CEDH · PRESS;CHAMBERJUDGMENTS;ENG — 8 novembre 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 } .s6B505E72 { margin:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .s1C7BEF1E { margin-left:28.52pt; padding-left:7.48pt; font-family:serif } .s83BE5C30 { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; vertical-align:super } .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   758 8.11.2007   Press release issued by the Registrar   CHAMBER JUDGMENT MIRONOV v. RUSSIA   The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing its Chamber judgment [1] in the case of Mironov v. Russia (application no. 22625/02).   The Court held unanimously that there had been: no violation of Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment) of the European Convention on Human Rights concerning Andrey Mironov’s allegations of ill-treatment during the preliminary investigations; a violation of Article 3 of the Convention concerning the conditions of Mr   Mironov’s detention in Remand Prison IZ-50/09 between 27 May and 5 October 2002; and, a violation of Article 3 concerning the Government’s failure to carry out a medical examination of Mr Mironov following an incident on 23 June 2002 in Remand Prison IZ-50/9.   Under Article 41 (just satisfaction), the Court noted that Mr   Mironov made no claims for just satisfaction. It held that the finding of a violation constituted in itself sufficient just satisfaction for any non-pecuniary damage. (The judgment is available only in English.)   1.     Principal facts   The applicant, Andrey Nikolayevich Mironov, is a Moldovan national who was born in 1969.   On 29 August 1998 Mr Mironov was arrested on suspicion of robbery. He was convicted as charged in April 2000 and sentenced to 12 years’ imprisonment. He is currently serving that sentence in a prison in Donskoy (Russia).   The applicant alleged that he was beaten by police officers on being arrested and then also in a temporary detention centre in Naro-Fominsk on 19 and 27 September 1998. He also referred to an incident on 22   September 1998 when, he claimed that two police officers took him by car to a forest where he was hung by handcuffs from a tree and beaten. In order to force him into making a confession, the officers put a plastic bag over his head, removing it only when he started to suffocate. He was given a further beating and then passed out. When he regained consciousness, he found himself in the boot of a car in which he was taken back to the remand centre. As a result of that incident, the applicant submitted that one of his kidneys had been ruptured and he had been left with a broken nose and ribs.   On 9 October 1998 the applicant was transferred to a remand prison in Mozhaysk where he was immediately examined by a doctor. He complained of pain in his groin which had been caused one month earlier by the beatings in the temporary detention centre. The doctor reported that, due to the time that had elapsed since the alleged assault, no trace of any injury could be found. On 26 October 1998 the applicant asked the Prosecutor’s Office to bring criminal proceedings against the police officers in question. Following an inquiry, that request was refused on 26 June 2004. Naro-Fominsk Town Court, in its judgment convicting the applicant, also rejected the allegations of ill-treatment.   Throughout his detention the applicant has been held in various facilities, including Remand Prison IZ-50/9 in the region of Moscow, notably between 27 May and 5 October 2002. He complained in particular about severe overcrowding in that facility: cells intended for ten to 15 inmates had in fact held 60 to 70. Due to the shortage of beds, the inmates had to sleep in shifts. There was nowhere to sit in those cells and not even enough standing room. There was a makeshift toilet around which the inmates had to sleep. There were bed-bugs, cockroaches, lice, rats and mice, which bit the prisoners and spread disease. Their bath lasted 20 to 30 minutes during which about 15 water jugs could be used by 60 inmates. They were taken for a walk outside three or four times a month for a maximum of 40 minutes. Medical aid was only provided when a prisoner could no longer walk unaided.   The Government submitted that the applicant was detained in various cells measuring from 14.58 m 2 to 31.92 m 2 and holding from 2 to 42 inmates. It admitted that between 1998 and 2002 Russian remand prisons, including Prison IZ-50/9, was overcrowded but, since renovation work in 2003, conditions have improved. Cells have been equipped with a sewerage system and the lavatory pan placed behind a partition. It further admitted that inmates were prevented from taking a shower between 23 May and 13 June 2002 due to plumbing problems but, apart from that, inmates were allowed a bath once a week and a daily one-hour walk.   The applicant alleged that he was subjected to ill-treatment in Prison IZ-50/9. On 23 June 2002 several police officers entered his cell and beat him and two of his cellmates. On 24 June 2002 he lodged a complaint with the prison administration, which the Government acknowledged as having received. He was not examined by a doctor until 18 July 2002, by which time the bruises had already healed. No X-rays were taken.   On 10 November 2002 the Prosecutor’s Office of the Moscow Region discontinued the criminal proceedings concerning the applicant’s complaint of 24 June 2002 on the ground that “it did not appear possible to establish who was responsible for which injuries.” It did establish that 15 detainees had been injured, including one detainee whose arm had been broken, and 14 detainees who had received blows. The applicant was not, however, listed among those injured detainees and, on that ground in particular, the Prosecutor’s Office decided on 2 July 2004 not to bring criminal proceedings concerning his allegations.   2.     Procedure and composition of the Court   The application was lodged with the European Court of Human Rights on 23 May 2002 and declared partly admissible on 5 October 2006.   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), Khanlar Hajiyev (Azerbaijani), Dean Spielmann (Luxemburger), Sverre Erik Jebens (Norwegian), judges , and also Søren Nielsen , Section Registrar .   3.     Summary of the judgment [2]   Complaints   Relying on Article 3, Mr Mironov complained, in particular, about ill-treatment by police officers when arrested and on a number of occasions during his subsequent detention and poor conditions in Remand Prison IZ-50/9.   Decision of the Court   Article 3   Alleged ill-treatment during the preliminary investigation According to the applicant, evidence of ill-treatment could be found in his medical records. Although, the only relevant entry in his medical file was the examination of 9 October 1998, the doctor stated that, owing to the time that had elapsed since the alleged assault, no trace of any injury could be found. The applicant did not provide any document to prove that he had in fact requested a medical examination sooner.   Furthermore, there was an inquiry into the applicant’s allegations by the public prosecutor’s office, which declared them unfounded and refused to bring criminal proceedings. The trial court likewise found the allegations to be unsubstantiated.   The Court observed that, apart from his own statements, the applicant had not produced any proof to enable the Court to depart from the findings of the domestic authorities, and it therefore held that there had been no violation of Article 3.   Conditions of detention in Remand Prison IZ-50/9 The main allegation, agreed upon by both parties, was that the cells had been overcrowded.   The Court noted that information submitted by the Government concerning which cells the applicant had been held in and their size had been inconsistent but that, on average, he had had between 0.76 m 2 to 4.5 m 2 of personal space.   The Court observed that it had frequently found violations of Article 3 against Russia on account of detainees’ lack of personal space. The Government had not put forward any fact or argument capable of persuading it to reach a different conclusion in the applicant’s case.   Furthermore, the Government had admitted that inmates had not been able to take a shower between 23 May and 13 June 2002 due to plumbing problems. That meant that, taken from the moment when the applicant had arrived at the remand prison, he had had no access to washing facilities for 18   days.   The fact that Mr Mironov had been obliged to live, sleep and use the toilet in the same cell with so many other inmates had in itself been sufficient to cause distress or hardship of an intensity which exceeded the unavoidable level of suffering inherent in detention, and to arouse in him feelings of fear, anguish and inferiority capable of humiliating and debasing him.   Consequently, the Court found that the applicant’s detention conditions in Remand Prison IZ-50/9 between 27 May and 5 October 2002 had amounted to degrading treatment and held that that there had been a violation of Article 3.   Lack of a medical examination following the incident of 23 June 2002 It was not in dispute between the parties that there had been an incident in Remand Prison IZ-50/9 on 23 June 2002 and that detainees had been injured.   It was not in dispute either that the applicant had complained about having been beaten on that day as the Government had acknowledged that the Moscow Region Prosecutor’s Office had received his complaint.   The Court noted that, in the decision of 10 November 2002, the applicant had not been listed among the injured detainees. However, taking into account the number of inmates who had been found to be injured, it was a realistic possibility that other detainees, who were held on the same premises, had also been injured during the incident. The authorities had therefore been under an obligation to medically examine those other detainees, including the applicant. However, no evidence had been provided to show that such an examination had been carried out. Examining the applicant one month later on 18 July 2002 had not been sufficient to fulfil that obligation.   The Court therefore found that, although the applicant’s allegations had remained unsubstantiated by any medical evidence, the authorities’ failure to carry out a medical examination to ascertain whether the applicant had sustained any injuries had amounted to a violation of Article 3.     ***   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) Tracey Turner-Tretz (telephone: 00 33 (0)3 88 41 35 30) Paramy Chanthalangsy (telephone: 00 33 (0)3 90 21 54 91)   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.