CEDH · CASELAW;JUDGMENTS;CHAMBER;ENG — 17 janvier 2013

.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 } .s85A66119 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; font-size:14pt } .sE208486F { font-family:Arial; color:#ff0000 } .s85016119 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; font-size:11pt } .s4ACA9207 { page-break-before:always; clear:both; mso-break-type:section-break } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sB9D5CABB { width:28.35pt; display:inline-block } .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 } .s11869A80 { margin-top:0pt; 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 } .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 } .sA1CDB767 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .s281358E1 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .sFD4D42B6 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .s984A15CA { margin-top:6pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s8FA53EDF { margin-top:6pt; 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 } .s3CA22BA { font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .sB1BD30C0 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:24pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .s804EF768 { margin-top:24pt; margin-left:29.2pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17.6pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sB90861A5 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic; letter-spacing:-0.1pt } .sD5DF731 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .sC702907E { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:36.6pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-15.05pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s1913A4C6 { margin-top:6pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s8F4EE4B8 { margin-top:6pt; 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 } .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 } .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 } .s401C450A { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s9C156EF7 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s6477A72F { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s8A9F351B { margin-top:12pt; 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 } .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 } .sCBB0CF2F { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:40.6pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-19.3pt; 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 } .s9732F2A { width:183.3pt; display:inline-block } .s7602FED2 { width:18.21pt; display:inline-block } .sC1AC44A4 { width:228.11pt; display:inline-block }       FIFTH SECTION         CASE OF SIZAREV v. UKRAINE   (Application no. 17116/04 )             JUDGMENT         STRASBOURG     17 January 2013   FINAL   17/04/2013   This judgment has become final under Article 44 § 2 of the Convention. It may be subject to editorial revision. In the case of Sizarev v. Ukraine , The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting as a Chamber composed of:   Mark Villiger, President,   Angelika Nußberger,   Boštjan M. Zupančič,   Ann Power-Forde,   Ganna Yudkivska,   Helena Jäderblom,   Aleš Pejchal, judges, and Claudia Westerdiek, Section Registrar, Having deliberated in private on 11 December 2012, Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date: PROCEDURE 1.     The case originated in an application (no. 17116/04) against Ukraine lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) by a Ukrainian national, Mr Konstantin Konstantinovich Sizarev (“the applicant”), on 14 May 2004. 2.     The Ukrainian Government (“the Government”) were most recently represented by their Agent, Mr Nazar Kulchytskyy. 3.     The applicant complained, in particular, about the lawfulness and length of his pre-trial detention, the conditions in which he had been detained, the failure of the authorities to ensure his physical safety in detention and to duly investigate the incident of assault of which he had complained, as well as about being handcuffed while in hospital. 4.     On 21 March 2011 the application was communicated to the Government. THE FACTS I.     THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE 5.     The applicant was born in 1958 and lives in Yevpatoriya. 6.     He formerly worked as an assistant in a local court. Before the events in question, he did not have a criminal record. A.     Criminal proceedings against the applicant and his detention 7.     On 3 October 2003 a Mr K. complained to the police that the applicant had beaten him up. 8.     Although it initially found no reason to prosecute, on 24   February 2004 the Yevpatoriya City Prosecutor’s Office opened a criminal case against the applicant on suspicion of the deliberate infliction of bodily harm of a medium degree of severity on Mr   K. (an offence punishable by a maximum of three years’ imprisonment – see paragraph 82 below). 9.     On 18 March 2004 the applicant was ordered not to leave town. 10.     On 25 March 2004 he appointed his wife, Ms D., as his representative. 11.     From 8 to 29 April 2004, the applicant was on sick leave owing to a leg injury. As a result, he failed to appear before the investigator in answer to a summons. 12.     On 19 April 2004 the investigator applied to the Saky City Court (“the Saky Court”) with a request for the applicant’s pre-trial detention as a more appropriate preventive measure, given his failure to comply with the summons and also the fact that his actual place of residence was unknown. 13.     On 22 April 2004 the Saky Court ordered the police to ensure the applicant’s appearance. 14.     On the morning of 27 April 2004 the applicant was arrested. 15.     On the same date the Saky Court allowed the investigator’s applications at a hearing which was attended by the applicant and the prosecutor. The applicant’s request for his wife to be present was, however, rejected. 16.     The Saky Court noted that while pre-trial detention was normally ordered in cases where the likely penalty was more than three years’ imprisonment, it was possible to make an exception. The court noted that the applicant had failed to appear in response to a number of the investigator’s summonses, that he did not actually live at the address he had given to the investigating authorities as his place of residence, and that he had left Yevpatoriya on many occasions without informing the investigator, and in breach of the obligation not to leave town. Furthermore, the victim, Mr K., complained that the applicant had threatened him. The court observed that all those factors sufficed to consider the applicant’s case exceptional within the meaning of Article 155 § 1 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and to order pre-trial detention as a preventive measure pending his trial (see paragraph 84 below). 17.     Also, on 27 April 2004, Ms D. lodged an appeal against that decision on the applicant’s behalf. She submitted that putting the applicant in pre ‑ trial detention was contrary to the criminal procedural legislation given the minor nature of the crime in question. She further argued that the Saky Court had failed to take into account the fact that, as confirmed by medical records, the applicant had been undergoing medical treatment since 8 April 2004 and therefore had a valid reason for his failure to attend the investigation. She also pointed out that the court had disregarded the fact that the applicant had two children of minor age and that she herself (as his wife) was disabled. Lastly, Ms D. complained that the hearing of the Saky Court on 27 April 2004 had taken place in her absence. 18.     On 28 April 2004 the police questioned Ms D. as a witness in the criminal proceedings against the applicant and accordingly informed her that she was no longer permitted to represent him. 19.     On an unspecified date the applicant then appointed a Mr N. as his lawyer. 20.     On 3, 4 and 11 May 2004 the applicant requested that Ms D. be readmitted to the proceedings as his representative but his requests were turned down. 21.     On 7 May 2004 another lawyer, a Mr L., joined the proceedings as the applicant’s representative. 22.     On 19 May 2004 the charge against the applicant was extended to include intent to intimidate the victim (leading to the maximum possible sentence of five years – see paragraph 82 below). 23.     On the same day the applicant’s wife, Ms D., was readmitted as his representative in the proceedings, in addition to the two lawyers, Mr N. and Mr L., who were already representing him. 24.     On 1 June 2004 the Court of Appeal of the Autonomous Republic of Crimea (“the Crimea Court of Appeal”), in the presence of the applicant’s lawyers, excluding Ms D, examined the applicant’s appeal against his being taken into pre-trial detention. It upheld both the reasoning and the operative part of the ruling of the Saky Court of 27 April 2004. 25.     On 22 June 2004 the Zaliznychnyy District Court of Simferopol (“the Zaliznychnyy Court”) commenced the trial. It noted in its ruling following the preparatory hearing that the “preventive measure [had been] chosen correctly and there [were] no reasons for lifting or changing it”. 26.     On 5 and 7 July 2004 the Zaliznychnyy Court rejected the applicant’s two requests for release (the case file does not contain copies of these decisions). 27.     On 7 July 2004 the Zaliznychnyy Court, on a request by the investigator, ordered a psychiatric assessment of the applicant in order to establish his fitness to stand trial. The reasons given by the investigator were as follows: firstly, there was a disparity between the applicant’s various character references; secondly, no investigation had been made into his aggressive and motiveless behaviour at the time of the crime or his persistent evasiveness during the initial investigation before his arrest; and, finally, he had suffered a head injury which could have affected his mental state. The applicant’s lawyer, Mr L., supported the investigator’s request, whereas the applicant and his wife opposed it. The court found that a psychiatric assessment was indeed necessary in order to gain a comprehensive view of the applicant’s personality. 28.     On 1 October 2004 the Zaliznychnyy Court found the applicant guilty of negligently inflicting bodily harm of a medium degree of severity on Mr K. and sentenced him to a one-year suspended term of imprisonment. The court released the applicant subject to an obligation not to leave town. 29.     On 14 December 2004 the Crimea Court of Appeal quashed the aforementioned judgment and remitted the case to the first-instance court for fresh examination. 30.     On 25 November 2005 the Zaliznychnyy Court found the applicant guilty of the deliberate infliction of injuries of medium-severity on Mr K. with the intent to intimidate him and sentenced him to two years’ imprisonment. The court also changed the preventive measure imposed on the applicant from the order not to leave town to one of detention, without further explanation. The applicant was arrested on the court premises. 31.     The applicant and his representatives appealed against the judgment, alleging that it was based on a distorted assessment of the facts of the case and unreliable witness statements. 32.     On 24 January 2006 the Crimea Court of Appeal dismissed those appeals. However, it dispensed the applicant from serving the sentence and released him on the ground that he had two children of minor age. 33.     The applicant lodged a cassation appeal, seeking acquittal. 34.     On 25 January 2007 the Supreme Court found against him. B.     The incident involving the applicant in the Yevpatoriya Temporary Detention Facility and the subsequent investigation 35.     On 27 April 2004, at 7 p.m., the applicant was put in cell no. 10 of the Yevpatoriya Temporary Detention Facility (“the ITT”) which housed approximately ten detainees. About an hour later, the ITT administration discovered that he had sustained multiple injuries while in that cell. 36.     Between 29 April and 14 May 2004 a forensic medical examination was conducted. It concluded that the applicant’s injuries (see also paragraph   54 below) were light and could have been sustained on 27 April 2004. 37.     On 7 May 2004 the Yevpatoriya City Prosecutor’s Office refused to institute a criminal investigation into the incident. It stated that, as the applicant had admitted himself, he had accidentally fallen out of the top bunk in the cell and had injured himself. There was therefore no case to answer. 38.     On 11 May 2004 the applicant’s lawyer complained to the Yevpatoriya and Crimea prosecutors’ offices that the applicant had been beaten up in the ITT on 27   April   2004. He submitted that the ITT administration had wrongly placed his client in a communal cell shared by other detainees including, possibly, criminals with previous convictions, whereas because the applicant had been facing a criminal charge for the first time and had previously worked in the court service, legislation called for him to be held separately. 39.     On 12 May 2004 the Crimea Prosecutor’s Office quashed the ruling of 7 May 2004 as premature and sent the case back for additional investigation. It was noted that the applicant, a former court employee, had been placed in a cell with convicted criminals. This matter therefore required further examination. 40.     On 24 May 2004 the Yevpatoriya Prosecutor’s Office refused to institute criminal proceedings against the ITT officials in respect of the incident of 27 April 2004 (no copy of this decision has been made available in the case file). 41.     On 31 May 2004 the Yevpatoriya police department sent a letter to the applicant’s lawyer outlining its version of the events of 27 April 2004. It noted that at the time of the applicant’s arrest the ITT had been overcrowded, holding, in total, eighty-six detainees. The situation was compounded by the fact that one of the cells was under reconstruction. The applicant had been placed in the least heavily occupied cell. According to the letter, the applicant had not mentioned anything about having previously worked in the court service and the officer on duty could not have known that. 42.     On 22 June 2004 the Chief of the Yevpatoriya police department reprimanded the ITT officials for having put the applicant into a cell with convicted criminals0, in breach of Section 8 of the Pre-Trial Detention Act (see paragraph 78 below). 43.     On 30 July 2004 the Yevpatoriya City Prosecutor’s Office refused to open a criminal case against the ITT officials as it was unable to find evidence of a crime having been committed. It appears that the earlier refusal of 24 May 2004 had been quashed in the meantime. 44.     On 4 August 2004 the Crimea Prosecutor’s Office quashed that refusal and opened a criminal case under Article 125 § 2 of the Criminal Code (deliberate infliction of light bodily injuries – see paragraph 83 below) in respect of the applicant’s allegation of having been beaten. The investigation, at that stage, concerned the fact of the beating and was not targeted at any particular person. 45.     On 10 March 2005 the Crimea Department of the Ministry of the Interior completed its own internal enquiry into the matter. Its conclusions were as follows: there was no information about the police’s involvement in the alleged beating of the applicant; it had, however, been established that the applicant had been put in a communal cell in breach of legislation and the officials responsible for that decision had been disciplined. That measure was considered adequate in the circumstances. 46.     The investigation was continued in order to determine the involvement of the other detainees in the incident. It included, in particular, the questioning of the applicant’s cellmates at that time. 47.     On 20 December 2005 Mr Y., one of the detainees who had been held in cell no. 10 of the ITT on 27 April 2004, confessed to having beaten the applicant up. 48.     On 19 March 2007 the Saky Court found Mr Y. guilty of the deliberate infliction of light injuries on the applicant and sentenced him to two years’ restriction of liberty. According to information set out in the judgment, by April 2004 Mr Y. already had four criminal convictions to his name. 49.     The court dismissed as unsubstantiated the applicant’s submission that the ITT officials had deliberately put him into a cell with convicted criminals in order to “teach him a lesson”. No evidence was found to support the applicant’s allegation that two of the other inmates, Mr D. and an unidentified individual, had joined Mr Y. in beating him up. The applicant also submitted that the ITT governor, Mr F., had ordered the blood and other traces of the assault to be cleaned up immediately after the incident and that he had instructed everybody to say that the applicant had accidentally fallen from the upper bunk. Furthermore, the applicant stated that he had been taken back to cell no. 10 in the evening of 27 April 2004, while awaiting transfer to hospital, and that Mr Y. had intimidated him in order to make him say that he had injured himself by accident. The applicant also claimed that Mr D. had later been put in the same hospital ward, where he had continued to threaten the applicant, and had been present during all his interviews. Most of the inmates claimed that the applicant had provoked Mr Y. into a fight by being noisy and aggressive. One of the ITT staff confirmed the applicant’s story that the ITT governor had ordered the blood stains in cell no. 10 to be cleaned up and that the applicant had been taken back to the same cell before his transfer to hospital. This staff member had been reprimanded for having placed the applicant in the same cell as convicted criminals. However, according to his statement, it had been impossible to ensure compliance with the legal requirement concerning the isolation of detainees, because the ITT had been housing double its capacity of inmates. A woman who had been detained in the ITT at the same time as the applicant confirmed that she had cleaned up the blood in the cell, the corridor and in the investigation room following an order from the authorities. In his statement, Mr D. denied having beaten the applicant, but confirmed having been hospitalised with him in the same ward. Two detainees submitted that after the applicant had been removed from the cell following the incident the cell door had remained open for a couple of minutes and they had seen the ITT governor and some other officers hitting the applicant several times. The court dismissed this submission, however, as it was not corroborated by other evidence. 50.     The applicant appealed against the judgment of 19 March 2007. 51.     On 15 May 2007 the Crimea Court of Appeal rejected his appeal as unsubstantiated. It considered that the first-instance court had examined the case with due diligence and in accordance with the criminal procedural legislation. 52.     The applicant lodged a cassation appeal reiterating his grievances. 53.     On 11 October 2007 the Supreme Court rejected his request for leave to appeal as unsubstantiated. C.     The applicant’s medical condition and treatment 54.     On 27 April 2004, at 10.50 p.m., the ITT administration took the applicant to Yevpatoriya City Hospital, where he was diagnosed with and treated for the following conditions: concussion, hematomas beneath the eyelids, bruising to the left superciliary arch, bruises to the soft facial tissue, bruises to the tongue, injuries to both ears, bruises to the nose, and bruising of the soft tissue in the chest and lumbar regions. Other medical conditions were also noted, namely, two chronic inflammatory conditions (mesotympanitis and epitympanum) of the ear, nasal septum deviation, varicose veins on the lower extremity, saline diathesis, and chronic hepatitis in the remission stage. 55.     As can be seen from a letter dated 17 May 2004 from the hospital administration to the applicant’s lawyer, the applicant was treated in the hospital under the supervision of a neurosurgeon, the head of the ear, nose and throat department, a dental surgeon, and an eye surgeon. Furthermore, meetings were held with specialists, including the heads of the cardiology, urology and traumatology departments. 56.     On 13 May 2004 the applicant was discharged from the hospital in “a satisfactory state of health”. It was noted in the medical report that he could be kept in detention on condition that he took the medication prescribed for him and that his state of health was monitored by an ear, nose and throat specialist, a neurologist, and a surgeon. It was also recommended that the applicant be examined by an audiologist given that he complained of hearing problems. 57.     On 13 May 2004 the applicant’s wife requested the Court to indicate to the Government, as an interim measure under Rule 39 of the Rules of Court, to transfer him to a hospital from the SIZO due to his deteriorating state of health. 58.     On 14 May 2004 her request was allowed. The Government were asked to ensure that the applicant was transferred immediately to a hospital or other medical institution where he could receive the appropriate treatment for his medical condition. The Government were requested to inform the Court by 31 May 2004 of the steps taken. 59.     On 14 May 2004 the applicant was taken to Semashko Republic Clinical Hospital, where he was examined by an audiologist, a maxillofacial surgeon and an oncologist. The audiologist’s conclusion was that the applicant did not require any treatment and could be held in pre-trial detention. The maxillofacial surgeon recommended further examination by a neurologist. The oncologist diagnosed the applicant with a chronic tongue ulcer and recommended a histological test. 60.     The applicant was then transferred to the Yevpatoriya City Hospital, where he was further examined, during the period till 27 May 2004, by doctors specialising in different areas of medicine including an oncologist, a neurosurgeon, an oculist, an ear-nose-throat specialist, and a generalist, as well as the Deputy Chief Doctor in charge of surgical services. Furthermore, on 18 May 2004 a histological test (recommended on 14 May – see above) was performed, with no malignant tumour having been discovered. As per the medical records, during the period from 24 to 27 May 2004 the applicant did not complain of any pain syndromes. Having regard to the results of the tests and examinations undertaken, the doctors concluded that the applicant did not require inpatient medical treatment and could be held in detention. 61.     On 28 May 2004 the Government informed the Court of the above, and on 1 June 2004 they submitted the respective medical certificates. 62.     On 5 July 2004 the President of the Chamber to which the case was allocated lifted the interim measure. D.     The handcuffing of the applicant in hospital 63.     During his stay in Yevpatoriya City Hospital from 27 April to 13   May 2004 the applicant was handcuffed to his bed. The ward in which he was held had bars on its windows and a lock on its door. Three police officers guarded the applicant at all times. 64.     On 11 May 2004 the applicant’s lawyer complained to the Yevpatoriya and Crimea prosecutor’s offices about the applicant’s permanent handcuffing in hospital, which, according to him, was an unnecessary and humiliating measure unsupported by any legal grounds. 65.     On 22 May 2004 the Yevpatoriya police department, to which the above-mentioned complaints had been forwarded, completed its “internal investigation” into the matter. It concluded that the handcuffing of the applicant during his treatment in hospital was not contrary to Section 18 of the Pre-Trial Detention Act, which prohibited this measure only in respect of specific categories of detainee (pregnant women, the elderly, the disabled and minors), into none of which the applicant fitted (see paragraph 81 below). Moreover, the applicant had remained under constant medical supervision. In addition, the handcuffs had been removed during meals, when the applicant took his medicine, during hygienic procedures, and additionally for a further thirty to forty minutes per day. E.     Conditions of the applicant’s detention in the Yevpatoriya ITT 66.     According to the applicant, following his discharge from hospital, on 13 May 2004 he had been placed in cell no. 12 of the ITT, measuring 1.7 by 2.1   metres. Two other detainees were already held there. One of them had tuberculosis, and the other one had scabies. The cell had no windows and was lit by a weak electric bulb. It was infested with lice. There was no furniture. The three detainees slept in turns on two mattresses on the concrete floor, with their legs resting in the non-separated toilet area, on account of the lack of space. There was no washbasin, and the detainees had to wash themselves using water from the toilet flush, which was also the only source of drinking water. The cell was poorly ventilated. The detainees could not go for walks or have showers. Furthermore, the applicant required a special diet because of his tongue injury. In its absence and given the ITT administration’s refusal to accept food for him from his relatives, he went hungry. 67.     On 19 May 2004 the applicant was transferred to cell no. 6, which had better living conditions. He claimed that the transfer had only been made on account of a visit to the ITT by the Ombudsman. 68.     On 21 May 2004 the applicant was transferred back to cell no. 12, which he shared once again with two other detainees. 69.     On 27 May 2004 he was transferred to Simferopol SIZO no. 15 (“the SIZO”), where he was held in the hospital wing. 70.     On 3 June 2004 he was taken back to the ITT and placed once more in cell   no.   12. 71.     On 10 June 2004 the applicant was transferred to the SIZO again. F.     Civil proceedings brought by the applicant for damages 72.     On 14 October 2004 the applicant lodged a civil claim with the Yevpatoriya Court seeking compensation, in the amount of 3 million Ukrainian hryvnias (UAH), from the State Treasury of Ukraine and the Yevpatoriya police department for non-pecuniary damage in respect of the following: the conditions of his detention in the ITT; the failure of the ITT administration to ensure his safety; the fact of his having been handcuffed in hospital, the alleged lack of provision of any food or water between 27 April and 5 May 2004; the failure to provide him with the necessary medication; and the refusal to allow his wife and the priest to see him. 73.     On 7 April 2005 the Yevpatoriya Court allowed the claim in part. It concluded that by having placed the applicant in a cell with other detainees, including convicted criminals, the ITT administration had not ensured his safety and that, as a result of this lapse, he had been beaten up. The court also established that, in breach of section 9 of the Pre-Trial Detention Act, the applicant had not been provided with daily one-hour walks. Furthermore, the conditions of his detention in cell no.   12 had not conformed with the requirements of section 11 of the Pre-Trial Detention Act. The court awarded the applicant UAH 6,000 (at that time equivalent to 880   euros) in respect of non-pecuniary damage and rejected the rest of his complaints on lack of grounds. 74.     The above-mentioned judgment was provided to the Court by the Government along with their observations on the admissibility and merits of the case. The applicant did not refer to it in his submissions at the time. 75.     In May 2012 the applicant sent the Court a copy of the ruling of the Higher Civil and Criminal Specialised Court of 14 March 2012 (see below), without commenting on its substance. It appears from this ruling that the judgment of 7 April 2005 was quashed on appeal and the case was remitted to the same first-instance court for a fresh examination. On 18 November 2008 the Yevpatoriya Court once again allowed the applicant’s claim in part and awarded him UAH 6,000. The reasoning of its judgment was similar to that of 7 April 2005. On 8 April 2009 the Crimea Court of Appeal increased that award to UAH 25,000 (at the time equivalent to EUR 2,230). 76.     By a ruling of 14 March 2012 the Higher Civil and Criminal Specialised Court upheld the lower courts’ decision. It noted that the applicant had suffered inhuman and degrading treatment on account of the conditions of his detention and the failure of the authorities to ensure his physical safety while in detention. It considered that the compensation awarded in respect of non-pecuniary damage was fair. 77.     By a letter of 18 June 2012, the Registry of the Court transmitted to the Government for information a copy of the aforementioned ruling of 14   March 2012. No reaction followed. II.     RELEVANT DOMESTIC LAW AND PRACTICE A.     Pre-Trial Detention Act 1993 (as worded at the material time) 78.     Section 8 reads as follows: “... Detainees shall be held in cells in compliance with the following isolation requirements: ... persons against whom criminal proceedings have been instituted for the first time: separately from those with a previous criminal conviction; persons who have served prison sentences – separately from those who have not been imprisoned; persons suspected or accused of crimes classified as serious or particularly serious – separately from other detainees; persons who have previously worked in the judicial authorities and courts – separately from other detainees ...” 79.     Pursuant to section 9, detainees are entitled, in particular, to a daily walk of one hour and a sleeping period of eight hours. 80.     Under section 11, detainees must be provided with everyday conditions that meet sanitary and hygiene requirements. The cell area for one person may not be less than 2.5 square metres in area. 81.     Section 18, which sets out the rules governing the use of handcuffs, is summarised in the Court’s judgment in Okhrimenko v. Ukraine (no.   53896/07, § 61, 15 October 2009). B.     Criminal Code 2001 (as worded at the material time) 82.     Article 122 provided for correctional works for up to two years, or restriction of liberty for up to three years, or deprivation of liberty for up to three years, as a punishment for the crime of deliberate inflicting bodily injuries of medium severity (§ 1). The same crime committed with the intention of intimidating the victim was punishable with a sentence of three to five years’ imprisonment (§ 2). 83.     Article 125 § 2 penalised the crime of deliberately inflicting light injuries leading to short-time health disorder with public works of one hundred and fifty to two hundred and forty hours, or correctional works for up to one year, or arrest for up to six months, or restriction of liberty for up to two years. C.     Code of Criminal Procedure 1960 (as worded at the material time) 84.     The first paragraph of Article 155 reads as follows: “Detention on remand as a preventive measure shall be applied in cases concerning offences for which the law envisages a penalty of more than three years’ imprisonment. In exceptional situations this preventive measure can be applied in cases concerning offences for which the law envisages imprisonment for less than three years.” THE LAW I.     ALLEGED VIOLATIONS OF ARTICLE 3 OF THE CONVENTION IN RESPECT OF THE APPLICANT’S BEATING AND THE CONDITIONS OF HIS DETENTION IN THE Yevpatoriya ITT 85.     The applicant complained under Article 3 of the Convention that the State authorities had been responsible for his having been beaten up by a cellmate in the Yevpatoria ITT and that the incident had not been duly investigated. He also complained that he had been detained there in inhuman conditions in cell   no.   12. Article 3 of the Convention, relied on by the applicant, reads as follows: “No one shall be subjected to torture or to inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.” A.     Admissibility 86.     The Government submitted that the applicant could no longer claim to be a victim of the above-mentioned violations. They argued that the domestic authorities had duly investigated his complaint of ill-treatment and had punished the perpetrator, Mr Y. They further pointed out that the ITT staff responsible for having placed the applicant in the cell with convicted criminals and thus having exposed him to the risk of ill-treatment had been disciplined. Furthermore, the Government noted that the applicant had been awarded reasonable compensation in respect of the above complaints concerning both his ill-treatment by a cellmate and the conditions of his detention. They relied in this connection on the judgment of the Yevpatoriya Court of 7 April 2005 (see paragraph 73 above). 87.     The applicant disagreed in general terms. He maintained his position also later on, in the light of the ruling of the Higher Specialised Civil and Criminal Court of 14 March 2012, which he sent to the Court in May 2012 (see paragraphs 75-76 above). 88.     The Court reiterates that an applicant is deprived of his or her status as a victim if the national authorities have acknowledged, either expressly or in substance, and then afforded appropriate and sufficient redress for, a breach of the Convention (see, for example, Scordino v. Italy (no. 1) [GC], no. 36813/97, §§ 178-193, ECHR 2006 ‑ V). 89.     Turning to the present case, the Court notes that the applicant’s complaints concern the following two issues: firstly, the material conditions of his detention and, secondly, his ill-treatment by a cellmate while in detention. The Court will examine whether the applicant can be regarded as having lost his victim status in respect of each of these two complaints. 1.     Victim status as regards the conditions of detention 90.     The Court observes that by the final judicial decision of 14 March 2012 the domestic authorities admitted that the applicant had suffered inhuman and degrading treatment on account, in particular, of the poor conditions of his detention in cell no. 12 of the Yevpatoriya ITT, which is also the subject matter of his application before this Court. The domestic courts assessed various aspects of the conditions in which the applicant had been detained and their cumulative effects on him (see paragraphs 73 and 75-76 above and, see also Dougoz v. Greece , no. 40907/98, § 46, ECHR 2001-II). The Court is therefore satisfied that the authorities have acknowledged a violation of Article 3 of the Convention on that account. 91.     It remains to be seen whether appropriate and sufficient redress was provided to the applicant at national level. In assessing this, the Court will have regard to all the circumstances of the case, taking into account, in particular, the nature of the Convention violation at stake (see Gäfgen v.   Germany [GC], no. 22978/05, § 116, ECHR 2010). 92.     The Court observes that in the present case the domestic courts awarded the applicant compensation equivalent to about EUR 2,230 in respect of the non-pecuniary damage he suffered on account of his detention in substandard conditions during a period of about two weeks. This compensation also covered his wrongful confinement in the same cell as convicted criminals, which had led to his having been beaten up by a cellmate (see paragraphs 73 and 75-76 above). 93.     The Court reiterates that the question whether the applicant received compensation comparable to just satisfaction as provided for under Article   41 of the Convention for the damage caused by the ill-treatment contrary to Article 3 is an important indicator for assessing whether a breach of the Convention has been redressed (see Shilbergs v. Russia , no.   20075/03, § 72, 17 December 2009, and, mutatis mutandis, Gäfgen, cited above, §§ 126-127). 94.     At the same time, the Court notes that compensation which is lower than the amount it would itself award may nevertheless be considered reasonable, provided that the relevant decision of the domestic courts is consonant with the legal tradition and standard of living in the country concerned and is speedy, reasoned and executed quickly (see Scordino , cited above, §§ 189 and 206, and Dubjakova v. Slovakia (dec.), no.   67299/01, 19 October 2004). 95.     As regards the present case, the Court considers that the amount of the compensation awarded to the applicant could be regarded as reasonable if it covered only the conditions of detention. However, according to the judgment of 18 November 2008, it also covered the ill-treatment sustained by the applicant. 96.     Further the Court notes certain delays in the examination of the case caused, in particular, by its remittal to the first-instance court and the lengthy examination of the cassation appeal. It remains unknown whether the judgment awarding compensation has been enforced. 97.     Consequently, having regard, in particular, to the much delayed adjudication of the applicant’s complaint regarding his poor detention conditions, the Court concludes that he cannot be regarded as having obtained appropriate and sufficient redress in that respect (see, by contrast, Iliev and Others v. Bulgaria , nos. 4473/02 and 34138/04, § 43, 10 February 2011). 98.     In the light of the foregoing, the Court dismisses the Government objection that the applicant has lost his victim status in respect of his complaint concerning the conditions of his detention. 2.     Victim status as regards the authorities’ failure to safeguard the applicant’s physical safety 99.     The Court notes that the question whether the applicant in the present case may still claim to be a victim as regards his complaint of ill-treatment in the detention facility on 27 April 2004, is closely linked to the substance of his complaint regarding the effectiveness of the subsequent investigation into the matter. The Court therefore joins this issue to the merits of that complaint (see Vladimir Romanov v. Russia , no. 41461/02, §   53, 24 July 2008). The adequacy of the subsequent compensation will also be assessed at that stage (see Aleksakhin v. Ukraine , no. 31939/06, § 60, 19   July 2012). 3.     Otherwise as to admissibility 100.     The Court further notes that these complaints are not otherwise manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 (a) of the Convention and are not inadmissible on any other grounds. They must therefore be declared admissible. B.     Merits 1.     As regards the applicant’s conditions of detention 101.     The applicant maintained his complaint in general terms. 102.     Referring to their objection as to the applicant’s victim status, the Government did not submit any observations on the merits of this complaint. 103.     The Court notes from the outset that the applicant spent a total of not more than two weeks in inadequate conditions (see paragraphs 66-71 above). A question may therefore arise as to whether the distress and hardship suffered by him attained the minimum threshold of severity for the purposes of Article 3 of the Convention. 104.     The Court observes that conditions of detention for a comparable and even a much shorter period have been previously found to be incompatible with the requirements of Article 3 (see, for example, Fedotov v.   Russia , no. 5140/02, §§ 66-70, 25 October 2005, where the applicant was detained for twenty-two hours with no food and water or access to a toilet; Riad and Idiab v. Belgium , nos. 29787/03 and 29810/03, §§ 100-111, 24   January 2008, where the applicants were detained in poor conditions for periods of fifteen and eleven days; and Mkhitaryan v. Armenia , no.   22390/05, § 55, 2 December 2008, where the length of the impugned detention was ten days). The Court thus concludes that, while the length of a period of detention may be a relevant factor in assessing the gravity of suffering or humiliation caused to a detainee by the inadequate conditions of his detention (see, for example, Dougoz , cited above, § 48, and Kalashnikov v.   Russia , no. 47095/99, § 102, ECHR 2002 ‑ VI), the relative brevity of such a period alone will not automatically exclude the treatment complained of from the scope of Article 3 if all other elements are sufficient to bring it within the scope of that provision (see Mkhitaryan , cited above, § 55). 105.     Having regard to the nature of the hardships suffered by the applicant in the present case, in particular, the overcrowding, lack of natural light, appalling sanitary conditions, lack of an individual place to sleep and no outdoor walks or other activities, and noting that he was subjected to these conditions just having been discharged from hospital, the Court considers that the minimum threshold of severity for the purposes of Article   3 of the Convention was attained. 106.     The Court further notes that it has already found a breach of this provision in respect of the conditions in which another detainee was held in the same detention facility during more or less the same period of time (see Tsygoniy v. Ukraine, no. 19213/04, §§ 45-47, 24 November 2011). 107.     In the light of the foregoing, the Court concludes that there has been a violation of Article 3 of the Convention on account of the conditions of the applicant’s detention in cell no. 12 of the Yevpatoriya ITT. 2.     As regards the beating of the applicant in the Yevpatoriya ITT (a)     The authorities’ duty to ensure the applicant’s safety in detention 108.     The applicant submitted that the authorities had knowingly put him at risk of physical violence at the hands of his cellmates by having placed him, contrary to the national legal requirements, in the same cell with convicted criminals. 109.     The Government did not comment on the merits of this complaint. 110.     The Court notes that the principal facts of the case were not disputed by the parties. In particular, it was established that the applicant had been beaten by a cellmate shortly after his confinement in cell no. 10 of the Yevpatoriya ITT. As a result, he sustained the following injuries: concussion, hematomas beneath the eyelids, bruising to the left superciliary arch, bruises to the facial soft tissue, bruises to the tongue, injuries to both ears, bruises to the nose, and bruises to the soft tissue of the chest and lumbar region (see, in particular, paragraphs 48 and 54 above). 111.     These injuries are a sufficient indication for the Court that the applicant suffered ill-treatment attaining the minimum threshold of severity for Article 3 of the Convention to apply. 112.     The Court reiterates that Article 3 of the Convention imposes an obligation on the Contracting States not only to refrain from causing ill ‑ treatment, but also to take the necessary preventive measures to preserve the physical safety and well-being of persons deprived of their liberty who find themselves in a vulnerable position by virtue of being under the control of the authorities (see Keenan v. the United Kingdom , no. 27229/95, § 111, ECHR 2001-III, Mouisel v. France , no. 67263/01, § 40, ECHR 2002-IX, and Premininy v. Russia , no. 44973/04, § 73, 10 February 2011). 113.     At the same time the Court has consistently interpreted that obligation in such a manner as would not impose an impossible or disproportionate burden on the authorities (see Pantea v. Romania , no.   33343/96, § 189, ECHR 2003-VI). 114.     Turning to the present case, the Court observes that the Ukrainian legislation on pre-trial detention provided for certain requirements for confinement in isolation aimed at preserving the safety of detainees: in particular, persons facing criminal proceedings for the first time were to be detained separately from those with a criminal record, and, furthermore, persons who had previously worked in the court service (such as the applicant in the present case) were to be isolated from other detainees (see paragraph   78 above). 115.     As est