CASE OF KASHUBA AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA. The applicants complained about their confinement in a metal cage and/or a glass cabin in the courtroom during the criminal proceedings against them

Last Updated on November 2, 2023 by LawEuro

Having regard to its case-law on the subject, the Court considers that in the instant cases the applicants’ confinement in a metal cage and/or a glass cabin before the court during the criminal proceedings against them amounted to degrading treatment. These complaints are therefore admissible and disclose a breach of Article 3 of the Convention.

---

SECOND SECTION
CASE OF KASHUBA AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
(Applications nos. 56247/15 and 47 others – see appended list)
JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
2 November 2023

This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.

In the case of Kashuba and Others v. Russia,

The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:
Lorraine Schembri Orland, President,
Frédéric Krenc,
Davor Derenčinović, judges,
and Viktoriya Maradudina, Acting Deputy Section Registrar,

Having deliberated in private on 12 October 2023,

Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:

PROCEDURE

1. The case originated in applications against Russia lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) on the various dates indicated in the appended table.

2. The Russian Government (“the Government”) were given notice of the applications.

THE FACTS

3. The list of applicants and the relevant details of the applications are set out in the appended table.

4. The applicants complained about their confinement in a metal cage and/or a glass cabin in the courtroom during the criminal proceedings against them. Some applicants also raised other complaints under the provisions of the Convention.

THE LAW

I. JOINDER OF THE APPLICATIONS

5. Having regard to the similar subject matter of the applications, the Court finds it appropriate to examine them jointly in a single judgment.

II. Jurisdiction

6. The Court observes that the facts giving rise to the alleged violations of the Convention occurred prior to 16 September 2022, the date on which the Russian Federation ceased to be a party to the Convention. The Court therefore decides that it has jurisdiction to examine the present applications (see Fedotova and Others v. Russia [GC], nos. 40792/10 and 2 others, §§ 68‑73, 17 January 2023).

III. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLES 3 AND 13 OF THE CONVENTION

7. The applicants complained principally about their confinement in a metal cage and/or a glass cabin in the courtroom during the criminal proceedings against them. They relied on Article 3 of the Convention, which reads as follows:

“No one shall be subjected to torture or to inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.”

Some applicants also complained that they had not been afforded an effective domestic remedy in respect of their grievances under Article 3, contrary to Article 13 of the Convention, reading as follows:

“Everyone whose rights and freedoms as set forth in [the] Convention are violated shall have an effective remedy before a national authority notwithstanding that the violation has been committed by persons acting in an official capacity.”

8. The Court notes that the applicants were kept in a metal cage in the courtroom in the context of their trial. In the leading cases of Svinarenko and Slyadnev v. Russia [GC], nos. 32541/08 and 43441/08, ECHR 2014 (extracts) and Vorontsov and Others v. Russia, nos. 59655/14 and 2 others, 31 January 2017, the Court already dealt with the issue of the use of metal cages in courtrooms and found that such a practice constituted in itself an affront to human dignity and amounted to degrading treatment prohibited by Article 3 of the Convention. Similar finding was reached by the Court in respect of the practice of confinement of defendants in metal cages at remand prisons for the purposes of their participation in court hearings carried out via a video link (see Karachentsev v. Russia, no. 23229/11, §§ 50-54, 17 April 2018).

9. The Court has also dealt with the issue of the use of glass cabins in courtrooms and found that under certain circumstances such a practice could also disclose a violation of Article 3 of the Convention (see Yaroslav Belousov v. Russia, nos. 2653/13 and 60980/14, §§ 123-28, 4 October 2016, where extreme overcrowding inside the glass cabin led the Court to the conclusion of a violation of Article 3 of the Convention, and Mariya Alekhina and Others v. Russia, no. 38004/12, §§ 144-50, 17 July 2018, where similar conclusion was reached by the Court against the background of the glass dock having been constantly surrounded by armed police officers and court ushers and a guard dog having been present next to it in the courtroom).

10. Having examined all the material submitted to it, and having taken into account the issue of compliance with the six-month time-limit under Article 35 § 1 of the Convention (see Saakashvili v. Georgia (dec.), nos. 6232/20 and 22394/20, §§ 46-59, 1 March 2022, in which the Court addressed the COVID-related extension of the period in question), the Court has not found any fact or argument capable of persuading it to reach a different conclusion on the admissibility and merits of these complaints. Having regard to its case-law on the subject, the Court considers that in the instant cases the applicants’ confinement in a metal cage and/or a glass cabin before the court during the criminal proceedings against them amounted to degrading treatment.

11. These complaints are therefore admissible and disclose a breach of Article 3 of the Convention.

12. Having regard to its finding above, the Court does not consider it necessary to deal separately with the applicants’ complaints under Article 13 of the Convention (see Valyuzhenich v. Russia, no. 10597/13, § 27, 26 March 2019).

IV. OTHER ALLEGED VIOLATIONS UNDER WELL-ESTABLISHED CASE-LAW

13. Some applicants submitted other complaints which also raised issues under the Convention, given the relevant well-established case-law of the Court (see appended table). These complaints are not manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 (a) of the Convention, nor are they inadmissible on any other ground. Accordingly, they must be declared admissible. Having examined all the material before it, the Court concludes that they also disclose violations of the Convention in the light of its findings in Tomov and Others v. Russia, nos. 18255/10 and 5 others, §§ 92-156, 9 April 2019, as regards the inadequate conditions of transport and lack of an effective remedy in this connection; Fortalnov and Others v. Russia, nos. 7077/06 and 12 others, §§ 76-87, 26 June 2018, as regards the unlawful deprivation of liberty; Dirdizov v. Russia, no. 41461/10, 27 November 2012, as regards the excessive length of pre‑trial detention; Idalov v. Russia [GC], no. 5826/03, §§ 154-58, 22 May 2012, as regards the lack of a speedy review of the detention matters; Kuzmina and Others v. Russia, nos. 66152/14 and 8 others, §§ 85-105, 20 April 2021, as regards the police entrapment in the context of investigating offences concerning illegal distribution of drugs; Mariya Alekhina and Others v. Russia, no. 38004/12, §§ 145-50 and 166-72, 17 July 2018, concerning inability to communicate freely and privately with a lawyer during the trial; Andrey Smirnov v. Russia, no. 43149/10, §§ 35-57, 13 February 2018, as regards restrictions on family visits in pre-trial detention facilities; and Chaldayev v. Russia, no. 33172/16, §§ 69-83, 28 May 2019, as regards discriminatory treatment concerning family visits in pre-trial detention facilities.

V. REMAINING COMPLAINT

14. Lastly, the applicant in application no. 1798/17 raised a complaint under Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (d) of the Convention about his inability to obtain attendance and examination of defence witnesses.

15. The Court has examined this complaint and considers that, in the light of all the material in its possession and in so far as the matters complained of are within its competence, it does not meet the admissibility criteria set out in Article 35 of the Convention. It follows that this part of the application must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 § 4 of the Convention.

VI. APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION

16. Article 41 of the Convention provides:

“If the Court finds that there has been a violation of the Convention or the Protocols thereto, and if the internal law of the High Contracting Party concerned allows only partial reparation to be made, the Court shall, if necessary, afford just satisfaction to the injured party.”

17. Regard being had to the documents in its possession and to its case‑law (see, in particular, Vorontsov and Others, cited above), the Court considers it reasonable to award the sums indicated in the appended table.

FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT, UNANIMOUSLY,

1. Decides to join the applications;

2. Holds that it has jurisdiction to deal with these applications as they relate to facts that took place before 16 September 2022;

3. Declares the complaints under Article 3 of the Convention concerning the use of metal cages and/or glass cabins in courtrooms, under Article 13 of the Convention about the absence of an effective domestic remedy to complain about the use of those security arrangements in the courtrooms, and other complaints under the well-established case-law of the Court, as set out in the appended table, admissible, and the remainder of application no. 1798/17 inadmissible;

4. Holds that these applications disclose a breach of Article 3 of the Convention on account of the applicants’ placement in a metal cage and/or glass cabin before the court during the criminal proceedings against them;

5. Holds that there has been a violation of the Convention as regards the other complaints raised under the well-established case-law of the Court (see appended table);

6. Holds that it is not necessary to examine separately the applicants’ complaints under Article 13 of the Convention about the lack of an effective domestic remedy to complain about their placement in a metal cage or glass cabin in a courtroom;

7. Holds

(a) that the respondent State is to pay the applicants, within three months, the amounts indicated in the appended table, to be converted into the currency of the respondent State at the rate applicable at the date of settlement;

(b) that from the expiry of the above-mentioned three months until settlement simple interest shall be payable on the above amounts at a rate equal to the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank during the default period plus three percentage points.

Done in English, and notified in writing on 2 November 2023, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.

Viktoriya Maradudina                    Lorraine Schembri Orland
Acting Deputy Registrar                      President

___________

APPENDIX
List of applications raising complaints under Article 3 of the Convention
(use of metal cages and/or other security arrangements in courtrooms)

No.	Application no. Date of introduction	Applicant’s name Year of birth	Representative’s name and location	Name of the court Date of the relevant judgment	Other complaints under well-established case-law	Amount awarded for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage and costs and expenses per applicant (in euros)[i]
1.	56247/15 05/11/2015	Viktor Petrovich KASHUBA 1964	Ivannikov Vladimir Mikhaylovich Kursk	Kursk Regional Court (by video link from the remand prison where the applicant was placed in a cage) 13/05/2015		7,500
2.	4707/16 28/12/2015	Anton Vladimirovich BORDOVSKIY 1966	Osherov Mikhail Aleksandrovich Moscow	Presnenskiy District Court of Moscow, Moscow City Court (By video link from SIZO-2 Moscow) 28/11/2017	Art. 5 (1) – unlawful deprivation of liberty, including unrecorded detention and detention without a judicial order and any other legal basis – The applicant was arrested by the police at 8 a.m. on 03/06/2015. An arrest record was drawn up seventeen hours later, at 1 a.m. on 04/06/2015. The applicant unsuccessfully raised this complaint before the courts when the measure of restraint was examined	9,750
3.	50477/16 22/08/2016	Mikhail Aleksandrovich LEONTYEV 1984	Romanchenko Lyudmila Ivanovna Moscow	Supreme Court of Russia (by video link from the remand prison while being placed in a metal cage) 24/03/2016		7,500
4.	1798/17 09/12/2016	Yevgeniy Borisovich ZHURAVLEV 1992	Vikharev Aleksandr Yevgenyevich Sovetsk	Sovetskiy District Court of Kaliningrad 21/06/2016		7,500
5.	15951/17 15/02/2017	Aleksandr Tarielyevich TABUTSADZE 1992	Pugachev Sergey Viktorovich Moscow	Moscow Regional Court 16/08/2016		7,500
6.	25006/17 11/03/2017	Yuriy Vladimirovich ALDOKHIN 1968		Chelyabinsk Regional Court 12/09/2016		7,500
7.	75975/17 13/10/2017	Larisa Dmitriyevna DUBINA 1959	Zlobin Sergey Vladimirovich Moscow	Volgograd Regional Court 17/04/2017		7,500
8.	76908/17 17/10/2017	Aleksandr Viktorovich DUBOVITSKIY 1964	Laptev Aleksey Nikolayevich Moscow	Volgograd Regional Court 19/04/2017		7,500
9.	80915/17 28/10/2017	Aleksandr Vitalyevich PROTOPOPOV 1961	Vasilyev Aleksey Anatolyevich Izhevsk	Syktyvkar City Court of the Komi Republic, the Supreme Court of the Komi Republic 03/08/2017		7,500
10.	4794/18 17/01/2018	Maksim Alekseyevich VOLKOV 1990	Polikarkin Vladislav Nikolayevich Moscow	Moscow City Court 02/08/2017	Art. 6 (1) – unfair conviction for an offence committed as a result of entrapment by State agents – The investigating authority took the initiative to contact the applicant through their agent, the applicant’s acquaintance D. The latter sent the applicant 6 sms messages complaining of withdrawal symptoms and called him asking to buy 2 gr of amphetamine for him, which amounted to incitement	7,500
11.	10606/18 22/02/2018	Aleksandr Aleksandrovich GUSHCHIN 1979		Kirovskiy District Court of Yekaterinburg (confinement in a glass cabin with a personal space of < 0.4 sq. m, and in extreme temperatures during summer; lack of fresh air) 27/12/2017		7,500
12.	3857/19 17/12/2018	Fatima Kazbekovna NAYFONOVA 1979	Bezrukova Kseniya Yevgenyevna Moskow	Moscow City Court (placement in a glass cabin, in the following conditions: overcrowding, insufficient space, lack of fresh air, on more than 25 occasions) 26/06/2018	Art. 3 – inadequate conditions of detention during transport – van, from 26/01/2018 to 26/06/2018, overcrowding, lack of fresh air, passive smoking; less than 0.6 sq. m. per inmate in a van, insufficient light;   Art. 13 – lack of any effective remedy in domestic law in respect of inadequate conditions of transport	8,500
13.	24983/19 10/04/2019	Ivan Yuryevich MANKOVSKIY 1992	Mankovskaya Svetlana Petrovna Krasnoyarsk	Sovetskiy District Court of Krasnoyarsk (glass cabin, overcrowding, 8 co-defendants contained in the glass cabin designed for 4, insufficient number of seats, poor ventilation and audibility inside the cabin) 24/12/2018		7,500
14.	29009/19 22/05/2019	Aleksey Borisovich NOVIKOV 1983	Urlashov Aleksey Mikhaylovich St Petersburg	Petrogradskiy District Court of St Petersburg, St Petersburg City Court 07/02/2019	Art. 3 – inadequate conditions of detention during transport – van, transit cell from 23/10/2017 to 20/03/2019, 0.3 sq. m, overcrowding, applicant transported on numerous occasions, inadequate temperature, passive smoking;   Art. 13 – lack of any effective remedy in domestic law in respect of inadequate conditions of transport	8,500
15.	36322/19 01/07/2019	Nikolay Leontyevich PONYATOVSKIY 1964		Surgut Town Court 09/04/2019		7,500
16.	37228/19 25/06/2019	Vladimir Vladimirovich PROKHORTSEV 1987		Primorskiy District Court of St Petersburg 18/04/2019	Art. 3 – inadequate conditions of detention during transport – by prison van, from IZ-47/1 – Primorskiy District Court of St Petersburg, multiple occasions between 10/04/2018 and 18/04/2019;   Art. 13 – lack of any effective remedy in domestic law in respect of inadequate conditions of transport	8,500
17.	37365/19 26/06/2019	Sergey Yuryevich TOMILIN 1983		Tsentralniy District Court of Tyumen 25/03/2019		7,500
18.	38138/19 05/07/2019	Yekaterina Sergeyevna KOVALEVA 1990	Dvoryak Vladimir Gennadyevich Abakan	Supreme Court of the Republic of Khakassia; Abakan Town Court 05/08/2021		7,500
19.	38403/19 10/07/2019	Maksim Vladimirovich POLIKARPOV 1976		Leninskiy District Court of Tambov 26/06/2019		7,500
20.	39033/19 10/07/2019	Aleksandr Alekseyevich ALEKSEYEV 1992	Yefimov Vitaliy Olegovich Cheboksary	Leninskiy District Court of Cheboksary 17/01/2019   Supreme Court of the Republic of Chuvashia (by video link from the remand prison) 03/04/2019		7,500
21.	46043/19 19/08/2019	Aleksandr Aleksandrovich KOMAROVSKIKH 1980		Ust-Vymskiy District Court of the Republic of Komi 27/03/2019		7,500
22.	50701/19 18/09/2019	Denis Savelyevich ZDOROVTSOV 1978	Egle Denis Sergeyevich Krasnoyarsk	Leninskiy District Court of Novosibirsk, Novosibirsk Regional Court 29/07/2019		7,500
23.	54754/19 21/09/2019	Ivan Sergeyevich FADEYEV 1984	Petrov Roman Nikolayevich Cheboksary	Domodedovo Town Court of the Moscow Region 11/04/2019	Art. 3 – inadequate conditions of detention during transport – transport by van and train; from 20/05/2019 to 01/07/2019; less than 0.4 sq. m of personal space; inadequate temperature, lack of fresh air, lack of or inadequate hygienic facilities;   Art. 13 – lack of any effective remedy in domestic law in respect of inadequate conditions of transport	8,500
24.	55703/19 08/10/2019	Aleksandr Pavlovich SHTRUMBERGER 1983		Abakan Town Court of the Republic of Khakassia 16/07/2019	Art. 3 – inadequate conditions of detention during transport – on 08/08/2019-09/08/2019, transport by train lasting for around 20 hours; passive smoking, lack of sleeping places, lack of fresh air, no or restricted access to potable water, lack of privacy for toilet;   Art. 13 – lack of any effective remedy in domestic law in respect of inadequate conditions of transport	8,500
25.	57542/19 22/10/2019	Vadim Andreyevich KHARITONOV 1993		Severodvinsk Town Court, Arkhangelsk Regional Court 11/03/2020		7,500
26.	64754/19 29/11/2019	Aleksey Sergeyevich DZHIGAYLO 1992		Moskovskiy District Court of St Petersburg 19/07/2019		7,500
27.	2083/20 07/12/2019	Ivan Ivanovich KALINA 1980	Urlashov Aleksey Mikhaylovich St Petersburg	Vsevolzhsk Town Court of the Leningrad Region, Leningrad Regional Court, video link from IK-4, Leningrad region 15/08/2019		7,500
28.	24936/20 31/05/2020	Yuriy Vasilyevich VASYUKOV 1966		Kaluga Regional Court (by way of videoconference) 05/12/2019	Art. 3 – inadequate conditions of detention during transport – train, van form 23/01/2020 to 11/02/2020, applicant transported on numerous occasions, bunk beds, inadequate temperature, insufficient number of sleeping places, lack of fresh air, lack of or insufficient natural light, lack of privacy for toilet, no or restricted access to toilet, overcrowding, passive smoking, poor quality of food	8,500
29.	27102/20 25/05/2020	Pavel Nikolayevich GRISHANIN 1971		Knyazhpogostskiy District Court of the Republic of Komi, Supreme Court of the Republic of Komi 14/10/2019		7,500
30.	27114/20 01/02/2021	Larisa Ildarovna KHALITOVA 1985		Sovetskiy District Court of Chelyabinsk 18/09/2019 – on-going placement in a metal cage on the date when the application was lodged with the Court		7,500
31.	27291/20 12/03/2020	Yan Dmitriyevich KOVALEVSKIY 1995	Belinskaya Marina Aleksandrovna St Petersburg	Krasnoselskiy District Court of St Petersburg 12/09/2019		7,500
32.	46141/20 24/02/2021	Anton Yuryevich GOLUBKOV 1987		Sverdlovskiy District Court of Krasnoyarsk 13/12/2019		7,500
33.	46153/20 11/05/2021	Yuliya Valeryevna VAKHRUSHEVA 1989		Traktorozavodskiy District Court of Chelyabinsk 15/02/2021		7,500
34.	48160/20 07/10/2020	Yevgeniy Sergeyevich OSETROV 1989		Vorkuta Town Court of the Republic of Komi 31/08/2020		7,500
35.	53405/20 05/03/2021	Vladimir Anatolyevich GAFAROV 1984	Isayev Ayndi Khamzatovich Krasnoyarsk	Zheleznodorozhniy District Court of Krasnoyarsk 08/09/2020		7,500
36.	54562/20 19/01/2021	Aleksandr Anatolyevich ANTONOV 1973		Sverdlovskiy District Court of Krasnoyarsk, Tsentralniy District Court of Krasnoyarsk 29/10/2020		7,500
37.	3328/21 08/12/2020	Igor Andreyevich CHUPROV 1991		Oktyabrskiy District Court of Arkhangelsk 09/09/2020		7,500
38.	3834/21 02/12/2020	Dmitriy Olegovich KANATCHIKOV 1990	Pavlov Sergey Eduardovich Cheboksary	Moskovskiy District Court of Cheboksary, Supreme Court of the Republic of Chuvashia 03/06/2020		7,500
39.	4528/21 12/03/2021	Aleksey Viktorovich DERNOV 1988		Kirovsky District Court of Novosibirsk, Novosibirsk Regional Court (by way of video link from the remand prison) 13/11/2020		7,500
40.	7298/21 29/12/2020	Karen Gagikovich SARGSYAN 1987	Ustyuzhaninov Dmitriy Aleksandrovich St Petersburg	St Petersburg City Court (confinement in glass cabins with 8-9 co-defendants: 0.63 sq. m. of personal space (hearing rooms nos. 21, 38, 48, 58, 68); extreme overcrowding, lack of fresh air, extreme temperatures) On-going placement on the date when the application was lodged with the Court	Art. 5 (3) – lack of relevant and sufficient reasons for detention – fragility of the reasons employed by the courts, collective detention orders, use of assumptions, in the absence of any evidentiary basis, of the risks of absconding or obstructing justice, failure to assess the applicant’s personal situation reducing the risks of re‑offending, colluding or absconding, failure to examine the possibility of applying other measures of restraint. Detention since 06/04/2018 and on-going on the date when the application was lodged with the Court. Moskovskiy District Court of St Petersburg; St Petersburg City Court; Second Appeal Court of general jurisdiction	9,750
41.	7564/21 15/03/2021	Chechen Savelyevich OGLY 1989		Leninskiy District Court of Novosibirsk 05/10/2020		7,500
42.	7993/21 10/09/2021	Pavel Vladimirovich PLATONOV 1984		Talmenskiy District Court of the Altay Region 08/06/2021		7,500
43.	8208/21 20/09/2021	Anton Valeryevich USOV 1990		Oktyabrskiy District Court of Krasnoyarsk 07/04/2021		7,500
44.	8800/21 11/01/2021	Dmitriy Konstantinovich VARAVKA 1982		Oktyabrskiy District Court of Krasnoyarsk 16/07/2020	Art. 8 (1) – restrictions on family visits in pre-trial facilities – refusals of long-term family visits from the applicant’s live-in partner and children in the SIZO-1 Krasnoyarsk, 25/02/2019 – to 16/09/2022; restrictions during short-term visits (physical separation);   Art. 14 – in conjunction with Art. 8 – discriminatory treatment compared with convicted prisoners as regards duration of short-term family visits and absence of long‑term family visits	9,750
45.	9049/21 12/01/2021	Maksim Gennadyevich TYURIN 1973	Isayev Ayndi Khamzatovich Krasnoyarsk	Leninskiy District Court of Krasnoyarsk 14/07/2020		7,500
46.	19698/21 16/03/2021	Anton Valeryevich USENKO 1971	Shukhardin Valeriy Vladimirovich Moscow	Tverskoy District Court of Moscow, Moscow City Court (in both courts confinement in a glass cabin, with the applicant suffering from the lack of ventilation, extreme temperatures leading to the applicant suffering from shortness of breath and the need to call ambulance) 17/09/2020	Art. 6 (1) and Art. 6 (3) (c) – unfair criminal proceedings in view of the lack of possibility for the applicant to confer privately with the lawyer as a result of the use of the security arrangement. Complaint raised during the trial and on appeal	9,750
47.	25111/21 29/04/2021	Sabukhi Agakerimovich MURADKHANOV 1986	Semyanovskiy Dmitriy Aleksandrovich Astrakhan	Astrakhan Regional Court (by way of videoconference from the detention facility), Trusovskoy District Court of Astrakhan 14/01/2021		7,500
48.	9328/22 10/01/2022	Andrey Vladimirovich BOROVIKOV 1988	Krikun Leonid Leonidovich St Petersburg	Arkhangelsk Regional Court; Video link from SIZO-1, Kirov Region 15/07/2021 Third Cassation Court; Video link from SIZO-4, Arkhangelsk Region 23/12/2021		7,500

[i] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.