Last Updated on November 30, 2023 by LawEuro
The applicants complained principally of the permanent video surveillance of detainees in pre-trial or post-conviction detention facilities. They relied, expressly or in substance, on Article 8 of the Convention.
The European Court of Human Rights has already established, in an earlier case against Russia, that the national legal framework governing the placement of detainees under permanent video surveillance in penal institutions falls short of the standards set out in Article 8 of the Convention. In Gorlov and Others, the Court summed up the general principles concerning the detainees’ right to respect for private life reiterating that placing a person under permanent video surveillance whilst in detention was to be regarded as a serious interference with the individual’s right to respect for his or her privacy. It has further concluded that the national law (1) cannot be regarded as being sufficiently clear, precise or detailed to have afforded appropriate protection against arbitrary interference by the authorities with the detainees’ right to respect of their private life and (2) does not presuppose any balancing exercise or enable an individual to obtain a judicial review of the proportionality of his or her placement under permanent video surveillance to the vested interests in securing his or her privacy.
It considers, regard being had to the case-law cited above, that in the instant case the placement of the applicants under permanent video surveillance in the pre‑trial and post‑conviction detention facilities was not “in accordance with law”. These complaints are therefore admissible and disclose a breach of Article 8 of the Convention.
Full text of the document.
European Court of Human Rights
FIRST SECTION
CASE OF RESIN AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
(Applications nos. 41090/18 and 20 others – see appended list)
JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
30 November 2023
This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.
In the case of Resin and Others v. Russia,
The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:
Péter Paczolay, President,
Gilberto Felici,
Raffaele Sabato, judges,
and Viktoriya Maradudina, Acting Deputy Section Registrar,
Having deliberated in private on 9 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 of the permanent video surveillance of detainees in pre-trial or post-conviction detention facilities. 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 ARTICLE 8 of the Convention
7. The applicants complained principally of the permanent video surveillance of detainees in pre-trial or post-conviction detention facilities. They relied, expressly or in substance, on Article 8 of the Convention.
8. The Court has already established, in an earlier case against Russia, that the national legal framework governing the placement of detainees under permanent video surveillance in penal institutions falls short of the standards set out in Article 8 of the Convention (see Gorlov and Others v. Russia (nos. 27057/06 and 2 others, 2 July 2019). In Gorlov and Others, the Court summed up the general principles concerning the detainees’ right to respect for private life reiterating that placing a person under permanent video surveillance whilst in detention was to be regarded as a serious interference with the individual’s right to respect for his or her privacy (ibid., §§ 81-82). It has further concluded that the national law (1) cannot be regarded as being sufficiently clear, precise or detailed to have afforded appropriate protection against arbitrary interference by the authorities with the detainees’ right to respect of their private life (ibid., §§ 97-98) and (2) does not presuppose any balancing exercise or enable an individual to obtain a judicial review of the proportionality of his or her placement under permanent video surveillance to the vested interests in securing his or her privacy (ibid., § 108).
9. 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. It considers, regard being had to the case-law cited above, that in the instant case the placement of the applicants under permanent video surveillance in the pre‑trial and post‑conviction detention facilities was not “in accordance with law”.
10. These complaints are therefore admissible and disclose a breach of Article 8 of the Convention.
IV. OTHER ALLEGED VIOLATIONS UNDER WELL-ESTABLISHED CASE-LAW
11. Some applicants submitted other complaints which also raised issues under the Convention, given the relevant well-established case-law of the Court (see the 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 well-established case-law (see, among other authorities, Gorlov and Others, cited above, concerning the absence of an effective domestic remedy to complain about permanent video surveillance in detention facilities; Sergey Babushkin v. Russia, no. 5993/08, 28 November 2013, concerning inadequate conditions of post-conviction detention and the lack of an effective remedy in that respect; Svinarenko and Slyadnev v. Russia [GC], nos. 32541/08 and 43441/08, §§ 113-39, ECHR 2014 (extracts), concerning placement in a metal cage in a courtroom during criminal proceedings; Reshetnyak v. Russia, no. 56027/10, 8 January 2013, concerning inadequate medical treatment in detention and the lack of an effective remedy in that respect; Ananyev and Others v. Russia, nos. 42525/07 and 60800/08, 10 January 2012, concerning inadequate conditions of detention in a remand prison; N.T. v. Russia, no. 14727/11, §§ 42-52, 2 June 2020, concerning inadequate conditions of lifers’ detention under strict imprisonment regime; Idalov v. Russia [GC], no. 5826/03, §§ 103-08 and 154-58, 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 the lack of an effective remedy in that respect; Pavlova v. Russia, no. 8578/12, 18 February 2020, concerning restrictions on family visits in pre-trial detention facilities and the lack of an effective remedy in that respect; Chaldayev v. Russia, no. 33172/16, §§ 69‑83, 28 May 2019, related to discriminatory treatment as regards family visits in pre-trial detention facilities).
12. In view of the above findings, the Court considers that there is no need to deal separately with the complaint lodged by the applicants under Article 13 of the Convention in respect of their placement in a metal cage in the courtroom (compare Valyuzhenich v. Russia, no. 10597/13, § 27, 26 March 2019).
V. REMAINING COMPLAINTS
13. Mr Aliyev (application no. 14686/21) and Mr Babayan (application no. 24308/21) also raised other complaints under Articles 8 and 13 of the Convention concerning their allocation to a remote colony.
14. The Court has examined Mr Aliyev’s complaints 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, these complaints do not disclose any appearance of a violation of the rights and freedoms enshrined in the Convention or the Protocols thereto. It follows that this part of the application must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 § 4 of the Convention.
15. As to Mr Babayan’s complaints, the Court notes that, as matters stand, the material facts complained of by the applicant have ceased to exist. He is no longer detained and no longer faces any particular obstacles or difficulty in maintaining his family life. The Court further notes that, following the enactment of the amendments to the Russian Code of Execution of Criminal Sentences (the “CES”) on 1 April 2020 (in force as of 29 September 2020) which introduced an effective remedy for the complaints about the breaches of Article 8 of the Convention, as regards allocation or transfer of prisoners to a remote penal facility irrespective of family life considerations, it has dismissed those complaints for the applicants’ failure to exhaust a new remedy (see Dadusenko and Others v. Russia (dec.), nos. 36027/19 and 3 others, §§ 25‑34, 7 September 2021).
16. Regard being had to its findings in Dadusenko and Others (cited above) and its established approach, that, in cases concerning structural problems at the domestic level, its role, once the general measures have been implemented by the respondent State, cannot be converted into providing individualised financial relief in repetitive cases arising from the same systemic situation (see Tamamshev and Others v. Russia (dec.) [Committee], nos. 57368/19 and 59831/19, 7 September 2021), the Court considers that it is no longer justified to continue the examination of this part of the application (Article 37 § 1 (c) of the Convention) and that the respect for human rights as defined in the Convention and the Protocols thereto does not require it to continue the examination of those complaints under Article 37 § 1 in fine. Accordingly, this part of the application should be struck out of the list.
VI. APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION
17. Regard being had to the Court’s case‑law (see Gorlov and Others, cited above, § 120, with further references, which imposed on the respondent State a legal obligation, under Article 46 of the Convention, to implement, under the supervision of the Committee of Ministers, such measures as they consider appropriate to secure the right of the applicants and other persons in their position to respect of their private life), the Court considers that the finding of a violation constitutes a sufficient just satisfaction in the present case in respect of the violation of Article 8 of the Convention established by it (see paragraphs 7-10 above). As to the remainder of the issues examined in the present case and regard being had to the documents in its possession and to its case‑law (see paragraph 11 above), including the previous awards made by the Court to the applicant, Mr Resin (see, for instance, Resin v. Russia [Committee], no. 9798/12, § 49, 29 June 2021), 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 the applicants’ complaints as they relate to facts that took place before 16 September 2022;
3. Declares the complaints concerning the permanent video surveillance of detainees in pre-trial or post-conviction detention facilities and the 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. 14686/21 inadmissible, decides to strike a part of application no. 24308/21 out of it list of cases as regards the applicant’s allocation to a remote colony and finds that there is no need to deal separately with the complaint under Article 13 of the Convention in respect of the placement in a metal cage in the courtroom;
4. Holds that there has been a breach of Article 8 of the Convention concerning the permanent video surveillance of detainees in pre-trial or post-conviction detention facilities;
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 the appended table);
6. 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 30 November 2023, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
Viktoriya Maradudina Péter Paczolay
Acting Deputy Registrar President
_________
APPENDIX
List of applications raising complaints under Article 8 § 1 of the Convention
(permanent video surveillance of detainees in pre-trial or post-conviction detention facilities)
| No. | Application no.
Date of introduction |
Applicant’s name
Year of birth
|
Representative’s name and location | Detention facility | Period of detention | Specific circumstances | Other complaints under well-established case-law | Amount awarded for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage and costs and expenses per applicant/household
(in euros)[i] |
| 1. | 41090/18
17/08/2018 |
Andrey Igorevich RESIN
1974 |
Yesina Tatyana Robertovna
Sevastopol |
IK-6 Khabarovsk Region | 01/10/2017-pending as of 16/09/2022 | opposite-sex operators | Art. 3 – use of metal cages and/or other security arrangements in courtrooms – Multiple proceedings in various courts (Kirovskiy District Court of Khabarovsk, Industrialnyy District Court of Khabarovsk, Amursk Town Court of the Khabarovsk Region, Khabarovsk Regional Court, Kuybyshevskiy District Court of Irkutsk, Angarsk Town Court, Irkutsk Regional Court, Verkh-Isetskiy District Court of Yekaterinburg, Moscow City Court, First Appeal Court, Ninth Cassation Court, Supreme Court of the Russian Federation) between 16/01/2020 and 31/07/2020 | 0 |
| 2. | 45485/18
07/07/2018 |
Bulach Musashayikhovich NURGISHIYEV
1969 |
|
IK-29 Kirov Region | 05/2010 – 10/08/2021 | detention in different cells with video surveillance, opposite-sex operators | Art. 13 – lack of any effective remedy in domestic law in respect of permanent video surveillance in detention facilities | 0 |
| 3. | 21641/19
29/03/2019 |
Yevgeniy Viktorovich PROSVETOV
1976 |
|
IK-5 Vologda Region,
IK-6 Khabarovsk Region |
17/12/2015 – 13/10/2018
17/11/2018 – pending as of 16/09/2022 |
opposite-sex operators, 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 | 0 |
| 4. | 22083/19
08/04/2019 |
Yuriy Sergeyevich ILYICHEV
1990 |
|
IK-25 Komi Republic | 04/09/2017 – pending as of 16/09/2022 | detention in different cells with video surveillance, opposite-sex operators, video surveillance in a lavatory and/or shower room | Art. 13 – lack of any effective remedy in domestic law – to complain about inadequate conditions of transport and permanent video surveillance,
Art. 3 – inadequate conditions of detention during transport – poor conditions of transport (train and van) on 05/03/2019 and 11/03/2019; Specific grievances: overcrowding, no access to toilet, no access to potable water, lack of fresh air; each transfer lasted 4 hours; 7 inmates were placed in a train compartment measuring 1.9 by 1.8 m (0.48 sq. m per person) |
1,000 |
| 5. | 31099/19
15/05/2019 |
Mikhail Valeryevich KUZNETSOV
1970 |
|
IK-5 Krasnoyarsk Region | 19/12/2009 – 02/07/2021 | opposite-sex operators, 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 | 0 |
| 6. | 58623/19
06/12/2019 |
Petr Nikolayevich KOROLEV
1993 |
Ovadenko Vladimir Igorevich
Usinsk |
IK-31 Komi Republic | 27/03/2021 – 06/08/2021,
05/09/2021 – pending as of 16/09/2022 |
opposite-sex operators | Art. 13 – lack of any effective remedy in domestic law in respect of permanent video surveillance in detention facilities and in respect of conditions of detention during transport,
Art. 3 – inadequate conditions of detention during transport – (1) van (0.2 m2 per inmate), train (0.4 m2 per inmate) on 27/03/2021 (8 hours), overcrowding, lack of fresh air, lack of or insufficient electric light, lack of or insufficient natural light, insufficient number of sleeping places, lack or insufficient quantity of food, no or restricted access to potable water, lack of or poor quality of bedding and bed linen, no or restricted access to toilet; (2) train, van, on 06/08/2021 and 05/09/2021, 0.3 sq. m per inmate, lack of fresh air, no or restricted access to toilet, overcrowding, lack of or insufficient natural light, lack of or insufficient electric light. |
1,000 |
| 7. | 15104/20
02/03/2020 (3 applicants) |
Household
Cheslav Cheslavich POPOV 1982 Lina Cheslavna ALEKSEYEVA 2013 Lev Cheslavich POPOV 2016
|
|
IVS Krasnoyarsk Region
(in respect of the first applicant) |
17/05/2018 – 19/12/2019 | opposite-sex operators, video surveillance in a lavatory and/or shower room | Art. 8 (1) – restrictions on family visits in pre-trial facilities – The first applicant has been detained in SIZO-1 Krasnoyarsk since 09/05/2017. Physical separation and supervision during short-term family visits, refusal of long-term family visits with his wife (until 19/05/2020 (divorce)) and three children,
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, Art. 13 – lack of any effective remedy in domestic law in respect of refusals of long-term visits in pre-trial detention, Art. 3 – use of metal cages and/or other security arrangements in courtrooms – placement in a metal cage during court hearings at the Krasnoyarsk Regional Court during 18/02/2019-05/09/2019 – in respect of the first applicant |
9,750 |
| 8. | 18132/20
01/04/2020 |
Roman Yuryevich IGNATOV
1989 |
|
IK-25 Komi Republic | 15/11/2017 – pending as of 16/09/2022 | opposite-sex operators | Art. 13 – lack of any effective remedy in domestic law in respect of permanent video surveillance in detention facilities,
Art. 3 – inadequate conditions of detention during transport – transport by van and train, form 01/12/2019 to 02/12/2019 – overcrowding (0.4 to 0.5 sq. m), insufficient number of sleeping places, lack of or poor quality of bedding and bed linen no or restricted access to toilet, lack of privacy for toilet no or restricted access to potable water, inadequate temperature |
1,000 |
| 9. | 33775/20
17/07/2020 |
Nikolay Vladimirovich MOROZOV
1986 |
|
IK-25 Komi Republic | 18/01/2016- pending as of 16/09/2022 | opposite-sex operators, video surveillance in a lavatory and/or shower room | Art. 13 – lack of any effective remedy in domestic law in respect of inadequate conditions of detention and in respect of permanent video surveillance in detention facilities,
Art. 3 – inadequate conditions of detention after conviction – IK-25 Komi Region, from 01/01/2016 – pending as of 16/09/2022, personal space less than 1 sq. m, detained with 40 inmates |
11,500 |
| 10. | 14686/21
24/02/2021 |
Ruslan Dzhamal ogly ALIYEV
1985 |
|
IK-31 Komi Republic | 13/02/2021 – pending as of 16/09/2022 | detention in different cells with video surveillance, opposite-sex operators, video surveillance in a lavatory and/or shower room | Art. 3 – inadequate conditions of detention during transport – from 13/02/2021 to 17/05/2021 and from 14/08/2021 to 18/08/2021, train, 0.4 – 0.5 m2 per inmate, overcrowding, insufficient number of sleeping places, lack of or poor quality of bedding and bed linen, lack of ventilation, lack of or insufficient electric light, lack of fresh air, lack of or insufficient natural light, poor quality of food, no or restricted access to potable water, no or restricted access to toilet, lack of privacy for toilet, no or restricted access to running water,
Art. 13 – lack of any effective remedy in domestic law in respect of permanent video surveillance in detention facilities |
1,000 |
| 11. | 15112/21
25/02/2021 |
Aleksey Sergeyevich SHATALOV
1983 |
|
IK-6 Khabarovsk Region | 09/12/2017 – pending as of 16/09/2022 | 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,
Art. 3 – inadequate conditions of detention – The applicant is a lifer; he complains about lack of access to natural light, unavailability of natural or forced ventilation, absence of warm water in the cell, to which he is confined 22.5 hours per day. The cell measures 6 sq. m and houses 2 inmates, Art. 3 – use of metal cages and/or other security arrangements in courtrooms – On multiple occasions between 06/03/2019 and 19/01/2021, the applicant was placed in a metal case when participating in civil proceedings by means of a video link; Prokhladnenskiy District Court; Stavropol Regional Court; Oktyabrskiy Districr Court; Pyatigorsk Town Court |
9,400 |
| 12. | 15727/21
22/01/2021 |
Oleg Nikolayevich VESELENKO
1977 |
|
LIU-37 Krasnoyarsk Region, Brigade no. 4 | 03/08/2020 – 07/05/2021 | opposite-sex operators | Art. 13 – lack of any effective remedy in domestic law in respect of inadequate conditions of detention during transport and in respect of permanent video surveillance,
Art. 3 – inadequate conditions of detention during transport – Since 17/10/2020; transfers from the correctional colony to a farm and back (work); six times per week, by van, 6 sq. m (two compartments measuring 6 sq. m in total, housing from 28 to 45 persons. No heating, while the outside temperature was below 30 degrees |
1,000 |
| 13. | 22844/21
16/04/2021 |
Artem Andreyevich GOLUB
1992 |
|
IK-1 Komi Republic,
IK-31 Komi Republic |
08/04/2021 – 30/06/2021
01/07/2021 – pending as of 16/09/2022
|
opposite-sex operators | Art. 13 – lack of any effective remedy in domestic law in respect of permanent video surveillance in detention facilities, in respect of inadequate medical treatment in detention and inadequate conditions of detention during transport,
Art. 3 – inadequate conditions of detention during transport – transport in a van and train from 05/04/2021 until 06/04/2021 for 11 hours, 0.3 sq. m. per person, no individual sleeping place, restricted access to toilets and portable water, cold temperature, passive smoking, Art. 3 – inadequate medical treatment in detention – HIV, hepatitis, osteochondrosis, dental problems; lack of/delay in medical examination, lack of/delay in consultation by a specialist, lacking/delayed drug therapy; From 22/03/2016 – pending as of 16/09/2022. |
16,000 |
| 14. | 24308/21
14/04/2021 |
Georgiy Romanovich BABAYAN
1990 |
|
IK-29 Komi Republic,
IK-31 Komi Republic |
24/08/2019 – 28/11/2020
29/11/2020 – 01/09/2021 |
opposite-sex operators, 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 | 0 |
| 15. | 25298/21
10/04/2021 |
Vadim Fedorovich POSTONOGOV
1988 |
Gaynutdinova Yuliya Sergeyevna
Kazan |
IK-6 Khabarovsk Region | 09/03/2018 – pending as of 16/09/2022 | detention in different cells with video surveillance, opposite-sex operators, video surveillance in a lavatory and/or shower room | Art. 3 – use of metal cages and/or other security arrangements in courtrooms – on 21/04/2021 the applicant was placed in a metal cage in IK-6 Khabarovsk Region to participate in a hearing at the Khabarovsk Regional Court via video link,
Art. 13 – lack of any effective remedy in domestic law in respect of permanent video surveillance in detention facilities and in respect of inadequate conditions of detention after conviction, Art. 3 – inadequate conditions of detention – in IK-6 in Khabarovsk Region since 09/03/2018 – pending as of 16/09/2022: overcrowding, lack of or insufficient natural light, constant electric light, lack of fresh air, lack of or insufficient physical exercise in fresh air, 2 sq. m of personal space |
9,750 |
| 16. | 25906/21
28/04/2021 |
Roman Andreyevich VOLKOV
1978 |
Golubenko Andrey
Nea Skioni |
SIZO-1 Tomsk | 29/12/2017 – pending as of 16/09/2022 | opposite-sex operators | Art. 13 – lack of any effective remedy in domestic law and in respect of inadequate conditions of detention, physical separation and supervision during short-term family visits and permanent video surveillance in detention facility,
Art. 3 – use of metal cages and/or other security arrangements in courtrooms – Placement in a metal cage during the hearings in Leninskiy District Court of Tomsk from 20/01/2020 to 19/04/2021, Art. 3 – inadequate conditions of detention – in SIZO-1, Tomsk, since 29/07/2017 – pending as of 16/09/2022 (2.5 sq. m. of personal space, inadequate temperature, lack of fresh air, lack of privacy for toilet, lack of requisite medical assistance, mouldy or dirty cell, overcrowding, lack of or poor quality of bedding and bed linen, no or restricted access to warm water, no or restricted access to shower, constant electric light), Art. 8 (1) – restrictions on family visits in pre-trial facilities – physical separation and supervision during short-term family visits and no possibility to have long-term family visits in SIZO-1, Tomsk, since 29/12/2017 – pending as of 16/09/2022 |
16,300 |
| 17. | 34991/21
18/06/2021 |
Anatoliy Yuryevich KALENCHUK
1990 |
|
SIZO-1 Komi Republic | 27/04/2021 – 01/06/2021 | opposite-sex operators, 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 | 0 |
| 18. | 35438/21
01/06/2021 |
Maksim Vladimirovich TSVIGUNOV
1982 |
|
SIZO-1 Komi Republic | 06/2020 – 04/2021 | detention in different cells with video surveillance, opposite-sex operators | Art. 13 – lack of any effective remedy in domestic law in respect of permanent video surveillance in detention facilities and conditions of detention during transport,
Art. 3 – inadequate conditions of detention during transport – train, van; from 27/07/2021 to 28/07/2021 (12 hours); Specific grievances: insufficient number of sleeping places, lack of fresh air, no or restricted access to potable water, no or restricted access to toilet, overcrowding, lack of or insufficient electric light. |
1,000 |
| 19. | 36396/21
25/06/2021 |
Alim Suleymanovich BATCHAYEV
1972 |
|
IK-25 Komi Republic | 03/2021 – 13/05/2022 | detention in different cells with video surveillance, opposite-sex operators | Art. 13 – lack of any effective remedy in domestic law in respect of inadequate conditions of detention during transport,
Art. 3 – inadequate conditions of detention during transport – Means of transport: train; from 20/08/2021 to 21/08/2021 (overall the journey lasted 13.5 hours); specific grievances: no or restricted access to potable water, lack of or insufficient electric light, lack of fresh air, inadequate temperature, overcrowding (0.5 sq. m per person, the compartment measuring 3.04 sq. m housing 6 inmates), lack of privacy for toilet |
1,000 |
| 20. | 41484/21
27/07/2021 |
Ilya Valeryevich KAZNACHEYEV
1974 |
|
IK-8 Komi Republic | 24/10/2019 – 23/06/2021 | opposite-sex operators, video surveillance in a lavatory and/or shower room
|
Art. 3 – use of metal cages and/or other security arrangements in courtrooms – from 14/04/2021 to 09/07/2021, Murmansk Regional Court, the applicant was placed in a metal cage when participating in court hearings by means of a video link | 7,500 |
| 21. | 58843/21
01/11/2021 |
Ruslan Aleksandrovich OSIPOV
2001 |
|
SIZO-1 Komi Republic | 23/04/2020 – pending as of 16/09/2022 | opposite-sex operators, 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 | 0 |
[i] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.
Leave a Reply