Communicated on 28 January 2021
Published on 15 February 2021
THIRD SECTION
Application no. 61644/17
Mikhail Anatolyevich TETERIN
against Russia
lodged on 20 October 2017
SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE
On 17 July 2003 the Perm Regional Court sentenced the applicant to life imprisonment. On 25 February 2004 he arrived at special‑regime correctional colony no. 2, located in the Perm Region (“IK-2”), in order to serve his life sentence. On arrival he was placed under the strict imprisonment regime, which was applied to him during the first ten years of his sentence. On 28 January 2013, on expiry of that period, the applicant was transferred to the ordinary imprisonment regime (a more lenient regime). On 16 September 2015 he was transferred back to the strict regime of imprisonment for a breach of prison discipline.
On an unspecified date the applicant requested the Usolskiy prosecutor’s office in the Perm Region supervising the colony to provide him with information about his entitlement to transfer to the ordinary imprisonment regime. By a letter of 3 March 2017 the prosecutor’s office informed the applicant that according to Article 127 § 5 of the Code for the Execution of Criminal Sentences (“the CES”), the habitual violators (злостные нарушители) of prison discipline should be transferred from the ordinary regime of imprisonment to the strict regime of imprisonment. The transfer back to the ordinary regime was possible under conditions set out in Article 127 § 2 of the CES, that is to say after serving under that imprisonment regime at least ten years of prison sentence.
The applicant challenged the above conclusion before the Solikamsk Town Court of the Perm Region, which dismissed his challenge on 9 June 2017. The Perm Regional Court upheld that decision on appeal on 11 September 2017, having found that the interpretation of the domestic law by the prosecutor’s office was correct.
The applicant later applied for a constitutional review of Article 127 § 5 of the CES. The Constitutional Court of Russia refused to consider his application on 17 July 2018.
According to the applicant, the material conditions of his detention in IK‑2 are inadequate. He has to share his cell, which is measured 11 sq.m, with two cellmates. Moreover, he is subjected to routine handcuffing.
QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES
Has the applicant been subjected to inhuman and degrading treatment or punishment in breach of Article 3 of the Convention? In particular:
Did the competent authorities duly assess the proportionality of the applicant’s transfer to the strict regime of imprisonment when such measure was ordered? Were they able to apply a more lenient measure, order the applicant’s transfer to that regime for a period of less than ten years, or to review that measure with a passage of time? Was that measure justified by the particular security reasons (see N.T. v. Russia, no. 14727/11, § 45, 2 June 2020)?
Did the applicant’s routine handcuffing and material conditions of his detention in IK-2, if taken alone, or together with the applicant’s detention regime, amount to inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment within the meaning of Article 3 of the Convention (see Muršić v. Croatia [GC], no. 7334/13, §§ 106, 136-41, 12 March 2015, and N.T. v. Russia, cited above, §§ 53‑56)?
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy