Communicated on 22 January 2018

THIRD SECTION

Application no . 82352/17 Anton Alekseyevich KOROSTELEV and Aleksey Aleksandrovich PULYALIN against Russia lodged on 9 December 2013

SUBJECT MATTER OF the CASE

The application concerns the applicants ’ solitary confinement in remand prison no. 1 in Syktyvkar, the Komi Republic, and the existence of an effective domestic remedy in that respect .

QUESTIONS

1. When did the applicants ’ solitary confinement in remand prison no. 1 in Syktyvkar, the Komi Republic come to an end?

2. Was the negative effect of the applicants ’ solitary confinement mitigated by their access to outdoor exercise, participation in the court hearings or other factors?

3. What was the justification for their solitary confinement?

4. Was the applicants ’ solitary confinement attended by procedural safeguards? In particular, did the detention authority assess the applicants ’ physical and psychological aptitude for long-term isolation, or regularly monitor their physical and psychological conditions to ensure its compatibility with continued solitary confinement?

5. Have there been a violation of Article 3 of the Convention on account of the applicants ’ solitary confinement in remand prison no. 1 in Syktyvkar, the Komi Republic (see A.L. (X.W.) v. Russia , no. 44095/14 , §§ 74-82, 29 October 2015; Gorbulya v. Russia , no. 31535/09 , §§ 76-81, 6 March 2014; and Borodin v. Russia , no. 41867/04 , § 129, 6 November 2012)?

6. Did the applicants have at their disposal an effective domestic remedy as required by Article 13 of the Convection to complain about their solitary confinement?