CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 24 août 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 } .s72C8F48C { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:36.6pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-15.05pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sD3B63DAD { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .s7ACB8D74 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt }     Communicated on 24 August 2015   FIFTH SECTION Application no. 6128/12 Oleg Leonidovich RODZEVILLO against Ukraine lodged on 9 November 2011 STATEMENT OF FACTS The applicant, Mr Oleg Leonidovich Rodzevillo, is a Ukrainian national, who was born in 1967 and is serving a life sentence in the Ladyzhynska Correctional Colony no.   39 (“Colony no.   39”), Gubnyk, the Vinnytsia Region. A.     The circumstances of the case The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows. 1.     Conditions of the applicant’s detention in the Ladyzhynska Correctional Colony no.   39 as of April 2012 According to the applicant, the conditions of his detention in Colony no.   39 as of April 2012 were incompatible with human dignity. In particular, except the time allocated for a daily walk in the prison yard, the applicant was confined to a cell of some six square meters. At times being held alone, at other times he shared this space with an inmate. The cell had no ventilation and was very humid. As a result of humidity, the painting on the walls deteriorated and was peeling. The cell was poorly lit and scarcely heated in winter. A granite quarry being situated some two-hundred meters from the Colony, the air in the cell had elevated content of radioactive granite dust, a two-millimetre layer of which daily covered all furniture and fittings, in spite the applicant’s persistent efforts to clean it up. Tap water used for drinking and hygienic purposes was drawn directly from the Southern Bough river. It was barely treated, rusty and stinky. Colony employees did not use this water for their needs and brought bottled water instead. There was no radio in the cell. The food lacked nutritious quality. It consisted mostly of cereal and bread. The prisoners scarcely received sugar, fresh vegetables, tea or cigarettes, which were often appropriated by the corrupt prison employees. The employees also stole underwear and other products received by the Colony for the prisoners’ needs. The Colony shop was so poorly supplied that it was out of question to supplement meagre prison nutrition with any purchases therefrom. It also lacked basic necessities, such as toilet paper, writing paper, postal stamps and envelopes. In order to stay healthy and to communicate with the outside world, the applicant heavily depended on his parents’ parcels, which included food, vitamins, stationary and medicines. Poor nutrition coupled with poor ventilation and air quality facilitated proliferation of infectious diseases, such as tuberculosis. Disinfection and UV sterilisation of the air in the cells required by the applicable domestic law was practically never carried out. It took the applicant significant effort and time to arrange appointments with the Colony Governor and the competent prosecutorial authorities to bring the matters of his concern to their attention. While on several occasions he succeeded in receiving such appointments, they brought no relief, as his complaints were not acted upon. As follows from the casefile, on 8   February   2012 the Ladyzhyn Prosecutor’s Office informed the applicant, responding to his complaints, that they had discovered no irregularities in provision of nutrition to the Colony inhabitants. On 19 March 2012 the Vinnytsia Regional Penitentiary Service further informed the applicant that they found his complaints of poor nutrition and inability to fix an appointment with the Colony Governor unsubstantiated. In particular, as appeared from the relevant log, in the period between February   2011 and February   2012 the applicant had made monthly purchases in the Colony shop, including food and various necessities, for the total sum of 1927.35 hryvnias (UAH). It was also not credible that the applicant had been unable to fix an appointment with the Colony Governor, as it followed from the relevant records that he had regularly received prisoners (i.e. fifty-one appointments in January and February 2012). 2.     Conditions of detention in the Khmelnitskiy no.   29 SIZO Between 24 December 2011 and 14 January 2012 the applicant was temporarily detained in the Khmelnitskiy no.   29 Pre-trial detention facility (SIZO) as an interim stop on his way from the Colony no.   81 Hospital, where he had been examined and consulted on account of haemorrhoids. According to the applicant, the conditions of his detention in the SIZO were also incompatible with human dignity. In particular, there was basically no light in his cell, as the windows were shaded with iron shutters and the electric lamp was protected by a lampshade of very thick glass placed under iron bars. The cell was not supplied with basic inventory, such as a hanger for clothes, a broom, a scoop, a rubbish bin, a bucket and a mop or a rug for cleaning the floor. The shower compartment was very narrow (one square meter) and the toilet compartment was placed under video-surveillance. 3.     Alleged interference with the applicant’s correspondence According to the applicant, on numerous occasions the Colony no.   39 administration stole his letters containing complaints of the conditions of his detention and of other issues connected to the management of the Colony. In particular, in 2011-2012 the following letters were stolen: of 10   January and 10   March 2011 addressed to the President of Ukraine; of 10   January 2011 addressed to the Prime-Minister of Ukraine; of 11   January 2011 addressed to the People’s Deputy K.; of 17   January, 9   February, 8   September and 4   October 2011 and 21   February 2012 addressed to the Vinnytsia Regional Prosecutor’s Office; of 17   January 2011 addressed to the Prosecutor General and the Government’s Agent before the Court in the Vinnytsia Region; of 20 January and 7 February 2011 addressed to the Prosecutor General; of 24 January 2011 addressed to the Control and Revision Department of Ukraine; of 26 January and 14   February 2011 addressed to the Security Service of Ukraine; of 17   February 2012 addressed to the Ladyzhyn Prosecutor; and of 5 and 19   January 2011 and 20   February 2012 addressed to the Penitentiary Service of Ukraine. On 8 February 2012 the acting Ladyzhyn Prosecutor informed the applicant, in response to his complaint of stealing of his correspondence, that he had detected no irregularities in dispatching his letters. On 19 March 2012 the Vinnytsia Regional Penitentiary Service further informed the applicant that they had inquired into his complaints of lost (stolen) correspondence and established that during 2011 he had sent out thirty-four and had received nineteen letters from family and close persons. He had also sent eight applications to State authorities and institutions and received their responses. No facts of stealing the applicant’s correspondence had been established. 4.     Alleged stealing of the applicant’s letter of 13 March 2012 containing a completed application form intended for the Court On 9   November 2011 and 11   January 2012 the applicant wrote letters to the Court, in which he raised various complaints concerning his detention in Colony no.   39 and treatment in the Colony no. 81 Hospital in 2011. On 30   January 2012 the Registry dispatched a letter to the applicant inviting him to complete a standard application form by 26   March 2012. According to the applicant, having completed the proposed form by 13   March 2012, he addressed it to the Kharkiv Human Rights Group (KHRG), a lawyer affiliated with which had earlier represented him in another case before the Court (application no.   38771/05) requesting the addressee to forward his submissions to the Court. Having learned from a telephone conversation with a KHRG’s employee that this letter had never arrived, on 6   April   2012 the applicant completed a new “replacement” application form. On several occasions in spring 2012 the applicant complained to various authorities, including the Colony no.   39 Governor and the office of the Government’s Agent before the Court, that his application form of 13   March 2012 had been stolen by the Colony no.   39 administration with a view to hinder his right of petition. On 17 May and 14 June 2012 the applicant was informed that, following an inquiry of the State Penitentiary Service into his complaint, no evidence was found that the applicant had ever filed any letter addressed to the KHRG on 13   March 2012. On the other hand, a letter addressed to this organisation on 2   March 2012 had been duly dispatched to it. On 11   July 2012 the applicant submitted his application form (addressed to the Court) dated 6   April 2012 to a Colony officer responsible for collection of the correspondence. On 17   July 2012 the applicant was provided with a postal slip indicating that his correspondence had been dispatched to the Court. On 27   July 2012 the application form dated 6   April 2012 was received by the Court’s Registry. 5.     Other facts and events On several occasions in 2007 the applicant was allegedly beaten and ill ‑ treated in various ways by the Colony wardens (i.e. had to wear a woollen hat in summer, had to assume an unnatural posture when moving around the colony or when the door to his cell was opened, etc.). These incidents having stopped by 2008, the Colony administration retained other means for ill-treating the applicant. In particular, sometimes they threatened to use other prisoners to harass and torture him unless he stopped being rebellious and complaining about the conditions of his detention. On some occasions (details not provided) the applicant was matched up with very difficult inmates for the purpose of exerting unlawful pressure on him. Until March 2009 the applicant was not allowed to sit or lie on the bed during the daytime. This prohibition was also enforced in August-October 2010, when a new Colony Governor was appointed. However, following the applicant’s complaints, it was lifted. Medical assistance available to the applicant for his haemorrhoids and other health-related complaints in Colony no.   39 and in the Colony no.   81 Hospital, where he was examined and treated in July   2010 and in November-December   2011 were unsatisfactory. In particular, the applicant was never offered a comprehensive, in-depth medical examination and therapy. During both his visits to the Hospital, the surgeon decided that it was not necessary to operate the applicant’s haemorrhoids based on a very perfunctory examination. No other treatment for this condition was provided. The conditions of the applicant’s detention in the Hospital were also unsatisfactory. In particular, he remained confined to his hospital chamber and never taken out for walks. According to the applicant, the Colony no.   39 personnel stole the letters of his inmates D. and B. dated 25 March and 14 June 2011 respectively, addressed to the Court, which contained enclosures intended for his casefile (application no.   38771/05). The applicant’s and his parents’ numerous requests for placing him in a penitentiary institution located closer to his home to facilitate their contacts with each other were ignored or turned down. B.     Relevant domestic law Relevant provisions of the domestic law concerning monitoring of the prisoners’ correspondence have been summarised in the Court’s judgment in the case of Vintman v. Ukraine (no.   28403/05, §§   45-49). COMPLAINTS The applicant complained under Article   3 of the Convention that the conditions of his detention in Colony no.   39, Colony no.   81 Hospital and SIZO no.   29 had been incompatible with human dignity; that he had been ill-treated by the Colony personnel in 2007-2008 and harassed by his inmates; that he had been forbidden to use his bed during the daytime until March 2009 and between August and October 2010 and that the medical assistance provided to him in Colony no.   39 and in the Colony no.   81 Hospital had been unsatisfactory. He further complained under Article 8 of the Convention that the domestic authorities had refused to place him in a prison located closer to his parents’ home and that the Colony no.   39 authorities stole a number of his letters, which contained complaints concerning the conditions of his detention and breaches of his and his inmates’ rights. The applicant also complained under Article 34 of the Convention that the Colony no.   39 authorities had stolen his letter of 13   March   2012 addressed to the KHRG because it contained an application form intended for the Court and that in March and June 2011 they had also stolen the letters of his inmates D. and B. addressed to the Court, which contained enclosures intended for his casefile. The applicant also complained under Article   13 of the Convention that he had had no effective remedies for his Convention complaints. In addition, the applicant complained that a number of other individuals detained in Colony no.   39 likewise suffered from the conditions of detention and poor quality of medical assistance.   QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Was the applicant subjected to inhuman or degrading treatment in breach of Article 3 of the Convention? In particular, were the conditions of his detention in the Ladyzhynska Correctional Colony as of April 2012 and onwards and in the Khmelnitskiy SIZO no.   29 between December 2011 and January 2012, including the furnishing and sanitary condition of the cells, diet and provision of basic necessities compatible with the Convention standards?   2.     Has there been a violation of the applicant’s right to respect for his correspondence, contrary to Article 8 of the Convention? In particular:   (a)     Did the Colony no.   39 administration receive for postage and duly dispatch the letters listed by the applicant in his application form as “stolen”?   (b)     Did the applicable law contain sufficient safeguards against arbitrary monitoring and withholding of the applicant’s letters by the Colony no.   39 administration?   (c)     Were there adequate legislative and practical safeguards in place against accidental loss of the applicant’s letters by the Colony’s authorities? In particular, what mechanisms were available to the applicant for tracking dispatch of his letters?   3.     Did the applicant have at his disposal effective domestic remedies for his complaints under Articles   3 and 8, as required by Article   13 of the Convention?