Постановление Страсбург, 8 июля 2010 года Перевод на русский язык Николаева Г. А

The CPT has been led to conclude on more than one occasion that the adverse effects of overcrowding have resulted in inhuman and degrading conditions of detention..."

Extracts from the 11th General Report [CPT/Inf (2001) 16]

"28. The phenomenon of prison overcrowding continues to blight penitentiary systems across Europe and seriously undermines attempts to improve conditions of detention. The negative effects of prison overcrowding have already been highlighted in previous General Reports...

29. In a number of countries visited by the CPT, particularly in central and eastern Europe, inmate accommodation often consists of large capacity dormitories which contain all or most of the facilities used by prisoners on a daily basis, such as sleeping and living areas as well as sanitary facilities. The CPT has objections to the very principle of such accommodation arrangements in closed prisons and those objections are reinforced when, as is frequently the case, the dormitories in question are found to hold prisoners under extremely cramped and insalubrious conditions... Large-capacity dormitories inevitably imply a lack of privacy for prisoners in their everyday lives... All these problems are exacerbated when the numbers held go beyond a reasonable occupancy level; further, in such a situation the excessive burden on communal facilities such as washbasins or lavatories and the insufficient ventilation for so many persons will often lead to deplorable conditions.

30. The CPT frequently encounters devices, such as metal shutters, slats, or plates fitted to cell windows, which deprive prisoners of access to natural light and prevent fresh air from entering the accommodation. They are a particularly common feature of establishments holding pre-trial prisoners. The CPT fully accepts that specific security measures designed to prevent the risk of collusion and/or criminal activities may well be required in respect of certain prisoners... [E]ven when such measures are required, they should never involve depriving the prisoners concerned of natural light and fresh air. The latter are basic elements of life which every prisoner is entitled to enjoy..."
THE LAW
I. Alleged violation of Article 3 of the Convention
63. Under Article 3 of the Convention the applicant complained that the conditions of his detention in SIZO No. 4 in St Petersburg and SIZO No. 3 between April 2000 and March 2002 in Moscow had been deplorable. Article 3 provides as follows:

"No one shall be subjected to torture or to inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment."

65. The applicant disagreed and maintained his complaints. He argued that the data and figures provided by the Government were inaccurate.

67. The Court accepts the accuracy of the dates of the applicant's detention, as submitted by the Government, and notes the essentially continuous character of the applicant's detention from 20 April 2000 to 13 March 2002 in SIZO No. 3 and SIZO No. 4, interrupted by prison transfers only on two occasions, in September 2001 and in January 2002, for the overall period of mere three days. It further notes that his grievances about the mentioned detention facilities all concern the same problem of overcrowding and the general lack of living space. In view of this, the Court finds that the mentioned period of time should be regarded as a "continuing situation" for the purposes of calculation of the six-month time-limit. It thus finds that the applicant lodged his complaints about the conditions of detention in SIZO No. 3 and SIZO No. 4 in good time.

68. In the light of the parties' submissions, the Court finds that the applicant's complaints raise serious issues of fact and law under the Convention, the determination of which requires an examination of the merits. The Court concludes that these complaints are not manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 of the Convention. No other grounds for declaring them inadmissible have been established.
2. Merits
69. The Court would note that the parties disagree on many aspects of the applicants' conditions of detention, including the size of the cells, the number of beds as well the number of detainees in the cells. Most importantly, the Government deny that the cells in question were overcrowded or cramped, and have submitted official certificates to that effect provided by the authorities of the detention centres in question, whereas the applicant insists on his initial account of events.

70. Having observed the documents submitted by the parties, the Court finds that it need not resolve the parties' disagreement on all of the aforementioned points as the case file contains sufficient documentary evidence to confirm the applicant's allegations of severe overcrowding in pre-trial detention facilities SIZO No. 4 in St Petersburg and SIZO No. 3 in Moscow, which is in itself sufficient to conclude that Article 3 of the Convention has been breached.

71. The Court would note that as regards both detention centres the existence of a deplorable state of affairs may be inferred from the information contained in Order No. 7 of the Federal Service for the Execution of Sentences of 31 January 2005 (see paragraph 61 above), which expressly acknowledges the issue of overcrowding in these detention centres in 2004.

72. The Court also recalls that in its judgments in the cases of Belevitskiy v. Russia, No. 72967/01, §§ 73 - 79, 1 March 2007; Benediktov v. Russia, No. 106/02, §§ 31 - 41, 10 May 2007; Igor Ivanov v. Russia, No. 34000/02, §§ 30 - 41, 7 June 2007; Sudarkov v. Russia, No. 3130/03, §§ 40 - 51, 10 July 2008; Belashev v. Russia, No. 28617/03, §§ 50 - 60, 4 December 2008; Novinskiy v. Russia, No. 11982/02, §§ 106 - 108, 10 February 2009; Bychkov v. Russia, No. 39420/03, §§ 33 - 43, 5 March 2009; and Buzhinayev v. Russia, No. 17679/03, §§ 26 - 36, 15 October 2009, it has previously examined the conditions of detention in SIZO No. 3 in 2000 - 2003 and found them to have been incompatible with the requirements of Article 3 of the Convention on account of severe overcrowding.

73. Since the Government did not support its own submissions with reference to any original documentation, the Court is prepared to accept the mentioned indications as sufficient confirmation of the applicant's point that the overcrowding of cells was a problem in both detention facilities at the time the applicant was detained there.

74. The Court has frequently found a violation of Article 3 of the Convention on account of a lack of personal space afforded to detainees (see Khudoyorov v. Russia, No. 6847/02, §§ 104 et seq., ECHR 2005-X (extracts); Labzov v. Russia, No. 62208/00, §§ 44 et seq., 16 June 2005; Novoselov v. Russia, No. 66460/01, §§ 41 et seq., 2 June 2005; Mayzit v. Russia, No. 63378/00, §§ 39 et seq., 20 January 2005; Kalashnikov v. Russia, No. 47095/99, §§ 97 et seq., ECHR 2002-VI; and Peers v. Greece, No. 28524/95, §§ 69 et seq., ECHR 2001-III).

75. Having regard to its case-law on the subject and the material submitted by the parties, the Court notes that the Government have not put forward any fact or argument capable of persuading it to reach a different conclusion in the present case. Although in the present case there is no indication that there was a positive intention to humiliate or debase the applicant, the Court finds that the fact that the applicant had to spend at least 1 year, 10 months and 20 days in overcrowded cells at SIZO No. 4 in St Petersburg and SIZO No. 3 in Moscow 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.

76. There has therefore been a violation of Article 3 of the Convention as the Court finds the applicant's detention to have been inhuman and degrading within the meaning of this provision.

78. As to the complaints about various aspects of the applicant's detention in disciplinary cells of the correctional colony OYa-22/7 (see paragraphs 48 - 52), the Court would note that the first period in question ended in June, and the second on 19 November 2002. The grievances were first raised in his letter of 2 December 2003, that is more than six months later.

79. As regards the proceedings in his criminal case, the applicant was dissatisfied with the use of his pre-trial confession by the courts, alleged bias on the part of the trial court, the mistaken assessment of the evidence in his case as well as the courts' failure to call and question witnesses K. and M.

80. The Court reiterates that it is not its function to deal with errors of fact or of law allegedly committed by national courts unless and in so far as they may have infringed rights and freedoms protected by the Convention. While Article 6 guarantees the right to a fair hearing, it does not lay down any rules on the admissibility and assessment of evidence, which are primarily a matter for regulation under national law (see, among other authorities, Khan v. the United Kingdom, No. 35394/97, § 34, ECHR 2000-V). Furthermore, it is not the role of the Court to determine, as a matter of principle, whether a particular piece of evidence is necessary and essential to decide a case (see, for example, Elsholz v. Germany [GC], No. 25735/94, § 66, ECHR 2000-VIII) or, indeed, whether the applicant is guilty or not. The question which must be answered is whether the alleged defects impaired the fairness of the proceedings, taken as a whole. On the facts of the present case, the Court observes that the applicant was fully able to contest the authenticity and admissibility of the evidence at each stage of the proceedings and the courts addressed these arguments either by rectifying the alleged mistakes or rejecting his arguments as unsubstantiated. Thus, in so far as the applicant complained about the use of evidence obtained through coercion, the Court would note firstly that at the trial the applicant seemed to have complained of threats by the relevant officials, and not of physical force, the latter argument having been raised much later in the application to this Court. Further, the grievance has never been raised by the applicant before a competent domestic authority which could investigate the matter by way of a criminal inquiry (see also the Court's conclusions under Article 3 in paragraph 77 above). To the extent that the applicant raised this argument before the courts in his criminal case, the courts examined and rejected it as unfounded (see paragraph 26) and there is nothing in the case file which would enable the Court to depart from these conclusions. That being so, and having regard to the extensive body of evidence which was presented by both parties and then carefully examined by the courts, the Court cannot conclude that the defects alleged by the applicant, if any, adversely affected the fairness of the proceedings as a whole.

81. In so far as the applicant complained that the domestic courts had refused to call certain witnesses on his behalf and generally failed to examine his case properly, the Court recalls that Article 6 § 3 (d) does not require as such the attendance and examination of every witness on behalf of an accused and a court is justified in refusing to summon witnesses whose statements could not be of any relevance in the case (see, amongst other authorities, Vidal v. Belgium, 22 April 1992, § 33, Series A No. 235-B). The Court observes that the applicant failed to exhaust domestic remedies in this respect, since he never raised this issue before the trial court (see paragraph 27), and in any event did not substantiate, either before the domestic appeal court of before this Court, the necessity of calling this or that particular witness, and that the domestic courts' decisions in this respect do not appear arbitrary or unreasonable. Having regard to the facts as submitted by the applicant, the Court has not found any reason to believe that the proceedings did not comply with the fairness requirement of Article 6 of the Convention.

82. It follows that this part of the application should be rejected pursuant to Article 35 §§ 1 and 4 of the Convention.

"If the Court finds that there has been a violation of the Convention or the Protocols thereto, and if the internal law of the High Contracting Party concerned allows only partial reparation to be made, the Court shall, if necessary, afford just satisfaction to the injured party."

85. The Government submitted that this claim was unfounded and generally excessive.

86. The Court considers that the applicant must have sustained stress and frustration as a result of the violation found. Making an assessment on an equitable basis, the Court awards the applicant EUR 12,300 in respect of non-pecuniary damage, plus any tax that may be chargeable.
B. Costs and expenses
87. The applicant also claimed a lump sum of EUR 300 for the legal costs incurred before the Court.

88. The Government contested the applicant's claim.

89. According to the Court's case-law, an applicant is entitled to the reimbursement of costs and expenses only in so far as it has been shown that these have been actually and necessarily incurred and are reasonable as to quantum. Having regard to the material in its possession, the Court considers it reasonable to award the applicant the sum of EUR 300 for the legal expenses incurred in relation to the proceedings before the Court.
C. Default interest
90. The Court considers it appropriate that the default interest should be based on the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank, to which should be added three percentage points.
FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT UNANIMOUSLY
1. Declares the complaint concerning the conditions of the applicant's detention in SIZO No. 4 in St Petersburg (from 20 April 2000 to 7 September 2001 and from 23 January to 13 March 2002) and SIZO No. 3 in Moscow (from 10 September 2001 to 21 January 2002) admissible and the remainder of the application inadmissible;

2. Holds that there has been a violation of Article 3 of the Convention;

3. Holds

(a) that the respondent State is to pay the applicant, within three months from the date on which the judgment becomes final in accordance with Article 44 § 2 of the Convention, EUR 12,300 (twelve thousand three hundred euros) in respect of non-pecuniary damage and EUR 300 (three hundred euros) in respect of costs and expenses, plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicant on those amounts which are to be converted into Russian roubles at the rate applicable at the date of settlement;

(b) that from the expiry of the above-mentioned three months until settlement simple interest shall be payable on the above amount at a rate equal to the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank during the default period plus three percentage points;

4. Dismisses the remainder of the applicant's claim for just satisfaction.

President