SECOND SECTION

CASE OF ANTONOV AND OTHERS v. THE REPUBLIC OF MOLDOVA AND RUSSIA

( Applications nos. 315/10 , 1153/10 and 1158/10 )

JUDGMENT

STRASBOURG

2 July 2019

This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.

In the case of Antonov and Others v. the Republic of Moldova and Russia ,

The European Court of Human Rights ( Second Section ), sitting as a Committee composed of:

Julia Laffranque, President, Ivana Jelić, Arnfinn Bårdsen, judges, and Hasan Bakırcı , Deputy Section Registrar ,

Having deliberated in private on 11 June 2019 ,

Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:

PROCEDURE

1 . The case originated in three applications (nos. 315/10, 1153/10 and 1158/10) against the Republic of Moldova lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) by six Moldovan, Russian and Ukrainian national s (“the applicants”), on 23 December 2009 .

3 . On 3 May 2010 the applications were communicated to the respondent Government s .

4 . The Russian Government objected to the examination of the application s by a Committee. After having considered the Russian Government ’ s objection, the Court rejects it.

THE FACTS

5 . The first applicant, Mr Evghenii Antonov, is a Russian national who was born in 1979 and lives in Tiraspol . The second applicant, Mrs Ir y na Antonova, is a Ukrainian national who was born in 1954 and lives in Tiraspol.

6 . The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicants, may be summarised as follows.

7 . The first applicant was arrested in Tiraspol in August 2009 and accused of having in his possession a hunter ’ s knife and a packet of marijuana. He was initially held in the pre-trial detention centre of the “ MRT ” Ministry of Internal Affairs (“IVS Tiraspol”), and on 30 October 2009 was moved to the Hlinaia prison in Grigoriopol.

8 . A few days after his arrest the first applicant called the second applicant and asked her to bring him food and warm clothes. He told her that he was being held in a dark, damp cell without basic hygiene.

9 . The second applicant was not allowed to see the first applicant, and the OSCE was refused access to IVS Tiraspol on 19 October 2009, where some 90 detainees, including the first applicant, were on a hunger strike to protest against ill-treatment and inhuman conditions of detention. Further complaints to the Moldovan, Russian and “MRT” authorities were unsuccessful.

10 . On 9 December 2009 the second applicant was able to see the first applicant during a court trial; she submitted that he looked tired and weak.

11 . On 9 November 2010 the Tiraspol city court found the first applicant guilty of preparing to commit theft, carrying an illegal weapon and having been in possession of a narcotic substance. At the time of the last submissions to the Court, the case was pending before the “MRT” Supreme Court.

12 . The first applicant, Mr Alexandru Băluţă, is a Moldovan national who was born in 1984 and lives in Lunga. The second applicant, Mrs Tamara Băluţă, is a Moldovan national who was born in 1954 and lives in Lunga.

13 . The first applicant was arrested in Tiraspol in December 2004 and accused of murder and arson. He was allegedly severely beaten. He was released in 2007 with an undertaking not to leave the city without permission. However, he left to work abroad and was rearrested on 13 September 2009 , when he returned home.

14 . He was initially held in the pre-trial detention centre of the “MRT” Ministry of Internal Affairs (“IVS Tiraspol”), then moved to the Hlinaia prison in Grigoriopol.

15 . The first applicant has allegedly been held in inhuman conditions of detention , namely in a dark, damp cell without basic hygiene and without any facilities for a daily walk. According to the second applicant, food and other items which she attempts to send to the first applicant do not reach him (except for bread) and all her requests to see him have been refused.

16 . On 13 October 2009 the second applicant found out that many of the detainees in IVS Tiraspol were on hunger strike in protest against abuse and inhuman conditions of detention. She alleged that on 16 October 2009 a special riot police force entered the prison and beat up the prisoners.

17 . The OSCE was refused access to IVS Tiraspol on 19 October 2009. Further complaints to the Moldovan, Russian and “MRT” authorities were unsuccessful. In particular, on 27 October 2009 the second applicant complained to the Russian Embassy in Moldova, which promised to officially contact the “ MRT ” prosecutor ’ s office in connection with the case.

18 . In reply to the second applicant ’ s letter of 12 October 2009 , asking for permission to see the first applicant, on 29 October 2009 the Prosecutor ’ s Office of the “ MRT” replied that “under [the applicable legislation] the investigator is not under an obligation to authorise the meeting of detainees with their relatives. In your case, such meetings were refused.” No other reasons were given.

19 . On an unknown date the applicant was transferred to another prison in Grigoriopol, also under the control of the “MRT” authorities.

20 . The first applicant, Mr Oleksandr Bezrodn ii , is a Ukrainian national who was born in 1986 and lives in Tiraspol. The second applicant, Mrs Liudmila Bezrodnyaya , is a Russian national who was born in 1967 and lives in Tiraspol.

21 . The first applicant is the leader of the non-governmental organisation “The World of Youth”. He was arrested in Tiraspol o n 23 July 2009 and accused of stealing roses from a public park, as well as endangering the life of three “militia” officers and private security agents. He was initially held in the pre-trial detention centre of the “MRT” Ministry of Internal Affairs (“IVS Tiraspol”), then moved to the Hlinaia prison in Grigoriopol.

22 . On 29 July 2009 the second applicant was told by a lawyer appointed by the “MRT ” court that the first applicant had been brought to that court for a hearing. When the second applicant saw the first applicant, he allegedly had blood on his face and some green substance on his head, which she claims masked the effects of a severe blow to his head. She also saw bruises on the first applicant ’ s body. The first applicant was allegedly able to tell the second applicant that he was being ill-treated with the aim of extracting self-incriminating statements from him.

23 . Also on 29 July 2009 the “ Tiraspol town court” ordered the first applicant ’ s detention pending trial for an undetermined period of time. It reiterated the charges against the first applicant and stated that

“ ... the court takes into account the fact that [the first applicant] is charged with a serious offence for which the law provides a punishment of lengthy imprisonment, that he is not well viewed by society, that he is unemployed and has already been convicted of a criminal offence in the past, that he does not acknowledge his guilt, which gives the court reasons to believe that if released he may abscond or reoffend. The case-file contains sufficient evidence to support the investigator ’ s request.”

24 . On an unknown date in September 2009 the first applicant attended a court hearing and was able to have a brief conversation with the second applicant, in the course of which he told her that he had been ill-treated and intimidated. He described the conditions of detention in the following manner: he was held in a cell in the basement of the detention centre without any access to daylight; he was held with persons with infectious diseases such as HIV and tuberculosis; there were insufficient beds (in the form of hard platforms, without any mattresses or bed linen), forcing the detainees to take it in turns to get some sleep; he was only allowed one shower a month; the toilet was in the cell and was very rarely cleaned; the cell was damp and lacked a working ventilation system; the cell was full of parasitic insects and on the rare occasions when disinfections were carried out the detainees were present in the cell; there were almost no hygiene products; the food was inedible, full of mould and insects; and no medical assistance was given to him despite his injuries.

25 . The second applicant submitted that all the food an d other items which she had attempted to send to the first applicant had been rejected by the prison administration or destroyed. On 13 October 2009 the second applicant was told by the prison staff that no food was necessary for the detainees since they were on hunger strike. She was warned that if the strike continued, riot police would be called in.

26 . On 15 October 2009 Mr V. Ursu, a member of the Consulting Committee for Prevention of Torture in Moldova, reported that on 14 October 2009 he had been informed by relatives of several persons detained in the detention centre of the “MRT” Ministry of Internal Affairs that many detainees in that centre were on hunger strike and that they were being subjected to ill-treatment.

27 . On 16 October 2009 the second applicant found out that the riot police had entered the prison. She was unable to find out what had happened to the first applicant.

28 . The applicants have submitted several press reports concerning the hunger strike at the above-mentioned detention centre and the alleged ill-treatment of detainees. They have also submitted copies of press reports by the “MRT” media, according to which on 22 October 2009 the “MRT” Minister of Justice declared that pre-trial detention centres were overcrowded.

29 . The OSCE was refused access to IVS Tiraspol on 19 October 2009. Further complaints to Moldovan, Russian and “MRT” authorities were unsuccessful. In particular, on 27 October 2009 the second applicant complained to the Russian Embassy in Moldova, which promised to officially contact the “MRT” prosecutor ’ s office in connection with the case. In letters to the Council of Europe and to the Centre for Human Rights the second applicant noted that she had seen the first applicant covered in blood and with bruises on his head.

30 . In a letter to the Tiraspol city court , dated 3 February 2010 , the first applicant complained that he had been severely beaten by the “MRT” militia on 23 July 2009 when he had been arrested. He noted that he had numerous bruises and hematomas on his body and limbs, that he had suffered many blows to his head and that his leg was so swollen and bruised that he had been taken to a medical facility (“medical town” – лечебный городок ), which should have registered the treatment administered to him.

31 . On 28 July 2010 the first applicant was found guilty by the Tiraspol city court and sentenced to 4 years ’ imprisonment suspended for three years. That sentence was quashed by the “MRT” Supreme Court on 31 August 2010 and sent for re-examination by the Tiraspol city court. The case was pending before that court at the time of the last submissions made to the Court.

32 . The relevant materials have been summarised in Mozer v. the Republic of Moldova and Russia [GC] ( no. 11138/10, § § 61-77 , ECHR 2016 ).

THE LAW

33 . Given their similar factual and legal background, the Court decides that the three applications should be joined under Rule 42 § 1 of the Rules of Court.

34 . The Russian Government argued that the applicants did not come within their jurisdiction. Consequently, the applications should be declared inadmissible ratione personae and ratione loci in respect of the Russian Federation. For their part, the Moldovan Government did not contest that the Republic of Moldova retained jurisdiction over the territory controlled by the “MRT”.

35 . The Court notes that the parties in the present case have positions concerning the matter of jurisdiction which are similar to those expressed by the parties in Catan and Others v. the Republic of Moldova and Russia ([GC], nos. 43370/04, 8252/05 and 18454/06, §§ 83-101, ECHR 2012 and in Mozer (cited above, §§ 81-95). Namely, the applicants and the Moldovan Government submitted that both respondent Governments had jurisdiction, while the Russian Government submitted that they had no jurisdiction. The Russian Government expressed the view that the approach to the issue of jurisdiction taken by the Court in Ilaşcu and Others v. Moldova and Russia [GC] (no. 48787/99, ECHR 2004 VII was wrong and at variance with public international law.

36 . The Court observes that the general principles concerning the issue of jurisdiction under Article 1 of the Convention in respect of acts undertaken and facts arising in the Transdniestrian region of Moldova were set out in Ilaşcu and Others (cited above, § § 311-19), Catan and Others (cited above, §§ 103-07 ) and, more recently, Mozer (cited above, §§ 97-98).

37 . In so far as the Republic of Moldova is concerned, the Court notes that in Ilaşcu , Catan and Mozer it found that although Moldova had no effective control over the Transdniestrian region, it followed from the fact that Moldova was the territorial State that persons within that territory fell within its jurisdiction. However, its obligation, under Article 1 of the Convention, to secure to everyone within its jurisdiction the rights and freedoms defined in the Convention, was limited to that of taking the diplomatic, economic, judicial and other measures that were both in its power and in accordance with international law (see Ilaşcu and Others , cited above, § 333; Catan and Others , cited above, § 109; and Mozer , cited above, § 100). Moldova ’ s obligations under Article 1 of the Convention were found to be positive obligations (see Ilaşcu and Others , cited above, §§ 322 and 330-31; Catan and Others , cited above, §§ 109-10; and Mozer , cited above, § 99).

38 . The Court sees no reason to distinguish the present case from the above-mentioned cases . Besides, it notes that the Moldovan Government do not object to applying a similar approach in the present case. Therefore, it finds that Moldova had jurisdiction for the purposes of Article 1 of the Convention, but that its responsibility for the acts complained of is to be assessed in the light of the above-mentioned positive obligations (see Ilaşcu and Others , cited above, § 335).

39 . In so far as the Russian Federation is concerned, the Court notes that in Ila È™ cu and Others it has already found that the Russian Federation contributed both militarily and politically to the creation of a separatist regime in the region of Transdniestria in 1991-1992 (see IlaÅŸcu and Others , cited above, § 382). The Court also found in subsequent cases concerning the Transdniestrian region that up until at least July 2010, the “MRT” was only able to continue to exist, and to resist Moldovan and international efforts to resolve the conflict and bring democracy and the rule of law to the region, because of Russian military, economic and political support (see IvanÅ£oc and Others , cited above, §§ 116-20; Catan and Others , cited above, §§ 121-22; and Mozer , cited above, §§ 108 and 110). The Court concluded in Mozer that the “MRT” ‘ s high level of dependency on Russian support provided a strong indication that the Russian Federation continued to exercise effective control and a decisive influence over the Transdniestrian authorities and that, therefore, the applicant s fell within that State ’ s jurisdiction under Article 1 of the Convention ( Mozer , cited above, §§ 110 ‑ 11).

40 . The Court sees no grounds on which to distinguish the present case from Ila șcu and Others , Ivanţoc and Others , Catan and Others , and Mozer (all cited above).

41 . It follows that the applicant s in the present case s fell within the jurisdiction of the Russian Federation under Article 1 of the Convention. Consequently, the Court dismisses the Russian Government ’ s objections ratione personae and ratione loci .

42 . The Court will hereafter determine whether there has been any violation of the applicants ’ rights under the Convention such as to engage the responsibility of either respondent State ( see Mozer , cited above, § 112).

43 . The first applicant s in the three applications complained that they had been held in inhuman conditions of detention, contrary to the requirements of Article 3 of the Convention, which reads as follows:

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

44 . The Court notes that this complaint is not manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 (a) of the Convention. It further notes that it is not inadmissible on any other grounds. It must therefore be declared admissible.

45 . The applicant s complained about the inhuman conditions in which they had been held in “MRT” detention facilities. Each of them described those conditions in detail (see paragraphs 8 , 10 , 15 - 17 and 24 - 26 above).

46 . The Moldovan Government submitted that they were unable to assess whether the applicants ’ complaints were well-founded, owing to their lack of control over the territory on which the applicants were detained.

47 . The Russian Government argued that since the “MRT” was part of Moldovan territory and in the absence of any control by Russia over the events on that territory, only the Moldovan Government could submit any comments concerning the merits of the present applications.

48 . The Court reiterates that Article 3 of the Convention enshrines one of the most fundamental values of democratic society. It prohibits in absolute terms torture or inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, irrespective of the circumstances and the victim ’ s behaviour (see, for example, Labita v. Italy [GC], no. 26772/95, § 119, ECHR 2000-IV). Ill ‑ treatment must, however, attain a minimum level of severity if it is to fall within the scope of Article 3. The assessment of this minimum is relative: it depends on all the circumstances of the case, such as the duration of the treatment, its physical and mental effects and, in some cases, the sex, age and state of health of the victim (see, among other authorities, KudÅ‚a v. Poland [GC], no. 30210/96, § 91, ECHR 2000 ‑ XI; Enea v. Italy [GC], no. 74912/01, § 55, ECHR 2009; and Bouyid v. Belgium [GC], no. 23380/09 , § 86, ECHR 2015, and Mozer , cited above, § 177).

49 . The State must ensure that a person is detained in conditions which are compatible with respect for human dignity, that the manner and method of the execution of the measure of deprivation of liberty do not subject him to distress or hardship of an intensity exceeding the unavoidable level of suffering inherent in detention ( see Kudła , cited above, § 94, Ananyev and Others v. Russia , nos. 42525/07 and 60800/08, § 141, 10 January 2012 , and Muršić v. Croatia [GC], no. 7334/13 , § 99, 20 October 2016 ).

50 . In the present case, the Court notes that the applicants made similar descriptions of their conditions of detention. Common trends appear to be dark, damp cells without basic hygiene, while some also lacked sufficient beds for detainees and were infested with parasitic insects (see paragraph 45 a bove). It also notes that none of the respondent Governments opposed this description. Moreover, during the time when the applicants were detained some 90 detainees, including Mr Evghenii Antonov, Mr Alexandru Băluţă and Mr Oleksandr Bezrodn ii , went on a hunger strike as a form of protest against abuses and inhuman conditions of detention (see paragraphs 9 , 16 and 25 above). During those protests, the OSCE was not allowed to have access to the detainees, which makes it even more difficult to have an independent verification of the conditions in the relevant prisons.

51 . Finally, the Court notes that the conditions of detention prevailing in the same prisons in which the applicants have been detained in the “MRT” have already been found to be substandard (see, for instance, Mozer , cited above, §§ 180 and 181; Braga v. the Republic of Moldova and Russia ; no. 76957/01 , § 37, 17 October 2017; Eriomenco v. the Republic of Moldova and Russia , no. 42224/11, § 57, 9 May 2017; Apcov v. the Republic of Moldova and Russia , no. 13463/07, § 43, 30 May 2017; Draci v. the Republic of Moldova and Russia , no. 5349/02 , § 58, 17 October 2017) .

52 . On the basis of the material before it and in the absence of any material contradicting the applicant ’ s submissions, the Court finds it established that the conditions of the applicants ’ detention amounted to inhuman and degrading treatment within the meaning of Article 3 .

53 . There has accordingly been a violation of Article 3 of the Convention in respect of the conditions of detention of Mr Evghenii Antonov, Mr Alexandru Băluţă and Mr Oleksandr Bezrodn ii .

54 . Mr Oleksandr Bezrodn ii also complained that he had been ill-treated while in detention in order to force him to make a confession. Thereafter he was not treated for his wounds.

55 . The respondent Governments did not make any specific comments.

56 . The Court notes that Mr Bezrodn i i complained to the Tiraspol city court about his ill-treatment and referred to the possible existence of medical evidence thereof (see paragraph 30 above). It appears that the “MRT” authorities did nothing in response to this complaint, nor did the respondent Governments make any relevant submissions. Moreover, in contemporary complaints to various other organisations (see paragraph 29 above) Mr Bezrodn i i ’ s mother complained about having seen him covered with blood and with bruises to his head.

57 . The Court recalls that where an individual is taken into police custody in good health but is found to be injured at the time of release, it is incumbent on the State to provide a plausible explanation as to the cause of the injury, failing which a clear issue arises under Article 3 of the Convention (see Aksoy v. Turkey , 18 December 1996, § 61, Reports 1996 ‑ VI, and Selmouni v. France [GC], no. 25803/94, § 87, ECHR 1999 ‑ V).

58 . In the absence of any explanation of the origin of his bruises (see the preceding paragraph), it must be presumed that he sustained them in prison.

59 . It is also apparent that despite a clear complaint to the “MRT” authorities, the applicant was seen by a doctor only to treat his swollen leg. The respondent Governments did not submit evidence that the applicant was subsequently treated for his wounds, noted by his mother (see paragraphs 22 and 29 above).

60 . On the basis of the material before it and in the absence of any submissions by the respondent Governments contradicting the applicant ’ s allegations , the Court cannot but conclude that Mr Bezrodn i i ha d been subjected to ill-treatment while in detention in the “MRT” and was subsequently not given medical assistance required by his condition .

61 . There has accordingly been a violation of Article 3 of the Convention in respect of Mr Oleksandr Bezrodn ii ’ s ill-treatment and insufficiency of medical assistance .

62 . The Court must next determine whether the Republic of Moldova fulfilled its positive obligations to take appropriate and sufficient measures to secure the applicants ’ rights under Article 3 of the Convention (see paragraph 37 above). In Mozer the Court held that Moldova ’ s positive obligations related both to measures needed to re-establish its control over the Transdniestrian territory, as an expression of its jurisdiction, and to measures to ensure respect for individual applicants ’ rights (see Mozer , cited above, § 151).

63 . As regards the first aspect of Moldova ’ s obligation, to re-establish control, the Court found in Mozer that, from the onset of the hostilities in 1991 and 1992 until July 2010, Moldova had taken all the measures in its power ( Mozer , cited above, § 152). Since the events complained of in the present case took place before that date, the Court sees no reason to reach a different conclusion ( ibidem ).

64 . Turning to the second aspect of the positive obligations, namely to ensure respect for the applicant ’ s individual rights, the Court found in Ilaşcu and Others (cited above, §§ 348-52) that the Republic of Moldova had failed to fully comply with its positive obligations, to the extent that from May 2001 it had failed to take all the measures available to it in the course of negotiations with the “MRT” and Russian authorities to bring an end to the violation of the applicants ’ rights. In the present case, the applicants submitted that the Republic of Moldova had not discharged its positive obligations since various State authorities replied that they could not take action on the territory under the de facto control of the “MRT”.

65 . The Court considers that Moldovan authorities did not have any real means of improving the conditions of detention in the “MRT” prisons. Nor could they properly investigate the allegations of ill-treatment or insufficient medical treatment by the “MRT” militia, in the absence of any cooperation by the “MRT” authorities, which did not allow access even by independent organisations such as the OSCE (see for instance paragraph 9 above). At the same time, the applicants submitted evidence that at least in respect of Mr Bezrodn i i the Moldovan prosecutor ’ s office in Bender initiated a criminal investigation into his unlawful deprivation of liberty .

66 . In such circumstances, the Court cannot conclude that the Republic of Moldova did not fail to fulfil its positive obligations in respect of the applicants (see Mozer , cited above, § 154).

67 . There has therefore been no violation of Article 3 of the Convention by the Republic Moldova.

68 . In so far as the responsibility of the Russian Federation is concerned, the Court has established that Russia exercised effective control over the “MRT” during the period of the applicant ’ s detention (see paragraphs 39 - 41 ab ove). In the light of this conclusion, and in accordance with its case-law, it is not necessary to determine whether or not Russia exercises detailed control over the policies and actions of the subordinate local administration (see Mozer , cited above, § 157). By virtue of its continued military, economic and political support for the “MRT”, which could not otherwise survive, Russia ’ s responsibility under the Convention is engaged as regards the violation of the applicant ’ s rights ( ibidem ).

69 . In conclusion, and after having found that the detention of Mr Evghenii Antonov, Mr Alexandru Băluţă and Mr Oleksandr Bezrodn ii amounted to inhuman and degrading treatment within the meaning of Article 3 of the Convention (see paragraph 53 above), as well as finding that Mr Oleksandr Bezrodn ii has been ill-treated and deprived of required medical assistance while in detention (see paragraph 60 above), the Court holds that there has been a violation of that provision by the Russian Federation.

70 . The applicants complained of a violation of Article 5 § 1 of the Convention, owing to their detention on the basis of decisions by “MRT” authorities, which had been un lawfully created.

71 . The relevant parts of Article 5 read:

“1. Everyone has the right to liberty and security of person. No one shall be deprived of his liberty save in the following cases and in accordance with a procedure prescribed by law:

(a) the lawful detention of a person after conviction by a competent court;

...

(c) the lawful arrest or detention of a person effected for the purpose of bringing him before the competent legal authority on reasonable suspicion of having committed an offence or when it is reasonably considered necessary to prevent his committing an offence or fleeing after having done so;

...”

72 . The Court notes that this complaint is not manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 (a) of the Convention. It further notes that it is not inadmissible on any other grounds. It must therefore be declared admissible.

73 . The applicants submitted that they had been detained by private individuals who did not have the authority under Moldovan law to deprive them of their liberty.

74 . The respondent Government s did not make any specific submissions .

75 . The Court reiterates that it is well established in its case-law on Article 5 § 1 that any deprivation of liberty must not only be based on one of the exceptions listed in sub-paragraphs (a) to (f) but must also be “lawful”. Where the “lawfulness” of detention is in issue, including the question whether “a procedure prescribed by law” has been followed, the Convention refers essentially to national law and lays down the obligation to conform to the substantive and procedural rules of national law. This primarily requires any arrest or detention to have a legal basis in domestic law; it also relates to the quality of the law, requiring it to be compatible with the rule of law, a concept inherent in all the Articles of the Convention (see, for example, Del Río Prada v. Spain [GC], no. 42750/09, § 125, ECHR 2013; and Mozer , cited above, § 134).

76 . The Court recalls that in Mozer it held that the judicial system of the “MRT” was not a system reflecting a judicial tradition compatible with the Convention (see Mozer , cited above, §§ 148-49). For that reason it held that the “MRT” courts and, by implication, any other “MRT” authority, could not order the applicant ’ s “lawful” arrest or detention, within the meaning of Article 5 § 1 of the Convention (see Mozer , cited above, § 150).

77 . In the absence of any new and pertinent information proving the contrary, the Court considers that the conclusion reached in Mozer is valid in the present case too.

There has accordingly been a violation of Article 5 § 1 of the Convention.

78 . The Court must next determine whether the Republic of Moldova fulfilled its positive obligation to take appropriate and sufficient measures to secure the applicant ’ s rights under Article 5 of the Convention. For the same reasons as those mentioned in paragraphs 62 - 67 above , the Court finds that Moldova has not failed in fulfilling its positive obligations under Article 5 of the Convention. There has accordingly been no breach of that provision by the Republic of Moldova.

79 . As concerns the Russian Federation, for the same reasons as those mentioned in paragraphs 68 and 69 above, the Court finds that Russia is responsible for the breach of Article 5 § 1 of the Convention in respect of Mr Evghenii Antonov, Mr Alexandru Băluţă and Mr Oleksandr Bezrodn ii .

80 . The applicants complained of breaches of Article 5 § 4 due to their inability of appealing against the decisions ordering their detention without the assistance of a court-appointed lawyer, who in their cases refused to assist them to lodge such appeals. Mr Antonov and Mr Bezrdon îi also complained under Article 5 § 3 that the courts ordering their arrest had not relied on “relevant and sufficient reasons”.

81 . Article 5 § 3 of the Convention reads as follows:

“Everyone arrested or detained in accordance with the provisions of paragraph 1 (c) of this Article shall be brought promptly before a judge or other officer authorised by law to exercise judicial power and shall be entitled to trial within a reasonable time or to release pending trial. Release may be conditioned by guarantees to appear for trial.”

Article 5 § 4 of the Convention reads as follows:

“Everyone who is deprived of his liberty by arrest or detention shall be entitled to take proceedings by which the lawfulness of his detention shall be decided speedily by a court and his release ordered if the detention is not lawful.”

82 . The Court notes that the complaints lodged under Article 5 §§ 3 and 4 of the Convention are not manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 (a) of the Convention. It further notes that they are not inadmissible on any other grounds. They must therefore be declared admissible. However, in view of its finding that the detention of Mr Evghenii Antonov, Mr Alexandru Băluţă and Mr Oleksandr Bezrodn ii was as a whole contrary to Article 5 § 1 of the Convention (see paragraph 77 above) , the Court considers that it is unnecessary to examine separately the complaints under Article 5 §§ 3 and 4 (see Mozer , cited above, § 163) .

83 . The applicant s further complained of the fact that while in detention they had not been allowed visits by their relatives (the second applicant in each case). They relied on Article 8 of the Convention , which reads as follows:

“1. Everyone has the right to respect for his private and family life, his home and his correspondence.

2. There shall be no interference by a public authority with the exercise of this right except such as is in accordance with the law and is necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security, public safety or the economic well-being of the country, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others.”

84 . The respondent Government s did not make any specific submissions.

85 . The Court notes that the complaint lodged under Article 8 of the Convention is not manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 (a) of the Convention. It further notes that it is not inadmissible on any other grounds. It must therefore be declared admissible.

86 . The applicants submitted that for a considerable length of time during the investigation they had been unable to see each other (the first and second applicant in each case), except for the rare occasions during the court hearings (see paragraphs 10 , 18 and 24 above) .

87 . The Court reiterates that detention, like any other measure depriving a person of his liberty, entails inherent limitations on his private and family life. However, it is an essential part of a prisoner ’ s right to respect for family life that the authorities enable him or, if need be, help him, to maintain contact with his close family (see, among many other authorities, Messina v. Italy (no. 2) , no. 25498/94, §§ 61-62, ECHR 2000 ‑ X; Lavents v. Latvia , no. 58442/00, § 139, 28 November 2002; Khoroshenko v. Russia [GC] , no. 41418/04, § 106, ECHR 2015; and Mozer , cited above, § 190 ). At the same time the Court recognises that some measure of control over prisoners ’ contact with the outside world is called for and is not of itself incompatible with the Convention (see Khoroshenko , cited above, § 123).

88 . In the present case the applicants claimed that they had been denied visits during their detention pending trial and were only able to see each other during court hearings. The Court considers that such a limitation on visits clearly amounts to interference with the applicants ’ rights guaranteed under Article 8 of the Convention. It remains to be examined whether this interference was justified under the second paragraph of Article 8.

89 . The Court reiterates that Article 8 § 2 requires any interference to be “in accordance with the law”. It notes that the applicants did not argue that the interference with their rights under Article 8 had been unlawful because it had been carried out pursuant to the decisions of unlawfully constituted courts or other authorities. In any event, the Court notes that the respondent Governments have not submitted any details, while the limited material available from the applicant is insufficient to form a clear understanding of the applicable “MRT” law. The Court is therefore not in a position to assess whether the interference complained of was “in accordance with the law” and whether it was based on any clear criteria. However, it notes that no reasons for refusing family meetings are apparent from the documents in the file.

90 . The respondent Governments did not submit any explanation as to why it had been necessary to separate the applicant from his family. Moreover, at least in the case of Mr Băluță the “MRT” authorities responded that under the applicable legislation the investigator was not under an obligation to authorise the meeting of detainees with their relatives and that in his case such visits had been refused. No reasons were given for the refusal. The Court concludes that allowing such visits was at the investigator ’ s discretion and that no reasons had to be given. In such circumstances, it has not been shown that the interference pursued a legitimate aim or was proportionate to that aim, as required under Article 8 § 2 of the Convention .

91 . The Court finds, for the same reasons given in respect of the complaint under Article 3 of the Convention (see paragraphs 62 - 67 above), that there has been no violation of Article 8 of the Convention by the Republic of Moldova.

92 . For the same reasons as above (see paragraphs 68 and 69 ), the Court finds that there has been a violation of Article 8 of the Convention by the Russian Federation.

93 . The applicant s further complained that they had no effective remedies in respect of their complaints under Articles 3, 5 and 8 of the Convention. They relied on Article 13 of the Convention, which reads as follows:

“Everyone whose rights and freedoms as set forth in [the] Convention are violated shall have an effective remedy before a national authority notwithstanding that the violation has been committed by persons acting in an official capacity.”

94 . The Court notes that the complaint under Article 13 taken in conjunction with Articles 3, 5 and 8 is not manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 (a) of the Convention. It further notes that it is not inadmissible on any other grounds. It must therefore be declared admissible.

95 . The applicants submitted that they had had no means of asserting their rights in the face of the actions of the “MRT” authorities.

96 . The respondent Government s made no specific submissions.

97 . The Court reiterates that the effect of Article 13 is to require the provision of a domestic remedy allowing the competent national authority both to deal with the substance of the relevant Convention complaint and to grant appropriate relief, although Contracting States are afforded some discretion as to the manner in which they comply with their obligations under that provision (see Chahal v. the United Kingdom , 15 November 1996, § 145, Reports 1996 ‑ V). The remedy required by Article 13 must be “effective”, both in practice and in law. However, such a remedy is required only for complaints that can be regarded as “arguable” under the Convention (see De Souza Ribeiro v. France [GC], no. 22689/07, § 78, ECHR 2012, Centre for Legal Resources on behalf of Valentin Câmpeanu v. Romania [GC], no. 47848/08, § 148, ECHR 2014, and Mozer , cited above, § 207).

98 . The Court observes that it found that the applicants ’ complaint under Articles 3, 5 and 8 of the Convention were arguable. However, as regards the applicant ’ s complaint under Article 5 § 1, the Court observes that Article 5 § 4, which the Court did not consider necessary to examine separately in the circumstances of the case (see paragraph 82 ), is the lex specialis in relation to Article 13.

99 . The applicants were therefore entitled to an effective domestic remedy within the meaning of Article 13 in respect of their complaints under Articles 3 and 8 of the Convention.

100 . The Court found in Mozer (cited above, § § 210- 212) that no effective remedies existed in either the Republic of Moldova or the Russian Federation in respect of similar complaints under Articles 3 and 8 of the Convention. In the absence of any new pertinent information, it sees no reason for departing from that conclusion in the present case. Consequently, the Court must decide whether any violation of Article 13 can be attributed to either of the respondent States.

101 . The Court notes that in Mozer (cited above, §§ 213-216) it found that Moldova had made procedures available to applicants commensurate with its limited ability to protect their rights. It had thus fulfilled its positive obligations and the Court found that there had been no violation of Article 13 of the Convention by that State. In view of the similarity of the complaints made and of the coincidence of the time-frame of the events in the present cases with those in Mozer , the Court sees no reasons to depart from that conclusion in the present cases. Accordingly, the Court finds that there has been no violation of Article 13 of the Convention by the Republic of Moldova.

102 . As in Mozer (cited above, §§ 217-218), in the absence of any submission by the Russian Government as to any remedies available to the applicant, the Court concludes that there has been a violation by the Russian Federation of Article 13 taken in conjunction with Articles 3 and 8.

103 . Article 41 of the Convention provides:

“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.”

104 . The Court notes that it has not found a breach of any Convention provision by the Republic of Moldova. Accordingly, it will not make any award to be paid by this respondent State.

105 . Mr Evghenii Antonov and Mr Alexandru Băluţă each claimed 60,000 euros (EUR) and Mr Oleksandr Bezrodn ii claimed EUR 40,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage. They referred to the long-term psychological and physical health problems caused by their unlawful detention, the threats and pressure to confess by the “MRT” authorities.

106 . The Moldovan Government argued that the sums claimed were excessive in the specific circumstances of the present cases.

107 . The Russian Government submitted that the applicants had failed to present any detailed explanations, medical or other kinds of evidence in support of their claims, which were excessive and unsubstantiated.

108 . The Court considers that the applicants have suffered a certain level of stress following their unlawful detention in inhuman conditions. Having regard to the circumstances of the case and making its assessment on an equitable basis, the Court awards Mr Evghenii Antonov, Mr Alexandru Băluţă and Mr Oleksandr Bezrodn ii in respect of non-pecuniary damage each EUR 9, 75 0, to be paid by the Russian Federation.

109 . The applicant s also claimed EUR 11,600 for the costs and expenses incurred before the Court.

110 . The Moldovan Government submitted that the sum claimed was excessive, notably regarding the number of hours worked on the case. In particular, tripling the number of hours in order to write observations on similar cases and which were submitted in a single document was unjustifiable. Moreover, no evidence had been submitted to confirm the payment of any sums to the lawyers.

111 . The Russian Government argued that in accordance with the Court ’ s case law, in order for costs and expenses to be awarded it was necessary to establish their authenticity, proportionality, validity and reasonable character of their size.

112 . Regard being had to the documents in its possession and to its case-law , the Court considers it reasonable to award the sum of EUR 1,500 , jointly , covering costs under all heads for the proceedings before the Court.

113 . The Court considers it appropriate that the default interest rate 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,

(a) that the Russian Federation is to pay the applicant s , within three months the following amounts:

(i) EUR 9, 750 ( nine thousand seven hundred and fifty euros) each , plus any tax that may be chargeable, in respect of non- pecuniary damage;

(ii) EUR 1,500 ( one thousand five hundred euros ) jointly , plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicant s , in respect of costs and expenses;

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

Done in English, and notified in writing on 2 July 2019 , pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.

Hasan Bakırcı Julia Laffranque Deputy Registrar President