THIRD SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 51225/08
Sergey Ivanovich ROZOV
against Russia
The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting on 6 September 2016 as a Committee composed of:
Branko Lubarda, President,
Pere Pastor Vilanova,
Georgios A. Serghides, judges,
and Fatoş Aracı, Deputy Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 25 January 2009,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
THE FACTS
A. The circumstances of the case
The applicant, Mr Sergey Ivanovich Rozov, is a Russian national, who was born in 1964 and lives in Bezhetsk, the Tver Region.
While serving his sentence in penal medical facility no. 8 in the Tver Region, the applicant was transferred for treatment to the Tver Region prison hospital (ФКЛПУ ОБ УФСИН России по Тверской области), where he stayed from 8 to 31 October 2008. The parties provided differing descriptions of the ward in which the applicant was held.
According to the applicant’s initial submissions to the Court, the ward measured 16 sq. m, was equipped with eleven sleeping places and accommodated up to eleven inmates. The ward was infested with vermin and was not equipped with ventilation, and patients did not have regular opportunities for outdoor exercise.
The Government produced a certificate from the hospital manager dated 5 March 2014, according to which the applicant had been held together with five other inmates in a ward measuring 30.7 sq. m and had always had an individual sleeping place. The Government also produced photographs showing a ventilation shaft and single beds with enough space between them for inmates to move. Lastly, they furnished a daily schedule showing that time had been allocated for outdoor exercise.
B. Relevant domestic law
Under Article 99 §§ 1 and 2 of the Code on the Execution of Sentences of 8 January 1997, the space per inmate in a prison hospital should be no less than five square metres. Inmates must be provided with individual sleeping places, bed sheets, toiletries and seasonal clothes.
COMPLAINT
The applicant complained under Article 3 of the Convention that he had been detained in inhuman and degrading conditions.
THE LAW
The Court notes that the parties have disputed certain aspects of the conditions of the applicant’s detention in the prison hospital.
The Court reiterates that it adopts conclusions after evaluating all the evidence, including such inferences as may flow from the facts and the parties’ submissions. According to its established case-law, proof may follow from the coexistence of sufficiently strong, clear and concordant inferences or of similar unrebutted presumptions of fact (see, for example, Ananyev and Others v. Russia, nos. 42525/07 and 60800/08, § 121, 10 January 2012). In cases regarding conditions of detention the burden of proof may, under certain circumstances, be shifted to the authorities (see Salman v. Turkey [GC], no. 21986/93, § 100, ECHR 2000-VII; see also Mathew v. the Netherlands, no. 24919/03, § 156, ECHR 2005 IX). Nevertheless, an applicant must provide an elaborate and consistent account of the conditions of his or her detention, mentioning the specific elements which would enable the Court to determine that the complaint is not manifestly ill-founded or inadmissible on any other grounds.
In the present case, the Government contended that the applicant had been afforded adequate personal space and had an individual sleeping place in a duly equipped ward. Moreover, he had been allowed one hour of outdoor exercise daily. The Court lends credence to the Government’s submissions, which were corroborated by documentary evidence, whereas the applicant did not adduce any evidence capable of contradicting it.
Taking into account the cumulative effect of the conditions of the applicant’s detention in the Tver Region prison hospital and in particular the brevity of his stay there, the Court does not consider that the conditions reached the threshold of severity required to characterise the treatment as inhuman or degrading within the meaning of Article 3 of the Convention.
It follows that this complaint is manifestly ill-founded and must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 §§ 3 and 4 of the Convention.
For these reasons, the Court, unanimously,
Declares the application inadmissible.
Done in English and notified in writing on 29 September 2016.
Fatoş AracıBranko Lubarda
Deputy RegistrarPresident
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy