CASE OF TYCHKO v. RUSSIA
Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading treatment;Inhuman treatment) (Substantive aspect);Violation of Article 13+3 - Right to an effective remedy (Article 13 - Effective remedy) (Article 3 - Prohibition of torture;Degrading treatment;Inhuman treatment);Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Criminal proceedings;Article 6-1 - Reasonable time)
Dmitry Dedov;Elisabeth Steiner;Julia Laffranque;Khanlar Hajiyev;Mirjana Lazarova Trajkovska;Paulo Pinto De Albuquerque
4. The applicant was born in 1965 and lives in Volgograd. 5. On 15 August 2001 criminal proceedings were instituted against the applicant on suspicion of large-scale fraud. 6. On 28 September 2001 the applicant was arrested and remanded in custody. 7. On 2 October 2001 and 22 July 2002 charges were brought against the applicant. 8. On 7 August 2002 the criminal case was submitted to the Tsentralniy District Court of Volgograd (“the District Court”) for trial. 9. On 8 October 2002 the first hearing was held. It was presided over by judge A. 10. On 26 November 2002 the applicant was released from custody. 11. On 30 December 2002 the case was transferred to judge G. and, pursuant to Article 242 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Immutability of court composition), the trial was restarted. 12. Between March and June 2003 and between June 2004 and January 2005 the hearings were adjourned on seven occasions: on five occasions due to the non-attendance of the accused, their representatives and the witnesses, and on two occasions, from 19 May to 11 July 2003 and from 10 December 2004 to 17 January 2005, following requests from the applicant for more time to study the case file. 13. In the meantime, on 19 January 2003, an unrelated criminal case was opened against the applicant on suspicion of storing firearms and narcotic drugs. He was again remanded in custody on 20 January 2003. On 19 June 2003 the District Court convicted the applicant of storing firearms and narcotic drugs and sentenced him to eight years’ imprisonment. 14. On 28 March 2005 judge G. went on maternity leave, and on 26 April 2005 the initial case was transferred to judge S. The trial was restarted. 15. Between May and November 2005 the hearings were adjourned on two occasions due to the non-attendance of the participants in the trial. 16. On 16 December 2005 judge S. resigned, and on 14 February 2006 the case was transferred to judge M. The trial was again restarted. 17. Between March and June 2006 the hearings were adjourned on three occasions due to the non-attendance of the participants in the trial. 18. On 19 July 2006 judge M. resigned and the case was transferred to judge Mar. The trial was restarted for the fourth time. 19. Between November 2006 and June 2008 the hearings were adjourned on five occasions due to the non-attendance of the participants in the trial. 20. On 6 August 2008 the District Court of Volgograd found the applicant guilty of complicity in large-scale fraud and sentenced him to three years and six months’ imprisonment. The final sentence under both verdicts was set at nine years’ imprisonment. 21. On 1 December 2009 Volgograd Regional Court upheld the judgment on appeal. 22. The applicant was detained in Volgograd remand prison IZ-34/1 from 10 October 2001 to 26 November 2002, from 20 January 2003 to 19 August 2003, from 23 September 2003 to 17 May 2005, from 12 July 2005 to 29 April 2008 and from 16 May 2008 to 6 September 2008. He submitted that the cells had been severely overcrowded and in a poor sanitary condition. 23. The cell where the applicant was held most recently, measuring approximately thirty square metres and equipped with eighteen bunk beds, accommodated between twenty and thirty inmates at any given time. The inmates were obliged to take turns to sleep. 24. The toilet in the corner of the cell (a hole in the floor measuring about 15-20 cm in diameter), elevated above the floor by 0.4 metres and separated by a 0.6 metre partition, offered no privacy. It had no flushing system. 25. The cell was not equipped with a washstand. Instead, the inmates had to use the water running from a tap over the toilet. 26. The dining table was situated a metre away from the toilet. It could seat about ten inmates. The rest of the inmates had to eat sitting on the concrete floor. 27. The food was of low quality. The drinking-water tanks were placed on the floor. 28. The cell was lit around the clock by two 100-watt filament lamps. It was poorly ventilated. The air was thick with the stench of tobacco, laundry and the toilet. 29. The cell was infested with insects and rodents. 30. The applicant was allowed to take a five-minute shower once a week. 31. The exercise yards were unequipped and too small to accommodate all the detainees properly. 32. The applicant twice contracted tuberculosis while being detained in Volgograd IZ-34/1. His eyesight deteriorated. 33. The applicant’s attempts to challenge the conditions of his detention before various domestic authorities yielded no result. 34. The applicant was transported from the remand prison to the courthouse and back more than a hundred times between 2001 and 2008. Prisoners were transported between the remand prison and the courthouse in a prison van – a metal freight vehicle comprising three compartments: two designed for twenty inmates and the third one for single occupancy. The van had no windows and offered no access to natural light or air. It had no artificial lighting or ventilation either. There were no seat belts or other safety equipment to prevent inmates from falling and hitting themselves against the walls. It was stiflingly hot in the van in the summer and freezing cold in the winter. 35. There were four cells in the holding area of the District Court where the applicant was taken. Each cell measured about three square metres and accommodated five to six inmates. The cells were equipped with one bench each, which could seat only three inmates. Those suffering from hepatitis, tuberculosis, HIV and other diseases were placed together with the rest of the inmates. On each occasion the applicant spent as long as seven or eight hours in such conditions.