CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 4 mai 2006

.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. 86 May 2006 Kadiķis v. Latvia - 62393/00 Judgment 4.5.2006 [Section III] Article 3 Degrading treatment Inhuman treatment Overpopulation in detention facility, confinement and lack of food and water: violation   Facts : The applicant was sentenced to fifteen days’ “administrative detention” for contempt of court under the Administrative Offences Code. He served his sentence in the temporary isolation unit of the local State police headquarters. Law : Article 3 – For fifteen days, the applicant had been detained in an overcrowded cell in which his share of the space varied in that time between 0.5 and 1.5 sq. m, with no natural light and often no fresh air. He had been allowed no outdoor exercise and, apart from brief visits to the toilet and washrooms, had never left the cell, which he shared with four or five other detainees. He had not had a bed or an individual bunk and had been forced to sleep fully clothed on a wooden deck, lying against the other detainees. The applicant had received only one meal a day, being given bread the rest of the time. Detainees had not been allowed to receive food from outside. There had been no water in the cell and the applicant had been able to obtain drinking water only when he visited the toilets or washrooms, despite the heat of which he also complained. Hence, the applicant had not been properly fed and undoubtedly had not had enough to drink, notwithstanding the obligation on the part of the national authorities to provide for the health and general well-being of detainees. The treatment to which he had been subjected amounted to “degrading treatment”. Conclusion : violation. Article 13 – The applicant had had no effective remedy by which to complain of the conditions of his detention. Conclusion : violation. Article 41 – The Court made an award for non-pecuniary damage.   © 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