CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 5 janvier 2010

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s719C48CE { width:279.15pt; display:inline-block } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s40F41F73 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s523616E0 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; font-size:14pt } .s8229ABDD { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s72EB7DC5 { margin-top:18pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sC7EAD8B { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline } .s967D43C6 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s7EE1C8F0 { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:29.2pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17.6pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sC702907E { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:36.6pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-15.05pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s9D69DD53 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; font-size:11pt } .s4B8D41EE { font-family:Arial; font-size:10pt } .s9D48DD53 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .s8C6C4B { width:7.65pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .sADADF4A7 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline } .s8EB5F569 { font-family:Arial; font-size:6.67pt; vertical-align:super } .s37D49C6B { width:4.32pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .sB54F21D0 { width:1.54pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s653E6C45 { font-family:Arial; font-size:6.67pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .sB853CD26 { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt } .s13F94BDE { font-family:Arial; letter-spacing:-0.1pt } .sB90861A5 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic; letter-spacing:-0.1pt } .s673A384F { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:24pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left } .s85226119 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .s33165EBA { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 }   13 January 2010     FOURTH SECTION Application no. 39584/07 by Ionel SEGHETI against Moldova lodged on 30 August 2007   STATEMENT OF FACTS THE FACTS The applicant, Mr Ionel Segheti, is a Romanian national who was born in 1960 and lives in Cricova, Chişinău. He is represented before the Court by Mr R. Zadoinov, a lawyer practising in Chişinău. A.     The circumstances of the case The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows. The applicant worked as a consultant for the Romanian Embassy in Moldova. On 12 April 2005 he was arrested by Moldovan police in Călăraşi, Moldova. He was placed in detention in prison no. 13 in Chişinău on the same day. On 5 October 2006 he was transferred to prison no. 15 in Cricova, where he is detained to date. The applicant describes in the following manner the conditions of his detention in prison no. 15. On 5 October 2006 he was placed together with twenty-six other persons in a cell measuring 60 sq. m, which left very little space for each detainee. In the absence of any work or other activities, he had nothing to do and spent most of his time in the cell. No bed linen was given to the applicant and he had to ask for it to be provided by his relatives. The same was true of items of personal hygiene. He had to wear the same clothes in which he had been admitted to prison, since no clothes were provided by the management. Water from a single tap was available only during the day and owing to the large number of detainees in the cell it was not always possible to have access to it. Food was scarce and of very poor quality. The materials in the library were old and did not include anything concerning the Convention. The applicant gave a similar description of his conditions of detention in prison no. 13 in Chişinău, where he had been detained with thirty-nine other persons in a 40 sq. m cell without ventilation or heating. Prisoners sometimes had to take turns to sleep and had to wait for the period of two to three hours a day when running water was available from the tap. The toilet was in the cell and smelt bad owing to the absence of cleaning products. The food was inedible. B.     Relevant materials 1.     CPT report for 1998 The relevant parts of the report by the European Committee for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (CPT) concerning the visit to Moldova between 11 and 21 October 1998 read as follows (unofficial translation from original French): “76.     Although not a deliberate ill-treatment, the CPT is compelled to point out that at prison No.   3, the vast majority of prisoners were subjected to a combination of negative factors - overcrowding, appalling material and hygiene conditions, virtually non-existent activity programmes - which could easily be described as inhuman and degrading treatment. In contrast, in all the other detention areas, living conditions of the vast majority of the prison population left a considerable amount to be desired. In the most of the cells, the living space per prisoner was well below the minimum standard set and the cramming in of persons had reached an intolerable level. ... In addition, the delegation observed that cells of 8 m² to 9 m² accommodated up to four people. Furthermore, in these cells access to natural light was very limited, artificial lighting was mediocre, and the air polluted and rank. For prisoners still under investigation (i.e. over 700 prisoners), the situation was even worse, their cells being virtually totally without access to natural light because of the thick external metal blinds covering the windows. By force of circumstances, the equipment was reduced to the bare minimum, comprising metal or bunk beds which were extremely rudimentary and in a poor state, and a table and one or two benches. Furthermore, in many cells, there were not enough beds and prisoners had to share them or sleep in turns. In addition, the bedding was in a bad condition; the very small stocks of mattresses, blankets and sheets was not enough and many prisoners without family or resources had to sleep just on the bed frame and/or the mattress.   The cells had a sanitary annex, a real source of infection. Above the Asian toilet was a tap which served both as a flush and as a source of water which prisoners could use to freshen up or wash. Moreover, this area was only partially partitioned by a small low wall less than one metre high, which meant that it was not possible to preserve one’s privacy.   The state of repair and cleanliness in the cell blocks, overall, was also of considerable concern. In addition, many of the cells were infested with cockroaches and other vermin and some prisoners also complained that there were rodents.   To sum up, the living and hygiene conditions for the vast majority of the prison population were execrable and, more particularly, constituted a serious health risk.” 2.     CPT report for 2001 The relevant parts of the report by the European Committee for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (CPT) concerning the visit to Moldova between 10 and 22 June 2001 read as follows (unofficial translation from original French): “37.     The CPT recommends that the right of access to a lawyer as from the very outset of custody be rendered fully effective in practice. It also recommends that detainees be able to receive visits from lawyers in conditions fully ensuring the confidentiality of the discussions. ... 70.     In certain prisons, particularly those serving as remand establishments, the situation was exacerbated by sometimes severe overcrowding (as at Prison No. 3 in Chişinău, which in 2001 held 1,892 prisoners, compared with an official capacity of 1,480. ... The 2001 visit showed how urgent it is for the authorities to put their plans for legislative reforms into effect; the extension of the prison estate does not constitute a solution. As already stressed in the previous CPT report, it is far more important to revise the current legislation and practice concerning detention on remand and sentencing and execution of sentences, and the range of available non-custodial sentences. This is a sine qua non if there is to be any hope in the near future of offering decent conditions in prisons. ... 82.     ... the follow-up visit to Prison No. 3 in Chişinău revealed positive changes which the CPT welcomes. It particularly approves of the removal of the heavy blinds covering the windows of cells looking onto the interior of the establishment. That said, the appalling living conditions and state of hygiene in buildings I, II and III, including the transit cells, described in paragraphs 80 and 81 of the previous report, had not changed (except as far as access to natural light is concerned). Indeed, the acute overcrowding in these buildings exacerbated matters still further. In the few cells viewed that were properly equipped and fitted out, this was due to the prisoners themselves, who had been able to procure what was needed from their families.” 3.     CPT report for 2004 The relevant parts of the report by the European Committee for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (CPT) concerning the visit to Moldova between 20 and 30 September 2004 read as follows (unofficial translation from original French): “54.     The delegation visited five establishments run by the Ministry of Justice: Prison No. 3 in Chişinău, Colonies Nos. 4 and 15 in Cricova, ... 55.     The situation in the majority of penitentiaries visited, in view of the economic situation in the country, remained difficult and the delegation encountered a number of problems already identified during its visits in 1998 and 2001 in terms of physical conditions and detention regimes. Added to this is the problem of overcrowding, which remains serious. In fact, even though the penitentiaries visited were not operating at their full capacity – as is the case of Prison no. 3 in which the number of detainees was appreciably smaller than during the last visit of the Committee – they continued to be extremely congested. In fact, the receiving capacity was still based on a very unsatisfactory 2 m 2 per detainee; in practice, this was often even less. 56.     It is plain that there can be no real progress unless the problem of overcrowding is resolved. This is an absolute prerequisite for achieving decent, human conditions of detention as well as for successfully implementing the ambitious concept devised by the Moldovan authorities to reform the prison system between 2004 and 2013. In its report on the 2001 visit, the CPT called upon the Moldovan authorities to draw up without delay a comprehensive and coherent policy for combating overcrowding in the prison system, taking due account of the principles and measures contained in Recommendation (99) 22 of the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe concerning prison overcrowding and prison population inflation. This policy has yet to be implemented. The Committee must reiterate its call for action in this area, in which it is imperative to enlist the law enforcement agencies and the prosecutorial and judicial authorities. In the immediate future, all proper steps should be taken to give full effect to the relevant provisions of the new criminal justice legislation which came into force in 2003 and could be instrumental in reducing the prison population, including through extensive use of the broader range of alternatives to pre-trial detention and imprisonment. 57.     The aims of the above-mentioned draft strategy for reform of the prison system include the creation of adequate conditions of detention and improvement of the regime of activities. The CPT welcomes the existence of this project. Its realisation will provide a response to many of the recommendations which it has made in the past (many of which are reiterated below). To achieve this, genuine efforts will need to be made, not only by the Prisons Department but also by every other ministerial agency able to contribute to its implementation (Economy and Finance, Health, Education, etc.). The CPT calls upon all Moldovan authorities able to assist in the implementation of the prison system reform concept to apply themselves forthwith to its realisation, in the light of the foregoing remarks. 58.     In this context of the modernisation of the prison system, the time also seems ripe to overhaul the accommodation arrangements based on large-capacity dormitories, as these inevitably mean a lack of privacy in prisoners’ day-to-day life. They also entail a high risk of intimidation and violence among prisoners (cf. paragraph 65 below), and render proper staff control extremely difficult, if not impossible. Furthermore, with such accommodation, the appropriate allocation of the prisoners, based on a case-by-case risk and needs assessment, becomes an almost impossible exercise. The CPT would like to have the views of the Moldovan authorities concerning this point. 59.     In their reply to the report on the 2001 visit, the Moldovan authorities made reference to a new draft code governing the execution of sentences, containing forward-looking provisions as to the status of convicted prisoners and their conditions of detention. In 2004 the draft was at its second reading in Parliament. The CPT trusts that its adoption will take place very shortly. ... 81.     Colony No. 15 has four detention blocks where the prisoners were distributed to units according to whether they were classed as workers (units 2, 3, 4 and 6) or non-workers (units 1, 5, 7 and 8). Unlike Colony No. 4, despite the shabbiness of the premises, the establishment conveyed an overall impression of cleanliness and satisfactory upkeep. The laudable efforts made in this direction deserve to be highlighted. But here again, much depended on prisoners’ resources for fitting out and renovating the cells. Material conditions ranged from acceptable to good on occasion. This was the case as regards unit 5 of non-working detainees. Other dormitories – while remaining in an acceptable state of upkeep and cleanliness – revealed difficult conditions with, in some cases, fewer beds than occupants, or windows with panes missing and rudimentary amenities, which in the case of certain essentials (such as mattresses, sheets, blankets or crockery) had been obtained through the charity of fellow-prisoners. Here again, living space was often restricted in some dormitories, a situation which was partially alleviated by an open-door policy within sections. More critical were the material conditions provided for unit 1 prisoners with sentences stipulating that part of the term must be served in the cellular regime. Virtually all these prisoners’ cells lacked proper access to natural light owing to the screens placed over the windows, and were thus inadequately ventilated. Moreover, the levels of occupancy of the cells allocated to these prisoners were excessive (e.g. 4 persons in a space of 11 m²) a deficiency which was all the more regrettable considering that they were locked in for the greater part of the day. ... 84.     Another matter of great concern in Colonies 4 and 15 is the water and electricity supply. The water pump supplying both establishments had broken down and restrictions on electricity consumption necessitated power cuts. Moreover, with winter approaching, many fears were expressed regarding whether the fuel supplies were adequate. The CPT recalls that these are also basic requirements which must be secured to detained persons in all circumstances. 84.     In the light of the above, the CPT recommends that the Moldovan authorities: -   at long last release the necessary resources to begin without further delay improvement of the material conditions inside the cells in Blocks I and II of Chişinău Prison No. 3, and refrain from putting prisoners in windowless cells; -   ensure that each prisoner in Colonies 4 and 15 has his own bed with the necessary bedding (mattress, sheets, blankets) and that all windows are glazed; -   remove the screens from the windows of unit 1 cells in Colony 15 so as to allow proper admission of natural light and fresh air; -   commence forthwith the refurbishment of the sanitary equipments in Colonies 4 and 15, and in the Re-education Colony for Minors, in the light of the remarks made above; -   immediately guarantee that inmates of Prison No. 3 and Colonies 4 and 15, as well as in all other establishments similarly affected, receive adequate food served in accordance with the elementary rules of hygiene; -   take all requisite measures to ensure adequate water, electricity and fuel supplies in Colonies 4 and 15, as well as in all other establishments similarly affected; -   immediately reduce where necessary the levels of occupancy of cells and dormitories in the establishments visited in order to comply with the legislative provisions in force regarding living space per prisoner, and increase this as soon as possible to at least 4m² per person. ” 4.     CPT report for 2007 The relevant parts of the report by the European Committee for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (CPT) concerning the visit to Moldova between 14-24 September 2007 read as follows (unofficial translation from original French): “34.     Following the CPT’s visit in 2004, the Moldovan authorities launched a programme for improving material conditions in IDPs, with a view to implementing the Committee’s recommendations. However, it became clear from the discussions held with Ministry of Internal Affairs officials at the outset of the 2007 visit that the programme had not progressed as rapidly as envisaged, due to the lack of funding. ... 35.     Despite the above-mentioned programme, conditions of detention in the IDPs visited remained, in general, very poor. The cells had either no windows (e.g. at the IDP of the Operational Services Department in Chişinău, some of the cells at Călăraşi IDP, one cell at Anenii Noi IDP ) or their windows were covered by shutters which substantially limited access to natural light . As for artificial lighting , it was, as a rule, dim. ... Further, the cells were often stuffy, despite the presence of a ventilation system (which was rarely turned on because of the noise it made). Detainees slept on wooden platforms, which took up most of the floor space; no steps had been taken in respect of providing mattresses and blankets (the presence of an occasional blanket was attributable to detainees’ families). The only exception was the IDP in Călăraşi, where most of the cells were fitted with bunk beds with mattresses.   At the time of the visit, the number of persons held at the IDPs was well below their official capacity. Nevertheless, overcrowding was observed in some of the cells (e.g. three persons in a cell measuring 7 m² at Leova). Further, the delegation came across several cells which were very small (4 m² at Leova). Cells of such a size are only suitable for short periods of detention.   With the exception of the IDPs in Chişinău and Anenii Noi (where there were in-cell toilets), the delegation received numerous complaints about problematic access to the communal toilets . Detained persons were apparently allowed out of their cells to use the toilet only once to twice a day; the rest of the time they had to relieve themselves in a bucket inside the cell. It should also be noted that the in-cells toilets in Anenii Noi were not partitioned off.   As regards access to a shower , it was possible, once a week, only at the two IDPs in Chişinău. At the other establishments visited, the shower rooms were either under repair or out of service, and detainees used improvised arrangements to wash themselves. No personal hygiene products were provided at any of the establishments visited. 36.     The arrangements in respect of food varied from one establishment to another: at the two IDPs in Chişinău, three meals a day were being provided, whereas in Leova, the number of daily meals was two, and at Călăraşi and Anenii Noi, only one. The delegation received numerous complaints about the insufficient quantity and poor quality of the food. It was clear that most detainees relied primarily on food parcels delivered by their families. ... 37.     On a more positive note, all the IDPs visited possessed exercise yards. Detainees were in principle entitled to one hour of outdoor exercise a day. However, at the IDPs in Călăraşi and the General Police Directorate in Chişinău, the delegation heard widespread allegations that the outdoor exercise periods were limited to 5 to 15 minutes, and did not take place every day. Apart from outdoor exercise, there were no activities (e.g. access to books, newspapers, radio, board games). 38.     To sum up, the conditions prevailing at the IDPs visited continue to render them unsuitable for accommodating persons deprived of their liberty for prolonged periods of time (which continues to be case of both persons remanded in custody and administrative detainees). Reference has already been made in paragraph 9 to the envisaged transfer of responsibility for IDPs to the Ministry of Justice and the setting up new remand prisons, which should correspond to the requirements of Moldovan legislation and the CPT’s standards. In the meantime, the Moldovan authorities should redouble their efforts to find the financial means necessary for providing for the fundamental needs and preserving the dignity of detained persons. In particular, urgent steps should be taken to ensure that: -   all detained persons are provided with a clean mattress and blankets; -   detained persons receive food of sufficient quantity and improved quality; -   in-cell lighting (including access to natural light) and ventilation are adequate; -   there is a minimum of 4 m² per person in multi-occupancy cells; -   detained persons have ready access to communal toilet facilities, and in-cell toilets are equipped with a partition; -   detained persons are ensured access to washing facilities and are supplied with essential personal hygiene products; -   all detained persons have access to outdoor exercise of at least one hour per day.   The CPT also recommends that steps be taken to provide some form of activity in addition to outdoor exercise to persons held in excess of a few days at IDPs.” 5.     Report of the Special Rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment The relevant part of the report by the European Committee for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (CPT) concerning the visit to Moldova between 20 and 30 September 2004 read as follows: “Conditions in police cells do not conform to international standards and are not suited to holding people for long periods. Detention in such conditions for up to several months, as practised in the Republic of Moldova, amounts to inhuman treatment. The conditions of detention in institutions under the Ministry of Justice vary. Some institutions, in particular the pretrial facility in Chişinău, were severely overcrowded. Others located outside the capital had an acceptable amount of space for each prisoner. However, the Special Rapporteur was concerned about the standard use of quarantine cells for newly arrived detainees, most of which were not in line with international standards. Furthermore, the Special Rapporteur received numerous complaints about the restricted access to medical care and the poor quality of food. ... B.     Conditions in places of detention Institutions under the Ministry of Justice 30.     Undoubtedly, progress has been achieved in improving conditions of detention. [1] However, some of the institutions visited by the Special Rapporteur were heavily overcrowded. The authorities themselves pointed out that Institution No. 13 in Chişinău was severely overcrowded - on the day of the visit it held 931 persons with the official capacity being 600 (see also appendix). The Special Rapporteur was informed of Government plans to close down this institution. 31.     Common problems at all pre- and post-trial prisons are the poor hygienic conditions, restricted access to health care and lack of medication as well as risk of contamination with tuberculosis and other diseases. Whereas the Special Rapporteur notes that the minimum norms regarding nutrition of detainees (Government Decision n. 609 of 29 May 2006) are checked on a daily basis and that, according to the financial plan of the Penitentiary Department, the food budget for 2008 had almost doubled in comparison to 2004 and is set to rise further, he also received consistent allegations regarding the poor quality and quantity of food. 32.     Recognizing some efforts made by the Government to reduce the overcrowding in prisons, such as e.g. the application of alternative measures to deprivation of liberty, the Special Rapporteur is concerned by the extensive periods of pretrial detention. Several of his interviewees had spent up to three or four years in detention without a final judgement. This concern is exacerbated by the fact that the conditions in the pretrial facilities (SIZO) are often worse than in facilities for convicted prisoners (detainees are held in overcrowded cells for 23 hours per day). Spending prolonged periods in such conditions constitutes a violation of the principle of the presumption of innocence and, in some cases, may amount to inhuman treatment. 33.     The Special Rapporteur was particularly concerned about the drastic security measures against persons convicted of severe crimes or so-called recidivists. Especially the year-long confinement to cells for 23 hours per day of persons sentenced to life-imprisonment may amount to torture or inhuman treatment. The Special Rapporteur welcomes Government reports about studies conducted in 2008 about the psychological state of persons serving a life sentence, on the basis of which more flexible security arrangements are to be made in their regard. 34.     The Special Rapporteur found that the so-called “initial regime” was introduced in the Enforcement Code of the Republic of Moldova in 2005. Instead of “humanizing” conditions for the detainees, this regime actually exacerbated their situation by confining them to their cells for periods between three, six and nine months after the sentence as an “introduction” to life in a correctional institution, which should aim at rehabilitating convicted persons. 35.     As confirmed by the authorities, persons arriving in penitentiary institutions, as a general rule have to spend 15 days in quarantine in order to undergo a medical examination of their overall state of health and their labour capacities The Special Rapporteur found that conditions in quarantine cells are generally worse than elsewhere and was concerned about the high risk of infection in these cells, since detainees with contagious diseases seemed not always to be separated. 36.     Sicknesses and diseases still occur at a high level in places of detention, although the overall trend is positive. As a result of the measures taken by the Penitentiary Administration in cooperation with international organizations, according to Government figures, the incidence of tuberculosis (TB) in penitentiary institutions was reduced from 495 cases in 2006 to 245 cases in 2008 (51% decrease, 153 new cases and 92 relapses), prevalence fell from 1150 cases in 2001 to 290 at the end of 2008, mortality rates halved in the period 2002 to 2007. Regarding HIV/AIDS, the Government reports that, on 1 December 2008, 296 detainees were registered as infected with HIV. Out of them, 32 are receiving antiretroviral treatment. With regard to the latter, the Special Rapporteur is concerned that access to anti-retroviral therapy appears to be limited and reports that effective prevention measures are insufficient. 37.     Furthermore, the Special Rapporteur noted with concern that article 248 of the Enforcement Code requires that prisoners on hunger strike be separated from other detainees and be kept in “carcers” in solitary confinement until they give up the hunger strike. These cells, mostly located in the basement of the penitentiary institutions, lack natural light and are often very small and filthy. Moreover, prisoners who are detained in a “carcer” are not allowed to receive visits and go for walks outside. Police custody 38.     Despite of international and national [2] minimum standards, conditions in some police custody facilities are a source of major concern. Whereas some police stations were suitable at maximum for short-term police custody, in some cases, notably in Bălţi, Comrat, and at Chişinău police headquarters, the conditions amounted to inhuman treatment. In those police stations, persons were held in small, badly ventilated cells with little or no daylight sometimes for several weeks or even months. However, according to official sources, some of the police custody facilities had been closed in order to improve conditions (Criuleni, Ialoveni, Straseni, Cantemir, Glodeni, Stefan-Voda, Edinet, Donduseni, Ciadir-Lunga). ...” 5.     Domestic reports and decisions On 24 October 2003 Parliament adopted Decision no.   415-XV regarding the National Plan of Action in the sphere of human rights for 2004-2008. The Plan includes a number of objectives for 2004-2008 aimed at improving conditions of detention, including reducing overcrowding, improving medical treatment, involving detainees in work and reintegration, and also training personnel. Regular reports are to be drawn up on the implementation of the Plan. On 31   December 2003 the Government adopted a decision on the principles governing reorganisation of the penitentiary system, together with the Plan of Action for 2004-2013 for implementation of the principles governing reorganisation of the penitentiary system. Both were aimed, inter alia , at improving the conditions of detention in penitentiaries. On an unspecified date the Ministry of Justice adopted its report on the implementation by the Ministry of Justice of Chapter 14 of the National Plan of Action in the sphere of human rights for 2004-2008, approved by Parliament Decision no. 415-XV of 24 October 2003. On 25 November 2005 the Parliamentary Commission for Human Rights adopted a report on the implementation of the National Plan of Action. Both these reports confirmed the insufficient funding of the prison system and the resulting failure to fully implement the Plan in respect of remand centres in Moldova, including Prison no. 13 in Chişinău. The first of these reports stated, inter alia , that “as long as the aims and actions outlined in [the National Plan of Action] do not have the necessary financial support, ... observance of the human rights described in Parliament Decision no.   415-XV of 24 October 2003, which is destined not to be implemented or be only partially implemented, will remain no more than a good intention on the part of the State.” COMPLAINT The applicant complains under Article 3 of the Convention that he was subjected to inhuman conditions of detention. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Has there been a violation of Article 3 of the Convention on account of the conditions in which the applicant has been detained since his arrest?   2.     Has there been a violation of Article 13 of the Convention in respect of the applicant’s complaint under Article 3 of the Convention?   3.     Having regard to: - the reports of the European Committee for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment concerning its visits to Moldova in 1998, 2001, 2004 and 2007; - the report of the Special Rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment (United Nations Human Rights Council, document A/HRC/10/44/Add.3, 12 February 2009); - the Amnesty International 2007 annual report concerning Moldova; - [Moldovan] Parliament Decision no.   415-XV regarding the National Plan of Action in the sphere of human rights for 2004-2008, 24   October 2003. - the undated “ Report on the implementation by the Ministry of Justice of Chapter 14 of the National Plan of Action in the sphere of human rights for 2004-2008 approved by Parliament Decision no. 415-XV of 24   October 2003”; - the report on the implementation of the National Plan of Action, adopted by the Moldovan Parliament’s Commission for Human Rights on 25   November 2005; - Moldovan Parliament Decision no. 72 (28 March 2008) concerning the hearing on judgments by the European Court of Human Rights in respect of the Republic of Moldova, the enforcement of those judgments and the prevention of violations of human rights and fundamental freedoms; - the explanatory decision of the plenary meeting of the Supreme Court of Justice “Regarding the application by the courts of certain provisions of the law on criminal procedure concerning arrest pending trial and house arrest” (no. 4, 28 March 2005); - the Court’s judgments in the cases of Ostrovar v. Moldova (no.   35207/03, 13 September 2005), Sarban v. Moldova (no. 3456/05, 4   October 2005), Becciev v. Moldova (no. 9190/03, 4 October 2005), Boicenco v. Moldova (no. 41088/05, 11 July 2006), Holomiov v. Moldova (no. 30649/05, 7 November 2006), Istratii and Others v. Moldova (nos.   8721/05, 8705/05 and 8742/05, 27 March 2007), Modarca v. Moldova (no. 14437/05, 10 May 2007), Ciorap v. Moldova (no. 12066/02, 19 June 2007), Stepuleac v. Moldova (no. 8207/06, 6 November 2007), Ţurcan v.   Moldova (no. 10809/06, 27 November 2007), Malai v. Moldova (no.   7101/06, §§ 45-46, 13 November 2008, Paladi v. Moldova [GC] (no.   39806/05, 10 March 2009), Straisteanu and Others v. Moldova (no.   4834/06, 7 April 2009), and Valeriu and Nicolae Roşca v. Moldova (no.   41704/02, 20 October 2009): Do the facts of the present application disclose the existence of a “systemic problem” such that the deficiencies in the national law and/or practice complained of may give rise to numerous similar applications?   In view of the increasing number of judgments in which a violation of Article 3 of the Convention by the Republic of Moldova is found concerning conditions of detention, what are the Government’s plans for improving the situation? In particular, what measures are planned aimed at reducing the size of the prison population, as suggested also by the CPT, by a variety of means including more systematic application of alternative preventive measures in respect of accused persons awaiting trial? At what stage of completion is the planned transfer of places of detention pending trial from the responsibility of the Ministry of Interior to the responsibility of the Ministry of Justice?   4.     Is the present case suitable for the “pilot-judgment” procedure?   In their replies to the above two questions, the parties are invited to make their comments in the light of the Court’s case-law cited above.     [1] The Government indicated that a large number of penitentiary institutions have undergone or are currently undergoing renovation, including heating, water supply systems, sanitary facilities or roofs (e.g. n. 1 - Taraclia, n. 3 - Leova; n. 5 - Cahul, n. 6 - Soroca, n. 9 - Pruncul, n. 17 - Rezina, n. 18 - Branesti; some of these projects are supported by international or bilateral donors. [2] Articles 20 and 21 of the Code on Police Ethics.