CEDH · CASELAW;JUDGMENTS;CHAMBER;ENG — 2 mai 2023

.sDD6737AE { font-size:11pt } .s598389F9 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:12pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s523616E0 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; font-size:14pt } .sBB56EF5A { margin-top:48pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; font-size:12pt } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s39E5096F { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center } .s3D5D2A26 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; font-size:12pt } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s6477A72F { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s780F5245 { border:0.75pt solid #000000; clear:both } .sE77B86B8 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; padding-top:1pt; padding-right:4pt; padding-left:4pt } .sD423F84E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; padding-right:4pt; padding-left:4pt; padding-bottom:1pt } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s2E1B62A9 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-align:center } .s68DA720F { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:24pt; text-align:center; font-size:12pt } .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 } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sE208486F { font-family:Arial; color:#ff0000 } .s4ACA9207 { page-break-before:always; clear:both; mso-break-type:section-break } .s2637CC02 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; font-size:12pt } .sAF55C774 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .s1AE6489F { width:14.15pt; display:inline-block } .s3AAE10DF { margin-top:14pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s3CA22BA { font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .s6B505E72 { margin:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .sD0F1ED70 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:11.67pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:6.78pt; font-family:Arial; font-size:12pt; text-transform:uppercase } .s8B983D37 { text-transform:none } .s2EC60FD2 { font-family:Arial; color:#2a2a2a } .s71CEA3D8 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:15pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:3.45pt; font-family:Arial; font-size:12pt; text-transform:uppercase } .sC1A2D57F { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:25.5pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-family:Arial; font-size:12pt; font-weight:bold } .s743F3A55 { margin-right:0pt; margin-left:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .s2044A09A { margin-left:6.51pt; margin-bottom:6pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:1.99pt; font-weight:normal; font-style:italic } .s800A0573 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:32.01pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:1.99pt; font-family:Arial; font-size:12pt; font-style:italic } .s9D48DD53 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .sAC656AC1 { margin-left:11.67pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:6.78pt; font-family:Arial; font-size:12pt; text-transform:uppercase } .s879C130D { margin-left:7.05pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-weight:bold; text-transform:none } .s25D1EE8F { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:18.34pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:0.11pt; font-family:Arial; font-size:12pt; text-transform:uppercase } .s3A692EA6 { margin-top:14pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-align:center; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .sF54F3725 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:42.55pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-17.05pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .sDBC81028 { width:4.83pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s65DDED6B { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:42.55pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-17.05pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .s7AE800C3 { width:4.28pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s413D8E59 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:18.45pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-family:Arial; font-size:12pt; text-transform:uppercase } .sC441C5F { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:12pt } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s33165EBA { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .s448F0C15 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:18pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-18pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .sFF3CE557 { margin-top:14pt; margin-bottom:3pt; text-align:justify; font-family:Arial; font-size:12pt; list-style-position:inside } .sE7B3A78A { width:1.99pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .sFBC99493 { font-style:italic } .sB64252E1 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:15.01pt; margin-bottom:3pt; text-align:justify; padding-left:1.99pt; font-family:Arial; font-size:12pt } .s1DA8B8FA { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:34pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-17pt; text-align:justify; font-size:12pt } .sE5BF05B1 { width:2.33pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .sADD29084 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:51.05pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-17.05pt; text-align:justify; font-size:12pt } .sE5C1F6E3 { width:3.33pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .sD33650C3 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:17pt; margin-bottom:3pt; text-align:justify; font-family:Arial; font-size:12pt } .s973C4527 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:12pt } .sA08A1317 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .sB00DFE03 { width:22.87pt; display:inline-block } .s1B7C2278 { width:122.41pt; display:inline-block } .s5D826FD4 { width:25.88pt; display:inline-block } .s1B61D60 { width:156.43pt; display:inline-block } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s6DB91820 { text-align:center } .sD0B5C7A1 { margin-right:auto; margin-left:auto; border:0.75pt solid #000000; border-collapse:collapse } .sFFAC2F38 { height:30pt } .sD257D4B4 { border-right-style:solid; border-right-width:0.75pt; border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s782E430E { margin-top:6pt; margin-bottom:6pt; font-size:10pt } .sE8489E90 { border-right-style:solid; border-right-width:0.75pt; border-left-style:solid; border-left-width:0.75pt; border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .sE8787440 { border-left-style:solid; border-left-width:0.75pt; border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .sB30C44B0 { border-top-style:solid; border-top-width:0.75pt; border-right-style:solid; border-right-width:0.75pt; border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sF214FADF { margin-top:6pt; margin-bottom:6pt; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .sC3AB69A { border-style:solid; border-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s2342A031 { border-top-style:solid; border-top-width:0.75pt; border-left-style:solid; border-left-width:0.75pt; border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sCC5122F2 { border-top-style:solid; border-top-width:0.75pt; border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s4AA8B09A { margin-top:6pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .sD9DA4DFD { height:45pt } .s30F5263B { height:27.9pt } .sADC94CD6 { height:15pt } .s347D1DBA { border-top-style:solid; border-top-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left } .s85226119 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .s653E6C45 { font-family:Arial; font-size:6.67pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 }   THIRD SECTION CASE OF S.P. AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA (Applications nos. 36463/11 and 10 others)     JUDGMENT This version was rectified on 6 June 2023 under Rule 81 of the Rules of Court.   Art 3 (substantive) • Inhuman and degrading treatment • Segregation, humiliation and abuse of prisoners by fellow inmates on account of inferior status in informal prisoner hierarchy tolerated by prison staff • Applicants’ stigmatisation, assignment to menial labour and denial of basic needs, enforced by threats of violence and occasional physical and sexual violence, resulting in constant fear over years • Failure of domestic authorities to take individual protective measures • Lack of State action to address systemic problem Art 13 (+ Art 3) • Lack of effective remedy     STRASBOURG 2 May 2023 FINAL   02/08/2023   This judgment has become final under Article 44 § 2 of the Convention. It may be subject to editorial revision. In the case of S.P. and Others v. Russia, The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting as a Chamber composed of:   Pere Pastor Vilanova, President ,   Georgios A. Serghides,   Yonko Grozev,   Jolien Schukking,   Peeter Roosma,   Ioannis Ktistakis,   Andreas Zünd, judges , and Olga Chernishova, Deputy Section Registrar , Having regard to: the eleven applications (see the application numbers in the appendix) 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 eleven Russian nationals who are identified by their first initials only, pursuant to a decision by the President of the Section not to have their names disclosed; the decision to give notice to the Russian Government (“the Government”) of the complaints relating, in particular, to their situation within an informal prison hierarchy and the absence of effective domestic remedies, as well as other aspects of their detention, and to declare the remainder of the applications inadmissible; the decision to give priority to application no.   45049/17; the observations submitted by the Government and the observations in reply submitted by the applicants; the comments submitted by the European Prison Litigation Network ( Réseau européen de contentieux pénitentiaire ), which was granted leave to intervene by the President of the Section; the decision of the President of the Section to appoint one of the sitting judges of the Court to act as an ad hoc judge, applying by analogy Rule   29 §   2 of the Rules of Court (see, for a similar situation and an explanation of the background, Kutayev v.   Russia , no.   17912/15, §§   4-8, 24   January 2023); Having deliberated in private on 21 March 2023, Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date: INTRODUCTION 1.     The case concerns the alleged inhuman and degrading treatment of the applicants in Russian penal facilities because of their inferior position in an informal prisoner hierarchy. It also concerns the alleged lack of effective domestic remedies for their complaints in that regard. THE FACTS 2.     The names of the applicants’ representatives are listed in the appendix. 3.     The Government were initially represented by Mr   G. Matyushkin and Mr   M. Galperin, former Representatives of the Russian Federation to the European Court of Human Rights, and later by their successor in this office, Mr   M. Vinogradov. THE applicantS’ SITUATION as “ OUTCAST ” PRISONERS 4.     The applicants are convicted offenders who have either completed or are currently serving their sentences in correctional facilities located in the Kostroma, Sverdlovsk and Irkutsk Regions, and the Republics of Komi, Mariy El and Mordovia. The details of the applicants’ prison terms, including the facility numbers and dates of imprisonment, are provided in the appendix. 5.     The applicants’ main grievance relates to being subjected to inhuman and degrading treatment on account of their subordinate status in an unofficial prisoner hierarchy which obtains in Russian correctional facilities and is backed by an informal code of conduct of the criminal underworld, commonly referred to as “the rules” ( понятия ). This code divides prisoners into four major categories or “castes” ( масть ). Drawing on their personal experience, their complaints to the authorities (see paragraphs 22-33 below) and extensive research on, and official reports about, the prisoner hierarchy in Russian prisons (see paragraphs 44-58 below), the applicants provided the following description of their treatment as “outcast” prisoners within an informal prisoner hierarchy in Russian penal facilities. 6.     The group at the top of the hierarchy are the “criminal elite” or “made men” ( авторитеты or блатные ). The criminal elite’s function includes the maintenance and interpretation of the informal inmate code, particularly when dealing with inter-prisoner conflicts. They are usually hardened criminals with multiple convictions who enforce the informal hierarchy by threats and violence. The informal code of conduct prevents them from doing any kind of work or cooperating with prison staff. 7.     “Collaborators” or “reds” ( козлы or красные ), who work with the prison officers to enforce order or carry out administrative tasks such as managing or distributing supplies, make up a semi-privileged class. 8.     The vast majority of inmates fall into the broad category known as “blokes” or “lads” ( мужики ). They accept the informal code of conduct while refraining from active cooperation with the prison authorities. 9 .     The applicants belong to the category at the bottom of the informal prisoner hierarchy, “outcasts”, which is also known – among many other names – as “cocks” ( петухи ), “untouchables” or “downgraded” ( опущенные, обиженные ). The “outcast” applicants were assigned jobs that were considered unsuitable for other inmates owing to their “unclean” nature. Their chores included cleaning pit latrines, squat toilets, shower rooms, bathhouses or exercise yards. According to Mr   S.P. and Mr   A.T., prison staff ensured that a specific number of “outcasts” were available in each brigade to carry out the “dirty work”, which was considered degrading and was shunned by other inmates. 10.     The materials submitted by the applicants show that the list of actions that can lead to a prisoner’s “downgrading” is long and includes, for example, stealing from other prisoners, failing to repay a debt, being an informant or “snitch”, having an unclean or unhygienic appearance or manner, or accidentally touching the person of another “outcast” or his property. Other “transgressions” punishable by “downgrading” include a conviction for sexual offences and crimes against children, and also admitting to having ever engaged in anal or oral sex, whether consensually or by force. 11 .     The applicants Mr   V.D., Mr   A.S. and Mr   S.I. were assigned to the “outcasts” category after they had been convicted of sexual offences. In the case of Mr   V.D., the prison authorities disclosed information about the offences of which he had been convicted by placing his photograph on a noticeboard in a common area with the caption “inclined to paedophilia”. Some other applicants were classified as “outcasts” after they had accidentally touched the belongings or person of another “outcast” prisoner (Mr   M.Y.) or had been in contact with something considered “unclean”, such as the toilet floor (Mr   A.O.). Some others carried over their status from a juvenile facility or a previous period of detention spent in a secure compound together with “outcast” prisoners (Mr   A.M., Mr   I.A.). Some applicants were accused, or accidentally told others, that they had engaged in sexual activities prohibited under the prisoners’ informal code of conduct, which had led to their downgrading (Mr   I.K.). 12 .     The stigma associated with the applicants’ status as “outcasts” was permanent: if transferred to another prison or penal institution, they had to disclose it to their fellow inmates or face punishment for concealing their status (Mr   A.M.). On the applicants’ arrival at the facility, an informal overseer ( смотрящий ) would assign the “outcasts” to either do menial chores or provide sexual services to other inmates. According to the applicants, had they refused to provide the services they had been assigned to, they would have been subjected to severe beatings and sexual or sexualised violence. 13.     One of the applicants (Mr   V.I.) who had been forced to provide sexual services to other prisoners contracted HIV. He tested negative for HIV on his admission to the facility in March 2012 but tested positive in January 2016. 14.     The segregation of “outcast” applicants was both symbolic and physical: they were assigned separate and distinct living quarters and had to have their own cutlery and kitchen utensils. They were forbidden to touch other prisoners’ furniture, cutlery or personal items. If they did so, the items would become “dirty” and could no longer be used by others for fear of “contamination”. “Outcast” applicants were also forbidden from touching or shaking hands with others; they had to give way to inmates from other categories when walking in corridors and keep to the wall to let them through. 15.     In the sleeping area, the “outcast” applicants were given the least comfortable beds, and if there were not enough “outcast” beds available, they were forced to sleep on the floor for several weeks and even months until an “outcast” bed became available (Mr   A.O., Mr   M.Y.). “Outcast” beds were placed in the “outcasts’ corner” which had sheets hung around it to ensure physical separation from the rest of the dormitory. 16.     The “outcast” applicants were assigned a specific table in the canteen and a particular washbasin, and they were not allowed to eat or sit anywhere else. Their cutlery often had a special mark, such as a hole punched or drilled in their bowls and spoons (Mr   S.P., Mr   V.D., Mr   A.O.). They were not allowed to store their food in communal fridges or enter the cooking area where other inmates heated up their food (Mr   A.O., Mr   M.Y.). 17.     The “outcast” applicants could use the communal showers after everyone else had finished, and they were not allowed to use the communal laundry. They had to wash their own clothing and bed linen, and Mr   V.D. had to cut his own hair. 18.     The “outcast” applicants were only allowed to see a general practitioner or specialist doctor after all other prisoners had been attended to, leading to Mr. S.P. going without dental treatment for five years because of the lengthy waiting times and a dentist visiting only once or twice a month. 19 .     The “outcast” applicants were subjected to verbal abuse and threats of violence, with Mr   A.O. being a victim of physical violence. Mr   A.S. reported being regularly beaten during his time at the facility, with severe beating occurring on 11   December 2018, and being stabbed in the chest with a sharp object on 16   March 2019. 20.     The applicants reported that prison staff practices frequently demonstrated a tacit endorsement of the informal hierarchy. During an initial assessment, staff would ask questions about a prisoner’s “status” to decide where they should be assigned. In some facilities, staff physically separated prisoners according to their informal status. Staff also did not equally distribute cleaning jobs on a rota basis. 21 .     Mr   V.D. suggested that prison staff could have transferred all “outcasts” to a separate unit where they would be safe. However, this would have led to prisoners in the remaining units having to do “dirty work”, which they might have revolted against. Mr   I.A., Mr   A.O. and Mr   M.Y reported being detained in a unit accommodating only “outcast” prisoners. Mr   I.A. also stated that when he requested to be transferred to a “safe place”, the authorities placed him in the “personal safety compound” ( помещение личной безопасности ), which was a practically separate unit for “outcasts”. According to Mr   I.A., under the rules of the informal code of conduct, a request to be transferred to the safety area implies acknowledging an inmate’s downgrading to the “outcasts”. COMPLAINTS TO THE AUTHORITIES 22 .     According to the applicants, the prison authorities were not just aware of the existing informal hierarchy system but also complicit in it, which rendered any complaints to the administration not just ineffective but also dangerous. However, they did attempt to complain to various State bodies with the authority to oversee penal facilities. Complaints to regional departments of the Federal Service for the Execution of Sentences 23 .     Mr   A.T. complained to the Ombudsman about being forced to perform cleaning duties in the correctional facility. On 17   October 2011 the Ombudsman forwarded the complaint to the Sverdlovsk regional department of the Federal Service for the Execution of Sentences (“the FSIN”). On 18   November 2011 a deputy head of the department wrote to Mr   A.T. stating that, according to statements from the prison authorities and other prisoners, he had never been required to perform any cleaning duties other than two   hours of regular community work per week. 24.     On 21   February 2017 Mr   S.I. complained to the internal security department of the FSIN about hardships resulting from his position in the informal hierarchy. Since he never received any response from the FSIN, he lodged a new complaint with the regional prosecutor’s office, which then forwarded it to the Ulyanovsk regional department of the FSIN. The FSIN responded that they had never received the applicant’s complaint of 21   February 2017. Complaint to the Federal Security Service 25 .     On 7   December 2018 Mr   S.I. complained to the Federal Security Service of beatings, humiliation, sexual assault and bullying by some inmates. His complaint was forwarded to the Investigative Committee, the regional prosecutor’s office and the Main Department of the FSIN. He received no response from those authorities. Civil claims Mr   A.T. (application no.   35817/13) 26.     On 19   March 2012 Mr   A.T. sued the prison staff in a civil court, seeking compensation in respect of non-pecuniary damage sustained as a result of being forced to perform compulsory labour and having to work every day without pay. In response to the claim, the prison authorities submitted that they had never subjected him to forced labour and that he had been forced to do cleaning chores by other inmates. They further claimed that they had not been aware of the situation, as he had never complained about it. 27.     On 18   September 2012 the Tagilstroyevskiy District Court of Nizhniy Tagil dismissed the claim, finding that, while Mr   A.T. had “performed cleaning duties in unit no.   4”, he had been “made to perform this activity by prisoners who [were] not parties to the present case, rather than by the prison staff”. It further held that the prison authorities had not been responsible for that situation because Mr   A.T. had “displayed a passive approach to protecting his labour rights”. 28.     Mr   A.T. appealed on the grounds that the prison authorities had been aware of his situation. On 8   February 2013 the Sverdlovsk Regional Court summarily rejected his appeal. Mr   A.M. (application no. 78224/16) 29.     In 2015 Mr   A.M. brought a civil claim against the prison staff, seeking compensation in respect of non-pecuniary damage in connection with its failure to provide him with bed linen and toiletries, and to protect him against discrimination on account of his status in the informal hierarchy. He enclosed statements by other inmates corroborating his allegations. One inmate also provided a certificate from his medical file which explicitly made reference to his “degraded social status” and had been signed by a general practitioner and a psychiatrist. 30.     On 12   May 2015 the Tverskoy District Court of Moscow dismissed Mr   A.M.’s claim, holding that he had failed to submit any evidence showing that the prison staff had acted unlawfully. Complaint to the Ombudsman (Commissioner for Human Rights) 31 .     Mr   A.M. complained of the stigmatisation of “outcast” prisoners to the Ombudsman who, on 16   January 2016, replied as follows: “Your complaint ... concerning violations of the rights and legitimate interests of convicted prisoners who (according to you) possess degraded social status ... has been examined. I do not deny that we are well aware, and not just from films or books, of the problem of having convicted prisoners divided into castes ... However, pursuant to Article   19 §   1 of the Russian Constitution, all people shall be equal before the law and court. With respect to convicted prisoners, this requirement means that all convicted prisoners are equal before the [Code on the Execution of Sentences] ... It should be noted that our applicable legislation does not contain any provisions allowing prison officers to humiliate convicted prisoners or allowing one group of prisoners to humiliate others. It is hardly conceivable that a facility governor or supervising prosecutor would publicly admit that nearly all penal facilities secretly subdivide prisoners into the ‘elite’, ‘blokes’, ‘collaborators’, ‘degraded social status’, as well as ‘activists’, ‘reds’, ‘blacks’, etc.; in other words, it is unlikely that they would admit that they were disrespecting the [equality] requirements of the law. For that reason, any direct inquiry or complaint about the existing unregulated conditions of detention of prisoners having degraded social status will elicit a predictable response from those authorities: the subdivision of convicted prisoners into different status groups in such-and-such a facility has not been established and there has therefore been no evidence of humiliation or inhuman and degrading treatment.” 32 .     The Ombudsman advised Mr   A.M. to use the existing domestic remedies, including complaints to supervising prosecutors, the courts, public monitoring commissions and human rights defenders, and informed him that his complaint had been forwarded to the Irkutsk regional prosecutor for consideration. 33 .     On 27   January 2016 the Irkutsk regional prosecutor forwarded Mr   A.M.’s complaint to the Krasnoyarsk regional prosecutor who, in turn, sent it to the district prosecutor’s office and the governor of the penal facility where he was being held. On 7   April 2016 the district prosecutor wrote to Mr   A.M. that his allegations were unfounded and that all prisoners, without distinction, could use any available living premises and equipment. RELEVANT LEGAL FRAMEWORK and practice DOMESTIC LEGAL FRAMEWORK Prisoners’ rights 34.     The Code on the Execution of Sentences (Law no.   1-FZ of 8   January 1997) provides that prisoners have the right to be treated courteously by prison officers. They must not be subjected to cruel or degrading treatment or punishment (Article   12 §   2). 35.     Prisoners have the right to send suggestions, applications and complaints to the administration of the penal facility, the higher prison authorities, the courts, prosecutor’s offices, State and municipal bodies, the Ombudsman, public monitoring commissions, public associations and international bodies for the protection of human rights (Article   12 §   4). 36.     Prisoners have the right to personal safety. The governor may decide, on his own initiative or at the request of the prisoner, to transfer him to a safe place or take other measures to remove the threat to his personal safety (Article   13). 37.     The only type of work which prisoners may be required to do without pay is for the improvement ( благоустройство ) of the prison grounds or surrounding area. The duration of such work may not exceed two hours per week. Prisoners carry out such work in their own time and on a rota basis (Article   106). 38 .     Chapter XXVII of the Internal Rules of Penal Facilities, approved by Ministry of Justice Order no.   295 of 16   December 2016, governs the arrangements for transfer of an inmate to safety. Rule   184 provides that if a prisoner’s personal safety is threatened by other prisoners, he has the right to address the prison authorities verbally or in writing, which are obliged to take immediate measures to ensure his personal safety. Rule   187 specifies that a transfer of such a person to a “safe place” is ordered by the governor, or deputy governor, for a period not exceeding ninety days. Internal structure of correctional institutions 39.     The Regulations on Prisoner Units in Correctional Institutions, approved by Ministry of Justice Order no.   259 of 20   December 2005, state that all inmates should be divided into units of between fifty and one hundred people (paragraph   3). Dividing prisoners into units serves in particular to ensure their personal safety (paragraph   1). Prisoners remain in the unit during their entire time in prison. A committee assigns inmates to units on the basis of their personality traits. Conceptual Frameworks for the Development of the Penal System 40 .     The Conceptual Framework for the Development of the Penal System until 2020 (Government Resolution no.   1772-r of 14   October 2010) acknowledged, among other external and internal factors that endanger the normal functioning of correctional institutions, “threats from the ‘criminal elite’ [from outside prisons] and threats ‘from inside prisons’ coming from leaders of prisoner groups with a [destructive] attitude”. 41.     The Conceptual Framework for the Development of the Penal System in 2017-2025 (Government Resolution no.   2808-r of 23   December 2016) acknowledged the persistent issue of prisoners’ safety related to illegal actions or the negative influence of leaders and members of “criminally oriented groups”. 42 .     The current Conceptual Framework, which covers the development of the penal system until 2030 (Government Resolution no.   1138-r of 29   April 2021), contains no mention of the informal prisoner hierarchy. COMMITTEE FOR THE PREVENTION OF TORTURE 43 .     The European Committee for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (CPT), in the report on its visit to Russia carried   out from 21 May to 4   June 2012 (CPT/Inf (2013) 41), reported that its delegation had received detailed descriptions of direct threats, by staff, of physical ill-treatment by other inmates or of being “downgraded” in the informal prisoner hierarchy through organised sexual assault by other inmates or forced physical contact with prisoners referred to as “cocks” (see paragraph   77 of the report). It went on to explain, in footnote 23, that “cocks” ( петухи ) were a caste of “untouchables” in the informal hierarchy among prisoners in FSIN facilities. Such persons were rejected by other inmates for various reasons (for having suffered sexual abuse or committed sex offences, for example, or for simply having been in contact with other so-called “cocks”) and were considered to run a greater risk of being ill-treated by other prisoners. The CPT called upon the Russian authorities to adopt a strategy at federal level for combating inter-prisoner violence and intimidation related to the informal hierarchy among inmates (see paragraph   79). REPORTS AND RESEARCH SUBMITTED BY THE APPLICANTS Academic research 44 .     In his seminal research into the organisation of prison life in post ‑ Soviet Russia, entitled “Prison subculture in Russia” ( Тюремная субкультура в России , Moscow 2001, pp. 98-105), Dr   A. Oleinik, PhD in Economics and Sociology, made the following observations: “The caste system has had a long history in Russian prisons. Informal categories of prisoners had existed in Russian katorga (hard labour) camps long before the Revolution in October 1917 ... The establishment of forced labour camps [in the USSR] did not abolish informal classification but rather reinforced it, although it became less diversified ... The categories are universally present, irrespective of the geographic location of the penal facility or its security type ... Outcasts, marginalised members of the prison community are collectively designated with the term ‘colours’ ( масти ) ... They have no right of citizenship in the world of the prison. They are excluded from the social life and their daily exchanges are limited to the community of other outcasts. ‘We had a separate cell for outcasts – they were grouped there on purpose. I mean, the officers had decided it. So as to avoid any problems ...’ [reminisces a former prisoner]. Despite their marginal situation, members of this group are large in number: they make up from a few to several dozens of the entire prison population ... ‘Cocks’ ( петухи ) were forcibly converted into passive homosexuals for the offences which are seriously reprehensible from the standpoint of prison morals and ethics: violence against children, informing on other prisoners or stealing from them ... ‘When I went to the colony for the first time in 1970, there were just three – three! – ‘cocks’ in the entire colony of 1,200 prisoners. Then I went to the colony again and there were twenty-three of them. In 1973 I was released and [d]etained again. I came to Medyn in the Kaluga Region, and there was a block chock-full of them – they lived separately, the administration kept them under lock. And now? There are legion of them in every block ...’ [stated a current prisoner] ...” 45 .     A doctoral thesis by Dr   Yu. Blokhin, senior lecturer in criminal law and member of the public monitoring commission of the Rostov Region, entitled “Administrative and legal measures for minimising the negative influence by gangs of criminally minded convicts in prisons” ( Организационно-правовые меры нейтрализации негативного влияния групп осужденных отрицательной направленности в тюрьмах , PhD in Law, Rostov-on-Don Law Institute of the Ministry of the Interior, Rostov ‑ on ‑ Don 1999, pp. 94-95), observed: “Relegating a prisoner to the class of ‘outcasts’ puts him on the lowest rung of the hierarchy, depriving him of virtually all rights. Far from being temporary, his status will continue throughout his current detention and also in any future detention periods. This state of affairs is enforced by the prisoners’ informal code of conduct. Thus, an ‘outcast’ ... who has been transferred to another facility or cell must ‘announce’ his status. Other prisoners must disclose his status if the ‘outcast’ chose to hide it. In that case the prisoners who treated him as an equal, who shared the sleeping place or food with him, are considered ‘tainted’, or befouled. They run the risk of being downgraded to the class of ‘outcasts’. The only way they can ‘purify’ themselves is by murdering or causing grievous harm to the prisoner who has hidden his status as an ‘outcast’. Naturally, this compels the ‘outcast’ to voluntarily declare his status upon transfer to another facility or in the event of a new sentence. In that way, the prisoner is deprived of his rights for the entire duration of the custodial sentence. If he was downgraded to ‘outcasts’ by force, his human needs and his actual condition are in stark contradiction. Quite naturally, this is not conducive to his rehabilitation.” 46 .     Doctoral research by Dr   M. Shakiryanov, professor of criminal law in the Kazan Law Institute of the Ministry of the Interior, entitled “Criminal traditions of prisoners in penal facilities and the ways to suppress them” ( Преступные традиции среди осужденных в исправительных учреждениях и борьба с ними , PhD in Law, St Petersburg University of the Ministry of the Interior, St Petersburg 2004, pp. 95, 105-07), found: “Methodological recommendations by the [Main Directorate for the Execution of Sentences] of the Ministry of Justice on the ways to neutralise illegal activities of criminal leadership in penal facilities subdivide all prisoners ... into four informal categories: very securely privileged ( особо устойчиво привилегированные ) (‘criminal elite’ ...), securely privileged (‘blokes’, ‘lads’), insecurely privileged (‘bulls’   ...) and securely non-privileged (‘outcasts’ of many varieties) ... The treatment of ‘outcasts’ is extremely cruel. Their humiliation is the greatest in juvenile offenders institutions and medium security correctional facilities. In prison ‑ type facilities, enhanced and maximum security facilities, ‘outcasts’ make up [1] to [5]% of the population. In medium security facilities their number can go up to 10 to 12%, and up to 20% in juvenile offenders institutions. The softer the security, the greater their number. In some facilities, entire units are full of them ... According to informal prison regulations, ‘outcasts’ have separate sleeping places within the special enclosure known as a ‘monkey cage’ ( обезьянник ). They have a separate table in the mess, their own places in the cinema room, separate cutlery and specific jobs. They sweep the yard, take out the toilet bucket and clean the cesspools ... Others cannot take anything from them. They can throw something at them, taking care not to touch them accidentally. It is acceptable to use [‘outcasts’] to pass objects to the punishment cell when the cell is separated from the living premises by a no-pass strip. In this case it is considered that the objects passing through the hands of ‘outcasts’ have not been tainted. The reason for this exception is that ‘outcasts’ are sent to rake the no ‑ pass strip while others are banned from accessing it. Personal lovers of the ‘criminal elite’ enjoy a privileged position among ‘outcasts’, they are not beaten and are exempted from work and may occasionally receive presents for their ‘services’. Thus, any reciprocal bodily contact with ‘outcasts’ is forbidden; even talking to them is not recommended. Yet, a homosexual act with members of this group is not considered prohibited contact. The informal stratification of prisoners is conservative to the extreme; for that reason, the upgrading of one’s status ... is extremely rare and complicated or even impossible for the categories of ‘outcasts’ and ‘collaborators’. At the same time, downgrading the rung on the hierarchical ladder is a rather frequent occurrence in the criminal underworld ... Quite often downgrading is performed by way of a forced same-sex act. The administration of remand prisons and correctional facilities is forced to take into account the existence of categories of prisoners, even though all prisoners must be treated equally among themselves and before the law by virtue of Article   8 of the Code on the Execution of Sentences. They cannot put a member of the ‘criminal elite’ or a ‘bloke’ in a cell where ‘outcasts’ are held. If the administration decides to do so, the outcome would be that either the ‘criminal leader’ has been downgraded, or he injures someone or will be injured. Thus, in practice, it is the prisoner who decides which cell he goes to ...” 47 .     For his doctoral thesis, Dr   A. Zosimenko interviewed 193 prisoner patients in the psychiatric hospital of the Yaroslav regional department of the FSIN who had been victims of sexual abuse in penal facilities or had been downgraded to the lowest category, and reviewed the medical files of thirty of those patients (“Mental disorders in prisoners connected with the subculture specific to custodial facilities (sexual violence and threats of violence)”) ( Психические расстройства у осужденных, связанные с субкультуральными особенностями мест лишения свободы (сексуальное насилие и его угроза) ), PhD in Psychiatry, Serbsky State Research Centre for Social and Forensic Psychiatry, Moscow 2004, pp. 104, 106 ‑ 07, 111-14). His findings were as follows: “Detainees who were victims of sexual violence or symbolic downgrading did not have a realistic opportunity to prevent that action from being taken against them. The reason for this is that the decision to perpetrate violence is made by the criminal leadership. An overwhelming majority of prisoners follow their orders unquestioningly, whereas the official administration of penal facilities has little formal control over them ... In both groups of prisoners the most common reaction to downgrading was the development of a psychogenic disorder [67% among victims of sexual violence and 37% among the symbolically downgraded] ... The second most common behaviour was so-called ‘withdrawal’ ... that involved a temporary breakdown of communication with others [30% of rape victims and 25% in the second group] ... An important additional traumatic factor for victims of sexual violence and symbolically downgraded prisoners ... was the artificially created social isolation within the penal community. It was achieved through physical segregation of that group of prisoners inside the premises that were the least adapted for living; in rare cases when the group lived together with the other prisoners, they were allocated the objectively worst sleeping places (if such places were in short supply, they were put on the floor, underneath the lower tier of bunk beds) or subjectively inferior – according to the rules of the underworld – places, such as the beds close to the toilet or located in the farthest, dimly lit corner of the cell.” Dr   Zosimenko found that the majority of prisoners surveyed (54% of rape victims and 44% of the others) had not sought help from staff, knowing that they would not be able to restore their previous social status, which had been forfeited forever, and fearing further repercussions. Of those who had sought assistance, 6% and 5% in the two groups respectively had not received any response. For others, the following measures were implemented: (1)     Transferring the victim to another unit or cell (6% and 7% respectively) to isolate him from the offenders and prevent further acts of violence and humiliation both on their and on his part. (2)     Isolating the victim from the rest of prisoners to give him time to adapt to his new social status (11% and 10% respectively). It was frequently done by way of disciplining the victim for imaginary or exaggerated transgressions and isolating him in the punishment cell ( ШИЗО ) or prison-like cells ( ПКТ ). (3)     Punishing the offenders (6% and 1% respectively). Dr   Zosimenko pointed out that, while subjectively important for the victim, punishment was not capable of improving his reputation with the prisoners. The six-fold difference between the two groups was accounted for by the objective, provable nature of a sexual act that left physical marks on the victims, as opposed to the oral and unrecorded order to ostracise the victim coming from the criminal leadership. (4)     Admitting the victim to the prison hospital (69% and 42% respectively). The purpose of the measure was twofold: firstly, a medical examination and treatment of a psychosomatic disorder caused by the violence against the victim, and secondly, long-term isolation of the victim from the offenders. 48.     A textbook on Penal Psychology, prepared for the educational institutions of the Ministry of Justice by Mr   Yu. Dmitriev and Mr   B. Kazak (Rostov-on-Don, 2007), set out the history and structure of the prison subculture: Chapter   15. Prison subculture in the penal community “... In the early 1950s, at least half of incidents in labour camps and colonies were linked with the criminal elite’s desire to maintain an exploitative way of living. They frequently committed violent rape, beatings and even murders. A new class of prisoners has emerged – ‘outcasts’ ( обиженные, опущенные, девки ). Unwritten rules forbade them from sharing the cell with other prisoners, taking food at the same table or performing certain types of work ... ... In recent years the make-up of the said group [of ‘outcasts’] has undergone substantial changes. Previously it had been made up to a large extent of passive homosexuals (there had been less than 10 such prisoners in the facility). In recent years the group has expanded by incorporating prisoners unable to repay a card debt, suspected of collaborating with the administration or expelled from higher castes for violating the code of conduct ... One-to-one correctional work with that category of prisoners is complicated because many prison officers, just like other prisoners, avoid any communication with them ...” 49 .     A study of sixty inmates in the prison hospital in the Perm Region carried out jointly by Dr   N. Uzlov, university professor and PhD in Medicine, and Major S. Araslanov, the head of that hospital’s reception and triage service, entitled “Resilience and psychological well-being of convicts in relation to their prison rank” ( Жизнестойкость и психологическое благополучие заключенных в соответствии с их тюремной иерархией ), Psychology and Law, no.   2, 2012), found: “One of the major obstacles on the way to the rehabilitation in a penal facility is the antisocial subculture with its specific values, codes of conduct, networks of informal relations and a well-established division of prisoners into castes ... A total of sixty prisoners aged 24 to 60 who perform manual maintenance duties in the sorting medical unit of the transit facility KTB-7 in the Perm Region – out of the total staff of 98 – have been studied ... In accordance with the prisoner hierarchy, they are divided into ‘outcasts’ (16 persons), ‘collaborators’ (17 persons) and ‘blokes’ (65   persons) ... A large number of ‘outcasts’ (11 persons, or 68.7%) acquired that status while underage. The reasons for relegating them into this group were as follows: (1)     rape-related offences – two; (2)     dealings with the prison staff – one; (3)     psychological and physical pressure on the part of other prisoners in remand prisons (sex-themed discussions in which, for example, they mentioned performing oral sex on a woman; beatings) – six (37.5%); (4)     personal choice motivated by a lack of resources (they can get cigarettes or tea for performing certain work, such as cleaning toilets or taking out the rubbish bin) or by a desire for certain psychological comfort – seven (43.7%). In the KTB-7 facility, ‘outcasts’ perform the following tasks: (1) maintenance of the raked no-pass strip marking the inner boundary of the facility (doing so is a major transgression for prisoners from other categories which can lead to downgrading); (2)   maintenance of the dump; (3) plumbing works (unclogging sewage pipes); (4)   cleaning toilets in the residence. The findings of the psychological study have demonstrated that ‘outcasts’ consider their situation to be rather acceptable. This can be accounted for by the relative comfort of the conditions of their detention: they have a separate living section, separate place in the mess, separate time slot in the bathhouse, etc. Since their status is essentially fixed – and, by virtue of prison laws, virtually permanent – they do not need to prove themselves to other prisoners or prison officers. Lastly, they feel their value and importance for the facility because they carry out the tasks that no one else can do ...” 50 .     In his doctoral thesis “Criminological description of group crime in penal facilities and measures to counter it” ( Криминологическая характеристика групповой преступности в пенитенциарных учреждениях и меры противодействия ей , PhD in Law, Samara Law Institute of the FSIN, Samara 2016, pp. 67-68), Major S. Bondar