|
5 May 2010
FIRST
SECTION
Application no. 1618/06
by Yuriy Borisovich ZABODALOV
against
Russia
lodged on 14 December 2005
STATEMENT OF FACTS
THE FACTS
The
applicant, Mr Yuriy Borisovich Zabodalov, is a Russian national
who was born in 1966 and is currently serving his sentence in
Saint Petersburg.
He is represented before the Court by
Mr F.V. Bagryanskiy and Mr
M.V. Ovchinnikov, lawyers practising
in Vladimir.
The facts
of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as
follows.
A. The applicant's detention
On 22
January 2004 the applicant was apprehended by the police. One
day later, the Suzdal District Court authorised his detention
pending trial.
By
decisions of 31 January and 11 April 2005 his detention was
extended until 4 May and 4 August 2005 respectively. The grounds
for the extensions were the gravity of charges against the
applicant and a repeated failure of witnesses and a civil
plaintiff to appear in court (the extension order of 31 January
2005) and the gravity of charges and the need to collect the
additional information in respect of the applicant's
co-defendant (the extension order of 11 April 2005). The
applicant's appeals against these orders were examined and
dismissed by the Vladimir Regional Court on 25 August and
14 June 2005, respectively.
On
28 July 2005 the District Court extended the applicant's
detention until 4 November 2005. The grounds for the extension
were the gravity of charges and a significant volume of the case
file. The applicant's appeal against this court decision was
examined and dismissed by the
Regional Court
on 20 September 2005.
B. The criminal proceedings
against the applicant
The
first court hearing of the applicant's case was scheduled for
11 October 2004. By a judgment of 1 August 2005 the District
Court convicted the applicant of counterfeiting of, and trading
in foreign currency and sentenced him to 7 years' imprisonment.
On 22 September 2005 the
Regional Court
upheld this judgment on appeal.
C. Conditions of detention
During the period from 6 August 2004 to October 2005 the
applicant was detained in detention facility Vladimir OD-1/T-2 (учреждение
ОД-1/Т-2 УИН МЮ РФ по Владимирской области)
in cells nos. 20, 25, 26, 27
and 30 in wing no. 4 and in cells nos. 52, 45 and 46 in wing no.
3.
All cells
were overcrowded: floor surface per inmate was approximately 1.5
square metres. Not in all cells the applicant had an individual
sleeping place and, given an insufficient number of beds, the
applicant had to wait for his turn to sleep.
The toilet
was in the corner on a pedestal and was not separated from the
living area so the person sitting on the toilet was in full view
of other inmates. The dining table was 1-1.5 metres away from
the toilet.
There was
no hot water in the cells. Shower was available once in 7-10
days for 15 minutes.
The cells
had no forced ventilation. In winter the cells were cold, in
summer it was hot, stuffy and damp inside.
Windows
were fitted with grills which restricted natural light. Though
the artificial lighting was never switched off, it was
insufficient for reading and writing.
The cells
swarmed with insects and rats.
The
applicant never received any toiletries.
The food
was of low quality, often unfit for eating.
Persons
infected with tuberculosis, hepatitis and HIV were occasionally
kept in the applicant's cell.
The
applicant was afforded a daily walk of about one hour in a
facility's small exercise yard. It was surrounded by solid
concrete walls and covered with a metal roof which prevented the
free flow of air. Therefore, outdoor exercise was scarcely any
different from staying in.
Many times
he complained to competent national authorities about the poor
conditions of his detention but all to no avail.
COMPLAINTS
The
applicant complains under Article 3 of the Convention about
outrageous detention conditions in Vladimir OD-1/T-2. He also
complains under Article 5 § 1 (c) of the Convention about
unlawfulness of his detention. He finally complains under
Article 6 § 1 of the Convention about an excessive length of the
criminal proceedings against him.
QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES
1. In
respect of each cell in which the applicant was held in
temporary detention facility of the Mytishchi Department of the
Interior and in Volokolamsk IZ-50/2
[так в тексте] detention facility indicate:
(a) The
cell number and the dates of the applicant's stay;
(b) The
floor surface of the cell (in square metres);
(c) The
number of bunk beds and/or sleeping places that were available
in the cell;
(d) The
exact number of detainees held in the cell (supported by
certificates of original documents, such as cell registers (покамерные
карточки)
or statistical data);
(e) Whether the cell was equipped with a
functioning mandatory
ventilation;
(f) What
kind of lighting was available in the cell; if the lighting was
natural, indicate the dimensions of the window(s) and the number
and thickness of metal bars; if the lighting was artificial,
indicate the number of bulbs and their power;
(g) The
placement of the toilet pan (corner, wall-mounted, etc.) and the
distances between (i) the pan and the dining table; and (ii) the
pan and the nearest sleeping place.
(h) Whether there was a partition separating the toilet pan
from the rest of the cell; its height and the material it was
made of;
(i) The
frequency of outdoor exercise, the surface of the exercise yard
(in square metres) and the type of the roof above the yard
(metal bars, solid roof, netting, etc.)
2. In the
light of the replies to the above questions, were the conditions
of the applicant's detention compatible with Article 3 of the
Convention?
3. Has the applicant's detention been based on “relevant and
sufficient” reasons and has it been compatible with the
“reasonable time” requirement of Article 5 § 3 of the Convention
(cf. Olstowski v. Poland, no. 34052/96, § 78, 15 November
2001; Ilijkov v. Bulgaria, no. 33977/96, § 81, 26 July
2001)?
4. Did the applicant have at his disposal an effective
procedure by which he could challenge the lawfulness of his
detention, as required by Article 5 § 4 of the Convention? In
particular, were the applicant's appeals against the decisions
of the Suzdal District Court of 31 January, 11 April and 28 July
2005 considered “speedily”, as required by Article 5 § 4 of the
Convention?
|
