CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 1 juin 2006

.s3ABFC313 { font-size:10pt } .sEB86A30B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; page-break-after:avoid } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .sA241FE93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-align:justify; page-break-after:avoid; border-bottom:0.75pt solid #000000; padding-bottom:1pt } .s2EF62ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s8F2B0B1B { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:12pt } .s9FF10068 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s5F48796F { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s5CB9E8AB { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; border-bottom:1pt solid #000000; padding-bottom:1pt } .sDF790F1E { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s3DC36BA9 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } Information Note on the Court’s case-law No. 87 June 2006 Mamedova v. Russia - 7064/05 Judgment 1.6.2006 [Section I] Article 5 Article 5-4 Procedural guarantees of review Applicant refused leave to attend hearing in order to plead release on account of the particular conditions of her detention and to instruct counsel: violation   Article 3 Degrading treatment Inhuman treatment Detention in over-crowded unsanitary prison: violation   Facts : On 23 July 2004 the applicant was arrested, charged with large-scale fraud and later detained on remand. A regional court rejected her appeal concerning the detention order, finding that the lower court had correctly assessed her “character” and other materials presented by the prosecutor. The appeal hearing on 10 August 2004 was attended by the prosecutor and counsel for the applicant, but not by the applicant herself despite her request to that effect. The courts ordered her continued detention several times, relying each time on the gravity of the charges and the risk that she might abscond, obstruct the course of justice or re-offend. In her appeals for release she alleged that she was detained in inhuman conditions. In some of the cells inmates were afforded less than 2 m² of personal space. The applicant was confined to her cell day and night, save for one hour of daily outdoor exercise. She was eventually released in August 2005. Law : Article 3 – The Court reiterated that it was incumbent on the Russian Government to organise its penitentiary system in a way that ensured respect for the dignity of detainees, regardless of financial or logistical difficulties. The fact that the applicant had been obliged to live, sleep and use the toilet in a cell with so many other inmates had in itself been sufficient to cause distress or hardship of an intensity exceeding the unavoidable level of suffering inherent in detention, and arouse in her the feelings of fear, anguish and inferiority capable of humiliating and debasing her. Conclusion : violation (unanimously). Article 5(3) – It was the responsibility of the prosecutors to collect evidence and conduct the investigation in a way that ensured the applicant’s trial within a reasonable time. She herself had not been obliged to co-operate with the authorities and could not be blamed for having taken full advantage of her right to silence. By failing to address concrete facts or consider alternative “preventive measures” and by relying essentially on the gravity of the charges, the authorities had prolonged the applicant’s detention for more than a year on grounds which could not be regarded as “relevant and sufficient”. Conclusion : violation (unanimously). Article 5(4) – Given the importance of the first appeal hearing on 10 August 2004, the appeal court’s reliance on the applicant’s character, and her intention to plead release on account of the particular conditions of her detention, her attendance had been required to give satisfactory information and instructions to her counsel. The refusal of her request for leave to appear at that hearing had deprived her of an effective control of the lawfulness of her detention. Moreover, it had taken the domestic courts over 29 days to examine each of the applicant’s appeals against the detention orders. Such periods could not be considered compatible with the “speediness” requirement of Article 5(4), especially taking into account that their entire duration had been attributable to the authorities. Conclusion : violations (unanimously). Article 41 – EUR 16,000 for non-pecuniary damage.   © Council of Europe/European Court of Human Rights This summary by the Registry does not bind the Court. Click here for the Case-Law Information Notes