not been examined at the hearing. 38.     At the hearing the Preobrazhenskiy District Court heard evidence from   Mrs P., the applicant's mother, who submitted that on 26 September 2001 the applicant had stayed at home until the evening and had also been seen by their neighbour Mrs   R. and the carpenter Mr Kh. Miss K., the applicant's girlfriend, submitted that on 26   September   2001 between 9   p.m. and 12 midnight she and the applicant had walked her dog. Mrs K., her mother, submitted that between 1.30 p.m. and 3.30 p.m. on 26   September   2001 she had spoken to the applicant on the telephone a number of times and he had been at home. The court also heard evidence from a computer expert, Mr   G., and from the applicant's friend, Mr   B. 39.     The applicant's counsel filed a motion to supplement the pleadings by summoning and examining Mr Kh. The court dismissed the motion on the grounds that Mr Kh. had been notified of the hearing but had failed to appear. 40.     On 10   September 2003 the Preobrazhenskiy District Court convicted the applicant of murder and sentenced him to ten years' imprisonment.     The court held that on 26 September 2001 at around 2 p.m. near the entrance to Sokolniki park the applicant had quarrelled with the victim for unidentified reasons. The quarrel had turned into a fight. Due to “sudden personal hostility” the applicant had struck the victim at the nape with an unidentified blunt, hard object and then cut his throat with an unidentified sharp object. 41.     The court found that the applicant's guilt was confirmed by the statements of M. and Z., who had identified him as the person they had seen fighting with the victim, and by a similar statement from F., who, however, noted that he was only fifty per cent sure that it was the applicant he had seen. The court noted the schoolboys' teacher's statement to the effect that they had no mental abnormalities. The court further stated that the applicant's guilt was also confirmed by Mr G., who submitted that a password and log-in identification for each user were personal and allowed the location of the user and his correspondence with other users to be determined; by Mr B., who submitted that he was aware that the applicant had used the nickname “Spencer” on the Internet and that he had a black leather jacket; by the victim's post-mortem; by the crime scene reports; by the inspection reports concerning the victim's computer and diskettes and a computer and diskettes belonging to a certain Mr X., it was not specified who he was; by inspection reports in respect of the applicant's personal items; by references from two Internet providers; by a reference from the Internet provider MTU-Intel, stating that on 12 September 2001 at 11.16   p.m. a user accessed the Internet from the applicant's mother's telephone. 42.     The court dismissed the applicant's motion to exclude the reports of identification parades as inadmissible evidence. Having regard to the witness statements made at the hearing and to the case file, the court found that the identification parades had been conducted in accordance with procedural rules. The court further found that no credence could be given to the submissions of Mrs P., Miss K. and Mrs K. because, being the applicant's relatives, they had sought to help him. 43.     The applicant appealed against the judgment on the grounds, inter alia , that the trial court had relied on inadmissible evidence, had dismissed his motion to call Mrs   R. at the hearing and had refused to adjourn the hearing in order to call Mr Kh. 44.     On 4 November 2003 the Moscow City Court examined the applicant's appeal against the ruling of 18 June 2003 concerning the extension of his pre-trial detention. The court upheld the ruling. The applicant and his counsel were present at the hearing. 45.     On 6 November 2003 the Moscow City Court addressed the Preobrazhenskiy District Court in a letter stating that the appeal against the ruling of 18 June 2003 lodged by the applicant on 24 June 2003 had not been transmitted for examination in due course and that the case-file had been received by the Moscow City Court only on 4 November 2003. The Moscow City Court further noted that appeals against rulings concerning the application of a preventive measure should be transmitted immediately to the appeal court and failure to do so entailed a limitation of the right of access to a court. 46.     On 20 January 2004 the Moscow City Court upheld on appeal the judgment of 10   September 2003. The court, inter alia , stated: “The crime was committed in Moscow in the circumstances set out in the [trial] court's judgment. ... The [trial] court was right to base its conclusions concerning the guilt of [the applicant] on the statements of [the witnesses]. The [appeal court] finds that such assessment ... corresponds to the body of evidence in the case: ...the computer databases, where the correspondence between the [applicant] using the nickname “Spencer” and the victim is recorded, and the relevant statement of [Mr B]. ... The argument [put forward in the applicant's appeal] that his version about his being at home on the date of the crime was not duly examined is unsubstantiated. ... The lawfulness of the procedural actions taken in the present case was checked, and the court's findings were not based on any evidence [the lawfulness] of which would give rise to doubts. ... ” 47.     On an unspecified date the applicant challenged the constitutionality of Article 49 § 2 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in the Constitutional Court. The applicant claimed that the trial court had based on that provision its refusal to allow his uncle's participation in the proceedings as his defence counsel. The trial court had thus infringed his rights enshrined in Article   45 § 2 of the Constitution, which provided that everyone was entitled to defend his or her rights by any lawful means. 48.     On 22 April 2004 the Constitutional Court dismissed the complaint as inadmissible. It held that Article 49 § 2 of the Code of Criminal Procedure did not provide any limitations as regards participation of the accused's relatives in the proceedings. Therefore, it did not violate the applicant's rights protected by Article 45 § 2 of the Constitution. Inasmuch as the applicant's rights could have been infringed by the court's arbitrary refusal to admit his relative to participate in the proceedings, he should have had recourse to remedies available under the laws on criminal procedure. 3.     Material conditions of detention in remand prison SIZO 77/1 49.     Between 24 May 2002 and 15 February 2004 the applicant was detained in remand prison SIZO 77/1 in Moscow. (a)     The applicant's account 50.     Between 24 May and 14 June 2002 the applicant had been held in cell no.   236. 10 inmates were held in a cell measuring approximately 5 sq. m with 6   beds. The lavatory pan was placed a meter away from the dining table and was not separated by a partition. Food was provided twice a day. There was a very small window which did not let the daylight in and the artificial light was never turned off. The inmates were allowed to take a walk of 40 minutes per day. 51.     Between 14 June and approximately 15 December 2002 the applicant had been held in cell no.   118. Between 75 and 90 inmates were held in a cell measuring approximately 25-30 sq. m with 24   beds in two tiers. The inmates had to sleep in three or four shifts. There was a very small window with no glass and the artificial light was never turned off. The temperature in the cell was +30-35º C. in summer and –10-12º C. in winter. The cell was always very damp. The lavatory pan, placed two to three meters from the dining table, always stank and there was no partition to separate it from the living area and the table. Food was provided twice a day. The cell was overrun by cockroaches, lice and bugs. Sometimes the applicant had had to share the cell with inmates infected with tuberculosis and HIV. He had had to sleep without appropriate bedding. All his personal belongings and food sent to him by his mother had been taken away from him by other inmates allegedly with the consent of the prison authorities. 52.     Between 15 December 2002 and 15 January 2003 the applicant had been held in cell no.   143. He submitted that the conditions of detention had been similar to those in cell no. 118. There were 26 beds for 60 inmates. 53.     Between 15 and 30 January 2003 the applicant had been held in cell no.   127. The conditions of detention were similar to those in cell no.   118. There were 22 beds for 60-70 inmates. 54.     Between 30 January and 10 March 2003 the applicant had been held in cell no.   739, which belonged to the medical unit. In the cell measuring approximately 6 sq. m there were 4 beds for 4 inmates. Walks were not allowed. Food was provided twice a day. There was no dining table. The lavatory pan was not separated from the living area. There was no hot water in the cell. No medical treatment was offered. 55.     Between 10 March and 15 September 2003 the applicant had been held in cell no.   113. The conditions of detention were similar to those in cell no. 127. 50 inmates were held in a cell measuring approximately 30 sq. m with 26   beds. 56.     Between 15 September 2003 and approximately 10 January 2004 the applicant had been held in cell no.   115. The conditions of detention were similar to those in the cell no. 127. 50 inmates were held in a cell measuring approximately 25 sq. m with 18   beds. 57.     Between 10 January and approximately 14 February 2004 the applicant had been held in another cell, possibly no.   152. 60-70 inmates were held in a cell measuring approximately 20 sq. m with 15   beds. The inmates had to sleep in four shifts. The cell was in a basement with no window and no ventilation. The walls of the cell were wet with condensation, the cell was always very damp and there was water on the floor. The temperature in the cell was always very low. The lavatory pan was placed half a meter from the dining table and there was no partition to separate it from the living area. 58.     The applicant submitted that between December 2002 and September 2003 he had filed a number of complaints concerning various aspects of his detention in remand prison SIZO 77/1, inter alia , with the Prosecutor's Office of Moscow and the General Prosecutor. However, he had received no reply. (b) The Government's account 59.     Between 24 and 26 May 2002 the applicant had been in cell no. 119, which measured 52.6 sq. m and held 39 inmates simultaneously. Between 26 May and 5 June 2002 the applicant had been in cell no. 236, which measured 18.72 sq. m and held 8 inmates. Between 5 June and 9 July 2002 he had been in cell no. 119, which measured 52.6 sq. m and held 37 inmates. Between 9   July and 25 November 2002 the applicant had been in cell no. 120, which measured 53.8 sq. m and held 37 inmates. Between 25   November   2002 and 4 January 2003 he had been in cell no. 143, which measured 53.4 sq.   m and held 46 inmates. Between 4 and 23 January 2003 he had been in cell no. 127, which measured 51.2 sq. m and held 55 inmates. Between 23   January and 21 March 2003 he had been in cell no. 739, which measured 21.6 sq.   m and held 4 inmates. Between 21 March and 6   August 2003 the applicant had been in cell no. 122, which measured 52.6 sq. m and held 40 inmates. Between 6 and 21 August 2003 he had been in cell no. 714, which measured 24.5 sq. m and held 5 inmates. Between 21 and 25 August 2003 the applicant had been in cell no. 122, which measured 52.6 sq. m and held 58 inmates. Between 25 August and 10 September 2003 he had been in cell no. 711, which measured 24.5 sq. m and held 1 inmate. Between 10 September 2003 and 15 February 2004, when the applicant was transferred to the YaCh-91/5 prison in Sarapul, he had been in cell no. 115, which measured 40 sq. m and held 29 inmates. 60.     During the applicant's detention in remand prison SIZO 77/1 he had been provided with a bed and bedding in accordance with prison standards. He had been provided with clothing appropriate to the season. He had received hot meals three times a day (breakfast, dinner, supper) in accordance with prison standards. He had undergone hygienic procedures ( санитарная обработка ) once a week. The applicant had never been placed in the same cell as inmates infected with tuberculosis or HIV. 4.     Alleged ill-treatment in remand prison SIZO 77/1 61.     The applicant asserted that in the remand prison he had been regularly beaten by his cellmates and threatened with murder, allegedly with the consent or even under the instructions of the prison and investigative authorities, with a view to forcing him into self-incrimination. In August 2002 he had been hit with a heavy metal rod against his head. He had fainted, had sustained concussion of the brain and his right ear had been badly cut. In August, September and November 2002 the applicant had sustained multiple fractures in his nose and haematomas on his face. He submitted that his face and ears had been black and blue and he could hardly open his eyes. His nasal bones did not knit properly and the nasal partition had collapsed leading to disfiguration of his face. The applicant could not breath through one of his nostrils, always had a runny nose and almost lost his sense of smell. His ears often ached and his hearing was impaired. His sight had also worsened. The applicant also alleged that he had been regularly kicked, which had caused internal bruising and blood in his urine. 62.     On 24 October 2002 the applicant's mother wrote to the Director of remand prison SIZO 77/1 concerning the applicant's correspondence from the remand prison. She stated that in mid-September the applicant had sent complaints about various aspects of the conditions of detention in the remand prison to the Ministry of Justice and to an NGO Committee for Civil Rights. However, he had not received notification that the complaints had been sent or any replies. The applicant's mother asked to be informed whether the complaints had been sent and why the applicant had not received notification. The letter was received by the remand prison on the next day. It appears that there was no reply. 63.     The applicant submitted that he had applied a number of times to the medical unit of the remand prison, but had never been duly examined by a doctor. At the same time, the entry of 1 November 2002 in his medical file stated that he had “fading haematomas”. 64.     On 26 August 2004 the applicant sent a letter to his representative describing, inter alia , his beating by his cellmates. He wrote that he had not made any complaints in this regard because he had been threatened with murder. 65.     The Government submitted that during his detention in remand prison SIZO 77/1 the applicant had not been subjected to any forms of ill-treatment and sustained no injuries. 5.     Alleged lack of adequate medical assistance in remand prison SIZO   77/1 66.     Since 1994 the applicant had been suffering from cancer of the urinary bladder. In 1999 he underwent a resection of the cancerous tumour and subsequent chemotherapy. Despite the operation, his condition requires permanent medical supervision and specialised treatment. (a)     The applicant's account 67.     According to the applicant, during his detention in remand prison SIZO 77/1 in Moscow, he had been subject to paroxysms of pain in his kidneys and stomach, together with a high temperature of 39.8º C. He had applied for medical assistance almost every week. However, either he was provided with no medical assistance at all or it was offered to him a week after the paroxysm. The only medicine the applicant had received was an analgesic. He had not been given the specialised medicine prescribed by his uro-oncologist and bought for him by his mother at the request of the remand prison medical unit. On a number of occasions the applicant had undergone blood and urine tests and ultrasound scans. In 2003 he had been placed in the medical unit several times. However, the medical unit did not have facilities to perform specialised tests, e.g., a cystoscopy. The applicant had refused to undergo certain tests because the personnel of the medical unit was not qualified to perform them. The unit did not have a uro-oncologist and the applicant had never been examined by a qualified specialist. The ultrasound scan performed in August 2003 had revealed a new tumour in his prostate measuring eight millimetres. The diagnosis had been confirmed by the ultrasound scan performed in September 2003. A scan performed in December 2003 showed that the tumour had grown up to nine millimetres. The doctors of the medical unit had consulted by telephone the uro-oncologist, Dr   M., who used to supervise the applicant. However, the medical unit had never provided Dr M. with the information about the new tumour, as confirmed by his report of 9   September 2004. (b)     The Government's account 68.     According to the Government, upon the applicant's admission to remand prison SIZO 77/1 on 24 May 2002 he had informed the medical unit about the operated cancer of his urinary bladder. 69.     On 23 January 2003 he had been placed in the surgical department of the remand prison medical unit, where he was examined by a urologist, a surgeon and a physician and underwent a blood test, an electrocardiogram and two ultrasound scans. The applicant had been subjected to antibacterial, antiphlogistic and tonic treatment. He had been released from the medical unit on 21   March   2003 in a satisfactory state of health. Between 6 and 19   August   2003 the applicant had again been placed in the surgical department of the medical unit where he underwent a similar course of treatment. On 15   August 2003 he had been examined by a urologist. Between 25 August and 3   September 2003 the applicant had been placed in a therapeutic department of the medical unit. The results of the tests and examinations showed no signs of recurrent cancer. (c)     Complaints about medical assistance in remand prison SIZO 77/1 70.     In 2002 and 2003 the applicant's mother filed a number of complaints concerning the allegedly inadequate medical assistance available to the applicant in the remand prison. 71.     On 30 July 2002 the Head of the medical unit of remand prison SIZO 77/1, Ms E., wrote to the applicant's mother that her son had been examined on 14   June and 30 July 2002 and that his condition had been found to be satisfactory. He was under the constant supervision of the medical unit's personnel and would be provided with medical aid if required. 72.     On 4 February 2003 the Head of the surgical department of the medical unit informed the applicant's mother that the applicant had been placed there for a regular check-up on 23 January 2003. He had been diagnosed with chronic pyelonephritis and urine acid diathesis and his condition was satisfactory. 73.     On 27 May 2003 the Head of the medical unit informed the applicant's mother that the applicant had undergone a medical examination. The results of the examination were communicated to the uro-oncologist Dr M., who recommended another examination within three months. 74.     On 5 June 2003 the Head of the medical unit sent the applicant's mother a letter, the contents of which were similar to the letter of 27   May   2003. 75.     On 1 August 2003 the Head of the medical unit again wrote to the applicant's mother. Ms E. informed her that the applicant's medical records had been transmitted to the uro-oncologist Dr M., and that the recommended examination as well as treatment with medication containing iron would be conducted in the near future. For this purpose Ms E. asked the applicant's mother to supply the medication containing iron and vitamins. She noted that the applicant's condition was satisfactory. 76.     On 13 August 2003 the applicant's mother sent a letter to the Head of the Department for the Execution of Sentences asking him to transmit the results of the applicant's medical examination in the remand prison's medical unit to oncological dispensary no. 3. 77.     On 19 August 2003 the applicant's mother wrote to the Director of remand prison SIZO 77/1. She asked him to explain why the applicant had not received treatment with the medication containing iron that she had obtained upon the request of the medical unit. 78.     On 1 September 2003 the Head of the therapeutic department of the medical unit informed the applicant's mother, inter alia , that the blood tests performed between 6 and 19 August 2003 had shown no signs of anaemia. Therefore, treatment with medication containing iron was not required. Check-ups by a uro-oncologist and ultrasound scans were recommended once a year. 79.     On 2 September 2003 the applicant's mother again wrote to the Director of remand prison SIZO 77/1. The content of the letter was similar to that of 19 August 2003. 80.     On 4 September 2003 the Head of the therapeutic department of the medical unit re-sent its reply of 1 September 2003. 81.     On 17 September 2003 the Head of the Moscow Directorate of the Department for the Execution of Sentences, Mr Z., replied to the applicant's mother. He stated, inter alia , that the applicant was under the constant medical supervision of the medical unit and did not require specialised in-patient treatment in an oncological hospital. He further noted that the administration of the detention facility could invite external medical specialists only when it was necessary, that is when specialised supervision or treatment was not possible in the detention facility. 82.     On 18 September 2003 the Deputy Head of the medical unit of remand prison SIZO 77/1 informed the applicant's mother that the applicant's examination between 6 and 19 August 2003 and between 26   August and 2 September 2003 had revealed no signs of anaemia. The treatment   with medication containing iron was not required. The medication supplied by the applicant's mother had been stored at the medical unit and would be returned upon her first request. 6.     Conditions of detention and alleged lack of adequate medical assistance in the YaCh-91/5 prison in Sarapul 83.     Between 15 February and 18 March 2004 the applicant was transferred to the YaCh-91/5 prison in Sarapul. 84.     On 18 March 2004 the applicant was admitted to the prison. He informed the prison medical unit about the cancer of the urinary bladder operated in 1994. According to the applicant, no relevant tests had been performed for lack of required facilities and he had not been provided with any medical assistance. According to the Government, the applicant had refused to undergo any tests, which was confirmed by the statement of the medical personnel. 85.     According to the applicant, owing to the constant pain in his loins and stomach he had had to refuse to perform certain compulsory work in the prison. 86.     On 19 March 2004 the applicant was examined by a doctor with regard to his refusal to perform prison work. He complained of pain in his loins and strangury. The prison doctor diagnosed pyelonephritis and concluded that his state of health permitted him to perform prison work excluding hard labour. 87.     On the same date, because of his refusal to perform prison work, the applicant was placed in disciplinary cell no. 5, where he remained for 15 days. According to the applicant, the cell measuring approximately 4   sq. m held 4 inmates. There were bunk beds in the cell that were unfolded only for seven hours at night, the rest of the time being folded up against the walls. The lavatory pan was placed within 0.5-1.5 metres of the dining table and there was no partition between them. There was no ventilation and very faint artificial light. The average temperature in the cell was +9-12ºC. It was forbidden to boil water and to have food other than that provided by the prison administration three times a day. The inmates were also forbidden to wear clothes other than those provided by the prison, which were not warm enough. They were forbidden to wear wristwatches and glasses, although the applicant's sight was -4. The inmates were taken for a walk once a day. The applicant's state of health worsened and the paroxysms of pain became more frequent. He had blood pressure boosts and drops, difficulties with movement; his hands and his head started to shake. 88.     According to the Government, disciplinary cell no. 5 measured 6.1 sq. m and held 3 inmates simultaneously. It was equipped with four collapsible metal bunk beds with wooden cladding, a table, two benches, a lavatory pan, a wash-basin, a metal shelf for keeping items of personal hygiene and a radio. 89.     On 3 April 2004 the applicant was placed in disciplinary cell no.   6, where he remained for 5 days. According to the applicant, the conditions of detention were similar to those in disciplinary cell no. 5. According to the Government, disciplinary cell no. 5 measured 6.1 sq. m and held 2 inmates simultaneously. It was equipped in the same manner as disciplinary cell no. 5. 90.     On 9 April 2004 the applicant was examined with regard to his refusal to perform morning exercises. The prison doctor found him able to perform them. 91.     On the same date he was placed in disciplinary cell no. 7, where he remained for 15 days. According to the applicant, in the cell measuring approximately 8 sq. m there were 6 inmates. Otherwise the conditions of detention were similar to those in cells no. 5 and no. 6. According to the Government, disciplinary cell no. 7 measured 11.8 sq. m and held 5 inmates simultaneously. It was equipped with six collapsible metal bunk beds with wooden cladding, a table, two benches, a lavatory pan, a wash-basin, a metal shelf for keeping items of personal hygiene, a wooden cupboard and a radio. 92.     On 26 April 2004 the applicant was again examined with regard to his refusal to perform morning exercises and found able to perform them. 93.     On 27 April 2004 the applicant sent a letter to his mother. He described his poor state of health which included pains in his kidneys, unstable blood pressure, shaking hands and head, difficulties with movement. He wrote that he was not being properly treated in the prison and asked her to send him some medication. 94.     On 12 May 2004 the applicant sent a complaint to the Main Department for the Execution of Sentences concerning the lack of adequate medical treatment in the YaCh-91/5 prison and his placement in a disciplinary cell for refusing to perform prison work because of his poor state of health. 95.     On 7 June 2004 the applicant