CEDH · PRESS;CHAMBERJUDGMENTS;ENG — 29 mars 2007

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s40F41F73 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s653E6C45 { font-family:Arial; font-size:6.67pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .s4B8D41EE { font-family:Arial; font-size:10pt } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .sADADF4A7 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline } .sC7EAD8B { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left } .s2EB42ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:10pt } EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS 196 29.3.2007 Press release issued by the Registrar   CHAMBER JUDGMENT ANDREY FROLOV v. RUSSIA   The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing its Chamber judgment [1] in the case of Andrey Frolov v. Russia (application no. 205/02).   The Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment) of the European Convention on Human Rights on account of the applicant’s detention conditions.   Under Article 41 (just satisfaction) of the Convention, the Court awarded the applicant 15,000 euros (EUR) in respect of non-pecuniary damage. (The judgment is available only in English.)   1.     Principal facts   The applicant was born in 1967 and lived until his arrest in St. Petersburg. He is now serving a prison sentence in the Leningrad Region.   On 14 January 1999 he was arrested on suspicion of robbery and detained in a police cell in St Petersburg until 21 January 1999, when he was transferred to detention facility no. IZ-47/1 in St. Petersburg, known as “Kresty”.   At his trial before St. Petersburg City Court the applicant was represented by his mother and counsel. They submitted evidence and successfully applied to have additional witnesses called and certain items of evidence presented by the prosecution excluded.   On 20 September 2001 St. Petersburg City Court found the applicant guilty on several counts of robbery, establishing a criminal enterprise and the aggravated offence of selling criminally acquired property. He was sentenced to 16 years’ imprisonment. The court based its judgment on the applicant’s partial confession in open court, the oral evidence of the co-defendants, victims and witnesses at the trial, expert opinions and the evidence.   The applicant appealed, complaining in particular about the failure to apply an amnesty law. His appeal was rejected.   The applicant was held in detention facility no. IZ-47/1 until 16 February 2003. According to a certificate produced by the Government, he was held in 11 different cells, each measuring eight square metres, with six bunks. The Government stated that no information on the number of inmates in the cells was available, as the documents had been destroyed. The applicant alleged that he had usually shared the cells with 12 to 14 detainees and that inmates therefore had to sleep in shifts.   The Government submitted that: all cells were equipped with a lavatory pan which was separated from the living area by a curtain; the cells were disinfected once a week; inmates were allowed to shower and given new bedding once a week; the cells were naturally ventilated; there was central heating and lighting in the cells; the applicant was fed in accordance with legal norms and the food quality was regularly checked; and, the applicant had at least a one-hour walk daily.   The applicant maintained that: the cells were dimly lit; windows were covered with thick metal bars that blocked access to natural light and fresh air; it was cold in winter and stuffy and damp in summer; the ventilation system was blocked; inmates had to make curtains to separate the lavatory pan from the rest of the cell; all the inmates in the cell had six minutes once a week to shower together – although there were only six shower heads – with no toiletries; his bedding was provided on arrival and not changed; food was of low quality and in scarce supply; and meat and eggs were not provided, in contravention of Government regulations.   The parties disputed the treatment that the applicant had received for tuberculosis in the facility.   On 19 June 2001 the applicant complained to the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation about the inadequate conditions of his detention, his poor state of health and the authorities’ failure to grant him an amnesty. The complaint was forwarded to the Ministry of Justice, which considered his complaints to be unsubstantiated.   On 22 May 2002 he complained to the St. Petersburg Department of the Ministry of Justice that he was being held in appalling conditions. The outcome of those proceedings is unclear.   2.     Procedure and composition of the Court   The application was lodged with the European Court of Human Rights on 26 November 2001.   Judgment was given by a Chamber of seven judges, composed as follows:   Christos Rozakis (Greek), President , Loukis Loucaides (Cypriot), Nina Vajić (Croatian), Anatoli Kovler (Russian), Elisabeth Steiner (Austrian), Khanlar Hajiyev (Azerbaijani), Dean Spielmann (Luxemburger), judges , and also Søren Nielsen , Section Registrar . 3.     Summary of the judgment [2]   Complaints Relying on Article 3, the applicant complained about his detention conditions. He further alleged, under Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial) and Article 7 (no punishment without law), that the judgments of the domestic courts were wrong, as the courts had wrongly interpreted and applied the law and incorrectly assessed evidence, and that the amnesty law had not been applied in his case.   Decision of the Court   Article 3   The Court found a violation of Article 3 on the basis of the facts which had been presented, and, in principle, were undisputed by the Russian Government, and therefore did not find it necessary to establish the accuracy of each of the applicant’s allegations concerning the conditions of his detention.   The parties agreed on the size of the cells. The Government also agreed that the cells could have been overcrowded, but did not offer any convincing explanation for failing to indicate the exact number of inmates in the cells. The Court reiterated that, where a Government alone had access to information capable of corroborating or refuting allegations, a failure on its part to submit such information without a satisfactory explanation might give rise to the drawing of inferences as to the well-foundedness of the applicant’s allegations   The applicant argued that the cells, measuring eight sq. m, had six bunks and usually accommodated 12 to 14 inmates. It followed that inmates had had to take turns to rest and had had less than 0.7 sq. m of personal space. For more than four years the applicant had been confined to his cell day and night, save for one hour of daily outdoor exercise.   Irrespective of the reasons for the overcrowding, the Court considered that it was incumbent on the Government to organise its prisons in such a way as to ensure respect for the dignity of detainees, regardless of financial or logistical difficulties. Although there was no indication of any positive intention to humiliate or debase the applicant, the fact that he was obliged to live, sleep and use the toilet in the same cell with so many other inmates for more than four years was itself sufficient to cause distress or hardship of an intensity exceeding the unavoidable level of suffering inherent in detention, and arouse in him feelings of fear, anguish and inferiority capable of humiliating and debasing him. The Court therefore held that there had been a violation of Article 3 on account of the conditions of the applicant’s detention in facility no. IZ-47/1.   Article 6   The Court noted that the domestic courts carefully evaluated the evidence at their disposal, including statements by witnesses and the documentary evidence. The applicant was able to present his case and submit evidence and to challenge evidence presented by the prosecution. He had had an opportunity to present his case to a court under conditions which did not place him at a disadvantage vis-à-vis the prosecution. He had also appealed against the trial court’s judgment to a higher-instance court. The reasoning in the courts’ judgments properly reflected their assessment of the circumstances that militated for and against the conclusion reached. As a result, the Court found no indication that the applicant’s right to a fair hearing had not been respected. The complaint was therefore manifestly ill-founded and inadmissible.   Article 7   The Court observed that the applicant had not disputed that the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation provided a statutory basis for the offences of which he had been convicted. Those provisions were publicly accessible and their application should have been sufficiently clear and foreseeable to the applicant. The penalty imposed by the trial court did not exceed the maximum penalty laid down in the Criminal Code for the offences of which the applicant was found guilty. Furthermore, the Court noted that the Convention did not guarantee a right to the application of an amnesty. The complaint was therefore manifestly ill-founded and inadmissible.   Other articles   The applicant made a number of other complaints relating to the period when the criminal proceedings were pending against him. Those proceedings ended on 9 December 2002. The applicant did not dispute that he had been aware of the 9 December 2002 ruling from the outset and that he had not raised those complaints with the Russian authorities after that date. The first time he made those complaints to the Court was in his letter of 16 September 2004 (ie. more than six months after the last decision at national level). That part of the application was therefore introduced out of time and inadmissible.   ** ** **   The Court’s judgments are accessible on its Internet site ( http://www.echr.coe.int ).     Press contacts Emma Hellyer (telephone: 00 33 (0)3 90 21 42 15) Stéphanie Klein (telephone: 00 33 (0)3 88 41 21 54) Beverley Jacobs (telephone: 00 33 (0)3 90 21 54 21)   The European Court of Human Rights was set up in Strasbourg by the Council of Europe Member States in 1959 to deal with alleged violations of the 1950 European Convention on Human Rights.   [1] Under Article 43 of the Convention, within three months from the date of a Chamber judgment, any party to the case may, in exceptional cases, request that the case be referred to the 17 ‑ member Grand Chamber of the Court. In that event, a panel of five judges considers whether the case raises a serious question affecting the interpretation or application of the Convention or its protocols, or a serious issue of general importance, in which case the Grand Chamber will deliver a final judgment. If no such question or issue arises, the panel will reject the request, at which point the judgment becomes final. Otherwise Chamber judgments become final on the expiry of the three-month period or earlier if the parties declare that they do not intend to make a request to refer. [2] This summary by the Registry does not bind the Court.