FIRST SECTION
CASE OF
VLADIMIR BELYAYEV v. RUSSIA
(Application no.
9967/06)
JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
17 October 2013
This judgment will become final in
the circumstances set out in Article 44 § 2 of the Convention. It may
be subject to editorial revision.
In the case of Vladimir Belyayev v. Russia,
The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting as
a Chamber composed of:
Isabelle Berro-Lefèvre, President,
Mirjana Lazarova Trajkovska,
Julia Laffranque,
Linos-Alexandre Sicilianos,
Erik Møse,
Ksenija Turković,
Dmitry Dedov, judges,
and André Wampach, Deputy Section Registrar,
Having deliberated in private on 24 September 2013,
Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that
date:
PROCEDURE
The case originated in an application (no.
9967/06) against the Russian Federation lodged with the Court under Article 34
of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms
(“the Convention”) by a Russian national, Mr Vladimir Ivanovich Belyayev (“the
applicant”), on 11 January 2006.
The Russian Government (“the Government”) were
represented by Mr G. Matyushkin, Representative of the Russian Federation
at the European Court of Human Rights.
The applicant alleged in particular that he had
been detained in overcrowded cells with little opportunity for outdoor exercise.
On 26 August 2010 the application was
communicated to the Government. It was also decided to rule on the
admissibility and merits of the application at the same time (Article 29 § 1).
THE FACTS
I. THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE
The applicant was born in 1968 and is serving a
prison sentence in the Sverdlovsk region.
On 14 November 2003 the St Petersburg City
Court found the applicant guilty of murder and of membership of an organised
criminal gang, and sentenced him to twenty-one years’ imprisonment. On
11 November 2004 the Supreme Court of Russia upheld the applicant’s
conviction, in substance, on appeal.
A. Conditions of detention
It appears that the applicant has been serving his
prison sentence in different correctional facilities. From 6 April to 23 December
2005 the applicant was held in correctional colony no. IK- 4 in the
Magadan region. Throughout the period in question, he was repeatedly sanctioned
for failure to comply with the colony’s internal regulations and was continuously
detained in disciplinary cells.
In particular, on 12 and 20 April 2005 the
applicant was placed in a punishment cell for ten days for refusal to
participate in cleaning work in the colony. On 28 April 2005 he spoke
rudely to guards and was placed in a punishment cell for three days. On
3 May 2005 the applicant was placed in a punishment cell for seven days
for having brought, in contravention of internal regulations, black tea leaves
into the punishment cell. On 11 May 2005 the applicant refused to
participate in cleaning work in the colony and was placed in a punishment cell
for ten days. On 20 May 2005 the applicant was placed in a punishment cell
for fifteen days for refusing to wear prison uniform and for swearing at colony
officers. On 6 June 2005 the applicant wrenched the sink off the wall,
broke the window frame and crushed a bulb with a kettle in the cell where he was
detained. He was placed in a prison-type cell for one month.
1. Cell population and general conditions of detention
(a) The description submitted by the Government
The Government’s submissions as
regards the conditions of the applicant’s detention can be summarised as
follows:
All the cells were equipped with a ventilation
system in working order. There was access to natural light. During the night
the cells were lit with a 40-watt electric bulb. The windows measured 50 x 90
centimetres and were covered with a steel grille whose openings measured 0.3 x 3 centimetres.
The grille did not prevent access to daylight. The toilet was located in the
corner of the cell, some 1.5 metres from the dining table and the nearest bed.
It was separated by a 1.1-metre-high brick wall with a door. The temperature in
the cells was at least 160C. The colony’s disciplinary premises were
provided with six exercise areas measuring from 7.5 to 10.6 square metres. The
inmates had an hour’s daily outdoor exercise.
(b) The description submitted by the applicant
The applicant provided the data similar to the
Government’s submissions as regards the size and the population of the cells
where he had been detained.
According to the applicant, the cells where he
was held were located in the basement of the building. They were damp and cold.
The walls were covered with mould. There was no ventilation or hot water. The
potable water contained yellowish residue and sand. The beds and mattresses
were in poor condition and uncomfortable. The cells were overcrowded. The one-and-a-half-hour’s
exercise took place in small yards which were always overcrowded. Nor was any
exercise equipment available there. The applicant was allowed to take a shower
every 7 to 10 days. On those days he was not allowed to have an outdoor
exercise. The shower facilities were dirty.
2. Domestic litigation concerning the conditions of
the applicant’s detention
On an unspecified date the applicant complained
to the Magadan Town Court that the conditions of his detention were not in
compliance with the applicable domestic standards. In particular, he alleged
that the disciplinary cells where he was detained were not suitable for
detention. There was no ventilation; the lighting was poor; the cells were
overcrowded. There was no hot water. The cells were cold and damp. The wash
sinks were not isolated from the toilet. On 12 October 2005 the Town Court
dismissed the applicant’s complaint. The court noted as follows:
“It follows from the materials in the case-file, that the
punishment and prison type cells in correctional colony no. IK-4 are lit
with electric bulbs of appropriate voltage. The temperature in the cells is in
accordance with [statutory requirements].
According to certificate no. 49/4 of 21 September
2005 submitted by correctional colony no. IK-4, from 6 April 2005 to
date [the applicant] has been detained in punishment and prison-type cells
nos. 1, 11, 15, [and] 22.
Pursuant to Article 99 of the Russian Code on the
Execution of Criminal Sentences, the personal space afforded per convict cannot
be lower than 2 square metres in correctional colonies and 2.5 square metres in
prisons.
The materials in the case-file demonstrate that cell
no. 11 measures 8.8 square metres, cell no. 22 measures 6.4 square
metres, cell no. 1 measures 14 square metres, cell no. 15 measures
10.2 square metres. [The applicant] was detained in cells nos. 11 and 22
alone. In cell no. 1 there were five detainees, in cell no. 15 there
were three detainees.
Accordingly, the personal space afforded per convict in
correctional colony no. IK-4 where [the applicant] has been detained to
date is in compliance with law.
...
According to the certificate of 7 October 2005 submitted
by the respondent party, [the administration] conducted an inspection of cell
no. 22 where [the applicant] is currently detained. Cell no. 22 measures
6.5 sq. m and houses ... two inmates. The floor is made of wood and
covered with oil-based paint. The walls are 1.75 m high and covered with
oil-based paint. The top part of the walls and the ceiling are white-washed.
The lighting is combined. There is artificial electric lighting ... Natural
light is ensured by a window measuring 50 by 90 cm. There are window panes and
a vent. The temperature in the cell is 210 C. The toilet is separated
by a partition which is 1.1 m high. There is a centralised cold water
supply. The bench is attached to the floor. Its base is made of concrete with a
wooden seat... The table is made of concrete and attached to the floor. The
pull-down beds are made of wood and have a smooth surface. The door is
heat-insulated and adheres tightly to the door frame.
Regard being had to the above, the court concludes that the
conditions of the [applicant’s] detention in correctional colony no. IK-4
are in compliance with applicable laws ... .”
On 8 November 2005 the Magadan Regional
Court upheld the judgment of 12 October 2005 on appeal.
3. Other proceedings
On numerous occasions the applicant challenged
in court the actions taken against him by the authorities of correctional
colony no. IK-4, including the disciplinary sanctions imposed on him. Each
time the courts considered his complaints in his absence, noting that the
domestic rules of civil procedure did not impose on the court an obligation to
ensure the convict’s presence in the courtroom. The applicant’s representative
attended all the hearings, and made submissions to the court on the applicant’s
behalf.
II. RELEVANT DOMESTIC LAW
A. Conditions of post-conviction detention
Article 99 § 1 of the Russian Code on the Execution of Criminal Sentences of 8 January
1997 (the “Code”) provides for a minimum standard of two square metres of
personal space for male convicts in correctional colonies. They should be
provided with their own sleeping place and given bedding, clothes and
toiletries. In prisons, the personal space afforded per male convict is 2.5
square metres.
B. Types of detention regimes
The Code provides for five main types of penal
institutions for convicted criminals: correctional settlement, general regime
colony, strict regime colony, special regime colony, and prison
(Article 74 of the Code).
The convicts have a different scope of rights
depending on the regime of the correctional facility where they serve a
sentence. In particular, the number of family visits and parcels the convicts
may receive per year, as well as the amount of cash they are allowed to spend
vary depending on the regime of the correctional facility.
The conditions imposed on an inmate serving a
sentence in a correctional settlement are the mildest. In particular, the
convicts do not live in cells or barracks but in unguarded dormitories. They
have the right to move freely within the correctional settlement during the
day. The number and length of family visits are not limited, nor is the
possibility of receiving parcels and money from home. As an incentive for good
behaviour, and subject to approval by the administration, the convicts may, inter
alia, live outside the correctional settlement with their families, live in
rented flats, leave the correctional settlement for holidays and weekends, and
move freely within the city or district where the settlement is situated. They
do not wear a uniform and can dispose of their money as they please. The
convicts may even be granted leave to work in another town or district, or
participate in distance-learning programmes of higher education establishments
(Article 129 of the Code).
The regime in a prison is the most severe. The
convicts are detained in cells. They are allowed daily outdoor exercise not
exceeding one hour and a half. The number of family visits and parcels received
per year is limited. So is the amount of money the convicts may spend during a
month (Article 131 of the Code).
The convicts serving a sentence in the strict
regime colonies are placed in dormitories. They are allowed six family visits
per year. They may receive eight parcels per year. These numbers may be
decreased or increased subject to the convict’s compliance with internal
regulations of the correctional colony (Articles 122-23 of the Code).
C. Disciplinary actions in correctional facilities
For failure to comply with the colony’s internal
regulations a convict may be placed in a disciplinary cell. During the period
of detention in a punishment cell a convict has a right to one-hour daily
outdoor exercise. In the event of repeated violations, a convict can be
transferred to a prison-type cell. During the period of detention there, a
convict has a right to a 1.5-hour daily outdoor exercise which may be increased
up to 2 hours per day (Article 155 of the Russian Code on the Execution of
Criminal Sentences).
THE LAW
I. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 3 OF THE
CONVENTION
The applicant complained that he had been
detained in overcrowded cells with little opportunity for outdoor exercise in
correctional colony no. IK-4 in the Magadan region from 6 April to
23 December 2005. He relied on Article 3 of the Convention, which reads as
follows:
“No one shall be subjected to torture or to inhuman or
degrading treatment or punishment.”
The Government contested that argument. They
considered that the applicant had been detained in conditions compatible with
domestic and international standards. They relied on the statements prepared by
the correctional colony authorities in October-December 2010, which stated that
the inmate register had been destroyed. According to the authorities, the
statements were prepared , inter alia, on the basis of the data
contained in the cell records which were kept in the applicant’s personal file.
No copies of those documents were provided. As regards the area of the cells, the
authorities submitted copies of the official floor plans.
The applicant maintained his complaint. He
argued that the Government failed to substantiate their allegations and that
the data provided by them were contradictory. In particular, he pointed out,
that the cell sizes quoted by the Government did not coincide with the
information examined by domestic courts which considered his complaint about
the conditions of his detention. He further noted that the statements describing
the conditions of his detention in correctional colony no. IK-4 were
prepared by the administration several years after the events in question and
could not be considered reliable.
A. Admissibility
The Court notes that this complaint is not
manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 (a) of the
Convention. It further notes that it is not inadmissible on any other grounds.
It must therefore be declared admissible.
B. Merits
The Court reiterates that Article 3 enshrines
one of the fundamental values of a democratic society. The Convention prohibits
in absolute terms torture or inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment,
irrespective of the circumstances or the victim’s behaviour (see, among other
authorities, Labita v. Italy [GC], no. 26772/95, § 119, ECHR 2000-IV).
The Court has consistently stressed that, in the context of deprivation of
liberty, the suffering and humiliation involved must in any event go beyond the
inevitable element of suffering or humiliation connected with a given form of
legitimate treatment or punishment. Although measures depriving a person of
liberty may often involve such an element, in accordance with Article 3 of the
Convention the State must ensure that a person is detained under conditions
which are compatible with respect for his human dignity and that the manner and
method of the execution of the measure do not subject him to distress or
hardship exceeding the unavoidable level of suffering inherent in detention
(see Kudła v. Poland [GC], no. 30210/96, § 92-94, ECHR
2000-XI).
Turning to the circumstances of the present
case, the Court notes from the outset that the applicant did not complain that
the general regime to which he had been subjected when detained in correctional
colony no. IK-4 in the Magadan Region raised an issue under Article 3
of the Convention (see, by contrast, Lorsé and Others v. the Netherlands,
no. 52750/99, § 64, 4 February 2003). Nor is it the Court’s view that
the applicant’s placement in disciplinary cells for his repeated failure to
comply with the colony’s internal regulations was, as such, incompatible with
the provisions of the said Article.
Accordingly, the Court’s task in the present
case is to determine whether the material conditions of the applicant’s
detention in the disciplinary cells were compatible with the standards set
forth in Article 3 of the Convention.
In this connection, the Court reiterates that
the extreme lack of space in a prison cell weighs heavily as an aspect to be
taken into account for the purpose of establishing whether the impugned
detention conditions were “degrading” from the point of view of Article 3 (see Karalevičius
v. Lithuania, no. 53254/99, § 36, 7 April 2005). It further reiterates
that in deciding whether or not there has been a violation of Article 3 of
the Convention on account of the lack of personal space, it always has regards to
the following three elements: (a) each detainee must have an individual
sleeping place in the cell; (b) each detainee must dispose of at least
three square metres of floor space; and (c) the overall surface of the
cell must be such as to allow the detainees to move freely between the
furniture items. The absence of any of the above elements creates in itself a
strong presumption that the conditions of detention amounted to degrading
treatment and were in breach of Article 3 (see, in respect of pre-trial detention,
Ananyev and Others v. Russia, nos. 42525/07 and 60800/08, § 148, 10
January 2012).
Turning to the circumstances of the present
case, the Court will firstly address the applicant’s argument as regards the
accuracy of the data provided by the Government on the size of the cells where
the applicant was detained during the period under consideration.
The Court notes that the information concerning
the cell sizes referred to by the domestic courts in the judicial proceedings
initiated by the applicant does not, in fact, coincide with the data provided
by the Government in their observations forwarded to the Court following the
notice of the present application. According to the official floor plans of the
correctional colony submitted by the Government, the cells where the applicant
was detained were smaller in size than indicated in the domestic courts’
judgments. In these circumstances, the Court attaches decisive importance to
the official documentation presented by the Government and accepts their
submissions in this part as credible.
The Court further observes that the applicant
did not dispute the veracity of the information provided by the Government as
regards the cell population. Accordingly, the Court accepts that on certain occasions
the applicant was afforded a personal space below 3 square metres. In
particular, from 30 April to 10 May 2005 (10 days) the personal space
available to the applicant constituted 2.95 square metres, from 3 to
5 August 2005 (2 days) it amounted to 2.65 square metres and from 17
August to 12 September 2005 (26 days) the applicant was afforded 2.97
square metres. For the rest of the time the applicant was held in the cells where
from 3.35 to 8.9 square metres of personal space were available to him (see
paragraph 9 above).
The Court further notes that it is common ground
between the parties that, at all times, the applicant was provided with an
individual bed and practically always had an opportunity for outdoor exercise
which lasted at least one hour per day. Nor did he allege that he had been
unable to move freely within the cell.
As for the remainder of the applicant’s
submissions concerning allegedly poor hygiene conditions in the cells and
shower facilities, the Court is unable, in view of the lack of specific detail
or substantiation, to accept the applicant’s allegations as credible.
Regard being had to the above, the Court
concludes that, while on certain occasions the applicant was provided with slightly
less than three square metres of personal space, in the circumstances of the
case, it cannot establish that the conditions of the applicant’s detention
resulting from the disciplinary sanctions imposed on him for infraction of the
colony regime, although not always adequate, reached the threshold of severity
required to characterise the treatment as inhuman or degrading within the
meaning of Article 3 of the Convention. Therefore, there has been no violation
of this provision.
II. OTHER ALLEGED VIOLATIONS OF THE CONVENTION
Lastly, the applicant complained about various
aspects of his detention. In particular, he alleged that he had been beaten up
by guards, that the quality of dental and other medical services had been poor,
that the correctional colony authorities had failed to dispatch a number of his
letters, had put pressure on him in connection with his complaints to the Court,
had confiscated his crucifix and not allowed him to use the prayer room, and
that he had been unable to attend the civil proceedings he had initiated
against the correctional colony authorities. He relied on Articles 3, 6, 8, 9,
13 and 34 of the Convention.
However, having regard to all the material in
its possession, and in so far as these complaints fall within its competence,
the Court finds that there is no appearance of a violation of the rights and
freedoms set out in the Convention. It follows that this part of the
application must be rejected as manifestly ill-founded, pursuant to Article 35
§§ 3 and 4 of the Convention.
FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT UNANIMOUSLY
1. Declares the complaint concerning the
conditions of the applicant’s detention in correctional colony no. IK-4 in
the Magadan region from 6 April to 23 December 2005 admissible and
the remainder of the application inadmissible;
2. Holds that there has been no violation of
Article 3 of the Convention;
Done in English, and notified in writing on 17 October 2013,
pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
André Wampach Isabelle
Berro-Lefèvre
Deputy Registrar President
