CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 20 janvier 2005

.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 } .s9FF10068 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt } .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. 71 January 2005 Mayzit v. Russia - 63378/00 Judgment 20.1.2005 [Section I] Article 3 Inhuman treatment Degrading conditions of pre-trial detention: violation   Article 5 Article 5-4 Speediness of review Application for release from detention decided 4 months and 15 days after being lodged: violation   Facts : Criminal investigations were opened against the applicant for a shooting incident. He was detained on this account for short periods in 1998 and 1999. On the basis of further investigations, the authorities ordered anew the applicant’s detention for having changed his residence, failing to appear for interrogations and hampering the proceedings. He was detained in a remand centre from July 2000 until 7 March 2001 (and from mid-May to mid-July 2001). The size of the six cells in which he was successively kept were very small, overcrowded and their average surface left about 1 square metre per person. Detainees were obliged to sleep in turns and allowed to wash only every 10 days. The applicant lodged an application for release with the District Court on 30 July 2000. The case was successively remitted to other courts for review. On 15 December 2000 the District Court rejected the application for release. In the subsequent criminal trial the court appointed a defence counsel, after the applicant had refused eight different counsels. During the trial, the court rejected the applicant’s request to be represented by his mother and sister, as the case was complex and required special legal knowledge. The applicant was sentenced to six years imprisonment. The sentence was partly lowered in appeal proceedings. Moreover, in subsequent supervisory review proceedings, the Supreme Court rendered a judgment which in part found in the applicant’s favour. Law : Article 3 – The applicant had been kept for a total of 9 months and 14 days in cells for six to ten inmates, leaving around 1.3 and 2.51 square metres for each inmate. The European Committee for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment   (CPT) has set 7 square metres per prisoner as desirable. The Court was aware of the overcrowding in Russian pre-trial detention centres, but, in the instant case, leaving less than 2 square metres on average per prisoner raised an issue under this provision. The Court did go into details concerning the sanitary conditions, which the applicant alleged were dirty, infested with bugs and let in very little light, whilst the Government described them as satisfactory. Although there were no indications of an intention to humiliate or debase the applicant, enduring such conditions for more than nine months must have undermined his human dignity and aroused in him feelings of humiliation and debasement. In the light of the above, the applicant’s conditions of detention had amounted to a degrading treatment. Conclusion : violation (unanimously). Article 5 § 4 – The District Court had dealt with the applicant’s application for release 4   months and 15 days after he had lodged it. It was only at this stage that the court decided to keep the applicant in detention pending trial. This period was not “speedy” as domestic law established that an application had to be decided by the courts not later than five days after being sent by a detainee. The whole period was attributable to the authorities. Conclusion : violation (unanimously). Article 6 § 3(c) – The general requirement of the Code of Criminal Procedure was that defenders should be professional advocates. Thus, the restriction imposed on the applicant’s choice of representation, which had been limited to excluding his mother and sister, had been legitimate, since as lay persons the District Court had found they would not have been able to ensure the efficient defence of the applicant in compliance with the procedure. Conclusion : no violation (unanimously). Article 6 § 3(b) – The applicant had been given sufficient “time” to prepare for the trial. Whilst his conditions of detention did not favour intense mental work, no restrictions were placed on his access to the case-file. The allegations of lack of access to law books and having been placed in a tight cell the days of the court hearings remained unsubstantiated. Conclusion : no violation (unanimously). Article 41 – The Court awarded the applicant 3,000 euros 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