CEDH · CASELAW;JUDGMENTS;CHAMBER;ENG — 5 décembre 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 } .s2E932ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:11pt } .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 } .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 } .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 } .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 } .s9D48DD53 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .s11869A80 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s684F2214 { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:29.2pt; margin-bottom:24pt; text-indent:-17.6pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s25BD2B45 { margin-top:24pt; margin-left:36.6pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-15.05pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .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 } .sEC2CB098 { margin-top:6pt; margin-bottom:6pt; 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 } .s24AC208E { border-right-style:solid; border-right-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 } .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 } .sC3AB69A { border-style:solid; border-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .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 } .s40B7A780 { border-top-style:solid; border-top-width:0.75pt; border-right-style:solid; border-right-width:0.75pt; border-left-style:solid; border-left-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 } .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 } .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 } .s507703F { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .sB1BD30C0 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:24pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .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 } .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 } .s6EF3B654 { margin-top:12pt; 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 } .sE89AC62E { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:11.6pt; text-align:justify } .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 } .sD66C1369 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:17.3pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s127C7598 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:17pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-17pt; text-align:justify } .sA1D3DA2E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s60723A49 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:39.7pt; 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 } .sF4F12EF6 { width:180.75pt; display:inline-block } .s7602FED2 { width:18.21pt; display:inline-block } .sC1AC44A4 { width:228.11pt; display:inline-block }         FIRST SECTION               CASE OF YEVGENIY GUSEV v. RUSSIA   (Application no. 28020/05)               JUDGMENT     STRASBOURG   5 December 2013     FINAL   05/03/2014   This judgment has become final under Article 44 § 2 of the Convention. It may be subject to editorial revision.   In the case of Yevgeniy Gusev v. Russia, The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting as a Chamber composed of:   Isabelle Berro-Lefèvre, President,   Elisabeth Steiner,   Khanlar Hajiyev,   Mirjana Lazarova Trajkovska,   Julia Laffranque,   Ksenija Turković,   Dmitry Dedov, judges, and Søren Nielsen, Section Registrar , Having deliberated in private on 12 November 2013, Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date: PROCEDURE 1.     The case originated in an application (no. 28020/05) 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 Yevgeniy Petrovich Gusev (“the applicant”), on 19 July 2005. 2.     The applicant was represented by Ms S. Mazayeva, a lawyer practising in Volgograd. 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 alleged, in particular, that he had been subjected to inhuman and degrading treatment by having been deprived of food and sleep on the days on which he had been taken to the court-house for trial, that his detention had been unlawful and based on insufficient grounds, and that its judicial review had not been expeditious. 4.     On 11 March 2010 the application was communicated to the Government. THE FACTS I.     THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE 5.     The applicant was born in 1952 and lives in Volgograd. A.     The applicant’s arrest and detention pending investigation 6.     At the material time the applicant held the post of President of Vostok-Plus, an open joint-stock company, which was a shareholder in the limited liability company Volga Aviaexpress Airlines ( ООО   “Авиакомпания Волга ‑ Авиаэкспресс ”). 7.     On 30 July 2003 the Volgograd Regional Prosecutor’s Office instituted criminal proceedings for fraud involving a Yak-42 aircraft. 8.     On 3 October 2003 an investigator filed charges against the applicant in absentia and ordered his placement on a domestic wanted list. 9.     On 6 October 2003 the applicant was placed on an international wanted list. 10 .     On 8 October 2003 the Tsentralniy District Court of Volgograd (“Tsentralniy District Court”) ordered the applicant’s remand in custody in absentia on suspicion of fraud. The Tsentralniy District Court held as follows: “... Following the institution of the criminal proceedings [the applicant] absconded from Volgograd. On the basis of the operational information [provided by the law-enforcement authorities] about [the applicant’s] whereabouts in the United Kingdom or Canada, on 6 October 2003 he was placed on an international wanted list. ... The court considers it necessary to grant the investigator’s request [to authorise the applicant’s remand in custody] since [the applicant] has sought to evade the investigation, was placed on an international wanted list and may obstruct the establishment of the truth in the case. The court also takes into account the gravity of the charges [against the applicant].” 11.     On the same date the applicant was arrested in Volgograd, was served with a list of the charges and detained on the basis of the above detention order. 12.     The exact time and place of the applicant’s arrest are disputed between the parties. According to a report drawn up by a police officer, the applicant was arrested in the central district of Volgograd on 8 October 2003 at 6 p.m. and was subsequently brought to the Volgograd Regional Prosecutor’s Office. According to the applicant, until 7 October 2003 he did not know anything about the criminal proceedings against him. As soon as he learned about them, he went to the investigation department of the Volgograd Regional Prosecutor’s Office, where he was arrested on 8   October 2003 at about noon. During the subsequent trial several witnesses confirmed the applicant’s version of events. 13 .     On 8 December 2003 the Tsentralniy District Court extended the applicant’s pre-trial detention until 30 March 2004, giving the following reasons: “... The court considers the [investigator’s detention] application well-founded and grants the request, as [the applicant] has been placed on an international wanted list and, therefore, may abscond from the investigation and the court. The court also takes into account the gravity of the charges.” 14.     On 20 February 2004 the applicant was additionally charged with forgery, deliberate bankruptcy, tax evasion and a new count of fraud. 15 .     On 15 March 2004 the Tsentralniy District Court extended the applicant’s pre-trial detention until 30 May 2004. The court relied on the gravity of the charges against the applicant and the fact that he had been placed on an international wanted list prior to his arrest, which gave the court sufficient grounds to believe that, if at large, the applicant might obstruct the proceedings. The court held that the application of a non ‑ custodial preventive measure was not possible. The court rejected the applicant’s argument that the procedure for placing a suspect on the international wanted list had not been complied with in his case. In the court’s opinion, as long as the relevant decisions had not been declared unlawful, the applicant’s placement on the wanted list was valid. 16 .     On 31 May 2004 the applicant’s case file was remitted to the Dzerzhinskiy District Court of Volgograd (“Dzerzhinskiy District Court”) for examination on the merits. B.     The applicant’s detention pending trial 1.     Detention between 30 May and 14 June 2004 17 .     On 30 May 2004 the applicant’s detention ordered by the decision of 15 March 2004 expired. No other decision was made regarding his detention until 14 June 2004 (see paragraph 21 below). However, the applicant remained in detention. 18.     On an unspecified date in 2005 the applicant sought compensation for unlawful detention between 30 May and 14 June 2004. 19.     On 27 March 2006 the Tsentralniy District Court acknowledged that the applicant had been detained in the above period without a court order and awarded him 5,000 Russian roubles (about 150 euros at the material time). 20.     On 26 April 2006 the Regional Court upheld the judgment on appeal. 2.     Detention between 14 June and 26 October 2004 21 .     On 14 June 2004 the Dzerzhinskiy District Court fixed a date for a preliminary hearing of the case and held that the custodial preventive measure applied to the applicant and three other co-defendants “should remain unchanged”. 3.     Detention between 26 October and 30 November 2004 22 .     On 26 October 2004 the Dzerzhinskiy District Court scheduled the opening day of the trial and ordered that the custodial preventive measure in respect of the applicant and his three co-defendants “should remain unchanged”. The applicant applied for release, but the application was dismissed with the following reasoning: “[The applicant and his three co-defendants] are charged with serious crimes punishable with long-term imprisonment. The [custodial] preventive measure was applied [in respect of them] during the preliminary investigation after an assessment of the defendants’ personalities, their health and the gravity of the crimes [they are accused of]. The arguments of the defendants and their representatives about the initial unlawful application of the custodial measure ... cannot be taken into consideration, as this [issue] is not the subject-matter of the present hearing.” 23 .     The applicant appealed against the above decision, in so far as it concerned the custodial measure, arguing that it had not been necessary at that stage of the proceedings. The applicant’s co-defendants also appealed. The first appeal hearing by the Regional Court was scheduled for 21   December 2004 but was adjourned following a motion made by the defence on the same date, because two of the co-defendants’ counsel had not been duly summonsed to the hearing. 24.     On 25 January 2005 the Regional Court upheld the decision of 26   October 2004 on appeal in a summary fashion. It noted as follows: “The arguments of the co-defendants ... concerning the initial unlawful application of the custodial measure ... cannot be examined by the appeal court ... [at the present hearing]. The decisions taken by the court in this respect have already entered into legal force ... and can only be challenged in supervisory review proceedings.” 25 .     Following a complaint lodged by one of the applicant’s co ‑ defendants, on 14 April 2005 the Presidium of the Regional Court quashed the appeal decision of 25 January 2005 by way of supervisory review, doing so on the basis that the lower court had failed to address the arguments advanced on behalf of the co-defendants by their representatives. 26 .     On 19 July 2005 the Regional Court again upheld the decision of 26   October 2004 on appeal. 4.     Detention between 30 November 2004 and the applicant’s conviction on 7 June 2005 27 .     In the meantime, on 30 November 2004 the Dzerzhinskiy District Court extended the applicant’s and his three co-defendants’ detention for three months until 28 February 2005. It held as follows: “The circumstances which prompted the application of the custodial measure have not changed. The defendants’ reference to the fact that they cannot exert pressure on witnesses or victims, as the preliminary investigation is over, and that they will not abscond as they have no previous criminal records and are not a danger to society, cannot be accepted by the court, because at the present time the trial has not yet started, and the court has not begun the examination of the evidence in the case, including the examination of witnesses and victims... In such circumstances the court does not find grounds for altering the custodial measure to a more lenient one...” 28 .     On 25 February 2005 the Dzerzhinskiy District Court extended the applicant’s and his three co-defendants’ detention for three months until 28   May 2005, even though the prosecution considered it no longer necessary and proposed to release them on an undertaking not to leave town: “The defendants are charged with serious crimes punishable by long-term imprisonment. The custodial measure was applied [in respect of them] after consideration of their personalities, health, family situation, existence of dependents, and the gravity of the crimes [with which they have been charged]. No medical certificates indicating that the defendants cannot be detained in the remand prison for health reasons have been produced to the court. The circumstances which prompted the application of the custodial measure have not changed so far. The defendants’ statements that they cannot exert pressure on witnesses and victims, as the majority of them have already been questioned by the court, and that they will not abscond as they have no previous criminal records and are not a danger to society, cannot be accepted by the court, because at the present time the trial has not been completed and the court has not examined the evidence in full. The defendants’ maintaining their innocence ... cannot justify changing the custodial measure to a more lenient one, as the court is yet to assess the cumulative evidence and to reach a conclusion as to the defendants’ guilt or innocence...” 29 .     On 27 May 2005, having reiterated its previous reasoning, the Dzerzhinskiy District Court extended the applicant’s and his three co ‑ defendants’ detention for another three months until 28 June 2005. The applicant appealed. 30.     On 4 October 2005 the Regional Court upheld the decision of 27   May 2005 on appeal. C.     The applicant’s conviction and release 31 .     On 7 June 2005 the Dzerzhinskiy District Court convicted the applicant of fraud, deliberate bankruptcy and tax evasion and sentenced him to four years’ imprisonment. The pronouncement of the judgment took four hours, from 8.30 p.m. to 00.30 a.m. the following day. The applicant’s and his co-defendants’ request to be allowed to sit down during the pronouncement of the judgment was turned down. 32.     On 4 October 2005 the Regional Court amended the judgment on appeal. The court quashed the applicant’s conviction for deliberate bankruptcy and held that his sentence should be suspended for two years, and that he be placed on probation. 33.     On 5 October 2005 the applicant was released. D.     Allegations of non-provision of sufficient food and deprivation of sleep on the days of court hearings 34 .     During the criminal proceedings the applicant was detained in remand prison IZ-34/1 of Volgograd. According to the applicant, on the days of the hearings he was woken up at 6 a.m., taken from his cell to the “waiting unit” or “assembly cell”, together with other detainees who had a hearing on that day, and later taken to the convoy area of the court-house. He had to wait in that area for many hours, sometimes until late in the afternoon, before the trial hearings started. Late in the evening the convoy would take him back to the remand prison. If there was a hearing on the following day, he had to endure the same early wake-up, long transfer and late arrival. He received no food on the days of the hearings, either at the remand prison or at the court-house. 35 .     According to the Government, the applicant was taken to the court ‑ house on the following dates:   Year: Dates: Scheduled time of hearings: 2004 21, 22, 25 and 28 June 10 a.m.   5 July 10 a.m.   14, 20 24, 27 and 28   September 10 a.m., 10 a.m., 11 a.m., 11   a.m. and 11 a.m. respectively   4, 19, 25, 26 October 2.30 p.m., 12 p.m., 11.30   a.m. and 12 p.m. respectively   9, 22 and 30 November 10 a.m., 11 a.m. and 11 a.m. respectively   20 December 10.30 a.m. 2005 31 January 10 a.m.   7, 8, 14 and 25 February 11 a.m., 3 p.m., 3 p.m. and 2   p.m. respectively   18, 28 and 29 March 11 a.m., 3 p.m. and 1 p.m. respectively   8, 11, 12, 13, 15, 18, 20, 21, 22   April 12.20 p.m., 2 p.m., 12 p.m., 11 a.m., 11 a.m., 11 a.m., 10.30 a.m., 11 a.m. and 11   a.m. respectively   11, 12, 13, 17, 20, 27 May 12 p.m., 10.30 a.m., 12 p.m., 11.30 a.m., 12 p.m. and 11   a.m. respectively   3, 6 and 7 June 10.30 a.m., 11 a.m. and 11   a.m. respectively   36 .     The Government submitted that on the days of the applicant’s transfers to the court-house he had been woken up at 6 a.m. as usual. As a rule, he had been returned to the remand prison before 10 p.m. On the rare occasions when the applicant had been returned to the remand prison after 10   p.m., he had been allowed to sleep at any time during the next day. The Government were unable to submit information as to the exact time of the applicant’s arrivals at the remand prison from the court-house because the relevant documentation had been destroyed in 2006 and 2009 due to the expiry of the period for keeping those documents, but they affirmed that the court’s working hours were from 9 a.m. to 6 p.m. 37 .     According to the Government, on the dates of the applicant’s transfers to the District Court he received a standard breakfast before leaving the remand prison and dry rations (bread or dry biscuits, tinned first and second courses, sugar, tea, a plastic spoon and a plastic cup), in compliance with the applicable regulations. In the “waiting unit” of the remand prison and the convoy area of the court the applicant was provided with hot water (necessary to prepare packed meals) upon request. In case of his return to the remand prison before 9   p.m., the applicant received lunch and/or dinner depending on the time of his return. In support of their submissions the Government provided a certificate issued by the governor of IZ-34/1 on 7   May 2010 accompanied by orders ( рапорты ) for dry rations in respect of a certain number of detainees to be transported to the court-house and invoices ( накладные ) concerning the provision thereof. The orders were drawn up by an officer on duty. The invoices were signed by the governor and the chief accountant of the remand prison, as well as by the officers who had given and received the dry rations. The documents covered most of the relevant dates. The Government also submitted the remand prison canteen’s menu for the relevant period. II.     RELEVANT DOMESTIC LAW AND PRACTICE 38.     The relevant provisions of domestic law and practice concerning preventive measures including detention, proceedings to examine the lawfulness of detention and detainees’ right to free food and eight hours of uninterrupted sleep are set out in the Court’s judgment in the case of Strelets v. Russia (no. 28018/05, §§ 37-46, 6 November 2012). 39 .     The 2005 Annual Report by the Ombudsman for the Volgograd Region (www.volganet.ru/volgobl/society/upch/folder_4/folder_1/), point 2.10, provides, in its relevant parts, as follows: “The Ombudsman is concerned about on-going problems with regard to the provision of normal food for suspects and accused persons during the days on which they are being transferred for participation in investigative actions or court hearings... According to information [provided] by the Volgograd Region Police Department, the non-provision of food during investigative actions and court hearings and non ‑ provision of eight hours of sleep at night were indeed confirmed. One of the reasons for that was shortage of the necessary prison vans. In 2005, according to official information, the law-enforcement agencies of the Region were provided with [additional] prison vans, but similar complaints continue to arrive... In some complaints the detainees report that on days [when they must attend] court they are provided with dry rations but no hot water...” 40 .     The 2006 Report “Human Rights in regions of the Russian Federation” (volume 1, p. 95), prepared by a group of Russian regional NGOs in 2007 (www.mhg.ru/publications/A1AD8CC), provides, in its relevant part, as follows: “As stated by the Ombudsman for the Volgograd Region ... the problem with food (being supplied to remand prisoners in the Volgograd Region) has been solved only recently. Until the present [changes], when a detainee was transferred for investigative actions or court hearings, he was not able to have breakfast, lunch and, sometimes, dinner. The dry rations given on those days could not be prepared because the detainees were not allowed to have hot water. The problem was solved only after the intervention of the Ombudsman.” 41 .     Following an inquiry conducted in 2003, the Head of the Moscow Department for the Execution of Sentences of the Ministry of Justice (the authority in charge of all remand prisons in Moscow) prepared a report dated 26 November 2003. The relevant parts of the report read as follows (as cited in Starokadomskiy v. Russia (dec.), no. 42239/02, 12 January 2006): “On leaving for court, each prisoner is handed dry rations against his signature... On that day the prisoner is excluded from the food distribution list ( снимается с котлового довольствия ). The composition of the dry rations takes account of the [applicable] food safety and nutritional requirements and ... includes pre-cooked first and second courses which do not require cooking and can be consumed as breakfast, lunch or dinner... Prisoners are taken out of [their] cells after 6 a.m. – in particular, for transport to courts – but not brought back to [their] cells until 10 p.m. The Moscow Department for the Execution of Sentences directs the [resolution of] problems relating to established breaches perpetrated by the convoy regiment (belated return from the courts, overcrowded prison vans, use of unauthorised routes). On many occasions in 2002, established breaches of the procedure for the transport of prisoners were brought to the attention of the command of the police convoy regiment – mostly, [those breaches occurred] because of belated return from the courts. Such incidents also took place in the first three months [of 2003]; in this connection on 4 March 2003 a notice about the belated return (after 10 p.m.) of prisoners from the courts in January and February 2003 was sent to the convoy regiment. Recently there have been no incidents of return of prisoners after 10 p.m.” THE LAW I.     ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 3 OF THE CONVENTION 42.   The applicant complained that he had been subjected to inhuman and degrading treatment by being deprived of food and a normal amount of sleep on court days. He relied on Article 3 of the Convention, which provides as follows: “No one shall be subjected to torture or to inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.” A.     The parties’ submissions 43.     The Government submitted that the applicant had failed to exhaust available domestic remedies because he had not complained to the competent domestic authorities about the alleged violation of his rights under Article 3 of the Convention. The procedure for making claims before a court was established in Chapter 25 of the Code of Civil Procedure, as clarified by the Supreme Court’s Ruling no. 2 of 10 February 2009. Relying on Resolution no. CM/ResDH(2010)35 adopted at the 1078th Meeting of the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe, the Government noted that statistics and a number of cases presented to the Committee had demonstrated the developing practice of the Russian courts in awarding compensation for non-pecuniary damage caused by unsatisfactory conditions of detention. The Government stressed that the applicant’s complaints under Article 3 should therefore be dismissed for failure to exhaust domestic remedies. 44.     On the merits, the Government argued that the applicant had been afforded sufficient opportunity to sleep between court hearings (see paragraph 36 above). The Government also submitted that the applicant had been provided with food on the days he was transported to the court-house (see paragraph 37 above). 45.     The applicant argued that the alleged violations had been of a structural nature and that no effective domestic remedy existed to address them. 46.     On the merits, the applicant submitted that the evidence provided by the Government had been contradictory and did not support their conclusions. He noted that the Government had not denied that he had occasionally been returned from the court-house to the remand prison after 10   p.m. He further noted that during the period in which there had been hearings every working day, in April-May 2005, he had not in fact had an opportunity to catch up on his sleep the following day, as the Government had suggested. The applicant also drew the Court’s attention to the fact that the pronouncement of the judgment had taken place at night. The applicant claimed that he had never been given any food or dry rations on court days. He claimed that the orders for dry rations and invoices provided by the Government (see paragraph 37 above) were insufficient evidence to prove that he had in fact been provided with food on court days over the course of the two years of the trial. He further challenged the validity of those documents and noted that the information regarding the number of persons indicated in the relevant orders did not correspond to the number of dry rations indicated in the invoices. B.     The Court’s assessment 1.     Admissibility 47.     As regards the Government’s non-exhaustion plea, the Court reiterates that the rule of exhaustion of domestic remedies under Article 35 § 1 of the Convention obliges applicants to use the remedies which are available and sufficient in the domestic legal system to enable them to obtain redress for the breaches alleged. The existence of the remedies must be sufficiently certain both in theory and in practice, failing which they will lack the requisite accessibility and effectiveness. It is incumbent on the respondent Government claiming non-exhaustion to indicate to the Court with sufficient clarity the remedies to which the applicants have not had recourse and to satisfy the Court that the remedies in question were effective and available in theory and in practice at the relevant time, that is to say that they were accessible, were capable of providing redress in respect of the applicant’s complaints and offered reasonable prospects of success (see Guliyev v. Russia , no. 24650/02, §§ 51-52, 19 June 2008, with further references). 48.     The Court highlights its conclusions made in the judgment of Ananyev and Others v. Russia (nos. 42525/07 and 60800/08, §§ 100-119, 10   January 2012) that at the relevant time the Russian legal system did not provide an effective remedy that could have been used to prevent violations of Article 3 arising from general conditions of detention in remand prisons, to discontinue such violations and to provide detainees with adequate and sufficient redress. In particular, in that case the Court held that it had no examples of successful practical use of the remedy provided by Chapter 25 of the CCP, also relied on by the Government in the present case, and that the Chapter   25 remedy was therefore ineffective. 49.     The Court also notes that it has already explicitly rejected the Government’s plea of non-exhaustion of domestic remedies based on the remedy provided by Chapter 25 of the CCP in respect of complaints concerning non-provision of food on court days and deprivation of an adequate amount of sleep between court hearings (see Strelets , cited above, §§ 47-51) – the problems which are at the heart of the present case. In the present case the effectiveness of the procedure under Chapter 25 of the Code of Civil Procedure has not been demonstrated by any court decision, so the Court has no reasons to depart from its conclusions in Ananyev and others and Strelets . Accordingly, the Court rejects the Government’s objection. 50.     Furthermore, the Court considers that this complaint is not manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 (a) of the Convention. It notes that it is not inadmissible on any other ground. It must therefore be declared admissible. 2.     Merits (a)     General principles 51.     The Court reiterates that Article 3 of the Convention enshrines one of the most fundamental values of democratic society. It prohibits in absolute terms torture or inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, irrespective of the circumstances and the victim’s behaviour (see, for example, Labita v. Italy [GC], no. 26772/95, § 119, ECHR 2000-IV). Ill ‑ treatment must attain a minimum level of severity if it is to fall within the scope of Article 3. The assessment of this minimum is relative: it depends on all the circumstances of the case, such as the duration of the treatment, its physical and mental effects and, in some cases, the sex, age and state of health of the victim (see, among other authorities, Ireland v.   the   United Kingdom , 18 January 1978, § 162, Series A no. 25). 52.     Ill-treatment that attains such a minimum level of severity usually involves actual bodily injury or intense physical or mental suffering. However, even in the absence of these, where treatment humiliates or debases an individual, showing a lack of respect for or diminishing his or her human dignity, or arouses feelings of fear, anguish or inferiority capable of breaking an individual’s moral and physical resistance, it may be characterised as degrading and also fall within the prohibition of Article 3 (see, among other authorities, Vasyukov v. Russia , no. 2974/05, § 59, 5   April 2011). 53.     In the context of deprivation of liberty the Court has consistently stressed that to fall under Article 3 the suffering and humiliation involved must in any event go beyond that inevitable element of suffering and humiliation connected with detention. The State must ensure that a person is detained in conditions which are compatible with respect for human dignity, that the manner and method of the execution of the measure do not subject him to distress or hardship of an intensity exceeding the unavoidable level of suffering inherent in detention, and that, given the practical demands of imprisonment, his health and well-being are adequately secured (see Kudła v. Poland [GC], no. 30210/96, §§ 92-94, ECHR 2000 ‑ XI, and Popov v.   Russia , no. 26853/04, § 208, 13 July 2006). 54.     When assessing conditions of detention, account has to be taken of the cumulative effects of these conditions, as well as of specific allegations made by the applicant (see Dougoz v. Greece , no. 40907/98, § 46, ECHR   2001-II). 55.     Allegations of ill-treatment must be supported by appropriate evidence. In assessing evidence, the Court has generally applied the standard of proof “beyond reasonable doubt”. However, in certain circumstances such proof may follow from the coexistence of sufficiently strong, clear and concordant inferences or of similar unrebutted presumptions of fact (see Salman v. Turkey [GC], no. 21986/93, § 100, ECHR 2000-VII). (b)     Application of the general principles to the present case 56.     The Court observes that in the period between June 2004 and June   2005 the applicant was transported to the Dzerzhinskiy District Court on forty-four occasions (see paragraph 35 above). It has not been disputed by the parties that on the days of court hearings the applicant was woken up at 6 a.m. The Court further notes that the Government were unable to provide information as to the exact time the applicant was brought back to the remand prison from the court-house and taken to his cell. The Government, however, acknowledged that on some occasions this took place after 10 p.m., in which case the applicant was given an opportunity to catch up on his sleep during the following day. The Court notes that on quite a few occasions the applicant was taken to the court-house several days in a row, especially at the later stages of the trial, in the period between April and June 2005. That schedule of court hearings made any extra sleep the following day impossible. 57.     The Court further notes that the applicant’s allegation of lack of sleep is also corroborated to a certain extent by the 2005 annual report of the regional Ombudsman (see paragraph 39 above). The Court notes that Volgograd is a large city, that the prison system was suffering from a shortage of prison vans, and that the same prison van would dispatch a relatively large group of remand prisoners to different court-houses located in different parts of the city every day in the morning and collect them in the evening in order to take them back to the remand prison. Such a system inevitably leads to the accumulation of delays in the transportation of each prisoner, and the period between the time when he would leave his cell and return to it would thus often be unnecessarily protracted. The Court also is mindful of the fact, which was not disputed by the Government, that the pronouncement of the judgment which started on 7   June at 8.30 p.m. lasted until 00.30 a.m. on 8   June 2005 (see paragraph 31 above). This shows that court days did not always end at 6   p.m., as suggested by the Government (see paragraph 36 above). Thus, although it is impossible to calculate precisely how much time the applicant had for sleep on each particular day, the Court finds it established that on many occasions the applicant was deprived of an adequate amount of sleep. 58.     Regarding the alleged malnutrition, the applicant claimed that on the days of court hearings he had not received any food, either in the remand prison or in the court-house. The Court notes that, as submitted by the Government, the applicant could only receive ordinary meals in the remand prison in the event of his return from the court-house before 9 p.m. (see paragraph 37 above). The Court has established above that on many occasions the applicant was returned to the prison after that time. It follows that on those days he was prevented from eating hot food (lunches and dinners) in the remand prison. 59.     The Government claimed that detainees transported to the court ‑ house were provided with an ordinary (i.e. hot) breakfast before leaving the remand prison. This assertion contradicts the statement by the regional Ombudsman that at the relevant time detainees on remand in the Volgograd Region were unable to have breakfast on court days (see paragraph 40 above). This assertion also somewhat contradicts their submissions that in the “waiting unit” of the remand prison the applicant was provided with hot water for preparing the dry rations if he requested it (see paragraph 37 above). The Court further notes that in the case of Strelets , cited above, it examined a similar complaint in respect of the applicant’s co-defendant remanded in the same facility who, along with the applicant in the present case, had been brought to court on the same days. Contrary to their submissions in the present case, in that case the Government did not contest the co-defendant’s allegation that he had not received any breakfast at the remand prison prior to being transferred to the court-house (ibid., § 59). 60.     It appears from the cases examined by the Court that the usual timing of detainees’ transferrals from remand prisons prevented them from having an ordinary breakfast on court days (see, among others, Denisenko and Bogdanchikov v. Russia , no. 3811/02, § 108, 12 February 2009; Svetlana Kazmina v. Russia , no. 8609/04, § 78, 2 December 2010; and, most recently, Idalov v. Russia [GC], no. 5826/03, § 105, 22 May 2012). Moreover, as can be seen from the report prepared by the domestic authorities in 2003 (see paragraph 41 above), on court days the detainees would have been excluded from the distribution of ordinary food within their remand prisons. In the present case the Government did not rely on any domestic rules which would have allowed the administration of remand prison IZ-34/1 to proceed otherwise. 61.     Against this background, and having regard to the material in its possession, the Court is not convinced that the applicant received an ordinary breakfast on the days of the court hearings. 62.     Finally, the Government claimed that on court days the applicant had been provided with dry rations to take with him to the court-house. They supported their submissions with a number of documents (see paragraph 37 above). The Court notes, however, certain serious inconsistencies in the Government’s submissions. First, the documents submitted do not cover all the dates on which the applicant was transferred to the court-house. Second, the number of persons indicated in the orders for dry rations did not always correspond to the number of dry rations indicated in the invoices for the relevant dates. Third, in respect of a similar complaint made by the applicant’s co-defendant, the Government submitted two invoices dated 11   and 20 May 2005 concerning the provision of dry rations to a certain number of detainees (see Strelets , cited above, §§ 36 and 59) which do not match the invoices for the same dates submitted in the present case. Fourth, the Government’s assertion that on court days the applicant was provided with hot water necessary to prepare packed meals (see paragraph   37 above) contradicts the statement by the regional Ombudsman, who pointed out that detainees in the Volgograd Region were not allowed to have hot water at the relevant time (see paragraph 40 above). 63.     The Court admits that the above flaws in the Government’s submissions could have a reasonable explanation. However, the Government did not offer any such explanation to the Court. 64.     The Court further notes that the evidentiary value of the documents submitted by the Government is rather low. The certificate by the governor of IZ-34/1 was issued on 7   May 2010, in other words several years after the events in question. The orders for dry rations and the invoices were drawn up and signed by prison officers only. The fact that some dry rations were ordered and received by the officers does not necessary imply that the applicant was provided with them. The Government were unable to make available to the Court documents that would have proved the provision of dry rations to the applicant. However, it appears that the authorities should have been in possession of documents bearing the applicant’s signature in respect of every provision of dry rations he received (see paragraph 41 above). 65.     In such circumstances the Court is not convinced that on all forty ‑ four occasions on which the applicant was transferred to the court ‑ house he received packed meals and/or ordinary meals. In any event, no evidence was submitted by the Government that the “waiting unit” of the remand prison or the convoy area of the court-house were equipped for heating and eating food at the time (see Strelets , cited above, § 60, with further references). The Court attaches great weight to the 2005 annual report by the regional Ombudsman (see paragraph 39 above), an independent official, which supports the applicant’s allegations to a large extent. Finally, there is no evidence that the applicant was buying and bringing his own food to the court-house. 66.     The Court notes that it has previously found a violation of Article 3 of the Convention in many Russian cases on account of applicants’ confinement in cramped conditions in detention units of court-houses and a lack of proper nutrition on court days (see, among others, Vlasov v. Russia , no. 78146/01, § 96, 12 June 2008; Salmanov v. Russia , no.   3522/04, § 64, 31 July 2008; and Starokadomskiy v. Russia , no. 42239/02, §   58, 31 July 2008). 67.     Having regard to the foregoing, the Court considers that in the circumstances of the present case the cumulative effect of malnutrition and inadequate sleep on the days of court hearings must have been of an intensity such as to induce in the applicant physical suffering and mental fatigue. This must have been further aggravated by the fact that the above treatment occurred during the applicant’s trial, a time when he most needed his powers of concentration and mental alertness. The Court therefore concludes that the applicant was subjected to inhuman and degrading treatment contrary to Article 3 of the Convention (see, for similar reasoning, Strelets , cited above, §   62). 68.     Accordingly, there has been a violation of that provision. II.     ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 5 § 3 OF THE CONVENTION 69.     The applicant complained under Article 5 § 3 of the Convention that his pre-trial detention had not been based on relevant and sufficient reasons. Article 5 § 3 provides as follows: “Everyone arrested or detained in accordance with the provisions of paragraph 1 (c) of this Article shall be ... entitled to trial within a reasonable time or to release pending trial ...” A.     The parties’ submissions 70.     The Government considered that the domestic judicial authorities had duly justified the applicant’s pre-trial detention. They stressed that the risk of his absconding had been a real one, since the applicant had sought to evade the investigation and had been placed on a wanted list. 71.     The applicant argued that he had been unaware of the institution of the criminal proceedings against him, or that he had been searched for, until 7 October 2003, following which he had immediately made an appointment with the investigation department of the Volgograd Regional Prosecutor’s Office for 8 October 2003. He had been arrested at that appointment. There had been no proof that during his absence the investigation authority had ever tried to summon him, either at work or at home, or to inquire about his whereabouts. Therefore, the Government’s argument that he “had sought to evade” the investigation was groundless. Moreover, the investigator ha