CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 28 janvier 2014

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .sA6BC7FA7 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:right } .s9793A85B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s8229ABDD { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s68C46B95 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s2D57E2E { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline; text-transform:uppercase } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic }   Communicated on 10 September 2010   FIRST SECTION Application no. 53215/08 Aleksandr Anatolyevich GATSKIY against Russia lodged on 29 August 2008   The facts and complaints in this case have been summarised in the Court’s Statement of facts and Questions to the parties, which is available in HUDOC. QUESTIONS   1.     The parties are requested to provide the following information concerning the applicant’s detention in correctional colony no.   IK-8 in the Udmurtiya Republic from 22   January 2005 to 11   May 2005:   (a)     The floor surface of the dormitory (in square metres); (b)     The number of bunk beds and/or sleeping places; (c)     The exact number of detainees held in the dormitory (supported by copies of original documents, such as dormitory registers or statistical data); (d)     Whether the dormitory was equipped with a functioning mandatory ventilation; (e)     Type of lighting available in the dormitory; if the lighting was natural, indicate the dimensions of the window(s) and the number and thickness of metal bars; if the lighting was artificial, indicate the number of bulbs and their power; (f)     The number of toilet pans and wash sinks in the dormitory; (g)     The number of hours the applicant spent in the dormitory.   2.     In the light of the replies to the above questions, were the conditions of the applicant’s detention compatible with Article 3 of the Convention?   3.     Did the applicant have at his disposal an effective domestic remedy for his complaint under Article   3 of the Convention about the conditions of his detention in correctional colony no.   IK-8 in the Udmurtiya Republic, as required by Article 13 of the Convention?