Communicated on 18 January 2018

THIRD SECTION

Application no. 50779/16 Andrey Igorevich RESIN against Russia lodged on 5 August 2016

SUBJECT MATTER OF the CASE

The application concerns the specific appearance of life-prisoners ’ uniform, which the applicant has to wear in correctional colony no. IK-56 in Ivdel , the Sverdlovsk Region. It consists of a black jacket and black trousers. The jacket has the words “life imprisonment” stenciled by the prison administration on its back, and a prisoner ’ s number. The same number is painted on the back side of the trousers.

QUESTIONS

1. What categories of detainees are held in correctional colony no. IK-56 in Ivdel , the Sverdlovsk Region? Does the prison administration mark their uniform with distinctive words and/or signs? Does similar practice exist in other detention facilities in Russia?

2. Has the painting of the words “life imprisonment” and the applicant ’ s prisoner ’ s number on his uniform constituted an interference with his right to respect for private life under Article 8 § 1 of the Convention (see McFeeley and Others v. the United Kingdom , no. 8317/78, Commission decision of 15 May 1980, § 83, DR 20, p. 44)? If so, is it justified?

In particular:

(a) Does the interference “prescribed by law”? More specifically, do the Rules of internal order of penitentiary establishments, approved by the Ministry of Justice on 3 November 2005 (no. 205) , or other pieces of legislation allow prison authorities to put any non-standard marks on the detainees ’ uniform?

(b) If so, does the interference pursue one or more of the legitimate aims referred to in Article 8 § 2 of the Convention?

(c) If so, was it “necessary in a democratic society” to achieve those aims? In particular is it proportionate to the legitimate aims pursued, regard being had to the prolonged character of the impugned measure and its mental effect on the prisoners (see Extract from the 25th General Report of the CPT, CPT/ Inf ( 2016)10 ‑ part, § 71, 16 April 2016)?

3. Has the applicant suffered discrimination on the grounds of his life imprisonment, contrary to Article 14 of the Convention read in conjunction with Article 8 of the Convention?

In particular, is he subjected to a difference in treatment when compared to life convicts detained in other facilities? If so, does that difference in treatment pursue one or more of the legitimate aims and does it have an objective and reasonable justification?