Last Updated on November 2, 2019 by LawEuro
Communicated on 14 March 2018
THIRD SECTION
Application no. 66420/17
Alina Anatolyevna YEMELYANOVA and Others
against Russia
lodged on 1 September 2017
STATEMENT OF FACTS
A list of the applicants is set out in the appendix.
The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicants, may be summarised as follows.
The applicants are the wife and husband and their two young children.
In 2013 the first applicant was sentenced to six years’ imprisonment and allocated to general regime post-conviction facility IK-50 in the Krasnoyarsk Region located 3,963 km from Khabarovsk, the applicants’ family home.
In July 2015 the first applicant’s regime of detention was changed to a settlement colony. The second applicant requested the department of the Russian penal authority for the Krasnoyarsk Region (“the Krasnoyarsk FSIN”) to transfer the first applicant to a colony-settlement in the Khabarovsk Region.
On 31 July 2015 the second applicant was informed that his wife had been transferred to OIK-40 in Sosnovoborsk, the Krasnoyarsk Region (approximately 4,200 km from the applicants’ home in Khabarovsk) and that under Article 73 § 2 of the Russian Code of Execution of Sentences (“CES”) it was impossible to transfer a detainee to a detention facility located closer to home.
In January 2016, having discovered that the first applicant was pregnant, the first and second applicants unsuccessfully requested to transfer the first applicant to a detention facility located closer to Khabarovsk.
Prior to giving birth to the fourth applicant, the first applicant was transferred to colony-settlement KP-48, a facility for pregnant women and new mothers with children under three years’ old, in Kurdoyaki, the Krasnoyarsk Region, 3,840 km from the applicants’ home. To travel there from Khabarovsk one has to take a plane, a train, and a bus.
The first applicant describes the conditions of detention in KP-48 as follows. The unit for women at advanced stages of pregnancy where she spent a month was equipped only with an outhouse. The closest gynaecologist and paediatrician were 50 km away. Baby food was distributed once in five days, and products with long shelf life were substituted for fresh foods.
On 22 September 2016 the fourth applicant was born.
On 14 December 2016 the second applicant arrived to KP-48 to visit his wife but was denied a long-term visit for the reason that there had been no visiting rooms available.
The second applicant again requested to transfer the first applicant to a detention facility in the Primorskiy Region near Khabarovsk. On 9 February 2017 the Krasnoyarsk FSIN dismissed his request for the reason that poor financial situation could not serve as grounds for transfer to another facility under Article 81 § 2 of the CES.
In February 2017 the Krasnoyarsk FSIN decided to separate women detained in KP-48 from their babies placing the latter in the care of relatives or in State custody and allocating the former to detention facilities elsewhere. The possibility of keeping babies together with their mothers was not considered.
On 7 March 2017 the first and fourth applicants were transferred from one unit of KP-48 to another. The conditions of detention there were worse than before: the supply of tap water was insufficient to bathe babies so women had to carry water in buckets; there was no space for baby baths; cookers were out of order.
On 25 April 2017 the second applicant took the fourth applicant home. On the next day the first applicant was transferred to colony-settlement KP‑39 OIK-40 in Sosnovoborsk, the Krasnoyarsk Region.
Between 21 November and 5 December 2017 the first applicant was transported from KP-39 OIK-40 to colony-settlement KP-29 OIU-8 in the town of Ust-Ilimsk in the Irkutsk Region, 4,000 km from Khabarovsk. Her husband had not been notified of the transfer in advance. His subsequent inquiry regarding the reasons for transfer was answered with a reference to Article 81 § 2 of the CES; no specific grounds for transfer were mentioned.
According to the applicants, KP-29 is located deep in taiga forest and is not accessible by public transport.
The second applicant complained to the Russian penal authorities that he could not possibly visit his wife with their two children owing to the extremely high costs of travel and lack of the means of transportation, and that being deprived of all opportunity to see their mother had a profound adverse impact on the children’s well-being. In reply, on 28 November and 21 December 2017 the Krasnoyarsk FSIN informed him that “remoteness of a penal facility from the convict’s relatives’ home, as well as difficulties encountered by the relatives in visiting the convict are not grounds for transfer to a penal facility near the convict’s place of residence within the meaning of Article 81 § 2 of CES.”
The applicants did not challenge the Krasnoyarsk FSIN’s refusal before domestic courts as they consider that in the absence of effective domestic remedies attempts at initiating court proceedings would be futile.
COMPLAINTS
1. The applicants complain under Article 8 of the Convention alleging that the first applicant’s placement in various penal facilities located remotely from the family home and repeated refusals to transfer her to a facility located closer to it amount to an interference with their right to respect for family life that was not “in accordance with the law”.
2. The applicants further rely on Article 13 of the Convention arguing that there have been no effective domestic remedies in respect of the alleged violation of Article 8 of the Convention.
3. The first applicant complains under Article 3 of the Convention about poor conditions of her detention in KP-48.
QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES
1. Has there been a violation of the applicants’ right to respect for family life on account of the Russian authorities’ decisions regarding the first applicant’s placement in remote penal facilities (see Polyakova and Others v. Russia, nos. 35090/09 and 3 others, 7 March 2017)?
2. Did the applicants have effective domestic remedies in respect of their complaint under Article 8 at their disposal as required by Article 13 of the Convention?
3. Has there been a violation of Article 3 of the Convention on account of the first applicant’s detention in KP-48 in Kurdoyaki, the Krasnoyarsk Region (see Korneykova and Korneykov v. Ukraine, no. 56660/12, §§ 128‑48, 24 March 2016)?
Appendix
Ms Alina Anatolyevna YEMELYANOVA born on 14/11/1995.
Mr Semen Vladimirovich YEMELYANOV born on 13/04/1994.
Mr Mikhail Semenovich YEMELYANOV born on 07/11/2013.
Mr Aleksandr Semenovich YEMELYANOV born on 22/09/2016.
The applicants are Russian nationals who live in Khabarovsk. The first applicant is now serving an imprisonment sentence in Ust‑Ulimsk, the Krasnoyarsk Region.
The applicants are represented before the Court by Ms V. Kogan and Mr E. Wesselink, lawyers of ANO Astreya and SRJI.
Leave a Reply