CEDH · PRESS;CHAMBERJUDGMENTS;ENG — 21 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 } .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   435 21.6.2007   Press release issued by the Registrar   CHAMBER JUDGMENT KANTYREV v. RUSSIA   The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing its Chamber judgment [1] in the case of Kantyrev v. Russia (application no. 37213/02).   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 concerning the conditions of Mr Kantyrev’s detention from 1 to 20 March 2002.   Under Article 41 (just satisfaction) of the Convention, the Court awarded the applicant 3,000   euros (EUR) in respect of non-pecuniary damage and EUR 500 for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in English.)   1.     Principal facts   The applicant, Vyacheslav Mikhaylovich Kantyrev, was born in 1969 and lives in Severodvinsk in the Arkhangelsk Region of Russia.   On 23 August 2001 the applicant was arrested and detained on suspicion of manslaughter. He claimed he was punched and kicked during his arrest and while being interrogated by the police.   On 16, 17 and 18 January 2002 the investigator ordered the applicant’s transfer to   Severodvinsk Temporary Detention Ward in connection with the investigation. According to the applicant, warders refused to provide him with food on those days.   The applicant asked to bring criminal proceedings against the police officers who had assaulted him after the arrest. On 29 October 2001 a senior investigator from Severodvinsk Prosecutor’s Office dismissed the request, noting that a prison doctor had examined the applicant after his arrest and had found no injuries.   From 1 to 20 March 2002 the applicant was again detained in Severodvinsk Temporary Detention Ward.   According to the Government, the applicant was kept in cells measuring between 12 m² (with a plank bed for three people) and 18.7 m² (with a plank bed for four people). The Government did not provide information on the number of inmates in the cells. However, they noted that the norm for personal space had been respected and that the applicant had had his own “sleeping place”.   The applicant did not dispute the cell measurements. However, he alleged that he had usually shared the cells with 12 detainees. Given the lack of beds, inmates slept in shifts.   The Government submitted that all cells were equipped with a lavatory pan, a tap, a canister for drinking water and a waste bucket. The cells were lit and ventilated naturally through the windows. Each cell also had a ventilation shaft and was equipped with a lamp. The Government asserted that the applicant was provided with food “in compliance with requirements set by the Russian Federation legislation”.   The applicant submitted that inmates had to sleep together on a plank bed. The toilet was not separated from the rest of the cell and was opposite the plank bed. The cells were dimly lit. Windows were covered with thick metal bars that blocked access to natural light and fresh air. The food was of poor quality and in short supply. It was provided once a day.   It was agreed by both parties that the applicant was not provided with bedding, that he was not able to shower during the entire period of his detention and that he did not have daily outdoor walks.   According to the applicant, he complained to various domestic authorities about his inadequate detention conditions.   The applicant was initially found guilty of aggravated robbery and manslaughter. On 17 October 2002 the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation upheld the conviction for aggravated robbery and sentenced the applicant to four years’ imprisonment. On 16 May 2003 criminal proceedings were discontinued against the applicant on the charge of manslaughter.   On 18 February 2003 the acting prosecutor of the Arkhangelsk Region issued a report which noted that conditions in the detention ward contravened the relevant legislation. In particular, detainees had no daily outdoor walks, no taps or sinks, no bedding and food only once a day, which was not sufficient for their health. The report called for an immediate solution to be found.   The applicant claimed that he was not aware of that report as it was never served on him.   On 28 August 2003 Severodvinsk Town Court found the applicant guilty of criminal slander and sentenced him to two years’ imprisonment.   On 3 November 2004 Solombalskiy District Court of Arkhangelsk ordered the applicant’s release on parole.   On 25 September 2003 he received a letter from the Severodvinsk Prosecutor dismissing his complaints about his detention conditions.   2.     Procedure and composition of the Court   The application was lodged with the European Court of Human Rights on 1 September 2002.   Judgment was given by a Chamber of seven judges, composed as follows:   Christos Rozakis (Greek), President , Loukis Loucaides (Cypriot), Anatoli Kovler (Russian), Khanlar Hajiyev (Azerbaijani), Dean Spielmann (Luxemburger), Sverre Erik Jebens (Norwegian), Giorgio Malinverni (Swiss), judges , and also Søren Nielsen , Section Registrar .   3.     Summary of the judgment [2]   Complaints   The applicant complained in particular about his detention conditions and that he was assaulted by the police. He also maintained that his detention on remand had been unlawfully authorised and then extended on several occasions. He relied, in particular, on Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment), Article   5   (right to liberty and security) and Article 13 (right to an effective remedy).   Decision of the Court   Article 3   Detention conditions The Court noted that the parties had disputed certain aspects of the conditions of the applicant’s detention in Severodvinsk Town Temporary Detention Ward. However, there was no need for the Court to establish the truth of each and every allegation, because it found a violation of Article 3 on the basis of facts presented to it which the Russian Government had failed to refute.   According to the applicant, there were usually three or four times more inmates in his cell than the number it was fit to accommodate. The Government argued that each inmate had at least four square metres of personal space, which represented the sanitary norm. Given that the Government could have also provided the Court with certificates indicating the exact number of detainees and that they had failed to offer any convincing explanation for their failure to do so, the Court decided to examine the issue concerning the number of inmates in the cells on the basis of the applicant’s submissions.   The applicant argued that he was detained in the cells with 12 inmates. It followed that he had had 1-1.6m² of personal space. The Court noted that the applicant was confined to his cell for 24 hours a day as there were no daily outdoor walks.   His situation was further exacerbated by the fact that he was not provided with bedding and had to sleep on concrete flooring covered with planks and share the bed with other detainees. Inmates were not able to shower during the entire period of the detention. Furthermore, food was only provided once a day. The Court observed that the applicant’s description was backed by the Arkhangelsk Regional Prosecutor, who confirmed that the provision of food was insufficient for detainees’ health.   Although there was no indication that there was a positive intention to humiliate or debase the applicant, the Court found that the fact that he was detained in those unsatisfactory conditions 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. Furthermore, the Government had admitted that the conditions of the applicant’s detention were in breach of Article 3. There had therefore been a violation of Article 3 because the applicant was subjected to degrading treatment on account of the conditions of his detention from 1 to 20 March 2002.   Ill-treatment Concerning the applicant’s allegations of ill-treatment, the Court noted that he failed to appeal against the refusal of Severodvinsk Prosecutor’s Office to institute criminal proceedings. He therefore denied the domestic authorities an opportunity to consider whether he had been subjected to treatment contrary to the requirements of Article 3 and whether the prosecutor’s decision was compatible with the applicant’s rights as guaranteed by Article 3. It followed that that complaint was inadmissible.   The Court further noted that it was open to the applicant to submit a request for institution of criminal proceedings against the officials responsible for the alleged ill-treatment and/or lodge a complaint before the competent court challenging the unlawful actions of the warders and the investigating authorities. However, he did not make use of those possibilities.   His further complaints of ill-treatment were therefore also inadmissible.   Articles 5 and 13   The Court observed that there was no indication that the applicant had appealed against any decision authorising or extending his detention on remand. Moreover, he did not dispute that under Russian law, as it stood at the relevant time, it was also open for him to submit a request for release to the court conducting the criminal proceedings. He could have also done that at a hearing on the merits of the case. However, the applicant did not make use of those possibilities. That part of his application was therefore also inadmissible.   Other complaints   The Court rejected the applicant’s other complaints as manifestly unfounded.   ***   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.