CEDH · CASELAW;JUDGMENTS;COMMITTEE;ENG — 7 novembre 2024

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s665E407E { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s34DFC730 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s339D85E6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s2E932ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:11pt } .s82B4DA5F { page-break-before:right; clear:both; mso-break-type:section-break } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sB9D5CABB { width:28.35pt; display:inline-block } .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 } .s58699FB5 { margin-top:14pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s6B505E72 { margin:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .s29A3AC47 { margin-left:11.67pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:6.18pt; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .s37072F3C { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:15pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:2.85pt; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .s9A177BD5 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:17.85pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .s7A3BE577 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:16.34pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:1.51pt; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .sD58C010 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:15.01pt; margin-bottom:3pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:1.99pt; font-family:Arial } .sFBC99493 { font-style:italic } .s74818F78 { margin-top:14pt; margin-bottom:3pt; text-align:justify; font-family:Arial; list-style-position:inside } .sE7B3A78A { width:1.99pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .sD11CFAB7 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:15.01pt; margin-bottom:3pt; text-align:justify; padding-left:1.99pt; font-family:Arial } .s51DFF5CF { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:34pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-17pt; text-align:justify } .sE5BF05B1 { width:2.33pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s2D9C6089 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s69DCC830 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sC646A315 { width:14.54pt; display:inline-block } .s527DE03B { width:127.09pt; display:inline-block } .s9852CA4C { width:7.54pt; display:inline-block } .s9E436411 { width:138.09pt; display:inline-block } .s4ACA9207 { page-break-before:always; clear:both; mso-break-type:section-break } .sCC22C24E { font-family:Arial; color:#3e3e3e } .s6DB91820 { text-align:center } .s8BB62139 { margin-right:auto; margin-left:auto; border-collapse:collapse } .s2F3EB0E4 { border:0.75pt solid #838383; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .sDF237D91 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:8pt } .sE1A7A04C { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; color:#424242 } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .sAB95A5CB { font-family:Arial; font-size:5.33pt; font-weight:bold; vertical-align:super; color:#424242 } .sBAADFE8C { border:0.75pt solid #838383; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s4F2ADFDB { text-align:center; font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; list-style-position:inside } .sBB6163A7 { width:2.48pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left } .s5FFF0A7E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:8pt } .sA4BC3E2E { font-family:Arial; font-size:5.33pt; vertical-align:super; color:#000000 }       THIRD SECTION CASE OF KARAVAYEV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA (Applications nos. 26888/21 and 34 others – see appended list)             JUDGMENT   STRASBOURG 7 November 2024   This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision. In the case of Karavayev and Others v. Russia, The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:   Ioannis Ktistakis , President ,   Oddný Mjöll Arnardóttir,   Diana Kovatcheva , judges , and Viktoriya Maradudina, Acting Deputy Section Registrar, Having deliberated in private on 10 October 2024, Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date: PROCEDURE 1.     The case originated in applications against Russia lodged with the Court under Article   34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) on the various dates indicated in the appended table. 2.     The Russian Government (“the Government”) were given notice of the applications. THE FACTS 3.     The list of applicants and the relevant details of the applications are set out in the appended table. 4.     The applicants complained of the permanent video surveillance of detainees in pre-trial or post-conviction detention facilities. Some applicants also raised other complaints under the provisions of the Convention. THE LAW JOINDER OF THE APPLICATIONS 5.     Having regard to the similar subject matter of the applications, the Court finds it appropriate to examine them jointly in a single judgment. Jurisdiction 6.     The Court observes that the facts giving rise to the alleged violations of the Convention occurred prior to 16 September 2022, the date on which the Russian Federation ceased to be a party to the Convention. The Court therefore decides that it has jurisdiction to examine the present applications (see Fedotova and Others v. Russia [GC], nos. 40792/10 and 2 others, §§   68 ‑ 73, 17 January 2023). ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 8 § 1 of the Convention 7.     The applicants complained principally of the permanent video surveillance of detainees in pre-trial or post-conviction detention facilities. They relied, expressly or in substance, on Article 8 of the Convention. 8.     The Court has already established, in an earlier case against Russia, that the national legal framework governing the placement of detainees under permanent video surveillance in penal institutions falls short of the standards set out in Article 8 of the Convention (see Gorlov and Others v.   Russia , nos.   27057/06 and 2 others, 2 July 2019). In Gorlov and Others , the Court summed up the general principles concerning the detainees’ right to respect for private life reiterating that placing a person under permanent video surveillance whilst in detention was to be regarded as a serious interference with the individual’s right to respect for his or her privacy (ibid., §§ 81-82). It has further concluded that the national law cannot be regarded as being sufficiently clear, precise or detailed to have afforded appropriate protection against arbitrary interference by the authorities with the detainees’ right to respect of their private life (ibid., §§ 97-98). 9.     Having examined all the material submitted to it, the Court has not found any fact or argument capable of persuading it to reach a different conclusion on the admissibility and merits of these complaints. It considers, regard being had to the case-law cited above, that in the instant case the placement of the applicants under permanent video surveillance when confined to their cells in pre-trial and post-conviction detention facilities was not “in accordance with law”. 10.     These complaints are therefore admissible and disclose a breach of Article 8 of the Convention. OTHER ALLEGED VIOLATIONS UNDER WELL-ESTABLISHED CASE-LAW 11.     Some applicants submitted other complaints which also raised issues under the Convention, given the relevant well-established case-law of the Court (see the appended table). These complaints are not manifestly ill ‑ founded within the meaning of Article   35   §   3   (a) of the Convention, nor are they inadmissible on any other ground. Accordingly, they must be declared admissible. Having examined all the material before it, the Court concludes that they also disclose violations of the Convention in the light of its well-established case-law (see Idalov v. Russia [GC], no.   5826/03, §§   103 ‑ 08 and 154-58, 22 May 2012, and Tomov and Others v.   Russia , nos.   18255/10 and 5   others, §§   92 ‑ 156, 9 April 2019, concerning inadequate conditions of transport and the lack of an effective remedy in that respect; Sergey Babushkin v. Russia , no. 5993/08, 28   November 2013, concerning inadequate conditions of post-conviction detention and the lack of an effective remedy in that respect; Gorlov and Others, cited above, concerning the absence of an effective domestic remedy to complain about permanent video surveillance in detention facilities and Anchugov and Gladkov v.   Russia , nos. 11157/04 and 15162/05, 4 July 2013, concerning prisoners’ right to vote). APPLICATION OF ARTICLE   41 OF THE CONVENTION 12.     Regard being had to the documents in its possession and to its case-law (see, in particular, Gorlov and Others , cited above, § 120, with further references, which imposed on the respondent State a legal obligation, under Article 46 of the Convention, to implement, under the supervision of the Committee of Ministers, such measures as they consider appropriate to secure the right of the applicants and other persons in their position to respect of their private life; and also Anchugov and Gladkov , cited above), the Court considers that the finding of a violation constitutes in itself a sufficient just satisfaction, as regards the complaints related to the permanent video surveillance in detention facilities, lack of an effective remedy in that respect and a violation of the right to vote in legislative elections. The Court further considers it reasonable to award the sums indicated in the appended table to the applicants in applications nos. 57734/21 and 59550/21. FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT, UNANIMOUSLY, Decides to join the applications; Holds that it has jurisdiction to deal with these applications as they relate to facts that took place before 16   September 2022; Declares the applications admissible; Holds that these applications disclose a breach of Article 8 of the Convention concerning the permanent video surveillance of detainees in pre-trial or post-conviction detention facilities; Holds that there has been a violation of the Convention and its Protocols as regards the other complaints raised under the well-established case-law of the Court (see the appended table); Holds that the finding of a violation constitutes in itself sufficient just satisfaction for the non-pecuniary damage sustained by the applicants, as regards the complaints under Articles 8 and 13 of the Convention about the permanent video surveillance in detention facilities and lack of domestic remedies in that regard, as well as under Article 3 of Protocol   No. 1 related to the complaints about prisoners’ inability to vote in legislative elections; Holds (a)   that the respondent State is to pay the applicants in applications nos.   57734/21 and 59550/21, within three months, the amounts indicated in the appended table, to be converted into the currency of the respondent State at the rate applicable at the date of settlement; (b)   that from the expiry of the above-mentioned three months until settlement simple interest shall be payable on the above amounts at a rate equal to the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank during the default period plus three percentage points. Done in English, and notified in writing on 7 November 2024, pursuant to Rule   77   §§   2 and   3 of the Rules of Court.   Viktoriya Maradudina   Ioannis Ktistakis   Acting Deputy Registrar   President   APPENDIX List of applications raising complaints under Article 8 § 1 of the Convention (permanent video surveillance of detainees in pre-trial or post-conviction detention facilities) No. Application no. Date of introduction Applicant’s name Year of birth   Representative’s name and location Detention facility Period of detention Specific circumstances Other complaints under well-established case ‑ law Amount awarded for pecuniary and non ‑ pecuniary damage and costs and expenses per applicant (in euros) [1]     26888/21 03/04/2021 Andrey Andreyevich KARAVAYEV 1992     IK-37 Perm Region 30/06/2020 – pending as of 16/09/2022 detention in different cells with video surveillance, opposite-sex operators Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in domestic law in respect of permanent video surveillance in detention facilities Finding of a violation will constitute sufficient just satisfaction     27026/21 12/05/2021 Dmitriy Sergeyevich FIKERT 1994     SIZO-2 Moscow Region, Settlement colony no. 3 Smolensk Region, Settlement colony no. 3 Kaluga Region 12/10/2017 – 10/12/2021 opposite-sex operators, detention in different cells with video surveillance Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in domestic law in respect of permanent video surveillance in detention facilities Finding of a violation will constitute sufficient just satisfaction     27471/21 13/05/2021 Viktor Vladimirovich ZHILINSKIY 1989     IK-5 Krasnoyarsk Region 24/02/2016 – 04/09/2021 opposite-sex operators, detention in different cells with video surveillance Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in domestic law in respect of permanent video surveillance in detention facilities Finding of a violation will constitute sufficient just satisfaction     28688/21 17/05/2021 Gennadiy Mingishevich KHABBASOV 1973     IK-6 Khabarovsk Region 09/12/2017 – pending as of 16/09/2022 video surveillance in a lavatory and/or shower room, opposite-sex operators Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in domestic law in respect of permanent video surveillance in detention facilities Finding of a violation will constitute sufficient just satisfaction     29365/21 30/09/2021 Nikolay Aleksandrovich ISTOMIN 1989     IK-5 Krasnoyarsk Region 09/03/2021 – 03/02/2022 opposite-sex operators Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in domestic law in respect of permanent video surveillance in detention facilities Finding of a violation will constitute sufficient just satisfaction     29388/21 19/05/2021 Ivan Ivanovich KRIVOSHCHEKOV 1972 Yevenko Alla Borisovna Novokuznetsk IK-6 Orenburg Region 21/11/2002 – pending as of 16/09/2022 detention in different cells with video surveillance Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in domestic law in respect of permanent video surveillance in detention facilities Finding of a violation will constitute sufficient just satisfaction     30169/21 12/05/2021 Murat Magomedovich KANIKHOV 1977     IK-5 Krasnoyarsk Region 29/01/2010-16/02/2021 detention in different cells with video surveillance, opposite-sex operators   Finding of a violation will constitute sufficient just satisfaction     44188/21 20/08/2021 Valeriy Anatolyevich MACHULA 1976     IK-25 Komi Republic 17/12/2017 – pending as of 16/09/2022 opposite-sex operators, detention in different cells with video surveillance, video surveillance in a lavatory and/or shower room Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in domestic law in respect of permanent video surveillance in detention facilities Finding of a violation will constitute sufficient just satisfaction     45666/21 17/08/2021 Andrey Vladimirovich UPRITSKIY 1988     IK-42 Krasnoyarsk Region 02/10/2019 - 18/02/2021 opposite-sex operators, video surveillance in a dormitory Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in domestic law in respect of permanent video surveillance in detention facilities Finding of a violation will constitute sufficient just satisfaction   46238/21 27/08/2021 Pavel Vasilyevich KUZIVANOV 1997     IK-25 Komi Republic 29/05/2018 – pending as of 16/09/2022 detention in different cells with video surveillance, opposite-sex operators, video surveillance in a lavatory and/or shower room Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in domestic law in respect of permanent video surveillance in detention facilities Finding of a violation will constitute sufficient just satisfaction   46375/21 31/08/2021 Valeriy Pavlovich PERMYAKOV 1996     IK-6 Khabarovsk Region, IK-18 Yamalo-Nenetskiy Region 06/06/2017-pending as of 16/09/2022 opposite-sex operators Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in domestic law in respect of permanent video surveillance in detention facilities Finding of a violation will constitute sufficient just satisfaction   46751/21 03/09/2021 Igor Yuryevich KOSTIN 1984     IK-25 Komi Republic 15/01/2015-pending as of 16/09/2022 video surveillance in a lavatory and/or shower room, detention in different cells with video surveillance, opposite-sex operators Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in domestic law in respect of permanent video surveillance in detention facilities,   Prot. 1 Art. 3 - ineligibility to vote in or stand for elections - The applicant was unable to vote in the elections to the State Duma (Parliament) in 2021. Finding of a violation will constitute sufficient just satisfaction   46942/21 25/08/2021 Andrey Nikolayevich KOZLYUK 1984     IK-25 Komi Republic (punishment cells) 11/01/2016-02/07/2021 detention in different cells with video surveillance, opposite-sex operators, video surveillance in the punishment cell Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in domestic law in respect of permanent video surveillance in detention facilities Finding of a violation will constitute sufficient just satisfaction   47507/21 10/09/2021 Pavel Leonidovich KRAVCHENKO 1989     IK-25 Komi Republic 09/02/2019 – pending as of 16/09/2022 detention in different cells with video surveillance, opposite-sex operators Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in domestic law in respect of permanent video surveillance in detention facilities Finding of a violation will constitute sufficient just satisfaction   47830/21 24/08/2021 Yevgeniy Sergeyevich ROGACHEV 1978     IK-5 Krasnoyarsk Region 31/08/2018 – pending as of 16/09/2022 opposite-sex operators Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in domestic law in respect of permanent video surveillance in detention facilities Finding of a violation will constitute sufficient just satisfaction   47831/21 29/06/2021 Rashid Bekmurzayevich IBRAGIMOV 1986     IK-5 Krasnoyarsk Region June 2019 – 18/03/2022 opposite-sex operators Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in domestic law in respect of permanent video surveillance in detention facilities Finding of a violation will constitute sufficient just satisfaction   47832/21 20/08/2021 Vyacheslav Sergeyevich PILIPENKO 1982     LIU-1 Tomsk Region 15/12/2017 - 11/12/2021     Finding of a violation will constitute sufficient just satisfaction   49484/21 16/09/2021 Ilya Sergeyevich MAKAVKIN 1991     IK-25 Komi Republic 09/03/2017 – pending as of 16/09/2022 detention in different cells with video surveillance, opposite-sex operators, video surveillance in a lavatory and/or shower room Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in domestic law in respect of permanent video surveillance in detention facilities Finding of a violation will constitute sufficient just satisfaction   57473/21 30/09/2021 Sergey Vladislavovich SOKOLOV 1992     IK-29 Kirov Region 28/05/2017 – pending as of 16/09/2022 detention in different cells with video surveillance, opposite-sex operators, video surveillance in a lavatory and/or shower room Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in domestic law in respect of permanent video surveillance in detention facilities Finding of a violation will constitute sufficient just satisfaction   57734/21 27/09/2021 Artem Ivanovich BURMISTROV 1989     Settlement colony no. 10 Irkutsk Region 23/09/2021 – pending as of 16/09/2022 opposite-sex operators Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in domestic law in respect of permanent video surveillance in detention facilities and in respect of inadequate conditions of detention during transport,   Art. 3 - inadequate conditions of detention during transport - van, 22/09/2021-23/09/2021, passive smoking, no or restricted access to potable water, no or restricted access to warm water, no or restricted access to toilet, overcrowding 1,000   58690/21 22/10/2021 Pavel Pavlovich ROCHEV 1975     IK-25 Komi Republic, solitary confinement cells 28/11/2016 – pending as of 16/09/2022 detention in different cells with video surveillance, opposite-sex operators Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in domestic law in respect of permanent video surveillance in detention facilities Finding of a violation will constitute sufficient just satisfaction   59550/21 24/02/2021 Roman Alekseyevich BAZYLEV 1976     IK-29 Kirov Region 27/04/2017 – pending as of 16/09/2022 detention in different cells with video surveillance Art. 3 - inadequate conditions of detention after conviction - IK-29 Kirov Region, 27/04/2017 – pending as of 16/09/2022, 2.5 sq. m. of personal space per inmate, overcrowding, lack of or insufficient natural light, lack of fresh air, passive smoking, lack of or inadequate hygienic facilities, poor quality of potable water, lack of or insufficient physical exercise in fresh air,   Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in domestic law in respect of permanent video surveillance in detention facilities and in respect of inadequate conditions of detention 11,250   60367/21 17/11/2021 Aleksandr Anatolyevich KRAPIVA 1997     IK-25 Komi Republic 28/09/2017 – pending as of 16/09/2022 detention in different cells with video surveillance, video surveillance in a lavatory and/or shower room, opposite-sex operators Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in domestic law in respect of permanent video surveillance in detention facilities Finding of a violation will constitute sufficient just satisfaction   61666/21 30/11/2021 Denis Nikolayevich PANYUKOV 1998     IK-25, Komi Republic 21/05/2018 – pending as of 16/09/2022 detention in different cells with video surveillance, opposite-sex operators, video surveillance in a lavatory and/or shower room Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in domestic law in respect of permanent video surveillance in detention facilities Finding of a violation will constitute sufficient just satisfaction   16194/22 02/03/2022 Georgiy Mikhaylovich KANEV 1986     IK-25 Komi Republic 27/06/2018 – pending as of 16/09/2022 detention in different cells with video surveillance, video surveillance in punishment cells, opposite-sex operators, video surveillance in a lavatory and/or shower room Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in domestic law in respect of permanent video surveillance in detention facilities,   Prot. 1 Art. 3 - ineligibility to vote in or stand for elections - the applicant was unable to vote in the elections to the State Duma on 19/09/2021 Finding of a violation will constitute sufficient just satisfaction   17112/22 25/02/2022 Dmitriy Vladimirovich VAPPER 1996     IK-21 Arkhangelsk Region 11/03/2021 - 31/10/2021 opposite-sex operators, video surveillance in a lavatory and/or shower room Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in domestic law in respect of permanent video surveillance in detention facilities Finding of a violation will constitute sufficient just satisfaction   18094/22 17/03/2022 Yuriy Viktorovich KURIGANOV 1975     KP-10 Irkutsk Region 24/11/2021 - 05/05/2022 opposite-sex operators, video surveillance in a lavatory and/or shower room Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in domestic law in respect of permanent video surveillance in detention facilities Finding of a violation will constitute sufficient just satisfaction   19395/22 23/03/2022 Yevgeniy Ivanovich BAKUMENKO 1993     FKU Krasnoyarsk Region, (prison) 01/12/2021 – pending as of 16/09/2022 opposite-sex operators Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in domestic law in respect of permanent video surveillance in detention facilities Finding of a violation will constitute sufficient just satisfaction   20676/22 10/01/2022 Dmitriy Aleksandrovich TYRINOV 1980     IK-8 Komi Republic 03/03/2017 – pending as of 16/09/2022 opposite-sex operators, video surveillance in a lavatory and/or shower room Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in domestic law in respect of permanent video surveillance in detention facilities Finding of a violation will constitute sufficient just satisfaction   24955/22 22/04/2022 Sergey Mikhaylovich DAVYDOV 1965     IK-6 Khabarovsk Region 26/11/2017-pending as of 16/09/2022 detention in different cells with video surveillance   Finding of a violation will constitute sufficient just satisfaction   25797/22 17/02/2022 Sergey Sergeyevich GUSHCHIN 1980     IK-29 Kirov Region, LIU-12 Kirov Region 09/04/2014 – pending as of 16/09/2022 detention in different cells with video surveillance, opposite-sex operators, video surveillance in a lavatory and/or shower room Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in domestic law in respect of permanent video surveillance in detention facilities Finding of a violation will constitute sufficient just satisfaction   28673/22 22/05/2022 Eduard Gagikovich KHACHATRYAN 1984     IK-6 Kirov Region 11/03/2021-19/12/2021 detention in different cells with video surveillance   Finding of a violation will constitute sufficient just satisfaction   34959/22 10/05/2022 Yekaterina Igorevna SINCHENKO 1989     IK-28 Khakassia Republic 09/10/2020 – pending as of 16/09/2022 opposite-sex operators   Finding of a violation will constitute sufficient just satisfaction   44577/22 18/02/2022 Sergey Viktorovich KOFANOV 1981     IK-5 Krasnoyarsk Region 01/10/2018 - 11/02/2022 detention in different cells with video surveillance, opposite-sex operators, video surveillance in a lavatory and/or shower room   Finding of a violation will constitute sufficient just satisfaction   45579/22 05/09/2022 Mariya Sergeyevna MIKHLIK 1982   Yaroslav Sergeyevich MIKHLIK 1990     Settlement colony no. 31 Khakasiya Republic (first applicant),   IK-42 Krasnoyarsk Region (second applicant) 25/02/2022 – pending as of 16/09/2022 opposite-sex operators, detention in different cells with video surveillance   Finding of a violation will constitute sufficient just satisfaction   [1] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.