The applicants complained about their confinement in a metal cage in the courtroom during the criminal proceedings against them. Having regard to its case-law on the subject, the Court considers that in the instant case the applicants\u2019 confinement in a metal cage 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.<\/p>\n
SECOND SECTION This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.<\/p>\n In the case of Klyachkov and Others v. Russia,<\/strong><\/p>\n The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting as a Committee composed of: and Viktoriya Maradudina, Acting Deputy Section Registrar,<\/p>\n Having deliberated in private on 12 October 2023,<\/p>\n Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:<\/p>\n PROCEDURE<\/strong><\/p>\n 1. The case originated in applications against Russia lodged with the Court under Article\u00a034 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (\u201cthe Convention\u201d) on the various dates indicated in the appended table.<\/p>\n 2. The Russian Government (\u201cthe\u00a0Government\u201d) were given notice of the applications.<\/p>\n THE FACTS<\/strong><\/p>\n 3. The list of applicants and the relevant details of the applications are set out in the appended table.<\/p>\n 4. The applicants complained about their confinement in a metal cage in the courtroom during the criminal proceedings against them. Some applicants also raised other complaints under the provisions of the Convention.<\/p>\n THE LAW<\/strong><\/p>\n I. JOINDER OF THE APPLICATIONS<\/strong><\/p>\n 5. Having regard to the similar subject matter of the applications, the Court finds it appropriate to examine them jointly in a single judgment.<\/p>\n II. JURISDICTION<\/strong><\/p>\n 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.\u00a040792\/10 and 2 others, \u00a7\u00a7\u00a068\u201173, 17 January 2023).<\/p>\n III. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLEs\u00a03 and 13 OF THE CONVENTION<\/strong><\/p>\n 7. The applicants complained principally about their confinement in a metal cage in the courtroom during the criminal proceedings against them. They relied on Article 3 of the Convention, which reads as follows:<\/p>\n \u201cNo one shall be subjected to torture or to inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.\u201d<\/p>\n 8. 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:<\/p>\n \u201cEveryone 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.\u201d<\/p>\n 9. 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\u00a03 of the Convention.<\/p>\n 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\u2019 confinement in a metal cage before the court during the criminal proceedings against them amounted to degrading treatment.<\/p>\n 11. These complaints are therefore admissible and disclose a breach of Article 3 of the Convention.<\/p>\n 12. In view of the above findings under Article 3 of the Convention, the Court considers that there is no need to deal separately with the applicants\u2019 complaints under Article 13 of the Convention (for similar approach see Valyuzhenich v. Russia, no. 10597\/13, \u00a7 27, 26 March 2019).<\/p>\n IV. OTHER ALLEGED VIOLATIONS UNDER WELL-ESTABLISHED CASE-LAW<\/strong><\/p>\n 13. 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\u2011founded within the meaning of Article\u00a035\u00a0\u00a7\u00a03\u00a0(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 Idalov v. Russia [GC], no. 5826\/03, \u00a7\u00a7\u00a0103\u2011108 and 154-58, 22 May 2012, concerning conditions of transport of detainees and the lack of a speedy review of detention matters; Dirdizov v.\u00a0Russia, no.\u00a041461\/10, \u00a7\u00a7\u00a0108-11, 27 November 2012, as regards the excessive length of pre-trial detention; Tomov and Others v. Russia, nos.\u00a018255\/10 and 5\u00a0others, \u00a7\u00a7 92-156, 9 April 2019, concerning the lack of an effective remedy for the complaint about inadequate conditions during transport; Andrey Smirnov v. Russia, no. 43149\/10, 13\u00a0February 2018, concerning restrictions in connection with family visits for prisoners detained on remand; and Butkevich v. Russia, no. 5865\/07, \u00a7 67, 13 February 2018, concerning a delayed release of a prisoner).<\/p>\n V. APPLICATION OF ARTICLE\u00a041 OF THE CONVENTION<\/strong><\/p>\n 14. Article\u00a041 of the Convention provides:<\/p>\n \u201cIf 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.\u201d<\/p>\n 15. Regard being had to the documents in its possession and to its case\u2011law (see, in particular, Vorontsov and Others, cited above), the Court considers it reasonable to award the sums indicated in the appended table.<\/p>\n FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT, UNANIMOUSLY,<\/strong><\/p>\n 1. Decides to join the applications;<\/p>\n 2. Holds that it has jurisdiction to deal with the applicants\u2019 complaints as they relate to facts that took place before 16 September 2022;<\/p>\n 3. Declares the applications admissible;<\/p>\n 4. Holds that these applications disclose a breach of Article\u00a03 of the Convention on account of the applicants\u2019 placement in a metal cage before the court during the criminal proceedings against them;<\/p>\n 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);<\/p>\n 6. Holds that it is not necessary to examine separately the applicants\u2019 complaints under Article 13 of the Convention in relation to the lack of an effective domestic remedy to complain about placement in a metal cage in a courtroom;<\/p>\n 7. Holds<\/p>\n (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;<\/p>\n (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.<\/p>\n Done in English, and notified in writing on 2 November 2023, pursuant to Rule\u00a077\u00a0\u00a7\u00a7\u00a02 and\u00a03 of the Rules of Court.<\/p>\n Viktoriya Maradudina \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 Lorraine Schembri Orland ____________<\/p>\n APPENDIX<\/strong>
\nCASE OF KLYACHKOV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA<\/strong>
\n(Applications nos. 38521\/16 and 41 others \u2013 see appended list)<\/em>
\nJUDGMENT
\nSTRASBOURG
\n2 November 2023<\/p>\n
\nLorraine Schembri Orland, President,
\nFr\u00e9d\u00e9ric Krenc,
\nDavor Deren\u010dinovi\u0107, judges,<\/p>\n
\nActing Deputy Registrar \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0President<\/p>\n
\nList of applications raising complaints under Article 3 of the Convention
\n(use of metal cages and\/or other security arrangements in courtrooms)<\/p>\n