Communicated on 23 September 2016
THIRD SECTION
Application no. 39410/11
Ramazan Akhmedovich AKHMEDNABIYEV against Russia
and 2 other applications
(see list appended)
The applicants are Russian nationals. The facts of the cases, as submitted by the applicants, may be summarised as follows.
1. Application no. 39410/11 was lodged on 20 May 2011 by Ramazan Akhmedovich Akhmednabiyev, who was born in 1967 and is currently serving a prison sentence in a correctional colony in Yamalo-Nenetskiy Region.
A. Facts
On 3 January 1991 the Stavropol Regional Court convicted the applicant of several crimes and sentenced him to death. By a presidential decree of 4 November 1993 the sentence of capital punishment was commuted to life imprisonment.
Between 20 September 1994 and 7 July 2012 the applicant was held in correctional colony no. IK-5 in the village of Ognennyy, Volodga Region. The cell was not equipped with a proper toilet or to the sewage system; rather, the applicant had to use a bucket, which filled the cell with a stench since it could be slopped out only once a day. There was no ventilation or water supply system, the applicant was allowed to wash himself only once every ten days, and the quality of the food was poor.
Starting from January 2011 the applicant’s hands were cuffed behind his back every time he left his cell, even though he was accompanied by three prison officers.
The applicant lodged a complaint with the prosecutor’s office asking for an assessment of, among other things, the lawfulness of the handcuffing. The relevant part of their response read as follows:
“... under section 30 of the Penal Institutions Act, convicts may be handcuffed when their behaviour implies a possibility of absconding, or causing harm to themselves or others. Having regard to the seriousness of the crimes committed by convicts sentenced to life imprisonment and since they cannot face a more severe punishment if they commit another crime, their handcuffing is lawful in order to strengthen the security of prison guards and the convicts themselves.”
On 21 July 2011 the Belozerskiy District Court of the Vologda Region pronounced the systematic handcuffing of the applicant lawful and justified. Among other things, the court took into account that in 1996 and 2005 the applicant had committed acts of self-mutilation, on 19 July 2005 he had been diagnosed with mixed personality disorder, and on 15 October 2007 he had been found to be a suicide risk.
B. Complaints
The applicant complains under Article 3 of the Convention about the continued use of handcuffs during his imprisonment. He also complains, under Article 13 of the Convention, that he did not have access to an effective remedy.
The applicant also complains, under Articles 3 and 13, of the degrading conditions of his detention between 20 September 1994 and 7 July 2012, and the lack of effective domestic remedies in that regard.
2. Application no. 70711/12 was lodged on 1 October 2012 by Vasiliy Yuryevich Rudakov, who was born in 1972 and is currently serving a prison sentence in a correctional colony in Sverdlovsk Region. The applicant is represented before the Court by Mr A. Molostov, a lawyer practising in Chelyabinsk Region.
A. Facts
On 1 October 1999 the Tyumen Regional Court convicted the applicant of various crimes and sentenced him to life imprisonment. After detention in an unspecified prison, on 26 January 2011 he was transferred to correctional colony no. IK-56 in the village of Lozvinskiy, Sverdlovsk Region.
On an investigator’s order the applicant was transported from the correctional colony to Vladimir to take part in investigative actions in another criminal case. His transfer started in the evening of 13 April 2012 when he was placed in an assembly cell. The applicant was not provided with bedding or a mattress, and thus could not sleep.
On 14 April 2012 the applicant was transported for fifteen hours by train to Yekaterinburg. Despite being a non-smoker, he was held in a cigarette‑smoke-filled compartment that had no ventilation, poor lighting, and afforded 0.5 sq. m of personal space. The applicant was handcuffed every time he was brought to the toilet, and a guard monitored him through the open toilet door.
The applicant complained about the conditions of transport to the Sverdlovsk Regional Office of the Federal Prisons Service, the relevant part of which reads as follows:
“... pursuant to section 229 of the Internal Rules of escorting units (Инструкция по служебной деятельности специальных подразделений уголовно‑исполнительной системы по конвоированию, утверждённой совместным приказом Минюста России/МВД России от 24.05.2006 № 199дсп/369дсп ‑ hereinafter “the Internal Rules”), when a convict uses the toilet, a warden shall continuously monitor him through a half-open toilet door or a special window.
...
Under section 33 of the Internal Rules, prison officers may apply handcuffs to detainees if their behaviour implies a possibility of absconding, or causing harm to themselves or others.
Since Mr Rudakov had been sentenced to life imprisonment, he was handcuffed every time he went to the toilet and the toilet door was left half open for security concerns and in order to prevent him from absconding.
...
The compartment occupancy standards were met.”
On his way back to the colony in Sverdlovsk Region, the applicant was held in Yekaterinburg remand prison no. IZ-66/1 between 29 June and 14 July 2012. The applicant was held in a cigarette-smoke-filled cell that had no ventilation, poor electric lighting and no natural light, afforded 1.5 sq. m of personal space, and was infested with mice. The lavatory was 1.5 m away from the dining table and was not separated from the living space, thus affording no privacy.
B. Complaints
The applicant complains under Article 3 of the Convention about the continued use of handcuffs during his transport. He also complains, under Article 13 of the Convention, that he did not have access to an effective remedy for his complaint under Article 3.
The applicant also complains, under Articles 3 and 13, of the degrading conditions of transport between 13 April and 14 July 2012, and the lack of effective domestic remedies in that regard.
3. Application no. 6086/14 was lodged on 21 November 2013 by Aleksandr Livonovich Kerekesha, who was born in 1976 and is currently serving a prison sentence in a correctional colony in Vologda Region.
A. Facts
On 24 December 1998 the Khabarovsk Regional Court convicted the applicant of various crimes and sentenced him to death. On 26 November 1999 the Supreme Court of Russia commuted the sentence of capital punishment to life imprisonment.
Between 22 July 2005 and 23 May 2013 the applicant was held in prison no. UP-288/T in Minusinsk, Krasnoyarsk Region. From February 2007 and throughout his detention in the prison the applicant was subjected to the following security measures every time he left his cell: his hands were cuffed behind his back and pulled up by a warden forcing him to bend down.
The applicant asked the Federal Prisons Service to explain the legal basis for this measure. The relevant part of their letter of 12 September 2013 reads as follows:
“... pursuant to section 41 of the Internal Rules of penal institutions (Правила внутреннего распорядка исправительных учреждений, утвержденные приказом Минюста России от 03.11.2005 № 205), if the behaviour of persons serving a life sentence implies a possibility of absconding, or causing harm to themselves or others, their hands shall be cuffed behind their backs when they leave their cells. When escorting persons serving a life sentence, in order to prevent them from absconding or causing harm to others or themselves, prison officers must keep the hands of the convicts in a way that allows them to see the handcuffs.
...
Taking into account that the applicant had been placed on the list of inmates at risk of absconding and aggression, his hands were handcuffed behind the back.”
B. Complaints
The applicant complains under Article 3 of the Convention about the continuing use of handcuffs during his imprisonment. He also complains, under Article 13 of the Convention, that he did not have access to an effective remedy for his complaint under Article 3.
RELEVANT DOMESTIC LAW
A. Penal Institutions Act of 21 July 1993 (Закон «Об учреждениях и органах, исполняющих уголовные наказания в виде лишения свободы» от 21.07.1993)
Section 30 provides that handcuffs may be used –
(a) to repress mass disorder or group violations of public order by detainees, as well as to apprehend offenders who persistently disobey or resist officers;
(b) during convoy and escort of prisoners who have shown by their behaviour that they may abscond, harm others or themselves.
B. Internal Rules of penal institutions of 3 November 2005 (Правила внутреннего распорядка исправительных учреждений, утвержденные приказом Минюста России от 03.11.2005 № 205)
Section 41 provides that if the behaviour of persons serving a life sentence implies a possibility of absconding, or causing harm to themselves or others, their hands shall be cuffed behind the back when they leave their cells.
RELEVANT COUNCIL OF EUROPE MATERIAL
The relevant extracts from 25th General Report of the European Committee for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (CPT) [CPT/Inf(2016) 10] read as follows:
“71. The CPT has visited a large number of prison establishments across Europe in which life-sentenced prisoners were accommodated. The conditions under which such prisoners were being held varied significantly from one establishment to another. In many countries, life-sentenced prisoners were usually held together with other sentenced prisoners and benefited from the same rights in terms of regime (work, education and recreational activities) and contact with the outside world as other sentenced prisoners. However, in a number of countries – including Armenia, Azerbaijan, Bulgaria, Georgia, Latvia, Moldova, Romania, the Russian Federation, Turkey (prisoners General Report of the CPT, 2015 sentenced to aggravated life imprisonment only) and Ukraine10 – life-sentenced prisoners were as a rule kept separate from other sentenced prisoners. In several countries, the CPT observed that life-sentenced prisoners were also subjected to a very impoverished regime and draconian security measures. By way of example, life-sentenced prisoners were locked up in their cells (alone or in pairs) for 23 hours per day, were not allowed to associate even with life-sentenced prisoners from other cells (including during outdoor exercise), were not allowed to work outside their cell or were not offered any purposeful activities at all. Further, in several countries, life-sentenced prisoners were systematically handcuffed and/or strip-searched whenever they left their cells. In some establishments, the prisoners concerned were additionally escorted by two officers and a guard dog during any movement outside their cell.
81. The CPT calls upon member states to review their treatment of life-sentenced prisoners to ensure that this is in accordance with their individual risk they present, both in custody and to the outside community, and not simply in response to the sentence which has been imposed on them. In particular, steps should be taken by the member states concerned to abolish the legal obligation of keeping life‑sentenced prisoners separate from other (long-term) sentenced prisoners and to put an end to the systematic use of security measures such as handcuffs inside the prison.”
COMMON QUESTIONS
1. Did the systematic application of handcuffs to the applicants constitute inhuman or degrading treatment within the meaning of Article 3 of the Convention (see, for example, Kashavelov v. Bulgaria, no. 891/05, §§ 39-40, 20 January 2011, and Kaverzin v. Ukraine, no. 23893/03, §§ 151‑63, 15 May 2012)?
2. Did the applicants have effective domestic remedies in respect of the complaint concerning the systematic handcuffing, as guaranteed by Article 13 of the Convention? In particular, if a possibility of the applicants’ absconding or causing harm to themselves or others was established, justifying the use of handcuffs on the applicants, did they have an effective domestic remedy in respect of the continuation of this measure?
CASE-SPECIFIC QUESTIONS
Application no. 39410/11
3. Were the conditions of the applicant’s detention in correctional colony no. IK-5 compatible with Article 3 of the Convention?
4. Did the applicant show due diligence in lodging the complaint only in the seventeenth year of his detention under the conditions complained about?
5. Did the applicant have at his disposal an effective domestic remedy for the above complaint under Article 3, as required by Article 13 of the Convention?
Application no. 70711/12
6. Were the conditions of the applicant’s transport between 13 April and 14 July 2012 compatible with Article 3 of the Convention?
7. Did the applicant have at his disposal an effective domestic remedy for the above complaint under Article 3, as required by Article 13 of the Convention?
APPENDIX
No.
Application
no.
Lodged on
Applicant name
date of birth
place of residence
Represented by
39410/11
20/05/2011
Ramazan Akhmedovich AKHMEDNABIYEV
06/12/1967
Kharp
70711/12
01/10/2012
Vasiliy Yuryevich RUDAKOV
25/07/1972
Ivdel
Andrey Aleksandrovich MOLOSTOV
6086/14
21/11/2013
Aleksandr Livonovich KEREKESHA
21/10/1976
Ognennyy
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy