CEDH · CASELAW;JUDGMENTS;CHAMBER;ENG — 2 juillet 2019

.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 } .s598389F8 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:11pt } .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 } .s6CCEAD68 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; color:#ff0000 } .sE208486F { font-family:Arial; color:#ff0000 } .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 } .s34D46E87 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-align:center; 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 } .sDE1FCA9C { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt } .s4B8D41EE { font-family:Arial; font-size:10pt } .sA80E62D1 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; font-size:11.5pt } .s2CE7C1B9 { font-family:Arial; font-size:10pt; font-style:italic } .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 } .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 } .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 } .s583D00FA { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:17pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-17pt } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s26FF04E7 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:17.3pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s4B243ECC { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sF7A4323 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .sA0A2D76C { width:172.92pt; display:inline-block } .s7602FED2 { width:18.21pt; display:inline-block } .sC1AC44A4 { width:228.11pt; display:inline-block } .s379BC09C { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s3DC36BA9 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } .sDD67E0A9 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:17pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-17pt; text-align:center } .s23860FF7 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:center }     THIRD SECTION           CASE OF GORLOV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA   (Applications nos. 27057/06 and 2 others – see list appended)               JUDGMENT                 STRASBOURG   2 July 2019     FINAL   04/11/2019   This judgment has become final under Article 44 § 2 of the Convention. It may be subject to editorial revision. In the case of Gorlov and Others v. Russia, The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting as a Chamber composed of:   Vincent A. De Gaetano, President,   Helen Keller,   Dmitry Dedov,   Branko Lubarda,   Alena Poláčková,   Gilberto Felici,   Erik Wennerström, judges, and Stephen Phillips, Section Registrar, Having deliberated in private on 4 June 2019, Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date: PROCEDURE 1 .     The case originated in three applications (nos.   27057/06, 56443/09 and 25147/14) 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 three Russian nationals, Mr   Igor Yevgenyevich Gorlov (“the first applicant”), Mr Denis Viktorovich Vakhmistrov (“the second applicant”) and Mr Viktor Valeryevich Sablin (“the third applicant”), on 10 May 2006, 11 September 2009 and 6 May 2014 respectively. 2.     The first applicant represented himself. The second applicant was represented by Ms O.   Preobrazhenskaya, a lawyer practising in Strasbourg. The third applicant, who had been granted legal aid, was represented by Ms   O.   Druzhkova, a lawyer practising in Moscow. The Russian Government (“the Government”) were represented by Mr   G.   Matyushkin, Representative of the Russian Federation at the European Court of Human Rights, and then by Mr V.   Galperin, his successor in that office. 3.     The applicants complained, in particular, that constant surveillance of their cells, at times by female guards, by closed-circuit television cameras had violated their right to respect for their private life, as guaranteed by Article 8 of the Convention. The second applicant also complained under Article 3 of the Convention that he had been unable to take outdoor exercise during wintertime, as the prison authorities had refused to provide him with appropriate winter footwear. The second and third applicants also relied on Article 13 of the Convention, alleging a lack of effective remedies in respect of any of their complaints. 4.     On 18 January 2011 the Government were given notice of the complaint concerning constant video surveillance in application no.   27057/06. On 3 May 2016 they were given notice of the complaints concerning constant video surveillance and the absence of appropriate footwear during wintertime in application no.   56443/09. The remainder of the application was declared inadmissible pursuant to Rule 54 § 3 of the Rules of Court. On 30 August 2016 the Government were given notice of application no.   25147/14. THE FACTS I.     THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE 5.     The applicants were born in 1965, 1977 and 1976 respectively. 6.     The first two applicants are currently serving sentences in penal institutions in the Krasnoyarsk Region, namely UP-288/T (prison) in Minusinsk and OIK-36 (correctional colony). The third applicant lives in Shilka in the Zabaykalskiy Region. A.     The applicants’ criminal history 1.     The first applicant 7.     By a first-instance judgment of 21 May 2002 the Supreme Court of the Republic of Buryatiya convicted the first applicant of several offences including robbery, theft, forgery, destruction of property, banditry, possession and transportation of firearms and murder, sentencing him to life imprisonment. 8 .     The judgment was upheld on appeal by the Supreme Court of Russia on 19 June 2003. The first applicant did not allege in his appeal arguments that the composition of the first-instance court had been unlawful. 9.     On 22 September 2004 the Eniseyskiy District Court of the Krasnoyarsk Region brought the first applicant’s conviction in line with newly introduced amendments to the Russian Criminal Code, having made minor corrections to the legal characterisation of his acts. His sentence was left essentially unchanged. 10.     That decision was upheld following a supervisory review by the Krasnoyarsk Regional Court on 30 May 2006. 11.     In 2007 the first applicant made some enquiries to check the lawfulness of the composition of the first-instance court in his case. Eventually, he found out that two lay assessors who had sat in his case at the first level of jurisdiction had not had authority to take part in the proceedings. Thereafter, in an attempt to contest the lawfulness of his conviction on the above-mentioned grounds, he requested that the Prosecutor’s Office of the Republic of Buryatiya institute supervisory review proceedings with a view to setting aside the judgment of 21 May 2002. His requests were unsuccessful. 2.     The second applicant 12.     By a judgment of 5 December 2003 the Leninskiy District Court of Krasnoyarsk convicted the second applicant of murder and destruction of property and sentenced him to fifteen years’ imprisonment to be served in a correctional colony with a strict regime. 13.     On 5 February 2004 the Krasnoyarsk Regional Court upheld the second applicant’s conviction on appeal. 14.     On 6 April 2007 the Sovetskiy District Court of Krasnoyarsk changed the regime of the second applicant’s imprisonment and ordered that three years of his sentence be served in prison. 3.     The third applicant 15.     The details of the third applicant’s criminal history are unknown. B.     The applicants’ detention 1.     The first applicant 16 .     The first applicant was placed in UP-288/T prison in Minusinsk, where it appears he remains to date. 17.     The case file shows that his cell is under constant surveillance by prison guards by a closed-circuit television camera (hereinafter “CCTV camera”) installed inside. The first applicant submitted a copy of a judgment in the case of another inmate, which stated that the prison guard who monitored the cells in that prison was a woman. 18 .     He also submitted screenshots of the CCTV camera installed in each of the two cells in which he had been kept. The screenshots show that in both cells there was a CCTV camera installed above the door, at ceiling level, in such a manner that the entire cell was clearly visible, including the bed. The toilet was located directly below the CCTV camera and was almost entirely hidden from the camera’s view by a shield. 2.     The second applicant 19.     Between 22   May 2007 and 24 May 2010 the second applicant also served a sentence in UP-288/T prison. According to him, during his detention in that facility he was unable to take walks and undertake outdoor exercise in wintertime because he was not provided with winter boots of a suitable size, despite numerous requests to that effect. 20 .     On an unspecified date the second applicant was transferred to IK-5 (strict-regime correctional colony) in Krasnoyarsk. According to him, his cell was under constant surveillance by prison guards by a CCTV camera installed inside the cell. The applicant submitted that the prison guard who monitored his cell was a woman, as at times he could hear her giving him orders via loudspeaker. 3.     The third applicant 21 .     Whilst serving a prison sentence in IK-2 (special-regime correctional colony) in the Zabaykalskiy Region, on 22 June 2013 the third applicant was transferred to IZ-1 (pre-trial detention centre) in the same region with a view to ensuring his participation in court proceedings unrelated to this case. The third applicant was placed in cell no. 465, where he remained until 22   February 2014. 22 .     According to him, the cell was designed for two inmates, but most of the time he was there alone. The cell was under permanent surveillance by a CCTV camera operated by female guards. A screenshot of the CCTV camera submitted by the third applicant shows that it was installed above the entrance door, at ceiling level, in such a manner that the entire cell was clearly visible, including, at least in part, the bed. The screenshot also shows that the toilet was separated by a partition at each side, but had no cover, with the result that the upper part of the cubicle was visible. C.     Court proceedings brought by the third applicant 23.     On an unspecified date the third applicant lodged a complaint against the actions of the administration of pre-trial detention centre IZ-1 (“the detention centre authorities”) with the Ingodinskiy District Court of Chita (“the District Court”). He argued that permanent video surveillance of his cell by female operators was humiliating as, in particular, he had to undress in plain view of them, which breached his rights. He asked the court to oblige the detention centre authorities to bring the violation to an end. 24.     At a hearing a representative of the detention centre authorities conceded that the duty officers who performed video surveillance were women, but argued that they were merely performing their professional duties. The representative also pointed out that all the other cells in the pre ‑ trial detention centre were equipped with CCTV cameras, which had been installed for security purposes. The representative further argued that the applicant’s sleeping place and cell toilet were outside the CCTV camera’s field of view. 25.     In a judgment of 5 July 2013 the District Court dismissed the third applicant’s complaint. 26.     It found it established that the third applicant’s cell and all the other cells in pre-trial detention centre IZ-1 were equipped with CCTV cameras located under the ceiling for the purposes of surveillance of detainees. It further accepted the argument of the detention centre authorities that the toilet and sleeping place were outside the camera’s field of view. 27 .     The court further observed that Article 83 of the Russian Code of Execution of Criminal Sentences (see paragraph 33 below) and section 34(1) of the Pre-trial Detention Act (see paragraph 34 below) enabled the use of audio and video equipment for surveillance and control with a view to preventing escapes and other crimes or breaches of internal order. Moreover, those legal instruments, as well as the relevant regulations of the Russian Ministry of Justice, including executive order no. 204-dsp of 3   November 2005, as amended on 25 May 2011 (see paragraphs 35-38 below), provided that only body searches and supervision of detainees during hygienic procedures should be performed by officers of the same sex, whereas surveillance of cells by CCTV cameras by officers of the opposite sex was not prohibited by the above-mentioned legal instruments. Officers of pre-trial detention centre IZ-1 were civil servants who performed the professional duties within their competence, as established, in particular, by section 21 of executive order no. 204-dsp of 3 November 2005 (see paragraph 36 below). In that connection, the court noted that no evidence had been submitted to it to show that the officers of pre-trial detention centre IZ-1 had breached or acted outside the scope of their professional duties. 28 .     The District Court also pointed out that decision no.   1393-O-O of the Constitutional Court of Russia dated 19   October 2010 (see paragraphs 42-43 below) stated that use by the authorities of various pre-trial detention centres and penal institutions of technical means of surveillance and control was part of the mechanism that ensured detainees’ personal safety and respect for their rights, as well as performance by them of their obligations. In the District Court’s view, such use thus pursued constitutional aims and could not be regarded as a disproportionate restriction of the third applicant’s rights. 29.     The District Court concluded that, under the applicable law, as interpreted by the Constitutional Court of Russia, it was permissible for officers of the opposite sex to perform CCTV camera monitoring of detainees, thus the situation had not debased the third applicant’s dignity, as the female officers had acted within their competence and in the performance of their professional duties. 30 .     On 11 September 2013 the Zabaykalskiy Regional Court upheld the first-instance judgment on appeal, endorsing its reasoning. II.     RELEVANT DOMESTIC LAW AND PRACTICE A.     Constitution of Russia 31 .     The relevant constitutional provisions are the following: Article 21 “1.     Human dignity shall be protected by the State. Nothing may serve as a basis for its derogation...” Article 23 “1.     Everyone has the right to inviolability of private life, personal and family confidentiality, the protection of his or her honour and good name. 2.     Everyone has the right to privacy of correspondence, telephone, mail, telegraph and other types of communication. Any limitation on this right is permitted only upon a court decision.” Article 55 “1.     The enumeration in the Constitution of the basic rights and freedoms should not be interpreted as the denial or belittling of other widely recognised human and civil rights and freedoms. 2.     No laws denying or belittling human and civil rights and freedoms may be enacted in the Russian Federation. 3.     Human and civil rights and freedoms may be limited by a federal law only to the extent necessary for the protection of the fundamental principles of the constitutional system, morality, health, the rights and lawful interests of other people, or for ensuring defence of the country and security of the State.” Article 71 “The jurisdiction of the Russian Federation includes: ... (o) the constitution of the judiciary, the prosecutor’s office, criminal law, criminal procedure, matters concerning the execution of criminal sentences, amnesty and pardon, civil law, civil procedure, the procedure of commercial courts, legal regulation of intellectual property; ...” B.     Legislative provisions 1.     Criminal Code 32 .     The relevant part of the Russian Criminal Code of 13 June 1996 provides: Article 58. Choice of penal institutions for persons sentenced to imprisonment “1. Persons sentenced to imprisonment shall serve their respective sentences, depending on the gravity of the crimes that they have committed, in: - settlement colonies ( колония-поселение ), if the crime was committed negligently or the crime was of minor or medium gravity and was committed by a person who has never previously served a sentence of imprisonment; - common-regime correctional colonies ( исправительная колония общего режима ), in the case of a grave crime committed by a man who has never previously served a sentence of imprisonment, or in the case of a crime committed by a woman who has been sentenced to imprisonment for committing a grave or particularly grave crime, including any form of recidivism; - strict-regime correctional colonies ( исправительная колония строго режима ), in the case of a crime committed by a man who has been sentenced to imprisonment for the commission of a particularly grave crime, who has never previously served a sentence of imprisonment, and in the case of recidivism or dangerous recidivism, if the convicted person has previously served a sentence of imprisonment; - special-regime correctional colonies ( исправительная колония особого режима ), if a man has been sentenced to a sentence of life imprisonment or if a man is a particularly dangerous recidivist, - prisons ( тюрьмы ), if a man has been sentenced to a term of over five years’ imprisonment for the commission of a particularly grave crime, or if a man is a particularly dangerous recidivist,....” 2.     Code of Execution of Criminal Sentences 33 .     The relevant parts of the Russian Code of Execution of Criminal Sentences of 8 January 1997 (“the Code of Execution of Criminal Sentences”) provide as follows: Article 82. Regime in penal institutions and its main requirements “1.     The regime in penal institutions is the system established by law and by regulations compatible with the law which ensures the guarding and isolation of convicts, their constant surveillance, performance of their obligations, the exercise of their rights and lawful interests, the personal safety of convicts and staff... 2.     The regime creates conditions for the use of other means of correction of convicts. 3.     The rules of internal order of a penal institution, as approved by [a competent federal executive agency] in cooperation with the Prosecutor General’s Office of the Russian Federation, are in force in penal institutions. 4.     The authorities of a penal institution have an obligation to provide convicts with standard clothing. The form of clothing shall be established by legal instruments and regulations of the Russian Federation. 5.     Convicts and the premises on which they live may be searched and their belongings subject to an inspection. Body searches shall be performed by staff of the same sex as convicts. Searches of residential premises in the presence of convicts are only permitted in cases of urgency...” Article 83. Technical means of surveillance and control “1.     The authorities of penal institutions are entitled to use audiovisual, electronic and other technical means of surveillance and control to prevent escapes and other crimes or breaches of the established order of serving the sentence, and to obtain necessary information about convicts’ conduct. 2.     The authorities of penal institutions have an obligation to inform convicts, obtaining their signature as acknowledgment, of the use of the above-mentioned means of surveillance and control. 3.     A list of technical means of surveillance and control and the procedure for their use shall be established by legal instruments and regulations of the Russian Federation.” 3.     Pre-trial Detention Act 34 .     The relevant parts of Federal Law “On the Detention of Suspects and Persons Accused of Criminal Offences” no.   103-FZ dated 15 July 1995 ( Федеральный закон от 15 июля 1995 N 103-ФЗ «О содержании под стражей подозреваемых и обвиняемых в совершении преступлений», “the Pre-trial Detention Act”) provide as follows: Section 6. Legal Status of Suspects and Accused Persons “Suspects and persons accused of criminal offences ... enjoy the rights and freedoms and bear the responsibilities established for the citizens of the Russian Federation, subject to the limitations provided for by this law and other federal laws...” Section 34. Guarding and Supervision of Suspects and Accused Persons “Suspects and accused persons shall be kept in remand centres under guard and surveillance and shall move around such centres under escort or accompanied by [staff]. Audio and video equipment may be used for the purposes of surveillance. ... Surveillance during hygienic procedures and body searches of suspects and accused persons shall be performed by officers ... of the same sex as the suspects and accused persons...” C.     Executive orders 1.     Ministry of Justice 35 .     By executive order no. 204-dsp (“for internal use only”) dated 3   November 2005 the Russian Ministry of Justice (“the Ministry of Justice”) approved an instruction concerning the setting up of a service for guarding suspects, accused and convicts detained in pre-trial detention centres and prisons of the penal system ( приказ Министерства Юстиции РФ от 3   ноября 2005 г. «Об утверждении Инструкция об организации службы по обеспечению надзора за подозреваемыми, обвиняемыми и осужденными, содержащимися в следственных изоляторах и тюрьмах уголовно-исполнительной системы» ). 36 .     The relevant part of section 21 provided that: “an operator [of a CCTV camera] belongs to the staff of the duty shift, reports to the head of the duty shift... The post of operator [of a CCTV camera] shall be assigned to qualified officers from junior management ... capable, where necessary, of taking independent initial decisions in case of deterioration of an operational situation. An operator has an obligation to monitor the situation in the remand centre by means of [a CCTV camera], report to the head of the duty shift and the administration of the remand centre on all incidents and emergencies and, on the instructions of the head of the duty shift, to call officers of the remand centre in case of deterioration of an operational situation or emergency.” 37 .     The relevant part of section 42(6) of the same executive order provided that: “...for the purposes of surveillance over the conduct of suspects, accused [persons] and convicts within restricted (except for cells) and service areas, [CCTV] cameras ... may be used...” 38 .     By executive order no. 166-dsp (“for internal use only”) of 25 May 2011 the words “(except for cells)” were excluded from the text of section 42(6). 39 .     By executive order no. 279 of 4 September 2006, as amended on 17   June 2013, the Ministry of Justice approved a manual concerning the equipping of penal institutions with engineering and technical means of guarding and surveillance ( приказ Министерства юстиции РФ от 4   сентября 2006 г №279 «Об утверждении Наставления по оборудованию инженерно-техническими средствами охраны и надзора объектов уголовно-исполнительной системы» ). Its provisions concerned, in particular, correctional colonies ( исправительные колонии ), pre-trial detention centres ( следственные изоляторы ) and prisons ( тюрьмы ). 40 .     The forty-page document sets out detailed technical standards for equipping the above types of penal institutions with means of guarding, surveillance and control, for example fencing, walls, earthworks and other barriers, secure and defensible main gates, security lighting, motion sensors and CCTV systems. As regards the latter, it provides that CCTV cameras should be installed in all cells of the relevant institutions in such a manner as would enable full view of a cell, with no blind zones. It also describes technical requirements in respect of CCTV systems, including those relating to their functioning in various conditions, resolution, sensitivity, image quality and such like. It provides, in particular, that cameras should be capable of functioning and providing high resolution images of good quality during daytime as well as nighttime, and that CCTV systems should be capable of storing recordings made by the cameras for thirty days. 2.     Federal Service for the Execution of Sentences 41 .     Executive orders nos. 759 and 533 of the Federal Service for the Execution of Sentences dated 13 August 2005 and 25 August 2008 respectively approved technical specifications as regards technical means of control and surveillance in penal institutions, including the number per institution, the period of their operational life, and such like. In particular, the decrees provided for the installation of one CCTV camera per cell. D.     Court practice 1.     Constitutional Court of Russia 42 .     In ruling no. 1393-O-O of 19 October 2010, the Constitutional Court of Russia (“the Constitutional Court”) declined to accept for examination a complaint brought by Mr U., a convicted prisoner. He had challenged Article 83 § 1 of the Code of Execution of Criminal Sentences (see paragraph 33 above) and section 34(1) of the Pre-trial Detention Act (see paragraph 34 above), arguing that, in so far as those provisions could be understood as vesting an unlimited power in the administrations of pre-trial detention centres and penal institutions to subject detainees to permanent video surveillance, they were incompatible with Article 21 of the Constitution (see paragraph 31 above). 43 .     The Constitutional Court held as follows: “The Constitutional Court ... has pointed out on several occasions that imposition on an individual, who has committed a crime, of punishment in the form of imprisonment [has as its aim] the protection of the interests of the State, society and its members, [and] presupposes a change in the routine of a convict’s way of life, of his relationships with those around him, and the exercise of certain moral and psychological pressure, whereby his rights and freedoms are affected and his personal status is changed. In any event, an individual committing a crime should assume that, as a result, he may be deprived of his liberty and restricted in his rights and freedoms; in other words, such an individual knowingly exposes himself and his relatives to restrictions [of their rights], including the right to maintain contact with family members, inviolability of private life, and personal and family confidentiality. By virtue of Article 83 § 1 of the Code of Execution of Criminal Sentences..., the administrations of penal institutions are entitled to use audiovisual, electronic and other technical means of surveillance and control to prevent escapes and other crimes or breaches of the established order of serving the sentence, and for the purposes of obtaining necessary information about convicts’ conduct. Section 34 of the [Pre-trial Detention Act] in its first paragraph also establishes that audio and video equipment may be used for the purposes of surveillance of suspects and accused persons. The right of the authorities of penal institutions and remand centres to use technical means of control and supervision constitutes part of the mechanism which ensures the personal safety of suspects, accused persons, convicts and staff of the relevant institution, [observance of] the regime of detention of suspects, accused persons and convicts, respect for their rights and performance by them of their obligations. Therefore, establishing the aforementioned right [to use technical means of control and supervision] in the disputed legal provisions pursues constitutionally meaningful aims and cannot be regarded as imposing unjustified restrictions on [Mr U.’s] rights.” 2.     Supreme Court of Russia 44 .     On 12 March 2014 the Supreme Court of Russia (“the Supreme Court”) examined a complaint brought by Mr M., a convicted prisoner, who sought to have executive order no. 166-dsp of the Ministry of Justice (see paragraph 38 above) invalidated. Mr M. argued, in particular, that the executive order in question vested in the authorities of a penal institution an unconditional power to use the means of video surveillance in cells, which, in his view, stood in conflict with the Constitution of Russia and other relevant domestic legal instruments, norms of international law and breached the right of detainees to respect for their private life. In the proceedings before the court, Mr   M. submitted that he would not exclude, as such, the possibility of video surveillance in penal institutions, but that such surveillance should not be performed unrestrictedly and should be subject to authorisation by a court or the governor of the penal institution. 45.     Representatives of the Russian Ministry of Justice argued that the executive order in question was in conformity with the relevant legislation, had been issued by that Ministry within its competence and did not breach convicts’ rights. 46 .     In its judgment, the Supreme Court quoted the provisions of section   42(6) of executive order no. 204-dsp of 3 November 2005, as in force prior to their amendment by executive order no. 166-dsp of 25 May 2011 (see paragraph 37 above), and then as they stood after amendment (see paragraph 38 above). 47.     It further stated that the imposition on an individual, who had committed a crime, of punishment in the form of imprisonment changed that individual’s personal status, restricted his rights, including the right to inviolability of private life, and personal and family confidentiality. 48 .     It went on to observe as follows: “Both section 34 of the [Pre-trial Detention Act] and Article 83 § 1 of the Code of Execution of Criminal Sentences vest in the administration of a penal institution the right to use audiovisual, electronic and other technical means of surveillance and control. The exercise of surveillance and control with the use of technical means to prevent escapes and other crimes or breaches of the established order of serving the sentence, and for the purposes of obtaining necessary information about convicts’ conduct is thus established by law. Accordingly, [Mr M.’s] argument, that the [executive order in question] vesting in the administration of a penal institution the right to use means of video surveillance for around-the-clock surveillance over convicts’ conduct is not in conformity with the [domestic] law, is unfounded. The right of administrations of penal institutions and pre-trial detention centres to use technical means of surveillance and control constitutes part of the mechanism which ensures the personal safety of suspects, accused persons, convicts and staff of the relevant institution, [observance of] the regime of detention by suspects, accused persons and convicts, respect for their rights and performance by them of their obligations, and is established in section 34 of the [Pre-trial Detention Act] and Article 83 § 1 of the Code of Execution of Criminal Sentences. [Mr M.’s] arguments, that [the executive order in question] stands in conflict with the Constitution of the Russian Federation, as it allows the use of CCTV monitoring in cells without a reasoned court decision, or an order by the [governor] of a penal institution, have no basis in law. Article 83 § 2 of the Code of Execution of Criminal Sentences requires administrations of penal institutions to inform convicts, obtaining their signature as acknowledgment, of the use of the above-mentioned means of surveillance and control, [but does not call for] the adoption of any [individualised] decision [authorising] the use of technical means of control and supervision. Recommendation N Rec(2003)23 of the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe on the management by prison administrations of life sentence and other long-term prisoners ... regards the use of technical means, including CCTV cameras, as an additional security mechanism.” 49 .     The Supreme Court went on to note that: “The disputed executive order does not establish a particular procedure for the use of CCTV cameras within the restricted area [of penal institutions] and, as such, cannot breach convicts’ rights.” 50.     It thus concluded that the executive order in question was not in conflict with the federal legislation or any other legal instrument and dismissed Mr M.’s complaint. 51.     On 19 June 2014 the Appellate Instance of the Supreme Court (“the Appellate Instance”) upheld the decision of 12 March 2014 on appeal. 52 .     It quoted the provisions of section   42(6) of executive order no.   204 ‑ dsp of 3 November 2005, as in force prior to their amendment by executive order no. 166-dsp of 25 May 2011 (see paragraph 37 above), and then as they stood after amendment (see paragraph 38 above). 53 .     It further endorsed the first-instance finding that the executive order in question was not in conflict with the domestic legal provisions and did not breach Mr M.’s rights. In particular, the Appellate Instance noted, with reference to Article 82 § 1 of the Code of Execution of Criminal Sentences (see paragraph 33 above), that constant surveillance of convicts was a necessary element of their punishment in the form of imprisonment. It further considered that the first-instance court had rightly concluded that “the right of the administrations of penal institutions and remand centres to use technical means of surveillance and control constitut[ed] part of the mechanism which ensur[ed] the personal safety of suspects, accused persons, convicts and staff of the relevant institution, [observance of] the regime of detention of suspects, accused persons and convicts, respect for their rights and performance by them of their obligations, and [was] not in conflict with the federal legislation.” 54 .     The Appellate Instance further observed that the executive order in question established general principles ( общие положения ) aimed at ensuring the observance of the regime in pre-trial detention centres and prisons, preventing escapes and other crimes or breaches of the established order of pre-trial and post-conviction detention, and obtaining necessary information about the conduct of suspects, accused persons and convicts. As the first-instance court had rightly noted, that executive order did not establish a particular procedure for the use of CCTV cameras within the restricted area of a remand centre or prison, including round-the-clock surveillance by such cameras of detainees in their cells, and could not thus be regarded as breaching convicts’ rights. 55 .     The Appellate Instance went on to state that Mr M.’s arguments that the executive order in question had breached his right to respect for his private life “[did not] refute the [first-instance] court’s conclusions about its lawfulness.” In this connection, it quoted several rulings of the Constitutional Court of Russia, including its ruling dated 19 October 2010 (see paragraphs 42-43), in so far as they stated that imposition on an individual, who had committed a crime, of punishment in the form of imprisonment presupposed a change in the routine of a convict’s way of life, of his relationships with those around him, and the exercise of certain moral and psychological pressure, whereby his rights and freedoms were affected and his personal status was changed. An individual committing a crime should assume that, as a result, he could be deprived of his liberty and restricted in his rights and freedoms, that is, such an individual knowingly exposed himself and his relatives to restrictions of their rights, including the right to maintain contact with family members, inviolability of private life, and personal and family confidentiality. Therefore, a restriction of the rights set forth in the Constitution of Russia, including the right to inviolability of private life, was permissible and justified for ensuring the personal safety of suspects, accused persons, convicts and staff of the relevant institution. III. COUNCIL OF EUROPE INSTRUMENT 56 .     On 9 October 2003 the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe adopted Recommendation Rec(2003)23 on the management by prison administrations of life sentence and other long-term prisoners. The relevant part reads as follows: Security and safety in prison “18. a . The maintenance of control in prison should be based on the use of dynamic security, that is the development by staff of positive relationships with prisoners based on firmness and fairness, in combination with an understanding of their personal situation and any risk posed by individual prisoners. b . Where technical devices, such as alarms and closed circuit television are used, these should always be an adjunct to dynamic security methods...” THE LAW I.     JOINDER OF THE APPLICATIONS 57.     In accordance with Rule 42 § 1 of the Rules of Court, the Court decides to join the applications, given their factual and legal similarities. II.     ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 8 OF THE CONVENTION 58.     The applicants complained that permanent CCTV camera surveillance of their cells, carried out mostly, if not exclusively, by female guards, had breached their right to respect for their private life as guaranteed by Article 8 of the Convention, which reads as follows: “1.     Everyone has the right to respect for his private ... life ... 2.     There shall be no interference by a public authority with the exercise of this right except such as is in accordance with the law and is necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security, public safety or the economic well-being of the country, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others.” A.     Submissions by the parties 1.     The applicants 59.     The applicants maintained that they had remained under permanent CCTV camera monitoring when confined in their cells. They contested the Government’s argument that the toilet facilities had offered privacy, being outside the CCTV cameras’ field of view (see paragraph 77 below). They argued that, in their respective cells, the CCTV camera had been placed above the door under the ceiling, so that the entire cell had been visible, with no blind zones. As a result they had remained exposed at all times, including when changing their underwear or relieving themselves. The applicants stressed that it had been strictly prohibited to hinder surveillance by covering the CCTV camera, even for a short while, for instance, when changing underwear or using the toilet. 60.     In particular, the first applicant argued, with reference to the screenshots of his cells which he submitted to the Court (see paragraph 18 above), that in each of the two cells other inmates had put up cardboard in order to shield the toilet from the CCTV camera’s field of view; otherwise, it would have remained visible to the camera. He added that the inmates concerned had eventually been punished by the administration of the prison for doing so, and the shields had been removed. He submitted that, furthermore, the toilet cubicle had been designed in such a manner that, in order to relieve themselves, detainees had had to step up onto a brick base approximately 40 or 50 cm high, with the result that they had had to look straight into the CCTV camera. 61.     The second applicant contended that the CCTV camera had been installed in such a manner that his entire cell had been clearly visible, including the toilet, which had not been properly separated from the living area. 62.     The third applicant referred to the screenshot submitted by him (see paragraph 22 above), stating that the toilet cubicle had measured 1   sq.   m and had been 1.8   m high; it had offered privacy from other inmates but not from the CCTV camera, as at least one metre from the top of the cubicle had remained exposed. 63 .     The applicants maintained that video surveillance of their cells at all times had constituted a severe interference with their right to respect for their private life. They acknowledged that they had been notified by the administrations of their penal institutions about such practice. The first applicant confirmed that he had signed a written document to that effect, but argued that it had been a pure formality, as CCTV monitoring was used regardless of whether a detainee had signed such a document, or had refused to do so. The applicants also insisted that the fact that they had been aware of the permanent video surveillance and the fact that it had been carried out by female guards had exacerbated the humiliation and anxiety they had suffered on account of such an intrusive measure. 64.     The applicants further accepted that CCTV monitoring within certain areas of a penal institution might, in principle, be necessary for ensuring security and control and maintaining order; they disputed, however, that such an intrusive measure as permanent video surveillance of all cells – that is to say living premises – was necessary to attain those aims. 65.     The third applicant also disputed the Government’s argument that video surveillance was effective for preventing escapes (see paragraph 73 below). He pointed out that the information submitted by the Government showed that between 2010 and 2013 the number of escapes had in fact increased. As regards the Government’s argument that the CCTV monitoring of the applicants’ cells had been necessary to ensure their personal safety, the third applicant argued that the cases relied on by them (see paragraphs 74-75 below) were irrelevant to his situation, as he had never displayed any suicidal tendencies, and had never had any conflicts with any detainees. Moreover, the situation examined by the Court in the case of Buntov v. Russia (no. 27026/10, 5 June 2012), where the applicant had refused to take walks in the prison courtyard for fear of being attacked by other detainees, showed that CCTV camera monitoring could be useful in places to which all detainees had access, rather than in their cells. The third applicant therefore argued that the Government had failed to demonstrate convincingly which legitimate aims had been pursued by monitoring detainees in their cells at all times by CCTV cameras. 66.     The third applicant also pointed out that the authorities of his pre-trial detention centre had never informed him of the rules concerning the storage of CCTV camera recordings, and, in particular, who had access to them, how long they were to be kept and when, and under which conditions, they should be destroyed. He argued that the anxiety and humiliation he had suffered on account of the permanent video surveillance of his everyday life had been intensified by the fact that the recordings might be disclosed to the general public. 2.     The Government 67 .     The Government acknowledged that the applicants’ respective cells – in prison UP-288/T, in so far as the first applicant was concerned, in strict-regime correctional colony IK-5, in so far as the second applicant was concerned, and in pre-trial detention centre IK-2, in so far as the third applicant was concerned – had been equipped with CCTV cameras, and that they had remained under permanent video surveillance when in their cells. They pointed out that the administrations of penal institutions and pre-trial detention centres had an obligation under domestic law and regulations to install CCTV cameras in each cell. 68 .     They further acknowledged that such practice of the administrations of pre-trial detention centres and penal institutions had led to an interference with the applicants’ right to respect for their private life guaranteed by Article 8 of the Convention, but argued that, being part of the mechanism which ensured the personal safety of suspects, accused persons and convicts, observance of the regime of their detention, respect for their rights, and performance by them of their obligations, it had been justified under the second paragraph of that provision. 69 .     They argued that the impugned measure was established by law, and more specifically, in so far as it concerned detainees of pre-trial detention centres, by section 34 of the Pre-trial Detention Act (see paragraph 34 above), and, as regards post-conviction detainees, by Article 83 § 1 of the Code of Execution of Criminal Sentences (see paragraph 33 above). These provisions vested in the administrations of penal institutions the right to use technical means of surveillance with a view to ensuring the safety of detainees and staff, preventing escapes and other offences or breaches of the established order of serving the sentence, and obtaining necessary information about convicts’ conduct. 70.     The Government submitted that, in compliance with the relevant requirement of Article 83 § 2 of the Code of Execution of Criminal Sentences, the administration of prison UP-288/T had informed the first applicant on the day of his arrival at that institution that “technical means of surveillance” would be used; he had also signed a document to that effect. The Government did not specify whether any such information had been given to the second or third applicants, or whether either of them had signed a document to that effect. 71 .     The Government further submitted that a list of technical means of supervision and control, the number per penal institution and the manner of their use were set out in executive orders nos. 759 and 533 of the Federal Service for the Execution of Sentences dated 13 August 2005 and 25   August 2008 respectively (see paragraph 41 above). The manner and standards of installation of technical means of surveillance and control in penal institutions were defined in executive order no. 279 of the Ministry of Justice dated 4 September 2006 (see paragraphs 39-40 above). 72.     According to the Government, the provisions in question provided that all areas (living, common and service areas) within a penal institution to which detainees in pre-trial or post-conviction detention had access should be equipped with CCTV cameras. The administrations of penal institutions had an obligation to install CCTV cameras on premises where detainees were being held. A sufficient number of cameras had to be installed, in such a way as to avoid any blind zones. The Government also pointed out that all newly constructed penal institutions were to be equipped with CCTV cameras installed in accordance with the relevant construction documents, whereas in existing penal institutions it was the administrations who determined the location of CCTV cameras outside and inside the premises. 7