CEDH · PRESS;CHAMBERJUDGMENTS;ENG — 10 mai 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 } .sFE832CA2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:18pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .sADADF4A7 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline } .sC7EAD8B { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left } .s2EB42ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:10pt } EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS   292 10.5.2007   Press release issued by the Registrar   CHAMBER JUDGMENT BENEDIKTOV v. RUSSIA   The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing its Chamber judgment [1] in the case of Benediktov v. Russia (application no. 106/02).   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; a violation of Article 13 (right to an effective remedy) of the Convention.   Under Article 41 (just satisfaction), the Court awarded Mr Benediktov 10,000   euros in respect of non-pecuniary damage. (The judgment is available only in English.)   1.     Principal facts   The applicant, Vladimir Aleksandrovich Benediktov, is a Russian national who was born in 1973. He lived in Moscow until his arrest on 16 December 1999 on suspicion of robbery.   From 19 December to November 2001 Mr Beneditov was remanded in custody in two different prison facilities in Moscow.   According to Mr Benediktov, those facilities were severely overcrowded. In the smallest cell of 12.7 sq. m, inmates had less than 2.2 sq. m of personal space and, in a bigger 55.2 sq. m cell, less than 1 sq. m. There were more detainees than bunks so inmates, including the applicant, had to share the sleeping facilities and take turns to rest.   According to the Government, information on the number of inmates in two of the cells where Mr Benediktov had been detained was not available due to documents having being destroyed. They could not provide information either on another cell he occupied except for a period from September to November 2000 or describe his conditions of detention after 28   November 2000.   Disagreeing with the Government that his detention conditions had been satisfactory, Mr   Benediktov complained about bed-bugs, lice and a lack of fresh air and light due to windows being blocked with thick metal bars. He further submitted that it was extremely cold in winter and hot, stuffy and damp in summer. He was only allowed a one-hour walk per day.   He also alleged that, on contracting hepatitis, the prison’s medical assistance was inadequate.   Finally, on 24 November 2000 Mr Benediktov was found guilty and is currently serving his nine-year prison sentence in a high-security correctional colony in the Mordoviya Republic of the Russian Federation.   2.     Procedure and composition of the Court   The application was lodged with the European Court of Human Rights on 23 November 2001.   Judgment was given by a Chamber of seven judges, composed as follows:   Christos Rozakis (Greek), President , Loukis Loucaides (Cypriot), Nina Vajić (Croatian), Anatoli Kovler (Russian), Elisabeth Steiner (Austrian), Khanlar Hajiyev (Azerbaijani), Sverre Erik Jebens (Norwegian), judges , and also Søren Nielsen , Section Registrar .   3.     Summary of the judgment [2]   Complaints   Relying, in particular, on Articles 3 and 13, Mr Benediktov complained about the appalling conditions of his detention from 19 December 1999 to November 2001 and claimed that there was no effective remedy at his disposal to get redress for that complaint.   Decision of the Court   Article 3 Although the parties had disagreed about the specifics of Mr Benediktov’s conditions of detention on remand, they had agreed upon one point: the size of the cells. Mr Benediktov had alleged severe overcrowding; the Government had been unable to provide complete information on cell population.   Given that the Government had not provided any convincing explanation for that lack of information and that, in their arguments before the Court, had even agreed in principle that the cells could had been overcrowded, the Court decided to examine the issue on the basis of the applicant’s submissions.   Irrespective of the reasons for the overcrowding, the Court considered that it was up to the Russian Government to organise its penitentiary system in such a way as to ensure respect for the dignity of detainees, regardless of financial or logistical difficulties. Indeed, the Court had frequently found a violation of Article 3 on account of detainees’ lack of personal space.   The Court noted that the Government had not put forward any fact or argument capable of persuading it to reach a different conclusion in the applicant’s case. The fact that the applicant had been obliged for almost two years to live, sleep and use the toilet in the same cell as so many other inmates, except for one hour of outdoor exercise per day, had been in itself sufficient to have caused distress or hardship of an intensity exceeding the unavoidable level of suffering inherent in detention, and to have aroused in him feelings of fear, anguish and inferiority capable of humiliating and debasing him.   The ventilation, heating, lighting and sanitary conditions, although not proven “beyond a reasonable doubt” to have been unacceptable, were also of relevance in showing that Mr   Benediktov’s conditions of detention, the overriding factors having been overcrowding and his most probably having contracted hepatitis, had gone beyond the threshold tolerated by Article 3. The Court therefore found that there had been a violation of Article 3 on account of Mr   Benediktov’s conditions of detention from 19 December 1999 to November 2001.   Article 13 With particular regard to the overall structural problem of overcrowding in Russian detention facilities, and that it had not just been a problem affecting Mr Benediktov personally, the Court found that the Government had failed to provide evidence as to the existence of a domestic remedy by which the applicant could have complained about the general conditions of his detention and sought appropriate redress. Accordingly, the Court concluded that there had been a violation of Article   13 on account of the lack of an effective and accessible domestic remedy.   ***   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) Tracey Turner-Tretz (telephone : 00 33 (0)3 88 41 35 30)   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.