CASE OF SOLDATOV 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 23, 2023 by LawEuro

The European Court of Human Rights notes that the applicants were kept in a metal cage in the courtroom in the context of their trial. 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.

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).

Having regard to its case-law on the subject, the Court considers that in the instant case 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.

---

Full text of the document.

European Court of Human Rights
FOURTH SECTION
CASE OF SOLDATOV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
(Applications nos. 10881/21 and 37 others – see appended list)
JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
23 November 2023

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

In the case of Soldatov and Others v. Russia,

The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:
Branko Lubarda, President,
Armen Harutyunyan,
Ana Maria Guerra Martins, judges,
and Viktoriya Maradudina, Acting Deputy Section Registrar,

Having deliberated in private on 2 November 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.

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.

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, 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 case 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.

14. 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 N.T. v. Russia, no. 14727/11, §§ 32-57, 2 June 2020, concerning inadequate conditions of detention under strict imprisonment regime; Idalov v. Russia [GC], no. 5826/03, §§ 103-08, 22 May 2012, and Tomov and Others v. Russia, nos. 18255/10 and 5 others, §§ 92-156, 9 April 2019, concerning inadequate conditions of transport and lack of an effective remedy in that respect; Dirdizov v. Russia, no. 41461/10, §§ 108-11, 27 November 2012, as regards unreasonably long detention on remand; Idalov, cited above, §§ 154‑58, as regards lengthy review of detention matters; Nakhmanovich v. Russia, no. 55669/00, §§ 85-98, 2 March 2006, as regards unreasonable duration of the criminal proceedings; and Gorlov and Others v. Russia, nos. 27057/06 and 2 others, §§ 58-110, 2 July 2019, concerning permanent video surveillance of detainees and lack of an effective remedy in that respect.

V. APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION

15. 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.”

16. 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 that the finding of a violation in applications nos. 4935/22 and 44999/22 will constitute in itself sufficient just satisfaction (see Ivanov and Others v. Russia [Committee], nos. 44363/14 and 2 others, § 12, 4 June 2020, and Puzanov v. Russia [Committee], nos. 26895/14 and 2 other applications, § 13, 15 September 2022). It further finds reasonable to award the sums indicated in the appended table to the remaining applicants.

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 applications admissible;

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 a 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 concerning the lack of an effective domestic remedy to complain about placement in a metal cage and/or glass cabin during court hearings;

7. Holds that the finding of a violation constitutes in itself sufficient just satisfaction for the non-pecuniary damage sustained by the applicants in applications nos. 4935/22 and 44999/22;

8. Holds

(a) that the respondent State is to pay the remaining 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 23 November 2023, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.

Viktoriya Maradudina                 Branko Lubarda
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.	10881/21 28/05/2021	Anton Borisovich SOLDATOV 1987	Dunayeva Alla Igorevna Chelyabinsk	Fourth Appellate Court of General Jurisdiction 30/11/2020		7,500
2.	35403/21 06/07/2021	Anna Tamazovna KVASHINA 1990		Sokolskiy District Court of the Vologda Region 03/02/2021		7,500
3.	3399/22 20/12/2021	Yuriy Vitalyevich ADRIANOV 1975	Polonskiy Aleksandr Viktorovich Volgograd	Kirovskiy District Court of Volgograd (Pending on the date when the application was lodged with the Court)		7,500
4.	4077/22 12/12/2021	Mikhail Yevgenyevich KOTLYAROV 1990		Tosno Town Court of the Leningrad Region, Leningrad Regional Court (Pending on the date when the application was lodged with the Court)	Art. 5 (3) – excessive length of pre-trial detention – from 28/02/2020 – pending as of 16/09/2022; Tosno Town Court of the Leningrad Region, Leningrad Regional Court; last extension of pre-trial detention – 13/07/2021, upheld by the Leningrad Regional Court on appeal on 19/08/2021; fragility of the reasons employed by the courts; use of assumptions, in the absence of any evidentiary basis, of the risks of absconding or obstructing justice; failure to examine the possibility of applying other measures of restraint; collective detention orders; Art. 5 (4) – excessive length of judicial review of detention – decision of 13/07/2021 extending the applicant’s detention on remand was upheld on appeal on 19/08/2021	9,750
5.	4477/22 30/12/2021	Artur Ilyasovich ABDULMUTALIBOV 1987	Finashkin Andrey Yuryevich Kursk	Kurskiy District Court of the Kursk Region 01/07/2021	Art. 3 – inadequate conditions of detention during transport – the applicant was transported on numerous occasions between the remand prison and the courthouse in a single-prisoner cubicle measuring 0.5 sq. m. Due to the absence of free convoy cells at the courthouse the applicant was held in the prison van until the start of the hearings and during court breaks. There was no toilet in the van, inadequate temperature, lack of fresh air. It appears that the most recent occasion of transport was on 30/12/2021	8,500
6.	4755/22 20/12/2021	Ilnur Amirovich FAYZULIN 1995	Alekseyeva Natalya Vasilyevna Krasnoyarsk	Tsentralnyy District Court of Krasnoyarsk 16/11/2021		7,500
7.	4935/22 02/04/2022	Vadim Valeryevich ANIKEYEV 1982		Arkhangelsk Regional Court (Pending on the date when the application was lodged with the Court)	Art. 3 – inadequate conditions of detention during transport – by van between the remand prison and the Arkhangelsk Regional Court on 456 occasions between 25/01/2017 and ongoing as of 16/09/2022, 0.32 sq. m of personal space, van ceiling height 1.5 m, handcuffing, absence of safety belts, inadequate temperatures, transport took 50 minutes one way, lack of fresh air, lack of or insufficient electric and natural light, overcrowding, passive smoking; Art. 6 (1) – excessive length of criminal proceedings – Proceedings pending since 14/11/2014 and at least until 16/09/2022; the applicant challenged the length of the proceedings before the domestic courts and was awarded RUB 70,300 (approximately EUR 800), final decision 15/09/2022; Art. 13 – lack of any effective remedy in domestic law in respect of inadequate conditions of detention during transport	–
8.	5234/22 03/04/2022	Pavel Petrovich PETROVSKIY 1964		Kirovskiy District Court of St Petersburg, Kuybyshevskiy District Court of St Petersburg, St Petersburg City Court (Pending on the date when the application was lodged with the Court)	Art. 3 – inadequate conditions of detention during transport – Transport on multiple occasions between 24/01/2019 and 31/03/2022, between 0.2 and 0.25 sq. m. of personal space, transport time – 2 hours per one-way trip, absence of toilet; poor conditions in assembly cells on the days of transport (20 to 30 inmates confined in the cell measuring 15 sq. m, no ventilation in the cell, the window could not be opened, no hot food on the days of transport, poor sanitary conditions).	8,500
9.	5737/22 26/12/2021	Vitaliy Vyacheslavovich KOREPANOV 1992		Severodvinsk Town Court of the Arkhangelsk Region 17/01/2022	Art. 3 – inadequate conditions of detention during transport – by van and train, 06/05/2021 – 17/12/2021, overcrowding (0.49 sq. m per person in the van and 0.29 sq. m per person on the train), absence of toilet on a 20-hour train ride, lack of or poor quality of bedding and bed linen, inadequate temperature, lack of fresh air, passive smoking; Art. 13 – lack of any effective remedy in domestic law in respect of inadequate conditions of detention during transport	8,500
10.	5808/22 14/01/2022	Aleksandr Borisovich OZEL 1991	Krikun Leonid Leonidovich St Petersburg	Tver Regional Court 14/07/2021		7,500
11.	5880/22 30/05/2022	Roman Alekseyevich MOKRUSHNIKOV 1992		Norilsk Town Court 23/05/2022		7,500
12.	10838/22 19/02/2022	Vladimir Valeryevich ZAVALIY 1975	Golubenko Andrey Yevgenyevich Nea Skiony	Murmansk Regional Court 10/12/2021	Art. 8 (1) – permanent video surveillance of detainees in pre-trial or post-conviction detention facilities – SIZO-1 Murmansk, 21/05/2021 – 29/01/2022, opposite-sex operators, detention in different cells with video surveillance, video surveillance in a lavatory and/or shower room; Art. 13 – lack of any effective remedy in domestic law in respect of permanent video surveillance in detention facilities	7,500
13.	11410/22 31/01/2022	Ivan Sergeyevich LISICHNIKOV 1978	Tsarenkov Mikhail Maisovich Molodezhnyy	Tsentralniy District Court of Chita, Zabaykalskiy Regional Court (Pending on the date when the application was lodged with the Court)	Art. 5 (3) – excessive length of pre-trial detention – detention on remand, 14/10/2020 – pending as of 16/09/2022, Tsentralniy District Court of Chita, Zabaykalskiy Regional Court: fragility of the reasons employed by the courts, use of assumptions, in the absence of any evidentiary basis, of the risks of absconding or obstructing justice, failure to examine the possibility, as the case progressed, of applying other measures to secure attendance at the trial	9,750
14.	11775/22 16/02/2022	Aynur Azatovich YAKUPOV 1989	Abdrashitov Elik Yevgenyevich Orel	Vakhitovskiy District Court of Kazan, Supreme Court of the Republic of Tatarstan 22/12/2021	Art. 5 (3) – excessive length of pre-trial detention – 07/04/2020 -22/12/2021; Vakhitovskiy District Court of Kazan, Supreme Court of the Republic of Tatarstan, Fourth Appellate Court of General Jurisdiction: fragility of the reasons employed by the courts, failure to assess the applicant’s personal situation reducing the risks of re-offending, colluding or absconding, fragility and repetitiveness of the reasoning employed by the courts as the case progressed, failure to examine the possibility, as the case progressed, of applying other measures to secure attendance at the trial, collective detention orders	9,750
15.	12538/22 26/04/2022	Aleksandr Ivanovich BURAVENKO 1994		Ezhvinskiy District Court of Syktyvkar 31/01/2022		7,500
16.	13837/22 10/02/2022	Yuriy Vladimirovich GRUDININ 1959	Kiryanov Aleksandr Vladimirovich Taganrog	Leninskiy District Court of Rostov‑on‑Don 24/12/2021		7,500
17.	14047/22 04/02/2022	Yevgeniy Aleksandrovich DEMCHENKO 1980		Sysolskiy District Court of the Republic of Komi, Priluzskiy District Court of the Republic of Komi 13/08/2021		7,500
18.	18252/22 17/03/2022	Aleksandr Sergeyevich ZAYCHENKO 1989		Sverdlovskiy District Court of Krasnoyarsk 24/01/2022		7,500
19.	19962/22 28/03/2022	Pavel Vladimirovich GORINOV 1982		Kanashskiy District Court of the Republic of Chuvashia 01/10/2021		7,500
20.	20220/22 20/03/2022	Nurlan Vyacheslavovich USHAKOV 1988		Belozerskiy District Court of the Vologda Region, Oktyabrskiy District Court of Orsk, the Orenburg Region 24/02/2022		7,500
21.	21519/22 28/03/2022	Vladimir Yuryevich CHEKULDAYEV 1977		Ivdel Town Court, Sorskiy District Court of the Republic of Khakassia, Abakan Town Court 24/03/2022		2,100
22.	21802/22 12/04/2022	Natalya Yuryevna TOMILOVA 1964	Abdrashitov Elik Yevgenyevich Orel	Kirovskiy District Court of Kazan 27/12/2021		7,500
23.	21968/22 23/03/2022	Leonid Vasilyevich FILIPPOV 1990	Petrov Roman Nikolayevich Cheboksary	Shumerlinskiy District Court of the Republic of Chuvashia, Supreme Court of the Republic of Chuvashia 28/12/2021		7,500
24.	24229/22 21/03/2022	Andrey Sergeyevich VELICHKO 1989		Syktyvdinskiy District Court of the Republic of Komi 01/02/2022		7,500
25.	24928/22 27/04/2022	Yevgeniya Igorevna MAKARENKO 1996		Solntsevskiy District Court of Moscow 19/04/2022		7,500
26.	25216/22 26/04/2022	Vasiliy Leonidovich GUZ 1985		Supreme Court of the Republic of Komi 28/12/2021		7,500
27.	25271/22 13/04/2022	Aleksandr Anatolyevich SOKOLYUK 1981		Oktyabrskiy District Court of Arkhangelsk, Lomonosovskiy District Court of Arkhangelsk, Arkhangelsk Regional Court 14/10/2021		7,500
28.	25386/22 18/04/2022	Yevgeniy Gennadyevich GERASIMOV 1982		Sverdlovskiy District Court of Krasnoyarsk, Sovetskiy District Court of Krasnoyarsk 17/03/2022		7,500
29.	25461/22 22/04/2022	Denis Ruslanovich SULEYMANOV 1995	Kanayev Valeriy Viktorovich Diveyevo	Arzamas Town Court of the Nizhniy Novgorod Region 13/01/2022		7,500
30.	26001/22 04/05/2022	Dmitriy Yuryevich ISAYEV 1974		Perm Regional Court 18/01/2022	Art. 3 – inadequate conditions of detention under strict imprisonment regime – the applicant has been serving his life imprisonment under strict regime since 25/10/1999 – pending as of 16/09/2022: confined to his cell (along with one or two other inmates) for twenty-two-and-a-half hours a day, lack of purposeful activity, extremely limited outside exercise, isolation from the rest of the prison community. Brought proceedings in order to have the regime of his detention altered with a milder one, but the domestic courts held that the domestic law did not provide for the possibility for those sentenced to life imprisonment to have the regime of their detention reviewed; Art. 13 – lack of any effective remedy in domestic law in respect of inadequate conditions of detention	9,750
31.	27548/22 03/03/2022	Mikhail Vsevolodovich SPIRIN 1995		Justice of the Peace of the Dimitrovskiy Court Circuit of Syktyvkar 15/09/2021		7,500
32.	28788/22 10/05/2022	Sergey Anatolyevich BROZYANSKIY 1982		Krasnoyarsk Regional Court (Pending on the date when the application was lodged with the Court)		7,500
33.	32085/22 03/06/2022	Maksudbek Dilshadovich KHUSANBAYEV 2001	Zubitskiy Pavel Nikolayevich Moscow	Naro-Fominsk Town Court of Moscow Region, Moscow Regional Court (Pending on the date when the application was lodged with the Court)	Art. 5 (4) – excessive length of judicial review of detention – Naro-Fominsk Town Court of Moscow Region, 22/02/2022 – reviewed by Moscow Regional Court, 29/03/2022; Naro-Fominsk Town Court of Moscow Region, 01/04/2022 – reviewed by Moscow Regional Court, 17/05/2022; Art. 5 (3) – lack of relevant and sufficient reasons for detention – the applicant was arrested on suspicion of extortion on 12/01/2022 and detained on remand on 14/01/2022: fragility of the reasons employed by the courts; use of assumptions, in the absence of any evidentiary basis, of the risks of absconding or obstructing justice; fragility and repetitiveness of the reasoning employed by the courts as the case progressed; failure to examine the possibility of applying other measures of restraint	9,750
34.	33684/22 20/06/2022	Andrey Olegovich DUBROVIN 1986		Sovetskiy District Court of Krasnodar, Krasnodar Regional Court (Pending on the date when the application was lodged with the Court)		7,500
35.	34237/22 22/06/2022	Yevgeniy Igorevich AFANASIYEV 1983	Ayrapetyan Narine Pavlovna Stavropol	Kochyubeyevskiy District Court of the Stavropol Region, Stavropol Regional Court 23/03/2022		7,500
36.	41329/22 12/08/2022	Ivan Sergeyevich PRIKHODKOV 1991	Sheykina Marina Sergeyevna Chita	Eighth Cassation Court of General Jurisdiction 12/04/2022		7,500
37.	42453/22 12/08/2022	Yegor Sergeyevich AFANASYEV 1989	Sheykina Marina Sergeyevna Chita	Eighth Cassation Court of General Jurisdiction 12/04/2022		7,500
38.	44999/22 10/09/2022	Aleksandr Vasilyevich KASARAKIN 1970	Preobrazhenskaya Oksana Vladimirovna Strasbourg	Oktyabrskiy District Court of Ulan-Ude, Supreme Court of the Republic of Buryatia 12/05/2022		–

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