Communicated on 6 July 2015
FIRST SECTION
Application no. 13311/10
Jingcai LIU
against Russia
lodged on 6 March 2010
STATEMENT OF FACTS
1. The applicant, Mr Liu Jingcai, is a Chinese national, who was born in 1968.
2. The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows.
A. The circumstances of the case
3. On 22 October 2009 the applicant was arrested and brought to the Khabarovsk Administrative Detention Centre where he stayed until 27 November 2009.
4. The detention centre had no shower facilities or a place for outdoor walks. The applicant’s cell was cold and humid, iron bunks were not covered by mattresses. Toilets were not separated from the living area, and the persons using them were in full view of others. Food supply was inadequate, the applicant was served meals only once a day and had no drinking water from within the cell.
5. On 27 October 2009 the applicant’s wife, Ms Liu, sought to visit the applicant, which was refused.
6. The applicant brought a civil claim for compensation in respect of non-pecuniary damage, arguing that the conditions of his detention were inhuman and degrading, and that the prohibition on family visits was unlawful.
7. On 9 February 2011 the Industrialnyy District Court of Khabarovsk rejected the claim. Relying on the statements of the representative of the detention centre, the court found that the conditions of the applicant’s detention were different from what he had described in his written pleadings and dismissed the applicant’s claim for compensation. As regards the refusal of a family visit, the District Court observed that the Internal Rules of Administrative Detention Centres did not make provision for family visits, and that the applicant’s right to family life was not breached as he could meet his wife during court hearings.
8. On 18 May 2011 the Khabarovsk Regional Court upheld the judgment on appeal.
B. Relevant domestic law
9. According to Article 25 of the Internal Rules of Administrative Detention Centres, inmates do not have the right to family visits during their detention.
COMPLAINTS
The applicant complains under Article 3 of the Convention about the inhuman and degrading conditions of detention in the Khabarovsk Administrative Detention Centre. He also complains under Article 8 of the Convention about prohibition on family visits during his detention.
QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES
1. Have the conditions of the applicant’s detention in the Khabarovsk Administrative Detention Centre been compatible with Article 3 of the Convention? The Government are requested to provide original documents relating to the conditions of detention, including the building and cell plans, registers of inmates, food rations and other relevant records.
2. Has there been a violation of the applicant’s right to respect for his family life, contrary to Article 8 of the Convention, with regard to the prohibition on visits by his wife to the detention facility? In particular, was the prohibition “necessary in a democratic society”, as required by Article 8 § 2 of the Convention?
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy