CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 15 mai 2013

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s523616E0 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; font-size:14pt } .s3E839E41 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:30pt; text-align:center } .s58ABC179 { margin-top:30pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s2D57E2E { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline; text-transform:uppercase } .s87F05BA2 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s11869A80 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s7EE1C8F0 { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:29.2pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17.6pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sE7C30868 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .sC702907E { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:36.6pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-15.05pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s984A15CA { margin-top:6pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .sD5DF731 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s507703F { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .sA1CDB767 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .s281358E1 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .sCA92750 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:42pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .sC769D9E0 { margin-top:42pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s8FE9B392 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:36.7pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-22.5pt; text-align:justify } .s549374C2 { width:18.5pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s85D2D43C { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:36pt; text-align:center } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .s9296A950 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sD6E2332A { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sA1D3DA2E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify }       FOURTH SECTION Application no. 57754/12 Alvis MĀRTIŅKRISTS against Latvia lodged on 30 August 2012 STATEMENT OF FACTS   The applicant, Mr Alvis Mārtiņkrists, is a Latvian national, who was born in 1985 and is serving a prison sentence in Rīga. A.     The circumstances of the case The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows. 1.     The beating of the applicant On 3   June 2012, when the applicant was on his way back from his daily outside walk in Brasa Prison, he had an altercation with a prison guard, during which the guard first tried to handcuff him and then hit him in the face with a fist, injuring the applicant’s eyelid. After that several other guards approached the applicant and took him “to the single room on the second floor of the first block”. The applicant was then taken out of the room and beaten with elbows and fists. He was also kicked and received two blows to the head with a rubber baton. After the beating he was placed in the guards’ sleeping quarters and given unspecified medical aid. Subsequently he was placed in a disciplinary cell where he spent the following 15   days. During that time he was taken to the prison doctor once (on 4   June 2012) and was given drops for stomach ache. According to the applicant, he was placed in the disciplinary cell in order to hide his injuries from the other prisoners. 2.     The conditions in the disciplinary cell The disciplinary cell measures approximately 1,5 by 3 metres. It is equipped with toilet facilities, a sink with a tap and two wooden plank beds. The plank beds are lifted and attached to the floor each day from 6   a.m. to 10 p.m. Since there is no other furniture in the cell, the applicant alleges that he either had to remain standing for the whole day or to sit on the concrete floor. According to him, sitting on the floor is not allowed and the guards may punish it by additional days in the disciplinary cell. The applicant submits that he had to take all his meals while sitting on the floor and balancing a plate on his knees. The toilet facilities consist of an approximately 50   centimetres high cement pedestal, covered with a metal plate with a hole in the middle. There is no cover for the hole. Even though there is a sink and a water tap in the cell, the prisoners placed in disciplinary confinement are not allowed to keep a cup in the cell therefore they have to drink water by cupping their hands. According to the applicant, the only heating element in the disciplinary cell is a metal pipe, approximately 10   centimetres in diameter and approximately 1,40   metres tall. During the applicant’s stay in the disciplinary cell, the cell was not heated. 3.     The applicant’s complaints to domestic authorities According to the applicant, he complained about the beatings he had endured to unspecified prosecutors, which, in the light of the amendments to the Sentence Enforcement Code ( Sodu izpildes kodekss ), refused to examine his complaint, since they considered that the amendments had removed the prosecutors’ role as supervisors of places of deprivation of liberty. The response of the prosecutors has not been made available to the Court. On 27   July 2012 the applicant submitted a complaint to the Prisons Administration. On 21   August 2012 the Prisons Administration informed the applicant that his complaint “about possible unlawful actions against the [applicant] by the Brasa Prison authorities” would be examined by 22   October 2012. The decision concerning the substance of the applicant’s complaint, if such has been adopted in the meantime, has not been made available to the Court. B.     Relevant domestic law The amendments to the Sentence Enforcement Code referred to by the applicant have been summarised by the Court in Savičs v. Latvia (no.   17892/03, §   66, 27   November 2012) as follows: “With the amendments of 27 November 2008 a new provision was included in section 50 of the Sentence Enforcement Code to the effect that: (i) complaints by convicted persons concerning the circumstances of the execution of a custodial sentence ( brīvības atņemšanas soda izpildes apstākļi ) shall be examined by the prison governor under the procedure established by the Law on Enquiries; and (ii) complaints by convicted persons concerning administrative acts or actions of a public authority ( faktiskā rīcība ) shall be examined by the Head of the Prisons Administration under the procedure established by the Law of Administrative Procedure. According to the explanatory report accompanying the amendments, these amendments were necessary with a view to laying down coherent procedures for prisoners’ complaints, as the law had not provided with sufficient clarity that prisoners should first address their complaints to the prison governor (and the Prisons Administration).” COMPLAINTS The applicant complains under Articles   3 and 17 of the Convention about several of the incidents described above: -              that the guard attempted to handcuff him and then hit him in the face with a fist; -              that the guards beat him in the first block; -              that he was not given the necessary medical assistance, either after the beating or during his stay in the disciplinary cell; -              about being held in inadequate conditions in the disciplinary cell for fifteen days.     QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES   1.     Has the applicant been subjected to inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, in breach of Article 3 of the Convention? The parties are in particular requested to address the following allegations: a) the applicant’s ill-treatment by prison guards on 3   June 2012; b) the inadequacy of medical assistance provided to the applicant on 3   June 2012 and the subsequent days; c) the inadequate conditions of detention in the disciplinary cell of Brasa Prison.   2.     With regard to the above complaints, has the applicant exhausted all effective domestic remedies, as required by Article   35   §   1 of the Convention? The Government are invited to submit detailed explanation of the remedies available for each of the complaints listed above, supported by, in so far as is appropriate, examples of domestic practice where comparable complaints have been duly examined by the competent authorities.   The parties are invited to provide the Court with copies of all the documents related to the examination of the complaints listed above by the domestic authorities.