CEDH · PRESS;CHAMBERJUDGMENTS;ENG — 12 mars 2009

.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 } .sD711EC90 { margin-left:31.52pt; padding-left:7.48pt; font-family:serif } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .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 } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left } .s2EB42ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:10pt } EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS   205 12.3.2009   Press release issued by the Registrar   CHAMBER JUDGMENT ALEKSANDR MAKAROV v. RUSSIA   The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing its Chamber judgment [1] in the case of Aleksandr Makarov v. Russia (application no. 15217/07) concerning the applicant’s pre-trial detention.   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 on account of the conditions of the applicant’s detention in Tomsk Town temporary detention facility; and, a violation of Article 5 § 3 (right to liberty and security) of the Convention on account of the insufficient reasons given for extending the applicant’s pre-trial detention.   Under Article 41 (just satisfaction), the Court awarded the applicant 8,000   euros   (EUR) in respect of non-pecuniary damage. (The judgment is available only in English.)   1.     Principal facts   The applicant, Aleksandr Makarov is a Russian national. He was born in 1946 and lived in Tomsk (Russia) until his arrest.   Mr. Makarov was the mayor of the city of Tomsk; on 6 December 2006 he was arrested and placed in pre-trial detention on suspicion of abuse of position and aiding and abetting aggravated extortion. The District Court authorised his detention on the grounds that he was charged with serious criminal offences, that he was liable to abscond and pervert the course of justice by influencing witnesses or destroying evidence. The subsequent orders to extend Mr Makarov’s detention were based on the same grounds.   On 11 December 2006 Mr Makarov was suspended from his post as mayor of Tomsk.   Between 5 February 2007 to 20 November 2008 the applicant’s detention was extended by six consecutive decisions from the Regional Court,. The Supreme Court of the Russian Federation upheld these decisions.   The trial proceedings are still apparently pending and the applicant remains in custody.   Mr Makarov is detained in Tomsk Town temporary detention facility: he was first held in a 9.5 square metre cell on his own, then a 9.2 square metre cell with another detainee and, since 27 September 2007, has been sharing a 11.5 square metre cell with two inmates.   According to the applicant, the conditions in his cell are inadequate. The lighting is insufficient, as the metal bars on the outer and inner sides of the window block access to natural light and fresh air. He also pointed out that it is too hot in summer and too cold in spring and winter. Furthermore, the tiled brick partition separating the living area from the lavatory pan gives no privacy. The applicant insisted that it is also difficult to maintain personal hygiene and that he cannot do any physical exercise because the courtyard is too small. Although suffering from back pain, the prison doctors’ recommendation to provide him with a special board under his mattress has not been complied with. Also suffering from chronic diseases, he submitted that the food prepared in the facility was inadequate.   The Government denied the applicant’s allegations and submitted that the lighting, by way of electric light bulbs, and heating, at a constant 20 °C in winter and 23 °C in summer, were in accordance with sanitary norms. It also stated that he is given food “in accordance with the norms established for detainees undergoing medical treatment”.   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 (Greece), President , Anatoly Kovler (Russia), Elisabeth Steiner (Austria), Dean Spielmann (Luxembourg), Sverre Erik Jebens (Norway), Giorgio Malinverni (Switzerland), George Nicolaou (Cyprus) , judges,   and also Søren Nielsen, Section Registra r ,     3.     Summary of the judgment [2]   Complaints   Relying on Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment) and Article 5 § 3 (right to liberty and security), Mr. Makarov complained of the appalling conditions and excessive length of his pre-trial detention.   Decision of the Court   Article 3   The Court observed that the conditions in Tomsk detention facility were extremely cramped. Notably, since 27   September 2007 the applicant had been held in less than four square metres of living space. As could be seen from the photos of the cells submitted by the Government, the arrangement of the cells left inmates with literally no free space in which they could move. Indeed, for more than two years Mr Makarov had had to spend a considerable part of each day practically confined to his bed in a cell with poor ventilation and lighting and insufficient privacy in respect of sanitary arrangements. Lastly, although Mr Makarov had been prescribed physical exercise by a prison doctor to reduce his back pain, opportunity for outdoor exercise had been limited to one hour a day in the small facility courtyard.   Having regard to the cumulative effect of those factors, aggravated by the heating, food and sanitary conditions, the Court found that the intensity of distress or hardship caused to Mr   Makarov had to have exceeded the unavoidable level of suffering inherent in detention, and aroused in him feelings of fear, anguish and inferiority capable of humiliating and debasing him. The Court therefore found a violation of Article 3 on account of the inhuman conditions of the applicant’s detention.   Article 5 § 3   The grounds for Mr Makarov’s continued detention were the gravity of the charges against him and the risk that the applicant could abscond, pervert the course of justice and reoffend.   The Court reiterated that the gravity of the charges could not by itself serve to justify long periods of detention.   The Court found that the Russian courts had not analysed the applicant’s personal situation in greater detail to assess the risk of his absconding. Indeed, they had accepted without question information from the Federal Security Service that was not supported by any evidence.   In respect of the danger of perverting the course of justice, the Court observed that the Regional Court had only supported its conclusion of the risk of collusion on 3 December 2007 when it had referred to relatives of the applicant having allegedly attempted to tamper with witnesses. However, the applicant had not been notified of the content of the prosecution authorities’ submissions to corroborate that assertion, and no inquiry into those allegations had been opened.   As concerned the danger to public order, the Court noted that the Government had relied solely on the gravity of the offences allegedly committed by the applicant and had not provided any evidence or indicated any instance which could have shown that his release could have posed an actual danger.   Lastly, the Court observed that the authorities had never even considered the possibility of ensuring the applicant’s attendance by the use of alternative “preventive measures”.   The Court therefore concluded that the Russian authorities had failed to justify Mr Makarov’s continued deprivation of liberty for a period of over two years, in violation of Article 5 § 3.   ***   The Court’s judgments are accessible on its Internet site ( http://www.echr.coe.int ).   Press contacts Stefano Piedimonte (telephone : 00 33 (0)3 90 21 42 04) Tracey Turner-Tretz (telephone : 00 33 (0)3 88 41 35 30) Paramy Chanthalangsy (telephone : 00 33 (0)3 88 41 28 30) Kristina Pencheva-Malinowski (telephone : 00 33 (0)3 88 41 35 70) Céline Menu-Lange (telephone : 00 33 (0)3 90 21 58 77)   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.