Communicated on 13 May 2015

FIRST SECTION

Application no. 36463/11 X against Russia lodged on 20 April 2011

STATEMENT OF FACTS

1. The applicant is a Russian national who is currently serving his sentence in a high-security correctional facility.

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

3. The applicant was convicted of a violent offence and sentenced to eight years ’ imprisonment in a high-security facility.

4. Sometime after his arrival at the facility the applicant drank a cup of tea with another detainee who belonged to the lowest caste in the informal prisoners hierarchy, “the degraded” ( опущенные , обиженные ) or “ roosters ” ( петухи ). The act of sharing glassware with an “untouchable” placed the applicant in the same caste.

5. In June 2011, thirty-two inmates out of a total facility population of 900, were known to be “the degraded”. The restrictions they experienced in their daily life are governed by an informal code of the underworld, known as “the rules” or “the conventions” ( понятия ). The punishment for those disobeying the “rules” could be a beating, rape or death.

6. The applicant described the plight of “the degraded” in detail.

7. “The degraded” were assigned to do menial chores, like cleaning bathrooms and toilets. They were allocated the least comfortable beds, a specific table in the canteen, one row in the cinema room and a particular washstand. They were forbidden from eating or sitting anywhere else or touching other inmates ’ person or property. “The degraded” were not allowed to put their food in communal fridges or enter the cooking area which “normal men” used to heat food. They were frequently given rotten or perished food and their cutlery bore a special mark (a hole punched or drilled in their bowls and spoons).

8. “The degraded” were expected to provide sexual services to other inmates.

9. The stigma associated with the applicant ’ s status as “the degraded” is permanent. If transferred to another prison or penitentiary facility, he must disclose it to his fellow inmates or face punishment for hiding it.

RELEVANT COUNCIL OF EUROPE MATERIAL

10. 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 Report to the Russian Government on the visit to Russia carried out by the CPT from 21 May to 4 June 2012 [CPT/ Inf (2013) 41]

“ 77. The delegation heard several accounts of ill-treatment of prisoners by fellow inmates at the instigation of staff , in particular ... at Colony No. 1 in Yagul .

...

At Yagul , the delegation ... received detailed descriptions of direct threats, by staff, of physical ill-treatment by other inmates or of being ‘ downgraded ’ in the informal prisoner hierarchy through organised sexual assault by other inmates or forced physical contact with prisoners referred to as ‘ roosters ’ .

Note [23]: “Roosters” ( ‘ петухи ’ ) are a caste of ‘ untouchables ’ in the informal hierarchy among prisoners in FSIN establishments. Such persons are rejected by the other inmates for various reasons (e.g. for having suffered sexual abuse or committed sex offences, or simply for having been in contact with other so-called ‘ roosters ’ ) and are considered to run a greater risk of being ill-treated by other prisoners.

...

79. In their letter of 29 August 2012, the Russian authorities emphasised their commitment to eradicating inter-prisoner violence and intimidation in FSIN establishments. In this context, they referred to the abolition of the so-called ‘ discipline and order sections ’ in colonies and inquiries into every instance of injuries observed on a prisoner.

In the light of the information gathered during the 2012 visit, there is clearly much more to be done in certain FSIN establishments. The CPT calls upon the Russian authorities to redouble their efforts in this area, notably:

- by clearly and regularly reminding staff of Closed-Type Prison No. 2 in Vladimir, including the PFRSI, and Colony No. 1 in Yagul that any member staff tolerating, encouraging or colluding in punitive action against prisoners by other inmates or any other form of inter-prisoner violence or intimidation will be the subject of criminal proceedings. Outside monitoring and investigating bodies should pay particular attention to any instances of possible exploitation of the informal hierarchy among prisoners by staff;

- by adopting a strategy at the federal level for combating inter-prisoner violence and intimidation related to the informal hierarchy among inmates;

- by further rationalising the assessment, classification and allocation of individual prisoners, with the aim of ensuring that prisoners are not exposed to other inmates who may cause them harm.”

Extracts from Report to the Moldovan Gov ernment on the visit to Moldova carried out by the CPT from 1 to 10 June 2011 [CPT/ Inf (2012) 3]

“60 . The delegation did, however, hear a few allegations of physical ill-treatment of prisoners by members of staff in Penitentiary establishment No. 17 in Rezina and, to a lesser extent, Penitentiary establishment No. 11 in Bălţi . The alleged ill-treatment consisted of punches, kicks and/or blows with a rubber truncheon. The prisoners concerned had usually been segregated for their own safety, and so would not have the “protection” of senior members of the informal prisoner hierarchy. Some prisoners were regarded as “quibblers” and had allegedly irritated the prison staff with their complaints or threats to bring complaints, while others were reportedly so-called ‘ degraded ’ prisoners, i.e. the lowest caste in the informal prisoner hierarchy.

Note [42]: This category is rather like a cast of ‘ untouchables ’ in the informal hierarchy that exists among prisoners. Such persons are rejected by the other inmates for various reasons (e.g. for having a different sexual orientation, for having suffered sexual abuse or committed sex offences, or simply for having been in contact with other so-called ‘ degraded ’ prisoners).

...

64. For many years now the CPT has been paying particular attention to the risks of inter - prisoner violence and/or intimidation linked with the informal prisoner hierarchy to which prisoners in the Republic of Moldova are subject usually from the time they enter the prison environment. In response to the CPT ’ s concerns, the Moldovan authorities have adopted a number of measures to address these risks. In terms of legislation, Article 206 of the Code of Execution allows any prisoner to request that they be segregated for their own safety. In addition, the DIP has adopted an instruction designed to restrict, or even prevent, other prisoners from entering areas where inmates have been placed under protection. Moreover, a number of measures have also been taken in connection with the implementation of the national strategy for combating violence in prisons .

Despite this, in the course of the 2011 visit the delegation heard several allegations, both in Penitentiary establishment No. 11 in Bălţi , and in Penitentiary establishment No. 17 in Rezina , concerning violent beatings by prisoners tasked by senior members of the informal hierarchy with keeping inmates ‘ in order ’ within the penitentiary population. The prisoners who alleged having been the victims of such acts had apparently either broken the hierarchy ’ s internal ‘ rules ’ or complained to persons outside the prison and were therefore regarded as troublemakers both by the local prison administration and by the informal prisoner hierarchy. Most worrying is the fact that these acts in some cases appear to have been perpetrated with the assent, encouragement or even complicity of prison staff (e.g. by allowing direct access to the cells in which the alleged victims were being held or by knowingly exposing the latter to other prisoners who wished to harm them). Certain interviews held by the delegation with members of the prison staff seemed to support these allegations.

Whatever the difficulties facing a prison administration, such an approach is diametrically opposed to the efforts to combat violence in prisons at national level. Maintaining order and creating a safe environment in prison should not be based on a more or less tacit agreement between inmate ‘ leaders ’ looking to establish their authority among the other inmates, and members of the prison staff anxious to preserve the appearance of order in the establishment at any price. The development of constructive relations between the staff and all the prisoners, based on the notion of dynamic security, is a crucial factor in the effort to combat inter-prisoner violence. Moreover, another key component is the careful assessment, classification and cell allocation of individual prisoners within the prison population. Care should also be taken to ensure that prisoners placed under protection are never exposed in any way to other prisoners who might cause them harm. The CPT recommends that the Moldovan authorities step up their efforts to prevent and eliminate inter-prisoner violence and intimidation in the light of the above, with particular attention being given to the root causes of the phenomenon in Moldovan penitentiary establishments. ”

Extracts from Report to the Latvian Government on the visit to Latvia carried out by the CPT from 27 November to 7 December 2007 [CPT/ Inf (2009) 35]

“40. The delegation was also struck by the level of inter-prisoner violence at Jēkabpils Prison. The prospect of becoming a victim of beatings, sexual assaults, extortion, and a range of other such abuse was a daily reality for many vulnerable prisoners. The following examples illustrate the scope of the problem. A number of prisoners had repeatedly harmed themselves in an attempt to ensure a transfer to Unit 3, where they would be held in the cells and could thus avoid aggression from other prisoners in their dormitory. The CPT is particularly concerned about the situation of the lowest caste of prisoners in the informal prisoner hierarchy, the so-called ‘ untouchables ’ , who were frequently subjected to humiliation by other inmates and, indeed, staff. In addition, such prisoners were often subjected to ritualistic sexual abuse by other prisoners (in return for small items such as cigarettes or tea). The recent death of an ‘ untouchable ’ prisoner who apparently died after having been severely beaten inside the dormitory at night is the most extreme example of inter-prisoner violence. The delegation was informed that the prisoner concerned died of blood loss and internal haemorrhage.

The situation was further exacerbated by the fact that no prison officers were present in the units at night. Thus, it is not surprising that the above-mentioned prisoner who was killed in his dormitory did not receive timely medical attention. Further, it is evident that the overreliance of the prison administration on the role of the dormitory ‘ leaders ’ , who are appointed by the management as assistants of the unit officers (and who also receive a salary from the administration), underpins sub-cultures among prisoners and increases the risk of inter-prisoner violence. Rather than staff being in control of the dormitories at all times, order and discipline are maintained by the official leaders (as well as informal leaders) among the inmates in a dormitory.

In the CPT ’ s view, the maintenance of order and discipline should be the exclusive task of staff and not prisoners. The CPT recommends that the system of ‘ delegation of powers ’ to certain prisoners be abolished at Jēkabpils Prison and in any other prisons in Latvia where it exists. Further, steps should be taken to ensure adequate supervision of prisoners in dormitories by prison officers.

41. To sum up, the delegation gained the distinct impression that the management of Jēkabpils Prison had failed to provide for the most basic requirement of prisoners: a safe environment. The prison was run with parallel systems of intimidation and violence: one was organised by the prisoners themselves with a tiered hierarchy controlled by ‘ bosses ’ , with the support of the internal security division, with prisoners considered as ‘ untouchable ’ receiving the brunt of the humiliation and forced to work for other prisoners, amounting to a form of slavery; the other was instigated by the prison staff, using transfer to the cell block as a form of intimidation associated with regular beatings by prison officers. Thus, inhuman treatment had apparently been institutionalised and had become an integral element in the running of this prison.”

COMPLAINT

11. The applicant complains under Article 3 of the Convention about the treatment for he was singled out on account of his status in the informal hierarchy among prisoners constituted inhuman or degrading punishment.

QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES

The Government are directed to carry out the relevant domestic inquiries in such a manner as to avoid compromising the applicant ’ s safety and to preserve his full anonymity vis-à-vis the penitentiary authorities and other inmates.

1 . Was the applicant subjected to inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment in breach of Article 3 of the Convention on account of the restrictions he experienced as “the degraded”?

2. What concrete steps did the correctional officers or supervising authorities take to prevent the informal code of the underworld ( понятия ) from being enforced in the facility to the detriment of “the degraded” and to ensure a safe environment for the applicant ?

3. Do the Russian authorities have a national strategy for combating violence in prisons and intimidation linked with the informal prisoner hierarchy ?