Communicated on 19 September 2016

THIRD SECTION

Application no. 32695/14 Stanislav Nikolayevich TYURIN against Russia lodged on 28 March 2014

STATEMENT OF FACTS

The applicant, Mr Stanislav Nikolayevich Tyurin , is a Russian national who was born in 1973 and was being detained in St Petersburg at the time the application was lodged. He is represented before the Court by Ms M.A. Belinskaya , a lawyer practising in St Petersburg.

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

On 8 April 2010 the applicant was detained on suspicion of kidnapping and murder. On an unspecified date in December 2012 the applicant was released. He was taken back into detention on 4 June 2013 after a jury found him guilty of the charges.

The applicant was placed in a solitary confinement cell in wing 2/1 of remand prison IZ-47/1 in St Petersburg. He was kept alone for the whole day, including during the daily outdoor exercise period. There was no ventilation, hot water, or access to natural light or fresh air in the cell. The walls were covered with mould and the lighting was poor. Constant video surveillance also deprived him of any privacy when using the toilet. Lastly, the applicant was unable to have hot food on the days he had to attend hearings because he was not provided with hot water for the dried food he received.

COMPLAINTS

The applicant complains under Article 3 of the Convention that his solitary confinement and the conditions of his detention on remand amounted to inhuman and degrading treatment.

The applicant also complains under Article 8 of the Convention about the constant video surveillance of his cell in the remand prison.

The applicant complains under Article 13 of the Convention that he did not have effective domestic remedies in respect of his complaints.

QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES

1. As regards the applicant ’ s solitary confinement after 4 June 2013 in remand prison IZ-47/1 in St Petersburg, the Government are requested to indicate the date when the solitary confinement ended and to provide copies of registration logs to support their submissions. Were the conditions in solitary confinement during that period compatible with Article 3 of the Convention ( see, for example, A.B. v. Russia , no. 1439/06 , § § 99-113, 14 October 2010, and Gorbulya v. Russia , no. 31535/09 , §§ 74-81, 6 March 2014) ?

2. Were the conditions of the applicant ’ s detention in remand prison IZ ‑ 47/1 compatible with Article 3 of the Convention (see Gorbulya , cited above, § § 67-73) ?

3. As regards the applicant ’ s allegation that his cell in the remand prison was under constant video surveillance, was there an interference with the applicant ’ s right to respect for his private life under Article 8 § 1 of the Convention? If so, was the interference justified under Article 8 § 2 of the Convention? The Government are invited to provide all relevant documents.

4. Did the applicant have effective domestic remedies in respect of each of his three complaints, as guaranteed by Article 13 of the Convention?