CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 24 mars 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 } .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 }   Communicated on 24 March 2017   THIRD SECTION Applications nos. 78224/16 and 78399/16 A.M. (anonymity has been granted) against Russia lodged on 17 November 2016 and Y.M. (anonymity has been granted) against Russia lodged on 29 November 2016 STATEMENT OF FACTS The applicants are Russian nationals. The applicant Y.M. is represented before the Court by Mr A.Vinogradov, a lawyer practising in Kostroma. The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicants, may be summarised as follows. A.     Informal hierarchy in correctional colonies The applicant A.M. has been serving his sentence in a penal facility in the Irkutsk Region since 2005. The applicant Y.M. had served his sentence in a correctional colony in the Kostroma Region until 2016. While in detention, the applicants were placed in the lowest caste in the informal prisoner hierarchy, “the degraded” ( опущенные , обиженные, социально пониженный статус ) or “roosters” ( петухи ). One of the applicants had been pronounced to be “degraded” and forced to provide sexual services during his previous stint in the prison. The other 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. Specific beds in the dormitory were earmarked for “the degraded” who were not allowed to sleep in any other beds. 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 “degraded” were assigned to do menial chores, such as cleaning pit latrines or exercise yards. In addition, the applicant Y.M. was forced to provide sexual services to other prisoners who requested them. He was given tobacco, tea or candy by way of payment. The facility management tolerated the informal hierarchy among prisoners. In 2015, the applicant A.M. brought a civil claim against the facility management, seeking to recover non-pecuniary damages in connection with their failure to provide him with bed linen, hygienic articles and to protect him against discrimination on account of his status in the informal hierarchy. He enclosed written statements by his co-detainees who corroborated his allegations. On 12 May 2015 the Tverskoy District Court in Moscow rejected his claim, holding that the applicant A.M. had failed to submit any evidence showing that the facility management had acted unlawfully. The applicant A.M. also complained about his stigmatisation to the Russian Ombudsman who replied to him as follows: “Your application ... concerning violations of rights and legitimate interests of convicted prisons who (according to you) possess a degraded social status and who serve their sentences in ... has been examined. I do not deny that we are well aware, and not just from films or books, about the problem of having convicted prisoners divided into castes ... However, pursuant to Article 19 § 1 of the Russian Constitution, all people shall be equal before the law and court. In respect of convicted prisoners, this requirement means that all convicted prisoners are equal before the Penitentiary Code ... It must be pointed out that our applicable legislation does not contain any provisions allowing penal officers to humiliate convicted prisoners or one group of prisoners to humiliate others. It is hardly conceivable that any facility director or any supervising prosecutor would publicly admit that nearly all penal facilities secretly subdivide prisoners into “privileged” (блатные), “men” (мужики), “bucks” (козлы), “degraded social status” (социально пониженный статус), as well as “activists”, “reds”, “blacks”, etc.; in other words, it is unlikely they would admit that they disrespected the [equality] requirements of the law. For that reason, any direct inquiry or complaint about the existing extra-legal conditions of detention of prisoners having a degraded social status will elicit a predictable response from those authorities: the subdivision of convicted prisoners into different status groups in such or such facility has not been established and there has therefore been no evidence of humiliation or inhuman and degrading treatment.” The Ombudsman advised A.M. to use the existing domestic remedies, including applications to supervising prosecutors, courts, public monitoring commissions and human rights defenders, and informed him that his complaint was officially forwarded to the Irkutsk regional prosecutor for consideration. On 27 January 2016 the Irkutsk regional prosecutor forwarded the complaint to the Krasnoyarsk regional prosecutor who, in turn, sent it to the district prosecutor’s office and to the director of the penal facility where A.M. was held. On 7 April 2016 the district prosecutor wrote to A.M. that his allegations were unfounded and that all prisoners, without distinction, could use any living premises and equipment in compliance with the day schedule. B.     Conditions of detention of the applicant Y.M. The applicant Y.M. submits that the facility was severely overcrowded with up to a hundred prisoners sharing 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. COMPLAINTS The applicants complain under Articles 3 and 13 of the Convention about their degrading status in the prisoners’ informal hierarchy and the absence of an effective remedy in this connection. The applicant Y.M. also complains under Article 3 about the general conditions of his detention.   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.     Was the applicant Y.M. subjected to inhuman or degrading treatment as regards the general conditions of his detention, within the meaning of Article   3 of the Convention?