CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 25 juin 2015

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .sA6BC7FA7 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:right } .s9793A85B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s8229ABDD { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s68C46B95 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s3F59B822 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-transform:uppercase } .sA8776625 { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:29.2pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17.6pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sF7A86111 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; font-size:10pt } .sD3B63DAD { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .s6B505E72 { margin:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .s1C7BEF1E { margin-left:28.52pt; padding-left:7.48pt; font-family:serif } .s30FC01AE { margin-top:14pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic }     Communicated on 25 June 2015   FIRST SECTION Application no. 9798/12 Andrey Igorevich RESIN against Russia lodged on 23 November 2011 STATEMENT OF FACTS 1.     The applicant, Mr Andrey Igorevich Resin, is a Russian national, who was born in 1974 and who is now detained in Lozvinskiy, the Sverdlovskiy Region. He is represented before the Court by Mr A. Molostov, a lawyer practising in the Perm Region. 2.     The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows. A. Circumstances of the case 3.     On 7 February 2000 the Khabarovsk Regional Court convicted the applicant of aggravated murder and sentenced him to life imprisonment. On 6 April 2001 the Supreme Court of Russia upheld the judgment on appeal. 4.     Since his conviction by the Regional Court the applicant has been detained in various prisons and detention facilities. On 14 April 2012 he was transferred to the life prisoners’ wing of the IK-56 prison in Lozvinskiy. 5.     From 7 February 2000 and throughout his detention the applicant’s hands were cuffed behind his back every time he left his cell, including during the walks. The applicant asked the Sverdlovsk Regional Office of the Federal Penitentiary Service to explain the legal basis for this measure. 6.   Relevant part of the Federal Penitentiary Service’s letter of 6 March 2013 read as follows: “... according to Section 30 of the Penitentiary Institutions Act, convicts may be handcuffed when their behaviour implies a possibility of absconding, or causing harm to themselves or others. FKU IK-56 is a special regime correctional colony housing life prisoners. Having regard to the gravity of the crimes committed and to the social danger this category of convicts represents, there are reasons to believe that the convicts may abscond, harm others or themselves.” B.     Relevant domestic law 7.     Section 30 of the Penitentiary Institutions Act (no. 5473-I of 21 July 1993) provides that handcuffs may be used – (a)     to repress mass disorder or group violations of public order by detainees, as well as to apprehend offenders who persistently disobey or resist the officers; (b)     during convoy and escort of prisoners who show by their behaviour that they may abscond, harm others or themselves. COMPLAINTS The applicant complains under Article 3 of the Convention about the continued use of handcuffs during his imprisonment. He also complains under Article 13 of the Convention that he did not have access to an effective remedy for his complaint under Article 3.       QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.   Did the systematic use of handcuffs on the applicant after 7 February 2000 constitute inhuman or degrading treatment within the meaning of Article   3 of the Convention (compare Kashavelov v. Bulgaria , no. 891/05, §§ 39 and 40, 20   January 2011, and Kaverzin v. Ukraine, no. 23893/03, 151 ‑ 163, 15   May 2012)? 2. Did the applicant have at his disposal an effective domestic remedy for his complaint under Article 3 of the Convention, as required by Article 13 of the Convention?