CEDH · PRESS;CHAMBERJUDGMENTS;ENG — 7 juin 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 } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sADADF4A7 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline } .sC7EAD8B { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left } .s2EB42ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:10pt } EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS   391 7.6.2007   Press release issued by the Registrar   CHAMBER JUDGMENT IGOR IVANOV v. RUSSIA   The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing its Chamber judgment [1] in the case of Igor Ivanov v. Russia (application no. 34000/02).   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.   Under Article 41 (just satisfaction) of the Convention, the Court awarded the applicant 5,000   euros (EUR) in respect of non-pecuniary damage. (The judgment is available only in English.)   1.     Principal facts   The applicant, Igor Sergeyevich Ivanov, is a Russian national who was born in 1963 and lives in Savvino (Russia).   On 26 December 2000 Mr Ivanov was arrested and remanded in custody on charges of, in particular, aggravated robbery and abuse of position. He was convicted as charged on 23   January 2002 and sentenced to 11 years’ imprisonment, later reduced to six years.   From 29   December 2000 to 28 June 2002 Mr Ivanov was detained in two different prison facilities in Moscow.   According to Mr Ivanov, both prison facilities were overcrowded: in the first prison facility 25 inmates had to share a cell of 23.4 sq. m. and in the second facility 38 inmates had to share 32.74 sq.m. There were more detainees than bunks so inmates, including the applicant, had had to sleep in shifts. The applicant also alleged that he had been confined to his cell day and night for approximately a year and a half.   According to the Government, information on the number of inmates in the first and second facilities was not available due to documents having been destroyed. It did, however, note that warders, who had worked in the first prison facility at the same time as Mr Ivanov had been detained there, stated that the applicant had shared the cell with five or six other detainees. The Government further argued that the second prison facility’s director had issued a certificate stating that the applicant’s cell had held seven or eight inmates.   Disagreeing with the Government that his detention conditions in both facilities had been satisfactory, Mr   Ivanov complained about his cells having been dimly lit with unglazed windows and occupied by rats. He also complained that the food was insufficient and of poor quality.   Mr Ivanov further alleged that the appalling detention conditions had resulted in him contracting a serious bacterial skin infection and that he had not been adequately treated.   Mr Ivanov was released on parole on 25 March 2005.   2.     Procedure and composition of the Court   The application was lodged with the European Court of Human Rights on 5 August 2002.   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), Sverre Erik Jebens (Norwegian), Giorgio Malinverni (Swiss), judges , and also Søren Nielsen , Section Registrar .   3.     Summary of the judgment [2]   Complaints   Relying on Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment), Article 5 (right to liberty and security) and Article 6 (right to a fair trial), Mr Ivanov complained about the apalling conditions, unlawfulness and excessive length of his detention on remand and the unfairness of the criminal proceedings against him.   Decision of the Court   Article 3 The Court examined Mr Ivanov’s detention on remand from 29 December 2000 to 28   June 2002 without dividing it into separate periods.   Although the parties had disagreed about the specifics of Mr Ivanov’s conditions of detention on remand, they had agreed upon one main point: the size of the cells. Mr Ivanov had alleged severe overcrowding; the Government had been unable to provide complete information on cell population due to documents having been destroyed and had relied on information from prison warders and a prison director.   In that connection, the Court found it extraordinary that, more than three years after the applicant’s detention in those facilities and without any documentary evidence, officials had been able to remember the exact number of inmates who had been detained together with the applicant. The Court further observed that the Government had misinterpreted the certificate issued by the second prison’s director indicating the applicant’s cell had held seven or eight inmates. It was clear that the certificate in question had indicated the minimum, omitting the maximum number of inmates possible in the applicant’s cell.   Given that the Government had not provided any convincing or relevant information and that, in their arguments before the Court, had even agreed in principle that the cells could had been overcrowded, the Court decided to examine the issue on the basis of the applicant’s submissions, that is to say that he had no more than 1 sq. m of personal space whilst in detention on remand.   Irrespective of the reasons for the overcrowding, the Court considered that it was up to the Russian Government to organise its penitentiary system in such a way as to ensure respect for the dignity of detainees, regardless of financial or logistical difficulties. Indeed, the Court had frequently found a violation of Article 3 on account of detainees’ lack of personal space.   The Court noted that the Government had not put forward any fact or argument capable of persuading it to reach a different conclusion in the applicant’s case. The fact that the applicant had been obliged for almost 18 months to live, sleep and use the toilet in the same cell as so many other inmates had been in itself sufficient to have caused distress or hardship of an intensity exceeding the unavoidable level of suffering inherent in detention, and to have aroused in him feelings of fear, anguish and inferiority capable of humiliating and debasing him.   Mr Ivanov having most likely contracted a serious skin disease while in detention, although not in itself capable of justifying the notion of “inhuman” treatment, was also of relevance in showing that his conditions of detention (the overriding factor remaining overcrowding) had gone beyond the threshold tolerated by Article 3.   The Court therefore found that there had been a violation of Article 3 on account of Mr   Ivanov’s conditions of detention from 29 December 2000 to 28 June 2002.   Other Articles The Court declared inadmissible the remainder of the application.   ***   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) Tracey Turner-Tretz (telephone : 00 33 (0)3 88 41 35 30)   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.