Communicated on 14 January 2014

FIRST SECTION

Application no. 32701/11 Vladimir Vladimirovich KOLESNIKOVICH against Russia lodged on 3 March 2008

STATEMENT OF FACTS

The applicant, Mr Vladimir Vladimirovich Kolesnikovich , is a Russian national, who was born in 1978 and lives in Kansk .

A. Conditions of detention in police custody

Between 2 February 2011 and 7 February 2011 the applicant was held in IVS Krasnoyarsk, a temporary detention facility located in the Krasnoyarsk Region. The conditions of detention in that facility were characterised by the following elements: (i) severely overcrowded cells; (ii) no ventilation; (iii) poor sanitary conditions; (iv) no toilet facilities - the detainees had to urinate in plastic bottles; (v) no water supply; (vi) no sleeping places or bed linen, no bunks; (vii) no toiletries; (viii) no walks. The applicant submitted the following evidence in support of the above allegations: (i) an IVS inspection report compiled by the local ombudsman ’ s office; (ii) three police certificates; (iii) statements by sixteen cellmates; (iv) plan of the cell.

B. Conditions of transport

In the time period from 13 December 2005 to 12 April 2012 the applicant was transported by prison van between a police ward, a remand prison and the premises of the Zheleznodorozhniy District Court in Krasnoyarsk. The applicant described the conditions of transport in the following manner: each trip lasted from 2 to 4 hours. The prison van, designed for 11 persons, carried up to 40 detainees at a time. It was not equipped with ventiation or heater, exposing the inmates to extreme seasonal temperatures, whereas the air in the van compartment was polluted with exhaust gas and tobacco smoke. No toilet facilities were available in the van. The applicant submitted the following evidence in suppor t of the above allegations: (i) statements by several inmates; (ii) complaints lodged with various authorities and copies of their replies.

C. Conditions of detention in courts

On the days of court hearings, that is at least on 75 occasions between 16 July 2009 and 12 April 2012, the applicant was held in the convoy cells of the Zheleznodorozhniy District Court of Krasnoyarsk. Each cell measured 1 sq. m, was in poor sanitary condition and the walls were covered with abrasive concrete lining. The ventilation did not function. There were no windows and a dim light bulb served as the only source of light.

D . Extension of detention on remand

On 10 July 2007 the Krasnoyarsk Regional Court extended the the applicant ’ s pre-trial detention for three months. On 3 Octobe r 2007 the Supreme Court of Russia, holding the hearing in absence of both the applicant and his lawyer, upheld the extension order on appeal.

E . Restrictions on family visits

On 12 September 2011 the applicant ’ s mother and brother lodged a motion seeking to visit him in the remand prison. On the same day a judge of the Zheleznodorozhniy District Court of Krasnoyarsk rejected the motion, stating that, according to the Code of Criminal Procedure, no visits were allowed until the sentence had be pronounced. On 22 September 2011 the applicant ’ s attempt to challenge the refusal was rejected by the Zheleznodorozhniy District Court without examination on the merits, as not being amenable to examination in civil pr oceedings. On 31 October and 21 November 2011, in reply to the applicant ’ s further attempts to challenge the refusal, the President of the Zheleznodorozhniy District Court informed him that the it was not amenable to appeal under the Code of Criminal Procedure either. It was unclear from the President ’ s reply whether any other avenues of appeal existed in that regard. On 19 December 2011 another request for a family visit was rejected by the Zheleznodorozhniy District Court, and the subsequent attempts to challenge it resulted in similar replies of the President of that court dated 7 February, 1 March and 13 April 2012.

COMPLAINTS

1. The applicant complains under Article 3 of the Convention about the conditions of his detention in IVS Krasnoyarsk and in convoy cells of the Zheleznodorozhniy District Court.

2. Relying on the same Article, he complains about the conditions of his transport.

3. Under Article 5 § 4 the applicant claims that the judicial review of the order of 10 July 2007 extending his pre-trial detention was excessively long, and complains of his own and his lawyer ’ s absence from the appeal hearing of 3 October 2007.

4 . With reference to Articles 8 and 13 of the Convention, he complains about the restrictions on family visits during the trial and claims that there existed no effective remedies at the national level in that respect.

QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES

1. Were the conditions of the applicant ’ s detention in IVS Krasnoyarsk compatible with Article 3 of the Convention?

2. Were the conditions of transport of Mr Kolesnikovich to/from the custodial facilities and the courthouse compatible with Article 3 of the Convention? In particular, the Government are requested to indicate:

(a) How many times was the applicant transported to/from the custodial facilities and the courthouse and on which dates?

(b) How long was the way?

(c) How much space was allowed for the applicant in the prison van?

(d) Did the applicant have access to toilet during the trip?

(e) Was drinking water available to him?

(f) Were the transportation compartments ventilated on hot days and heated on cold days?

3. In respect of the applicant ’ s stays in the Zheleznodorozhniy District Court in Krasnoyarsk , the Government are requested to submit the following information, supported by copies of original documents:

(a) How many times was he brought to the courthouse and on which dates?

(b) How much space was afforded to the applicant in the compartment in which he was kept before and after the hearing?

(c) How many persons were kept there together with the applicant?

(d) How long did each stay last?

4 . Did the judicial review of the order extending the applicant ’ s detention of 1 0 J ul y 200 7 satisfy the requirement of “speediness” set out in Article 5 § 4 of the Convention?

5. Did the appeal hearing of 3 October 2007 conducted by the Supreme Court of Russia in the applicant ’ s and his lawyer ’ s absence, comply with the guarantees of Article 5 § 4?

6. Were the restrictions on relatives ’ visits during the trial compatible with the applicant ’ s right to respect for his private and family life under Article 8 of the Convention?

7. Did the applicant have at his disposal an effective domestic remedy for his complaints about the restrictions on family visits, as required by Article 13 of the Convention?