CASE OF LIU v. RUSSIA
Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading treatment) (Substantive aspect);Violation of Article 8 - Right to respect for private and family life (Article 8-1 - Respect for family life)
Branko Lubarda;Georgios A. Serghides;Pere Pastor Vilanova
4. The applicant was born in 1968 and lives in Sovetskaya Gavan, Khabarovsk Region. 5. On 22 October 2009 the applicant was arrested and brought to the Khabarovsk Administrative Detention Centre where he stayed until 27 November 2009. 6. Since 22 October 2009 he had been detained with more than 12 inmates in the cell no. 9 designed for 12 persons and had to take turns to sleep. A month after he had been transferred to another cell with the area of 6 square meters which he had shared with another inmate. 7. The detention centre had no shower facilities or a place for outdoor walks. The applicant’s cell was cold and damp, iron banks were not covered by mattresses. Toilets were not separated from the living area, and the persons using them were in full view of others. Food supply was inadequate, the applicant was served meals only once a day and had no drinking water from within the cell. 8. The Government submitted that the Khabarovsk Administrative Detention Centre comprised two cells: no. 5 with the area of 14.6 square meters for 3 inmates and no. 6 with the area of 18 square meters for 4 inmates. There was no overcrowding; the toilet had been separate by a shoulder length fence. The detainees may take a shower once a week. The temperature was 23oC, there were kettles with boiled water in the cells. 9. On 26 October 2009 the applicant’s wife, Mrs Liu, sought to visit the applicant but was refused. 10. On 6 and 10 November 2009 the applicant’s wife filed complaints with the Khabarovsk Prosecutor’s Office stating that she had not been allowed to see the applicant. 11. In August 2010 the applicant brought a civil claim for compensation in respect of non-pecuniary damage, stating that the conditions of his detention had been inhuman and degrading, and that the prohibition on family visits was unlawful. 12. On 9 February 2011 the Industrialnyy District Court of Khabarovsk dismissed his claim. Relying on the statements of a representative of the detention centre, the court held that the Internal Rules of the Administrative Detention Centres approved by the Decree of the Ministry of Defence of Russia of 6 June 2000 no. 605 dsp (“the Rules”) did not make provision for family visits, and that the applicant’s right to family life had not been breached as he had met his wife during court hearings. 13. On 18 May 2011 the Khabarovsk Regional Court upheld the above decision on appeal.