CEDH · PRESS;CHAMBERJUDGMENTS;ENG — 10 juin 2010

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sA678F94A { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right; font-size:11pt } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s598389F8 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:11pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s11AD46B1 { font-family:Arial; font-size:7.33pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sE202B2ED { font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } .sE0D34C67 { font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .s4BAE41EE { font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s2E932ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:11pt } .s99A63BFE { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left; font-size:11pt } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .sADADF4A7 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sBACB3E60 { font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; text-decoration:underline; color:#800080 } .s92A5AB2 { font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } .sC7EAD8B { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline } .s3561545 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; color:#333333 } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left } .s33165EBA { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .sB853CD26 { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt } .s2EB42ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:10pt } .s52B1583 { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } 473 10.06.2010   Press release issued by the Registrar   Chamber judgment [1]   Zakharkin v. Russia (application no. 1555/04)   DETAINEE SUFFERING FROM RHEUMATOID ARTHRITIS KEPT IN COLD, DAMP CELLS, WITHOUT ADEQUATE MEDICAL TREATMENT, AND REFUSED VISITS FROM LAWYER REPRESENTING HIM BEFORE THE EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS   unanimously   Two violations of Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment) Violation of Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial) Violation of Article 34 (right of individual petition) of the European Convention on Human Rights     Principal facts   The applicant, Valeriy Zakharkin, is a Russian national who was born in 1970 and is currently serving a sentence of life imprisonment in the Perm Region (Russia) for armed robbery, murder and attempted murder of a policeman. He suffers from rheumatoid polyarthritis.   Mr Zakharkin was arrested in Yekaterinburg in October 1999 and, first detained in a district police station and several temporary detention facilities, was then transferred in November 1999 to a remand centre in Yekaterinburg where he remained for the entire duration of the criminal proceedings against him. His conviction was ultimately upheld in July 2006 by the Supreme Court, which rejected the applicant’s complaint that the composition of the trial court had been unlawful on account of the selection procedure for lay judges not having been respected.   Although the applicant was represented by two advocates in the domestic proceedings, he retained an NGO lawyer specialising in international protection of human rights to represent his interests before the European Court of Human Rights. However, that lawyer was never allowed to visit him despite repeated requests. The Regional Court did eventually issue the lawyer with a visitor’s permit; however, the remand centre management did not allow her to meet the applicant, on the ground that she did not possess a judicial decision by which she had been admitted to act as counsel for the applicant in the domestic proceedings.   In his submissions to this Court, Mr Zakharkin claims that the conditions of his detention in particular in the Yekaterinburg remand centre in various solitary cells were appalling, complaining of the coldness of the cells, insufficient access to daylight and poor sanitary conditions. Notably he had been held in one cell from October 2002 to November 2003 with no window glazing, only a piece of polythene to cover the opening, with outside temperatures descending at times to -30˚. The photographs submitted by the applicant of certain of those cells show ceilings and floors attacked by the damp, filthy toilets with no flush system and not separated from the main living area, rusty beds and washbasins and dirty and worn bedding. Further photographs are of cells with windows blocked by layers of thick metal grills or with no window at all. He was confined to those cells all day except for one hour in the exercise yard – on the way there, he was handcuffed, despite the pain in his hands from the arthritis.   Diagnosed with rheumatoid arthritis in April 2001, Mr Zakharkin further submits that the remand centre did not comply with a specialist’s recommendation for him to avoid the cold and to follow a course of anti-inflammatory pills and hormone injections, and that, as a result, his condition deteriorated.   The Government submitted that the conditions of Mr Zakharkin’s detention had been satisfactory and that, according to his medical records, he had regularly consulted the remand centre doctor, been taken to the prison hospital for more thorough examinations and been seen by a specialist. He had received the medication prescribed to him.   Complaints, procedure and composition of the Court   Relying on Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment), Mr   Zakharkin notably complained about the appalling conditions in Yekaterinburg remand centre and about the inadequate medical care there. He further complained under Article   6   §   1 (right to a fair trial) about the unfairness of the criminal proceedings against him. Lastly, he alleged that the authorities prevented him from meeting with the lawyer he had chosen to help him prepare his application to the European Court of Human Rights, in breach of Article   34 (right to individual petition).   The application was lodged with the Court on 2 December 2003.   Judgment was given by a Chamber of seven judges, composed as follows:   Christos Rozakis (Greece), President , Nina Vajić (Croatia), Anatoly Kovler (Russia), Khanlar Hajiyev (Azerbaijan), Sverre Erik Jebens (Norway), Giorgio Malinverni (Switzerland), George Nicolaou (Cyprus), judges , and also Søren Nielsen , Section Registrar .   Decision of the Court   Article 3   Conditions of detention The Court noted the cumulative effect of the conditions of the applicant’s detention which he had described in detail, and which he had corroborated with photographs; unlike the Government which had only been able to provide certificates from the remand centre issued after the applicant had already left the establishment. It particularly referred to the fact that the applicant had been held for almost one year in a cell which had an unglazed window and that such lengthy exposure to low temperatures, despite it having been specifically and repeatedly forbidden to him by doctors, had amounted in itself to inhuman treatment. The Court was indeed appalled by the photographs submitted and found that such conditions could only be described as degrading and unfit for decent habitation. Furthermore, the lack of daylight and, in certain cells, of fresh air had to have contributed to the already accumulated distress. Those cumulative factors were sufficient to enable the Court to conclude that the conditions of the applicant’s detention in the Yekaterinburg remand centre had to have aroused in him feelings of anguish and inferiority capable of humiliating and debasing him and had therefore amounted to inhuman and degrading treatment, in violation of Article 3.   Inadequate medical care The applicant’s medical records did not contain any entries confirming that the medication prescribed to him, recommended in order to soothe the inflammation in his affected joints and reduce the pain, had in fact been administered. The Yekaterinburg remand centre custodial authorities, having left the applicant to suffer considerable pain for a prolonged period of time, had therefore failed to meet the Convention requirements of medical care for detained persons and had subjected him to inhuman and degrading treatment, in further violation of Article 3.   Article 6 § 1   The Government had failed to produce any documents to prove the legal basis for the appointment of two of the lay judges at the applicant’s trial court. Nor had the domestic authorities been able to produce any evidence that those persons had in fact ever been elected to serve as lay judges. The court which had convicted the applicant, thus undermined by serious defects in the initial selection of the lay judges, could not be regarded as a “tribunal established by law”, in violation of Article 6 § 1.   Article 34   The refusal of visits by the lawyer chosen by the applicant to represent him before the European Court of Human Rights, not based on any security risk or fear of collusion or perversion of the course of justice, had been due to a gap in domestic law, which was designed to govern meetings with counsel in domestic proceedings and did not envisage requests for visits from representatives before this Court. Indeed, non-advocate representatives, such as the applicant’s representative in this case, are faced with difficulties in obtaining permission to visit their clients due to this gap in the law.   The restriction of the applicant’s contacts with his representative before the Court had therefore constituted an interference with his right to individual petition, in violation of Article   34.   Under Article 41 (just satisfaction) of the Convention, the Court awarded the applicant 21,000 euros (EUR) in respect of non-pecuniary damage.   (The judgment is available only in English.)   ***   The press release is a document produced by the Registry. It does not bind the Court. Decisions, judgments and further information about the Court can be found on its Internet site ( www.echr.coe.int ). To receive the Court’s press releases, you can subscribe to the Court’s RSS feeds .   Press contacts [email protected]   or Tracey Turner-Tretz (tel: + 33 (0)3 88 41 35 30) Stefano Piedimonte (tel: + 33 (0)3 90 21 42 04) Kristina Pencheva-Malinowski (tel: + 33 (0)3 88 41 35 70) Céline Menu-Lange (tel: + 33 (0)3 90 21 58 77) Frédéric Dolt (tel: + 33 (0)3 90 21 53 39) Nina Salomon (tel: + 33 (0)3 90 21 49 79)     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. All final judgments   are transmitted to the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe for supervision of their execution. Further information about the execution process can be found here: www.coe.int/t/dghl/monitoring/execution .