CEDH · CASELAW;JUDGMENTS;CHAMBER;ENG — 14 octobre 2010

.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 } .sF5E1C6CF { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline; color:#ff0000 } .s6CCEAD68 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; color:#ff0000 } .s491F5244 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic; color:#ff0000 } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s4ACA9207 { page-break-before:always; clear:both; mso-break-type:section-break } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .sB9D5CABB { width:28.35pt; 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 } .sAA8DEB86 { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:29.2pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17.6pt; text-align:justify } .s11869A80 { margin-top:0pt; 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 } .s83BE5C30 { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; vertical-align:super } .sD5DF731 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .sB6F98828 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:36.6pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-indent:-15.05pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s360DA689 { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:48.75pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-17pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .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 } .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 } .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 } .s507703F { margin-top:12pt; 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 } .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 } .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 } .sEC2CB098 { margin-top:6pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s3B3A5DE9 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:36pt; 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 } .sC31874BD { margin-top:24pt; margin-left:29.2pt; margin-bottom:24pt; text-indent:-17.6pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s33C53B69 { margin-top:24pt; margin-left:36.6pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-indent:-15.05pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s1913A4C6 { margin-top:6pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .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 } .s48125EFE { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:48.75pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-17pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .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 } .sFF4E7F0D { width:16.26pt; display:inline-block } .sC2D09584 { width:168.3pt; display:inline-block } .s576DFC5F { width:15.93pt; display:inline-block } .sAA5C5B93 { width:187.63pt; display:inline-block }       FIRST SECTION           CASE OF A.B. v. RUSSIA   (Application no. 1439/06)               JUDGMENT       STRASBOURG   14 October 2010   FINAL   14/01/2011   This judgment has become final under Article 44 § 2 of the Convention. It may be subject to editorial revision. In the case of A.B. 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 André Wampach, Deputy Section Registrar , Having deliberated in private on 23 September 2010, Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date: PROCEDURE 1.     The case originated in an application (no. 1439/06) against the Russian Federation lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) by a Russian national, Mr A.B. (“the applicant”), on 14   November 2005. 2.     The applicant was represented by Ms M. Belinskaya, a lawyer practising in St Petersburg. The Russian Government (“the Government”) were represented were represented by Ms V. Milinchuk, former Representative of the Russian Federation at the European Court of Human Rights. 3.     On 18 April 2006 the Court decided to apply Rule 41 of the Rules of Court and to grant priority treatment to the application. 4.     On 20 February 2007 the Court decided to give notice of the application to the Government. It also decided to examine the merits of the application at the same time as its admissibility (Article 29 § 1 of the Convention). 5.     The Government objected to the joint examination of the admissibility and merits of the application. Having considered the Government's objection, the Court dismissed it. THE FACTS I.     THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE 6.     The applicant was born in 1963 and lives in St Petersburg. At the time of introduction of the application he was detained in remand prison IZ-47/1 in St Petersburg. A.     Pre-trial proceedings 7.     On 18 May 2004 criminal proceedings were instituted against the applicant and third persons for attempted swindling. At 9.10 p.m. on the same day the applicant was arrested. He was placed in the temporary detention facility of the Nevskiy District of St Petersburg. 8.     On 20 May 2004 the Nevskiy District Court of St Petersburg (“the trial court”) remanded the applicant in custody. He was transferred to remand prison IZ-47/1 in St Petersburg (“the remand prison”). The court held that the applicant was charged with a serious crime, had a disposition to commit crimes and could continue to pursue criminal activities if at liberty. The ruling was not appealed against. 9.     On 15 July 2004 the Kuybyshevskiy District Court of St Petersburg granted a request by the investigator to extend the applicant's detention until 26 August 2004, holding that investigative measures could not be taken prior to that date. The ruling was not appealed against. 10.     On 23 August 2004 the Smolninskiy District Court of St Petersburg prolonged the applicant's detention until 26 October 2004. 11.     On 25 October 2004 the Kuybyshevskiy District Court of St   Petersburg prolonged the applicant's detention until 26 December 2004. 12.     On 24 December 2004 the bill of indictment was drawn up and the case file was transferred to the trial court. 13.     On 4 February 2005 the trial court scheduled a hearing for 25 March 2005. The issue of the application of a preventive measure to the applicant was not decided upon pursuant to Article 236 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (“the CCP”). 14 .     At the preliminary hearing of 24 March 2005 the trial court, relying on Article 237 of the CCP, returned the case to the prosecutor because certain procedural rules had not been complied with. In particular, some pages of the case file had been wrongly numbered and the accused had not been provided with the opportunity to study some documents. The trial court further noted that no application to vary the preventive measure had been lodged. The trial court found that the measure applied was lawful and appropriate in view of the gravity of the charges and the information about the accused, and ordered that it should remain unchanged. The trial court observed that the decision could be appealed against to the St Petersburg City Court within ten days from the date of its delivery. The applicant and his counsel N. were present at the hearing. 15.     The ruling of 24 March 2005 was not appealed against and became final on 4 April 2005. On 5 April 2005 the case file was transmitted to the prosecutor. 16.     On 7 April 2005 the prosecutor returned the case to the investigator for additional investigative measures. Having obtained the endorsement of the St Petersburg City Prosecutor, the investigator requested a court to extend the applicant's custodial detention for one month until 5 May 2005 so that the aggregate term of his detention amounted to eight months and five days. He argued that the extension sought would allow him to take the requisite investigative measures and to comply with the trial court's instructions. 17 .     On 8 April 2005 the Kuybyshevskiy District Court of St Petersburg, relying on Article 109 of the CCP, granted the investigator's request to extend the applicant's detention for “one month, up to eight months and five days in total, that is, until 5 May 2005”. The applicant and his counsel M. were present at the hearing. His counsel M. objected, stating that the applicant had a permanent place of residence, had no intention of absconding – on the contrary, he had actively cooperated with the investigation – and that his state of health had worsened. The court held that the investigator's request should be granted and that there was no reason to vary the preventive measure in respect of the applicant since the circumstances that had constituted the grounds for its application had not changed. The applicant was charged with a serious offence and had no permanent job and no assets. Furthermore, he was suspected of having committed a further offence similar to the one he had been charged with. Therefore, if released, he might abscond, hinder the criminal prosecution and engage in further criminal activity. Moreover, certain investigative measures had to be conducted before the case was sent for trial. The court also found that the arguments put forward by the applicant's counsel concerning the applicant's personality and his state of health were not sufficient grounds for refusing the investigator's request. In particular, no medical documents had been provided to prove that placement in a remand prison was damaging to the applicant's health. 18.     The applicant appealed against the ruling of 8 April 2005, claiming that Article 109 of the CCP did not provide for the possibility of extending a period of detention pending additional investigation. 19.     On an unspecified date the applicant requested the Oktyabrskiy District Court of St Petersburg to declare that the prosecutor had not received the case file from the trial court as required by the ruling of 24   March 2005. 20.     On 26 April 2005 the Oktyabrskiy District Court of St Petersburg held a hearing on the complaint, during which the applicant was advised that the case file had already been sent to the prosecutor. The applicant then brought another complaint about the prosecutor's actions between 5 and 8   April 2004, claiming that the latter had failed to take the requisite measures to ensure the applicant's release from custody. The court dismissed the complaint, stating that the prosecutor's actions were lawful, and observed that the ruling could be appealed against to the St Petersburg City Court within ten days from the date of its delivery. 21.     It follows from the parties' submissions that the applicant did not appeal against the ruling of 26 April 2005. 22.     On 5 May 2005 the Kuybyshevskiy District Court of St Petersburg granted a request lodged by the St Petersburg City Prosecutor to extend the applicant's detention for one month to 5 June 2005 so that the aggregate term of his detention amounted to nine months and five days. The applicant and his counsel P. objected on the grounds that the court had no evidence of the applicant's intention either to abscond or to engage in further criminal activity. The court dismissed the objections and ordered the extension of the applicant's detention on the same grounds as those given in the ruling of 8   April 2005. The applicant's counsel P. was a legal-aid lawyer appointed by the court. At the beginning of the hearing the applicant applied to the court to have counsel replaced because he wished to be assisted by his own counsel, B., who had not been notified of the hearing. The court found that counsel B. had been notified by telephone of the hearing that had initially been scheduled for 4 May 2005. However, she had neither appeared nor provided any documents justifying her failure to do so. The hearing had then been postponed to 5 May 2005 and counsel B. had been notified accordingly. However, she had said that she could not attend the hearing because she was involved in other proceedings. Nevertheless, she had failed to provide any supporting documents. The applicant appealed. 23.     On 12 May 2005 the final bill of indictment was drawn up. 24.     On 13 May 2005 the case was sent to the trial court. 25.     On 14 May 2005 the trial court received the case file. 26.     On 27 May 2005 the trial court scheduled a hearing for 5 July 2005. It also ordered that the preventive measure imposed on the applicant was to remain unchanged. 27.     On 15 June 2005 the St Petersburg City Court dismissed the applicant's appeal against the ruling of 8 April 2005. The appeal court held that when a case was returned to the prosecutor, new time-limits for the investigation were to be fixed and a decision concerning a preventive measure was to be taken accordingly. It also upheld the first-instance court's findings that, if released, the applicant might abscond and engage in further criminal activity. 28.     On 12 July 2005 the St Petersburg City Court dismissed the applicant's appeal against the trial court's ruling of 5 May 2005. The appeal court upheld the first-instance court's conclusion that, if released, the applicant might abscond, engage in further criminal activity and hinder the prosecution. It also found that counsel B. had been duly notified of the hearing of 5 May 2005. However, she had not appeared and had failed to provide appropriate justification. 29.     On 22 November 2005 the St Petersburg City Court dismissed the applicant's appeal against the ruling of 14 May 2005. 30.     On 10 October 2006 the trial court sentenced the applicant to five years and two months' imprisonment. 31.     On 19 February 2007 the applicant's sentence became final. 32 .     On 4 April 2007 the St Petersburg City Court dismissed the applicant's appeal against the decision of the Oktyabrskiy District Court of St Petersburg of 26 April 2005 concerning his complaint about the prosecutor's inaction. It held, in particular, that the prosecutor had requested authorisation of the applicant's detention for a period including the days that had preceded the court's ruling, that is, between 5 and 8 April 2005. It rejected the applicant's argument that his detention during that period had been unlawful, for the reason that “there was a judicial decision extending the detention for the period from 5 to 8 April 2005”. No reference as to which judicial decision had authorised that period was given. B.     The applicant's state of health and conditions of detention 1.     The applicant's account 33.     On 30 April 1997 the applicant was diagnosed with hepatitis C. He underwent treatment between 30 April and 26 May 1997 and was subsequently diagnosed with chronic hepatitis C. 34.     On 20 May 2004, on his admission to remand prison IZ   47/1, the applicant was diagnosed as HIV-positive on the basis of a routine blood test. 35.     According to the applicant, his state of health had been deteriorating since October 2004. He had shown symptoms of immunodeficiency and there had been bad bouts of his chronic illnesses. The applicant had applied to the medical unit of the remand prison for treatment to boost his immune system. In reply, he had been advised to take aspirin, papaverine and analgesics. After the applicant had stated that this treatment would obviously be insufficient, he had been threatened with confinement in a solitary cell. 36.     On 29 October 2004 the applicant was placed in solitary cell no. 129 in wing 2/1 with restricted access. The wing was designed for the detention of inmates sentenced to life imprisonment. 37.     On 19 January 2005 the applicant was transferred to solitary cell no.   123 in wing 2/1 with restricted access. According to the applicant, the cell was the equivalent of a disciplinary cell. However, he had neither requested to be placed in solitary confinement, nor had there been any grounds for such placement since he had not broken prison rules. The cell was in the basement where there was no central heating, and the winter temperature there was about 7-10 o C. 38.     On account of the conditions of detention in the solitary cell the applicant's health had deteriorated further. He had been put on a special diet which included a supplementary daily portion of margarine and sugar. Despite his regular requests, he had never been provided with either antiviral treatment or treatment stimulating liver function and had been offered only febrifuges and analgesics. Medical staff of the remand prison had stated that they had no medicines for HIV-positive prisoners because of lack of funding. 39.     The applicant requested to be placed in a hospital in August and September 2004. However, he was refused admission to the hospital at remand prison IZ 47/1 on the grounds that there were too many HIV ‑ positive patients and not enough places. He was likewise refused admission to the hospital of the Federal Penitentiary Service, because the hospital only treated convicted prisoners and did not have the status of a remand prison. 40.     The applicant lodged numerous complaints concerning his inadequate medical assistance. However, he did not receive any formal replies to his complaints or a formal refusal to place him in a hospital. The replies he received were given in the course of private conversations. Nor was he provided with any documents confirming that his complaints had been forwarded to the appropriate authorities. According to the applicant, the officials of the remand prison had forwarded only his correspondence relating to his criminal case and had not provided his counsel   B. with the medical documents contained in his personal file. 2.     The Government's account (a)     Medical assistance available to the applicant 41.     While detained in IZ-47/1 the applicant was on several occasions examined by specialist doctors and general practitioners. 42.     On 21 May 2004 the applicant was examined by a medical commission composed of a general practitioner, a surgeon, a psychiatrist and a dermatologist. He made no complaints concerning his state of health. 43.     On 22 May 2004 the applicant underwent a chest X-ray. No pathological condition was discovered. 44.     On 25 May 2004 a blood test carried out on the applicant indicated that he was HIV-positive. 45 .     On 3 June 2004 the applicant underwent a complex medical check ‑ up at the Botkin City Clinical Hospital of St Petersburg and was diagnosed with stage 2Б HIV infection. 46.     On 24 June 2004 the applicant was examined by an infectious ‑ disease specialist. He was also registered as HIV-positive with the IZ-47/1 infirmary and was prescribed a special diet. 47.     Between 24 June and 12 July 2004 the applicant was treated by a dermatologist for an acute skin disease (parasitical dermatitis) and was cured. 48.     Between August and September 2004 the applicant did not request to be admitted to hospital. 49.     On 30 September 2004 the applicant underwent a routine check-up with a general practitioner. He made no complaints concerning his state of health. 50.     On 26 July and 25 November 2004 the applicant underwent chest X ‑ rays, which did not detect any pathological condition. 51.     On 11 January and 27 July 2005 the applicant was examined by a general practitioner and was found to be in a satisfactory state of health. He did not make any complaints. 52.     On 26 February 2006 a general practitioner examined the applicant and found no medical data to confirm that the HIV infection had progressed. 53.     On 15 March and 20 October 2006 and on 19 March 2007 the applicant underwent chest X-rays, which did not reveal any pathological condition. 54.     On 22 October 2006 and 12 April 2007 the applicant was examined by a general practitioner. A general blood test carried out on 12 April 2007 showed no pathological changes in the blood. 55.     The applicant's HIV infection had not been clinically manifested. The applicant did not require antiretroviral therapy. 56.     According to a certificate issued by the authorities of the remand prison on 19 April 2007, the applicant's state of health had not deteriorated since 21 May 2004, he had not lost any weight and his lymph glands had not been dilated. (b)     Conditions of detention in the remand prison 57.     While in IZ-47/1, the applicant was detained in cells nos. 781, 170, 226, 188, 749 and 123. Cell no. 781 measured 9.8 square metres; each of the remaining five cells measured 7.5 square metres. 58.     The Government could not submit information on the number of inmates who had shared cells with the applicant owing to the fact that the registration logs had been destroyed. 59.     Every cell in which the applicant was kept was equipped with a lavatory pan, a flush tank and a sink, which were separated from the sleeping area by a curtain. There was running hot and cold water supplied by the city water system in each cell. 60.     The applicant and other inmates washed themselves and had their bedding changed once a week. 61.     Every cell in which the applicant was kept had access to daylight through windows; they were also equipped with lamps. All cells had both natural and mandatory ventilation systems. The cells were equipped with tables, benches and necessary utensils. The windows were glazed and had air ducts. The cells had a central heating system connected to the remand prison's boiler house. The average temperature in the cells was between 18 o C (in winter) and 22 o C (in summer). 62.     The applicant was at all times provided with an individual sleeping place and bedding. 63.     While in the remand prison, the applicant was fed three times a day. From 26 June 2004 he received a special diet. The food available to the applicant was in compliance with the relevant standards and regulations. 64.     The applicant was allowed to have a daily one-hour walk during which he could perform physical exercises. 65.     The cells were regularly cleaned and disinfected. 66.     On 29 October 2004 the applicant was placed in cell no. 123, where he was kept in solitary confinement to secure his safety. The cell was heated by the remand prison's boiler house. 67 .     According to a certificate of microclimate measurement provided by the Government, on 2 December 2004, when the outside temperature was ‑ 1 o C, the level of humidity in cell no. 123 amounted to 75% (50% being normal), the temperature in the cell was 17 o C (19 o C to 21 o C being normal) and the level of lighting was 40 lx (90 lx being normal). 68 .     According to a certificate of 19 April 2007 issued by the remand prison authorities, microclimate measurements in the remand prison cells were taken once a month; the average temperature in the cells was 18 o C in winter and 22 o C in summer. 69.     According to a certificate on the sanitary conditions in cell no. 123, on 14 December 2004 the cell was in a satisfactory condition. It was equipped with a sink and a lavatory pan; the sanitary installations were in order. There was hot and cold running water, natural ventilation, central heating, natural light and one light bulb. The cell measured 216 cm (width) by 354 cm (length) by 230 cm (height). The cell was designed to accommodate four persons. There was a window measuring 108 cm by 100   cm. The cell had been renovated in November 2003. 70.     The applicant did not lodge any complaints concerning the conditions of his detention with the remand prison authorities or with prosecutors' offices. 3.     Written statements by the applicant's fellow inmates 71.     The applicant submitted written statements by Mr A.M. and Mr   N.M. 72 .     Mr A.M., who had been sentenced to life imprisonment, was kept in cells nos. 120, 122, 126, 128 and 141 of wing 2/1 of the remand prison on various occasions between June 2004 and July 2007. In his submission, wing 2/1 was reserved for inmates sentenced to life imprisonment at first instance pending the examination of their cases on appeal. The conditions of detention in all the cells were nearly identical. There were no chairs or desks in the cells. The beds were made of concrete. The cells were in a deplorable state. The humidity was high. There was no hot water or heating. The temperature in the cells in winter was as low as outside. There was no mandatory ventilation. Lavatory pans were not separated from the rest of the cells. All inmates in wing 2/1 were kept in solitary confinement. Access to the wing was limited. Paramedics occasionally visited the wing but claimed that they had no medication. At some point in 2005 Mr A.M. had a glimpse inside cell no. 123 and saw that it was no different from the cells in which he had been kept, save for the fact that there was an iron bed, not a concrete one. He also repeatedly heard the applicant asking paramedics for medication. 73 .     Mr N.M. was sentenced to life imprisonment. He was kept in cell no.   121 of wing 2/1 of the remand prison. In his submission, all the cells in the wing were nearly identical. There was no furniture in the cells. The temperature in the cells in winter was as low as 3 o C. There was no hot water. The cells were very humid so that the walls were covered with mould. The lavatory pans were not secluded. The food was of poor quality. Medical personnel rarely visited the wing and did not have effective medication. Mr N.M. had overheard the applicant's numerous complaints to the remand prison authorities concerning his state of health. Initially the applicant had been placed in cell no. 129 and in January 2005 he had been transferred to cell no. 123. II.     RELEVANT DOMESTIC LAW AND PRACTICE A.     Code of Criminal Procedure 74 .     After arrest the suspect is placed in custody “pending investigation”. The period of detention “pending investigation” cannot exceed two months (Article 109 § 1) but may be extended up to six months by a judge of a district court or a military court of a corresponding level further to a request lodged by a prosecutor (or an investigator or inquirer with a prosecutor's prior approval) (Article 109 § 2). Further extensions up to twelve months may be granted on an investigator's request approved by a prosecutor of the Russian Federation only if the person is charged with serious or particularly serious criminal offences (Article 109 § 3). The period of detention “pending investigation” is calculated up to the date on which the prosecutor sends the case to the trial court (Article 109 § 9). 75.     From the time the prosecutor sends the case to the trial court, the defendant's detention is “pending trial”. The period of detention “pending trial” is calculated up to the date on which the judgment is given. It may not normally exceed six months, but if the case concerns serious or particularly serious criminal offences, the trial court may approve one or more extensions of no longer than three months each (Article 255 §§ 2 and 3). 76.     The trial judge can return the case to the prosecutor for defects impeding the trial to be remedied, for instance if the judge has identified serious deficiencies in the bill of indictment or a copy of it was not served on the accused. The judge must require the prosecutor to comply within five days (Article 237 § 2) and must also decide on a preventive measure in respect of the accused (Article 237 § 3). By Federal Law no. 226-FZ of 2   December 2008, Article 237 was amended to the effect that, if appropriate, the judge should extend the term of detention with due regard to the time-limits in Article 109 of the Code. B.     Federal Law on prevention of the propagation of HIV infection, no. 38-FZ of 30 March 1995 77.     HIV-positive persons have the right to receive all types of medical assistance required by clinical data. They enjoy all the rights guaranteed by laws of the Russian Federation on public health protection (section 14). C.     Case-law of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation 78 .     On 22 March 2005 the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation adopted Ruling no. 4- P on a complaint lodged by a group of individuals concerning the de facto extension of detention after the transfer of a case file to a trial court by the prosecution.   In part 3.2 of the ruling the Constitutional Court held: “The second part of Article 22 of the Constitution of the Russian Federation provides that ... detention is permitted only on the basis of a court order ... Consequently, if the term of detention, as defined in the court order, expires, the court must decide on the extension of the detention, otherwise the accused person must be released ... These rules are common to all stages of criminal proceedings, and also cover the transition from one stage to another. ... The transition of the case to another stage does not automatically put an end to a preventive measure applied at previous stages.” D.     Standards of medical assistance rendered to HIV-positive persons 79.     The Ministry of Health of the Russian Federation, by its Decree No.   474 of 9 July 2007, adopted Standards of Medical Assistance Rendered to HIV-positive Persons (“the Standards”), which were recommended for use in State-owned and municipal health-care institutions. 80 .     According to the Standards, adult HIV-positive persons suffering from the disease in stages 2A, 2Б, 2В, 3, 4А, 4Б and 4В require CD4 testing as a diagnostic measure once every twelve months. III.     RELEVANT INTERNATIONAL DOCUMENTS A.     Detention of persons with HIV 81 .     The 11th General Report (CPT/Inf (2001) 16) prepared by the European Committee for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (CPT) concerning transmissible diseases reads, in so far as relevant, as follows: “31.     The spread of transmissible diseases and, in particular, of tuberculosis, hepatitis and HIV/AIDS has become a major public health concern in a number of European countries ... ... [T]he act of depriving a person of his liberty always entails a duty of care ... The use of up-to-date methods for screening, the regular supply of medication ... constitute essential elements of an effective strategy ... to provide appropriate care to the prisoners concerned. ... [T]he prisoners concerned should not be segregated from the rest of the prison population unless this is strictly necessary on medical or other grounds. In this connection, the CPT wishes to stress in particular that there is no medical justification for the segregation of prisoners solely on the grounds that they are HIV-positive.” 82.     The relevant parts of the Appendix to Recommendation no. R (98) 7 of the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe to Member States concerning the ethical and organisational aspects of health care in prison read as follows: “38.     The isolation of a patient with an infectious condition is only justified if such a measure would also be taken outside the prison environment for the same medical reasons. 39.     No form of segregation should be envisaged in respect of persons who are HIV antibody positive, subject to the provisions contained in paragraph 40. 40.     Those who become seriously ill with Aids-related illnesses should be treated within the prison health care department, without necessarily resorting to total isolation. Patients, who need to be protected from the infectious illnesses transmitted by other patients, should be isolated only if such a measure is necessary for their own sake to prevent them acquiring intercurrent infections ...” 83 .     The 1993 Guidelines on HIV infection and AIDS in prisons issued by the World Health Organization (WHO) read, in so far as relevant, as follows: “27.     Since segregation, isolation and restrictions on occupational activities, sports and recreation are not considered useful or relevant in the case of HIV-infected people in the community, the same attitude should be adopted towards HIV-infected prisoners. Decisions on isolation for health conditions should be taken by medical staff only, and on the same grounds as for the general public, in accordance with public health standards and regulations. Prisoners' rights should not be restricted further than is absolutely necessary on medical grounds, and as provided for by public health standards and regulations ... 28.     Isolation for limited periods may be required on medical grounds for HIV ‑ infected prisoners suffering from pulmonary tuberculosis in an infectious stage. Protective isolation may also be required for prisoners with immunodepression related to AIDS, but should be carried out only with a prisoner's informed consent. Decisions on the need to isolate or segregate prisoners (including those infected with HIV) should only be taken on medical grounds and only by health personnel, and should not be influenced by the prison administration ... 32. Information regarding HIV status may only be disclosed to prison managers if the health personnel consider ... that this is warranted to ensure the safety and well ‑ being of prisoners and staff ...” B.     Administering antiretroviral therapy 84 .     The WHO published on 30 November 2009 a document entitled “Rapid Advice: Antiretroviral Therapy for HIV Infection in Adults and Adolescents”. The recommendations concerning the commencement of administering treatment are as follows. It is strongly recommended to start antiretroviral treatment in all patients with HIV who have a CD4 count of lower than 350 cells per mm 3 irrespective of clinical symptoms. CD4 testing is required to identify if HIV-positive patients with WHO clinical stage 1 or   2 disease need to start antiretroviral treatment. Furthermore, it is strongly recommended to start antiretroviral treatment in all patients with HIV with WHO clinical stage 3 or 4 irrespective of CD4 count. THE LAW I.     ALLEGED VIOLATIONS OF ARTICLE 3 OF THE CONVENTION ON ACCOUNT OF THE CONDITIONS OF THE APPLICANT'S DETENTION 85.     The applicant complained about the poor conditions of his detention in wing 2/1 of remand prison IZ-47/1 and about the fact that he had been placed in solitary confinement and thus put in social isolation. He relied on Article 3 of the Convention, which reads as follows: “No one shall be subjected to torture or to inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.” A.     The parties' submissions 1.     The Government 86.     The Government contested the applicant's allegations. They submitted that the applicant had been kept in decent conditions in each cell which he had occupied while in the remand prison. His placement in the individual cell had been based on a valid reason since the police had informed the remand prison authorities of threats to his life and limb made by the applicant's accomplices. The authorities had verified the information provided by the police and decided on 29 October 2004 that the applicant should be transferred to a solitary cell to ensure his safety. 87.     The applicant had not complained about the conditions of his detention either to the remand prison authorities or to prosecutors. He had not made any complaints concerning the fact of his placement in cell no.   123. Moreover, the applicant had not raised the issue of the alleged lack of medical assistance with the remand prison authorities. 2.     The applicant 88.     The applicant maintained his complaints concerning his detention in wing 2/1. He argued that he had repeatedly complained about the matter at domestic level, in particular in 2004 while in cell no. 129, but to no avail. He had repeatedly asked to be transferred from the wing for those serving life sentences to a shared cell. The applicant had not been made aware of the ruling of 29 October 2004 on his transfer to a solitary cell and thus had not been able to appeal against it. Furthermore, the applicant noted that in his statement of 10 April 2007 referred to by the Government in their observations he had mentioned his repeated oral complaints and remarked that the statement had been written under the control of the remand prison official. The official had insisted that the applicant state that he had not lodged any written complaints. 89.     The applicant further contested the Government's allegation that his placement in a solitary cell had been justified by threats from his accomplices. His only co-accused was a close friend of his who had not been detained on remand. No other accomplices' identities had been established in the course of the investigation. The applicant concluded that the remand prison authorities had placed him in solitary confinement for no valid reason. 90.     Wing 2/1, in which cells nos. 123 and 129 were located, had never been properly cleaned. The cleaning schedule for the premises provided by the Government did not include wing 2/1 and therefore could not serve as evidence to disprove the applicant's allegations. Cells nos. 123 and 129 had not been equipped with mandatory ventilation. The floors in the cells had been concrete, not wooden. A sanitary inspector had never visited the cells in which the applicant had been kept; the visit of cell no. 123 of 14   December 2004 had taken place while the applicant had been held in cell no. 129. The Government's submissions concerning the temperature in cell no. 123 were incorrect. 91.     The applicant concluded that his rights guaranteed by Article 3 of the Convention had been breached. B.     The Court's assessment 1.     Admissibility (a)     Scope of the case 92.     The Court points out that throughout the proceedings before it the applicant complained about the conditions of his detention in wing 2/1. It observes in this connection that it is disputed between the parties whether the applicant was transferred from the shared cell to cell no. 123 or to cell no. 129. However, it does not deem it necessary to establish in which of these cells the applicant was placed on 29 October 2004, given that both of them were located in the same special access wing and that the conditions of detention in each of them were identical. 93.     The Court will therefore examine the applicant's complaint concerning the conditions of his detention in respect of the period which started on 29 October 2004, once he had been placed in solitary confinement in wing 2/1. (b)     Exhaustion of domestic remedies 94.     The Court reiterates that the rule of exhaustion of domestic remedies referred to in Article 35 § 1 of the Convention obliges applicants to use the remedies that are normally available and sufficient in the domestic legal system to enable them to obtain redress for the breaches alleged. The existence of the remedies must be sufficiently certain, in practice as well as in theory, failing which they will lack the requisite accessibility and effectiveness. Article 35 § 1 also requires that the complaints intended to be brought subsequently before the Court should have been made to the appropriate domestic body, at least in substance and in compliance with the formal requirements laid down in domestic law (see Guliyev v. Russia , no.   24650/02, § 51, 19 June 2008, with further references). 95 .     The Court further reiterates that it is incumbent on the Government claiming non-exhaustion to satisfy the Court that the remedy was an effective one available in theory and in practice at the relevant time, that is to say, that it was accessible, capable of providing redress in respect of the applicant's complaints and offered reasonable prospects of success (see Selmouni v. France [GC], no. 25803/94, § 76, ECHR 1999-V, and Mifsud v.   France (dec.), no. 57220/00, § 15, ECHR 2002-VIII). The domestic remedies must be “effective” in the sense either of preventing the alleged violation or its continuation, or of providing adequate redress for any violation that had already occurred (see Kudła v. Poland [GC], no.   30210/96, § 158, ECHR-XI). 96.     The Court takes note of the Government's argument that the applicant did not complain to the remand prison authorities or to prosecutors about the allegedly appalling conditions of his detention in wing 2/1 and that he did not complain at all about the fact of his solitary confinement. However, the Government did not specify what type of complaints to either the remand prison authorities or prosecutors or any other domestic body would have been an effective remedy in their view and did not provide any further information as to how such complaints could have prevented the alleged violations or their continuation or provided the applicant with adequate redress. In the absence of such evidence and having regard to the above-mentioned principles, the Court finds that the Government have not substantiated their claim that the remedies that the applicant had allegedly failed to exhaust in relation to his complaints under Article 3 of the Convention were effective (see, among other authorities, Kranz v. Poland , no.   6214/02, § 23, 17 February 2004, and Skawinska v. Poland (dec.), no.   42096/98, 4 March 2003). 97.     Accordingly, the Court dismisses the Government's objection concerning non-exhaustion of domestic remedies. (c)     Well-foundedness of the complaints 98.     The Court considers that the applicant's complaints concerning the fact of his placement in solitary confinement and physical conditions of his detention in the wing 2/1 are not manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 of the Convention. They are not inadmissible on any other grounds and must therefore be declared admissible. 2.     Merits 99 .     The Court reiterates that Article 3 of the Convention enshrines one of the most fundamental values of democratic society. It prohibits in absolute terms torture or inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, irrespective of the circumstances and the victim's behaviour (see, among other authorities, Labita v. Italy [GC], no 26772/95, § 119, ECHR 2000-IV). In order to fall under Article   3, ill-treatment must attain a minimum level of severity. The assessment of this minimum level is relative; it depends on all the circumstances of the case, such as the duration of the treatment, its physical and mental effects and, in some cases, the state of health of the victim (see Ireland v. the United Kingdom , 18 January 1978, § 162, Series   A no. 25, and Gäfgen v. Germany [GC], no. 22978/05, § 88, ECHR 2010 ‑ ...). Although the purpose of such treatment is a factor to be taken into account, in particular the question of whether it was intended to humiliate or debase the victim, the absence of any such purpose does not inevitably lead to a finding that there has been no violation of Article 3 (see Peers v.   Greece , no. 28524/95, § 74, ECHR 2001-III). 100.     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 (see Enea v. Italy [GC], no. 74912/01, § 56, ECHR 2009-...). Measures depriving a person of his liberty may often involve an element of suffering or humiliation. However, the State must ensure that a person is detained under conditions which are compatible with respect for his human dignity, 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 and that, given the practical demands of imprisonment, his health and well-being are adequately secured (see Kudła , cited above, §§ 92-94, and Cenbauer v. Croatia , no. 73786/01, § 44, ECHR 2006-III). 101.     Turning to the circumstances of the present case, the Court points out that the decision of 29 October 2004 by the remand prison authorities required the applicant to spend an unspecified period of his detention in a situation amounting to solitary confinement. 102.     The Court reiterates at the outset that the prohibition of contact with other prisoners for security, disciplinary or protective reasons does not in itself amount to inhuman treatment or punishment (see, among other authorities, Öcalan v. Turkey [GC], no. 46221/99, § 191, ECHR 2005-IV). In many States parties to the Convention more stringent security measures, which are intended to prevent the risk of escape, attack or disturbance of the prison community, exist for dangerous prisoners (see Ramirez Sanchez v.   France [GC], no. 59450/00, § 138, ECHR 2006 ‑ IX). Whilst prolonged removal from association with others is undesirable, whether such a measure falls within the ambit of Article 3 of the Convention depends on the particular conditions, the stringency of the measure, its duration, the objective pursued and its effects on the person concerned (see Rohde v.   Denmark , no. 69332/01, § 93, 21 July 2005). 103.     Turning to the circumstances of the present case, the Court points out that it is not clear from the parties' submissions whether the applicant has ever been transferred away from wing 2/1 of the remand prison. Nonetheless, it transpires from the applicant's observations