CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 12 décembre 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 } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic }   Communicated on 12 December 2017   THIRD SECTION Application no. 33140/15 V.P. against Russia lodged on 20 January 2016 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the conditions in which the applicant has served a custodial sentence in a remote correctional facility. QUESTIONS tO THE PARTIES 1.     Were the conditions of the applicant’s detention in the IK-2 facility compatible with Article 3 of the Convention (see Butko v. Russia , no.   32036/10, §§ 50-64, 12 November 2015)?   2.     Did the restrictions allegedly inherent to the applicant’s lowest status in the informal prisoners hierarchy amount to inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment in breach of Article 3 of the Convention? Was the applicant discriminated against on account of his sexual orientation, in breach of Article 14 of the Convention taken in conjunction with Article 3?   3.     Was it compatible with Article 8 of the Convention that the applicant was sent to serve his sentence located more than 7,000 kilometres away from where his family lived (see Polyakova and Others v. Russia , nos.   35090/09 and 3   others, §§ 117-18, 7 March 2017, and Khodorkovskiy and Lebedev v. Russia , nos.   11082/06 and 13772/05, §§ 835-51, 25 July 2013)?