FIRST SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 11303/12
Aleksandr Yuryevich NOVIKOV
against Russia
The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting on 10 December 2013 as a Chamber composed of:
Isabelle Berro-Lefèvre, President,
Elisabeth Steiner,
Khanlar Hajiyev,
Mirjana Lazarova Trajkovska,
Julia Laffranque,
Ksenija Turković,
Dmitry Dedov, judges,
and Søren Nielsen, Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 17 February 2012,
Having regard to the observations submitted by the respondent Government and the observations in reply submitted by the applicant,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
THE FACTS
1. The applicant, Mr Aleksandr Yuryevich Novikov, is a Russian national, who was born in 1978 and lived until his arrest in the town of Kemerovo, Kemerovo Region. He is serving a sentence in a correctional colony.
2. The Russian Government (“the Government”) were represented by Mr G. Matyushkin, the Representative of the Russian Federation at the European Court of Human Rights.
A. The circumstances of the case
3. The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.
1. Conditions of detention
4. From 2 February 2010 to 15 December 2011 the applicant was detained in correctional colony no. 6 in the city of Omsk.
(a) The applicant’s version of events
i. Conditions of detention in colony dormitories
5. In his application form the applicant submitted that the conditions of his detention in the colony had been appalling. He insisted that he had been placed in a dormitory which measured twenty-five metres in length and fifteen metres in width and housed 170 inmates. The dormitory was not equipped with a ventilation shaft. Inmates were allowed to smoke in the dormitory which, for a non-smoker such as the applicant, created an additional difficulty. The 170 inmates had to share a long sink with ten taps and a TV set. Frequent violent disputes arose over the TV set, as too many inmates had different viewing preferences. A lavatory room was in another building and was shared by three inmate divisions, that of the applicant which grouped together 170 detainees and two other divisions with an accumulated number of 195 inmates. Seven to ten inmates only were allowed to use the lavatory room at one time, therefore there was always a queue of inmates. Lavatory pans were not separated from each other with a partition, thus providing no privacy. In the spring of 2011 the applicant was transferred to division no. 8, which comprised 122 inmates accommodated in a dormitory of twenty metres by eleven metres. The applicant provided a similar description of the remaining conditions of his detention in that dormitory. He pointed out that in division no. 8 he had shared a 12 sq. m lavatory room with more than 300 inmates. The lavatory room had six dilapidated lavatory pans and six urinals, which were also in a dilapidated condition. The food was extremely poor and scarce. Furthermore, the applicant, who suffers from a number of illnesses of the digestive system, was in need of a special food regimen which was not provided.
6. The applicant supported his submissions with color photos of the dormitory room and the lavatory room. The photos of the dormitory room showed a large room with several rows of two-tier bunks. The room was lit by large ceiling lights. Light also penetrated through the windows. The room was clean and the metal bunks were not rusty. At the same time, photos of the lavatory room gave a very different picture. They showed what appeared to be a dark and small room whose floor was covered with soil, dirt and large piles of garbage. At the same time several rows of snow-white tiles on the walls and several new white toilet pans installed in a row could be seen on the photos. Large bags of a substance similar to cement or sand were in the corner of the room. Cables or pipes were laid on the floor. New-looking metal pipes were installed between the toilet pans. The floor around the pans was covered with a row of large modern-looking tiles.
ii. Conditions of detention in the colony medical unit
7. On 15 September 2011 the applicant slashed his wrists with a razor. He was taken to the medical unit where, following the refusal of the medical personnel to attend on him, inmates bandaged his wounds. The applicant stayed in the unit until 15 December 2011. He argued that the conditions of detention in the unit had been worse than those in the rest of the colony. He supported his submissions with four photos picturing a very small, dirty and cramped room. The photos also showed four inmates, all but one of whom were dressed in white shirts. Three two-tier bunks were installed in the room. The bunks left no space for the inmates to move around. The space between the bunks was barely sufficient for one person to stand in. The white door on the photo was closed. Several shelves were installed in one corner of the room. A small table was set between the two bunks. According to the applicant, room no. 2 where he was detained measured 3.40 metres in length and 2.30 metres in width, had six sleeping places and housed six inmates. There was no artificial ventilation and the applicant again suffered from the problem of being a single non-smoking person in a room where all other patients could smoke. The inmates did not have daily walks. With no right to leave the room, they were confined to it around the clock.
8. On 30 September 2011 the applicant asked an inmate working in the medical unit to dispatch two complaints to the Prosecutor General’s office and to the Federal Service for the Execution of Sentences. He described the conditions of his detention in the colony and its medical unit. However, two days later he was called to the office of the colony governor, where he discovered his two letters. The letters were in sealed envelopes. The colony governor interrogated the applicant about the content of the letters. On the same date the applicant again slashed his wrists. His relatives, notified of the incident by the applicant’s fellow inmates, called the Prosecutor General’s office and asked for a supervising prosecutor to be sent to colony no. 6 in Omsk due to massive human rights violations there.
9. On 2 October 2011 a deputy prosecutor for Omsk visited the colony and talked to the applicant. The applicant described the hardships of his detention in the colony in minute detail and suggested that the deputy prosecutor visit the medical unit and, in particular, room no. 2. The deputy prosecutor refused, citing his tight schedule. He, however, accepted a written complaint from the applicant. On another visit to the colony, on 17 October 2011, the same deputy prosecutor again talked to the applicant, having asked him to amend his previous complaint. He did not visit the medical unit.
10. The applicant sent another complaint to the Omsk Regional prosecutor’s office on 20 October 2011. His relatives also sent letters and called various government officials. In the applicant’s view, the deputy prosecutor’s visits to the colony were a reaction to his relatives’ complaints.
11. On 15 December 2011 the applicant was sent to penal facility no. 2 in Omsk.
(b) The Government’s version of events
i. Conditions of detention in colony dormitories
12. The Government, relying on certificates issued by the acting governor of colony no. 6, detailed plans of the colony and its buildings and photos made in the colony, submitted that for the first two weeks following his arrival at the colony on 2 December 2010 the applicant had remained in the colony intake (or “quarantine”) cell. The applicant shared the room of 114 sq. m with twenty other inmates. Twenty-six sleeping places were installed in the intake cell. On 16 December 2010 he was assigned to division no. 8 and was transferred to a dormitory of 201.6 sq. m accommodating ninety-nine inmates, including the applicant. A hundred bunks were installed in the dormitory. The applicant had his own sleeping place at all times. The applicant’s dormitory room was on the second floor of a two-story stone building. Every health and safety regulation, including those which regulate lighting, ventilation, heating and so on, was respected. Natural ventilation in the dormitory was ensured through six large windows of approximately 4 sq. m each and small window casings which inmates could open. A radiator was installed under each window. The dormitory was also equipped with a fully functioning artificial ventilation system. Smoking was not allowed in the dormitories. The colony had special yards for smokers. The lavatory room of the dormitory to which division no. 8 was assigned had running water and was equipped with ten toilet pans, fifteen urinals and ten sinks with taps. The regulations in force mandating a water tap per ten inmates and a toilet pan per fifteen inmates were complied with in the colony. The colony used water from the city’s local water supply system, with inmates being provided with both hot and cold water all year round. In addition, a large bucket of drinking water was provided in the dormitory for the inmates’ use. The water in the bucket was changed daily.
13. The Government further stated that once a week inmates in groups of forty had the right to use the colony bathing facility, which was equipped with sixteen shower heads. The dormitory was not locked and inmates, including the applicant, could, without any limitation, enjoy freedom of movement within the grounds of the correctional colony. They could stay outside the dormitory building in the yards or could go to a club, the colony shop or the library, spend time in church or visit a doctor in the medical unit, if needed. The Government also provided a copy of inmates’ daily schedule. Following a wake-up call at 6.00 a.m., thirty minutes were spent on physical exercise and morning hygiene. After an inmate population roll call at 6.30 a.m., detainees had breakfast and then performed various chores in the colony, cleaning its grounds and so on. They had free time between 10 a.m. and 12.30 p.m. in which they could watch TV, see a movie or go to a library. Another hour and a half of free time followed an hour-long lunch. Between 3 and 5.30 p.m. inmates took part in educational activities and sports, which were again followed by an hour and a half of work in the colony grounds. After dinner inmates again had to perform chores and had another hour of free time. A lights-out call at 10 p.m. was preceded by a roll call of the colony population. Inmates had more free time on weekends. The standard schedule could vary significantly if an inmate took classes at the colony school or was employed in the colony production shops, which appears not to have been the case in respect of the applicant. Inmates ate in the colony canteen, a room of 340.7 sq. m accommodating a maximum of 276 inmates. Each division visited the canteen according to their schedule and had thirty minutes to eat.
14. Photos submitted by the Government showed a large canteen, a bathing facility, the dormitory of division no. 8, a lavatory room, a small kitchen adjoining the dormitory where the applicant had stayed, a recreation room and the yard assigned to the applicant’s dormitory building. The Government also provided photos of a bucket for drinking water, of an artificial ventilation vent in the dormitory and of the colony duty office. According to the Government, reconstruction works were performed in the colony in 2011. The photos showed renovated and clean facilities. In particular, the equipment in the lavatory room was new. Toilet pans were separated from each other by high partitions. The walls in the lavatory room and bathing facilities were covered with colorful tiles. Walls in the dormitory were freshly painted. The two-tier bunks were not rusty or dirty. The photos showed a large and sufficiently lit dormitory room with rows of bunks with clean bedding on them. A small stool was placed by each bunk. Bunks were separated from each other by wooden bedside tables where inmates could store their personal belongings. A large aquarium was installed in the canteen. Photos also showed several light wooden tables surrounded by chairs. Another photo showed a room where inmates could watch TV sitting on long wooden bunks.
ii. Conditions of detention in the colony medical unit
15. Having commented on the applicant’s claims about the conditions of his detention in the medical unit, the Government stressed that the applicant had never been detained there. They stated that on 15 September 2011 following an act of self-mutilation the applicant had been taken to the medical unit, where his wound had been treated and bandaged. He was immediately released from the unit. In any event, the Government provided the following description of the colony medical unit. The unit had five rooms, which all together measured 80 sq. m. The unit had twenty-one beds. Each room had a lavatory. The Government submitted a list of names of every inmate detained in the medical unit between 15 September and 15 December 2011, having indicated their diagnosis and the period of their treatment in the unit. The applicant was not among them. They supported their list with a copy of an extract from the inmate log drawn up in the unit during those three months. The log did not contain any signs of amendment or rectifications. The names of the inmates were listed in order according to the date of their admission to the unit. Each entry was numbered starting with no. 268 and showing the date on which the inmate was admitted to the unit. The first entry was made on 11 September 2011 with inmate no. 268.
2. Other complaints
16. The applicant submitted that on his transfer to correctional colony no. 6 in Omsk colony warders had beaten him up and had left him kneeling in the snow for twenty minutes. The beating had been prompted by the applicant’s refusal to jump out of a prison van, as he had been afraid to injure his weak knees. The ill-treatment had allegedly continued in an intake cell when the applicant had refused to wash the floor. The applicant also complained of an extremely degrading procedure of admission to the colony, including a body search during which inmates had been stripped naked and their personal belongings and warm clothes had either been damaged or seized. Following his arrival at the colony, the applicant had been detained for ten days in the intake cell in appalling conditions. On a number of occasions he had been beaten up by warders and had been placed in a punishment cell for petty disciplinary offences.
B. Relevant domestic law
1. Code on the Execution of Criminal Sentences: personal space in a dormitory
17. Article 99 of the Code on the Execution of Criminal Sentences of 8 January 1997, as amended, provides that the personal space allocated to each individual in a dormitory should be no less than 2 sq. m. Inmates are to be provided with individual sleeping places, bed sheets, toiletries and seasonal clothes.
C. Relevant Council of Europe Documents
18. The relevant extracts from the General Reports of the European Committee for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (“the CPT”) read as follows:
Extracts from the 2nd General Report [CPT/Inf (92) 3]
“46. Overcrowding is an issue of direct relevance to the CPT’s mandate. All the services and activities within a prison will be adversely affected if it is required to cater for more prisoners than it was designed to accommodate; the overall quality of life in the establishment will be lowered, perhaps significantly. Moreover, the level of overcrowding in a prison, or in a particular part of it, might be such as to be in itself inhuman or degrading from a physical standpoint.
47. A satisfactory programme of activities (work, education, sport, etc.) is of crucial importance for the well-being of prisoners ... [P]risoners cannot simply be left to languish for weeks, possibly months, locked up in their cells, and this regardless of how good material conditions might be within the cells. The CPT considers that one should aim at ensuring that prisoners in remand establishments are able to spend a reasonable part of the day (8 hours or more) outside their cells, engaged in purposeful activity of a varied nature ...
48. Specific mention should be made of outdoor exercise. The requirement that prisoners be allowed at least one hour of exercise in the open air every day is widely accepted as a basic safeguard ... It is also axiomatic that outdoor exercise facilities should be reasonably spacious ...
49. Ready access to proper toilet facilities and the maintenance of good standards of hygiene are essential components of a humane environment ...
50. The CPT would add that it is particularly concerned when it finds a combination of overcrowding, poor regime activities and inadequate access to toilet/washing facilities in the same establishment. The cumulative effect of such conditions can prove extremely detrimental to prisoners.
51. It is also very important for prisoners to maintain reasonably good contact with the outside world. Above all, a prisoner must be given the means of safeguarding his relationships with his family and close friends. The guiding principle should be the promotion of contact with the outside world; any limitations upon such contact should be based exclusively on security concerns of an appreciable nature or resource considerations ...”
Extracts from the 7th General Report [CPT/Inf (97) 10]
“13. As the CPT pointed out in its 2nd General Report, prison overcrowding is an issue of direct relevance to the Committee’s mandate (cf. CPT/Inf (92) 3, paragraph 46). An overcrowded prison entails cramped and unhygienic accommodation; a constant lack of privacy (even when performing such basic tasks as using a sanitary facility); reduced out-of-cell activities, due to demand outstripping the staff and facilities available; overburdened health-care services; increased tension and hence more violence between prisoners and between prisoners and staff. This list is far from exhaustive.
The CPT has been led to conclude on more than one occasion that the adverse effects of overcrowding have resulted in inhuman and degrading conditions of detention ...”
Extracts from the 11th General Report [CPT/Inf (2001) 16]
“28. The phenomenon of prison overcrowding continues to blight penitentiary systems across Europe and seriously undermines attempts to improve conditions of detention. The negative effects of prison overcrowding have already been highlighted in previous General Reports ...
29. In a number of countries visited by the CPT, particularly in central and eastern Europe, inmate accommodation often consists of large capacity dormitories which contain all or most of the facilities used by prisoners on a daily basis, such as sleeping and living areas as well as sanitary facilities. The CPT has objections to the very principle of such accommodation arrangements in closed prisons and those objections are reinforced when, as is frequently the case, the dormitories in question are found to hold prisoners under extremely cramped and insalubrious conditions ... Large-capacity dormitories inevitably imply a lack of privacy for prisoners in their everyday lives ... All these problems are exacerbated when the numbers held go beyond a reasonable occupancy level; further, in such a situation the excessive burden on communal facilities such as washbasins or lavatories and the insufficient ventilation for so many persons will often lead to deplorable conditions.”
COMPLAINTS
19. The applicant complained under Articles 3 and 13 of the Convention that the conditions of his detention in the correctional colony and its medical unit had been appalling and that there had not been effective remedies to complain of a violation of his right to adequate conditions of detention.
20. The applicant further complained under various Convention provisions of beatings by warders, a humiliating admission procedure to the colony, his detention in a punishment cell and the conditions of his detention in the colony intake cell.
THE LAW
I.COMPLAINTS ABOUT THE CONDITIONS OF DETENTION AND LACK OF AN EFFECTIVE REMEDY
21. The applicant complained that he had been held for a year in appalling conditions in correctional colony no. 6 and its medical unit in violation of the requirements of Article 3 of the Convention, which reads as follows:
“No one shall be subjected to torture or to inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.”
He also argued that he had not had at his disposal an effective remedy for the violation of the guarantees against ill-treatment, which is required under Article 13 of the Convention:
“Everyone whose rights and freedoms as set forth in [the] Convention are violated shall have an effective remedy before a national authority ...”
A. Submissions by the parties
22. The Government started by arguing that the applicant’s conditions of detention in the correctional colony had not run counter to the guarantees of Article 3 of the Convention. Having provided a detailed description of those conditions, they stressed that every legal rule governing detention of inmates in the Russian Federation had been respected in colony no. 6 in Omsk. The applicant had had sufficient personal space in the dormitory, where he had only remained at night, and, in addition, he had enjoyed freedom of movement within the grounds of the colony during the day, having had a choice of going to the library, the recreation room or a yard. He had also performed certain cleaning tasks around the colony grounds during the day, which had meant his being outside the dormitory. The Government concluded by stating that the applicant had not proven beyond reasonable doubt that he had been detained in the colony in conditions in violation of Article 3 of the Convention. As regards the applicant’s claims concerning the conditions of his detention in the medical unit, the Government merely stated that the applicant had never been detained there.
23. The Government proceeded to argue that the applicant had not exhausted available domestic remedies by having failed to lodge a civil claim with a Russian court. His attempt to do so had been ineffective. The Government, relying on copies of the applicant’s claim and of a Russian court’s decision, submitted that the applicant had brought an action before a court and had later withdrawn it after the court’s instruction to comply with certain procedural requirements. The Government therefore submitted that there had been no violation of Article 13 of the Convention in the present case, as an effective remedy had been open to the applicant but he had chosen not to resort to it.
24. The applicant disputed the Government’s submissions pertaining to the description of the recreation, lavatory and bathing facilities. He further stated that every photo produced by them was a forgery. In particular, he argued that the lavatory room which he had used while detained in division no. 8 had measured 12 sq. m and that more than 300 inmates from divisions nos. 8, 12 and 15 had used it. He further stressed that the Government’s photo of the yard did not show that the yard belonged to the dormitory building where he had been kept. The yard used by division no. 8 had been too small, and therefore the Government had decided to switch locations so the Court would not see from the photos how small the yard had been for 300 inmates. The applicant stressed that his statements could be supported by a number of inmates who had been detained in various detention facilities in the Omsk Region and who had lodged complaints with the Court in 2006, 2007, 2009 and the beginning of 2010.
25. The applicant further submitted that the Government had omitted to inform the Court that colony no. 6 had three medical units and that he had stayed in unit no. 2. The Government had provided the Court with documents from another unit, where, of course, he had not been treated. At the same time, the applicant noted that certain inmates mentioned in the copy of the log provided by the Government had stayed in the medical unit together with him.
26. Having addressed the Government’s argument of non-exhaustion and availability of effective remedies, the applicant commented that his complaints to the prosecution authorities had been futile, as the prosecutors’ task was to “shield” the colony officials. Any complaints by him to a court could not have had any other effect, as he did not believe in justice in Russia. He was also afraid of the repercussions should he have proceeded with his judicial complaints.
B. The Court’s assessment
1. Conditions of detention complaints
27. The Court does not lose sight of the Government’s non-exhaustion objection, but it does not consider it necessary to examine the issue at this juncture because the applicant’s complaints about the conditions of his detention are in any event inadmissible for the following reasons.
28. 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 the suffering and humiliation involved must 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).
29. Turning to the facts of the present case, the Court observes that the applicant was detained for slightly over a year in correctional colony no. 6 in Omsk. According to the Government, during the entire period, save for the first two weeks when he was kept in an intake cell, the applicant lived in the colony dormitory. The applicant, however, argued that for three months between 15 September and 15 December 2011 he had stayed in the colony medical unit, where conditions had allegedly been far worse than those in the colony itself.
30. The parties have disputed many aspects of the conditions of the applicant’s detention in the colony. The Court is accordingly faced with the task of establishing facts on which the parties disagree. It reiterates in this respect that allegations of treatment contrary to Article 3 must be supported by appropriate evidence. In assessing evidence, the Court has generally applied the standard of proof “beyond reasonable doubt” (see Ireland v. the United Kingdom, 18 January 1978, § 161, Series A no. 25). However, Convention proceedings, such as the present application, do not in all cases lend themselves to a rigorous application of the principle affirmanti incumbit probatio (he who alleges something must prove that allegation) because in certain instances the respondent Government alone have access to information capable of corroborating or refuting allegations. A failure on a Government’s part to submit such information without a satisfactory explanation may give rise to the drawing of inferences as to the validity of the applicant’s allegations (see, among other authorities, Kokoshkina v. Russia, no. 2052/08, § 59, 28 May 2009, and Ahmet Özkan and Others v. Turkey, no. 21689/93, § 426, 6 April 2004).
31. The Court observes at the outset that it needs to determine whether the applicant stayed in the colony medical unit. The applicant supported his description of the detention conditions in the unit with color photos showing four inmates in a very cramped room. He argued that the photos had been taken during his stay in the unit. The Government, however, provided a copy of the registration log listing names of every inmate who had been admitted to the medical unit between 15 September and 15 December 2011. The applicant’s name was not in the list. In this respect, the Court observes that it is not able to attribute any evidentiary value to the photos produced by the applicant, as they do not make it possible to identify when and where they were taken. Moreover, the applicant did not produce any other probative materials (for instance, statements by other patients who had shared the room in the medical unit with him) which could have strengthened the evidentiary weight of the photos and persuaded the Court as to the applicant’s contention. At the same time, a copy of the registration log submitted by the Government, bearing no signs of manipulation, alteration or forgery, unequivocally shows that the applicant was not a medical unit patient during the above-mentioned period. The applicant’s argument that the colony had three medical units was also not supported by any species of proof. In addition, his confusing statement that he had undergone in-patient treatment together with certain inmates included in the Government’s log provides an indirect support to the latter’s argument that the colony did not have any other medical unit. Accordingly, the applicant failed to convince the Court beyond reasonable doubt that he had been kept in the colony medical unit and his complaint about the detention conditions in the unit should therefore be dismissed for being manifestly ill-founded.
32. The Court will proceed with an examination of the applicant’s complaint about the general conditions of his detention in the colony. In his application form the applicant argued that he had been detained in overcrowded conditions during the entire period of his detention in the colony, having been forced to share either a 375 sq. m room with 170 inmates or a 220 sq. m room with 122 inmates. He submitted that he had had approximately 2 sq. m of personal space, given the number of people detained in the dormitory and its maximum design capacity. He supported his submissions with colour photos of the dormitory room confirming that the inmates’ personal space was limited to their sleeping place and a passage between the bunks. The Government in turn argued that the applicant had had an individual sleeping place at all times and had been afforded no less than 2 sq. m of personal space during the entire period of his detention. It appears that following the communication of the case to the Government the applicant no longer insisted on his measurements of the dormitory room and the number of inmates detained in it. The Court, therefore, does not need to settle the differences between the parties’ submissions, having accepted the Government’s description of the size of the dormitory, the number of detainees and the 2 sq. m of personal space afforded to the applicant.
33. The Court reiterates that in a number of cases the lack of personal space afforded to detainees in Russian remand centres was so extreme as to justify in itself a finding of a violation of Article 3 of the Convention. In those cases applicants were usually afforded less than 3.5 sq. m of personal space (see, among others, Lind v. Russia, no. 25664/05, § 59, 6 December 2007). At the same time, the Court has always refused to determine, once and for all, how many square metres should be allocated to a detainee in terms of the Convention, having considered that a number of other relevant factors, such as the duration of detention, the opportunities for outdoor exercise, the physical and mental condition of the detainee and so on, play an important part in deciding whether the detention conditions complied with the guarantees of Article 3 of the Convention (see Trepashkin v. Russia, no. 36898/03, § 92, 19 July 2007). When assessing post-trial detention facilities such as correctional colonies in Russia, the Court has considered that personal space should be viewed in the context of the applicable regime, providing for detainees in correctional colonies to benefit from a wider freedom of movement during the daytime than those subject to other types of detention regime and their resulting unobstructed access to natural light and air. In a number of cases the Court has found that the freedom of movement allowed to inmates in a colony and unobstructed access to natural light and air have served as sufficient compensation for the scarce allocation of space per convict (see, among others, Valašinas v. Lithuania, no. 44558/98, §§ 103 and 107, 24 July 2001; Nurmagomedov v. Russia (dec.), no. 30138/02, 16 September 2004; Shkurenko v. Russia (dec.), no. 15010/04, 10 September 2009; and Orlov v. Russia, no. 29652/04, § 77, 21 June 2011).
34. The present case is not different from the cases cited above. The Court is convinced that other aspects of the applicant’s detention compensated for the cramped living conditions in the dormitory. The Government argued that the adverse effect of the limited personal space in the dormitory room was considerably mitigated by the freedom of most detainees to spend time away from the dormitory. They supported their submissions with photos of a very large yard adjacent to the dormitory building, of a recreation room where inmates were allowed to watch TV, of a large canteen where they ate and of a dormitory kitchen where they could prepare food themselves. The Government also submitted a copy of the inmates’ daily schedule, according to which detainees spent the major part of their day outside of the dormitory. The applicant did not dispute the Government’s submissions that he had been able to take part in performing chores in the colony, such as cleaning of the colony grounds, or could visit the library or watch TV or take part in other activities, including outdoor exercise and school and vocational training. The applicant also did not challenge the Government’s assertion that he had had the opportunity to have at least two hours’ daily outdoor exercise and that it had been open to him to work in the colony’s small production shops (see paragraph 13 above).
35. In the Court’s opinion, even though the applicant must have experienced a certain amount of distress and hardship resulting from his having limited personal space in the dormitory at night time, this fact alone is insufficient to conclude that the situation, as a whole, ran counter to the requirements of Article 3 of the Convention.
36. The Court will now examine the applicant’s allegations related to other aspects of his detention and, in particular, the poor hygiene conditions in the dormitory and the sanitary facilities. In this respect, the Court observes that both parties supported their submissions with photos of the facilities. However, while the photos of the dormitory produced both by the applicant and the Government show a rather large, luminous and clean room with rows of well-kept bunks with tidy bedding, the photos of the sanitary facilities tell two different stories. Relying on his photos, the applicant argued that the sanitary facilities had been in a deplorable state of repair and cleanliness. The Government provided photos of the entirely renovated lavatory and bathing facilities. The Court is mindful of the applicant’s argument that the Government had produced photos of sanitary premises belonging to another dormitory building. However, it finds particularly striking the similarities between the layouts of the facilities on the photos submitted by the parties. Furthermore, several lines of clean new tiles on the walls, snow-white toilet pans and new flooring around them, as well as large bags of concrete or a sand-like substance on the floor, all of which could be observed on the applicant’s photos, make the Court believe that the applicant’s and the Government’s photos show the same facilities at two stages of a reconstruction performed, as the Government stated, in 2011. In this respect, the Court notes that the applicant omitted to mention the repair works in his submissions. While the Court understands that the inmate population could have experienced certain difficulties during the reconstruction of the facilities, in the absence of complaints by the applicant related to the length of the works or a description of the particular hardships he had to endure during their duration, the Court does not consider that those conditions could amount in themselves to inhuman or degrading treatment. The Court also notes that the applicant did not provide any evidence in support of his argument that the sanitary facilities had been too small to accommodate the inmate population which had had access to them. His reference to applications lodged before the Court by detainees from the Omsk Region cannot serve as the proof of the statement, as neither of those applications concern the conditions of detention in colony no. 6 in Omsk. The Court has therefore based its findings on the Government’s submissions that no more than 100 inmates made use of the lavatory room. While 100 people sharing ten sinks, fifteen urinals and ten toilet pans could not be considered particularly comfortable, the Court cannot find that those practical arrangements were so unsuitable as to have subjected the applicant to treatment contrary to the requirements of Article 3 of the Convention.
37. Lastly, the Court observes that, as regards the applicant’s remaining allegations of poor catering, inadequate ventilation or permission to smoke in the dormitory, those complaints are rather vague and unsupported by any evidence, for instance by a detailed description of the meals served to the applicant during his imprisonment, and so forth.
38. Regard being had to the above, the Court cannot establish that the overall conditions of the applicant’s detention in correctional colony no. 6 in Omsk reached the threshold of severity required to characterise the treatment as inhuman or degrading within the meaning of Article 3 of the Convention.
39. To sum up, the Court concludes that the applicant’s complaints related to the conditions of his detention in that correctional colony, including his allegations of detention in the medical unit of the colony, are manifestly ill-founded and must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 §§ 3 (a) and 4 of the Convention.
2. Complaint of lack of an effective remedy
40. The applicant also complained that he had not had an effective domestic remedy for his complaints pertaining to the conditions of his detention, in breach of Article 13 of the Convention. The Court reiterates that a complaint may only be made under Article 13 in connection with a substantive claim which is “arguable” (see, for example, Hatton and Others v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 36022/97, § 137, ECHR 2003‑VIII, with further references, and Ashworth and Others v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 39561/98, 20 January 2004). The Court has found that the applicant’s complaints under Article 3 of the Convention concerning the conditions of his detention in correctional colony no. 6 and its medical unit are manifestly ill-founded and therefore inadmissible. It accordingly finds that that claim cannot be said to be “arguable” within the meaning of the Convention case-law (see, for similar reasoning, Danilina v. Russia (dec.), no. 5727/04, 11 March 2010).
41. It follows that the corresponding complaint under Article 13 is also manifestly ill-founded and must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 §§ 3 (a) and 4 of the Convention.
II. OTHER COMPLAINTS
42. The applicant also raised additional complaints related to his detention in the intake and punishment cells, the admission procedure in the colony and his treatment by warders. The Court has given careful consideration to these complaints in the light of all the material in its possession and considers that, in so far as the matters complained of are within its competence, that they do not disclose any appearance of a violation of the rights and freedoms set out in the Convention or its Protocols. It follows that this part of the application must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 §§ 3 (a) and 4 of the Convention.
For these reasons, the Court unanimously
Declares the application inadmissible.
Søren NielsenIsabelle Berro-Lefèvre
RegistrarPresident
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy