Communicated on 4 August 2020
Published on 24 August 2020
THIRD SECTION
Applications nos. 60840/19 and 3967/20
Sergey Aleksandrovich PISKUNOV against Russia
and Maksim Igorevich OSTOLOPOV against Russia
lodged on 2 October 2019 and 17 December 2019 respectively
SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASES
The applicants in the present cases were convicted of different crimes and serve their sentences in special prisons for lifers. The applicant in case no. 60840/19 was detained for some periods of time in a remand prison.
Application no. 60840/19 concerns the use of handcuffs during the applicant’s detention in a remand prison and his transfer between the prisons on the ground that he is a life prisoner (see Kashavelov v. Bulgaria, no. 891/05, §§ 39 and 40, 20 January 2011, and Kaverzin v. Ukraine, no. 23893/03, §§ 151-63, 15 May 2012); detention in a cage at court hearings (see Svinarenko and Slyadnev v. Russia [GC], nos. 32541/08 and 43441/08, §§ 77-139, ECHR 2014 (extracts)); and lack of effective remedies to complain about handcuffing and detention in a cage.
Application no. 3967/20 concerns poor conditions of detention after conviction (see Sergey Babushkin v. Russia, no. 5993/08, 28 November 2013).
QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES
Application no. 60840/19
1. Did the application of handcuffs to the applicant constitute inhuman or degrading treatment within the meaning of Article 3 of the Convention (see Kashavelov, cited above, §§ 39-40; Kaverzin, cited above, §§ 151-63)? What were the reasons and legal grounds for applying the above measure to the applicant? The Government are invited to indicate the periods when the applicant was subjected to the above measure and to provide supporting documents, if any.
2. Was the applicant subjected to degrading treatment, in breach of Article 3 of the Convention, on account of his confinement in a metal cage in the courtroom (see Svinarenko and Slyadnev, cited above, §§ 113-39, and Vorontsov and Others v. Russia, nos. 59655/14 and 2 others, § 31, 31 January 2017)?
3. Did the applicant have at his disposal an effective domestic remedy for the complaints about handcuffing and confinement in a cage under Article 3, as required by Article 13 of the Convention?
Application no. 3967/20
Were the conditions of the applicant’s detention after conviction compatible with Article 3 of the Convention (see Sergey Babushkin, cited above, §§ 46-58)?
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy