CEDH · PRESS;CHAMBERJUDGMENTS;ENG — 12 juin 2008

.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 } .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 } .sFE832CA2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:18pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s653E6C45 { font-family:Arial; font-size:6.67pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .sADADF4A7 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline } .s3DC36BA9 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } .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   430 12.6.2008   Press release issued by the Registrar   CHAMBER JUDGMENT SHCHEBET v. RUSSIA   The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing its Chamber judgment in the case of Shchebet v. Russia (application no. 16074/07).   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 inhuman and degrading conditions of Ms Shchebet’s detention in a holding cell at Domodedovo airport; a violation of Article 5 § 1 (right to liberty and security) concerning the applicant’s detention at Domodedovo airport; and, a violation of Article 5 § 4 in that the lawfulness of the applicant’s detention was not decided speedily by a court.   Under Article 41 (just satisfaction) of the Convention, the Court awarded Ms   Shchebet 10,000   euros   (EUR) in respect of non-pecuniary damage. (The judgment is available only in English.)   1.     Principal facts   The applicant, Sviatlana Shchebet, is a Belarus national who was born in 1978 and lived in Vienna. Her current whereabouts are unknown.   The case concerned Ms Shchebet’s complaint about the unlawfulness and conditions of her detention in a holding cell at Domodedovo airport in Moscow pending extradition to Belarus.   On 20   February 2007 the applicant was arrested on arrival at Domodedovo airport with a view to her extradition to Belarus as she was on a list of its fugitives from justice. The police did not draw up an official record of the arrest. She was placed in a holding cell at the airport’s transport police station and, following a faxed petition from the Belarus authorities of 27   February 2007, was kept there pending a formal extradition request.   Ms Shchebet repeatedly complained to the domestic courts that she was being held without a judicial decision in excess of the maximum period – 48 hours – provided for under the Russian Constitution and Code of Criminal Procedure.   The Russian courts refused to deal with Ms Shchebet’s complaints because she was not a party to criminal proceedings in Russia and, in any event, they considered that, under the Minsk Convention, the letter of 27 February 2007 constituted a lawful basis for her detention until such time as a formal extradition request had been received.   Ms Shchebet also complained to the Russian authorities about the conditions of her detention at Domodedovo. She alleged in particular that she was being held in a cell measuring approximately four square metres with no toilet, sink, bedding, table, chair or windows. The cell did not have a door but a sparse metal grille which left her plainly in view at all times. Occasionally she had to share the cell with other women offenders. She also submitted that she was never taken outside for a walk and that she had to rely on her sister and boyfriend to bring her food.   The Government acknowledged, for the most part, Ms Shchebet’s description of her conditions of detention. It submitted, however, that the police had provided her with a mattress from a hotel and food from the airport canteen.   On 23 March 2007 the Prosecutor General’s Office’s, having received an extradition request from Belarus, applied for an arrest warrant in respect of Ms Shchebet. That application was granted on 26 March 2007 and Ms Shchebet was transferred to a remand prison.   Ultimately, the request for Ms Shchebet’s extradition to Belarus was granted. That decision was upheld on appeal.   2.     Procedure and composition of the Court   The application was lodged with the European Court of Human Rights on 14 March 2007.   Judgment was given by a Chamber of seven judges, composed as follows:   Christos Rozakis (Greek), President , Nina Vajić (Croatian), Anatoly Kovler (Russian), Elisabeth Steiner (Austrian), Khanlar Hajiyev (Azerbaijani), Giorgio Malinverni (Swiss), George Nicolaou (Cypriot), judges , and also Søren Nielsen , Section Registrar .   3.     Summary of the judgment [1]   Complaints   The applicant complained about the unlawfulness and conditions of her detention in the holding cell at Domodedovo airport. She relied on Articles 3 and   5   §§   1 and   4.   Decision of the Court   Article 5 § 1   Firstly, the Court observed that the absence of any formal record with information as to the date, time and location of Ms Shchebet’s detention, her name, the reasons for her detention and the name of the arresting police officer, had to be considered a most serious failing and incompatible with the very purpose of Article 5 of the Convention.   Furthermore, the applicant’s detention, which was only formalised by an arrest warrant 34 days after her placement in custody, had also been incompatible with the Russian Constitution and Code of Criminal Procedure, which provided that the maximum period of detention without a judicial decision could not exceed 48 hours.   The Minsk Convention, which required that provisional detention comply with domestic procedure, could not have been a legal basis either. The Russian authorities misconstrued the relevant provision of the Minsk Convention, which did not provide a legal basis for detention of an initial 40-day period but required that anyone detained for more than 40 days be released if, in the meantime, no extradition request had been received.   The Court therefore concluded that the applicant’s detention had not been “lawful”, in violation of Article 5 § 1.   Article 5 § 4   The Court noted that the relevant provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure, although allowing Ms Shchebet to take part in proceedings to examine the lawfulness of her detention, required that the prosecutor apply for a custodial measure and that that had only been done more than a month after the applicant’s arrest. Moreover, the Russian authorities had consistently refused to recognise the applicant’s position as a party to criminal proceedings. It followed that the applicant had not had at her disposal any procedure through which she could have brought judicial review of the lawfulness of her detention, in violation of Article   5   §   4.   Article 3   The Court recalled that it had already found violations of Article 3 in cases where applicants had been kept in cells designed only for short-term detention.   It also recalled a report by the Council of Europe’s Committee for the Prevention of Torture (CPT) on holding cells in several police stations in Moscow which had found, in particular, that the cells, dark, dirty, poorly ventilated and ill-furnished, had been unacceptable for periods of custody exceeding three hours.   As there had been no judicial decision concerning Ms Shchebet’s detention, she could not be transferred to a remand prison and had been held for 34 days in a cell designed for short-term administrative detention not exceeding three hours. Not only had it been tiny – falling short of the seven-square-metre CPT guideline – but it had also lacked the necessary amenities for prolonged detention. On occasions she had even had to share that tiny cell with other women offenders. The Court considered that the fact that the applicant had been confined to a cramped cell, which had no privacy, for practically 24 hours a day for more than a month, without exposure to daylight or air and without physical activity or other pastime, had to have caused her considerable suffering.   Lastly, the fact that it had been impossible to establish whether there had been any formal catering or bedding arrangements was clearly attributable to the fact that the applicant had been detained outside any legal framework. Even if the police officers had brought her food, their goodwill could obviously not be a substitute for the glaring absence of precise regulations governing her situation.   The Court therefore concluded that the conditions of detention which the applicant had had to endure for 34 days had to have caused her intense distress and hardship and aroused in her feelings of fear, anguish and inferiority capable of humiliating and debasing her and that those feelings had to have been exacerbated by her deprivation of liberty without a lawful basis. There had accordingly been a violation of Article 3 concerning the inhuman and degrading conditions of the applicant’s detention in the transport police holding cell at Domodedovo airport.     ***   The Court’s judgments are accessible on its Internet site ( http://www.echr.coe.int ).   Press contacts Tracey Turner-Tretz (telephone: 00 33 (0)3 88 41 35 30) Paramy Chanthalangsy (telephone: 00 33 (0)3 90 21 54 91) Sania Ivedi (telephone: 00 33 (0)3 90 21 59 45)   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] This summary by the Registry does not bind the Court.