CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 15 janvier 2007

.s3ABFC313 { font-size:10pt } .sEB86A30B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; page-break-after:avoid } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .sA241FE93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-align:justify; page-break-after:avoid; border-bottom:0.75pt solid #000000; padding-bottom:1pt } .s2EF62ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s8F2B0B1B { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:12pt } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s5F48796F { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s5CB9E8AB { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; border-bottom:1pt solid #000000; padding-bottom:1pt } .sDF790F1E { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s3DC36BA9 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } Information Note on the Court’s case-law No. 93 January 2007 Druzenko and Others v. Ukraine (dec.) - 17674/02 Decision 15.1.2007 [Section V] Article 3 Degrading treatment Inhuman treatment Assault of prison inmates by police in training exercise and conditions of detention: admissible   Article 34 Hinder the exercise of the right of petition Alleged pressure put on prisoners by prison authorities to withdraw their application to the Court: admissible   The 13 applicants were prisoners in a State penitentiary at the material time. They allege that on two separate occasions (May 2001 and January 2002) the penitentiaries were stormed by members of the “Berkut” special police on a training exercise conducted under the supervision of the prison authorities. Cells were taken by force and the inmates beaten with rifle butts and batons and forced to strip naked. Some of the prisoners sustained serious injuries including broken bones, severed tendons, concussion and trauma to the spine. Those who had complained to the authorities following the first assault were subjected to particularly harsh treatment in the second. The applicants also allege that conditions generally in the penitentiary were bad (overcrowding, lack of an adequate diet, medical treatment or heating and arbitrary use of disciplinary penalties and solitary confinement). All their complaints to the authorities were rejected as being unsubstantiated. The applicants also say that their correspondence was interfered with and that the first applicant received 15 days' solitary confinement when it was discovered that he had been corresponding with the Court. Admissible under Articles   3, 8, 13 and 34. Inadmissible under Articles   9, 10 and 14 of the Convention and Article   3 of Protocol No. 1: the applicants' complaints that the penitentiaries did not allow freedom of religion and that pressure had been put on prisoners to vote for particular parties or candidates at elections amounted to a request for an abstract review of the relevant practices and regulations: lack of victim status .   © Council of Europe/European Court of Human Rights This summary by the Registry does not bind the Court. Click here for the Case-Law Information Notes