CEDH · CASELAW;JUDGMENTS;CHAMBER;ENG — 3 juillet 2012

.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 } .s598389FB { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:14pt } .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 } .s2E932ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; 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 } .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 } .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 } .s11869A80 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .sE3D66594 { border:0.75pt solid #000000; border-collapse:collapse } .s41E9DBF5 { border-right-style:solid; border-right-width:0.75pt; border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s85646119 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; font-size:12pt } .sF004B676 { border-left-style:solid; border-left-width:0.75pt; border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sB30C44B0 { border-top-style:solid; border-top-width:0.75pt; border-right-style:solid; border-right-width:0.75pt; border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s598389F9 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:12pt } .s2342A031 { border-top-style:solid; border-top-width:0.75pt; border-left-style:solid; border-left-width:0.75pt; border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s546C9D04 { border-top-style:solid; border-top-width:0.75pt; border-right-style:solid; border-right-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s4F2EDFF { border-top-style:solid; border-top-width:0.75pt; border-left-style:solid; border-left-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .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 } .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 } .s6477A72F { margin-top:0pt; 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 } .s988F61DE { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .s21F08A35 { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:36.6pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-15.05pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .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 } .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 } .s507703F { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .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 } .s9D48DD53 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; 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 } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s33165EBA { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .s937EAB52 { font-family:Arial; font-size:9pt; color:#363636 } .s5C5E66B9 { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; font-style:italic; vertical-align:super } .sB853CD34 { font-family:Arial; font-size:6pt } .sADADF4A7 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline } .sCA92750 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:42pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .sD777C0A5 { margin-top:42pt; margin-bottom:30pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .sB1BD30C0 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:24pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .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 } .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 } .s1913A4C6 { margin-top:6pt; 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 } .s677DA8A { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:48.75pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-indent:-17pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .s8C50CFA1 { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:59.5pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-17.85pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .sCA71A5BA { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:59.5pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-17.85pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; 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 } .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 } .s8E011338 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s56E27C8 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:24pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .sC1F0960A { margin-top:24pt; margin-left:29.2pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17.6pt; text-align:justify; page-break-after:avoid } .s3B3A5DE9 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:36pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .sAB173E38 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:17pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-17pt; text-align:justify } .s127C7598 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:17pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-17pt; text-align:justify } .sD66C1369 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:17.3pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s81CCF55C { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:17pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17pt; text-align:justify } .s48DB3670 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:36pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s7CB9076 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s507451D6 { width:4.53pt; display:inline-block } .s299839C6 { width:212.77pt; display:inline-block } .s7602FED2 { width:18.21pt; display:inline-block } .sC1AC44A4 { width:228.11pt; display:inline-block } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left } .s85226119 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .s653E6C45 { font-family:Arial; font-size:6.67pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 }       FIRST SECTION             CASE OF RAZVYAZKIN v. RUSSIA   (Application no. 13579/09)           JUDGMENT       STRASBOURG   3 July 2012     FINAL   03/10/2012   This judgment has become final under Article 44 § 2 of the Convention. It may be subject to editorial revision. In the case of Razvyazkin v. Russia, The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting as a Chamber composed of:   Nina Vajić, President,   Anatoly Kovler,   Peer Lorenzen,   Elisabeth Steiner,   Khanlar Hajiyev,   Mirjana Lazarova Trajkovska,   Julia Laffranque, judges, and Søren Nielsen, Section Registrar, Having deliberated in private on 12 June 2012, Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date: PROCEDURE 1.     The case originated in an application (no. 13579/09) 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 Sergey Vyacheslavovich Razvyazkin (“the applicant”), on 5 March 2009. 2.     The applicant, who had been granted legal aid, was represented by Mr   V.   Shukhardin, a lawyer practising in Moscow. The Russian Government (“the Government”) were represented by Mr   G.   Matyushkin, the Representative of the Russian Federation at the European Court of Human Rights. 3.     The applicant complained, in particular, about the conditions of his solitary confinement in the correctional colony’s punishment cells, and also that medical assistance had been inadequate, that there had been no effective domestic remedy with regard to the above issues, and that the civil proceedings to which he was a party (procedural inequality and proceedings not held in public) had been unfair. 4.     On 10 January 2011 the above complaints were communicated to the Government under Articles 3, 6 § 1 and 13 of the Convention. It was decided to rule on the admissibility and merits of the application at the same time (Article 29 § 1). THE FACTS I.     THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE 5.     The applicant was born in 1963 and is currently serving a term of imprisonment in correctional colony IK-4, Tula Region. A.     The applicant’s conviction and imprisonment 6.     On 6 April 2001 the Moscow City Court convicted the applicant of robbery and murder and sentenced him to thirteen years’ imprisonment. 7.     On 3 August 2001 the applicant was sent to correctional colony IK-4, Tula Region (ФБУ “Исправительная колония № 4” УФСИН по Тульской области) , to serve his sentence. 8 .     Between 2001 and 2010 the applicant was repeatedly disciplined for breaching colony rules, including by placement in punishment cells or SHIZO (ШИЗО) and solitary confinement cells or PKT (ПКТ) . In August 2006 the applicant was declared a “persistent rule-breaker” and placed in the colony’s strict regime unit (СУС) . 9.     Between December 2007 and December 2010 the applicant was held in solitary confinement cells almost uninterruptedly, the disciplinary measure being applied every time on account of the applicant’s refusal to return to the strict regime unit. The applicant was never provided with copies of the decisions placing him in the PKT, as it was not required under domestic law. 10.     On 12 March 2010 the Plavskiy District Court, Tula Region, reviewed the qualification of the applicant’s conviction in connection with the entry into force of amendments to the Criminal Code. 11.     On 30 June 2010 the Tula Regional Court, having examined the above judgment on appeal, reduced the applicant’s sentence to twelve years and ten months’ imprisonment. 12.     On 27 January 2011 the applicant was transferred from the strict regime unit to a regular unit. B.     Conditions of the applicant’s detention in PKT solitary confinement and relevant complaints 13 .     On numerous occasions between December 2007 and December 2010 the applicant was held in solitary confinement in PKT punishment cells in correctional colony IK-4, Tula Region. The dates of the applicant’s stay in various PKT cells as from December 2007 until December 2010 are given in the table below:   Cell no.: Dates of stay: 14 12 December 2007 – 12 March 2008 14 14 March - 14 August 2008 5 29 August – 29 November 2008 14 8 March – 8 April 2009 2 25 April – 25 May 2009 14 26 June – 26 September 2009 10 27 January – 27 March 2010 17 6 May – 7   December 2010 1.     The Government’s account 14.     Cell 10 measured 6.7 square metres and cells 14 and 17 measured 12.1 square metres. No information was provided regarding the measurements of cells 2 and 5. 15.     Each cell was lit by two 40-watt filament lamps from 5   a.m. to 9   p.m. and by a 40-watt security light from 9 p.m. to 5 a.m. Natural lighting was available through windows measuring 90 by 50 cm and covered with grids on both the inside and the outside of the cell. 16.     The cells were not equipped with ventilation as such. However, natural ventilation was available through window vents. 17.     The cells were equipped with central heating. The average winter temperature was maintained at 18 degrees Celsius and the average summer temperature at 20-25 degrees Celsius. 18.     In each cell the lavatory was situated in the corner and was separated from the living area by a brick partition 1.4 to 1.5 metres high. It was separated from the bunk beds and the dining table by sufficient distance. 19.     The applicant was provided with hot meals three times a day in accordance with the established legal norms. Once a week he could take a shower. After each shower the applicant was provided with clean linen. 20.     The cells were rodent-free. Regular monthly disinfections, delousing and disinfestations were carried out in the facility. 21.     The applicant enjoyed daily outside exercise, limited to one and a half hours. The PKT exercise yards, which measured 13.8 to 15.7 square metres, provided shelter from rain yet provided access to fresh air and daylight. 22 .     The applicant was found fit to be detained in PKT punishment cells on 14 March, 6   and 14 June and 29   August 2008, 25   April and 26   August 2009, and 27 January, 27   February and 6   July 2010. The doctors never assessed the applicant’s physical or psychological capacity to deal with long-term solitary confinement, as it was not part of their duties. 23.     The Government supported their submissions with documents issued by the director of IK-4 on 24   February and 2 and 10   March 2011, a document issued by the director of IK-2 on 28   February 2011, and the applicant’s medical file. 24 .     The Government were unable to provide any information as to the effect that the long-term solitary confinement has had on the applicant. 2.     The applicant’s account 25.     The applicant alleged that the windows in the cells provided very limited daylight. The cells were stuffy and damp, cold in winter and hot in summer. The central heating did not function. 26.     The food was very dull and consisted mainly of cooked cereal. 27.     The cells were overrun by rats. 28.     The applicant was not allowed to receive visits from members of his family or to receive parcels from outside. His access to reading material was restricted . He could not use his sleeping place during the day without special permission to that effect from a doctor. 29.     The applicant submitted that he was not fit to stay long in solitary confinement. He referred to a document issued by the colony’s psychological laboratory on 11 November 2004 which, having carried out a psychological examination of the applicant, arrived at the following conclusions: “...Recommendations: 1.     It is necessary to monitor periodically the establishment and development of [the applicant’s] interpersonal relationships. 2.     It should be taken into consideration that [the applicant] operates more productively in a dynamic and diverse environment associated with constant communication. 3.     Solitude, monotony, and strict discipline are contra-indicated ...” 3.     Relevant complaints 30 .     On 28 May 2008 the applicant challenged before the court the lawfulness of his placement in a PKT punishment cell on 14   March 2008. He claimed, in particular, that such a measure was incompatible with his severe health problems and amounted to inhuman and degrading treatment in violation of Article 3 of the Convention. The applicant asked the court to examine the case in the presence of his representative. 31.     On 26 June 2008 the applicant’s representative was informed that the off-site court hearing would take place on 30 June 2008 at 9.30 a.m. in correctional colony IK-4. 32.     On 30 June 2008 at 9.30 a.m. the representative arrived at the colony for the hearing. With him was an expert from the Defence of Prisoners’ Rights Fund (“the Fund”) who the applicant also wanted to act in his defence. However, the director of the colony did not allow either of them on the premises of the colony, since the applicant’s representative was carrying a dictaphone, a mobile phone, a camera and a laptop, which he refused to leave at the entrance, and because the person from the Fund did not have any documents determining her status in the proceedings. 33.     The hearing started at 11.30 a.m. without the applicant’s representative. 34.     The court read out the request from the applicant’s representative for the hearing to be held at Plavskiy District Court, Tula Region, on the grounds that it would be unlawful to hold the hearing of the case in a closed controlled-access facility. 35 .     The representative of the colony submitted that all those wishing to participate in the hearing could do so and asked that the above request be dismissed. 36.     The court dismissed the request in question, stating that the domestic law did not provide for the possibility of transfer of convicts so that they could participate in the hearing of their civil cases. 37.     The court observed that the hearing could be held without the applicant’s representative. The applicant objected. 38.     The representative of the colony submitted that the applicant’s representative had not been allowed into the colony because he was carrying a dictaphone, a mobile phone, a camera and a laptop without having obtained permission to use such equipment. 39.     The court decided to proceed without the applicant’s representative. 40.     The applicant refused to participate in the hearing without the representative. He stated that he would make no submissions, as he feared for his own safety, and left the hearing room. 41.     The court proceeded without the applicant. Having examined the material of the case and heard the representative of the colony, the court dismissed the applicant’s claim. The court held that the decision to transfer the applicant to the PKT punishment cell had been lawful and that it had not breached the applicant’s rights. 42.     The applicant appealed. He complained, inter alia , that the hearing of his case in the first instance had taken place on the premises of a closed controlled-access facility to which his representative had been unlawfully denied access, which amounted to a violation of his right to defence and breached the principle of equality of arms. The applicant requested that the examination of his case on appeal be carried out in the presence of both himself and his representative. 43.     On 11 September 2008 Tula Regional Court, having examined the case-file material, the arguments put forward by the applicant and having heard the applicant’s representative, upheld the judgment of 30   June 2008 on appeal. The court held that the applicant’s representative had refused to abide by the requirements of the facility’s management that he should be granted access, and that the applicant had himself chosen to leave the courtroom. 44 .     On 13 October 2008 the applicant’s representative challenged before the court the applicant’s ten months’ almost uninterrupted confinement in PKT punishment cells. Citing Article 3 of the Convention, the applicant’s representative claimed that the applicant’s confinement in the PKT significantly affected his physical and mental health, and has been causing him distress and anguish exceeding the legally acceptable level. He relied, in particular, on the limitation of the time for outside walks, restrictions on receiving parcels from the outside and family visits, poor nutrition, restrictions on reading material, and inadequate medical assistance. 45.     On 17 November 2008 the Plavskiy District Court, Tula Region, having examined the lawfulness of application of the disciplinary sanctions to the applicant, dismissed the claim. The court found that the applicant’s health did not prevent him from being detained in the PKT punishment cells, and that placement there did not amount to a violation of the applicant’s rights and freedoms. The court did not establish a causal link between the decisions to place the applicant in the PKT punishment cells and the latter’s health problems. The complaints of inadequate medical assistance were found unsubstantiated. 46 .     On 5 March 2009 the Tula Regional Court upheld the above judgment on appeal. 47 .     On 13 October 2008 and 17 February 2009 the applicant’s representative challenged the lawfulness of the decision of the head of IK-4 to refuse to hand over to the applicant a human rights magazine. On 5   March 2009 and 9   September 2009 respectively the Tula Regional Court, as the final court of appeal, dismissed the applicant’s challenge finding the decisions lawful. 48 .     On 6   September 2010 the applicant’s representative complained to the Tula Region Prosecutor’s Office supervising compliance with the law in correctional facilities about the conditions of the applicant’s detention in the PKT punishment cells. On 5 October 2010 the Prosecutor’s Office found the above complaint unsubstantiated. C.     Medical assistance and relevant complaints 1.     Applicant’s medical conditions and treatment 49 .     The applicant’s medical file indicates that from his arrival at the IK ‑ 4 facility on 3 August 2001 the applicant was treated by a psychiatrist of the medical unit for “personality disorder of hysterical type and organic disorder of the central nervous system, of complex origin”. He regularly received outpatient treatment at the correctional colony’s medical unit. 50 .     On numerous occasions throughout his detention in IK-4 the applicant received inpatient treatment for various conditions: consequences of craniocerebral injury, psychopathy, hysterical personality disorder, psychotic disorder, paranoid disorder, asthenovegetative syndrome, encephalopathy, hyperopia, partial optic nerve atrophy, osteochondrosis, chronic gastritis, duodenitis, arthrosis of left mandibular joint, chronic orchiepididymitis, chronic prostatitis, varix dilatation of lower limbs, gallbladder deformation, urine acid diathesis, chronic pancreatitis, gastrointestinal tract dyskinesia and heel spurs. The applicant underwent this treatment at the medical unit of IK-4, the Tula Regional prison hospital at correctional colony IK-2, and the Interregional Psychiatric Hospital in Smolensk. 51 .     On several occasions the applicant underwent inpatient ophthalmological examination and treatment in the regional prison hospital for his hyperopia and partial optic nerve atrophy. In particular, specialised ophthalmological treatment was provided to the applicant between 26   July and 2   August 2002, between 26   February and 4   March 2004, between 2   and 11   November 2005, between 20   and 26   April 2007, between 22   and 28   February 2008, between 11   and 21   April 2008, and between 3   and 10   April 2009. On 10   February 2011 the applicant was examined by an ophthalmologist at the regional prison hospital and diagnosed with partial atrophy of the optic nerves, hyperopia and hypermetric astigmatism. Inpatient treatment was recommended. The case file contains no further information regarding this issue. 52 .     In August 2009 the applicant was diagnosed with oblique fracture of the instep bone of the right foot. The head of the IK-4 medical unit informed the applicant of the diagnosis. The applicant, however, denied the injury and submitted that he had hurt himself in 2000. The applicant was given crutches and prescribed bed rest. 2.     Relevant complaints 53 .     In November 2008 the IK-4 medical unit referred the applicant to the regional prison hospital for a check-up and treatment for rapidly deteriorating eyesight and atrophy of optic nerves. 54.     Since three months later the applicant had still not been transferred to the regional prison hospital, on 5 March 2009 the applicant’s representative challenged before the court the failure of the administration of the IK-4 correctional colony to send the applicant to the regional prison hospital. 55.     On 25   March 2009 the Plavskiy District Court, Tula Region, allowed the claim and obliged the IK-4 administration to send the applicant to the regional prison hospital for examination and treatment of his eyesight problems. 56 .     From 3 April to 10 April 2009 the applicant underwent treatment in the regional prison hospital. 57.     It appears from the Government’s submissions that between 2004 and 2010 the applicant made numerous complaints to the Tula Regional Prosecutor’s Office of inadequate medical assistance in the IK-4, to no avail. Neither party provided copies of the relevant complaints or replies to them. D.     Proceedings related to the applicant’s transfer to a prison regime 58.     In January 2009 the IK-4 correctional colony authorities requested that the applicant be transferred to a prison. 59.     On 27 January 2009 Plavskiy District Court, Tula Region, decided to transfer the applicant to a prison for two years. The hearing took place in the colony. The applicant’s representative was not granted access, because he had a dictaphone, a mobile phone, a camera and a laptop with him. The applicant refused to participate in the hearing, giving as reasons his health and the absence of his representative. He requested that the hearing be adjourned, without success. The representative of the colony made oral submissions to the court. 60.     On 15 April 2009 the Tula Regional Court quashed the judgment on appeal in view of a violation of the applicant’s right to defence, and remitted the case for a fresh examination. 61.     On 16 June 2009 Plavskiy District Court decided to transfer the applicant to prison for two years. The applicant was properly represented by counsel. 62.     On 19 August 2009 Tula Regional Court quashed the judgment of 16   June 2009 on appeal, because the court had failed to examine the disciplinary offences committed by the applicant and the validity of the sanctions imposed on the latter as a result. 63.     On 26 November 2009 Plavskiy District Court again decided to transfer the applicant to prison for two years. The court held that there was no evidence that such a transfer would be incompatible with the applicant’s state of health. 64.     On 24 March 2010 Tula Regional Court quashed the judgment of 26   November 2009 on appeal, because the court had failed to examine the circumstances in which disciplinary sanctions had been imposed on the applicant in 2007 and 2008. 65.     On 21 June 2010 Plavskiy District Court decided once more to transfer the applicant to prison for two years. 66.     On 30 September 2010 the case was moved to a new territorial jurisdiction and the case was transferred to Shchekinskiy District Court, Tula Region. 67.     On 24 November 2010 the Shchekinskiy District Court refused the applicant’s transfer to a prison. The court held that the disciplinary sanctions imposed on the applicant in the period between 2004 and 2008 had been unlawful and unjustified, so as the decision to declare the applicant a “persistent rule-breaker” and his transfer to the strict regime unit. On 12   January 2011 the Tula Regional Court upheld the above decision on appeal. 68.     However, on 14 June 2011 the Presidium of the Tula Regional Court quashed the decision of 24 November 2010, as upheld on appeal on 12   January 2011, and remitted the matter for fresh consideration. 69.     On 22 July 2011 the Shchekinskiy District Court discontinued the proceedings in view of the fact that the administration of the colony had withdrawn its request for the applicant to be transferred to a prison regime. II.     RELEVANT DOMESTIC LAW AND PRACTICE A.     The Constitution of the Russian Federation 70.     Article 21: “1. Human dignity shall be protected by the State. Nothing may serve as a basis for its derogation. 2. No one shall be subject to torture, violence or other severe or humiliating treatment or punishment ...” 71.     Article 41: “1. Everyone shall have the right to health protection and medical aid. Medical aid in state and municipal health establishments shall be rendered to individuals gratis, at the expense of the corresponding budget, insurance contributions, and other proceeds ...” 72.     Article 123: “1. Examination of cases in all courts shall be open. Examinations in camera shall be allowed only in cases envisaged by the federal law. 2. ... 3. Judicial proceedings shall be held on the basis of controversy and equality of the parties.” B.     The Code on the Execution of Sentences (of 8 January 1997 no.   1 ‑ FZ) 73.     Male inmates serving their sentences in correctional colonies of general and strict regimes who have been declared persistent rule-breakers of the established order of sentence serving can be placed in PKT punishment cells for a period of up to six months (Article   115   §   1). 74.     The placement of inmates in PKT punishment cells is carried out with indication of a specific end date for that measure (Article   117   §   4) [1] . 75.     Inmates subjected to placement in PKT punishment cells can be subjected to disciplinary measures other than placement in PKT punishment cells (Article 117 § 5). 76 .     Inmates placed in PKT punishment cells have the right to spend 500   roubles per month on foodstuffs and articles of prime necessity, to receive a parcel once every six months, to have one-and-a-half hours’ daily outdoor exercise, and, upon approval by the administration of the correctional facility, to receive a short-term visit once every six months (Article   118   §   2). [2] A priest of an officially registered religious association can be called to an inmate in a PKT punishment cell at his request (Article   118   §   2.1). Inmates placed in PKT punishment cells work separately from other inmates (Article   118   §   3). The time that an inmate subjected to placement in PKT punishment cell spends in medical establishments of the prison system is counted as part of his detention in the PKT (Article   118   §   5). 77.     Inmates are entitled to primary health care and specialised inpatient and outpatient medical care (Article 12 § 6). 78.     Medical units and hospitals (including specialised psychiatric and tuberculosis hospitals) are available within the penal system to provide medical care for inmates (Article 101 § 2). 79 .     Convicts can be transferred from a correctional colony to an investigative unit if their participation is required as witnesses, victims or suspects in connection with certain investigative measures (Article 77.1). The Code does not indicate any opportunity for a convicted person to take part in civil proceedings, whether as a plaintiff or defendant. C.     The Code of Civil Procedure (of 14   November 2002 no.   138-FZ) 80.     The hearing of civil cases in all courts shall be held in public, with some exceptions. Those involved in the case and those present in open court have the right to record the progress of the trial by taking written notes or by means of audio recording. Photography, video recording and broadcasting the hearing on radio and television are allowed with the permission of the court. Judgments are pronounced publicly, except when they concern the rights and legitimate interests of minors (Article   10   §§   1,   7 and 8). 81.     Judicial proceedings in civil cases shall be adversarial and based on equality between the parties (Article 12). 82.     Individuals can appear before the court in person or act through a representative (Article   48   §   1). 83.     A court can hold an off-site session if, for instance, it is necessary to examine evidence which cannot be brought to the court-house (Articles   58 and 184). D.     Internal Regulations of Correctional Institutions, enacted by Ministry of Justice order 205 of 3   November 2005 84.     A correctional facility provides medical examinations, supervision and treatment of inmates, using the means and facilities recommended by the Ministry of Health Care. It provides storage and distribution of medicines and other medical items, detection of contraindications for professional suitability, and medical expert opinion in case of temporary disability (Section 122). 85.     In instances where medical aid cannot be provided in a medical institution within the penal system the inmate can be transferred to a medical institution within the state or municipal health care system (Section   124). 86 .     Short-term visitors to inmates are prohibited from carrying any items (including cameras, photo materials, movie cameras, video and audio equipment, communication devices, and so on) into correctional institutions. Such items are to be left with a junior inspector responsible for the meeting until the end of their visit (Sections 76 and 80). E.     Case-law of the Constitutional Court and the Supreme Court 87 .     On several occasions the Constitutional Court examined complaints by convicts whose requests for leave to appear in civil proceedings had been refused by courts. It consistently declared the complaints inadmissible, finding that the contested provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure and the Code on the Execution of Sentences did not, as such, restrict the convicted person’s access to court. It emphasised, nonetheless, that a convicted person should be able to make submissions to a civil court, either through a representative or in any other way provided by law. If necessary, the hearing could be held at the location where the convicted person was serving the sentence or the court hearing the case could instruct the court with territorial jurisdiction over the correctional colony to obtain the applicant’s submissions or take any other procedural steps (decisions no.   478-O of 16   October 2003, no.   335-O of 14   October 2004, and no.   94-O of 21   February 2008). 88.     In 2009 the Supreme Court held that the provisions of sections 76 and 80 of the Internal Regulations of Correctional Institutions should not be applied to lawyers as long as it was necessary for them to bring with them the items in question during their visits to correctional institutions in order for them to provide their clients with qualified legal assistance (decision of 15   April 2009 no.   ГКПИ09-13). III.     RELEVANT COUNCIL OF EUROPE DOCUMENT Solitary confinement of prisoners 89 .     The relevant extracts from the 21 st General Report of the European Committee for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (CPT) ( CPT/Inf (2011) 28) read as follows: “53.     Solitary confinement of prisoners ... can have an extremely damaging effect on the mental, somatic and social health of those concerned. This damaging effect can be immediate and increases the longer the measure lasts and the more indeterminate it is ... 54.     The CPT understands the term “solitary confinement” as meaning whenever a prisoner is ordered to be held separately from other prisoners, for example, as a result of a court decision, as a disciplinary sanction imposed within the prison system, as a preventative administrative measure or for the protection of the prisoner concerned ... 55.     Solitary confinement further restricts the already highly limited rights of people deprived of their liberty. The extra restrictions involved are not inherent in the fact of imprisonment and thus have to be separately justified. In order to test whether any particular imposition of the measure is justified, it is appropriate to apply the traditional tests enshrined in the provisions of the European Convention on Human Rights and developed by the case-law of the European Court of Human Rights. ... (a)     Proportionate : any further restriction of a prisoner’s rights must be linked to the actual or potential harm the prisoner has caused or will cause by his or her actions (or the potential harm to which he/she is exposed) in the prison setting. Given that solitary confinement is a serious restriction of a prisoner’s rights which involves inherent risks to the prisoner, the level of actual or potential harm must be at least equally serious and uniquely capable of being addressed by this means. ... The longer the measure is continued, the stronger must be the reason for it and the more must be done to ensure that it achieves its purpose. (b)     Lawful : provision must be made in domestic law for each kind of solitary confinement which is permitted in a country, and this provision must be reasonable. It must be communicated in a comprehensible form to everyone who may be subject to it. The law should specify the precise circumstances in which each form of solitary confinement can be imposed, the persons who may impose it, the procedures to be followed by those persons, the right of the prisoner affected to make representations as part of the procedure, the requirement to give the prisoner the fullest possible reasons for the decision ..., the frequency and procedure of reviews of the decision and the procedures for appealing against the decision. The regime for each type of solitary confinement should be established by law, with each of the regimes clearly differentiated from each other. (c)     Accountable : full records should be maintained of all decisions to impose solitary confinement and of all reviews of the decisions. These records should evidence all the factors which have been taken into account and the information on which they were based. There should also be a record of the prisoner’s input or refusal to contribute to the decision-making process. Further, full records should be kept of all interactions with staff while the prisoner is in solitary confinement, including attempts by staff to engage with the prisoner and the prisoner’s response. (d)     Necessary : the rule that only restrictions necessary for the safe and orderly confinement of the prisoner and the requirements of justice are permitted applies equally to prisoners undergoing solitary confinement. Accordingly, during solitary confinement there should, for example, be no automatic withdrawal of rights to visits, telephone calls and correspondence or of access to resources normally available to prisoners (such as reading materials). Equally, the regime should be flexible enough to permit relaxation of any restriction which is not necessary in individual cases. (e)     Non-discriminatory : not only must all relevant matters be taken into account in deciding to impose solitary confinement, but care must also be taken to ensure that irrelevant matters are not taken into account. Authorities should monitor the use of all forms of solitary confinement to ensure that they are not used disproportionately, without an objective and reasonable justification, against a particular prisoner or particular groups of prisoners. 56.     ... Withdrawal of a prisoner from contact with other prisoners may be imposed under the normal disciplinary procedures specified by the law, as the most severe disciplinary punishment. ... Given the potentially very damaging effects of solitary confinement, the CPT considers that the principle of proportionality requires that it be used as a disciplinary punishment only in exceptional cases and as a last resort, and for the shortest possible period of time. ... The CPT considers that the maximum period should be no higher than 14 days for a given offence, and preferably lower . Further, there should be a prohibition of sequential disciplinary sentences resulting in an uninterrupted period of solitary confinement in excess of the maximum period. Any offences committed by a prisoner which it is felt call for more severe sanctions should be dealt with through the criminal justice system. 57.     ... The reason for the imposition of solitary confinement as a punishment, and the length of time for which it is imposed, should be fully documented in the record of the disciplinary hearing. Such records should be available to senior managers and oversight bodies. There should also be an effective appeal process which can re-examine the finding of guilt and/or the sentence in time to make a difference to them in practice. A necessary concomitant of this is the ready availability of legal advice for prisoners in this situation. Prisoners undergoing this punishment should be visited on a daily basis by the prison director or another member of senior management, and the order given to terminate solitary confinement when this step is called for on account of the prisoner’s condition or behaviour. Records should be kept of such visits and of related decisions. 58.     The cells used for solitary confinement should meet the same minimum standards as those applicable to other prisoner accommodation. Thus, they should be of an adequate size, enjoy access to natural light and be equipped with artificial lighting (in both cases sufficient to read by), and have adequate heating and ventilation. They should also be equipped with a means of communication with prison staff. Proper arrangements should be made for the prisoners to meet the needs of nature in a decent fashion at all times and to shower at least as often as prisoners in normal regime. Prisoners held in solitary confinement should be allowed to wear normal prison clothing and the food provided to them should be the normal prison diet, including special diets when required. As for the exercise area used by such prisoners, it should be sufficiently large to enable them genuinely to exert themselves and should have some means of protection from the elements... 61.     As with all other regimes applied to prisoners, the principle that prisoners placed in solitary confinement should be subject to no more restrictions than are necessary for their safe and orderly confinement must be followed. Further, special efforts should be made to enhance the regime of those kept in long-term solitary confinement, who need particular attention to minimise the damage that this measure can do to them. It is not necessary to have an “all or nothing” approach to the question. Each particular restriction should only be applied as appropriate to the assessed risk of the individual prisoner. Equally, as already indicated, there should be a clear differentiation between the regimes applied to persons subject to solitary confinement, having regard to the type of solitary confinement involved. (b) Prisoners undergoing solitary confinement as a disciplinary sanction should never be totally deprived of contacts with their families and any restrictions on such contacts should be imposed only where the offence relates to such contacts. And there should be no restriction on their right of access to a lawyer. They should be entitled to at least one hour’s outdoor exercise per day, from the very first day of placement in solitary confinement, and be encouraged to take outdoor exercise. They should also be permitted access to a reasonable range of reading material .... It is crucially important that they have some stimulation to assist in maintaining their mental wellbeing... 63. ... Health-care staff should be very attentive to the situation of all prisoners placed under solitary confinement. The health-care staff should be informed of every such placement and should visit the prisoner immediately after placement and thereafter, on a regular basis, at least once per day, and provide them with prompt medical assistance and treatment as required. They should report to the prison director whenever a prisoner’s health is being put seriously at risk by being held in solitary confinement. ...” THE LAW I.     ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLES 3 AND 13 OF THE CONVENTION ON ACCOUNT OF THE APPLICANT’S SOLITARY CONFINEMENT 90 .     The applicant complained under Article 3 of the Convention about the conditions of his almost uninterrupted solitary confinement between December 2007 and December 2010 in the correctional colony’s PKT punishment cells. Article 3 of the Convention provides: “No one shall be subjected to torture or to inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.” He also claimed that he did not have at his disposal an effective remedy for the violation of the guarantee against ill-treatment, which is required under Article 13 of the Convention reading as follows: “Everyone whose rights and freedoms as set forth in [the] Convention are violated shall have an effective remedy before a national authority ....” A.     The parties’ submissions 91.     The applicant submitted that his long-term solitary confinement had significantly affected his mental health. He became unstable, depressive, apathetic and desperate. The decisions by which he was found fit for confinement in PKT punishment cells were taken by unqualified medical staff, mostly by medical assistants, and, in some rare cases, by a therapist. Furthermore, at no time did the domestic authorities undertake to assess the effect his long-term solitary confinement was having on his physical and mental well-being. The applicant further maintained his complaint as to the absence of an effective domestic remedy with regard to his complaint under Article 3. He noted, in particular, the difficulties in collecting evidence to substantiate his grievances relating to the conditions of his detention and the lack of procedural parity between the parties in arguing such claims before the domestic courts. 92.     For their part, the Government argued that the conditions of the applicant’s detention in IK-4 punishment cells complied with Article 3 of the Convention. In their view, the nature and the context of the applicant’s trea