Kalashnikov v. Russia

Information Note on the Court’s case-law 44

July 2002

Kalashnikov v. Russia - 47095/99

Judgment 15.7.2002 [Section III]

Article 3

Degrading treatment

Conditions of detention: violation

Facts: Criminal proceedings were brought against the applicant in February 1995 and he was taken into custody in June 1995. He was convicted of embezzlement in August 1999 and sentenced to a period of imprisonment. He was released in June 2000 following an amnesty. Throughout most of his detention, the applicant was held in detention facility IZ-47/1 in Magadan. The cell in which he was kept, measuring 17m2 (20.8m2 according to the Government), was designed for eight inmates but at any given time held at least eleven and normally more (24, according to the applicant), as a result of which inmates had to take turns to sleep in the eight available beds. The applicant claimed that it was impossible to sleep properly, due to the general commotion and the fact that the television and cell light were constantly on. He further claimed that the toilet was not screened off from the living and dining area, that there was no ventilation in the cell, to which he was confined for most of the day along with heavy smokers, and that the cell was infested with cockroaches and ants. During his detention, he contracted a variety of skin diseases and fungal infections and on several occasions detainees with tuberculosis and syphilis were placed in his cell. The Government submitted that the applicant was given systematic medical examinations and care and that he did not risk contracting these diseases.

Law: Article 3 – The Convention entered into force for Russia on 5 May 1998, but in assessing the effect on the applicant of the conditions of detention regard might be had to the overall period during which he was detained. It might be questioned whether the accommodation could be regarded as attaining acceptable standards, the European Committee for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment having set 7m2 per prisoner as an approximate desirable guideline. The Government acknowledged that, due to general overcrowding, each bed was used by more than one detainee, and it was not necessary to establish the precise numbers involved. The cell was continuously severely overcrowded, which in itself raised an issue under Article 3. Sleeping conditions were further aggravated by the constant lighting, as well as by the general commotion and noise, and the resulting deprivation of sleep must have constituted a heavy physical and psychological burden on the applicant. Moreover, the cell had no adequate ventilation and was infested with pests. Although the applicant received treatment for his skin diseases and fungal infections, their recurrence suggested that the very poor conditions facilitating their propagation remained unchanged and it was a matter of grave concern that he was detained on occasions with persons suffering from tuberculosis and syphilis. An additional aspect of the crammed and unsanitary conditions was the toilet facilities. While major improvements had apparently been made, this did not detract from the wholly unacceptable conditions which the applicant had had to endure at the material time and which were a matter of concern for the trial court. The absence of any positive intention to humilate or debase the applicant could not exclude the finding of a violation. The conditions of detention which he had to endure, in particular the severely overcrowded and unsanitary environment and its detrimental effect on the applicant’s health and well-being, combined with the length of the period involved, amounted to degrading treatment.

Conclusion: violation (unanimously).

Article 5 § 3 – (a) Government’s preliminary objection (reservation) – The Russian reservation is framed to exclude from the scope of Article 5 § 3 the temporary application of specific provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure concerning the procedure for the arrest, holding in custody and detention of persons suspected of having committed a criminal offence. Notwithstanding the reference to the time-limits for detention during the investigative stage, the reservation is concerned with the procedure for applying preventive custody measures, whereas the applicant’s complaint related to the length of his detention on remand and not its lawfulness. Therefore, the reservation did not apply in the present case.

(b) Merits – The total period of the applicant’s detention amounted to just over four years and one month, of which one year and almost three months lay within the Court’s jurisdiction ratione temporis, although account could be taken of the fact that he had already spent over two years and ten months in custody. Although the reasons relied on by the courts to justify the applicant’s detention were initially relevant and sufficient, they lost that character as time passed. Furthermore, the protracted proceedings were not attributable to either the complexity of the case or the applicant’s conduct. Rather, the authorities had not acted with all due expedition.

Article 6 § 1 – The period to be examined amounted to five years and almost two months and, while the Court’s jurisdiction covered only the period after entry into force of the Convention in respect of Russia, account could be taken of the state of the proceedings at that time. The domestic courts had found that the case was not so complex as to justify the delays in the proceedings and, while the applicant could be held responsible for certain delays, his conduct had not contributed substantially to the length. On the other hand, the authorities had failed in their duty of special diligence, in view of the fact that the applicant was detained throughout.

Article 41 – The Court awarded the applicant 3,000 € in respect of non-pecuniary damage. It also made an award in respect of costs and expenses.

© Council of Europe/European Court of Human RightsThis summary by the Registry does not bind the Court.

Click here for the Case-Law Information Notes