Communicated on 31 August 2017

THIRD SECTION

Application no. 39782/15 Vyacheslav Aleksandrovich SALNIKOV against Russia and 2 other applications (see list appended)

SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE S

The applications concern the applicants ’ confinement in metal cages in courtrooms during the criminal proceedings against them and the conditions of the their transport to temporary detention facilities and/or courthouses for participation in investigating activities and/or court hearings, as well as the absence of an effective domestic remedy in this connection. T hey raise issues under Articles 3 and 13 of the Convention.

Applications nos. 61953/15 and 33771/16 further raise an issue of the applicants ’ confinement in metal cages in court rooms from the angle of Article 6 §§ 1, 2 and 3 (b) of the Convention.

Application no. 61953/15 further concerns the conditions in which the applicant participated in investigating activities on the premises of the temporary detention facility and raises issues under Articles 3 and 6 §§ 1 and 3 (b) of the Convention.

Lastly, application no. 33771/16 concerns the conditions of the applicant ’ s detention in remand prisons and the absence of an effective domestic remedy in this respect and raises issues under Articles 3 and 13 of the Convention .

QUESTIONS tO THE PARTIES

COMMON QUESTIONS

1. Have the applicants been subjected to degrading treatment, in breach of Article 3 of the Convention, on account of their confinement in metal cages in courtrooms during the criminal proceedings against them (see Svinarenko and Slyadnev v. Russia [GC], nos. 32541/08 and 43441/08 , §§ 113 ‑ 39, ECHR 2014 (extracts), and Vorontsov and Others v. Russia , nos. 59655/14 and 2 others, § 31, 31 January 2017 )?

2. Have the conditions of the applicants ’ transport to temporary detention facilities and/or courthouses for participation in investigating activities and/or court hearings been compatible with Article 3 of the Convention (see Idalov v. Russia [GC], no. 5826/03, § § 103-108 , 22 May 2012 , and M.S. v. Russia , no. 8589/08 , § § 74-77, 10 July 2014 )?

3. Did the applicants have at their disposal an effective domestic remedy for their complaints under Article 3 of the Convention regarding their confinement in metal cages and conditions of their transport, as required by Article 13 of the Convention (see Svinarenko and Slyadnev [GC], cited above, § 87; Yaroslav Belousov v. Russia , nos. 2653/13 and 60980/14, § 113, 4 October 2016; and M.S., cited above , §§ 80-86 ) ?

CASE-SPECIFIC QUESTIONS

Applications nos. 61953/15 and 33771/16

Did the applicants ’ placement in metal cages in courtrooms during the criminal proceedings against them entail a failure to respect the fair hearing guarantees under Article 6 of the Convention? In particular:

(a) Was the presumption of innocence, guaranteed by Article 6 § 2 of the Convention, respected?

(b) Were the applicants afforded adequate facilities to prepare their defence , as required by Article 6 § 3 (b) of the Convention? What were the furnishings of the metal cages in the courtrooms? Were the applicants provided with a desk like other parties to the proceedings? Were they afforded adequate facilities to take notes during the trial?

Application no. 61953/15

1. Were the conditions in which the applicant participated in investigating activities on the premises of the temporary detention facility IVS “ Vyshnevolotskiy ” in Tver Region, in the light of the specific allegations made by the applicant, compatible with Article 3 of the Convention?

2. Did the conditions in which the applicant participated in investigating activities on the premises of the temporary detention facility IVS “ Vyshnevolotskiy ” affect her right to have adequate facilities for the preparation of her defence as required by Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (b) of the Convention? What were the furnishings of the room in which the investigating activities were conducted? Was the applicant afforded adequate facilities to take notes?

Application no. 33771/16

1. Were the conditions of the applicant ’ s detention in remand prisons SIZO-6 and IK-7 in St Petersburg, in the light of the specific allegations made by the applicant, compatible with Article 3 of the Convention (see Ananyev and Others v. Russia , nos. 42525/07 and 60800/08, §§ 139-66, 10 January 2012)?

2. Did the applicant have at his disposal an effective domestic remedy for his complaint under Article 3 of the Convention regarding the conditions of his detention in remand prison, as required by Article 13 of the Convention (see Ananyev and Others, cited above, §§ 100-19)?

APPENDIX

No.

Application no.

Lodged on

Applicant

Date of birth

Place of residence

Represented by

39782/15

25/07/2015

Vyacheslav Aleksandrovich SALNIKOV

10/04/1984

Vladivostok

61953/15

10/10/2015

Irina Anatolyevna MISHKINA

23/09/1984

Onega

33771/16

31/05/2016

Yevgeniy Yevgenyevich KORABLEV

29/04/1987

St Petersburg

Maksim Vladimirovich SEMENOV