THIRD SECTION
PARTIAL DECISION
AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF
Application no. 17892/03
by Valerijs SAVIČS
against Latvia
The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting on 11 May 2010 as a Chamber composed of:
Josep Casadevall, President,
Elisabet Fura,
Corneliu Bîrsan,
Boštjan M. Zupančič,
Alvina Gyulumyan,
Ineta Ziemele,
Ann Power, judges,
and Santiago Quesada, Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 21 May 2003,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
THE FACTS
1. The applicant, Mr Valerijs Savičs, is a Latvian national who was born in 1966 and is currently serving a life sentence in Jelgava prison.
A. The circumstances of the case
2. The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows.
The applicant's arrest
3. On 24 September 2002 at about 9.00 p.m., the applicant was stopped in the street and three police officers took him to a police station in Kauguri, Jūrmala. It appears that he was placed under administrative arrest, a measure envisaged by the Code of Administrative Violations (Administratīvo pārkāpumu kodekss).
4. On the following day at about 4.00 a.m., he was transferred to a short-term detention facility in Dubulti, Jūrmala. The applicant was brought before a judge at the Jūrmala (City) Court, who found him guilty of an administrative offence and authorised his administrative arrest for 15 days.
5. On 3 October 2002 the applicant was remanded in custody on suspicion of having committed criminal offences. He was transferred to Central prison in Rīga.
The applicant's trial
6. On 25 September 2003 the Zemgale Regional Court convicted the applicant on 11 counts, including aggravated murder, robbery, rape and sexual assault, and sentenced him to life imprisonment. The conviction was based on testimony given by his co-accused, who confessed to having committed the crimes together with the applicant, testimony given by several victims and witnesses, and forensic evidence. The applicant confessed to certain charges. On 25 September he was transferred to Jelgava prison.
7. On 24 February 2004 the Criminal Chamber of the Supreme Court upheld the verdict on appeal. The applicant's request to summon L.D., who was neither a direct witness nor a victim, was refused. In the first-instance court she had been excused from attending the hearings for medical reasons. It was noted that the applicant's submissions before the first-instance court and the appellate court differed. Before the first-instance court he had confessed to two offences which he later denied having committed, while before the appellate court the he denied having committed one offence to which he had confessed before the first-instance court.
8. On 18 May 2004, in a preparatory meeting, the Criminal Department of the Senate of the Supreme Court dismissed the applicant's appeal on points of law. His complaint that the witness L.D. had not been summoned to the appellate court hearings was rejected because L.D. had not been able to attend the hearing for health reasons.
9. Subsequently and at regular intervals, the applicant has approached different domestic authorities with a view to re-opening the proceedings.
Events of 16 March 2004
10. On 16 March 2004 the applicant was conveyed to a court building to acquaint himself with the case materials, namely the minutes of the appellate court hearings.
11. The version of events as established by the domestic authorities is that the applicant fled when his handcuffs were removed to enable him to read the materials. He was caught minutes later, downstairs in the same building, by patrolling policemen.
12. The applicant's version of the events is that he was not allowed to read the minutes of the hearings and that he was taken to “a cell” in a court-house. He was then forced to sign a protocol stating that he had read the minutes. After his handcuffs were removed, he was told to leave the cell and was accompanied by a police officer. He and the police officer walked into an empty court room through one door and the applicant continued walking, eventually walking out of that room through the opposite doors since nobody ordered him to stop. Then, in the corridor, policemen ran towards him, handcuffed him, took him back to the cell and beat him.
13. On 6 April 2004, in response to the applicant's complaint to the Prosecutor General, the police authorities concluded that the force used against the applicant had been in accordance with domestic law and that disciplinary penalties had been imposed on three police officers for their negligence during the applicant's escape.
Daugavpils prison – solitary confinement
14. On 16 December 2004 the applicant was transferred to Daugavpils prison. He contended that he had been placed alone in a cell for more than two years.
15. Following his numerous complaints, on 25 August 2005 the Ministry of Justice replied that under section 504 of the Penal Code maximum-security prisoners could be placed in a single cell for a period of up to six months. He had not been placed in one for longer than that. On 25 April 2006 the Daugavpils prison administration again explained the situation to the applicant. On 5 September 2006 the Prison Administration replied that the applicable domestic law had not been contravened in that regard.
16. On 24 April 2007 the Prison Administration replied that in 2005 the applicant had been placed in a cell together with other prisoners twice, and in 2006 three times, and accordingly there had been no contravention of domestic law.
Regime in the Daugavpils prison, including full searches
17. On 6 and 20 May, 3 June, 19 and 26 July and 6, 24 and 30 August 2005 full searches were performed by prison guards in the applicant's cell and on his person. On 6 and 20 May and 26 July 2005 the prison guards handcuffed the applicant and undressed him using force. On 24 and 30 August 2005 special measures (electric shock and truncheon) were used when he refused to obey the instructions of the prison guards to undress for a full search, used offensive language and refused to hold his hands out for handcuffing. Following these incidents, reports were drawn up and disciplinary action was taken against the applicant. On 5 August 2005, in response to the applicant's complaint, the Ministry of Justice explained that the execution of custodial sentences under the Penal Code was supervised by the Prosecutor General and his subordinate prosecutors.
18. On 26 July 2005 the applicant applied to the prosecutor's office with a complaint about the full search carried out on his cell and his person that day. His complaint was forwarded to the Prison Administration and on 22 August the latter replied that the Daugavpils prison administration had not contravened domestic law. On 20 September the prosecutor's office replied to a complaint by the applicant about his alleged ill-treatment. No evidence of ill-treatment was found. The applicant himself, during a meeting with a prosecutor, did not mention any instances of ill-treatment. It was noted that pursuant to domestic law, searches of prisoners' cells and bodies were to be performed at least twice a month. It was also noted that the search of the applicant had been performed in accordance with the law.
19. On 6 October 2006 the Constitutional Court did not allow a constitutional complaint lodged by the applicant about order no. 2 (4 January 2005) of the Daugavpils prison administration adopting the rules for prisoners serving life sentences. It noted that these rules were not a legal act but merely a guideline for implementing Cabinet Regulations no. 423 (2006) (in force from 3 June 2006). Accordingly, the Constitutional Court declared inadmissible the constitutional complaint as no legal act was in dispute.
20. On 27 December 2006 the applicant applied to the District Administrative Court inter alia to annul order no. 2 and order no. 75 and declare unlawful certain acts that he considered were of an administrative nature and constituted factual action. On 11 May 2007 the District Administrative Court did not allow his application with regard to order no. 2, and regarding the administrative acts and factual action he had failed to submit the additional information requested. The applicant did not appeal against that decision, which accordingly became final, and the documents he had submitted were sent back to the applicant on 7 June 2007.
21. The applicant also complained about order no. 75 (6 September 2006), which had replaced the previous rules, contained in order no. 2, for prisoners in the Daugavpils prison serving life sentences. He complained to the Supreme Court, which forwarded his complaint to the Ministry of Justice, where it was received on 21 December 2006. The Ministry of Justice also received another complaint from the applicant about the same orders and replied on 1 March 2007 that he should address such complaints to the Prison Administration, which was the competent institution in that regard. However, on 23 February 2007 the Prison Administration had already replied to the applicant, inter alia, that order no. 75 had replaced order no. 2. The applicant's substantive complaints remained unaddressed.
Daugavpils prison – personal appliances
22. On 30 June 2005 the Prison Administration replied to the applicant that according to domestic law he had to obtain a permit from the prison administration to have a heater or other electric device. It was noted that the procedure for obtaining such a permit had been explained to the applicant on several occasions, inter alia in a letter of 15 June 2005, where the procedure for obtaining personal electric heaters was also explained, however, the applicant had refused to follow it and submit a written application.
23. On 25 August 2005, acting on a complaint from the applicant, the Ministry of Justice pointed out that under domestic law the prison administration could remove a personal radio receiver from a prisoner for a period up to two months and store it in the prison's warehouse. Furthermore, prisoners were allowed to keep in their cells only those objects prescribed in Cabinet Regulations no. 73 (2002) (in force until 3 June 2006).
24. On 12 October 2005 the applicant's mother was informed by the Prison Administration that the personal radio receiver she had sent to the applicant had been confiscated for two months on 26 July as a disciplinary sanction. It was returned to him on 26 September 2005.
Daugavpils prison – copies of documents and registered letters
25. On 5 July 2005 the Daugavpils prison administration replied to the applicant that according to domestic law he could copy documents from his file and documents in relation to his criminal case free of charge.
26. On 29 August 2005 the Daugavpils Court replied to the applicant that he could complain to the District Administrative Court, with the help of a lawyer, about the Daugavpils prison administration's order no. 73 (1 July 2005) amending order no. 40 (11 April 2005) with the effect that prisoners could only be provided with documents and copies of documents connected with their criminal case files.
27. On 12 September 2005 the Constitutional Court replied to the applicant that it could not examine his application as it did not comply with the requirements for individual complaints. The applicant had complained about order no. 73. He also had alleged that he had been subjected to ill-treatment in Daugavpils prison. Finally, he had requested the Constitutional Court to “examine the situation in the Daugavpils prison”.
28. On 7 March 2006 a prosecutor informed the applicant that the prison administration could adopt more detailed prison rules than those contained in the Penal Code and Cabinet Regulations No. 73 (2002) (in force until 3 June 2006). As to his complaint about sending registered letters, his attention was drawn to the fact that the prison administration was authorised to send regular letters, not registered ones.
29. On 6 September 2006 a senior prosecutor informed the applicant that she had instructed the Prison Administration to ensure that prisoners were allowed to send registered letters at their own expense. In relation to the Daugavpils prison rules, she informed the applicant that common prison rules had been drafted by the Prison Administration and sent for approval to the Ministry of Justice for prisoners serving life sentences in the prisons in Daugavpils and Jelgava.
30. On 1 November 2008, following a reform, Daugavpils prison was merged with Grīvas prison and the newly established prison has since been called Daugavgrīvas prison.
31. Finally, on 5 August 2009, at the applicant's request, the Prison Administration decided to transfer him to serve his sentence in Jelgava prison.
B. Relevant international materials
32. Following its second periodic visit to Latvia from 25 September to 4 October 2002, the European Committee for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman and Degrading Treatment or Punishment (“CPT”) published its report on 10 May 2005. The CPT had visited Jelgavas prison, inter alia, where all life-sentenced prisoners had been kept at the relevant time. In its relevant part the report reads as follows:
“83. The legislative framework in respect of life-sentenced prisoners is governed by Article 50quarter, paragraph 5, of the Law on the Enforcement of Sentences. The regime applicable to life-sentenced prisoners is divided into three levels: the lowest, the medium and the highest. Prisoners spend at least five years at the lowest level (offering the most restrictive regime) before they may be transferred to the medium level. After a minimum of another ten years, prisoners may be placed into the highest level (offering the least restrictive regime)....
84. At the outset, it should be made clear that the situation of life-sentenced prisoners in Latvia has not improved since the CPT's 1999 visit, despite the specific recommendations made in paragraph 124 of the report on that visit. The Committee remains very concerned about the restrictive approach adopted by the Latvian authorities vis-à-vis life-sentenced prisoners, in particular, as regards the regime, contact with the outside world and the use of means of physical restraint....
88. ...The CPT calls upon the Latvian authorities to fundamentally revise the regime applicable to life-sentenced prisoners, in the light of the above remarks.”
33. Following its ad hoc visit to Latvia from 5 to 12 May 2004, the CPT published its report on 13 March 2008. The CPT had visited Jelgavas prison and voiced its concern about the failure of the Latvian authorities to implement the specific recommendations made after the 2002 visit in respect of life-sentenced prisoners there (§ 53 of the report). It had also visited the new Unit for life-sentenced prisoners (located in the former disciplinary block) in Daugavpils prison, which was at an advanced stage of reconstruction. In its relevant part the report reads as follows:
“59. ... The CPT must express its misgivings about certain aspects of the design of these facilities. For instance, cells had been fitted with frosted glass bricks (instead of windows), which did not offer adequate access to natural light. Further, no communal areas were envisaged in that unit.
In the CPT's view, life-sentenced prisoners should have adequate access to natural light. As regards more particularly the glass bricks, other solutions must be found in order to prevent contact between life-sentenced prisoners and juvenile prisoners, who are currently accommodated in the block opposite.
The CPT recommends that steps be taken to revise the design of the new Unit for life-sentenced prisoners at Daugavpils Prison, in the light of the preceding remarks.”
34. Following its periodic visit to Latvia from 27 November to 7 December 2007, the CPT published its report on 15 December 2009. The CPT had visited Daugavpils prison and Jelgavas prison, paying particular attention to the units for life-sentenced prisoners. In its relevant part the report reads as follows:
“61. The CPT must express its serious concern about the almost total failure of the Latvian authorities to improve the conditions under which life-sentenced prisoners are being held in Latvian prisons, despite the specific recommendations made by the Committee after its two previous visits to Jelgava Prison.
At both Daugavpils and Jelgava Prisons, life-sentenced prisoners were locked up in their cells for 23 hours per day, alone or with one cellmate, without being offered any purposeful activities. In addition, they were not even allowed to associate with life-sentenced prisoners from other cells. Such a state of affairs is not acceptable.
It should also be added that a number of life-sentenced prisoners met by the delegation, in particular at Daugavpils, manifestly displayed symptoms of psychiatric disorder. Although it is not possible, on the basis of a single interview and the scarce information available on previous psychiatric morbidity, to give a precise diagnosis and to establish a direct causal link between the psychiatric disorders and the very impoverished regime in both prisons, it is clear that the current regime can only exacerbate such problems.
Encouraging signs were found at Daugavpils Prison, where the management had converted one cell into a computer room and work had started to create new facilities such as a workshop, a recreation area and a small gymnasium. This is indeed a step in the right direction. However, additional steps are required to offer a sufficiently large area for these facilities, in order to allow all life-sentenced prisoners to spend a reasonable part of the day outside their cells.
No steps had been taken at Jelgava Prison to create opportunities for work or group association activities for life-sentenced prisoners.
62. The material conditions of detention were, on the whole, adequate in the new unit for life-sentenced prisoners at Daugavpils Prison. All fourteen cells were of a reasonable size (14 m² for one or two prisoners), and well equipped (two beds, table, two chairs, separate sanitary facilities).
However, already in the report on the 2004 visit, the CPT expressed its misgivings about the fact that cells had been fitted with frosted glass bricks (instead of windows), which did not offer adequate access to natural light. In this connection, the delegation noted that the glass bricks had been replaced by transparent glass panels on one side of the unit and that, according to the prison governor, the same would soon be done on the other side. Further, the delegation was informed that steps were being taken to replace the current ventilation system, which created considerable noise in many of the cells.
The CPT would like to receive confirmation that the above-mentioned measures have been implemented in practice.
The CPT calls upon the Latvian authorities to take steps without any further delay to devise and implement a comprehensive regime of out-of-cell activities in respect of all life-sentenced prisoners at Daugavpils and Jelgava Prisons. ...
64. As regards the security measures applied to life-sentenced prisoners, the CPT must stress once again that there can be no justification for routinely handcuffing these prisoners whenever they are outside their cells, all the more so when this measure is applied in an already secure environment. Further, the use of dogs to escort these prisoners whenever they are taken out of their cells is unnecessary from a security standpoint and can only be regarded as a means of intimidating and humiliating the prisoners.
In this connection, the CPT welcomes the recent decision of the management of Daugavpils Prison to no longer use dogs for escorting life-sentenced prisoners within the confines of the prison. The Committee calls upon the Latvian authorities to put a definitive end to the use of dogs at Jelgava Prison when escorting life-sentenced prisoners within the confines of the prison.
65. In response to a specific recommendation made by the CPT in the report on the 2004 visit, “individual risk assessment commissions” had been set up at Daugavpils and Jelgava Prisons. However, the 2007 visit brought to light that the procedures carried out by these commissions were, to a very large extent, devoid of any meaning.
...
The CPT calls upon the Latvian authorities to take immediate steps to carry out a proper individual risk assessment on a regular basis in respect of all life-sentenced prisoners and to alleviate the security measures applied to them accordingly.
66. Further, life-sentenced prisoners were subject to some anachronistic rules. By way of example, they were not allowed to sit or lie on the bed during the day. If this rule was not respected, the prisoners usually received a disciplinary punishment. In addition, several prisoners alleged that, whenever the cell door was opened by a prison officer, they were require to recite their full name and the article of the Penal Code under which they had been sentenced. The CPT recommends that the above-mentioned rules/practices be abolished without delay.
67. The CPT also has misgivings about the systematic practice of obliging life-sentenced prisoners to undergo routine strip-searches. While prison officers indicated that strip-searches were only carried out on entry or return to the prison, after visits or “on suspicion”, all the prisoners interviewed gave consistent accounts of routine, systematic cell- and strip-searches every ten days. Every prisoner was required to undress completely and to hand each item of clothing through the bars of the cell to be searched by the guards. They remained standing and fully naked in view of the guards and the prisoner sharing the cell for about five minutes.
In the CPT's opinion, such a practice could be considered as amounting to degrading treatment. The Committee recommends that strip-searches only be conducted on the basis of a concrete suspicion and in an appropriate setting. ...
70. The CPT also wishes to draw the Latvian authorities' attention to Section 7 of Recommendation Rec (2003) 23 on the Management by Prison Administrations of Life-Sentenced and Other Long-Term Prisoners (adopted by the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe on 9 October 2003), which emphasises that life-sentenced prisoners should not be segregated from other prisoners on the sole ground of their sentence (non-segregation principle).
The Explanatory Report of the afore-mentioned recommendation further states that:
“41. [t]he special segregation of life-sentenced or long-term prisoners cannot be justified by an unexamined characterisation of such prisoners as dangerous. As a general rule, the experience of many prison administrations is that many such prisoners present no risks to themselves or others. And if they do present such risks, they may only do so for relatively limited periods or in particular situations. In consequence, while it is fully recognised that time and resources are needed to implement this principle, these prisoners should only be segregated if, and for as long as, clear and present risks exist.
42. Life-sentenced and long-term prisoners are thought in some countries to pose serious safety and security problems in the prison. The violence and dangerousness manifested in the criminal act is considered to carry over to their lives in prison. Offenders who, for example, have committed murder are among those most likely to receive life or long sentences. This does not necessarily mean that they are violent or dangerous prisoners. Indeed, prison authorities can refer to individual murderers with a life or long sentence as “good prisoners”. They exhibit stable and reliable behaviour and are unlikely to repeat their offence. The likelihood of an offender engaging in violent or dangerous behaviour frequently depends not only on personality characteristics but also on the typical situations that permit or provoke the emergence of such behaviour.
43. Descriptions in terms of violence and dangerousness should, therefore, always be considered in relation to the specific environments or situations in which these characteristics may – or may not – be exhibited. In the management of long-term and life prisoners, a clear distinction should be drawn between safety and security risks arising within the prison and those that may arise with escape into the community. The classification and allocation of long-term and life-sentenced prisoners should take account of these differing kinds of risks (...)”.
The CPT recommends that the Latvian authorities reconsider their segregation policy vis-à-vis life-sentenced prisoners, in the light of the above remarks. The existing plans to construct a new detention block for life-sentenced prisoners at Jelgava Prison should also be revised accordingly. ...”
COMPLAINTS
35. The applicant complained of ill-treatment by the police on 24 and 25 September 2002 as well as during his administrative arrest of 15 days starting on 24 September. He relied on Articles 3, 5, 6, 7 and 13 of the Convention.
36. Relying on no particular Article of the Convention, the applicant complained that he had been kept in solitary confinement in a special ward in Central prison in Rīga during the pre-trial investigation.
37. In subsequent correspondence he also submitted that he had not had access to a lawyer during the preliminary investigation and during the trial before the Zemgale Regional Court. He relied on Articles 6 § 3 (c), 13 and 14 of the Convention.
38. He also complained about the preliminary investigation and the trial before the first-instance court, contending that his picture had been broadcast on television and published in the media. He complained about the non-inclusion of certain evidence in the case file. He complained that his request to summon witness L.D. had been refused. He contended that the testimony given by L.D. during the preliminary investigation had not been objective but concerned his character. He further noted that only 6 out of 20 witnesses had been present at the trial in the first-instance court and the rest had not appeared. He complained that his sister had been a defence witness for his co-accused. He submitted that the first-instance court had incorrectly evaluated a psychological and psychiatric forensic report. He complained that the court had taken into account his previous convictions. He argued that his conviction for aggravated murder had been based solely on the testimony of his co-accused. In another episode there had not been enough evidence. In relation to these complaints the applicant relied on Articles 2, 6 § 1, 6 § 2, 6 § 3 (c) and (d), 7 § 1, 13 and 14 of the Convention.
39. The applicant complained about the hearings before the appellate court, namely that the victims and witnesses, including L.D., had not been present. The applicant also complained that a civil claimant had been allowed to participate in hearings that were closed to the public. He disputed the evaluation of evidence by the appellate court. As in his above-mentioned complaints, he relied on Articles 2 § 1, 6 §§ 1, 2, 3 (c) and (d), 13 and 14 of the Convention.
40. The applicant also argued that the Senate of the Supreme Court had violated national law in refusing to consider his appeal on points of law. He found the Supreme Court's reasoning “absurd”. He submitted that numerous violations of domestic law provisions had taken place. He relied on Articles 2, 6 §§ 1 and 3 (c) and (d), 7 § 1, 13 and 14 of the Convention.
41. The applicant complained that he had been refused permission to acquaint himself with the minutes of the appellate court hearings and that excessive force had been used on him on 16 March 2004. He relied on Articles 1, 2 and 3 of the Convention.
42. The applicant complained that he had not been able to re-open proceedings. He had not been given a chance to prove his innocence. He claimed that he was not given access to a State-paid lawyer in order to initiate proceedings to re-open the case.
43. The applicant complained about the stringent regime for life-sentenced prisoners in Daugavpils prison and his inability to have the pertinent regulations abolished. These regulations had been issued by the prison authorities, first in order no. 2 of 4 January 2005, then in order no. 75 of 6 September 2006. The applicant particularly complained that these regulations even prohibited sitting on the bed in the daytime and using the toilets at night. He also complained about the requirement to recite on a daily basis his name, the name of his father and the article of the Criminal Law under which he had been sentenced. He complained that order no. 2 contained a presupposition that any movement of prisoners without prior authorisation from prison guards was considered as an attack and accordingly punished with special measures (blows with truncheons). He objected to the use of dogs to escort prisoners whenever they were taken out of their cells.
44. He complained that the prison administration in Daugavpils had refused to provide him with or allow him to receive copies of certain documents that related to his criminal case. He relied on Articles 6, 10, 13 and 14 of the Convention.
45. Under Article 4 of Protocol No. 7 and Articles 3, 10, 13 and 14 of the Convention, the applicant also complained that he had been deprived of the possibility to use a personal radio receiver and an electric kettle.
46. The applicant complained that he could not challenge order no. 73 of 1 July 2005 whereby amendments to order no. 40 of 11 April 2005 had been adopted with the effect that prisoners could only be provided with documents and copies free of charge if they related to their criminal case files. The applicant relied on Articles 6, 10, 13 and 14 of the Convention.
47. The applicant complained that he had been subject to full body searches on a weekly basis. He complained that refusal to submit to such searches (which he considered unlawful) had been punished with special measures (blows with truncheons) and disciplinary penalties (his next scheduled family visit or telephone call had been cancelled). By way of an example he mentioned searches on 6 and 20 May, 3 June, 19 and 26 July and 6, 24 and 30 August 2005 when he was ordered to strip naked for the purpose of a full body search; he refused to comply and was subsequently punished. He relied on Articles 3, 13 and 14 of the Convention. He later submitted that he had been subjected to similar measures on 8 June and 28 December 2006.
48. He further complained, relying on Article 3 of the Convention, that following his conviction he had been kept in isolation (in his cell) in Daugavpils prison for long periods of time.
49. The applicant complained that he had not been able to send registered letters from Daugavpils prison at his own expense.
50. He also complained that the Daugavpils prison administration had refused to forward his complaints to different institutions, including to the Court on 27 March 2007. In the next letter to the Court he referred to Article 34 of the Convention in relation to that complaint.
51. Finally, the applicant invoked Articles 10 and 14 of the Convention to complain that since he had no access to computers or an internet connection he did not know the status of his case before the Court.
THE LAW
A. Detention regime in Daugavpils prison
52. The applicant complained about the stringent regime in Daugavpils prison for life-sentenced prisoners, including the full body searches and his solitary confinement at certain times (see paragraphs 43, 47-48 above). The Court will examine these complaints under Article 3 of the Convention:
“No one shall be subjected to torture or to inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.”
53. The Court considers that it cannot, on the basis of the case file, determine the admissibility of the applicant's complaints and that it is therefore necessary, in accordance with Rule 54 § 2 (b) of the Rules of Court, to give notice of this part of the application to the respondent Government.
B. Other complaints
54. The applicant further complained under different Articles of the Convention about numerous violations of his Convention rights (see paragraphs 35-42; 44-46 and 49-51 above).
55. However, in the light of all the material in its possession, and in so far as the matters complained of are within its competence, the Court finds 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 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
Decides to adjourn the examination of the applicant's complaints concerning the detention regime in Daugavpils prison for prisoners serving life sentences, including isolation and full body searches;
Declares the remainder of the application inadmissible.
Santiago QuesadaJosep Casadevall
RegistrarPresident
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy