CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 10 janvier 2018

.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 } .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 } .sD3B63DAD { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s9296A950 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s4ACA9207 { page-break-before:always; clear:both; mso-break-type:section-break } .s75A32C27 { border-collapse:collapse } .s3695F815 { border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s598389F7 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:10pt } .sEECE831 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; color:#474747 } .sC4B92762 { height:90.5pt } .sE8934522 { border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s6B505E72 { margin:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .s901B8D2A { font-family:Arial; font-size:10pt; list-style-position:inside } .s97296F0 { width:0.81pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s2EB42ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:10pt } .sF20E884 { height:88.25pt } .sF3E0305F { height:69pt } .sB70A263B { height:23.6pt } .s35B3B0A7 { height:17.65pt } .s9589A2DE { border-top:0.75pt solid #949494; border-right:0.75pt solid #949494; border-left:0.75pt solid #949494; border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:0.75pt; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sA53DE089 { height:71.25pt } .sB723F2D { border-top-style:solid; border-top-width:0.75pt; border-right:0.75pt solid #949494; border-left:0.75pt solid #949494; border-bottom:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sD3DCF07F { height:94.45pt } .s5438CF98 { height:116.55pt } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt }   Communicated on 10 January 2018   THIRD SECTION Application no. 18693/14 I.T. against Russia and 8 other applications (see list appended) STATEMENT OF FACTS The applicants are Russian nationals. Their list is set out in the Appendix. A.     The circumstances of the cases The applicants are either life prisoners who are serving their sentences in special-regime correctional colonies, or their close relatives. The life prisoners submit that they are affected by the strict regime of imprisonment, applied to them during the first ten years of post ‑ conviction detention. In particular, they are separated from other convicts, placed in cells holding no more than two persons, remained confined to their cells for the vast majority of their time, and have no work. The details of the individual applications, as submitted by the applicants, are summarised in the Appendix. B.     Relevant domestic law The particularities of the regime of imprisonment applicable for life ‑ prisoners are set out in the Code of Execution of Criminal Sentences, which in the relevant part reads as follows: Article 126. Special-regime correctional colonies for life prisoners “The convicts sentenced to life imprisonment, or death penalty commuted to life imprisonment, serve their sentences separately from other convicts in special regime correctional colonies.” Article 127. Conditions of detention for life prisoners in special regime correctional colonies “1.     As a rule, life prisoners are placed in cells accommodating no more than two persons. They could be placed in solitary confinement at the request of inmates, or under the order of the head of the correctional colony, if he or she decides that personal security of the convict requires so. The requirement of [isolated] confinement should be taken in account when organizing the work of the life prisoners. 2.     Convicts has a right to 90-minutes’ daily outdoor exercise. If they demonstrate good behavior, the time allowed for such exercise may be extended up to two hours. 3.     All convicts arrived to a special regime correctional colony should be placed under a strict regime of imprisonment. They could be transferred to a normal detention regime after no less than ten years of post-conviction detention ...” COMPLAINTS 1.     The applicants claim that the regime of imprisonment applicable to life prisoners during the first ten years of their post-conviction detention is incompatible with the requirements of Article 3 of the Convention. 2.     Relying on Article 13 of the Convention they allege a lack of effective domestic remedies through which to complain about the said regime of imprisonment. 3.     The remaining complaints of the applicants are listed in the Appendix. COMMON QUESTIONS 1.     Have the applicants been subjected to a strict regime of imprisonment on account of their life sentences? Was that regime indiscriminately applied to all life prisoners during the first ten years of post-conviction detention? Did it imply the following measures: (a)     separation of the life convicts from other prison population? (b)     their placement in cells holding no more than two persons? (c)     restriction on daily outdoor exercises? (d)     restriction on available work? (e)     routine handcuffing and/or blindfolding of the convicts? (f)     marking their prison uniform with distinctive signs? (g)     frequent searches? (h)     or other restrictive/security measures? In answering the above questions the parties are invited to quote relevant provisions of the Russian law and prison rules in this area, and to describe how they are put into practice.   2.     Has the regime of imprisonment applied to the applicants during the first ten years of their post-conviction detention constituted inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, within the meaning of Article   3 of the Convention? Has there been a violation of that provision?   3.     Do the applicants have at their disposal effective domestic remedies, as required by Article 13 of the Convention, in respect of their complaints about the regime of imprisonment? CASE SPECIFIC QUESTIONS 1.     Applications nos. 18693/14, 52592/14, 76560/14, 29242/16, 30757/16, and 43813/16 1.     Has there been a violation of Article 3 of the Convention on account of the material conditions of the applicants’ detention in IK-56 in the Sverdlovsk Region?   2.     Do the applicants have at their disposal effective domestic remedies, as required by Article 13 of the Convention, in respect of their complaints about the material conditions of their detention (see Sergey Babushkin v.   Russia , no. 5993/08, §§ 38-45, 28   November 2013)? 2.     Applications nos. 18693/14, 52592/14, 65023/14, 76560/14, 37882/15, and 30757/16 1.     Has there been a violation of Article 8 of the Convention on account of the applicants’ detention in penitentiary facilities located outside their home regions (see Polyakova and Others v. Russia , nos.   35090/09 and   3   others, §§ 90-119, 7 March 2017)?   2.     Do the applicants have at their disposal effective domestic remedies, as required by Article 13 of the Convention, in respect of their complaints about detention in remote facilities? 3.     Applications nos. 18693/14, 52592/14, 65023/14, 76560/14, 37882/15, 15812/16, and 30757/16 1.     Do the restrictions applied to the applicants (or their close relatives) in respect of long-term visits from close relatives, telephone calls and the number of parcels allowed constitute a violation of the applicants’ right to respect for their private and/or family life within the meaning of Article 8 of the Convention? In particular, do these measures constitute an interference with the applicants’ private and/or family life? If so, is that interference justified under Article 8 of the Convention? In particular: (a)     Is the interference “prescribed by law”? (b)     If so, does it pursue one or more of the legitimate aims referred to in Article 8 § 2 of the Convention? (c)     If so, is it “necessary in a democratic society” to achieve those aims? Are the restrictions applied to prisoners under high-security conditions proportionate to the legitimate aim pursued? Do the provisions of the Russian Code on the Execution of Sentences on high-security conditions restricting convicts’ rights take into account the relevant individual circumstances of each life prisoner? Do they take into account the needs in respect of prisoners’ rehabilitation and reintegration into free society? The Government are invited to comment separately on these questions in respect of the periods prior to and after the judgment of the Constitutional Court of Russia of 15 November 2016 no. 24-П/2016.   2.     Do the applicants have at their disposal effective domestic remedies, as required by Article 13 of the Convention, in respect of their complaints about the restrictions on visits, telephone calls and the number of parcels allowed? APPENDIX No. App. No Lodged on Applicant Date of birth   Place of detention The applicant’s particular complaint(s)   18693/14 24/06/2014 I.T.   IK-6, Elban, Khabarovsk Region Art. 3: material conditions of detention in IK-56, Lozvinskiy, Sverdlovsk Region, from 14/05/2009 to 03/09/2017   Art. 8: transfer to a remote detention facility for serving the custodial sentence   Art.8: limitations on family visits, telephone calls and the number of allowed parcels during the first 10 years of post-conviction detention   52592/14* 24/06/2014 Igor Viktorovich KOROBOV 02/08/1988   IK-56, Lozvinskiy, Sverdlovsk Region Art. 3: material conditions of detention in the correctional colony   Art. 8: transfer to a remote detention facility for serving the custodial sentence   Art. 8: limitations on family visits, telephone calls and the number of allowed parcels during the first 10 years of post-conviction detention   65023/14 05/08/2014 Sergey Ivanovich IONOV 20/11/1980     IK-56, Lozvinskiy, Sverdlovsk Region Art. 8: transfer to a remote detention facility for serving the custodial sentence   Art. 8: limitations on family visits, telephone calls and the number of allowed parcels during the first 10 years of post-conviction detention   76560/14 21/11/2014 A.K.   IK-6, Elban, Khabarovsk Region Art. 3: material conditions of detention in IK-56, Lozvinskiy, Sverdlovsk Region, from 04/11/2010 to 02/09/2017   Art. 8: transfer to a remote detention facility for serving the custodial sentence   Art. 8: limitations on family visits, telephone calls and the number of allowed parcels during the first 10 years of post-conviction detention   37882/15* 22/10/2015   A.S.   IK-56, Lozvinskiy, Sverdlovsk Region Art. 8: transfer to a remote detention facility for serving the custodial sentence   Art. 8: limitations on family visits, telephone calls and the number of allowed parcels during the first 10 years of post-conviction detention   15812/16* 04/03/2016 Oleg Maksimovich LIMAREV 16/09/1981       IK-18, Kharp, Yamalo-Nenetskiy Region Art. 8: limitations on family visits, telephone calls and the number of allowed parcels during the first 10 years of post-conviction detention     22/06/2016         14/09/2016 Maksim Nikolaevich LIMAREV 12/09/1961   Valentina Nikolaevna LIMAREVA 23/09/1959     29242/16 29/04/2016 Sergey Nikolayevich KALININ 03/07/1971   IK-56, Lozvinskiy, Sverdlovsk Region Art. 3: material conditions of detention in the correctional colony.   30757/16* 29/03/2016 Mansur Visaitovich RAZHAYEV 12/03/1977   IK-6, Elban, Khabarovsk Region Art. 3: material conditions of detention in IK-56, Lozvinskiy, Sverdlovsk Region, from 27/08/2012 to 25/01/2016)   Art. 8: transfer to a remote detention facility for serving the custodial sentence   Art. 8: limitations on family visits, telephone calls and the number of allowed parcels during the first 10 years of post-conviction detention       43813/16* 01/07/2016 Ruslan Magomedovich GATAGAZHEV 09/05/1976   Aleksey Nikolayevich LUGACHEV 23/08/1979 IK-56, Lozvinskiy, Sverdlovsk Region   Art. 3: material conditions of detention in the correctional colony