CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 3 février 2017

.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 } .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 } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both }   Communicated on 3 February 2017   THIRD SECTION Applications nos. 41181/16, 61978/16 and 77227/16 S.Y. against Russia and V.K. against Russia and V. I. against Russia lodged on 4 July, 18 October and 2 December 2016 respectively STATEMENT OF FACTS The applicants are Russian nationals. They are represented before the Court by Mr A. Vinogradov, a lawyer practising in Kostroma. 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 Kostroma Region. While in detention, the applicants were placed in the lowest caste in the informal prisoner hierarchy, “the degraded” ( опущенные , обиженные ) or “roosters” ( петухи ) because one of them had touched excrement during his previous stint in the prison and another had been forced to provide sexual services to a higher-caste prisoner. The third applicant did not disclose the reason. 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. Ten to twelve beds in the dormitory were earmarked for the “degraded” who were not allowed to sleep in any other beds. If no free beds for the newly arrived “degraded” were available, he had to sleep on the floor under another “degraded” inmate’s bed, it was known as “sleeping on ground zero”. One of the applicants spent more than two weeks in that position. The “degraded” were assigned to do menial chores, such as cleaning pit latrines or exercise yards. Both applicants had to clean the toilet room comprising five toilet bowls sunk in the floor and a two-metre-long tiled urinal, with their bare hands. Sulphuric acid was used for cleaning toilet bowls and the applicants were not given any protection against vapours. The applicants worked long hours and were subjected to regular insults and abuse, particularly from younger detainees. 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. 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 facility management tolerated the informal hierarchy among prisoners, using the “degraded” for the most unpleasant and dirty work. One of the applicants who had been forced to provide sexual services to other detainees was infected with HIV. He tested negative for HIV on his admission to the facility in March 2012 but tested positive in January 2016. Despite his requests, the facility management refused him therapy. He was told “you will get treatment after release” which was a reference to his forthcoming release in September 2016. B.     Conditions of detention The applicant S.Y. submits that the facility was severely overcrowded, with 120 to 150 prisoners sharing a 180-square-metre dormitory. The applicant V.K. also describes an extreme state of overcrowding: up to a hundred prisoners live in a sixty-square-metre dormitory. The open area outside (локальный участок) was fenced off with three-metre-high metal sheets and was so small that one hundred detainees could barely move about. There was no air flow or wind because of the high fence. The area was not fitted with any sports equipment or an awning for bad weather. The bath house had only four water taps and the water pressure was insufficient even for that number of taps. The applicant V.I. gave a similar description. COMPLAINT The applicants complain under Articles 3 and 13 of the Convention about poor conditions of their detention in general and about their degrading status in the prisoners’ informal hierarchy in particular.       QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 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 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.   3.     Were the applicants subjected to inhuman or degrading treatment as regards the general conditions of their detention in the correctional colonies, within the meaning of Article 3 of the Convention?