Lexploria

Communicated on 15 June 2015

FIRST SECTION

Application no. 43496/12 Aleksandr LAGUTIN against Russia and eighty-eight other applications (see list appended)

STATEMENT OF FACTS

1. All the applicants are represented before the Court by Ms M. Gordeyeva , a lawyer practising in Astrakhan.

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

3. All the applicants were convicted of criminal offences and given a custodial sentence which they served in two correctional facilities in the Astrakhan Region, IK-2 and IK-6. The dates of their stay in those facilities are set out in the annexed table.

4. The applicants were assigned to the brigades. All members of the brigade shared the living premises which included a dormitory with bunk beds, as well as a toilet and a washroom, both measuring approximately twelve square metres. The living premises were overcrowded, the number of inmates exceeded the number of sleeping places and the personal space was below the statutory standard of two square metres per inmate. The dormitory surface, the number of sleeping places and of detainees are listed in the annexed table.

5. Owing to the overcrowding and a shortage of space, there was no recreation room, no room for keeping clothes and shoes, no dining room or pantry. The television set was moved into the dormitory where it blasted at full volume round the clock. Clothes were hung on the beds and bed linen stored in plastic bags under the beds. Inmates had to eat food while sitting on the beds.

6. The available toilets and sinks were insufficient for the number of inmates. The waiting time, especially in the morning, was long, queues formed quickly and conflicts sparked easily. While partitions were installed between toilets, cubicles had no doors and the privacy was thus limited. Sinks had only cold water by design. Water smelled foul and was unfit for drinking and access to boiled water was restricted because of a limited number of electric sockets for plugging boilers in.

7. The facility had only one bathhouse equipped with eleven showerheads. Each brigade was authorised to use it during three hours once a week. Inmates could not take a shower after the mandatory morning physical exercise and had to wash themselves with cold water from the sinks, including in winter.

8. Outdoor exercise was possible within the confines of the isolated courtyard ( локальный участок ) that measures approximately 350 square metres and was surrounded by a three-and-a-half-metre-high fence. The fence was made of solid concrete, without openings for ventilation, and the air was unbearably hot in summer. Plants, shrubs and makeshift clotheslines took up a large part of the courtyard, leaving the concrete walkway approximately one and a half metres wide and twenty metres long as the only place for exercise. The fabric of a pavilion had no roof and offered no protection against the scorching heat, rain or snow.

9 . Detainees were issued with just one set of clothes. They wore the same shoes, synthetic socks and trousers in winter when temperatures plunged to -20 degrees C, as in summer when the temperature rose up to 35 degrees. Twice every day, at the morning and evening call-overs lasting between forty minutes and several hours, inmates were required to stay outside, including at freezing temperatures. The federal Ombudsman condemned these procedures in his 2012 annual report:

“ 4. Right to human dignity

...

The problem of conditions of post-conviction detention is even more pressing. The Ombudsman has been receiving many complaints of this kind. The complainants have informed him that in the cold season, convicts are required to stay for a long time in unheated premises which leads to illnesses. It is hard to tell whether these call-overs are prompted by a real need or by the desire of the facility administration to submit detainees to torture by frost. What is however clear is that the call-overs must be conducted with due regard to weather conditions ...”

10 . According to the day schedule approved by the director of the IK-2 facility on 29 December 2012, the prisoner ’ s day is organised as follows:

11. Detainees could spend time outside during the morning physical exercise, on their way to the breakfast, lunch and dinner (approximately 250 metres each way), at the morning and evening call-overs and in their free time in the morning and in the afternoon.

12. The Astrakhan regional prosecutor in charge of monitoring legal compliance of correctional facilities carried out periodic inspections of the conditions of detention in the Astrakhan facilities and reported the violations he had identified to the director of the Astrakhan branch of the Federal Penitentiary Service.

13 . The prosecutor ’ s infringement report ( представление об устранении нарушений ) of 16 February 2010 noted as follows:

“The inspectors established that 1,797 convicted prisoners were held at the [IK-2] facility, that is 472 persons in excess of the normative capacity. As a consequence, all the brigades are overcrowded, the personal space per prisoner is below the norm. All the auxiliary premises (the leisure room, the pantry, the room for drying clothes and shoes) have been converted into dormitories because of the overcrowding. The number of sanitary facilities is insufficient, they need to be renovated ...

Brigade 1 has 156 sleeping places and accommodates 159 persons, Brigade 2 – 146 places and 153 persons, Brigade 8 – 138 places and 149 persons, Brigade 11 – 150 places and 162 persons ... Dormitories are equipped with two-tier bunk beds placed close to one another.

Storage space for prisoners ’ personal items is overfilled, their belongings are kept under the beds in the dormitory. Fridges and TV sets were moved to the dormitories ...”

The prosecutor requested the management of the IK-2 facility and representatives of the Federal Penitentiary Service and of the prosecutor ’ s office to consider these findings at a meeting, to discipline the responsible employees and to report back to him within one month.

14. Similar problems were identified in the infringement report of 30 March 2011:

“The actual number of prisoners is 1,760 persons and the maximum capacity is 1,325. Brigades 1, 2, 3, 5, 7, 9, 10 and 11 are overcrowded. Space per detainee is below the norm of 2 square metres, as established in Article 99 of the Penitentiary Code and the Ministry of Justice ’ s Order no. 130-dsp of 2 June 2003.

The dormitory, lavatory and toilet in Brigade 2, the dormitory in Brigade 3 ... sanitary facilities in Brigade 6 and the lavatory in Brigade 9 need urgent repairs. Electrical wiring in dormitories 2, 4, 5, 8 and 9 needs to be replaced, the window in the lavatory in Brigade 1 needs to be glazed ...

The quantity of sanitary equipment is below the established norm, in breach of the requirements of Article 101 of the Penitentiary Code: Brigade 1 disposes of four sinks and six toilets where nine of each are required. Sanitary equipment is insufficient or broken also in Brigades 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 15 ...

The toilets in all brigades are not fitted with doors and prisoners have no isolation or privacy when answering the call of nature.

The facility management makes no efforts to ensure proper lighting of the territory: one light is broken in the dormitory of Brigade 4, four lights are off in Brigade 6 ...”

The infringement report ended with a strongly worded conclusion:

“I would emphasise that most of the uncovered violations have been repeatedly mentioned in previous reports. The absence of sufficient results of your work directed at remedying violations of the law, their causes and contributory factors, suggests that the hierarchical control of your activities by the territorial directorate to which you report is inadequate.”

15. As regards the IK-6 facility, in 2010 the prosecutor instituted infringement proceedings against the facility management before a court of general jurisdiction, seeking to enforce compliance with the legal requirements. The prosecutor acted under Article 45 of the Code of Civil Procedure for the protection of the rights of an undetermined group of individuals. Relying on the provisions of the Penitentiary Code and relevant legal standards and citing the Court ’ s judgements concerning a violation of Article 3 of the Convention on account of severe overcrowding, the prosecutor asked the court to recognise that the facility director had not discharged his duty to protect the well-being of prisoners by failing to provide them with individual sleeping places, with adequate personal space and a sufficient number of sinks and toilets. He further asked the court to order that the director should remedy the shortcomings within one month.

16. On 21 March 2011 the Sovetskiy District Court of Astrakhan granted the prosecutor ’ s claim in part. It held that the infringements of penitentiary law to which the prosecutor referred had been corroborated by the evidence he produced in court. It directed that the defendant facility should discharge the duty to enforce the rights and legal interests of convicted prisoners, and recalled that a lack of sufficient resources could not justify a violation of human rights.

17. The District Court rejected the remainder of the prosecutor ’ s claims for the following reasons:

“The [prosecutor ’ s] claim to require [the facility management] to install hot water supply in the IK-6 building cannot be granted because the building dates back to the 1960s-1970s and has no hot water supply by design ...

As regards the claims for declaring unlawful the defendant ’ s failure to eliminate the established violations of the rights and lawful interests of prisoners and for requiring the IK-6 director to take measures for reducing the maximum capacity to 1,390 persons – as calculated on the basis of the available living space of 2,780.3 square metres – the court rejects them for the following reasons:

It follows from the parties ’ oral submissions that the overcrowding is the main cause of the violations ... It has been established that the maximum capacity is 1,448 persons but the actual number of prisoners has been steadily increasing and, as a result, the available space, including the living premises, is not sufficient to ensure the conditions of detention compliant with the established norms and regulations. It follows from the submissions by the prosecutor ’ s representative to the court that the fundamental solution to the existing problem [of overcrowding] would be to stop accepting prisoners into the facility and to redirect them to facilities in other Russian regions having [adequate] conditions for their detention, as well as to take steps for transferring [some of] the detainees from the defendant ’ s facility to facilities in other Russian regions. However, the court is not convinced by these arguments because the procedure for transferring convicts to correctional facilities and for transferring them between facilities is established in the federal law which implies that the defendant has no authority to decide, on his own, to refuse accepting prisoners or to transfer them to other facilities, such decision being in the jurisdiction of the Federal Penitentiary Service.

Furthermore, it follows from the documents submitted by the defendant and the third party that the director of the IK-6 facility wrote a letter to the head of the Astrakhan branch of the Federal Penitentiary Service, advising him of overcrowding in the facility, urgency of an in-depth renovation and of bringing the conditions of detention in line with the legal requirements. He asked [the regional branch] to suspend transfers of prisoners into the facility. On 1 July 2009 the head of the Astrakhan branch of the Federal Penitentiary Service sent a letter to the head of the Execution of Sentences and Accounting Department of the Federal Penitentiary Service, from which it appears that ... the high-security facilities were filled at 114 per cent of their capacity, that they could not accommodate any more convicts, that the auxiliary premises had been converted into dormitories ... that these failings had resulted in the prosecutor ’ s infringement report ... and he requested to consider transferring convicts outside of the Astrakhan Region. By a telegramme of 16 July 2009, the first deputy head of the Federal Penitentiary Service replied that at present all strict-security facilities were overcrowded, that the Service was 17,500 places short and that the request could not therefore be granted ... A survey by the Federal Penitentiary Service entitled “On the functioning of the accounting departments of the regional branches of the Federal Penitentiary Service in 2009” indicated that, despite an overall decrease in the number of post-conviction prisoners in 2009, the number of convicted prisoners in high-security facilities increased, as of 1 January 2010 high-security facilities were filled at 104% of their capacity (16,500 places short of what was needed).

It also follows from the documents submitted by the defendant and the third party that the facility management has taken measures for providing all prisoners with sleeping places, including by converting auxiliary premises into dormitories, for painting the premises over and for installing additional sanitary facilities ...

In these circumstances, the court finds that the [prosecutor ’ s] request to declare unlawful the defendant ’ s failure to uphold the prisoners ’ rights and lawful interests and to take measures for reducing the maximum capacity, is unfounded, having regard to the definition of fault in Article 401 § 1 of the Civil Code [“Grounds for liability for a breach of contract”], as it has been established that the defendant is taking measures for upholding the prisoners ’ rights and lawful interests that are necessary and feasible within its competence, whereas the existing overcrowding problem ought to be resolved at federal level on the basis of the above-mentioned legislation.”

II. RELEVANT DOMESTIC LAW AND PRACTICE

A. Constitution of the Russian Federation

18 . Personal dignity is protected by the State and may not be undermined for any reason (Article 21 § 1).

No one may be subject to torture, violence or any other cruel or degrading treatment or punishment (Article 21 § 2).

B. Penitentiary Code (Federal Law no. 1-FZ of 8 January 1997)

19 . The relevant provisions of the Penitentiary Code read as follows:

Article 12: Fundamental rights of convicts

“1. Convicts have the right to receive information on the rights and obligations ...

2. Convicts have the right to be treated courteously by the personnel of the penitentiary facility. They may not be subjected to cruel or degrading treatment or punishment ...

4. Convicts have the right to send suggestions, applications and complaints to the administration of the penitentiary facility, to the hierarchically superior penitentiary authorities, to a court, to prosecutor ’ s offices, to State and municipal bodies, to the Ombudsman, to the Ombudsman for Children, to the regional ombudsperson or ombudsperson for children, to public monitoring commissions, public associations and – in accordance with international treaties, to which Russia is a party – to international bodies for the protection of human rights ... ”

Article 15: Applications by convicts and the procedure for their examination

“ ... 3. Suggestions, applications and complaints by the individuals who were given ... a custodial sentence ... must be sent, and the replies must be received, via the administration of the penitentiary facility ...

5. Suggestions , applications and complaints by the convicts concerning the decisions and actions by the administration of the penitentiary facility have no suspensive effect in respect of such decisions and actions ... ”

Article 20: Judicial control

“ ... 2. In accordance with the Russian legislation, a court examines the complaints by convicts and other persons against the actions by the administration of penitentiary facilities ... ”

Article 21: Hierarchical control

“Hierarchically superior bodies and their officials exercise control over the operation of penitentiary facilities. The parameters of hierarchical control are determined in normative legal acts.”

Article 22: Prosecutorial monitoring of compliance by penitentiary facilities with the applicable laws

“The Prosecutor General of the Russian Federation and his subordinate prosecutors are in charge of monitoring compliance by penitentiary institutions with the applicable laws, pursuant to the Prosecutors Act.”

Article 23: Participation of non-governmental associations in public monitoring of the state of protection of human rights. Contribution by non-governmental associations to the work of penitentiary facilities

“1. Public monitoring of the state of protection of human rights in correctional centres, facilities and disciplinary military units is carried out by public monitoring commissions that were established in Russian regions in accordance with the Penitentiary Monitoring Act ... , and by their members, on the grounds and in the procedure established in the Russian legislation ... ”

Article 74: Types of correctional facilities

“ ... 3. Penal settlements accommodate the individuals convicted of negligent crimes and also intentional crimes of minor or medium gravity ...

4. Standard-security correctional colonies accommodate male convicts, except those listed in parts 5, 6 and 7 below, and female convicts.

5. High-security correctional colonies accommodate male convicts who were first convicted of a particularly serious crime, who are recidivists or dangerous recidivists, and who had previously served a custodial sentence.

6. Special-security correctional colonies accommodate male convicts who are particularly dangerous recidivists, who were sentenced for life or whose sentence of capital punishment was commuted into a limited-duration or life sentence.

7. Prisons accommodate the individuals who were sentenced to more than five years ’ imprisonment for the commission of a particularly serious crime, who are particularly dangerous recidivists or who are repeat offenders of the regime who were transferred from a correctional facility ... ”

Article 81: Serving of the entire sentence in one correctional facility

“1. As a rule, convicts must serve the entire sentence in one and the same correctional facility ... ”

Article 99: Material conditions of detention

“1. The normative living surface per convict in a correctional facility may not be less than two square metres, in a prison two and a half square metres ... in a medical correctional facility three square metres and in a medical prevention facility five square metres.

2. Convicts shall dispose of an individual sleeping place and bed linen. They shall be provided with seasonal clothing suitable for their sex, personal hygiene articles (as a minimum, a soap bar, a toothbrush, a toothpaste or powder, toilet paper, disposable razors for men and personal hygiene items for women) ... ”

C. Penitentiary Monitoring C ommissions Act (Federal Law no. 76-FZ of 10 June 2008)

20 . The Act establishes the legal framework that enables public monitoring commissions ( общественные наблюдательные комиссии ) to participate in the public monitoring of the protection of human rights in penitentiary institutions (sections 1-5).

21 . Commissions are formed in each Russian region. Their members are appointed for a three-year period by the Council of the Public Chamber, a consultative body, on proposal from duly registered human-rights associations (section 10). Advocates, prosecutors, State and municipal officials may not be members of the commissions (section 12).

22 . Section 15 enumerates the functions of commissions:

“(1) visiting penitentiary facilities in accordance with the procedure established in the present law and other federal laws;

(2) examining suggestions, applications and complaints from detainees and from other persons who have information about violations of the rights of detainees;

(3) preparing decisions reporting the findings of public monitoring. Decisions by a public monitoring commission shall be considered as recommendations;

(4) communicating the findings to the Ombudsman or regional ombudspersons ...

(5) liaising with the State authorities on the issues within their competence ...

(6) participating in the work of penitentiary commissions that render decision on transferring detainees to a different type of facility;

(7) holding public discussions and hearings on the issues relating to their functioning.”

D. Prosecutors Act (Federal Law no. 2202-1 of 17 January 1992)

23 . Monitoring of implementation of laws by the administration of remand prisons and penitentiary facilities is listed as one of the functions of prosecutors public (section 1 § 2).

24 . Other relevant provisions of the Prosecutors Act read as follows:

Section 5: Unacceptable interference with the prosecutor ’ s functions

“ ... 2. The prosecutor is not obliged to give any explanations as to the contents of his files or pending inquiries or provide such materials to anyone, except in the situations and in accordance with the procedure outlined in paragraph 4 below.

4. An individual may study the materials of an inquiry if a prosecutor in charge of the inquiry so decides. Such decision may also be taken by a superior prosecutor on an application from the individual concerned, if the materials directly affect his or her rights and freedoms.

A decision on making the materials available to the individual concerned or on refusing access to the materials must be taken within ten days of receiving an application to that effect ... ”

Section 22: Powers of prosecutors [in the sphere of oversight over enforcement of laws]

“1. For carrying out his official duties, the prosecutor may:

- on production of his official badge, freely enter the territory and premises [of State and municipal authorities], have access to their documents and materials, check [their] compliance with law upon receiving information about breaches of law;

- request necessary documents, materials and statistical data from directors and other officials; solicit assistance from experts ...

- summon officials and private individuals for giving explanations about breaches of law ...

3. If a prosecutor or his deputy has uncovered a breach of law committed by the authorities and officials ...

- he may file a report to have the violations remedied.”

Section 24: Prosecutor ’ s infringement report ( представление )

“1. A n infringement report may be brought by a prosecutor or his deputy before the body or official that is competent to remedy the violation. It must be examined without delay.

Within one month of receiving the report , [the competent body or official] must take specific measures for remedying the violations, their causes and contributing factors, and report in writing on the effect of these measures to the prosecutor ... ”

Section 27: Powers of the prosecutor [in the sphere of oversight over the protection of human rights and freedoms]

“1. In carrying out his functions, the prosecutor:

- examines and checks applications, complaints and other communications about violations of human rights and freedoms ...

- takes measures aimed at preventing or putting an end to violations of human rights and freedoms, at bringing those responsible to liability and at obtaining compensation for damage;

- uses his powers described in section 22 of the Federal Law ...

4. In case of a violation of human rights and freedoms which can be redressed in civil proceedings ... if the violation affected a significant number of individuals or if it is of great public importance for any other reasons, the prosecutor may file and defend a claim in a court ... on behalf of the victims.”

Section 28: Protest and request by a prosecutor

“ ... A n infringement report may be brought by a prosecutor or his deputy before the body or official that is competent to remedy the violation ... The procedure and time-limits are set out in [section 24] of the Federal Law.”

Section 32: Scope of the oversight [over compliance with legal norms by the administration of penitentiary facilities and remand prisons]

“The oversight extends to the following issues:

- lawfulness of holding individuals in remand prisons and correctional facilities ...

- respect for the legally established rights and obligations of untried prisoners and convicts, for the procedure and the conditions of their detention ... ”

Section 33: Powers of the prosecutor

“1. For carrying out his oversight over compliance with legal norms, the prosecutor may:

- visit at any time the [penitentiary facilities];

- interview untried prisoners and convicts ...

- require the administration that it create the conditions [of detention] that ensure respect for the rights of untried prisoners and convicts ... ask officials for explanations, file protests and reports , institute administrative proceedings ... ”

Section 34: Binding nature of the prosecutor ’ s decisions and requests

“The prosecutor ’ s decisions and requests concerning the implementation of the legally established conditions of detention ... must be mandatorily executed by the penitentiary authorities ... ”

E. Internal Regulations in Correctional Facilities

25 . By Order no. 205 of 3 November 2005, the Ministry of Justice approved the Rules on the internal regulations in correctional facilities. The relevant parts of the Rules provide as follows:

“15. Convicts are prohibited from:

- leaving the isolated areas of the living premises and work sites without the consent of the administration;

- being present in dormitories other than their own ...

- putting curtains around their sleeping places or trading sleeping places with others ... or being present on their sleeping places outside the authorised sleep time, without the consent of the administration ...

- sending or receiving correspondence by circumventing the facility administration ...

21. A day schedule based on the template in annex 4 shall be approved by an order signed by the director of the facility and brought to the attention of the staff and convicts.

33. Head counts are carried out on a daily basis, in the morning and in the night during the time period indicated in the day schedule ...

34. All convicts stand in formation in a specified place for a headcount by means of a quantitative check and by calling the roll ...

38. Groups of convicts can move about the territory of the facility ... only in formations ...

39. In their personal time, convicts may move outside of formations within the isolated area, as defined by the facility administration ... In the time period after the lights-out and until the wake-up, convicts may be leave the living premises without the consent of the administration ...

61. All written suggestions, applications, requests and complaints shall be sent to their addressee via the facility administration. They are registered by correspondence units ( отдел специального учета ) or by the administration office ...

65. Replies to suggestions, applications, requests and complaints are to be given to convicts within three days upon their receipt, against their signature ... ”

26 . Annex 4 contains a model day schedule for detainees:

“Wake-up: no later than 5 or 6 a.m.

Physical exercise (duration): up to 15 minutes.

Toilet, making beds: up to 10 minutes.

Morning and evening head count: up to 40 minutes.

Breakfast: up to 30 minutes.

Travel to work site: up to 40 minutes.

Work time: in accordance with labour law.

Lunch break: up to 30 minutes.

Travel back from work site, night toilet: up to 25 minutes.

Dinner: up to 30 minutes.

Personal time: 30 to 60 minutes.

Educational activities: up to one hour.

School and professional education: a separate schedule.

Getting ready for sleep: up to 10 minutes.

Uninterrupted sleep: 8 hours.”

F. Resolution of the Plenary Supreme Court of 27 June 2013

27 . On 27 June 2013 the Plenary Supreme Court adopted Resolution no. 21 on the application of the European Convention on Human Rights by courts of general jurisdiction, which provides in particular as follows:

“9. In accordance with the generally recognised norms and principles of international law and Articles 1 and 34 of the Convention, as interpreted by the European Court, the objective of redressing a violation of human rights and freedoms [can be achieved if] a court acknowledges a violation of such rights or freedoms and mentions this finding in a judicial act. Pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage caused by the violation must be compensated for in accordance with the established legal procedure.

For determining the amount of compensation, courts can take into account the amount of compensation in respect of non-pecuniary damage that was awarded by the European Court for a similar violation ...

16. Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, as interpreted by the European Court, [requires that] a detainee should have the right to participate in a court hearing in civil proceedings.”

G. Programme for Development of the Penitentiary Until Year 2020

28 . On 14 October 2010 the Russian Government approved the Conceptual Programme for Development of the Penitentiary until Year 2020 (Resolution no. 1772-r, as amended by Resolution no. 874-r of 31 May 2012). It reads in the relevant parts as follows:

I. General description and the current state of the penitentiary

“As of 1 January 2010, the custodial and penitentiary facilities accommodate 864,000 individuals, of which:

131,400 persons are held in 226 remand prisons and 164 remand wings within correctional facilities;

723,900 persons in 755 correctional facilities;

2,800 persons in 7 prisons, and

5,900 persons in 62 educational facilities for minors ...

The measures that have been taken, such as a year-to-year increase in the amount of budget financing for the penitentiary, have brought about certain positive results in the development of the penitentiary, an improvement of the conditions of detention of the convicts and remand prisoners, including their accommodation, nutrition and medical assistance ...

However, despite a lowering level of crime over the last five years, by 2010 the number of convicted prisoners has risen by more than 115,000 persons, or by 18.6 per cent.

The global number of prisoners has remained at a consistently high level ... For objective reasons, the speed at which new correctional facilities and remand prisons are being built or reconstructed cannot match the trend towards an increase in the number of untried and convicted prisoners. As a consequence, some facilities operate at 20 to 40 per cent beyond the established capacity.

Overcrowding in the facilities has a general detrimental effect on the conditions of detention of remand prisoners and convicts and leads to breaches of their lawful rights and interests ...

Notwithstanding profound changes that have taken place in the country in the recent years, the penitentiary has retained many features of the old penitentiary system that was geared towards a different kind of society. It makes no allowance for modern economy, Russia ’ s integration into the international legal framework, the international standards for treatment of prisoners or the development of civil society ... ”

II. General provisions, objectives and goals of the conceptual programme

“The main objectives of the conceptual programme are:

Increasing the efficiency of the work of penitentiary institution to the level of European standards for treatment of convicts in compliance with the requirements of social development ...

Creating humane conditions of detention for untried and convicted prisoners, better safeguards for the protection of their rights and lawful interests ... ”

III. Main directions for development of the penitentiary

“The reform of the penitentiary institutions includes the following:

Change of profile of correctional facilities with a view to actually discontinuing the practice of collective detention which put the detainees under the stress of having to choose between the demands of the administration and those of the other detainees;

Creating the legal and logistical framework for replacing the existing penitentiary institutions with two main types of institutions: a prison (standard, enhanced and high-security) and a penal settlement (standard and enhanced supervision), while maintaining special-purpose institutions, such as medical correctional facilities and medical preventive facilities ...

Developing a model prison and a model penal settlement on the basis of the European Penitentiary Rules (2006 ) ...

Developing technical documentation, financial analysis and architectural projects of prison buildings that meet the European standards ... ”

4. Implementation of international standards for treatment of untried and convicted prisoners

“Placement of convicts in multi-occupancy dormitories makes it impossible to cut off undesirable contacts between them. The currently established legal principles on separate placement of convicts are insufficient for dealing with this problem.

Furthermore, the conditions of collective detention make it impossible to effectively counter the dangers of collision between criminally-minded convicts and of actions that may destabilise the functioning of the institutions ...

In the sphere of material conditions of detention, it is proposed to ... implement the sanitary and hygienic requirements on the conditions of detention to the established norms and an increase in the normative living space for inmates ... ”

III. RELEVANT INTERNATIONAL MATERIAL

29 . The Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners, adopted by the First United Nations Congress on the Prevention of Crime and the Treatment of Offenders, held at Geneva in 1955, and approved by the Economic and Social Council by it s resolution 663 C (XXIV) of 31 July 1957 and 2076 (LXII) of 13 May 1977, provide, in particular, as follows:

“9. (1) Where sleeping accommodation is in individual cells or rooms, each prisoner shall occupy by night a cell or room by himself ...

(2) Where dormitories are used, they shall be occupied by prisoners carefully selected as being suitable to associate with one another in those conditions. There shall be regular supervision by night, in keeping with the nature of the institution.

10. All accommodation provided for the use of prisoners and in particular all sleeping accommodation shall meet all requirements of health, due regard being paid to climatic conditions and particularly to cubic content of air, minimum floor space, lighting, heating and ventilation...

11. In all places where prisoners are required to live or work,

(a) The windows shall be large enough to enable the prisoners to read or work by natural light, and shall be so constructed that they can allow the entrance of fresh air whether or not there is artificial ventilation;

(b) Artificial light shall be provided sufficient for the prisoners to read or work without injury to eyesight.

12. The sanitary installations shall be adequate to enable every prisoner to comply with the needs of nature when necessary and in a clean and decent manner.

13. Adequate bathing and shower installations shall be provided so that every prisoner may be enabled and required to have a bath or shower, at a temperature suitable to the climate, as frequently as necessary for general hygiene according to season and geographical region, but at least once a week in a temperate climate.

14. All pans of an institution regularly used by prisoners shall be properly maintained and kept scrupulously clean at all time .

15. Prisoners shall be required to keep their persons clean, and to this end they shall be provided with water and with such toilet articles as are necessary for health and cleanliness...

19. Every prisoner shall, in accordance with local or national standards, be provided with a separate bed, and with separate and sufficient bedding which shall be clean when issued, kept in good order and changed often enough to ensure its cleanliness.

20. (1) Every prisoner shall be provided by the administration at the usual hours with food of nutritional value adequate for health and strength, of wholesome quality and well prepared and served.

(2) Drinking water shall be available to every prisoner whenever he needs it.

21. (1) Every prisoner who is not employed in outdoor work shall have at least one hour of suitable exercise in the open air daily if the weather permits ...

36. (1) Every prisoner shall have the opportunity each week day of making requests or complaints to the director of the institution or the officer authorized to represent him.

(2) It shall be possible to make requests or complaints to the inspector of prisons during his inspection. The prisoner shall have the opportunity to talk to the inspector or to any other inspecting officer without the director or other members of the staff being present.

(3) Every prisoner shall be allowed to make a request or complaint, without censorship as to substance but in proper form, to the central prison administration, the judicial authority or other proper authorities through approved channels.

(4) Unless it is evidently frivolous or groundless, every request or complaint shall be promptly dealt with and replied to without undue delay ...

55. There shall be a regular inspection of penal institutions and services by qualified and experienced inspectors appointed by a competent authority. Their task shall be in particular to ensure that these institutions are administered in accordance with existing laws and regulations and with a view to bringing about the objectives of pen al and correctional services ...”

IV. RELEVANT COUNCIL OF EUROPE MATERIAL

30 . The relevant extracts from the reports prepared by the European Committee for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (CPT) read as follows:

Extracts from the 11th General Report [CPT/ Inf (2001) 16]

“28. The phenomenon of prison overcrowding continues to blight penitentiary systems across Europe and seriously undermines attempts to improve conditions of detention. The negative effects of prison overcrowding have already been highlighted in previous General Reports ...

29. In a number of countries visited by the CPT, particularly in central and eastern Europe, inmate accommodation often consists of large capacity dormitories which contain all or most of the facilities used by prisoners on a daily basis, such as sleeping and living areas as well as sanitary facilities. The CPT has objections to the very principle of such accommodation arrangements in closed prisons and those objections are reinforced when, as is frequently the case, the dormitories in question are found to hold prisoners under extremely cramped and insalubrious conditions ... Large-capacity dormitories inevitably imply a lack of privacy for prisoners in their everyday lives ... All these problems are exacerbated when the numbers held go beyond a reasonable occupancy level; further, in such a situation the excessive burden on communal facilities such as washbasins or lavatories and the insufficient ventilation for so many persons will often lead to deplorable conditions ... ”

Extracts from Report to the Russian Government on the visit to Russia carried out by the CPT from 2 to 17 December 2001 [CPT/ Inf (2003) 30]

“ 66. ... at the time of the visit, the colony was operating well below its official capacity; however, this was a recent development, due to the latest amnesty in 2001. Prisoners were accommodated in detention blocks divided into two units, each comprising one or more dormitories. The dormitories measured between 80 and 160 m² and accommodated from 12 to 54 prisoners each. Some of them were holding prisoners in cramped conditions (e.g. the living space per inmate in one of the dormitories in Unit 8 was just under 3 m²).

Dormitory equipment consisted of single and bunk beds with full bedding (however, many mattresses were in a poor condition), shared bedside lockers, a table, chairs and an occasional radio or TV set. All blocks were in a dilapidated state, especially the wooden floors and the plumbing ... Nevertheless, prisoner living areas were in general clean and tidy, well-lit and ventilated.

67. The sanitary facilities in the units were, in most cases, dilapidated, filthy and foul-smelling. Prisoners could use the central bathroom once a week (which was also an occasion for them to wash their clothes) and have their bed linen washed in the laundry. However, the bathroom – which was equipped with only five shower heads – was a rudimentary facility ...

69. The CPT recommends that:

- efforts be made to decrease occupancy levels in the dormitories with the most cramped conditions (e.g. Unit 8), inter alia through a more even allocation of prisoners between the units; as already indicated (cf. paragraph 53 of the report on the 1999 periodic visit, document CPT (2000) 7), the aim should be to provide in due course a minimum living space of 4 m² per prisoner ... ”

Extracts from Report to the Moldovan Government on the visit to Moldova carried out by the CPT from 14 to 24 September 2007 [CPT/ Inf (2008) 39] [1]

“47. ... The information gathered by the CPT delegation during its 2007 visit show that much remains to be done. In particular, overcrowding is still a problem; despite the fact that all the prisons visited were operating well below their official capacity, there was only an average of 2 m² living space for each prisoner, rather than the standard 4 m² specified in Moldovan legislation.

The CPT is convinced that the adoption of policies to limit or vary the number of persons sent to prison is one of the most effective means of solving the problem of overcrowding, and securing, for the long term, a standard living space of 4 m² per prisoner in collective cells. The Committee must emphasise the need for a strategy covering both committal to and release from prison in order to ensure that imprisonment really is the last the resort ...

49. As a general rule, c onvicted prisoners are still accommodated in large dormitories. According to the Director of Prisons, the forthcoming renovation programme for national prisons should include the conver sion of large dormitories into smaller living units; this has reportedly already been done in Prison No. 1 in Taraclia and Prison No. 7 in Rusca .

A s the CPT has already emphasised in the past, large dormitories inevitably mean a lack of privacy for prisoners in their day-to-day lives. Furthermore, it heightens the risk of intimidation and violence ... this type of accommodation tends to encourage the development of criminal sub-cultures and help maintain the cohesion of crim inal organisations. They can also make it extremely difficult, indeed impossible, for staff to maintain order; in the event of disorder in prison in particular, it is difficult to avoid bringing in outside agencies, which involves the use of considerable force. This also makes it virtually impossible to ensure the proper distribution of prisoners based on a case-by-case assessment of risks and needs. In the light of these observations, the Committee recommends that the Moldovan authorities maintain the priority status of replacing large dormitories with smaller living units ...

57. The prisoners were accommodated in six living units, each comprising a large dormitory and a number of adjoining facilities (e.g. a kitchenette, a room for storing clothes and a common room with a television set) ...

58. Even though the prison was operating below its official capacity, the prisoners had no privacy: the dormitories, with an area of between 80 and 120 m², slept between 55 and 80 prisoners. Nevertheless, the negative consequences of this situation were mitigated by the fact that the prisoners ... were free to move around all day in the prison ’ s enormous leisure area. Furthermore, the dormitories were clean, tidy, well-lit and adequately ventilated.

59 . ... The sanitation in units 3, 4, 5 and 6 were out of order, which meant that prisoners in these units had to use a toilet which was located in a different building and was totally unfit for purpose (it consisted of a series of holes in the ground). For washing purposes they had access to one water tap or else had to draw water from a well.

The prisoners were allowed to use the central shower room once a week, while those engaged in work could do so every day. The shower room was in a p oo r state of repair and only cont a ined ten shower fittings ...

61. The CPT recommends that measures be taken in Prison No. 3 in Leova in order to:

- decrease the occupancy rate in the prisoner accommodation areas, with a view to achieving the standard of at least 4 m² of living space per prisoner;

- urgently renovate the toilets and other sanitary facilities for prisoners in units 3, 4, 5 and 6 ...

- consider the possibility of increasing the frequency of prisoner access to shower facilities, having regard to Rule 19.4 of the Revised European Prison Rules ... ”

Extracts from Report to the Ukrainian Government on the visit to Ukraine carried out by the CPT from 9 to 21 September 2009 [CPT/ Inf (2011) 29]

“75. ... The CPT also reiterates its recommendation that the Ukrainian authorities review as soon as possible the norms fixed by legislation for living space per prisoner, ensuring that they provide for at least 4 m² per inmate in multi-occupancy cells in all the establishments under the authority of the Department on Enforcement of Sentences ...

112. Colony No. 85 had already been visited by the CPT in 1999 and 2000 ...

113. Efforts were being made to improve material conditions. Compared to the situation observed during previous visits, prisoners generally had more living space in the dormitories. The national standard of 3 m² of living space per inmate was observed in most dormitories (e.g. 27 beds in a dormitory of 82 m²). However, some dormitories were clearly overcrowded (e.g. 114 beds in a dormitory of some 200 m² in Block No. 5), even if the negative consequences of this state of affairs were attenuated by the fact that prisoners were free to move around within their respective detention section. Large-capacity dormitories in Blocks Nos. 1 and 6 had been transformed into smaller living units offering more privacy and better possibilities for control by staff ...

The CPT recommends that all the necessary support be provided to the management of Colony No. 85 in order to realise the plans of transforming all large-capacity dormitories into smaller living units, the objective being to offer at least 4 m² of living space per prisoner ...

119. Prisoners in the medium-security part of the colony [no. 89 in Dnipropetrovsk] were accommodated in six blocks. The delegation noted that in some blocks, efforts had been made to transform large-capacity dormitories into smaller living units offering more privacy and better possibilities for control by staff. However, in the other blocks, the practice of accommodating prisoners in large dormitories, with up to 70-80 beds, still prevailed (e.g. 76 beds in a dormitory measuring 152 m² and holding 70 prisoners) ...

121. The CPT recommends that all the necessary support be provided to the management of Colony No. 89 in order to transform large-capacity dormitories into smaller living units. Efforts should also be pursued to reduce the occupancy levels in the dormitories, the objective being to offer at least 4 m² of living space per prisoner ... ”

Extracts from Report to the Armenian Government on the visit to Armenia carried out by the CPT from 10 to 21 May 2010 [CPT/ Inf (2011) 24]

“ 86. With respect to material conditions, the detention areas were generally well lit, adequately ventilated and clean. However, prisoners were accommodated in large-capacity dormitories. The CPT has emphasised in the past the many drawbacks and disadvantages of this type of accommodation, which are compounded when the prisoners concerned are held under cramped conditions – as was the case at Kosh Prison (e.g. 13 prisoners in a dormitory measuring about 40 m²; 54 inmates in a dormitory of some 110 m²) ...

90. ... the Committee recommends that steps be taken to transform the large-capacity dormitories into smaller living units offering more privacy and better possibilities for control by staff and to reduce the occupancy levels in the dormitories in order to comply with the legal requirement of at least 4 m² of living space per prisoner.

In addition, the CPT invites the Armenian authorities to increase the frequency of showers for inmates, in the light of Rule 19.4 of the European Prison Rules.”

31 . On 30 September 1999 the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe adopted Recommendation No. R (99) 22 concerning prison overcrowding and prison population inflation, which provides in particular as follows:

“Considering that prison overcrowding and prison population growth represent a major challenge to prison administrations and the criminal justice system as a whole, both in terms of human rights and of the efficient management of penal institutions;

Considering that the efficient management of the prison population is contingent on such matters as the overall crime situation, priorities in crime control, the range of penalties available on the law books, the severity of the sentences imposed, the frequency of use of community sanctions and measures, the use of pre-trial detention, the effectiveness and efficiency of criminal justice agencies and not least public attitudes towards crime and punishment...

Recommends that governments of member states:

- take all appropriate measures, when reviewing their legislation and practice in relation to prison overcrowding and prison population inflation, to apply the principles set out in the appendix to this recommendation...

Appendix to Recommendation No. R (99) 22

I. Basic principles

1. Deprivation of liberty should be regarded as a sanction or measure of last resort and should therefore be provided for only, where the seriousness of the offence would make any other sanction or measure clearly inadequate.

2. The extension of the prison estate should rather be an exceptional measure, as it is generally unlikely to offer a lasting solution to the problem of overcrowding. Countries whose prison capacity may be sufficient in overall terms but poorly adapted to local needs should try to achieve a more rational distribution of prison capacity...

II. Coping with a shortage of prison places

6. In order to avoid excessive levels of overcrowding a maximum capacity for penal institutions should be set.

7. Where conditions of overcrowding occur, special emphasis should be placed on the precepts of human dignity, the commitment of prison administrations to apply humane and positive treatment, the full recognition of staff roles and effective modem management approaches. In conformity with the European Prison Rules, particular attention should be paid to the amount of space available to prisoners, to hygiene and sanitation, to the provision of sufficient and suitably prepared and presented food, to prisoners ’ health care and to the opportunity for outdoor exercise.

8. In order to counteract some of the negative consequences of prison overcrowding, contacts of inmates with their families should be facilitated to the extent possible and maximum use of support from the community should be made...

IV. Measures relating to the trial stage

The system of sanctions/measures – The length of the sentence

14. Efforts should be made to reduce recourse to sentences involving long imprisonment, which place a heavy burden on the prison system, and to substitute community sanctions and measures for short custodial sentences. ...

Sentencing and the role of prosecutors and judges

18. When applying the law prosecutors and judges should endeavour to bear in mind the resources available, in particular in terms of prison capacity. In this connection, continued attention should be paid to assessing the impact which existing sentencing structures and planned sentencing policies have on the evolution of the prison population.

19. Prosecutors and judges should be involved in the process of devising penal policies in relation to prison overcrowding and prison population inflation, with a view to engaging their support and to avoiding counterproductive sentencing practices.

20. Rationales for sentencing should be set by the legislator or other competent authorities, with a view to, inter alia, reducing the use of imprisonment, expanding the use of community sanctions and measures, and to using measures of diversion such as mediation or the compensation of the victim ...

V. Measures relating to the post-trial stage

The implementation of community sanctions and measures – The enforcement of custodial sentences

...

23. The development of measures should be promoted which reduce the actual length of the sentence served, by giving preference to individualised measures, such as early conditional release (parole), over collective measures for the management of prison overcrowding (amnesties, collective pardons).

24. Parole should be regarded as one of the most effective and constructive measures, which not only reduces the length of imprisonment but also contributes substantially to a planned return of the offender to the community.

25. In order to promote and expand the use of parole, best conditions for offender support, assistance and supervision in the community have to be created, not least with a view to prompting the competent judicial or administrative authorities to consider this measure as a valuable and responsible option.”

32 . On 11 January 2006 the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe adopted Recommendation Rec( 2006)2 to member States on the European Prison Rules, which replaced Recommendation No. R (87) 3 on the European Prison Rules accounting for the developments which had occurred in penal policy, sentencing practice and the overall management of prisons in Europe. The amended European Prison Rules lay down the following guidelines:

“1. All persons deprived of their liberty shall be treated with respect for their human rights.

2. Persons deprived of their liberty retain all rights that are not lawfully taken away by the decision sentencing them or remanding them in custody.

3. Restrictions placed on persons deprived of their liberty shall be the minimum necessary and proportionate to the legitimate objective for which they are imposed.

4. Prison conditions that infringe prisoners ’ human rights are not justified by lack of resources.

...

10.1. The European Prison Rules apply to persons who have been remanded in custody by a judicial authority or who have been deprived of their liberty following conviction.”

Allocation and accommodation

“18.1. The accommodation provided for prisoners, and in particular all sleeping accommodation, shall respect human dignity and, as far as possible, privacy, and meet the requirements of health and hygiene, due regard being paid to climatic conditions and especially to floor space, cubic content of air, lighting, heating and ventilation.

18.2. In all buildings where prisoners are required to live, work or congregate:

a. the windows shall be large enough to enable the prisoners to read or work by natural light in normal conditions and shall allow the entrance of fresh air except where there is an adequate air conditioning system;

b. artificial light shall satisfy recognised technical standards; and

c. there shall be an alarm system that enables prisoners to contact the staff without delay.

18.4. National law shall provide mechanisms for ensuring that these minimum requirements are not breached by the overcrowding of prisons.

18.5. Prisoners shall normally be accommodated during the night in individual cells except where it is preferable for them to share sleeping accommodation.

19.3. Prisoners shall have ready access to sanitary facilities that are hygienic and respect privacy.

19.4. Adequate facilities shall be provided so that every prisoner may have a bath or shower, at a temperature suitable to the climate, if possible daily but at least twice a week (or more frequently if necessary) in the interest of general hygiene.

22.1. Prisoners shall be provided with a nutritious diet that takes into account their age, health, physical condition, religion, culture and the nature of their work.

22.4. There shall be three meals a day with reasonable intervals between them.

22.5. Clean drinking water shall be available to prisoners at all times.

27.1. Every prisoner shall be provided with the opportunity of at least one hour of exercise every day in the open air, if the weather permits.

27.2. When the weather is inclement alternative arrangements shall be made to allow prisoners to exercise.”

V. COMPLAINTS

33. The applicants complain under Article 3 of the Convention about the inhuman and degrading conditions of their detention and under Article 13 of the Convention about the absence of an effective remedy in respect of this complaint.

QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES

1. Were the conditions of the applicants ’ detention in the penitentiary facility (facilities) compatible with the requirements of Article 3 of the Convention? In particular,

(a) Did they dispose of an individual sleeping place?

(b) Did they dispose of sufficient personal space?

(c) Did they dispose of adequate sanitary facilities?

(d) Were the occupancy levels in dormitories acceptable?

(e) Did they dispose of auxiliary living premises (pantry, storage room, drying room)?

(f) Were they issued with clothing appropriate for the season?

(g) How long did they stay outside ( i ) of their own will, (ii) on the orders of the facility officers?

2. Has there been an effective domestic remedy for the applicants ’ grievances relating to their conditions of detention, as required by Article 13 of the Convention? More specifically, given the long duration of many applicants ’ detention, what preventive and compensatory remedies were available to them?

APPENDIX

(List of applications and summary of relevant facts)

No

App No.

Application Title

Date of Introduction

Detained

from

Detained

to

Brigade

Dorm

surface

Dorm

places

Inmates/

dorm

Water taps

Toilets

Notes

1

43496/12

Lagutin v. Russia

10/05/2012

26/01/2010

11/02/2013

9

240

115

162

3

4From 09.12.2003 to 26.01.2010 the applicant was detained in IK-6 in similar conditions.

2

75431/13

Goncharov v. Russia

14/11/2013

11/02/2006

23/09/2014

3

240

115

165

3

4

3

75722/13

Satashev v. Russia

14/11/2013

13/12/2009

15/01/2015

3

240

115

165

3

4

78217/13

Penkin v. Russia

25/11/2013

01/10/2004

04/03/2015

3

240

115

165

3

4

5

78910/13

Goncharov v. Russia

20/11/2013

20/12/2008

01/04/2015 [2]

3

240

115

165

3

4

6

80974/13

Kruglov v. Russia

01/12/2013

27/12/2004

01/04/2015

3

240

115

165

3

4

7

1073/14

Akhtanov v. Russia

06/12/2013

21/11/2006

05/12/2013

3

240

115

165

3

4

8

1422/14

Borisov v. Russia

15/12/2013

29/05/2008

01/04/2015

3

240

115

165

3

4

9

2246/14

Ulyumdzhiyev v. Russia

25/11/2013

27/07/1999

22/02/2015

9

120

50

83

4

10

2259/14

Mustafin v. Russia

25/11/2013

14/10/2010

24/07/2014

3

240

115

165

3

4

11

2621/14

Kirisyuk v. Russia

15/12/2013

20/01/2007

12/08/2014

3

240

115

165

3

4

12

2677/14

Fedorov v. Russia

15/12/2013

20/07/2009

01/04/2015

3

240

115

165

3

4

13

3102/14

Kadkalo v. Russia

15/12/2013

30/09/2005

15/12/2013

5

230

114

167

4

14

3310/14

Kozyrev v. Russia

01/12/2013

23/01/2010

25/10/2013

3

240

115

165

3

4From 20.07.2009 to 23.01.2010 the applicant was detained in IK-6 in similar conditions.

15

3992/14

Astafurov v. Russia

15/12/2013

27/11/2009

27/02/2015

9

120

50

83

4

16

8018/14

Filimonov v. Russia

12/12/2013

10/12/2009

12/12/2013

3

240

115

165

3

4

17

8906/14

Kasukhin v. Russia

27/12/2013

19/05/2010

01/04/2015

3

240

115

165

3

4

18

8957/14

Belov v. Russia

27/12/2013

10/08/2010

20/03/2015

3

240

115

165

3

4

19

9374/14

Lutsenko v. Russia

12/12/2013

30/05/2009

08/11/2013

3

240

115

165

3

4

20

10290/14

Terekhov v. Russia

27/12/2013

06/09/2010

01/04/2015

3

240

115

165

3

4

21

10298/14

Afanasyev v. Russia

27/12/2013

17/06/2010

16/07/2014

3

240

115

165

3

4

22

16433/14

Dmitriyev v. Russia

21/03/2014

10/08/2008

01/04/2015

6

220

114

165

4

23

21386/14

Orlov v. Russia

13/03/2014

17/01/2008

01/04/2015

3

240

115

165

3

4

24

23244/14

Velichko v. Russia

05/03/2014

05/05/2010

01/04/2015

5

240

114

165

4

25

23268/14

Pereverzev v. Russia

11/03/2014

20/10/2006

02/02/2014

6

240

114

165

4

26

23850/14

Mendgaliyev v. Russia

11/03/2014

10/05/2006

01/04/2015

5

220

114

165

5

4

27

25352/14

Abubekerov v. Russia

13/03/2014

05/08/2005

01/04/2015

5

240

114

165

4

28

25523/14

Demesinov v. Russia

01/03/2014

20/09/2006

01/04/2015

5

240

114

165

4

29

25554/14

Popov v. Russia

13/03/2014

03/02/2010

02/12/2013

4

220

114

165

5

4From 30.09.2005 to 03.02.2010 the applicant was detained in IK-6 in similar conditions.

30

25589/14

Surikov v. Russia

18/03/2014

29/12/2004

05/02/2014

4

230

112

165

4

31

25598/14

Saldyyev v. Russia

08/03/2014

21/11/2007

19/12/2014

5

240

114

165

5

4

32

25742/14

Khakhalev v. Russia

18/03/2014

29/05/2006

01/04/2015

4

230

112

165

4

33

25743/14

Nuzhnov v. Russia

18/03/2014

09/10/2006

01/04/2015

5

240

114

165

4

34

25751/14

Safarov v. Russia

17/03/2014

20/05/2009

01/04/2015

5

240

114

165

5

4

35

25874/14

Tolstov v. Russia

15/03/2014

20/08/2010

01/04/2015

5

240

114

165

4

36

26113/14

Byzov v. Russia

04/03/2014

01/11/2010

01/04/2015

3

240

115

165

3

4

37

27539/14

Teshchin v. Russia

21/03/2014

15/01/2010

01/04/2015

6

220

114

165

4

38

27570/14

Firsov v. Russia

03/03/2014

10/02/2010

01/04/2015

3

230

115

165

3

4

39

27580/14

Barsukov v. Russia

19/02/2014

15/05/2008

01/04/2015

6

220

114

165

4

40

27589/14

Vybornov v. Russia

20/03/2014

05/03/2005

01/04/2015

4

230

112

165

4

41

27787/14

Kurbanaliyev v. Russia

23/03/2014

21/09/2008

28/08/2014

4

230

112

165

4

42

27887/14

Yelagin v. Russia

27/03/2014

10/02/2010

27/02/2015

9

220

114

165

4

3

43

28034/14

Urazaliyev v. Russia

28/03/2014

09/02/2010

01/04/2015

7

220

114

165

4

4From 01.04.2008 to 09.02.2010 the applicant was detained in IK-6 in similar conditions.

44

28035/14

Karamyshev v. Russia

27/03/2014

18/02/2010

01/04/2015

9

220

114

165

4

3From 10.10.2008 to 18.02.2010 the applicant was detained in IK-6 in similar conditions.

45

28095/14

Timnichenko v. Russia

23/03/2014

12/11/2010

11/03/2014

9

120

54

83

4

46

28107/14

Batkayev v. Russia

21/03/2014

07/01/2007

23/11/2014

6

220

114

165

4

47

28232/14

Legeza v. Russia

28/03/2014

28/12/2010

01/04/2015

6

220

114

165

4

4From 22.12.2008 to 28.12.2010 the applicant was detained in IK-6 in similar conditions.

48

28905/14

Krasnov v. Russia

28/03/2014

10/01/2010

01/04/2015

3

220

114

165

4

3From 10.03.2004 to 10.01.2010 the applicant was detained in Brigade 9 in IK-6 in similar conditions.

49

28909/14

Urazbayev v. Russia

25/03/2014

19/02/2010

01/04/2015

3

220

114

165

5

4From 09.06.2004 to 19.02.2010 the applicant was detained in Brigade 9 in IK-6 in similar conditions.

50

29038/14

Andreyev v. Russia

10/01/2014

19/01/2010

01/04/2015

4

220

114

165

4

4From 10.06.2005 по19.01.2010 the applicant was detained in Brigade 5 in IK-6 in similar conditions.

51

30013/14

Razumov v. Russia

17/03/2014

05/05/2006

13/05/2014

5

240

114

165

4

52

30016/14

Sakhnov v. Russia

21/03/2014

07/02/2012

25/02/2014

3

230

115

145

3

4

53

30411/14

Lem v. Russia

28/03/2014

22/04/2010

08/05/2014

4

220

114

165

4

4The applicant died on 08.05.2014, his daugter , Ms Irina Lem , wishes to continue the proceedings in his stead.

54

30417/14

Orlov v. Russia

25/03/2014

04/02/2010

01/04/2015

5

220

114

165

4

4From 11.08.2006 to 04.02.2010 the applicant was detained in Brigade 2 in IK-6 in similar conditions.

55

30452/14

Sametov v. Russia

01/04/2014

17/03/2005

01/04/2015

6

220

114

165

4

56

30453/14

Abdulov v. Russia

01/04/2014

28/09/2008

01/04/2015

8

220

114

165

4

57

30772/14

Pankov v. Russia

01/04/2014

12/04/2010

22/08/2014

3

220

114

165

4

3

58

30781/14

Akbulatov v. Russia

01/04/2014

17/06/2010

01/04/2015

8

220

114

165

4

59

30819/14

Zherzdnev v. Russia

30/03/2014

30/04/2009

01/04/2015

8

220

114

165

4

60

30924/14

Kuryatnikov v. Russia

14/03/2014

26/11/2005

01/04/2015

5

240

114

165

4

61

31647/14

Kulikov v. Russia

30/03/2014

11/11/2011

01/04/2015

4

220

114

165

4

4From 01.12.2001 to 11.11.2011 the applicant was detained in Brigade 1 in IK-6 in similar conditions.

62

31652/14

Izmailov v. Russia

30/03/2014

21/07/2009

01/04/2015

4

230

112

165

4

63

31838/14

Divakov v. Russia

27/03/2014

21/01/2010

15/01/2015

9

220

114

165

4

3

64

31930/14

Shevchenko v. Russia

01/04/2014

20/12/2008

01/04/2015

3

230

115

165

4

3

65

32163/14

Nikitin v. Russia

10/04/2014

15/01/2010

01/04/2015

5

220

114

165

4

4From 11.06.2002 to 15.01.2010 the applicant was detained in Brigade 8 in IK-6 in similar conditions.

66

32728/14

Petrenko v. Russia

10/04/2014

10/09/2008

20/03/2015

6

220

114

165

4

67

34185/14

Moskvin v. Russia

08/04/2014

17/02/2010

07/12/2013

3

220

114

165

4

3From 18.03.2002 to 17.02.2010 the applicant was detained in Brigade 5 in IK-6 in similar conditions.

68

34188/14

Abramov v. Russia

15/04/2014

21/04/2008

01/04/2015

6

220

114

165

4

69

35812/14

Khomutov v. Russia

03/05/2014

27/08/2004

01/04/2015

9

120

50

83

4

70

35815/14

Klimov v. Russia

03/05/2014

21/05/2000

28/02/2015

5

240

114

165

4

71

35819/14

Akmayev v. Russia

03/05/2014

10/10/2008

30/04/2014

6

220

114

165

4

72

35824/14

Akhmedov v. Russia

03/05/2014

10/06/2010

01/04/2015

6

220

114

165

4

73

35909/14

Izudinov v. Russia

03/05/2014

28/12/2010

01/04/2015

7

220

114

165

4

74

36840/14

Safaryan v. Russia

03/05/2014

25/01/2012

01/04/2015

5

220

114

165

4

4From 01.12.2005 to 25.01.2012 the applicant was detained in Brigade 9 in IK-6 in similar conditions.

75

42785/14

Torsukov v. Russia

24/05/2014

17/06/2005

01/04/2015

8

220

114

165

4

76

42806/14

Zinyagin v. Russia

05/05/2014

10/01/2010

05/05/2014

6

220

114

165

4

77

45706/14

Mironov v. Russia

05/05/2014

10/05/2010

05/05/2014

8

220

114

165

4

78

47842/14

Badamshin v. Russia

15/06/2014

19/01/2007

01/04/2015

6

220

114

165

4

79

49303/14

Bradulin v. Russia

20/06/2014

26/12/2011

01/04/2015

3

230

115

145

3

4

80

51482/14

Yegorov v. Russia

24/06/2014

02/04/2012

06/05/2014

9

120

50

71

4

81

55316/14

Surkov v. Russia

17/07/2014

24/11/2010

01/04/2015

9

220

114

165

4

3From 07.09.2008 to 24.11.2010 the applicant was detained in Brigade 6 in IK-6 in similar conditions.

82

59528/14

Sugakov v. Russia

05/08/2014

15/06/2010

22/09/2014

3

230

115

165

4

3

83

68207/14

Yermakov v. Russia

01/10/2014

19/01/2010

30/09/2014

9

220

114

165

4

84

71644/14

Ibragimov v. Russia

26/10/2014

30/09/2009

01/04/2015

6

220

114

165

4

85

72293/14

Bisekenov v. Russia

23/10/2014

10/10/2009

05/09/2014

3

230

115

165

3

4

86

76638/14

Pavlikov v. Russia

30/11/2014

20/03/2005

06/06/2014

12

52

40

58

2

1

87

946/15

Metelkin v. Russia

11/12/2014

11/08/2009

01/07/2014

9

120

50

71

4

88

7757/15

Ashikhin v. Russia

27/01/2015

27/12/2009

15/01/2015

3

220

114

165

4

89

7866/15

Bobrov v. Russia

31/01/2015

10/03/2010

02/09/2014

1

220

116

162

4

3[1] . Original in French. English translation by the Court’s Registry.

[2] . In this and below lines, the date of “1 April 2015” is the date on which the applicant was last known to be in detention, rather than the actual end date of his detention.

Menu

LAGUTIN v. RUSSIA

LAGUTIN v. RUSSIA

LEXI