CEDH · CASELAW;JUDGMENTS;CHAMBER;ENG — 6 mars 2014

.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 } .s9793A85B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .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 } .s2E302ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:14pt } .sE208486F { font-family:Arial; color:#ff0000 } .s2E932ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:11pt } .s4ACA9207 { page-break-before:always; clear:both; mso-break-type:section-break } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .sB9D5CABB { width:28.35pt; display:inline-block } .sD3B63DAD { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s79DE5897 { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:17.85pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17.85pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sA8776625 { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:29.2pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17.6pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s72C8F48C { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:36.6pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-15.05pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sA20670C4 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:48.75pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-17pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .sF7A86111 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; font-size:10pt } .s59DEA84 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:59.5pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-17.85pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .sB206C230 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:68.65pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-16.75pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .s39A7D870 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sBB355983 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .s67017A4B { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:29.2pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17.6pt; page-break-after:avoid } .s583D00FA { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:17pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-17pt } .s26FF04E7 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:17.3pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s64E792FA { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:39.7pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s4B243ECC { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sA5C4F8A9 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s507451D6 { width:4.53pt; display:inline-block } .s6AED2ED5 { width:194.42pt; display:inline-block } .s7602FED2 { width:18.21pt; display:inline-block } .sC1AC44A4 { width:228.11pt; display:inline-block }       FIRST SECTION               CASE OF GORBULYA v. RUSSIA   (Application no. 31535/09)                   JUDGMENT     STRASBOURG   6 March 2014     FINAL   06/06/2014   This judgment has become final under Article 44 § 2 of the Convention. It may be subject to editorial revision.   In the case of Gorbulya v. Russia, The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting as a Chamber composed of:   Elisabeth Steiner, President,   Khanlar Hajiyev,   Julia Laffranque,   Linos-Alexandre Sicilianos,   Erik Møse,   Ksenija Turković,   Dmitry Dedov, judges, and Søren Nielsen, Section Registrar, Having deliberated in private on 11 February 2014, Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date: PROCEDURE 1.     The case originated in an application (no. 31535/09) against the Russian Federation lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) by a Russian national, Mr Vadim Vladislavovich Gorbulya (“the applicant”), on 4 May 2009. 2.     The applicant was represented by Ms O. Stasyuk, a lawyer practising in St. Petersburg. The Russian Government (“the Government”) were represented by Mr G. Matyushkin, Representative of the Russian Federation at the European Court of Human Rights. 3.     The applicant alleged that that he had not benefited from adequate medical care while in detention, that the conditions of his detention in a temporary detention facility, including in solitary confinement, and in a correctional facility had been inhuman, and that there had not been effective remedies available to him enabling him to complain of a violation of his right to proper medical services and adequate conditions of detention. 4.     On 17 October 2012 the application was communicated to the Government. Further to the applicant’s request, the Court granted priority to the application (Rule 41 of the Rules of Court). THE FACTS I.     THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE 5.     The applicant was born in 1973 and lived until his arrest in St. Petersburg. He is serving a sentence of life imprisonment. A.     Criminal proceedings against the applicant 6.     On 18 May 2006 the Kalininskiy District Court of St. Petersburg found the applicant guilty of unintentional manslaughter and sentenced him to ten years’ imprisonment. 7.     On 10 December 2008 the St. Petersburg City Court, by a jury verdict, found the applicant guilty of several counts of aggravated robbery and murder and sentenced him to life imprisonment. The applicant was represented by Ms D. as counsel. On 5 March 2009 the judgment was upheld on appeal and became final. B.     Conditions of detention 1.     Detention in facility IZ-47/1 in St. Petersburg (a)     The applicant’s version of events 8.     From 23 December 2002 to 8 October 2010 the applicant was detained in temporary detention facility IZ-47/1 in St. Petersburg, known as “Kresty”. He stated that the cells had been extremely overcrowded, with cells nos. 899, 907, 90, 74, 184 and 411, where he had been detained between 2002 and 2004, housing from seven to nine inmates and the cells where he was detained between 2004 and December 2008 accommodating between five and eight inmates. According to the applicant, each cell measured 8 square metres. Daily searches were performed in the cells, during which warders deliberately destroyed inmates’ personal belongings. 9 .     On 10 December 2008 the applicant was transferred to wing 2/1 of the facility and was placed in cell no. 128, which also measured 8 square metres and where he was detained alone. Wing 2/1 was allegedly designed for the detention of inmates sentenced to life imprisonment. Up to 8 October 2010 he was held in a number of similar cells, where he was always kept alone. The cells did not have a table or chair. A concrete platform served as a bed. The cells were not equipped with an artificial ventilation system. They had a small window which had three rows of metal bars and was covered by a metal mesh which separated the window from the rest of the cell. It did not allow access to fresh air. As a result the cells were extremely stuffy. A video camera was installed in the corner “to spy on inmates” and as a result the applicant did not have privacy even when using the toilet. It was extremely cold in winter. A lavatory pan and a sink were installed side by side in the corner of the cell, not separated from the living area by a door or partition. The applicant could only have a shower once a week for fifteen minutes. A small 60-watt lamp was installed above the cell door. It produced very little light, making it impossible to read or write in the cell. The applicant was allowed a daily hour-long walk in a recreation yard. On court hearing days that walk was cancelled. 10.     In response to numerous complaints by the applicant pertaining to the conditions of his detention and the quality of the medical care, various prosecution authorities informed him that the conditions were satisfactory save for minor irregularities pertaining to the absence of a bench in the cell, for instance, and that the applicant had received adequate medical assistance whenever he had asked for it. The applicant provided the Court with copies of the prosecutors’ letters. (b)     The Government’s version of events 11.     Relying on certificates issued by the director of facility IZ-47/1 in 2012, the Government noted that the applicant had been detained in that facility from 23 December 2002 until 8 October 2010, save for the period between 14 August and 23 October 2003 when he had been transferred to facility IZ-47/6 in the Leningrad Region. 12.     The Government further submitted that until 10 December 2008 the applicant had usually been detained in cells measuring 8 square metres and equipped with four sleeping places. The cells housed four inmates. The Government could not provide the Court with copies of inmate population logs to support their submissions concerning the number of detainees as the logs had been destroyed following the expiry of the statutory storage period. The cells had been equipped with a properly functional artificial ventilation system. The light in the cells was both natural and artificial: daylight entered through a 1.1-square-metre window covered with four horizontal and seven vertical metal bars. A 60-watt electric bulb and an emergency 40-watt bulb also provided light in the cells. There was a lavatory pan in the corner of each cell, separated from the living area by a 1.5-metre wooden partition. The applicant could take an hour-long daily walk in one of the seventy-three recreation yards of the facility. The Government accepted that from 23 December 2002 to 10   December 2008 the applicant’s conditions of detention had been incompatible with the requirements of Article 3 of the Convention on account of overcrowding and the resulting lack of personal space. 13.     From 10 December 2008 until 8 October 2010 the applicant had been kept in solitary confinement, alone in 8-square-metre cells equipped with two sleeping places. The solitary confinement had been a consequence of the applicant’s sentencing to life imprisonment on 10 December 2008. The other conditions of the applicant’s detention during that time had been similar to those in which he had been detained together with other inmates. 2.     Detention in the correctional facility (a)     The applicant’s version of events 14.     On 8 October 2010 the applicant was sent to correctional facility IK ‑ 56 in the Sverdlovsk Region (commonly known as “the Black Golden Eagle”) where he arrived on 4 November 2010 and has remained ever since, save for short visits to prison hospitals (see below for details). 15 .     In compliance with the requirements of Russian law, the applicant, having been sentenced to life imprisonment, had to be detained in a cell and not in a dormitory. He submitted that he had already occupied a number of cells where the conditions of detention had been identical. Relying on handwritten statements by inmates from facility IK-56, he provided the following description of the conditions of his detention. The cell measured approximately 18 square metres and housed one other inmate. He could not leave the cell without authorisation and was not allowed to move freely around the premises of the facility. The cell was not equipped with a lavatory pan or running water as the facility did not have a centralised water-supply or sewage systems. Inmates were provided with a bucket of water for their daily needs: for drinking, washing themselves and cleaning the bucket which they used as a lavatory. The water was obtained from the local river and was not clean. In the morning the bucket was emptied into a cesspool outside the building, behind the walls of the recreation yards. The bucket serving as a lavatory was not separated from the rest of the cell, thus offering no privacy. An unpleasant odour lingered in the cell. The heating system did not function properly. It was thus extremely cold in winter, when the temperature outside dropped below minus 30 or 40 degrees Celsius. The cell was not equipped with a ventilation shaft, thus it was stuffy and damp. Dim light penetrated into the cell through a small window covered with several rows of metal bars. The window was separated from the rest of the cell by a metal mesh which had small casings measuring five by five centimetres. The food provided in the facility was of poor quality. In 2011 the applicant was repeatedly given fish containing worms. He attached these worms to his complaints to the prosecutor’s office. 16 .     The applicant also submitted that he was allowed a daily walk of no more than two hours in one of the five recreation yards which measured 6 ‑ 9   square metres. He and his cellmate could bathe for fifteen minutes once a week in a room of no more than nine square metres where they used a small basin to pour water. (b)     The Government’s version of events 17 .     The Government produced certificates from the facility director and gave the following description of the conditions of the applicant’s detention in facility IK-56. After his arrival at the facility and until 28 June 2012 the applicant was detained in cells which measured 18 square metres. He shared a cell with another inmate. After 28 June 2012 the applicant occupied alone cells which measured 4 or 18 square metres. The cells had ventilation shafts. Each cell had a window measuring between 0.3 square metres and 0.6 square metres with a small casing which could be opened for fresh air. There were metal bars on the window but these did not block access to fresh air. There was a grille formed by vertical and horizontal bars on the windows which was 100 millimetres in width and 170 millimetres in length. One or two 100-watt bulbs lit the cells during the day. At night a 40-watt bulb was kept on. Facility IK-56, built in 1982, was not equipped with centralised water-supply or sewage systems. A bucket was kept in each cell to be used as a lavatory. It was separated by a metre-high wooden partition from the living area. The distance between the lavatory bucket and the dinner table was no less than one metre, and the distance between the bucket and the closest bunk slightly less than three metres. Inmates were also given 30-litre cans of drinking water. The water was obtained from an electric water-pumping station in a nearby village. The applicant was allowed to take daily one-and-a-half-hour outdoor walks in the recreations yards. The yards were covered by wire netting attached to the concrete walls surrounding the yards, which served as a roof. The sanitary conditions were satisfactory. The food was obtained by the head of the canteen from a storage facility. The quality of the food was checked on a daily basis by a duty officer and a prison doctor. The food was stored in the facility in conditions which protected it from theft or infection. The preparation of the food was carried out in the presence of a medical assistant and the duty officer. The applicant could take a shower once a week in a bathing facility in which cold and hot water were provided by an autonomous boiler. 18.     The Government supported their submissions by attaching plans of every cell in which the applicant had been detained and of the recreation yards in the correctional facility. The plans were hand-drawn. It appears from the materials presented that the facility had eight recreation yards, the smallest one measuring 7 square metres and the biggest measuring 18 square metres. Each yard was equipped with a bench and had a small cover to protect it from rain. C.     Medical assistance 1.     The applicant’s submissions 19.     According to the applicant’s submissions, in 2009 he was diagnosed with a gastric ulcer, hemorrhoids and fragile joints. He insisted that these illnesses were the direct result of his having been detained in appalling conditions for so many years. He applied for medical assistance. A prison nurse dismissed the request, noting that the applicant’s case did not require medical care. On further occasions when the applicant sought medical care, prison doctors refused to treat him, citing a lack of funds and medicine. The applicant complained to a prosecutor’s office on 21 April 2009 but received no response. In June 2009 he hurt his leg while descending from a bunk. He lodged a large number of complaints with the head of the detention facility, seeking medical assistance and, in particular, an X-ray examination of his leg. Following a complaint to a prosecutor’s office the applicant was examined by a prison surgeon who then threatened the applicant with violence and forbade him to ever complain again. 20.     In June 2011 the applicant was sent outside to empty lavatory buckets into the cesspool. He slipped and fell, injuring his knee joint. The applicant complained that prison doctors merely provided him with painkillers in response to his claims for medical assistance. As a result he could not use his knee joint fully and his movement was restricted. 21.     In June 2011 the applicant was detained in a cell immediately after it had been occupied by inmates suffering from an open form of tuberculosis. The cell was not disinfected before the applicant was placed in it. On 24   April 2012 the applicant was diagnosed with infiltrative tuberculosis of the right lung in the disintegration phase. His requests for treatment were not responded to or were dismissed, despite the fact that his illness had progressed. Furthermore, in February 2012 it was recommended that he have surgery to remove an inguinal (groin) hernia. The correctional facility officials took no steps to arrange the surgery. 22.     The applicant provided the Court with copies of the authorities’ – including prosecutors’ – responses to his complaints about the conditions of detention in the correctional facility and lack of medical assistance during his detention, and stated that all his attempts to draw attention to his problems had been to no avail. 2.     The Government’s submissions 23.     Relying on a handwritten copy of the applicant’s medical record and a typed version of the same, the Government argued that upon the applicant’s admission to facility IZ-47/1 he had been examined by prison doctors. Further examinations had been carried out on the applicant’s transfer to the correctional facility and after his arrival at that facility. Each time the applicant had been found to be in satisfactory health. The applicant had undergone annual medical check-ups. He had received treatment for a gastric ulcer and a soft tissue bruise on his leg. 24.     According to the applicant’s medical record, during his detention in facility IZ-47/1 he was attended to by prison doctors and a psychiatrist. He also underwent a number of chest X-ray examinations which did not reveal any indication of tuberculosis. The first X-ray examination was performed in November 2003. After being diagnosed with a gastric ulcer in 2006, the applicant was treated and the illness went into remission. He was subsequently examined by a prison doctor on a regular basis. In March 2009, after the applicant complained of stomach pain, he was diagnosed with a relapse of gastric ulcer and was prescribed treatment. A two-month drug regimen led to a substantial improvement in the applicant’s condition. His satisfactory condition was confirmed by an in-depth medical examination and tests, including a gastroscopy. 25.     On three occasions in the second half of 2009 the applicant complained about a leg injury. On each occasion he was examined by a surgeon and was sent back to the detention facility in good health. The surgeon did not find any signs of a serious injury; a small bruise on the left leg had been noted on the first examination in June 2009 but it was no longer visible on his subsequent visits to the doctor. 26.     In 2010 the prison medical personnel, including a physician and a surgeon, continued to closely supervise the applicant in respect of his ulcer and hemorrhoids. If a relapse was suspected, the applicant was provided with treatment and was assigned a special diet. He was also subjected to gastroscopy testing and the doctors’ recommendations were adjusted to take account of the results. 27.     On the applicant’s arrival at the correctional facility on 4 November 2010 a doctor examined him. The doctor noted the history of the applicant’s gastric problem and also recorded the results of the most recent chest fluorography examination, which had not revealed any pathology. 28.     A week after his arrival at the colony, the applicant complained of stomach pains and heartburn. He was placed on an emergency drug regimen and sent for specific tests. He was found to be suffering from a moderately acute gastric ulcer and he started receiving extensive drug treatment and was placed on special diet. The acute condition was entirely relieved by the beginning of 2011. He remained under the medical supervision of the prison doctors, who recorded his condition as improving. He also underwent regular gastroscopy testing and continued with the treatment and diet. 29.     In June 2011, after complaining about a pain in the right knee joint and explaining that he had had a serious knee injury more than ten years before, the applicant was examined by a surgeon, underwent an X-ray examination of the knee joint and was diagnosed with post-traumatic arthritis of the right knee joint. He started receiving treatment with anti-inflammatory drugs and pain relievers. As the treatment did not produce any positive improvement, a surgeon performed a knee joint puncture, put the applicant’s right leg in plaster and prescribed bed rest. The applicant’s drug regimen was amended. At the end of July 2011 the plaster was removed and the applicant’s leg was bandaged. Regular visits from a surgeon led to slight changes to the drug regimen. In October 2011 the applicant completed his treatment, which was considered a success. At the same time, he also underwent a gastroscopy and a chest X-ray. Both tests showed the applicant to be in good health. 30.     The prison personnel continued to address the applicant’s complaints whenever he had any. He was treated by a dentist and was consulted by and received treatment from a surgeon in respect of a groin hernia. He was sent to the surgical department of the prison hospital for it to be determined whether he needed surgery for the hernia and knee joint problems. As these operations were not considered urgent, the applicant continued with his treatment in the correctional facility. 31.     On 2 May 2012 a tuberculosis specialist diagnosed the applicant with infiltrative tuberculosis of the upper lobe of the right lung in the dissolution phase. The diagnosis was based on the results of an X-ray examination in April 2012 which had revealed shadows of infiltration with dissolution caverns in the applicant’s lung. The applicant underwent clinical blood analysis and sputum smear testing and started receiving treatment with isoniazid, rifampicin, ethambutol, pyrazinamide and streptomycin. He was prescribed an enriched food regimen and transferred to the tuberculosis unit of the correctional facility. Two weeks later the applicant complained of severe stomach pain which the doctors connected to a relapse of the gastric ulcer against the background of the heavy antibacterial drug regimen. The applicant’s treatment was changed in view of these added health issues. When the relapse of the ulcer had been resolved, the applicant continued with primary antibacterial treatment. He was also regularly tested in order for any improvements or deterioration in the illness to be recorded. In November 2012 the applicant was sent to a tuberculosis hospital in the town of Ivdel, as the prison tuberculosis specialist considered that he needed a more in-depth analysis in a specialised medical facility. On the applicant’s transfer to the tuberculosis hospital sputum smear tests no longer showed traces of active tuberculosis bacteria. 32.     It can be seen from a certificate sent by the Ivdel Town prosecutor to the director of correctional facility IK-56 that several rounds of tests performed in the tuberculosis hospital demonstrated that the applicant was sputum smear-negative. The applicant’s condition was considered satisfactory. A medical panel which performed an expert assessment of the applicant at his request found that he could not be classed as disabled. The hospital doctors recommended a slight amendment to the applicant’s drug regimen and he was sent back to correctional facility IK-56 for in-patient treatment. II.     RELEVANT DOMESTIC AND INTERNATIONAL LAW A.     General conditions of detention in temporary and correctional facilities, provision of medical care and the existence of effective remedies 33 . The relevant provisions of domestic and international law on the health care of detainees, including those suffering from tuberculosis, and on conditions of detention are set out in the following judgments: Isayev v.   Russia , no. 20756/04, § 62, 22 October 2009; A.B. v. Russia , no.   1439/06, §§ 77-84, 14   October 2010; Gladkiy v. Russia , no. 3242/03, §§ 29-50, 21   December 2010; Yevgeniy Alekseyenko v. Russia , no.   41833/04, §§ 60-66 and 73-80, 27 January 2011; Pakhomov v.   Russia , no. 44917/08, §§ 33-39 and 42-48, 30 September 2011; and Ananyev and Others v. Russia , nos.   42525/07 and 60800/08, §§ 25-48, 10 January 2012. 34.   The provisions of domestic law establishing legal avenues for complaints about conditions of detention and quality of medical services are cited in the following judgments: Ananyev and Others v. Russia , nos.   42525/07 and 60800/08, §§ 25-48, 10 January 2012; Dirdizov v.   Russia , no.   41461/10, §§ 47-61, 27 November 2012; and Reshetnyak v   Russia , no.   56027/10, §§ 35-46, 8 January 2013. 35 .     For the relevant provisions of domestic and international law on solitary confinement, see the following judgments: Razvyazkin v. Russia , no. 13579/09, §§ 70-89, 3 July 2012, and Borodin v. Russia , no. 41867/04, §   69, 6 November 2012. B.     Detention of inmates sentenced to life imprisonment 36 .     Article 80 § 1 of the Russian Code on the Execution of Criminal Sentences requires inmates sentenced to life imprisonment to be detained separately from other categories of detainees. Life prisoners are to be detained in “special regime” correctional facilities (Article 126 of the Code). 37.     Life prisoners are to be kept in a cell housing no more than two inmates. They may request to be detained alone or may be placed in solitary confinement by the facility director for safety reasons. Inmates sentenced to life imprisonment have a right to a daily walk of an hour and a half, which is to be extended to two hours in case of good behaviour. The remaining rules and regulations governing such aspects of prison life as family visits, phone calls, postal services, and so on, are similar to those which are applied in colonies “of particular regime” (Articles 125 and 127 of the Code). THE LAW I.     ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLES 3 AND 13 OF THE CONVENTION 38.       The applicant complained that the conditions of his detention in temporary detention facility IZ-47/1 from 23 December 2002 until 8   October 2010, including his detention in solitary confinement from 10   December 2008 to 8 October 2010, as well as the conditions of his detention in correctional facility IK-56 from 4 November 2010 onwards had amounted to a breach of Article 3 of the Convention. He also complained under the same Convention provision that the Russian authorities had placed him in solitary confinement and thus in social isolation, and that they had taken no steps to safeguard his health and well-being, failing to provide him with adequate medical care. Article 3 of the Convention reads as follows: “No one shall be subjected to torture or to inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.” The applicant lastly claimed that he had not had at his disposal an effective remedy for these violations of the guarantee against ill-treatment, as required under Article 13 of the Convention, which reads as follows: “Everyone whose rights and freedoms as set forth in [the] Convention are violated shall have an effective remedy before a national authority ....” A.     Submissions by the parties 39.     The Government argued that a number of effective remedies had been open to the applicant in order for him to complain about the alleged violations of his rights under Article 3 of the Convention, at least in so far as he complained of a lack of medical care in detention and about the conditions of his detention in the correctional facility. They cited a complaint to the administration of the facility, a prosecutor or a court as possible routes for effectively alerting the authorities to his situation. The Government further drew the Court’s attention to two judgments adopted by Russian courts in response to complaints by inmates about “unlawful placement in an inmate disciplinary unit” and unsatisfactory conditions of detention in a correctional facility. The two inmates had been awarded 25,000 and 50,000 Russian roubles respectively. The Government concluded that the applicant had not exhausted available domestic remedies in respect of his complaints about the quality of the medical services and the conditions of his detention after conviction. In addition, while acknowledging the lack of remedies under Article 13 of the Convention for complaints about conditions of detention in temporary detention facilities, as established by the Court in the case of Ananyev and Others v. Russia (cited above), the Government submitted that the applicant could not claim to be a victim of a violation of Article 13 of the Convention as he had never complained to a court about the conditions of his detention in facility IZ ‑ 47/1. 40.     The Government further submitted that should the Court find that the applicant had maintained his victim status and had exhausted domestic remedies, his complaints about lack of medical care, his solitary confinement in facility no. IZ-47/1, and the conditions of detention in the correctional facility were in any event manifestly ill-founded. In particular, the Government noted that after his conviction and sentencing to life imprisonment the applicant had been transferred to a cell where he had been detained alone from 10 December 2008 until 8 October 2010. That decision had been taken in full compliance with Russian law, which required prisoners to be detained separately from the rest of the inmate population. The decision had had the purpose of guaranteeing the security of the other detainees in facility IZ-47/1. The applicant had been kept in conditions which complied with the requirements of Article 3 of the Convention. 41.     As to the conditions of the applicant’s detention in the correctional facility, the Government argued that despite “difficult sanitary conditions” in the facility linked to the absence of centralised water-supply and sewage systems, the conditions did not attain the minimum level of severity to fall within the scope of Article 3 of the Convention. The Government went on to state that the medical care provided to the applicant had been of the highest quality; he had been regularly examined by various specialists and had received appropriate treatment, including in a prison hospital. After the applicant had been diagnosed with tuberculosis, he had been placed on an intensive antibacterial drug regimen. His condition had improved and he was no longer sputum-smear positive. 42.     Finally, the Government accepted that the conditions of the applicant’s detention in facility IZ-47/1 from 23 December 2002 until 10   December 2008 had run counter to the guarantees of Article 3 of the Convention in view of the overcrowding and lack of personal space in the facility. 43.     The applicant began his argument with a submission relating to domestic remedies. In particular, he drew the Court’s attention to a number of cases against Russia where it had found a violation of Article 13 of the Convention in view of a lack of domestic remedies in respect of complaints about the poor conditions of detention. He referred to his complaints to various authorities, including prosecutors, which had not brought about any improvements to his situation. He further maintained his description of the conditions of his detention both in the temporary detention centre and the correctional facility. He argued that the lack of personal space in facility IZ-47/1, his lengthy solitary confinement, and the degrading sanitary conditions in the correctional facility had been in contravention of the requirements of Article 3 of the Convention. With regard to the issue of his solitary confinement, he stressed that it had only been authorised in view of his life sentence. There had been no other considerations which could have required his detention alone in a cell for almost two years. It had never been argued that he was a danger to himself or other inmates or guards. He had never attempted self-mutilation or escape, or attacked those around him. The authorities had never reconsidered his solitary confinement and whether it could be cancelled. They had never assessed his physical and mental health to determine whether he was fit for solitary confinement. 44.     The applicant proceeded with a description of the quality of the medical services afforded to him in detention which, in his opinion, were manifestly inadequate. He stressed that he had been infected with tuberculosis in detention, for which the authorities should bear full responsibility. B.     The Court’s assessment 1.     Admissibility (a)     Objection as to non-exhaustion and victim status 45.     The Government raised an objection in respect of non-exhaustion of domestic remedies by the applicant, claiming also that he did not have victim status in respect of his complaint of lack of effective remedies. The Court considers that these two issues are closely linked to the merits of the applicant’s complaint that he did not have at his disposal an effective remedy for his complaints concerning inhuman and degrading treatment on account of being detained in inadequate conditions, including in solitary confinement, and being deprived of effective medical care. The Court thus finds it necessary to join the Government’s objection to the merits of the applicant’s complaint under Article 13 of the Convention. (b)     Six-month issue in respect of the complaint about the conditions in the temporary detention facility 46.     The applicant complained about his stay from 23 December 2002 to 8 October 2010 in temporary detention facility IZ-47/1, where he had been sent to serve his sentence. The Government submitted that the applicant’s stay in facility IZ-47/1 had been interrupted on 14 August 2003 when he had been transferred to temporary detention facility IZ-47/6. He had returned to facility IZ-47/1 on 23 October 2003. 47.     The Court reiterates that a period of detention should be regarded as a “continuing situation” if the detention has been effected in the same type of detention facility in substantially similar conditions. Short periods of absence during which the applicant was taken out of the facility for interviews or other procedural acts would have no incidence on the continuous nature of the detention. However, the applicant’s release or transfer to a different type of detention regimen, either within or outside the facility, would put an end to the “continuing situation”. The complaint about the conditions of detention must be filed within six months of the end of the situation complained about or, if there was an effective domestic remedy to be exhausted, of the final decision in the process of exhaustion (see Ananyev and Others v. Russia , cited above, §   78). 48.     In the instant case, despite the applicant’s arguments to the contrary, the Court has no reason to doubt the veracity of the Government’s submissions concerning the applicant’s transfer. It regrets that neither of the parties provided information on the purpose of the applicant’s transfer or the material conditions of his detention for those two months in the new facility. The Court has previously examined the situation of the applicants who had been transferred from a remand prison to a correctional colony to serve their sentence and who had later returned to the same prison in connection with proceedings in a different criminal case. Their departure to the colony being definitive at the material time and their subsequent return to the same prison being a mere happenstance, the Court reached the conclusion that their transfer marked the end of the situation complained about and that the six-month period should run from the day they left the prison (see Mitrokhin v.   Russia , no. 35648/04, § 36, 24 January 2012, and Yartsev v. Russia (dec.), no. 13776/11, § 30, 26 March 2013). By contrast, in the present case it is clear from the Government’s submissions that the applicant’s transfer to facility IZ-47/6 was of a temporary nature. Moreover, and more importantly, the Government did not argue that the applicant’s detention in facility IZ-47/1 could not be regarded as a “continuous situation” because of his short transfer to another facility. In acknowledging that the applicant’s rights guaranteed by Article 3 of the Convention were violated as a result of his lengthy stay in overcrowded conditions, the Government treated his detention from 23 December 2002 to 10 December 2008, when the applicant was placed in solitary confinement, as one single period. The Court accordingly finds that the applicant’s short period of absence from facility IZ-47/1 had no effect on the continuous nature of his detention (see, for similar reasoning, Sorokin v. Russia , no. 67482/10, §§ 24-27, 10 October 2013). It therefore finds that the applicant complied with the six-month rule in respect of his complaint relating to the entire period of his detention after 23 December 2002. (c)     Conclusion as to admissibility 49.     The Court further notes that the applicant’s complaints under Articles 3 and 13 of the Convention are not manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 (a) of the Convention and that they are not inadmissible on any other grounds. They must therefore be declared admissible. 2.     Merits (a)     Exhaustion of domestic remedies and alleged violation of Article 13 of the Convention 50.     The Court reiterates that the rule of exhaustion of domestic remedies referred to in Article 35 of the Convention obliges those seeking to bring a case against the State before the Court to first use the remedies provided by the national legal system. Consequently, States are dispensed from answering before an international body for their acts before they have had an opportunity to put matters right through their own legal system. The rule is based on the assumption, reflected in Article 13 of the Convention, with which it has close affinity, that there is an effective remedy available to deal with the substance of an “arguable complaint” under the Convention and to provide appropriate relief. Moreover, it is an important aspect of the principle that the machinery of protection established by the Convention is subsidiary to the national systems safeguarding human rights (see Kudła v.   Poland [GC], no. 30210/96, § 152, ECHR 2000 ‑ XI, and Handyside v. the United Kingdom , 7 December 1976, § 48, Series A no. 24). 51.     An applicant is normally required to have recourse only to those remedies that are available and sufficient to afford redress in respect of the breaches alleged. The existence of the remedies in question must be sufficiently certain not only in theory but also in practice, failing which they will lack the requisite accessibility and effectiveness (see, inter alia , Vernillo v. France , 20 February 1991, § 27, Series A no. 198, and Johnston and Others v. Ireland , 18 December 1986, § 22, Series A no. 112). It is incumbent on the Government claiming non-exhaustion to satisfy the Court that the remedy was an effective one available in theory and in practice at the relevant time, that is to say that it was accessible, was one which was capable of providing redress in respect of the applicant’s complaints, and offered reasonable prospects of success. However, once this burden of proof has been satisfied, it falls to the applicant to establish that the remedy advanced by the Government was in fact used or was for some reason inadequate and ineffective in the particular circumstances of the case, or that there existed special circumstances absolving him or her from the requirement. 52.     The Court would emphasise that the application of this rule must make due allowance for the fact that it is being applied in the context of machinery for the protection of human rights that the Contracting Parties have agreed to set up. Accordingly, it has recognised that the rule of exhaustion of domestic remedies must be applied with some degree of flexibility and without excessive formalism (see Cardot v. France , 19   March 1991, § 34, Series A no. 200). It has further recognised that the rule of exhaustion is neither absolute nor capable of being applied automatically: in reviewing whether it has been observed it is essential to have regard to the particular circumstances of each individual case (see Van Oosterwijck v. Belgium , 6   November 1980, § 35, Series A no. 40). This means, amongst other things, that realistic account must be taken not only of the existence of formal remedies in the legal system of the Contracting Party concerned but also of the general legal and political context in which they operate, as well as the personal circumstances of the applicants (see Akdivar and Others v. Turkey , 16 September 1996, §§ 65-68, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1996 ‑ IV). 53.     The scope of the Contracting States’ obligations under Article 13 varies depending on the nature of the applicant’s complaint; the “effectiveness” of a “remedy” within the meaning of Article 13 does not depend on the certainty of a favourable outcome for the applicant. At the same time, the remedy required by Article 13 must be “effective” in practice as well as in law, in the sense either of preventing the alleged violation or its continuation, or of providing adequate redress for any violation that has already occurred (see Kudła , cited above, §§ 157-158, and Wasserman v.   Russia (no. 2), no. 21071/05, § 45, 10 April 2008). 54.     Where the fundamental right to protection against torture and inhuman and degrading treatment is concerned, the preventive and compensatory remedies have to be complementary in order to be considered effective. The existence of a preventive remedy is indispensable for the effective protection of individuals against the kind of treatment prohibited by Article 3 of the Convention. Indeed, the particular importance attached by the Convention to that provision requires, in the Court’s view, that the States Parties establish, over and above a compensatory remedy, an effective mechanism in order to put an end to any such treatment rapidly. Were it otherwise, the prospect of future compensation would legitimise particularly severe suffering in breach of this core provision of the Convention (see Vladimir Romanov v. Russia , no. 41461/02, § 78, 24 July 2008). 55.     Turning to the facts of the present case, the Court notes the Government’s argument that the applicant did not attempt to make use of any avenues for exhausting remedies proposed by them as effective. However, it is not convinced by these submissions. In particular, some of the documents produced by the applicant, such as copies of letters from various domestic authorities, show that he complained to prosecutors, the Service for the Execution of Sentences and the governors of the detention facilities. The applicant employed these remedies in an attempt to draw the authorities’ attention to his state of health and the conditions in which he was detained. Such fact alone has been sufficient for the Court on many occasions to dismiss the Government’s objection of non-exhaustion (see, for instance, Gurenko v. Russia , no. 41828/10, § 78, 5 February 2013). 56.     However, the Court observes that its task in the present case is to examine the effectiveness of various domestic remedies suggested by the Russian Government and not merely to determine whether the applicant made his grievances sufficiently known to the Russian authorities. In this connection, the Court observes that it has on many occasions examined the effectiveness of the domestic remedies suggested by the Government. It found, in particular, that in deciding on a complaint concerning breaches of domestic regulations governing conditions of detention or the provision of medical care to detainees, the prison authorities would not have a sufficiently independent standpoint to satisfy the requirements of Article 35 of the Convention (see Dirdizov v. Russia , no. 41461/10, § 75, 27   November 2012, and Ananyev and Others , cited above, §   101). Even though review by a supervising prosecutor plays an important part in securing appropriate conditions of detention, a report or order by a prosecutor is primarily a matter between the supervising authority and the supervised body and is not geared towards providing preventive or compensatory redress to the aggrieved individual (see Dirzidov , § 76, and Ananyev and Others , §   104, both cited above). A civil claim for compensation under the tort provisions of the Civil Code, such as those cited by the Government by way of example, cannot offer the applicant any other redress than a purely compensatory award and cannot put an end to a situation where there is an on-going violation, such as lack of personal space or of specific accommodation in a given detention facility, or inadequate medical care (see Reshetnyak v. Russia , no. 56027/10, §§ 65-73, 8   January 2013). Moreover, such a remedy did not offer reasonable prospects of success, in particular because the award was conditional on the establishment of fault on the part of the authorities, which was extremely improbable in a situation where domestic legal norms prescribed the application of a certain measure, for instance, certain conditions of detention or solitary confinement (see Aleksandr Makarov v.   Russia , no.   15217/07, §§   84-89, 12 March 2009, and A.B. v. Russia , no. 1439/06, § 96, 14 October 2010). Furthermore, the Court has noted that, even in cases where the Russian courts have awarded compensation for conditions of detention that were unsatisfactory in the light of the domestic legal requirements, the level of compensation was unreasonably low in comparison with the awards made by the Court in similar cases (see Ananyev and Others , cited above, §§ 113-118). 57.     In the light of the above considerations, the Court concludes that none of the legal avenues put forward by the Government constituted an effective remedy that could have been used to prevent the alleged violations or their continuation and provide the applicant with adequate and sufficient redress for his complaints under Article 3 of the Convention. Accordingly, the Court dismisses the Government’s objection of non-exhaustion of domestic remedies. As regards their objection relating to the applicant’s victim status, given his alleged failure to employ the above-mentioned ineffective domestic remedies before bringing his complaint to Strasbourg, the Court observes that the applicant could not be required to have recourse to remedies which could not afford him redress in respect of the breaches alleged. The Court also reiterates that he attempted, albeit unsuccessfully, to make use of at least two of the legal avenues proposed by the Government. The Government’s objection in this regard is therefore dismissed. 58.     To sum up, the Court finds that the applicant did not have at his disposal an effective domestic remedy for his complaints, in breach of Article 13 of the Convention. (b)     Alleged violations of Article 3 of the Convention (i)     General principles 59.     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, irrespe