CEDH · CASELAW;JUDGMENTS;CHAMBER;ENG — 12 juin 2008

.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 } .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 } .sE208486F { font-family:Arial; color:#ff0000 } .s491F5244 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic; color:#ff0000 } .s85016119 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; font-size:11pt } .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 } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sB9D5CABB { width:28.35pt; display:inline-block } .s61E420C2 { font-family:Arial; font-variant:small-caps } .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 } .s11869A80 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .sEC2CB098 { margin-top:6pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .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 } .s6477A72F { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s93EDF1FF { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:17.85pt; margin-bottom:30pt; text-indent:-17.85pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s3C0142D3 { margin-top:30pt; margin-left:29.2pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17.6pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .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 } .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 } .s8A9F351B { margin-top:12pt; 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 } .s3B3A5DE9 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:36pt; 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 } .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 } .s507703F { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:6pt; 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 } .s8E011338 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .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 VLASOV v. RUSSIA   (Application no. 78146/01)         JUDGMENT       STRASBOURG   12 June 2008         FINAL     12/09/2008     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 Vlasov v. Russia, The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting as a Chamber composed of:   Christos Rozakis, President,   Nina Vajić,   Anatoly Kovler,   Elisabeth Steiner,   Khanlar Hajiyev,   Dean Spielmann,   Sverre Erik Jebens, judges, and Søren Nielsen, Section Registrar , Having deliberated in private on 22 May 2008, Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date: PROCEDURE 1.     The case originated in an application (no. 78146/01) 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 Aleksey Yuryevich Vlasov (“the applicant”), on 4 July 2001. 2.     The applicant, who had been granted legal aid, was represented before the Court by Mr V. Kuznetsov, a lawyer practising in Moscow. The Russian Government (“the Government”) were represented by Mr   P. Laptev, the former Representative of the Russian Federation at the European Court of Human Rights. 3.     The applicant alleged, in particular, that the conditions in which he had been detained and transported had been inhuman and degrading, that the length of his detention and the criminal proceedings against him had been excessive, that unjustified restrictions had been imposed on family visits, correspondence and exchange of documents, and that he did not have an effective remedy at his disposal in respect to these complaints. 4.     By a decision of 14 February 2006, the Court declared the application partly admissible. 5.     The Government, but not the applicant, filed observations on the merits (Rule 59 § 1). THE FACTS I.     THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE 6.     The applicant was born in 1957 and lives in Moscow. He was the director of a diamond manufacturing and export company (“the company”). A.     Criminal proceedings against the applicant 1.     Arrest and detention pending trial 7.     On 9   July 1999 a criminal case (no. 144129) was opened against the applicant. He was suspected of having smuggled diamonds by using forged export contracts, an offence under Article 188 § 4 of the Criminal Code. 8.     On 18   August 1999 the applicant was arrested. On 20   August 1999 a prosecutor remanded him in custody. 9.     On 16   September 1999 the Preobrazhenskiy District Court of Moscow dismissed the applicant’s request for release on bail. On 7   October 1999 the Moscow City Court upheld the refusal on appeal. 10.     On 14   October 1999 a deputy Prosecutor General extended the applicant’s detention until 9   January 2000. On 16   December 1999 the Preobrazhenskiy District Court dismissed the applicant’s challenge to the extension order because, in the court’s view, the applicant’s “character” justified the detention. On 17   January 2000 the Moscow City Court upheld that decision on appeal. 11.     On 30   December 1999 a deputy Prosecutor General extended the applicant’s detention until 18 May 2000. On 19 April 2000 the Preobrazhenskiy District Court dismissed the applicant’s appeal against the extension order, finding that the order had been “lawful and justified”, but without giving further grounds in support of this finding. 12.     On 16   May 2000 a deputy Prosecutor General extended the applicant’s detention until 18   August 2000. On 4   August 2000 the Preobrazhenskiy District Court dismissed the applicant’s challenge to the extension order, finding that it had been lawful and justified. On 27   December 2000 the Moscow City Court upheld that decision on appeal. 13.     On 16   August and 18 September 2000 the acting Deputy Prosecutor General extended the applicant’s detention until 18 September and 18   November 2000 respectively. On 26 September 2000 the Preobrazhenskiy District Court of Moscow dismissed the applicant’s challenge to the extension orders, finding that they had been justified on account of the applicant’s “character” and the absence of “gross violations” of the criminal-procedure laws. On 9   January 2001 the Moscow City Court upheld that decision on appeal, referring to the applicant’s “character” and the gravity of the charges against him. 14.     On 17   November 2000 the Prosecutor General extended the applicant’s detention until 18   February 2001. On 31   January 2001 the Preobrazhenskiy District Court of Moscow dismissed the applicant’s challenge to the extension order, finding that the applicant’s “character” and the gravity of the charge rendered his detention lawful and justified. On 23   April 2001 the Moscow City Court upheld that decision on appeal. 2.     Splitting-up of criminal cases 15.     On 9 December 2000 the applicant was additionally charged with offences under Articles 188 § 3 (smuggling), 191 § 2 (unlawful trade in precious stones), and 327 (forgery of official documents) of the Criminal Code. 16.     On 28   December 2000 fifteen counts of smuggling, unlawful export of precious stones and forgery of documents were severed into a new criminal case, which was given the number 9307. 17.     On 18   February 2001 the investigation into the remaining charges in the framework of case no. 144129 was stayed. On 26   February 2002 the investigation resumed and has since been pending. 3.     Trial in case no. 9307 18.     On 12   January 2001 the applicant was given access to the case file. Further to the prosecution’s requests, on 16 February and 16 April 2001 the Moscow City Court extended the applicant’s detention until 18 April and 18   August 2001 respectively. On each occasion the court noted that there were no grounds to vary the preventive measure imposed on the applicant, in spite of the arguments advanced by the defence and the personal sureties offered on the applicant’s behalf by a Member of Parliament and a member of the Russian Academy of Sciences. It also referred to the gravity of the charges and to the applicant’s “character”. On 11   April and 23   May 2001 the Supreme Court upheld the City Court’s decisions on appeal, finding that there were “no sufficient grounds to vary the preventive measure”. 19.     According to the Government, the applicant’s counsel, Mr Korolev and Mr Dudnik, were deliberately dilatory in dealing with the case-file materials. On 26   February 2001 the investigator asked the president of the Moscow bar to ensure counsel’s regular attendance. On 28   March and 25 April 2001 the investigator’s superior repeated that request. The Government produced four reports of 1, 8 and 18 June 2001. In these reports investigation officers described private conversations with the applicant’s representatives, who allegedly stated that they would procrastinate until the maximum period of the applicant’s detention had expired. 20.     On 13   July 2001 case no.   9307 was submitted for trial before the Golovinskiy District Court of Moscow. 21.     On 6   August 2001 the District Court remitted the case for further investigation. On 3   October 2001 that decision was set aside by the Moscow City Court, and the trial resumed. 22.     On 11 December 2001 the District Court fixed a hearing for 25   December but then adjourned it to 28 January 2002 because the applicant’s counsel had gone on holiday. 23.     On 28   January 2002 the District Court refused the applicant’s petition for release. On 21   February 2002 the Moscow City Court upheld that decision on appeal. 24.     On 15   March 2002 the District Court extended the applicant’s detention until 29   April 2002, finding that his release would hinder “a thorough, comprehensive, and objective examination of the case”. 25.     On 1   April 2002 the District Court remitted case no.   9307 for further investigation. It found that the charges were formulated vaguely, that the applicant had not been questioned as a suspect, that his access to the file had been unlawfully restricted, and that the severing of certain charges had not been justified. These defects were to be remedied by the investigation. The court authorised the applicant’s further detention. 4.     Release on bail and conviction in case no. 9307 26.     On 12   July 2002 the Golovinskiy District Court released the applicant on bail. 27.     The hearing fixed for 26 July 2002 had to be adjourned until 9   September 2002 because one lawyer was involved in concurrent proceedings and the other was on leave. 28.     On 2 October 2002 the hearing was adjourned on account of the prosecutor’s illness. On 18 March and 13 May 2003 the hearings were postponed at the applicant’s request. 29.     On 28   July 2003 the Golovinskiy District Court found the applicant guilty of smuggling and unlawfully trading in diamonds. The applicant was sentenced to five years and six months’ imprisonment, suspended for three years. On 29   November 2003 the Moscow City Court upheld that judgment on appeal. B.     Restrictions on family visits and correspondence 1.     Restrictions on family visits 30.     On 24   December 1999 the investigator refused leave for a visit by the applicant’s mother and his wife. She stated that the investigator had discretion to authorise visits, but was not obliged to do so. 31.     According to the Government, on unspecified dates in 1999 the applicant was allowed to see his wife on “humanitarian grounds”. 32.     On 27 October 2000 the investigator refused counsel’s request of 28   September 2000 to allow the applicant to see his wife. The investigator indicated that the applicant’s wife was aware “of certain circumstances that [were] relevant to the matters under investigation” and also had “an interest in the outcome [of the case]”. As “family visits [could] be used to establish contact with other members of the organised criminal group or obstruct the establishment of the truth”, the wife’s visit would be “inopportune”. 33.     On 4   January 2001 the investigator refused a visit by the applicant’s seven-year-old daughter, stating that the applicant could use the visit to obstruct the investigation. 34.     On 17 January, 23 February, 12 and 13 March, 12 April, 14 May, 1   June and 2 July 2001 the investigator allowed the applicant to see his mother and/or daughter. According to the Government, in 2001 and 2002 the applicant was granted twenty-six family visits. 2.     Restrictions on the applicant’s correspondence and exchange of documents 35 .     On 20   December 1999 the applicant sent a complaint about the refusal to allow family visits and interference with his correspondence to the Basmanniy District Court of Moscow. On the following day the head of the correspondence department of the remand centre refused to post the complaint, citing the following reasons: “The court will not accept the complaint for examination in its present form. I also consider it necessary to explain that, under the Custody Act: (a)     the investigator may approve no more than two visits per month but by law he is not obliged to do so (section 18 § 3); (b)     pursuant to section 20 § 2, all correspondence is subject to censorship, including by the investigator who is in charge of the criminal case. The complaint has no prospects of success ( жалоба бесперспективна ).” 36.     On 22   December 1999 the applicant complained to the Ministry of Justice and the Prosecutor General’s Office that his complaint had not been posted. On 13   January 2000 the applicant’s complaint to the Ministry of Justice was returned to him. No reply from the Prosecutor General’s Office was received. 37 .     On 9   February 2000 the investigator refused to post the applicant’s letters to his wife and mother. She returned them to the director of the remand centre with the following note: “I am returning you the letters by Mr Vlasov, the defendant in criminal case no. 144129, addressed to Mrs L. Vlasova and dated 11, 24 and 28 January 2000, and to Mrs I. Vlasova, of 11 and 25 January 2000. On the basis of section 20 § 2 of the Custody Act these letters may not be sent to the addressees.” 38.     The applicant submitted to the Court copies of handwritten letters to his mother, dated 11, 24 and 28 January 2000. 39 .     On 6   March 2000 the applicant issued forms of authority to his counsel, Mr Kuznetsov and Ms Vasilyeva. By a letter of 20 March 2000, the first deputy director of the Investigations Department of the Ministry of the Interior returned the forms to the director of the remand centre, advising him as follows: “I would ask you to explain to Mr Vlasov, the defendant in criminal case no. 144129, that, pursuant to section 17 of the Custody Act and paragraph 12.11 of the Internal Rules for Remand Centres (approved by order no. 486 of 20 December 1995), detainees may enter into civil transactions on the basis of a form of authority certified by the head of the remand centre. Since the forms of authority issued by Mr Vlasov to Mr V. Kuznetsov and Ms   M.   Vasilyeva list actions which, under the civil legislation currently in force, are not civil transactions, there are no grounds for forwarding these forms to Mr   Kuznetsov or Ms Vasilyeva.” 40 .     On 30   August 2000 the applicant’s counsel submitted to the investigator a series of documents concerning the customs proceedings to which the applicant’s company was a party. On 28   September 2000 the investigator refused to transmit these to the applicant and appended them to the case-file, indicating that the applicant would be able to read them only after the investigation had been completed. 41.     According to the Government, in 2001 the applicant sent no letters to his relatives. His letters to public authorities were not subject to censorship and were posted without delay. Incoming letters were handed over to him on the day of receipt. 42 .     On 29 May 2001 counsel for the applicant asked for permission to pass to his client (i) a copy of a complaint to the Supreme Court, and (ii) a book “International instruments on human rights”. The director of the remand centre made a handwritten note on the petition: “I agree to accept a copy of the complaint”. 3.     Judicial decisions on the applicant’s complaints about restrictions 43.     On 28 March and 5   September 2000 the applicant complained to the Presnenskiy District Court of Moscow about the interception of the authority forms and commercial documents. By decisions of 7 April and 9   June 2001, the District Court disallowed the applicant’s complaints, finding that the law did not provide for judicial review of the investigator’s decisions concerning restrictions on family visits, correspondence or exchange of documents. On 3   October 2001 the Moscow City Court confirmed on appeal that the applicant’s complaints were not amenable to judicial review. 44.     On 4 and 11 September 2000 the applicant complained to the Basmannyy District Court of Moscow about the restrictions on family visits and correspondence imposed by the investigator. On 10   July 2001 the Basmannyy District Court, by a non-procedural communication, informed him that these complaints could not be examined by a court. 45.     The applicant complained to the Constitutional Court that he had not been able to obtain judicial review of restrictions on family visits, correspondence and exchange of documents. 46.     By a decision of 21   December 2001 (no. 298-O), the Constitutional Court confirmed its constant case-law to the effect that all decisions by an investigator or prosecutor which affected an interested party’s constitutional rights and were not related to the merits of the criminal charge were amenable to judicial review (see paragraph 75 below). It emphasised that this approach was fully applicable to the investigator’s decision concerning restrictions on family visits, correspondence or exchange of documents. The Constitutional Court held that the judicial decisions refusing examination of the applicant’s complaints were to be reviewed in accordance with the established procedure. 47.     On 8 July 2004 the Presnenskiy District Court of Moscow re-examined many of the complaints lodged by the applicant in course of the criminal proceedings in 2000 and 2003, including those concerning restrictions on correspondence, exchange of documents and family visits. The District Court dismissed those complaints for the following reasons. 48.     The District Court found that the refusal to transmit customs documents from the lawyer to the applicant had been justified because the former had indicated that the documents were related to the criminal case. On that basis the documents had been included in the case file as evidence, in accordance with the Code of Criminal Procedure. The applicant had been advised that he would be able to study the documents in question when examining the case file following completion of the preliminary investigation. 49.     With regard to the refusal to pass the power of attorney of 29   March 2000, the District Court held that the Internal Rules for Remand Centres (those issued both by the Ministry of the Interior and by the Ministry of Justice) prohibited detainees from authorising their representatives to carry out any actions other than civil transactions. As the scope of the applicant’s power of attorney had not been confined to civil transactions, the refusal had been lawful. The District Court did not refer to a specific provision of the Internal Rules for Remand Centres. 50.     As to the restrictions on family visits, the District Court referred to the relevant provisions of the Custody Act and the Internal Rules for Remand Centres. It noted that the decision on whether or not to allow a family visit was to be taken by the investigator in the light of the particular circumstances of the case. The decisions made by the investigator in the applicant’s case had subsequently been reviewed and approved by the Investigations Committee of the Ministry of the Interior and by the Prosecutor General’s Office. Accordingly, the District Court concluded that the decisions had been lawful and justified. 51.     Finally, the District Court found that five of the applicant’s letters to his relatives had been intercepted by the investigator because they either contained information on the criminal case, revealing secret information from the preliminary investigation, or expressed contempt for the law-enforcement authorities, which might foster a negative attitude among his relatives towards the law-enforcement bodies and thus obstruct the establishment of the truth in the criminal case. The District Court held that the interception of those letters had been compatible with the domestic law and with international treaties, including Article 8 of the Convention. 52.     On 27 December 2004 the Moscow City Court endorsed, in a summary fashion, the findings of the District Court. C.     Conditions of the applicant’s detention and transport 1.     Detention at remand centre no. IZ-99/1 53.     From 27 August 1999 until his release on 12   July 2002 the applicant was held in special-purpose remand centre no. IZ-99/1 (formerly no. IZ-48/4, commonly known as “Matrosskaya Tishina”). 54.     The applicant was held in ten different cells that measured either fourteen sq. m and had six sleeping places, or thirty-two sq. m and contained ten bunks. The design capacity of the cells was not exceeded. 55.     The window frames were bricked in with semi-transparent glass cubes. In addition, there was a layer of thick bars with so-called “eyelashes”, that is, slanted plates, approximately two cm apart, welded to a metal screen. This construction gave no access to natural air or light. The Government submitted that the “eyelashes” had been removed on 25   November 2002. The applicant indicated that between February 2000 and summer 2002 private fans had been prohibited in the cells, but that ventilation was on during the day. 56.     The lavatory pan was placed in the corner of the cell. The Government produced a photo of the pan showing that it was separated from the living area by an eighty-five-centimetre-high tiled brick partition and shower curtains above it. The applicant responded that the partition and curtains had apparently been a recent development; during the period of his detention there had been no tiles and the hanging of curtains of any kind had been prohibited. Furthermore, until 22 August 2001 the walls had been covered with so-called shuba , a sort of abrasive concrete lining, designed to prevent detainees from leaning on the walls or writing on them. 57.     Open-air exercise was permitted for one hour a day and a shower could be taken for twenty minutes once a week. 58.     The cells were constantly lit with fluorescent lighting. The applicant claimed that insufficient lighting had impaired his eyesight, which had fallen by 2.5   dioptres. On 21 June 2001 he asked to see an ophthalmologist and repeated his request no fewer than seven times between 30 July 2001 and 20   June 2002. The Government explained that no consultation had been arranged because the medical unit of the remand centre had no resident ophthalmologist and because the applicant had often been absent for court hearings. The applicant responded that the hearings had not started until 28   January 2002, that is, more than seven months after he had asked for consultation. 59.     Finally, the applicant submitted that he had been the only non-smoker in his cells and had suffered from passive smoking. The Government indicated that the separation of non-smokers from smokers had been materially impossible. 60.     In support of his submissions the applicant produced affidavits by his former cellmates, Mr I., Mr Ku. and Mr Ko. 2.     Conditions of transport 61.     The applicant was transported from the remand centre to the courthouse and back more than 120 times. Transport was arranged by officers of the Convoy Regiment of the Moscow Police Department ( конвойный полк ГУВД г. Москвы ). 62.     The prison vans (Gaz-3307 and Gaz-3309) in which the applicant was transported had a passenger cabin which was 3.8 m long, 2.35 m wide, and 1.6 m high. The cabin was divided into two multi-occupancy cubicles, designed for twelve inmates each, and one single-occupancy cubicle. The cubicles were equipped with benches. On 7 February 2001, in response to the applicant’s complaints, the officer-in-command of the Convoy Regiment ordered that he be transported in a separate van. The applicant specified that a separate van had been made available to him only thirteen times. 63 .     The Government submitted that the prison-van heaters and interior lights had been powered by the van engine. The vans were naturally ventilated through the emergency hatch and additional hatches with controlled airflow. The Government asserted that the applicant had received breakfast and dinner at the remand prison and that he had been allowed to bring his own food to court. It follows from the certificate issued by the head of remand centre no. IZ-99/1 that dry rations had been given to detainees from 2003 onwards. 64 .     In their post-admissibility submissions the Government enclosed two reports prepared by the officer-in-command of the Convoy Regiment on 28   March and 3 April 2006. According to these reports, the design capacity of prison vans had never been exceeded in 2001-2003 and the travel time from remand centre no. 99/1 to the Golovinskiy District Court had been in the range of two to three hours, depending on traffic. 65.     The applicant denied that the van had been heated or sufficiently ventilated. He indicated that the travel time between the remand centre and the court had been excessively long, and sometimes as long as three or four hours. During the entire journey he had been kept in the locked van without food or drink or access to a toilet. 66 .     The applicant produced a detailed table which listed the time he had spent before departure in the “waiting cubicle” at the remand centre, the time on the way to the courthouse and the time on the way back. The table covered the period from 25 December 2001 to 22 March 2002, in which he had been transported on twenty days. Of those twenty times, on six occasions the aggregate travel time on a given day had ranged from five to seven hours and on a further eleven occasions it had been longer than seven hours, with a maximum of 10.5 hours on 25 December 2001. The table also indicated that on four days the design capacity of the prison van had been exceeded by at least ten additional persons. 67.     Between 20 February 2001 and 17 June 2002 the applicant sent nine complaints about the “torturous” conditions of transport to many officials, including the director of the remand centre, the Prosecutor General and the officer-in-command of the Convoy Regiment. According to the Government, the officer-in-command of the Convoy Regiment had acknowledged that there had been “some irregularities” in the transport of detainees and ordered that the applicant be transported by a separate van. A copy of that report was not made available to the Court. II.     RELEVANT DOMESTIC LAW AND PRACTICE A.     Provisions governing detention matters 68.     The Russian Constitution of 12 December 1993 establishes that a judicial decision is required before a defendant can be detained or his or her detention extended (Article 22). At the material time, a decision ordering pre-trial detention could be taken by a prosecutor or a court (Articles 11, 89 and 96 of the RSFSR Code of Criminal Procedure, the “CCrP”). 69 .     Before 14 March 2001, pre-trial detention was authorised if the accused was charged with a criminal offence carrying a sentence of at least one year’s imprisonment (Article 96 of the CCrP). The amendments of 14   March 2001 repealed the provision that permitted defendants to be remanded in custody on the sole ground of the dangerous nature of the criminal offence they had allegedly committed. 70 .     After his or her arrest the suspect was placed in custody “pending investigation” for an initial two-month period (Article   97 of the CCrP). Further extensions could be granted by prosecutors at ascending levels of jurisdiction. 71.     Once the investigation had been completed and the defendant had received the charge sheet and finished reading the case file, the file was submitted to a trial court. From that date a defendant’s detention was “before the court” (or “pending trial”). Until 14   March 2001 the Code of Criminal Procedure set no time-limit for detention “pending trial”. On 14   March 2001 a new Article 239-1 was inserted, which established that the period of detention “during trial” could not normally exceed six months from the date the court received the file. B.     Provisions governing family visits and correspondence 72 .     The Custody Act (Federal Law on the Detention of Suspects and Defendants, no. 103-FZ of 15   July 1995) provides as follows: Section 17. Rights of suspects and defendants “Suspects and defendants have the right: ... (5)     to meet with relatives and other persons listed in section 18; (6)     to keep documents and records relating to the criminal case or to exercise of their rights and lawful interests... ... (8)     to maintain correspondence and to use writing utensils; ... (18)     to enter into civil transactions.” Section 18.     Meetings with counsel, relatives and other persons “Upon written consent of the official or authority in charge of the criminal case, a suspect or defendant may have up to two meetings per month with relatives and other persons, each visit to last for up to three hours...” Section 20.     Correspondence “Suspects and defendants may correspond with relatives and other persons, without any limitation on the number of incoming and outgoing letters or telegrams... Correspondence by suspects and defendants is to be carried out through the administration of the remand prison and is subject to censorship. Censorship is carried out by the administration of the remand prison and, if necessary, by the official or authority in charge of the criminal case. Letters that contain information which may obstruct the establishment of the truth in a criminal case or facilitate the commission of a crime, are drafted with use of cryptography or cipher, or contain State or other secrets protected by law, may not be sent to the addressee or returned to the suspect or defendant. Instead, they are remitted to the official or authority in charge of the criminal case...” 73 .     The Internal Rules for Remand Centres of the Ministry of the Interior (order no. 486 of 20 December 1995, in force until 12 May 2000) provided as follows: “8.1     Suspects and defendants may send and receive any number of letters or telegrams. 8.2     Letters and telegrams are sent and received through the administration of the remand centre. Correspondence by suspects and defendants is subject to censorship. 8.9     Letters and telegrams addressed to victims or witnesses, as well as those containing any information whatsoever in respect of the criminal case [in issue], insults, threats, calls to violence, commission of crimes or other offences, information on security measures in the remand centre, its employees, ways of transmission of prohibited items, and any other information that may impede the establishment of the truth in the criminal case or facilitate criminal activities... are not dispatched to the addressee... and [are] handed over to the official or authority in charge of the criminal case. 12.11     A suspect or defendant may draft a power of attorney authorising another person to carry out a civil transaction. The power of attorney must be drafted in an established form and certified by the head of the remand centre in accordance with Article 185 § 3 of the Civil Code. The administration of the remand centre must supply a blank power of attorney to a suspect or defendant, at his or her request and at his or her own expense, and, if necessary, explain the procedure for filling it out. The power of attorney is passed or sent to the person whose is named therein, through the official or authority in charge of the criminal case. 16.1     A suspect or defendant may be allowed a family visit on the basis of a written consent issued by the official or authority in charge of the criminal case. The consent is valid for one visit only.” 74 .     The Internal Rules for Remand Centres of the Ministry of Justice (order no. 148 of 12 May 2000) provided as follows: “84. Letters... are received and dispatched through the administration of the remand centre. Correspondence of detainees is subject to censorship. 91. Letters and telegrams addressed to suspects and defendants who are at large, victims, witnesses, as well as those containing any information whatsoever in respect of the criminal case [in issue], insults, threats, calls to violence, commission of crimes or other offences, information on security measures in the remand centre, its employees, ways of transmission of prohibited items, and any other information that may impede the establishment of the truth in the criminal case or facilitate criminal activities... are not dispatched to the addressee... and [are] handed over to the authority in charge of the criminal case. 92.     All correspondence by the detainees shall be recorded in a special register in which the dates of receipt and dispatch are noted... 122.     By consent of the official or authority who is in charge of the criminal case, a suspect or defendant may issue a power of attorney to his or her representative for conducting a civil transaction. The power of attorney must be certified by the head of the remand centre, in accordance with Article 185 § 3 of the Civil Code.” C.     Case-law of the Constitutional Court 75 .     On 23 March 1999 the Constitutional Court issued Ruling no. 5-P on the constitutional compatibility of those provisions of the RSFSR Code of Criminal Procedure which restricted the possibility of lodging appeals against an investigator’s decisions to certain procedural actions. The Court considered that the constitutional right to judicial protection against actions or decisions impairing citizens’ rights and freedoms could not be restricted and that the interested party should therefore have the right to lodge a complaint with a court. It held that all decisions by the investigative authorities affecting constitutional rights and freedoms should be amenable to judicial review, provided that examination of their lawfulness and justification would not prejudge the merits of the criminal case. THE LAW I.     ALLEGED VIOLATIONS OF ARTICLES 3 AND 13 OF THE CONVENTION IN RELATION TO THE CONDITIONS OF THE APPLICANT’S DETENTION 76.     The applicant complained under Article 3 of the Convention that the conditions of his detention in the Matrosskaya Tishina remand centre (no. 99/1) had been inhuman and degrading. Relying on Article 13 of the Convention, he claimed that no domestic remedy had been available to him in order to obtain an improvement in the conditions of detention. The relevant Articles provide: Article 3 “No one shall be subjected to torture or to inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.” Article 13 “Everyone whose rights and freedoms as set forth in [the] Convention are violated shall have an effective remedy before a national authority notwithstanding that the violation has been committed by persons acting in an official capacity.” A.     Submissions by the parties 77.     The applicant contested the Government’s description of the conditions of detention as factually untrue and maintained his account of the conditions. He claimed that he had sent many complaints about various aspects of the conditions of detention to supervising prosecutors and to the administration of the remand centre. He alleged that he had handed over several complaints to a supervising prosecutor who had inspected the cells. Even assuming that the domestic law provided for a judicial review of the conditions of detention, in practice the courts refused to examine such complaints, in the same way as they had refused to examine his complaints about restrictions on family visits and correspondence. 78.     The Government submitted that the conditions of the applicant’s detention had been generally compatible with Article 3. The applicant had sent more than one hundred complaints to various authorities but had never asked for an improvement in his conditions of detention. He had not complained about the conditions of detention to either the supervising prosecutors or to the director of remand centre no. 99/1, or to the Preobrazhenskiy District Court of Moscow, which had had territorial jurisdiction over the remand centre. The Government therefore inferred that the applicant had had effective remedies at his disposal. B.     The Court’s assessment 1.     Article 3 of the Convention 79.     Article   3, as the Court has observed on many occasions, enshrines one of the fundamental values of democratic society. The Convention prohibits in absolute terms torture or inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, irrespective of the circumstances or the victim’s behaviour (see Balogh v.   Hungary , no.   47940/99, §   44, 20 July 2004, and Labita v.   Italy [GC], no.   26772/95, § 119, ECHR 2000-IV). The Court has consistently stressed that the suffering and humiliation involved must in any event go beyond that inevitable element of suffering or humiliation connected with a given form of legitimate treatment or punishment. Although measures depriving a person of his liberty may often involve such an element, in accordance with Article 3 of the Convention the State must ensure that a person is detained under conditions which are compatible with respect for his human dignity and that the manner and method of the execution of the measure do not subject him to distress or hardship exceeding the unavoidable level of suffering inherent in detention (see Kudła v. Poland [GC], no. 30210/96, §§   92-94, ECHR 2000-XI). 80.     The applicant spent two years and almost eleven months in a Moscow remand prison. Although there was no allegation of overcrowding beyond the design capacity or of a shortage of sleeping places (see, by contrast, Grishin v. Russia , no.   30983/02, §   89, 15   November 2007, and Kalashnikov v. Russia , no.   47095/99, §   97, ECHR 2002 ‑ VI), the conditions in the prison were nevertheless extremely cramped. The applicant was alternately held in thirty-square-metre cells housing ten inmates and smaller fifteen-square-metre cells accommodating six detainees. It follows that the living area per inmate varied from 2.5 to 3 sq. m. 81.     The Court reiterates that in certain cases the lack of personal space afforded to detainees in Russian remand prisons was so extreme as to justify, in its own right, a finding of a violation of Article 3 of the Convention. In those cases applicants usually disposed of less than three sq. m of personal space (see, for example, Kantyrev v. Russia , no.   37213/02, §§   50-51, 21   June 2007; Andrey Frolov v. Russia , no. 205/02, §§ 47-49, 29   March 2007; Mayzit v. Russia , no.   63378/00, §   40, 20 January 2005; and Labzov v.   Russia , no.   62208/00, §   44, 16 June 2005). By contrast, in other cases where the overcrowding was not so severe as to raise in itself an issue under Article 3 of the Convention, the Court noted other aspects of physical conditions of detention as being relevant for its assessment of compliance with that provision. Such elements included, in particular, the possibility of using the toilet in private, availability of ventilation, access to natural light or air, adequacy of heating arrangements, and compliance with basic sanitary requirements. Thus, even in cases where a larger prison cell was at issue – measuring in the range of three to four sq. m per inmate – the Court found a violation of Article 3 since the space factor was coupled with the established lack of ventilation and lighting (see, for example, Babushkin v.   Russia , no.   67253/01, §   44, 18   October 2007; Trepashkin v. Russia , no.   36898/03, §   94, 19   July 2007, and Peers v. Greece , no.   28524/95, §§   70-72, ECHR 2001 ‑ III). 82.     The cells in which the applicant was held had no window in the proper sense of this word. Instead, a part of one wall where – according to the original design – a window should have been, was bricked in with semi-transparent glass cubes. This arrangement cut off any fresh air and also significantly reduced the amount of daylight that could penetrate into the cell. Moreover, densely spaced metal shutters fixed to the external wall barred access to daylight to a still greater extent. The Government confirmed that this contraption had been removed only in November 2002, that is, several months after the applicant’s release from the remand centre. 83.     The possibility for outdoor exercise was limited to one hour a day. Moreover, on days of court hearings, the applicant forfeited the opportunity to go outdoors. It appears that cells were ventilated but inmates were formally prohibited from owning or operating portable fans. It follows that for almost three years the applicant had to spend a considerable part of each day practically confined to his bed in a cell with poor ventilation and no window (compare Peers , cited above, §   75). 84.     Having regard to the cumulative effect of those factors, the Court finds that the fact that the applicant was obliged to live, sleep and use the toilet in poorly lit and ventilated cells with many other inmates for almost three years must have caused him distress or hardship of an intensity exceeding the unavoidable level of suffering inherent in detention. It follows that the conditions of his detention amounted to inhuman and degrading treatment. 85.     There has therefore been a violation of Article 3 of the Convention on account of the conditions of the applicant’s detention in the Matrosskaya Tishina remand centre (no. 99/1). 2.     Article 13 of the Convention 86.     The Court points out that Article   13 of the Convention guarantees the availability at national level of a remedy to enforce the substance of Convention rights and freedoms in whatever form they might happen to be secured in the domestic legal order. The effect of Article 13 is thus to require the provision of a domestic remedy to deal with the substance of an “arguable complaint” under the Convention and to grant appropriate relief (see, among many other authorities, the judgment in Kudła v. Poland [GC], no. 30210/96, §   157, ECHR 2000 ‑ XI). The scope of the obligation under Article   13 varies depending on the nature of the applicant’s complaint under the Convention. Nevertheless, the remedy required by Article   13 must be effective in practice as well as in law. 87.     Turning to the facts of the present case, the Court notes that the Government put special emphasis on the fact that the applicant had not asked any domestic official for an improvement in the conditions of his detention. The applicant denied this, and insisted that he had handed over several complaints to the supervising prosecutor. The Court does not need to resolve this controversy. It recalls that it has already found a violation of Article 13 on account of the absence of an effective remedy in respect of inhuman and degrading conditions of detention, concluding (see Benediktov v. Russia , no. 106/02, §   29, 10   May 2007): “[T]he Government did not demonstrate what redress could have been afforded to the applicant by a prosecutor, a court or other State agencies, taking into account that the problems arising from the conditions of the applicant’s detention were apparently of a structural nature and did not only concern the applicant’s personal situation (compare Moiseyev v.   Russia (dec.), no. 62936/00, 9   December 2004; Kalashnikov v. Russia (dec.), no. 47095/99, 18 &#xa