CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 14 novembre 2017

.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 } .s3F59B822 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-transform:uppercase }   Communicated on 14 November 2017   THIRD SECTION Application no. 35817/13 A.T. against Russia lodged on 19 February 2013 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE In the present case, the applicant, a convicted prisoner apparently belonging to the lowest cast (“the degraded”) in the informal prisoners hierarchy, was forced by his fellow inmates to cleaning and other works under the threat of physical violence. The domestic courts acknowledged that the compulsory labour had taken place, but refused to make any award in that respect, stating that the prison authorities had been unaware of the situation given the applicant’s failure to “defend his labour rights” before them. QUESTIONS tO THE PARTIES The Government are directed to carry out the relevant domestic inquiries in such a manner as to avoid compromising the applicant’s safety and to preserve his full anonymity vis-à-vis the penitentiary authorities and other inmates.   1.     Was the applicant subjected to inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment in breach of Article 3 of the Convention on account of the restrictions he experienced as “the degraded”?   2.     Was the applicant’s right not to be required to perform compulsory labour, contrary to Article 4 of the Convention, respected in the present case?