In the case of Radzhabov and Others v. Russia,
The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:
Alena Poláčková, President,
Dmitry Dedov,
Jolien Schukking, judges,
and Liv Tigerstedt, Acting Deputy Section Registrar,
Having deliberated in private on 5 July 2018,
Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
PROCEDURE
1. The case originated in applications against Russia lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms ("the Convention") on the various dates indicated in the appended table.
2. The applications were communicated to the Russian Government ("the Government").
THE FACTS
3. The list of applicants and the relevant details of the applications are set out in the appended table.
4. The applicants complained of the inadequate conditions of their detention. Some applicants also raised other complaints under the provisions of the Convention.
THE LAW
I. JOINDER OF THE APPLICATIONS
5. Having regard to the similar subject matter of the applications, the Court finds it appropriate to examine them jointly in a single judgment.
II. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 3 OF THE CONVENTION
6. The applicants complained principally of the inadequate conditions of their detention. They relied on Article 3 of the Convention, which reads as follows:
"No one shall be subjected to torture or to inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment."
7. The Court notes that the applicants were kept in detention in poor conditions. The details of the applicants' detention are indicated in the appended table. The Court refers to the principles established in its case-�law regarding inadequate conditions of detention (see, for instance, Muršić v. Croatia [GC], no. 7334/13, §§ 96-�101, ECHR 2016). It reiterates in particular that a serious lack of space in a prison cell weighs heavily as a factor to be taken into account for the purpose of establishing whether the detention conditions described are "degrading" from the point of view of Article 3 and may disclose a violation, both alone or taken together with other shortcomings (see Muršić, cited above, §§ 122 -�141, and Ananyev and Others v. Russia, nos. 42525/07 and 60800/08, §§ 149-�159, 10 January 2012).
8. In the leading case of Ananyev and Others v. Russia, nos. 42525/07 and 60800/08, 10 January 2012, the Court already found a violation in respect of issues similar to those in the present case. In that case the Court also stressed that in conditions-of-detention cases the respondent Government alone have access to information capable of corroborating or refuting allegations made by applicants. A failure on their part to submit convincing evidence on material conditions of detention may give rise to the drawing of inferences as to the well-foundedness of the applicant's allegations. The Court further reiterates that certificates issued by the director of the impugned detention facility after the Government have been given notice of the complaint, lacked references to the original prison documentation and were apparently based on personal recollections rather than on any objective data are of little evidentiary value (see, among other authorities, Veliyev v. Russia, no. 24202/05, § 127, 24 June 2010, and Igor Ivanov v. Russia, no. 34000/02, § 34, 7 June 2007). The Court emphasises that, in every case, the Government have to account properly for the failure to submit the original records, in particular those concerning the number of inmates detained together with the applicant, as well as authentic evidence showing both the size of cells where applicant was detained (floor plans) and confirming correlation between the general prison population, the population in the cells where the applicant was detained and the size of those cells (cell records). It further stresses that documents bearing signs of corrections, such as figures in documents being erased or written over, as in case no. 46863/16, or any other alterations to the documents without any explanations as to the their origin, reason and timing, cannot be considered reliable (see Klyukin v. Russia, no. 54996/07, § 59, 17 October 2013, with further references).
9. Having examined all the material submitted to it, the Court has not found any fact or argument capable of persuading it to reach a different conclusion on the admissibility and merits of these complaints. Having regard to its case-law on the subject, the Court considers that in the instant case the applicants' conditions of detention were inadequate.
10. These complaints are therefore admissible and disclose a breach of Article 3 of the Convention.
III. OTHER ALLEGED VIOLATIONS UNDER WELL-ESTABLISHED CASE-LAW
11. In applications nos. 32592/16, 33628/17, 43320/17 and 61744/17 the applicants submitted other complaints which also raised issues under the Convention, given the relevant well-established case-law of the Court (see appended table). These complaints are not manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 (a) of the Convention, nor are they inadmissible on any other ground. Accordingly, they must be declared admissible. Having examined all the material before it, the Court concludes that they also disclose violations of the Convention in the light of its findings in Ananyev and Others, cited above, §§ 100-119, concerning the lack of domestic remedies to complain about poor conditions of detention; Dirdizov v. Russia, no. 41461/10, 27 November 2012, regarding unreasonably long detention on remand; and Zubkov and Others v. Russia, nos. 29431/05 and 2 others, §§ 146-149, 7 November 2017, dealing with the absence of speedy review of the detention matters.
IV. REMAINING COMPLAINTS
12. In application no. 43320/17 the applicant also raised other complaints under various Articles of the Convention.
13. The Court has examined the application and considers that, in the light of all the material in its possession and in so far as the matters complained of are within its competence, these complaints either do not meet the admissibility criteria set out in Articles 34 and 35 of the Convention or do not disclose any appearance of a violation of the rights and freedoms enshrined in the Convention or the Protocols thereto.
14. It follows that this part of the application must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 § 4 of the Convention.
V. APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION
15. Article 41 of the Convention provides:
"If the Court finds that there has been a violation of the Convention or the Protocols thereto, and if the internal law of the High Contracting Party concerned allows only partial reparation to be made, the Court shall, if necessary, afford just satisfaction to the injured party."
16. Regard being had to the documents in its possession and to its case-�law (see, in particular, Ananyev and Others v. Russia, nos. 42525/07 and 60800/08, § 172, 10 January 2012), the Court considers it reasonable to award the sums indicated in the appended table.
17. The Court considers it appropriate that the default interest rate should be based on the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank, to which should be added three percentage points.
FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT, UNANIMOUSLY,
1. Decides to join the applications;
2. Declares the complaints concerning the inadequate conditions of detention and the other complaints under well-established case-law of the Court, as set out in the appended table, admissible, and the remainder of the application no. 43320/17 inadmissible;
3. Holds that these complaints disclose a breach of Article 3 of the Convention concerning the inadequate conditions of detention;
4. Holds that there has been a violation of the Convention as regards the other complaints raised under well-established case-law of the Court (see appended table);
5. Holds
(a) that the respondent State is to pay the applicants, within three months, the amounts indicated in the appended table, to be converted into the currency of the respondent State at the rate applicable at the date of settlement;
(b) that from the expiry of the above-mentioned three months until settlement simple interest shall be payable on the above amounts at a rate equal to the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank during the default period plus three percentage points.
6. Dismisses the remainder of the applicants' claims for just satisfaction.
Done in English, and notified in writing on 26 July 2018, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
Liv TigerstedtAlena Poláčková
Acting Deputy RegistrarPresident
