CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 22 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 } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic }   Communicated on 22 January 2018   THIRD SECTION Application no. 82352/17 Anton Alekseyevich KOROSTELEV and Aleksey Aleksandrovich PULYALIN against Russia lodged on 9 December 2013 SUBJECT MATTER OF the CASE The application concerns the applicants’ solitary confinement in remand prison no. 1 in Syktyvkar, the Komi Republic, and the existence of an effective domestic remedy in that respect. QUESTIONS 1.     When did the applicants’ solitary confinement in remand prison no.   1 in Syktyvkar, the Komi Republic come to an end?   2.     Was the negative effect of the applicants’ solitary confinement mitigated by their access to outdoor exercise, participation in the court hearings or other factors?   3.     What was the justification for their solitary confinement?   4.     Was the applicants’ solitary confinement attended by procedural safeguards? In particular, did the detention authority assess the applicants’ physical and psychological aptitude for long-term isolation, or regularly monitor their physical and psychological conditions to ensure its compatibility with continued solitary confinement?   5.     Have there been a violation of Article 3 of the Convention on account of the applicants’ solitary confinement in remand prison no. 1 in Syktyvkar, the Komi Republic (see A.L. (X.W.) v. Russia , no. 44095/14, §§ 74-82, 29   October 2015; Gorbulya v. Russia , no. 31535/09, §§ 76-81, 6   March 2014; and Borodin v. Russia , no. 41867/04, § 129, 6   November 2012)?   6.     Did the applicants have at their disposal an effective domestic remedy as required by Article 13 of the Convection to complain about their solitary confinement?