CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITY;ENG — 9 février 2010

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s523616E0 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; font-size:14pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s8229ABDD { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .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 } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s967D43C6 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .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 } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .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 } .s6AA809D4 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:21.55pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s34D46E87 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .s9D48DD53 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .sADADF4A7 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline } .s50CB62E2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:32.2pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-18pt; text-align:justify } .s2B9FE6BC { width:7.33pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .sD057FFF8 { width:0.66pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s706500A1 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-18pt; text-align:justify } .s88A92475 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sDD165512 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s7CB9076 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sE950BED4 { width:22.54pt; display:inline-block } .s5EB9EA63 { width:158.75pt; display:inline-block } .sA2E62387 { width:204.97pt; display:inline-block } THIRD SECTION PARTIAL DECISION AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF Application no. 8543/04 by Aleksejs ČUPRAKOVS against Latvia The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting on 9   February 2010 as a Chamber composed of:   Josep Casadevall, President,   Elisabet Fura,   Boštjan M. Zupančič,   Alvina Gyulumyan,   Ineta Ziemele,   Luis López Guerra,   Ann Power, judges, and Stanley Naismith, Deputy Section Registrar , Having regard to the above application lodged on 2 March 2004, Having deliberated, decides as follows: THE FACTS 1.     The applicant, Mr Aleksejs Čuprakovs, is a Latvian national who was born in 1978 and is currently serving a prison sentence in Jelgava prison. A.     The circumstances of the case 2.     The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows. Criminal proceedings 3.     On 22 December 2002 the police arrested the applicant in his apartment, in which they found a partially dismembered corpse. The police had been called by the applicant's stepfather at the applicant's request. 4.     The applicant's pre-trial detention was authorised by the Rīga City Kurzeme District Court and subsequently extended on several occasions by the Rīga City Zemgale District Court. 5.     On 12 May 2003 the applicant and his counsel signed a document confirming that they had consulted the case materials. The applicant requested that he be issued with a translation of the bill of indictment in Russian and that an additional psychiatric expert's report be ordered. His request for an additional expert's report was rejected on 13 May 2003 and he received the requested translation on 15 November 2003. The applicant had no other requests. On several occasions the applicant was informed that the hearing of his case would probably start in the summer of 2004, yet a more specific date was never provided. 6.     On 22 May 2003 the applicant's criminal case was transferred to the first-instance court and the term of his detention was extended. 7.     On 28 May 2003 the Rīga Regional Court ( Rīgas apgabaltiesa ) upheld a request by the applicant and his counsel to order a forensic psychiatric and psychological expert's report in order to establish whether, taking into account the applicant's mental health, he could be held accountable for his actions. 8.     On 19 February 2004 the applicant requested the court to give him an opportunity to consult the materials in his case file. On 1 March 2004 he read part of the case file but two days later wrote to the court requesting additional time owing to the volume of the case file (approximately 500   pages). He further noted that on 1 March no translator had been present in the afternoon. On 8 March 2004 the applicant signed a confirmation that he had repeatedly consulted the materials in the case file and that a translator had been present. 9.     During the hearing of the first-instance court on 10 March 2004, the applicant complained that on 1 March 2004 no translator had been present in the morning and that he needed additional time to read the record of the crime-scene observations and the experts' findings. The court granted him an   hour and a half for that purpose. After the hearing had resumed, the applicant confirmed that he had read the materials and had no further requests. In his subsequent remarks concerning the accuracy of the verbatim record of the hearing, the applicant did not dispute the veracity of that account of the events. 10.     On 10 March 2004 the Regional Court delivered a judgment concerning the criminal charges against the applicant. It decided to convict him of aggravated murder committed with particular cruelty and with subsequent desecration of the body. The court noted that the applicant had fully confessed to his guilt and had given detailed testimony concerning the circumstances of the crime. His guilt was further proven by testimonies of the victim's mother and four witnesses (including an eyewitness) as well as by findings of experts and other evidence. The victim's mother and three witnesses participated in the hearing in person, whereas the eyewitness P.I.'s testimony was read out at the hearing. In its judgment, the court noted that in the course of the pre-trial investigation P.I. had been confronted with the applicant and had fully confirmed his account of the events. A forensic psychiatric report had established that the applicant was of sound mind and thus could be held responsible for his actions. The court sentenced the applicant to 15 years' imprisonment with subsequent police supervision for 2 years and confiscated his property. In the judgment it was noted that the fee for the services provided to the applicant by the court-appointed lawyer was to be reimbursed by the applicant. 11.     On 16 April 2004 the applicant wrote to the first-instance court and indicated his intention to appeal against that judgment. In that regard, he asked to be given 4-5 days for consultation of the materials in the case file with the help of a translator. He also requested an opportunity to review the video-recording of the pre-trial reconstruction at the scene of the crime ( liecību pārbaude uz vietas ) with the participation of the eyewitness P.I. In response, on 22 April 2004 the first-instance court notified the applicant that he could consult the case file on 27-30 April 2004. At the same time, the court refused to organise viewing of the video-recording, pointing out that the applicant had had an opportunity to view the video during the hearing of the first-instance court. On 27-30 April 2004 the applicant attested by his signatures that he had fully consulted three volumes of case materials. 12.     On 23 April, 1 May and 28 June 2004 the applicant submitted and amended his appeal against the judgment of the first-instance court. He complained about the lack of time and facilities for adequate preparation of his defence at the pre-trial stage. Firstly, he emphasised that he had not been given sufficient time to consult the case materials and especially that no translator had been present on 1 March 2004. Secondly, he insisted that he had counted on the start of the proceedings being no sooner than in June of 2004, yet the hearing of the first-instance court had been held on 10 March. The applicant also disputed the assessment of evidence by the first-instance court and the sentence imposed by that court, and requested to be released from the obligation to reimburse the costs of the services provided by the court-appointed lawyer. In the course of disputing the assessment of evidence, the applicant among other things referred to the video-recording of the pre-trial reconstruction. Finally, the applicant requested one of the forensic experts (O.T.) to be summoned to the hearing of the appeal court so that he could clarify the findings of the autopsy on the victim's body. 13.     According to the verbatim record, in a hearing of 1 November 2005, the Criminal Chamber of the Supreme Court ( Augstākās tiesas Krimināllietu tiesu palāta ) rejected the applicant's request to summon the eyewitness P.I. to the hearing. It also refused to summon the expert O.T., since the court decided that it was able to reply to the applicant's concerns about the expert's report on the basis of the materials in the case file. In the applicant's subsequently submitted remarks concerning the verbatim record of the hearing (which were accepted by the court and added to the case file on 14 December 2005), the applicant noted that the court-appointed translator had not translated his remarks and responses to the court's questions (uttered in Russian), which were nevertheless recorded in the verbatim record in Latvian. From this, he concluded that the court clerk must have been translating his remarks, allegedly in breach of the applicable procedural law. 14.     On the same date the Supreme Court decided to uphold the judgment of the first instance court. In its decision the court dismissed the applicant's complaints concerning the legal classification of his crime as well as the assessment of evidence. In the judgment, the court also noted that the fact that the applicant had contracted pulmonary tuberculosis had not impaired his ability to present his case. The appeal court, however, took into account the applicant's medical condition and decreased his sentence to 14 years' imprisonment. The remainder of the sentence remained unchanged. 15.     On 8 December 2005 the applicant submitted an appeal on points of law against the appeal court's judgment. In it he complained inter alia about “a constant violation” of his right to a translator, which had allegedly been covered up by falsified documents. Along with setting out his views on how the gathering and assessment of the evidence against him had contravened the procedural requirements, the applicant complained about not having been allowed to view the video-recording of the reconstruction at the crime scene with P.I.'s participation, about being ill during the hearing of the appeal court, and about the way that the Supreme Court had not adequately responded to his requests to be released from detention. 16.     On 8 March 2006 a public prosecutor submitted his observations concerning the applicant's appeal on points of law. In essence, he contested all of the applicant's complaints, particularly the ones concerning the assistance of a translator, by pointing out that the applicant had attested by his signature that he had received and understood the translation of all the requested and necessary documents. The prosecutor also observed that questions concerning decisions on the preventive measure imposed on the applicant were not subject to proceedings in a court of cassation. 17.     On 22 March 2006 the Criminal Department of the Senate of the Supreme Court ( Augstākās Tiesas Senāta Krimināllietu departaments ), in written proceedings, dismissed the applicant's appeal on points of law. The Senate pointed out that upon completion of the pre-trial investigation, the applicant together with his counsel had consulted all the materials in the case file. Throughout that time they had been assisted by an interpreter. Also on other occasions the applicant had attested by his signature that he had consulted the case materials. He had not expressed any complaints in that regard during the hearing of the appeal court. Accordingly the Senate dismissed the applicant's complaint that he had not been assisted by an interpreter and that certain procedural documents had been falsified. It also noted that the remainder of the applicant's complaints essentially requested reassessment of evidence in his case, yet such questions did not fall within the competence of the Senate. Finally it was noted that the applicant had been given answers to all his requests for a change of preventive measure. On 3 April 2006 the Senate refused to provide a translation into Russian of its decision, since such a possibility was not provided for by law. Requests for change of preventive measure 18.     The applicant was diagnosed with pulmonary tuberculosis, which was affecting both of his lungs and had reached a destructive phase. On 4   March 2005 he was hospitalised in the Prison Hospital ( Ieslodzījuma vietu pārvaldes Republikāniskā slimnīca ), which is located in the Central Prison. Two days later he requested the appeal court to postpone a hearing scheduled for 9 March 2005. 19.     On 15 June 2005 the applicant's counsel requested the Supreme Court to release the applicant from detention, in order for him to receive tuberculosis treatment in an institution that met the applicable legal standards (see below, paragraph 41). 20.     On 27 June 2005 the Supreme Court requested the Central Prison to organise a medical examination of the applicant and to provide information on his health condition and the possibility of treating his tuberculosis in prison. The Prison Hospital replied, noting that the course of treatment for the applicant's tuberculosis would last approximately nine months and that it was possible to treat the disease in prison conditions. 21.     On 26 July 2005 the Supreme Court replied to the requests of the applicant and his counsel. It noted that the Prison Hospital had affirmed that the applicant could be adequately treated in prison and accordingly there was no reason to take a decision concerning the imposed preventive measure. 22.     On 2 October 2005 the applicant again requested the Supreme Court to release him from detention in order to obtain adequate treatment for his tuberculosis. 23.     On 1 November 2005 the applicant submitted an application to the Supreme Court in which he complained about the earlier decision of 26 July not to entertain his request for release, complained about the quality of medical care in the Prison Hospital, and requested that criminal proceedings be initiated concerning alleged forgery and provision of wrongful information by State officials. 24.     During the hearing of the appeal court in the applicant's criminal case on the same day, the applicant once again referred to his health condition and his earlier request for release from detention. The court decided to adjourn the hearing and to call for an ambulance in order to assess the applicant's health. Subsequently the court decided to resume the hearing, since there were “no objective reasons not to do so”. 25.     In the applicant's subsequently submitted remarks concerning the verbatim record of the Supreme Court's hearing (which were accepted by that court and added to the case file on 14 December 2005), he indicated that the court had orally rejected his repeated requests for release from detention. 26.     On 6 November 2005 the applicant wrote to the Senate of the Supreme Court about the preventive measure imposed on him. He noted that he had never received a written reply from the Supreme Court to his request of 2 October 2005. Instead, according to the applicant, that court, in the course of the hearing of 1 November, had orally informed him that his request had been rejected because he was suspected of having committed a particularly serious crime. Invoking the principle of the presumption of innocence and also his health condition and the alleged impossibility of receiving adequate treatment in prison, the applicant requested the Senate to release him from detention in order to have his tuberculosis treated in a certified institution. 27.     On 8 November 2005 the Supreme Court wrote to the applicant and pointed out that in its judgment of 1 November it had been decided not to alter or revoke the preventive measure imposed on him. Conditions of detention and the quality of medical care in the Prison Hospital 28.     On 19 April 2005 the Latvian National Human Rights Office ( Valsts cilvēktiesību birojs ) forwarded an enquiry from the applicant to the Minister of Health. In the accompanying letter that Office stressed that the Prison Hospital did not comply with human rights standards and that it had been previously criticised by the Human Rights Commissioner of the Council of Europe and by the European Committee for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (hereinafter “CPT”). 29.     On 20 April 2005 the Ministry of Justice provided a response to an enquiry from the applicant concerning the sanitary conditions in the Prison Hospital and the quality of medical care provided there. It asserted that the Prison Hospital was staffed with certified doctors and that medical care was provided in accordance with guidelines of the World Health Organisation. The Ministry nonetheless noted that since 1999 work had been ongoing to set up a new, better equipped, tuberculosis hospital; however, those efforts were dependent on the available financing. Furthermore, it noted that, while the administration of the Central Prison provided heating of the cells and supplies for cleaning the cells, the inmates themselves had partial responsibility for keeping the cells clean. According to the Ministry, the complaints about cold temperatures in the cells were often caused by the inmates' own decision to keep the windows open. Finally, in response to the applicant's allegation of a violation of, inter alia , Article 3 of the Convention, the Ministry noted that such questions fell within the competence of the public prosecutors. 30.     The Ministry of Health provided its reply to the applicant's enquiries on 16 May 2005. It pointed out that all medical institutions operating in Latvia had to conform to certain legal standards. Since the Prison Hospital's conformity to those standards had not been assessed, it was legally barred from providing medical services. It further noted that at the relevant time there were no binding legal regulations concerning requirements for hygiene in medical institutions, including for specialised tuberculosis treatment institutions. 31.     Similar information was provided on 7 June 2005 by the State Agency for Health Statistics and Medical Technologies ( Veselības statistikas un medicīnas tehnoloģiju valsts aģentūra ) – the authority responsible for assessing medical institutions' conformity with legal standards, which furthermore provided the applicant with the name of a medical institution which had been authorised to provide treatment for tuberculosis. 32.     In a letter to the Court dated 22 August 2005, the applicant provided a detailed description of conditions in cell no.   334 of the Prison Hospital. The cell measured approximately 24 square metres and could hold up to eight people who slept on four bunk beds. The applicant pointed out that the cell was in need of repair; among other things the walls were crumbling, the floor was uneven and the ventilation system was not functioning. Apart from the natural sources, lighting was provided by two fluorescent bulbs during the day and a small, dim light at night. Only cold water was available in the cell and even that was sporadically turned off. The toilet facilities – a hole in a cement pedestal measuring 0.85 by 0.65 metres – were separated from the rest of the cell by two plywood sheets 1.5 metres tall. The toilet facilities were disinfected several times per week throughout the applicant's stay in the cell no.   334. At the same time, during the whole of the applicant's stay there, the cell was sanitised with ultraviolet light on only one occasion. 33.     In the cell there was a large window, parts of which could be opened but because of its state of disrepair it could not be completely closed. There were gaps around the window – one of them 3 centimetres wide. Accordingly, the air temperature inside the cell was dependent on the temperature outside. Thus, up to the middle of May the temperature inside the cell was approximately 10 to 15 degrees Celsius, which, in combination with the constant draught, meant that the inmates had to wear their coats and hats while sleeping. 34.     The applicant notes that he was entitled to take a walk outside the cell for one hour each day. The walks took place in small courtyards measuring 10 by 5 metres which were essentially prison cells without a roof. The yards were in a state of disrepair with crumbling walls and a very dirty floor. 35.     The inmates held at the Prison Hospital were allowed to take a shower once every 7 days. For a while all six inmates held in the applicant's cell had to take their shower at the same time, despite the fact that there were only four showerheads. The bathroom was very dirty and in a state of disrepair. Subsequently the bathroom was repaired; however, the applicant considered that the improvement of the conditions had not been satisfactory. 36.     No toothpaste, toothbrush, shaving razor, soap or toilet paper were provided to the patients of the Prison Hospital – the applicant had to acquire them at the prison store at his own expense. Owing to the schedule for changing bed linen, the applicant at times had to sleep one night a week without any sheets. The applicant was dissatisfied with the quality of the food at the Prison Hospital, indicating that in the five months he had spent there, he had lost 3.5 kilograms in weight. 37.     The applicant considered that the quality of medical care in the Prison Hospital was inadequate. As a result he had developed a wide range of health problems, including issues with his heart, stomach and intestines. The applicant indicated that his complaints to the attending doctor were often ignored and not followed by check-ups. Facts relating to complaints under Article 34 of the Convention 38.     On 8 March 2006 the National Human Rights Office replied to the applicant's complaint that, among other things, a staff member of the Central Prison had requested the applicant to open a letter from the Court in his presence. In response, that office explained to the applicant the Court's ruling in Campbell v. the United Kingdom (25 March 1992, Series A no.   233) and informed the administration of the Central Prison about the Court's case-law in this regard. 39.     On 25 July 2006 the applicant submitted a complaint to the District Administrative Court ( Administratīvā rajona tiesa ). He complained that the administration of Jelgava prison was monitoring his correspondence. Among other incidents, he alleged that on 15 June 2006 a staff member of that prison had intercepted a letter addressed to the applicant from the European Court of Human Rights. The applicant requested the Administrative Court to prohibit the Jelgava prison administration from monitoring his correspondence with certain statutory institutions (including courts and public prosecutors' offices). He also requested the Administrative Court to provide instructions on how the prison administration was allowed to act if it suspected that such letters might have illicit contents. No compensation of any kind was requested. On 30 July 2007 the court adopted a judgment, in which it referred to the above-mentioned Campbell judgment and concluded that the prison's actions had had no adequate basis in law. Accordingly the court upheld the applicant's request and prohibited the Jelgava prison administration from monitoring correspondence with statutory institutions. While the court refused to provide specific instructions, as had been requested by the applicant, it did spell out certain general principles. That judgment was not appealed against and became final. B.     Relevant law 1.     The relevant documents of the Council of Europe 40.     The relevant findings of the CPT read as follows: Visit to Latvia of 24 January to 3 February 1999 “153.     The Prison Hospital is located within the perimeter of the Central Prison in Riga.   It has a nationwide vocation, providing somatic and psychiatric in-patient care for sentenced and remand prisoners from all prisons in Latvia.   The hospital building, comprising four floors and a basement, dates back to 1902 and, at the time of the visit, was in an advanced state of dilapidation. ... 159.   The material conditions offered to patients in the hospital were directly harmful to their health and wholly unacceptable for those suffering from serious diseases. The patient's rooms were overcrowded ... The narrow bunk beds and the bedding, as well as patients' clothes, were in a poor condition and often dirty.   Most of the remaining furniture - three to four cupboards and a small table per room - was also in a sorry state of repair, and humidity pervaded the vast majority of the rooms.   As a result, cleaning and disinfecting the patients' rooms to hospital standards was a very difficult task. Patients suffering from tuberculosis ... were also subject to these unacceptable material conditions. 160.   Standards of maintenance and hygiene in the sanitary facilities - in-room lavatories and washbasins, communal showers - were well below the minimum to be expected of a hospital and could sometimes be described as appalling.   Further, the frequency of showers - every 10 days - did not allow the prisoners to wash themselves properly. It goes without saying that such conditions are not acceptable, not only on humanitarian grounds, but also because of the risks of infection.” Visit to Latvia of 24 September to 4 October 2002 “100.   The report on the CPT's 1999 visit highlighted a number of serious shortcomings regarding the Prison Hospital, which is located on the premises of Riga Central Prison ... The CPT is very concerned to note that hardly any of the recommendations made by the Committee in this respect have been implemented ... 101.   The material conditions offered to patients have, if anything, deteriorated since the 1999 visit. They were totally unacceptable, in particular, for those suffering from serious diseases. Many rooms were overcrowded ( e.g . 12 beds in a room of 30 m²), and numerous allegations were heard that occupancy levels in patients' rooms had been significantly higher until shortly before the visit. Many of the rooms (in particular those accommodating TB patients) had no access to natural light (the windows being covered by metal plates), and artificial lighting and ventilation were very poor in most of them. In addition, many rooms were dilapidated, and the sanitary facilities were in an execrable state. ... All patients could take at least one hot shower per week; however, a number of allegations were heard that more frequent showers had been refused, even when recommended by medical staff   ... 107.   The CPT greatly welcomes the fact that the screening for, and treatment of, tuberculosis had improved since 1999 ... and that the number of tuberculosis patients in Latvian prisons had decreased considerably in recent years. There was ready access to all necessary medication. The delegation was also informed that the opening of the new tuberculosis hospital for prisoners in Olaine was scheduled for 2003. ... Patients suffering from tuberculosis were entitled to two hours of daily outdoor exercise. However, a number of such patients claimed that, in practice, they were allowed to take only one hour of outdoor exercise per day. ...” Visit to Latvia of 5 to 12 May 2004 “62.   The living conditions under which patients were held at the Prison Hospital remained totally unacceptable. In fact, practically none of the recommendations made by the CPT after the two previous visits to that establishment had been implemented ... 63.   It is a matter of grave concern that the renovation of the Prison Hospital has repeatedly been postponed, and that none of the interlocutors spoken to could give the delegation any indication as to when it would begin.” 2.     Relevant domestic law 41.     Under section 55 of the Law on Medical Treatment ( Ārstniecības likums ) medical treatment may only be provided by establishments meeting the compulsory requirements set out by the Cabinet of Ministers in Regulation no. 77 of 19 February 2002 on the compulsory requirements for medical establishments and their units ( Noteikumi par obligātajām prasībām ārstniecības iestādēm un to struktūrvienībām ), which include general and specific requirements that hospitals and other medical facilities have to meet concerning inter alia premises, medical equipment, education and qualifications of medical personnel. The assessment of the observance of those requirements is carried out by institutions authorised to do so by the Cabinet of Ministers. COMPLAINTS The applicant complained under Article 3 of the Convention about the conditions of his detention in the Prison Hospital and in particular: 1)      overcrowding in cell no. 334, especially considering that the corresponding lack of fresh air was undesirable for persons diagnosed with tuberculosis; 2)      the lighting in the cell, which had caused problems with his vision; 3)      the constant draught and low temperatures in the cell, as the result of which in the spring of 2005 he had developed sinusitis, which required surgical intervention on two occasions; 4)      the miniscule size of the toilet facilities, the periodical lack of running water in the cell and the complete lack of warm running water; 5)      the pain and suffering caused by the inadequate length of his bed (185   cm, while the applicant is 190   cm tall); 6)      the fact that the failure to sanitise the cell with ultraviolet light on a regular basis had affected the treatment of his tuberculosis; 7)      the inadequate length of the daily walks as well as the condition of the space provided for that purpose, especially in the light of his diagnosed tuberculosis; 8)      the conditions of the shower facilities and the risk of contracting an unspecified dermatological infection therein; 9)      the need to purchase basic hygienic supplies at his own expense; 10) the inadequate medical care provided by that institution, which had not been authorised to provide medical care; 11) the fact of being held – from 30 September to 3   October 2005 – in a cell in the Prison Hospital together with an inmate infected with multi-drug-resistant virulent pulmonary tuberculosis; 12) the fact that after he had been returned from a vision test outside the prison on 10 October 2005, he had been placed in an unventilated cell measuring one metre by one metre and held there for three hours; and 13) his premature removal from the Prison Hospital on 18 October 2005 and subsequent placement in a cell where he could not receive adequate treatment for his health condition. The applicant complained under Article 5 § 1 (c) of the Convention that he continued to be held in detention despite his dire state of health. The applicant complained under Article 5 § 4, in conjunction with Article   13 of the Convention, that he had received no response to his requests to the Supreme Court to be released from detention. The applicant complained under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention that the criminal charges against him had been insufficiently investigated and that, taking into account his health condition, his sentence had not been sufficiently decreased. The applicant complained under Article 6 § 2 of the Convention that the courts at all three instances had predetermined the outcome of the case. The applicant complained under Article 6 § 3 (b) of the Convention that: 1)      when he was consulting the case file before the start of the trial in the first-instance court, no translator or interpreter had been present; 2)      access to the Code of Criminal Procedure was limited in the library of the Central Prison – after a waiting period of 17 days, one could obtain it only for one day at a time; 3)      even though he had been informed that his trial would begin in the summer of 2004, it had unexpectedly and with no prior warning started in March; 4)      even though he had requested further time to consult the materials in the case file before the beginning of trial in the first-instance court, he had only been granted one and a half hours in the courtroom; and 5)      during his consultation of the materials in the case file on 27 to 30 April 2004, the first-instance court had not authorised him to watch a video-recording of the reconstruction of events at the crime scene with the participation of the eyewitness P.I. The applicant complained under Article 6 § 3 (c) of the Convention that in the first-instance court's judgment he had been ordered to reimburse the costs of the services rendered by the State-appointed lawyer. Under the same Article the applicant also complained about the fact that no lawyer had been present when: 1)      his pre-trial detention was extended; 2)      the public prosecutor in charge of his case informed him about the decisions taken by the court which extended the detention; and 3)      he was presented with the bill of indictment. The applicant complained under Article 6 § 3 (d) of the Convention that the witness P.I. and the expert O.T. had not been summoned to the hearing of the appeal court. The applicant complained under Article 6 § 3 (e) of the Convention that: 1)      the decisions by which the term of his pre-trial detention was extended had been translated to him orally by the public prosecutor in charge of his case and not by a certified translator; 2)      no translator had been available when he was consulting the materials in the case file on 8, 9 and 12 May 2003, and on 1 March and 27-30 April 2004; 3)      the bill of indictment had been translated by the public prosecutor instead of a certified translator; 4)      during the hearing before the first-instance and appeal courts the testimonies given in Russian by the applicant and unspecified witnesses had not been translated into Latvian by the court interpreter; 5)      the Senate of the Supreme Court had refused to send him a Russian translation of its decision. The applicant complained under Article 34 of the Convention that: 1)      he had never received a letter sent to him by the Registry of the Court on 9 March 2005; 2)      on 18 and 22 August 2005 he had requested the administration of the Central Prison to make copies of certain documents for the purpose of sending those documents to the Court, but the copies had not been made and the documents had not been returned to him until 2   September 2005; 3)      the administration of the Central Prison had routinely delayed sending the applicant's letters to the Court for several days; 4)      on 7 October 2005 in a conversation with the applicant, the head of the Central Prison had referred to the content of a complaint that the applicant had submitted to the Senate of the Supreme Court five days earlier and had commented that it was “not nice” to submit such complaints; 5)      on 20 January 2006, when delivering the applicant a letter from the Registry of the Court, a guard of Jelgava prison had started opening the envelope and, after an objection by the applicant, had made the applicant himself open the envelope in the presence of the guard, who had threatened him with a search of his cell if he refused; 6)      all letters from the Registry of the Court were opened and monitored in Jelgava prison; and 7)      on 16 November 2006 the administration of Jelgava prison had refused to copy documents that the applicant had intended to send to the Court. THE LAW 42.     The applicant complained under Article 3 about the conditions of his detention in cell no.   334 of the Prison Hospital, about the quality of medical care received in that institution, as well as about several other incidents. That Article provides as follows: “No one shall be subjected to torture or to inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.” 43.     The Court notes that from the materials in the case file it appears that the applicant has not submitted to any domestic authorities (such as the Prison Administration) his complaints that he had to share a cell with a patient with virulent tuberculosis from 30 September to 3 October 2005, that on 10 October 2005 he was placed in a miniscule, unventilated cell for three hours, and that on 18 October 2005 he was prematurely discharged from the Prison Hospital. It follows that these complaints must be rejected under Article   35 §§   1 and   4 of the Convention for non-exhaustion of domestic remedies. 44.     The Court considers that it cannot, on the basis of the case file, determine the admissibility of the applicant's remaining complaints under Article 3 and that it is therefore necessary, in accordance with Rule 54 § 2 (b) of the Rules of Court, to give notice of this part of the application to the respondent Government. 45.     Furthermore, the Court finds it necessary, in accordance with Rule 54 § 2 (b) of the Rules of Court, to give notice to the respondent Government of the applicant's complaint (formulated under Article 34) that on 20 January 2006 a guard of Jelgava prison made the applicant open a letter originating from the Court in the presence of that guard. 46.     The applicant further submitted numerous other complaints under various subparagraphs of Articles 5 and 6. However, in the light of all the material in its possession, and in so far as the matters complained of are within its competence, the Court finds that they do not disclose any appearance of a violation of the rights and freedoms set out in the Convention or its Protocols. It follows that this part of the application is manifestly ill-founded and must be rejected in accordance with Article   35   §§ 3 and 4 of the Convention. For these reasons, the Court unanimously Decides to adjourn the examination of the applicant's complaints concerning the conditions of his detention and the quality of medical care in the Prison Hospital, as well as the alleged monitoring of the applicant's correspondence with the Court on 20 January 2006; Declares the remainder of the application inadmissible.   Stanley Naismith   Josep Casadevall Deputy Registrar   President