CEDH · PRESS;CHAMBERJUDGMENTS;ENG — 1 mars 2007

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s40F41F73 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s653E6C45 { font-family:Arial; font-size:6.67pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .s6B505E72 { margin:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .s1C7BEF1E { margin-left:28.52pt; padding-left:7.48pt; font-family:serif } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .sADADF4A7 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sC7EAD8B { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left } .s2EB42ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:10pt } EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS   138 1.3.2007   Press release issued by the Registrar   CHAMBER JUDGMENT BELEVITSKIY v. RUSSIA   The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing its Chamber judgment [1] in the case of Belevitskiy v. Russia (application no. 72967/01).   The Court held unanimously that there had been: a violation of Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment) of the European Convention on Human Rights on account of the conditions of the applicant’s detention in remand; two violations of Article 5 § 1 (c) (right to liberty and security) of the Convention on account of the absence of a legal basis for certain periods of his detention; a violation of Article 5 §§ 3 and 4 .   Under Article 41 (just satisfaction), the Court awarded the applicant 10,000 euros (EUR) in respect of non-pecuniary damage and EUR 350 for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in English.)   1.     Principal facts   The applicant, Roman Sergeyevich Belevitskiy, is a Russian national who was born in 1981 and lives in Moscow.   On 11 October 2000 Mr Belevitskiy was arrested at the Luzhniki market on suspicion of drug-dealing by police officers from the Ramenskiy District Police Station of Moscow. On the following day, at 11.50 a.m., a record of the applicant’s arrest was drawn up and he was placed in custody for an undefined period.   Mr Belevitskiy alleges that, on 11 October 2000, he was beaten by police officers at the police station. A medical examination carried out on 13 October recorded bruising on Mr   Belevitskiy’s left hand-side between his fourth and sixth ribs and around the lumbar region as well as a scratch on the left knee joint.   On 11 January 2001 Nikulinskiy Court of Moscow issued a pre-trial decision announcing the date of the hearing and their refusal to release Mr   Belevitskiy. The decision was issued in the form of a template on which the findings were already printed, the applicant’s name and the charges against him being filled in by hand. No copy was served on either the applicant or his counsel.   Between 30 January and 26 April 2001, Mr Belevitskiy’s counsel made several requests for his release pending trial referring to the fact that there was no reason to believe he would abscond, having no criminal record and his permanent residence being in Moscow. These requests were refused on the ground that he was charged with a particularly serious criminal offence.   On 5 July 2001 Mr Belevitskiy was found guilty of drug-related offences and sentenced to six years and six months’ imprisonment. Moscow City Court later quashed that conviction and remitted it for a new trial, ordering that, in the meantime, the applicant remain in custody.   Following five hearing adjournments and a further two requests for Mr Belevitskiy’s release pending trial, the district court, on 18 April 2002, again found him guilty as charged and sentenced him as above. The allegations concerning Mr Belevitskiy’s ill-treatment by police officers were dismissed.   On 8 June 2002 Mr Belevitskiy appealed, complaining, in particular, that the conviction was based on self-incriminating statements made under pressure from police officers on the day of his arrest.   On 9 September 2002 Moscow City Court dismissed this appeal and upheld the conviction.   In the meantime, in October 2001, Mr Belevitskiy complained to the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation and to the Minister of Justice about the appalling conditions of his detention. The applicant notably referred to overcrowding in the remand centre where he was confined day and night for more than ten months and where he had less than one sq. m of floor space for himself. He further complained about inmates taking turns to sleep; there being just one sink and one toilet for up to 70 people, the placement of which offered no privacy; the temperature reaching 45 degrees Celsius inside the building in the summer and access to natural light and fresh air being blocked by metal shields covering the windows. As a result of those conditions, he alleged that he contracted various diseases including scabies and suffered from constant headaches and hypertension.   2.     Procedure and composition of the Court   The application was lodged with the European Court of Human Rights on 20 July 2001.   Judgment was given by a Chamber of seven judges, composed as follows:   Peer Lorenzen (Danish), President , Snejana Botoucharova (Bulgarian), Karel Jungwiert (Czech), Rait Maruste (Estonian), Anatoli Kovler (Russian), Javier Borrego Borrego (Spanish), Renate Jaeger (German), judges , and also Claudia Westerdiek , Section Registrar .   3.     Summary of the judgment [2]   Complaints   Relying, in particular, on Article 3, the applicant alleged that he had been subjected to ill-treatment by police officers on 11 October 2000 and that the authorities had not made an effective investigation into that allegation. He further complained that the conditions of his detention had amounted to inhuman and degrading treatment. Relying also, in particular, on Article 5 §§§ 1, 3 and 4, he lastly alleged that his detention was unlawful and excessively long.   Decision of the Court   Article 3   Ill-treatment The Court found that the complaint under Article 3 concerning alleged ill-treatment by the police had to be rejected due to non-exhaustion of domestic remedies because the applicant did not contest the prosecutor’s decision refusing institution of criminal proceedings before a court of general jurisdiction.   Conditions of detention As to the conditions of the applicant's detention in remand centre no. IZ-77/3, the Court found that the centre had been severely overcrowded. Whether overcrowding was due to a high crime rate, lack of resources or any other logistical difficulty was immaterial for the Court's reasoning, it being incumbent on the respondent Government to organise its penitentiary system in such a way that ensures respect for the dignity of detainees. Furthermore, the Court reiterated that, although the argument that the Government did not intentionally set out to make Mr Belevitskiy suffer should be taken into account, the absence of any such purpose could not exclude a finding of a violation of Article   3.   The Court found that the applicant being obliged to live, sleep and use the toilet in the same cell with so many other inmates had been, in itself, sufficient to cause distress and hardship of an intensity which exceeded the unavoidable level of suffering inherent in detention, and had given rise to the applicant feeling fear, anguish and inferiority to the extent that he had been humiliated and debased. Accordingly, the Court found that there had been a violation of Article 3 on account of the conditions of the applicant's detention in centre no. IZ-77/3   Article 5 § 1 The Court recalled that the applicant’s initial arrest and overnight stay in the police station were not officially recorded, which was not in compliance with domestic law. That not being denied by the Government, the Court found that Mr   Belevitskiy’s detention from 11 to 12 October 2000 was not “in accordance with a procedure prescribed by law” and that there had been a violation of Article 5 § 1.   The Court observed that it was not in dispute between the parties that from 12 December 2000 to 11 January 2001, the applicant had been kept in detention on the ground that the criminal case against him had been referred to the court competent to try the case. The domestic court not giving any reason for or setting a time-limit on Mr Belevitskiy’s continued detention, the Court considered that he was left in a state of uncertainty as to the legal basis for his detention after 12 December 2000. It further held that, the district court’s decision of 11 January not being much more than a pre-printed template, Mr Belevitskiy had not been given adequate protection from arbitrariness. The Court therefore found that there had been a violation of Article 5 § 1, there having been no “lawful” basis for Mr Belevitskiy’s detention from 13   December 2000 to 30 January 2001.   Article 5 § 3 The domestic courts having relied solely on the gravity of the charges and having refused to take into account specific facts put forward to support Mr Belevitskiy’s request for release, the Court found that the Government prolonged the applicant’s detention on grounds which could not be regarded as “sufficient” and therefore failed to justify his continued detention pending trial. Accordingly, there had been a violation of Article 5 § 3.   Article 5 § 4 The Court found that Mr Belevitskiy had not been able to take proceedings by which the lawfulness of his detention from 13 December to 30 January 2001 could be examined, his detention not having been officially authorised and Russian law only allowing appeals to be lodged against formal detention orders. Furthermore, when the district court did make its decision concerning Mr Belevitskiy’s continued detention on 11 January 2001, it was done using a merely pre-formatted decision and in his absence. It followed that there had been a violation of Article 5 § 4.   ***   The Court’s judgments are accessible on its Internet site ( http://www.echr.coe.int ).   Press contacts Emma Hellyer (telephone: 00 33 (0)3 90 21 42 15) Stéphanie Klein (telephone: 00 33 (0)3 88 41 21 54) Beverley Jacobs (telephone: 00 33 (0)3 90 21 54 21)   The European Court of Human Rights was set up in Strasbourg by the Council of Europe Member States in 1959 to deal with alleged violations of the 1950 European Convention on Human Rights.     [1] Under Article 43 of the Convention, within three months from the date of a Chamber judgment, any party to the case may, in exceptional cases, request that the case be referred to the 17 ‑ member Grand Chamber of the Court. In that event, a panel of five judges considers whether the case raises a serious question affecting the interpretation or application of the Convention or its protocols, or a serious issue of general importance, in which case the Grand Chamber will deliver a final judgment. If no such question or issue arises, the panel will reject the request, at which point the judgment becomes final. Otherwise Chamber judgments become final on the expiry of the three-month period or earlier if the parties declare that they do not intend to make a request to refer. [2] This summary by the Registry does not bind the Court.