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 } .sA1D3DA2E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s66E9FC38 { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; vertical-align:super; color:#000000 } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s6B505E72 { margin:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .sD1986A30 { margin-left:28.52pt; text-align:justify; padding-left:7.48pt; font-family:serif } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sADADF4A7 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline } .s83BE5C30 { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; vertical-align:super } .sC7EAD8B { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left } .sB217F55E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; font-size:9pt } .sBACB86A2 { font-family:Arial; font-size:6pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .s83FDA10F { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:113.4pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; font-size:9pt } .s2EB42ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:10pt } .s653E6C45 { font-family:Arial; font-size:6.67pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .sB853CD25 { font-family:Arial; font-size:9pt } EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS 389 7.6.2007 Press release issued by the Registrar   CHAMBER JUDGMENT MIKADZE v. RUSSIA   The European Court of Human Rights today notified in writing its Chamber judgment [1] in the case of Mikadze v. Russia (application no. 52697/99).   The Court held unanimously that there had been: a violation of Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman treatment) of the European Convention on Human Rights on account of the conditions in which the applicant was detained in Orenburg Prison; a violation of Article 13 (right to an effective remedy)   Under Article 41 (just satisfaction) of the Convention, the Court awarded the applicant 5,000   euros (EUR) for non-pecuniary damage and EUR 3,440 for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in French.)   1.     Principal facts The applicant, Gia Omarovich Mikadze, is a Georgian national who was born in 1957 and lives in Moscow.   On 4 October 1997 the applicant was arrested and placed under investigation on charges of robbery and of handling large amounts of heroin, without the intention to resell. In August 2000 the Court of Cassation upheld his sentence of eight years’ imprisonment. Following an appeal under the supervisory review procedure ( protest ), a finding that there was no case to answer was issued with regard to the offence of robbery on the ground that there was insufficient evidence.   During his imprisonment, the applicant was held from 2 September 1998 to 2 September 1999 in correctional facility UK-25/8 in Orenburg. He alleged that the conditions within the Orenburg prison were deplorable: 30 or 40 individuals were placed in cells measuring 8   m², which had neither window nor ventilation; the prisoners did not receive water or bread. A dozen prisoners, including both sick and healthy persons, were placed in isolation cells (“ CHIZO ”), measuring 4 m², without drinking water; there was also insufficient food. The applicant claimed that he had been beaten by the prison wardens on several occasions, that parcels sent by his wife had been confiscated and that he had not received appropriate health care (he suffered, among other things, from cholecystitis).   Alerted by her husband, the applicant’s wife lodged a complaint with the prosecution service. That complaint was discontinued in June 1999. The applicant’s wife then contacted the department for the application of sentences at the Ministry of Justice; the same month, she received a reply stating that a committee had visited the prison to verify her allegations and that, according to its findings, the applicant was “a stubborn breaker of the prison rules”.     From September 1999 the applicant was transferred to other prisons. He was released on 16   April 2001.     2.     Procedure and composition of the Court   The application was lodged with the European Commission on Human Rights on 11 June 1999 and declared admissible on 3 May 2005.   Judgment was given by a Chamber of seven judges, composed as follows:   Christos Rozakis (Grec), président , Nina Vajić (Croate), Anatoli Kovler (Russe), Elisabeth Steiner (Autrichienne), Khanlar Hajiyev (Azerbaïdjanais), Dean Spielmann (Luxembourgeois), Sverre Erik Jebens (Norvégien), judges , and Søren Nielsen , Section Registrar .     3.     Summary of the judgment [2]   Complaints   The applicant complained that he had been subjected to ill-treatment in prison establishment UK-25/8 in Orenburg and that he no effective remedy had been available to him in that connection. He relied on Articles 13 and 3 of the Convention.     Decision of the Court   Article 3   In the absence of sufficient tangible evidence, it was impossible to establish whether the applicant had indeed been beaten by the prison governor on 20 April 1999.   With regard to over-population in cells, the Russian Government submitted a report stating that in December 2000 both the isolation cells ( CHIZO ) and the cells in the punishment block ( PKT ) in Orenburg prison were over-crowded, since, on average, each prisoner had 1.9   m² and 1.26   m² of floor-space respectively. In this connection, the Court pointed out that the CPT (European Committee for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman and Degrading Treatment or Punishment) had established 7   m 2 per person as the desirable approximate minimum area for a detention cell in which individuals were held for more than a few hours.   As to the unlawful appropriation by the prison administration of certain items from parcels intended for the applicant, the Government merely stated that those objects had never been placed in the parcels by the applicant’s wife, an explanation which failed to convince the Court.   As to the punishments imposed on the applicant, the Court noted that, during his detention in Orenburg Prison, the applicant was subjected on 19 occasions to strict punishments such as detention in the PKT or placement in a CHIZO. The reasons for those punishments included having slept during the day (15 days in a CHIZO , the strictest form of this punishment) or having smoked in a living area (two to four days in a CHIZO ) and having threatened a warden or initiated a fight (four to 15 days in a CHIZO , depending on the case). In the Court’s opinion, there was a problem not only with regard to the proportionality of some of those sanctions to the offences committed, but also with regard to their frequency. During the 12 months of his detention in Orenburg prison, the applicant spent more than six months in a CHIZO and one month in the PKT , and it was not proved that the administration had always imposed those sanctions in accordance with the law. In addition, apart from unacceptable accommodation conditions, placement in a CHIZO had serious consequences on prisoners’ nutrition, and it seemed clear that, during the six months in question, the applicant had suffered from a deliberate and drastic lack of food. The Court considered that it was unacceptable to subject a prisoner to punishment in the form of lack of food, even if he or she regularly contravened the prison rules.     In conclusion, the Court considered that, during his detention in Orenburg Prison, the applicant had been subjected to hardships of an intensity exceeding the unavoidable level of suffering inherent in detention and which amounted to inhuman treatment. It concluded that there had been a violation of Article 3.     Article 13 The Court considered, in particular, that the prosecution service and the department for the application of sentences at the Ministry of Justice had not provided the applicant with an effective remedy for his complaint under Article 3 and that he had had no judicial remedy to complain of those failings. Even supposing that, on account of the structural nature of the problems concerning prison over-population, the authorities had had no means of correcting the situation in that respect, they had not taken the reasonable measures available to them to obtain evidence concerning the applicant’s other complaints.   In conclusion, the Court considered that the applicant had not had an effective domestic remedy for his complaints under Article 3.      In consequence, the Court concluded that there had been a violation of Article 13.     ***   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.