CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 6 septembre 2016

.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 } .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 } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s72C8F48C { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:36.6pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-15.05pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sD3B63DAD { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s34D46E87 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .sF7A86111 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; font-size:10pt } .sADADF4A7 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .s68C46B95 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s3F59B822 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-transform:uppercase } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s4ACA9207 { page-break-before:always; clear:both; mso-break-type:section-break } .s6DB91820 { text-align:center } .s25B97BCD { margin-right:auto; margin-left:auto; border:0.75pt solid #808080; border-collapse:collapse } .s69304500 { height:33.1pt } .sD1CDDC62 { border-right:0.75pt solid #808080; border-bottom:0.75pt solid #808080; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#e0e0e0 } .sDF237D91 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:8pt } .s2490CDBC { border-right:0.75pt solid #808080; border-left:0.75pt solid #808080; border-bottom:0.75pt solid #808080; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#e0e0e0 } .s1961B64A { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:2.3pt; font-size:8pt } .s26ADB50A { border-left:0.75pt solid #808080; border-bottom:0.75pt solid #808080; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#e0e0e0 } .s8DB21C27 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:center; font-size:8pt } .s30F5263B { height:27.9pt } .s2F4AF114 { border-top:0.75pt solid #808080; border-right:0.75pt solid #808080; border-bottom:0.75pt solid #808080; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s6B505E72 { margin:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .s6CF83D49 { margin-left:11.67pt; padding-left:6.18pt; font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; font-weight:bold } .s898DAE93 { border:0.75pt solid #808080; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sB217F55D { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; font-size:8pt } .sA0B2759 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:0.45pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-0.45pt; text-align:justify; font-size:8pt } .sB71F2881 { border-top:0.75pt solid #808080; border-left:0.75pt solid #808080; border-bottom:0.75pt solid #808080; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sFD306575 { height:35.55pt } .s4AEF4500 { height:30.5pt } .s55601073 { height:21pt } .sD8D1073 { height:28pt } .s42015D7A { height:27.25pt } .sEB6A263B { height:28.3pt } .sFBCB6575 { height:30.75pt } .sBCA334AF { border-top:0.75pt solid #808080; border-right:0.75pt solid #808080; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s7CB6920E { border-top:0.75pt solid #808080; border-right:0.75pt solid #808080; border-left:0.75pt solid #808080; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s62945D10 { border-top:0.75pt solid #808080; border-left:0.75pt solid #808080; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top }   Communicated on 6 September 2016   THIRD SECTION Application no. 44449/15 V.O. against Russia and 8 other applications (see list appended) The applicants are Russian nationals. The facts of the cases, as submitted by the applicants, may be summarised as follows. A.     Informal hierarchy in correctional colonies The applicants served their sentences in correctional colonies in the K.   Region. While in detention, the applicants were placed in the lowest caste in the informal prisoner hierarchy, “the degraded” ( опущенные , обиженные ) or “roosters” ( петухи ) for the following reasons: two of them had touched excrement, and four of them had touched objects that had been previously in contact with other “degraded” detainees. The remaining three applicants fell into the “degraded” caste for undisclosed reasons. The restrictions the applicants experienced in their daily life were governed by an informal code of the criminal underworld, known as “the rules” or “the conventions” ( понятия ). The punishment for those disobeying the “rules” could be a beating, rape or death. The applicants submitted similar descriptions of their situation. They were assigned to do menial chores, such as cleaning pit latrines, shower rooms or adjacent exercise yards. They worked long hours and were subjected to regular insults and violence. Had they refused to do those chores, they would have been forced to render “sex services”. They were allocated a specific table in the canteen and a particular washstand. They were forbidden to eat or sit anywhere else or to touch other inmates’ clothing or property. The applicants had to sleep on specially designated beds or, in their absence, on the floor. They were not allowed to put their food in communal fridges or enter the cooking area where “normal men” heated their food. They were frequently given rotten or stale food and their cutlery bore a special mark (a hole punched or drilled in their bowls and spoons).   The stigma associated with the applicants’ status as “degraded” prisoners was permanent: if transferred to another prison or penal institution, they had to disclose it to their fellow inmates or face punishment for hiding it. B.     Conditions of detention 1.     Applications nos. 44449/15, 46378/15, 59230/15, 59743/15, 60150/15 and 60284/15 According to the applicants, the buildings where they served their sentences were in a dilapidated state. The rooms were infested with rats and insects. The applicants disposed of less than two   square   metres of personal space each. The quality of the food was poor. 2.     Application no. 44982/15 The applicant submitted that the building in which he had been held had been in a dilapidated state. The walls were covered with mould, and with ice in winter. The rooms were infested with rats, bedbugs and lice. The drinking water and food were of poor quality. There were only three toilets with no doors for 150 inmates. RELEVANT COUNCIL OF EUROPE MATERIAL The relevant extracts from reports prepared by the European Committee for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (CPT) read as follows: Extracts from Report to the Russian Government on the visit to Russia carried   out by the CPT from 21 May to 4 June 2012 [CPT/Inf (2013) 41] “77.     The delegation heard several accounts of ill-treatment of prisoners by fellow inmates at the instigation of staff , in particular ... at Colony No. 1 in Yagul. ... At Yagul, the delegation ... 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 ‘roosters’. Note [23]: ‘Roosters’ (‘ петухи’ ) are a caste of ‘untouchables’ in the informal hierarchy among prisoners in FSIN establishments. Such persons are rejected by the other inmates for various reasons (e.g. for having suffered sexual abuse or committed sex offences, or simply for having been in contact with other so-called ‘roosters’) and are considered to run a greater risk of being ill-treated by other prisoners. ... 79.     In their letter of 29 August 2012, the Russian authorities emphasised their commitment to eradicating inter-prisoner violence and intimidation in FSIN   establishments. In this context, they referred to the abolition of the so-called ‘discipline and order sections’ in colonies and inquiries into every instance of injuries observed on a prisoner. In the light of the information gathered during the 2012 visit, there is clearly much more to be done in certain FSIN establishments. The CPT calls upon the Russian authorities to redouble their efforts in this area, notably: -     by clearly and regularly reminding staff of Closed-Type Prison No. 2 in Vladimir, including the PFRSI, and Colony No. 1 in Yagul that any member staff tolerating, encouraging or colluding in punitive action against prisoners by other inmates or any other form of inter-prisoner violence or intimidation will be the subject of criminal proceedings. Outside monitoring and investigating bodies should pay particular attention to any instances of possible exploitation of the informal hierarchy among prisoners by staff; -     by adopting a strategy at the federal level for combating inter-prisoner violence and intimidation related to the informal hierarchy among inmates; -     by further rationalising the assessment, classification and allocation of individual prisoners, with the aim of ensuring that prisoners are not exposed to other inmates who may cause them harm.” Extracts from Report to the Moldovan Government on the visit to Moldova carried   out by the CPT from 1 to 10 June 2011 [CPT/Inf (2012) 3] “60.     The delegation did, however, hear a few allegations of physical ill-treatment of prisoners by members of staff in Penitentiary establishment No. 17 in Rezina and, to a lesser extent, Penitentiary establishment No. 11 in Bălţi. The alleged ill-treatment consisted of punches, kicks and/or blows with a rubber truncheon. The prisoners concerned had usually been segregated for their own safety, and so would not have the ‘protection’ of senior members of the informal prisoner hierarchy. Some prisoners were regarded as ‘quibblers’ and had allegedly irritated the prison staff with their complaints or threats to bring complaints, while others were reportedly so-called ‘degraded’ prisoners, i.e. the lowest caste in the informal prisoner hierarchy. Note [42]: This category is rather like a cast of ‘untouchables’ in the informal hierarchy that exists among prisoners. Such persons are rejected by the other inmates for various reasons (e.g. for having a different sexual orientation, for having suffered sexual abuse or committed sex offences, or simply for having been in contact with other so-called ‘degraded’ prisoners). ... 64.     For many years now the CPT has been paying particular attention to the risks of inter-prisoner violence and/or intimidation linked with the informal prisoner hierarchy to which prisoners in the Republic of Moldova are subject usually from the time they enter the prison environment. In response to the CPT’s concerns, the Moldovan authorities have adopted a number of measures to address these risks. In terms of legislation, Article 206 of the Code of Execution allows any prisoner to request that they be segregated for their own safety. In addition, the DIP has adopted an instruction designed to restrict, or even prevent, other prisoners from entering areas where inmates have been placed under protection. Moreover, a number of measures have also been taken in connection with the implementation of the national strategy for combating violence in prisons. Despite this, in the course of the 2011 visit the delegation heard several allegations, both in Penitentiary establishment No. 11 in Bălţi, and in Penitentiary establishment No. 17 in Rezina, concerning violent beatings by prisoners tasked by senior members of the informal hierarchy with keeping inmates ‘in order’ within the penitentiary population. The prisoners who alleged having been the victims of such acts had apparently either broken the hierarchy’s internal ‘rules’ or complained to persons outside the prison and were therefore regarded as troublemakers both by the local prison administration and by the informal prisoner hierarchy. Most worrying is the fact that these acts in some cases appear to have been perpetrated with the assent, encouragement or even complicity of prison staff (e.g. by allowing direct access to the cells in which the alleged victims were being held or by knowingly exposing the latter to other prisoners who wished to harm them). Certain interviews held by the delegation with members of the prison staff seemed to support these allegations. Whatever the difficulties facing a prison administration, such an approach is diametrically opposed to the efforts to combat violence in prisons at national level. Maintaining order and creating a safe environment in prison should not be based on a more or less tacit agreement between inmate ‘leaders’ looking to establish their authority among the other inmates, and members of the prison staff anxious to preserve the appearance of order in the establishment at any price. The development of constructive relations between the staff and all the prisoners, based on the notion of dynamic security, is a crucial factor in the effort to combat inter-prisoner violence. Moreover, another key component is the careful assessment, classification and cell allocation of individual prisoners within the prison population. Care should also be taken to ensure that prisoners placed under protection are never exposed in any way to other prisoners who might cause them harm. The CPT recommends that the Moldovan authorities step up their efforts to prevent and eliminate inter-prisoner violence and intimidation in the light of the above, with particular attention being given to the root causes of the phenomenon in Moldovan penitentiary establishments.” Extracts from Report to the Latvian Government on the visit to Latvia carried   out by   the CPT from 27 November to 7 December 2007 [CPT/Inf (2009) 35] “40.     The delegation was also struck by the level of inter-prisoner violence at Jēkabpils Prison. The prospect of becoming a victim of beatings, sexual assaults, extortion, and a range of other such abuse was a daily reality for many vulnerable prisoners. The following examples illustrate the scope of the problem. A number of prisoners had repeatedly harmed themselves in an attempt to ensure a transfer to Unit   3, where they would be held in the cells and could thus avoid aggression from other prisoners in their dormitory. The CPT is particularly concerned about the situation of the lowest caste of prisoners in the informal prisoner hierarchy, the so ‑ called ‘untouchables’, who were frequently subjected to humiliation by other inmates and, indeed, staff. In addition, such prisoners were often subjected to ritualistic sexual abuse by other prisoners (in return for small items such as cigarettes or tea). The recent death of an ‘untouchable’ prisoner who apparently died after having been severely beaten inside the dormitory at night is the most extreme example of inter-prisoner violence. The delegation was informed that the prisoner concerned died of blood loss and internal haemorrhage. The situation was further exacerbated by the fact that no prison officers were present in the units at night. Thus, it is not surprising that the above-mentioned prisoner who was killed in his dormitory did not receive timely medical attention. Further, it is evident that the overreliance of the prison administration on the role of the dormitory ‘leaders’, who are appointed by the management as assistants of the unit officers (and who also receive a salary from the administration), underpins sub-cultures among prisoners and increases the risk of inter-prisoner violence. Rather than staff being in control of the dormitories at all times, order and discipline are maintained by the official leaders (as well as informal leaders) among the inmates in a dormitory. In the CPT’s view, the maintenance of order and discipline should be the exclusive task of staff and not prisoners. The CPT recommends that the system of ‘delegation of powers’ to certain prisoners be abolished at Jēkabpils Prison and in any other prisons in Latvia where it exists. Further, steps should be taken to ensure adequate supervision of prisoners in dormitories by prison officers. 41.     To sum up, the delegation gained the distinct impression that the management of Jēkabpils Prison had failed to provide for the most basic requirement of prisoners: a safe environment. The prison was run with parallel systems of intimidation and violence: one was organised by the prisoners themselves with a tiered hierarchy controlled by ‘bosses’, with the support of the internal security division, with prisoners considered as ‘untouchable’ receiving the brunt of the humiliation and forced to work for other prisoners, amounting to a form of slavery; the other was instigated by the prison staff, using transfer to the cell block as a form of intimidation associated with regular beatings by prison officers. Thus, inhuman treatment had apparently been institutionalised and had become an integral element in the running of this prison.” COMPLAINTS A.     All applications The applicants complain under Article 3 that the way they were treated by their fellow inmates on account of their status in the informal prisoner hierarchy constituted inhuman or degrading punishment. The applicants also complain under Article 13 that they did not have at their disposal any effective remedy for their complaint of degrading treatment by their fellow inmates. B.     Applications nos. 44449/15, 44982/15, 46378/15, 59230/15, 59743/15, 60150/15 and 60284/15 The applicants complain under Article 3 that the conditions of their detention in correctional colonies were inhuman and degrading. Relying on Article 13, they claim that no domestic remedy was available to them in order to obtain an improvement in the conditions of their detention.   COMMON QUESTIONS Since the Court has granted anonymity in these cases the Government should carry out the relevant domestic inquiries in such a manner as to avoid compromising the applicants’ safety and to preserve their full anonymity.   1.     Did the restrictions inherent to the applicants’ status in the informal prisoners hierarchy amount to inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment in breach of Article 3 of the Convention?   2.     Did the applicants dispose of effective domestic remedies – as required by Article 13 of the Convention – for their complaint about the treatment to which they were subjected as “degraded” prisoners? In particular, can a complaint to a prosecutor or to a court be regarded as an “effective remedy” and what concrete measures is a prosecutor or a court empowered to take in order to improve their situation? The Government are invited to provide examples, including prosecutors’ infringement reports ( представление об устранении нарушения ) and judicial decisions concerning the particular situation of “degraded” prisoners and the informal prisoner hierarchy in general. The Government are also invited to provide all relevant documents concerning the policy of combatting violence and intimidation in penal institutions linked to the informal prisoner hierarchy that are capable of demonstrating the efficiency of such a policy. CASE SPECIFIC QUESTIONS FOR Applications nos.   44449/15, 44982/15, 46378/15, 59230/15, 59743/15, 60150/15 and 60284/15 3.     Were the applicants subjected to inhuman or degrading treatment as regards the conditions of their detention in the correctional colonies, within the meaning of Article 3 of the Convention?   4.     Did the applicants dispose of effective domestic remedies – as required by Article 13 of the Convention – for their complaint about the conditions of their detention?   APPENDIX No. Application no. Lodged on Applicant name date of birth place of residence Represented by Notes   44449/15 25/08/2015 V.O.   Aleksandr Vladimirovich VINOGRADOV From 19   February 2012 to 8   June   2015 the applicant served his sentence in the IK-1 facility in K.     44982/15 25/08/2015 A.O.   Aleksandr Vladimirovich VINOGRADOV From 15   April 2013 to 30   April 2015 the applicant served his sentence in the IK-4 facility in the K. Region, excluding several periods of short stays at prison hospital no. IK-1 in K.     46378/15 07/09/2015 A.S.   Aleksandr Vladimirovich VINOGRADOV From 22   May 2007 to 16   July 2015 the applicant served his sentence in the IK-7 facility in the K. Region     46694/15 04/09/2015 M.S.   Aleksandr Vladimirovich VINOGRADOV From 5   November   2013 to 10   June   2015 the applicant served his sentence in the IK-1 facility in K.     49247/15 15/09/2015 M.Y. Aleksandr Vladimirovich VINOGRADOV From November   2002 to 20   March   2015 the applicant served his sentence in the IK-1 facility in K.     59230/15 09/11/2015 D.Y.   Aleksandr Vladimirovich VINOGRADOV From 14   August 2011 to 23   June 2015 the applicant served his sentence in the IK-2 facility in the K. Region.     59743/15 09/11/2015 D.Z.   Aleksandr Vladimirovich VINOGRADOV From 14   January 2015 to 9   September   2015 the applicant served his sentence in the IK-1 facility in K.     60150/15 09/11/2015 A.B.   Aleksandr Vladimirovich VINOGRADOV From 25 September 2014 to 31 August 2015 the applicant served his sentence in the IK-1 facility in K.     60284/15 09/11/2015 V.K.   Aleksandr Vladimirovich VINOGRADOV From 8   February 2010 to 26 August 2015 the applicant served his sentence in the IK-2 facility in the K. Region.