Communicated on 3 May 2016
THIRD SECTION
Application no. 56443/09
Denis Viktorovich VAKHMISTROV against Russia
lodged on 11 September 2009
STATEMENT OF FACTS
The applicant, Mr Denis Viktorovich Vakhmistrov, is a Russian national who was born in 1977 and lives in Minusinsk. He is currently serving a sentence of imprisonment in the Krasnoyarsk.
The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows.
Between 22 May 2007 and May 2010 the applicant served his term of imprisonment in prison UP-288/T in Minusinsk in the Krasnoyarsk Region. According to the applicant, during his detention in that facility, he was unable to take a walk and undertake outdoor exercises in winter time because he was not provided with winter boots, despite his numerous requests to that end.
On an unspecified date the applicant was transferred to correctional colony IK-5 in Krasnoyarsk. According to him, his cell is constantly under surveillance by prison guards with the help of a video camera installed inside the cell; he also states that the prison guard who monitors his cell is a woman, and at times she gives him orders via loudspeakers.
COMPLAINTS
The applicant complains under Article 3 of the Convention of poor conditions of his detention in UP-288/T and about the constant video surveillance of his cell by a female guard in correctional colony IK-5.
QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES
1. Regard being had to the applicant’s allegation that he was unable to take a walk and undertake outdoor exercise in prison UP-288/T in Minusinsk in the Krasnoyarsk Region during wintertime since he had not been provided with suitable winter footwear:
(a) were the prison authorities under an obligation to provide the applicant with suitable winter footwear? If so, did they fulfil that obligation?
(b) was the applicant required to explicitly request that suitable winter footwear be provided to him? If so, did he do that and on how many occasions?
(c) on the assumption that the above allegation is correct, how many occasions and during how long a period was the applicant unable to take a walk and undertake outdoor exercise?
(d) in view of the Government’s answer to the above questions, did the treatment to which the applicant was subjected attain the minimum level of severity as required by Article 3 of the Convention?
(i) If so, was Article 3 respected in this case?
(ii) If not, did the refusal to provide the applicant with suitable winter footwear constitute an interference with respect for his private life under Article 8 § 1 of the Convention? In the case of an affirmative answer, was such interference justified under Article 8 § 2 of the Convention?
The Government are invited to provide all relevant documents concerning the provision of the applicant with winter boots.
2. Regard being had to the applicant’s allegation that his cell in correctional colony IK-5 was under video surveillance at all times and that the surveillance was carried out by a female guard, has there been an interference with the applicant’s right to respect for his private life under Article 8 § 1 of the Convention?
If so, was that interference justified under Article 8 § 2 of the Convention?
The Government are invited to provide all relevant documents relating to video surveillance of the applicant’s cell in correctional colony IK-5.
3. Did the applicant have effective domestic remedies in respect of each of his two complaints, as guaranteed by Article 13 of the Convention?
If so, did he exhaust those remedies?
If not, has there been a violation of Article 13, in conjunction with Article 3 or 8, and in conjunction with Article 8, respectively on that account?
The Government are invited to submit the relevant case-law of the domestic courts, if any, in respect of each of the aforementioned aspects.
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy