Communicated on 19 September 2019
THIRD SECTION
Application no. 3234/17
Stepan Vasilyevich KUCHEV against Russia
and 13 other applications
(see list appended)
STATEMENT OF FACTS
The applicants are fifteen Russian nationals listed in the appendix.The circumstances of the cases
The facts of the cases, as submitted by the applicants, may be summarised as follows.The regime of the applicants’ imprisonment
On various dates listed in the appendix, the applicants were convicted of serious criminal offences and sentenced to life imprisonment.
They were sent to special-regime penal institutions, as listed in the appendix, to serve their sentences, where they were placed under the strict regime of imprisonment. By virtue of the relevant domestic law (see below) they remain under that regime at least during the first ten years of their post‑conviction detention. As appears, in practice some of the applicants remain under that regime beyond that period.
That regime involves a number of restrictive measures. In particular, the applicants are separated from other convicts who are sentenced to periods of imprisonment other than life imprisonment. They are placed in cells holding no more than two persons. They are confined to their cells for 22.5 hours per day, whilst the time they are allowed to spend in the open air is limited to 1.5 hour per day.
According to the applicants, they are routinely handcuffed every time they are taken out of their cells. All communications between convicts, except cellmates, are prohibited, including during the outdoor walk. There is no much possibility of physical activity, particularly in winter, when the temperatures are very low. There is no work available, and, if some work is available, they have to do it in their cells. No sport, recreation or education activities are envisaged. There is no individual plan in place for rehabilitation, resocialisation and reintegration of prisoners.Conditions of detention in IK-56
The applicants in applications nos. 36765/17 and 5487/18 also describe the material conditions of their detention in IK-56. They refer to the case of Gorbulya v. Russia (no. 31535/09, §§ 14-16 and 92-98, 6 March 2014), where the Court examined the conditions of detention in IK-56. According to the applicants, they are kept in the conditions identical to those described in the above-mentioned case.
In particular, their cells are not equipped with a lavatory pan or running water as the facility does not have a centralised water-supply or sewage systems. Inmates are provided with a bucket of water for their daily needs: for drinking, washing themselves and cleaning the bucket which they used as a lavatory. The water is obtained from the local river and is not clean. In the morning the bucket is emptied into a cesspool outside the building. Until 2017, the bucket serving as a lavatory was not separated from the rest of the cell, thus offering no privacy.
A cell window does not allow enough light or fresh air in; there is no ventilation in the cell. The artificial light is insufficient which makes it difficult to read or write.
A recreation yard is located near a cesspool, with the result that an unpleasant odour is present every time the applicants take outdoor exercise; the yard is not equipped with any facilities for recreation or sport.
The applicants can bathe only once a week from basins to pour water, which are used by all inmates.Relevant domestic law and practice
The particularities of the regime of imprisonment applicable for life prisoners are set out in the Code of Execution of Criminal Sentences (hereinafter “the CES”), which in the relevant part reads as follows:
Article 126. Special-regime correctional colonies for life prisoners
“Convicts sentenced to life imprisonment, or death penalty commuted to life imprisonment, shall serve their sentences separately from other convicts in special regime correctional colonies.”
Article 127. Conditions of detention for life prisoners in special regime correctional colonies
“1. Convicts sentenced to life imprisonment, as a rule, are placed in cells accommodating no more than two persons. At the request of convicts, and in other situations where necessary, upon the order of the head of the correctional colony the convicts may be held in solitary confinement, if there is a risk for their personal safety. The work of the [life-sentence] convicts shall be organised subject to a requirement of their confinement in cells.
2. Convicts serving their imprisonment under a strict regime shall have a right to 90-minutes’ daily outdoor exercise... If they demonstrate a good conduct, the time allowed for such exercise may be extended for thirty more minutes.
3. All convicts who arrive at a special regime correctional colony shall be placed under a strict regime of imprisonment. They are transferred from strict to ordinary regime of imprisonment after they have served no less than ten years of post‑conviction detention. If during the convict’s pre-trial detention, he was not held liable to a [disciplinary] punishment in the form of his placement to a solitary confinement, the period of his imprisonment under a strict regime shall start running from the date of his placement in pre-trial detention.
...
5. Convicts who repeatedly breach the established internal order ...[and] who serve their imprisonment under the ordinary regime shall be transferred under the strict regime. They may be transferred under the ordinary ... regime again in accordance with the procedure established in paragraphs 3 and 4 of this Article.”
COMPLAINTS
1. The applicants complain under Article 3 of the Convention that as life-sentence prisoners they are place under a strict regime of imprisonment, and that the exceptional severity of that regime amounts to inhuman and degrading treatment. In their submission, the only purpose of that regime is their isolation, segregation and punishment rather than rehabilitation and re‑integration into the society.
2. They also complain under Article 13 of the Convention about the lack of effective remedies in the above connection.
3. Some of the applicants raise other complaints which are listed in the appendix.
COMMON QUESTIONS
1. Have the applicants been subjected to a strict regime of imprisonment on account of their sentences of life imprisonment? Has that regime been applied indiscriminately to all life-sentence prisoners during the first ten years of post-conviction detention?
Does it involve the following measures:
(a) segregation of life-sentence convicts from other prison population, and their complete isolation?
(b) their placement in cells holding no more than two persons?
(c) confinement to their cells for 22.5 hours per day?
(d) prohibition of all communications between life-sentence convicts, except those between cellmates?
(e) restriction on daily outdoor exercises?
(f) restriction on available work?
(g) absence of any sport and/or recreation activities?
(h) routine handcuffing and/or blindfolding of the convicts, when taking them out of their cells?
(i) marking their prison uniform with distinctive signs?
(j) frequent searches?
(k) other restrictive/security measures? If so, which?
In answering the above questions the parties are invited to quote relevant provisions of the Russian law and prison rules and regulations in this area, and to describe how they are put into practice.
2. Regard being had to the submissions of the applicants in applications nos. 27003/17, 80574/17, 46079/18, 54779/18 and 6703/19 that they have been remaining detained under the strict regime of imprisonment beyond the ten-year period, what are the legislative, administrative and practical arrangements for transfer of a life-sentence prisoner from the strict regime to the ordinary regime of imprisonment after the expiry of that period? On what conditions, and for how long can that regime be prolonged?
3. Has the strict regime of imprisonment applied to the applicants constituted inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, within the meaning of Article 3 of the Convention? Has there been a violation of that provision (see Harakchiev and Tolumov v. Bulgaria, nos. 15018/11 and 61199/12, §§ 199 and 203-14, ECHR 2014 (extracts))?
4. Do the applicants have at their disposal effective domestic remedies, as required by Article 13 of the Convention, in respect of their complaint about the strict regime of imprisonment?
CASE SPECIFIC QUESTIONSApplications nos. 36765/17 and 5487/18
1. Has there been a violation of Article 3 of the Convention on account of the material conditions of the applicants’ detention in IK-56 in the Sverdlovskiy Region?
2. Do the applicants have at their disposal effective domestic remedies, as required by Article 13 of the Convention, in respect of their complaint about the material conditions of their detention (see Sergey Babushkin v. Russia, no. 5993/08, §§ 38-45, 28 November 2013)?Application no. 40270/17
Has the applicant been provided with adequate medical treatment in respect of his diseases (HIV, hepatitis B and C)? In particular, what measures have been taken to provide him medical treatment? If not, has there been a violation of Article 3 of the Convention on that account?Applications nos. 27003/17, 36765/17, 80574/17, 5487/18, 40282/18 and 46079/18
1. Has there been a violation of Article 8 of the Convention on account of the applicants’ post-conviction detention in penitentiary facilities located outside their home regions (see Polyakova and Others v. Russia, nos. 35090/09 and 3 others, §§ 90-119, 7 March 2017)?
2. Do the applicants have at their disposal effective domestic remedies, as required by Article 13 of the Convention, in respect of their complaint under Article 8 of the Convention about their post-conviction detention in penitentiary facilities located outside their home regions (see Voynov v. Russia, no. 39747/10, §§ 38-48, 3 July 2018)?
APPENDIX
No.
Application
no.
Lodged on
Applicant name
date of birth
Date of conviction
Place of detention
The applicant’s particular complaints
3234/17*
19/12/2016
Stepan Vasilyevich KUCHEV
13/02/1984
08/06/2010
IK-18, Kharp, Yamalo-Nenetskiy Region
27003/17*
10/04/2017
Konstantin Igorevich MOLCHANOV
19/07/1966
23/12/2005
IK-18, Kharp, Yamalo-Nenetskiy Region
Art. 8: the remote location of the applicant’s correctional colony from his previous place of residence in Saratov, where his relatives live
Art. 13: lack of effective remedies in respect of the above-mentioned violation
31067/17*
22/03/2017
Aslan Bashirovich KUCHMENOV
19/02/1980
23/12/2014
IK-56, Ivdel, Sverdlovskiy Region
36765/17*
14/05/2017
Roman Sergeyevich KALININ
05/07/1984
04/02/2010
IK-56, Ivdel, Sverdlovskiy Region (from 4/12/2010 until 03/09/2017)
IK-6, Elban, Khabarovsk Region
Art. 3: conditions of detention in IK-56
Art. 8: the remote location of the applicant’s correctional colony from his previous place of residence in Chita (about 4,000 km) where his relatives live
Art. 13: lack of effective remedies in respect of the above-mentioned violations
40270/17
07/11/2017
Vladimir Yuryevich CHEKULDAYEV
29/03/1977
19/08/2016
IK-56, Ivdel, Sverdlovskiy Region
Art. 3 the applicant, who is a HIV positive and suffers from hepatitis B and C, complains about the about the relevant detention facility’s failure to provide him with requisite medical assistance
80574/17*
31/10/2017
Andrey Aleksandrovich BAYDIN
27/04/1978
24/11/2004
IK-18, Kharp, Yamalo-Nenetskiy Region
Art. 8: the remote location of the applicant’s correctional colony from his previous place of residence where his family live (about 3,000 km)
Art. 13: lack of effective remedies in respect of the above-mentioned violations
5487/18*
10/01/2018
Andrey Valeryevich POLICHEV
29/01/1988
26/04/2011
IK-56, Ivdel, Sverdlovskiy Region
(from 6/12/2015 until 05/01/2018)
IK-6, Elban, Khabarovsk Region
Art. 3: conditions of detention in IK-56
Art. 8: the remote location of the applicant’s correctional colony from his previous place of residence in Zakamensk (about 3,000 km) where his relatives live
Art. 13: lack of effective remedies in respect of the above-mentioned violations
15962/18*
28/06/2018
Kirill Sergeyevich KAZAKOV
23/09/1986p
09/04/2008
IK-18, Kharp, Yamalo-Nenetskiy Region
40282/18*
02/11/2018
Aleksandr Yuryevich GOLOTIN
14/10/1978
27/03/2003
OIK-2, Solikamsk, Perm Region
Art. 8: the remote location of the applicant’s correctional colony from his previous place of residence in Yaroslavl (about 2,000 km) where his relatives live
Art. 13: lack of effective remedies in respect of the above-mentioned violation
46079/18*
12/09/2018
Sergey Dmitriyevich KOTOV
06/11/1964
05/03/2007
IK-18, Kharp, Yamalo-Nenetskiy Region
Art. 8: the remote location of the applicant’s correctional colony from his previous place of residence in the Omsk Region (about 2,500 km) where his elderly mother lives
Art. 13: lack of effective remedies in respect of the above-mentioned violation
54779/18
22/10/2018
Oleg Vladimirovich SHELEPOV
20/10/1981
20/12/2004
IK-18, Kharp, Yamalo-Nenetskiy Region
56279/18*
06/11/2018
Aleksey Nikolayevich CHIRKIN
31/08/1980
29/01/2004
OIK-2, Solikamsk, Perm Region
56716/18
08/11/2018
Ruslan Rishatovich BEKMURZIN
15/07/1982
Sergey Pavlovich SHAKHMATOV
07/02/1963
26/08/2008
22/05/2007
IK-18, Kharp, Yamalo-Nenetskiy Region
6703/19
15/01/2019
Oleg Alekseyevich VANTEYEV
29/04/1966
18/09/2004
IK-18, Kharp, Yamalo-Nenetskiy Region
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy