CEDH · PRESS;CHAMBERJUDGMENTS;ENG — 15 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 } .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   787 15.11.2007   Press release issued by the Registrar   CHAMBER JUDGMENTS BAGEL v. RUSSIA GRISHIN v. RUSSIA   The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing its Chamber judgments [1] in the cases of Bagel v. Russia (application no. 37810/03) and Grishin v. Russia (no.   30983/02).   The Court held unanimously in both cases 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 conditions of detention of Mr Bagel in centre no. IZ-17/1 of Barnaul, and Mr Grishin in the SIZO-1 facility in Krasnoyarsk.   Under Article 41 (just satisfaction) of the Convention, the Court awarded 10,000   euros   (EUR) to Mr Bagel in respect of non-pecuniary damage, and EUR   6,000 to Mr   Grishin in respect of non-pecuniary damage and for costs and expenses. (The judgments are available only in English.)   1.     Principal facts   Bagel Aleksandr Nikolayevich Bagel, is a Russian national who was born in 1951 and lives in Barnaul (Russia). In late 1999 and early 2000 three sets of criminal proceedings were brought against him for unlawful business activities, tax evasion and fraud. Following his arrest on 4   February 2000, he was detained in a temporary detention centre in Barnaul and then transferred to the pre-trial detention centre no. IZ-17/1 in Barnaul. After several extensions of the preliminary investigation, on 6 March 2003 he was finally convicted as charged and sentenced to four years’ imprisonment. On appeal his sentenced was reduced to three years and ten months. He was released on 23 May 2003.   From 21 February 2000 to 23 May 2003 the applicant was held in the pre-trial detention centre no. IZ-17/1 in Barnaul. The parties disputed the conditions of his detention. In particular, the applicant and the Government disagreed about the surface area and the number of inmates per cell. The Government maintained that the cells had accommodated at the most one more inmate than the number of beds, whereas the applicant claimed that they had been severely overcrowded. He alleged that one cell in which he had spent two years measured 11m² and had accommodated up to 12 inmates. That was contested by the Government, according to whom the cell in question measured 24.8m², had been equipped with six beds and had accommodated up to six inmates.   Grishin Aleksandr Ivanovich Grishin, a Russian national, was born in 1944 and lives in Krasnoyarsk (Russia). On 14 September 1999 he was arrested under suspicion of instigating a murder. At the time he was a prosecutor with the Krasnoyarsk Environmental Protection Prosecutor’s Office. On 23 September 1999 he was placed in pre-trial detention in SIZO ‑ 1 in Krasnoyarsk. He was released on bail on 26 October 2000. In March 2001 he was convicted and sentenced to eight years’ imprisonment and again detained in SIZO-1. On 16 April 2002 the applicant was transferred to correctional colony IK-272/3, a penitentiary facility in Irkutsk, to serve his sentence. In 2005 he was granted early release on parole. He left prison on 11 July 2005.   From 12 March 2001, when the first-instance court convicted him, until 16 April 2002 when he was transferred to another facility the applicant was held mainly in two cells, one (cell 22), measuring 28.75m², intended for 12 inmates, and another (cell 93), measuring 31.8m², intended for eight inmates.   The applicant claimed that the number of detainees in cell no. 93 varied between 40 and 45, although it was fitted with only 18 sleeping places. He alleged that cell no.   22 housed 50 or more detainees and was fitted with three tiers of beds.   The Government did not indicate the number of inmates actually held in these cells at the material time. They maintained that the relevant records had been destroyed on expiry of their archiving period. They submitted, however, a copy of the receipt certifying that the applicant had received individual bedding.   In support of his statements the applicant submitted testimony by three fellow inmates who had shared a cell with him during his detention in SIZO ‑ 1. Their statements as to the number of detainees in the cells were similar to the figures provided by the applicant; they confirmed that the detainees had had to sleep in shifts.   The applicant also complained about the lack of daylight and the inadequate ventilation system (particularly in view of the number of smokers in the cells), as well as the absence of privacy for the sanitary facilities. The Government contested those allegations.   2.     Procedure and composition of the Court   The applications were lodged with the European court of human rights on 10 October 2003 in the case of Bagel and 20 July 2002 in the case of Grishin .   Judgment in the case of Bagel was given by a Chamber of seven judges, composed as follows:   Loukis Loucaides (Cypriot), President , Nina Vajić (Croatian), Anatoli Kovler (Russian), Elisabeth Steiner (Austrian), Khanlar Hajiyev (Azerbaijani), Dean Spielmann (Luxemburger), Giorgio Malinverni (Swiss), judges , and also Søren Nielsen , Section Registrar .   Judgment in the case of Grishin was given by a Chamber of seven judges, composed as follows:   Loukis Loucaides (Cypriot), President , Nina Vajić (Croatian), Anatoli Kovler (Russian), Elisabeth Steiner (Austrian), Dean Spielmann (Luxemburger), Sverre Erik Jebens (Norwegian), Giorgio Malinverni (Swiss), judges , and also Søren Nielsen , Section Registrar .   3.     Summary of the judgment [2]   Complaint   Relying on Article 3, both applicants complained principally about the conditions of their detention. Mr Bagel was detained for more than three years in facility no. IZ-17/1 in Barnaul, and Mr Grishin was detained for over a year in detention facility SIZO-1 in Krasnoyarsk.   Decision of the Court   Article 3   Bagel From the figures submitted by the Government it appeared that, for approximately two years and three months of the applicant’s detention in pre-trial detention centre no. IZ-17/1 in Barnaul, at any given time there had been 3.5m² to 4m² of space per inmate in the applicant’s cell.   In an earlier case, a cell of 7m² for two inmates had been noted as a relevant aspect in finding a violation of Article 3, although, in that case, the space factor had been coupled with an established lack of ventilation and lighting.   By contrast, in some other cases, no violation of Article 3 had been found as the restricted space in the sleeping facilities had been compensated for by the freedom of movement enjoyed by detainees during the daytime. However, it was not disputed that, for approximately two years and three months the applicant had been confined to the cell for 23 hours a day.   According to the applicant’s submissions, one cell (no.   192), which had been designed to house six people, had accommodated up to 12 inmates. The applicant had produced witness statements from four of his former cellmates according to which the number of inmates in cell no.   192 had at all times exceeded the number of beds thereby compelling inmates to sleep in shifts.   Moreover a certificate from the governor of the detention centre dated 18   November 2005 had acknowledged that during the period of the applicant’s detention the intended capacity of the detention centre had at times been exceeded by 30 to 150 per cent. The Court found it striking that, while the centre was severely overcrowded, there should have been no overcrowding in the cells where the applicant was held.   Having regard to statements by the applicant’s former cellmates and the certificate from the governor, the Court found it established that certain cells in which the applicant had been held had been overcrowded at the relevant time.   Irrespective of the reasons for the overcrowding, it was incumbent on 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.   The Court had frequently found a violation of Article 3 in similar cases on account of the lack of personal space provided for detainees. In the applicant’s case, that situation had been further exacerbated by the fact that he had had to sleep on the concrete floor while suffering from osteochondrosis. Although the illness in itself did not give rise to a violation of Article 3, in view, in particular, of the fact that the applicant had received medical treatment, the Court considered that it was a relevant factor, along with the overcrowding, which showed that the conditions of the applicant’s detention went beyond the threshold tolerated by Article   3.   The Court accordingly concluded that the applicant had been subjected to inhuman and degrading treatment in violation of Article 3 of the Convention on account of the conditions of his detention in the pre-trial detention centre no. IZ-17/1 in Barnaul.   Grishin The Court observed that the parties disagreed as to the specific conditions of the applicant’s detention. However, there was no need for the Court to establish the truthfulness of each and every allegation, since it considered that the facts that were not in dispute gave it sufficient grounds to reach substantive conclusions on whether the conditions of the applicant’s detention amounted to treatment contrary to Article 3.   The main characteristic which the parties failed to agree upon was the size of the cells.   The cells in which the applicant was held were designed to provide inmates with between 2.4m² and 4m² of personal space.   The Government failed to indicate the exact number of inmates actually held in those cells.   According to the applicant, the cells had been constantly filled to three times their capacity or even more, resulting in a situation where each inmate had less than 1.0m² of personal space and occasionally even less than 0.6m². Consequently, the detainees, including the applicant, had had to share the sleeping facilities, taking turns to rest, and had had to sit around in the cell for the rest of the time.   The Court reiterated that, irrespective of the reasons for the overcrowding, it was incumbent on the Russian Government to organise their penitentiary system in such a way as to ensure respect for the dignity of detainees, regardless of financial or logistical difficulties.   It was recognised that there had been no indication that there had been a positive intention to humiliate or debase the applicant, nevertheless the fact that he had been obliged to live, sleep and use the sanitary and other facilities in the same cell as so many other inmates for over a year in a severely restricted space, was itself sufficient to cause distress or hardship of an intensity exceeding 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.   Furthermore, the Government did not contest that at the material time the cell windows had been covered with metal shutters which blocked access to fresh air and natural light and that there were large numbers of smokers in the cells.   The Court further observed that the overall sanitary arrangements did not ensure sufficient privacy given the applicant’s personal situation, and were inadequate in view of his health problems. In addition, it appeared that when it came to using the communal showering facilities, no allowance had been made for the excessive number of detainees, which further contributed to the poor standard of hygiene.   Thus, for over a year, the applicant had been confined to an extremely congested cell with inadequate sanitary facilities, poor levels of hygiene and insufficient levels of daylight and ventilation.   There has therefore been a violation of Article 3 on account of the degrading conditions of the applicant’s detention in the SIZO ‑ 1 facility.     ***   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.