CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 16 janvier 2020

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s379BC09C { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .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 } .s339D85E6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s665E407E { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s6DB91820 { text-align:center } .s8BB62139 { margin-right:auto; margin-left:auto; border-collapse:collapse } .sEA321EE2 { border-top:0.75pt solid #5f5f5f; border-right:0.75pt solid #f8f8f8; border-left:0.75pt solid #5f5f5f; border-bottom:0.75pt solid #5f5f5f; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#5f5f5f } .s2EF62ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .s3FAB130A { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; color:#f8f8f8 } .sE8D23146 { border-top:0.75pt solid #5f5f5f; border-right:0.75pt solid #f8f8f8; border-left:0.75pt solid #f8f8f8; border-bottom:0.75pt solid #5f5f5f; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#5f5f5f } .s69AE3175 { border-top:0.75pt solid #5f5f5f; border-right:0.75pt solid #5f5f5f; border-left:0.75pt solid #f8f8f8; border-bottom:0.75pt solid #5f5f5f; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#5f5f5f } .sAE011EF4 { border:0.75pt solid #5f5f5f; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sEA7BCE7D { border:0.75pt solid #0072bc; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#e8e8e8 } Communicated on 16 January 2020 Published on 3 February 2020   THIRD SECTION Application no. 46807/18 Andrey Sergeyevich GADZHIYEV against Russia and 4 other applications (see list appended) SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASES The cases concern the application of handcuffs to life prisoners. The applicants were convicted of different crimes. Since conviction they serve their sentences in special regime prisons for lifers and they have to wear handcuffs every time they leave their cells allegedly without any legal ground (see Kashavelov v. Bulgaria , no. 891/05, §§ 39 and 40, 20 January 2011, and Kaverzin v. Ukraine , no. 23893/03, §§ 151 63, 15 May 2012). Some of the applicants also complain about poor conditions of detention (see Ananyev and Others v. Russia , nos. 42525/07 and 60800/08, §§ 120-66, 10 January 2012), forced shaving (see Yankov v. Bulgaria , no. 39084/97, §§   99-122, ECHR 2003 XII (extracts)), video surveillance in cells (see Gorlov and Others v. Russia , nos. 27057/06 and 2 others, §§ 58-100, 2 July 2019), segregation on account of the life prisoner status (see Harakchiev and Tolumov v. Bulgaria , nos. 15018/11 and 61199/12, §§ 179-214, ECHR   2014 (extracts)), discrimination and lack of effective remedies to protect their rights. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Questions on measures applied to life prisoners:   (a)     Did the systematic application of handcuffs to applicants in all cases, separation of the life convict from other prison population (application no.   18181/19), and forced shaving (application no. 46807/18) constitute inhuman or degrading treatment within the meaning of Article 3 of the Convention (see Yankov v. Bulgaria , no. 39084/97, §§ 99-122, ECHR   2003 ‑ XII (extracts); Kashavelov v. Bulgaria , no. 891/05, §§ 39-40, 20   January 2011; Kaverzin v. Ukraine , no. 23893/03, §§ 151-63, 15 May 2012, Harakchiev and Tolumov v. Bulgaria , nos. 15018/11 and 61199/12, §§ 179-214, ECHR 2014 (extracts))? The Government are invited to comment on the way the applicants were handcuffed. In particular, were they handcuffed in an awkward bending position with their hands behind their back (“swallow position”)? The Government are invited to indicate periods when the applicants were subjected to the above measures and to provide supporting documents relating to the application of these measures. Did the above measures apply automatically to all life prisoners? What were the reasons and legal grounds for applying the above measures to the applicants?   (b)     As regards applications nos. 46807/18, 8301/19 and 18181/19, did the applicants have effective domestic remedies in respect of the above complaints, as guaranteed by Article 13 of the Convention? The Government are invited to provide examples of domestic case-law relating to the above measures in respect of life prisoners to illustrate the practical effectiveness of the existing remedies, if any.   (c)     As regards application no. 46807/18, did the applicant suffer discrimination in the enjoyment of his Convention rights on account of being handcuffed on the ground of his life prisoner status, contrary to Article 14 of the Convention, read in conjunction with Article 3?   2.     Conditions of detention:   (a)     As regards application no. 18181/19, were the conditions of the applicant’s detention in a correctional colony compatible with Article 3 of the Convention (see Sergey Babushkin v. Russia , no. 5993/08, §§ 46-58, 28   November 2013; Gorbulya v. Russia , no. 31535/09, §§ 64-81, 92-98, 6   March 2014; and Dolgov and Silayev v. Russia [Committee], no.   11215/10 and 55068/12, § 26, 4 October 2016)?   (b)     As regards application no. 18181/19, did the applicant have at his disposal an effective domestic remedy for the complaint about conditions of detention under Article 3, as required by Article 13 of the Convention (see Sergey Babushkin , cited above, §§ 36-45)?   3.     Video surveillance in prison:   (a)     As regards application no. 46807/18, was the applicant subjected to constant video surveillance during his detention in a remand prison? If so, did that measure constitute an interference with his private life? If so, was it justified under Article 8 § 2 of the Convention (see Gorlov and Others v.   Russia , nos. 27057/06 and 2 others, §§ 58-100, 2 July 2019)? In particular: Was the interference “prescribed by law”? If so, did it pursue one or more of the legitimate aims referred to in Article 8 § 2 of the Convention? If so, was it “necessary in a democratic society” to achieve those aims? In particular, could those aims have been achieved by using less intrusive means?   (b)     As regards application no. 46807/18, did the applicant have at his disposal an effective domestic remedy for his complaint about video surveillance, as required by Article 13 of the Convention? APPENDIX   No. Application no. Case name Lodged on Applicant Date of Birth Place of Residence Nationality 1 46807/18 Gadzhiyev v. Russia 17/09/2018 Andrey Sergeyevich GADZHIYEV 01/04/1978 Elban, Khabarovsk Region Russian 2 59463/18 Khashagulgov v. Russia 05/12/2018 Issa Lokhanovich KHASHAGULGOV 11/01/1968 Elban, Khabarovsk Region Russian 3 8301/19 Ostolopov v. Russia 14/01/2019 Maksim Igorevich OSTOLOPOV 15/03/1983 St Petersburg Russian 4 18181/19 Ishimov v. Russia 20/03/2019 Aleksandr Valentinovich ISHIMOV 11/11/1965 Ognennyy, Vologda Region Russian 5 21061/19 Dukh v. Russia 26/03/2019 Arsen Stepanovich DUKH 27/03/1999 Vorkuta, Komi Republic Russian