CASE OF MYSIN v. RUSSIA
No violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading treatment;Inhuman treatment) (Substantive aspect);Violation of Article 13 - Right to an effective remedy (Article 13 - Effective remedy)
Dmitry Dedov;Erik Møse;Khanlar Hajiyev
4. On 25 June 2004 the applicant was arrested on suspicion of theft of documents and death threat and later charged with several counts of murder and robbery. While in police custody, he was allegedly subjected to beatings. 5. On 9 July 2004 the applicant was placed in remand prison IZ-27/1 in Khabarovsk. 6. After an initial period of detention in ordinary cells of the prison, on 18 July 2005 the applicant was transferred to a special section designed for detention of persons sentenced to life imprisonment. The applicant stayed in several cells of that section until his departure to a correctional colony on 19 December 2007. 7. The parties disagreed on many aspects of the material conditions of the applicant’s detention during that period. 8. In the Government’s submission, the applicant was accommodated in four cells: cell 182, from 18 July 2005 to 21 September 2006; cell 176, from 21 September 2006 to 10 August 2007; cell 178, from 10 to 22 August 2007; cell 181, from 22 August to 19 December 2007. 9. All cells measured 8.1 sq. m and had 2 sleeping places. The applicant stayed in them either alone or with another detainee, but the design capacity was never exceeded. 10. Each cell had a window covered by metal bars which allowed sufficient access to natural light and fresh air. Two light bulbs, one for daytime and another for night-time lighting were installed in the cells. Running water was available at all times. Toilet pans were located at between 1 and 1.3 m from beds and dining tables and separated from the rest of the cells by a 1.5 meter-high brick partition. The applicant was allowed daily hour-long outdoor exercise. He could take a shower and wash his clothing once a week. 11. In support of their position, the Government produced a number of certificates and statements issued by the director of remand prison IZ-27/1 on 7 July 2010 showing the numbers of the cells where the applicant stayed, the frequency of outdoor exercise and visits to the shower, as well as descriptions of the cells, their equipment and sanitary installations. The certificates were accompanied by copies of the applicant’s cell record, the prison population register and the schedules of outdoor exercise and sanitary measures covering the entire period of the applicant’s detention. 12. Further to the Court’s request, the Government submitted a floor plan of the facility, containing indications of the cell surface. 13. The applicant disputed the Government’s submissions concerning the cells. He provided the following information in that regard: cell 182, held from 18 to 30 July 2005; cell 183, held from 30 July 2005 to 3 October 2006; cell 173, held from 3 October 2006 to 12 July 2007; cell 176, held from 12 to 30 July 2007; cell 178, held from 30 July to 28 August 2007; cell 181, held from 28 August to 8 September 2007. 14. According to the applicant, the cells presented the following characteristics: cell 182 measured 4.5 sq. m. The applicant stayed there alone; cell 183 measured 5 sq. m and housed up to 3 inmates; cell 173 measured 3 sq. m and accommodated 2 persons; cell 176 measured 3 sq. m. The applicant stayed there alone; cell 178 measured 3 sq. m and accommodated 2 inmates; cell 181 measured 4 sq. m and hosted 2 detainees. The applicant did not provide any information about the number of sleeping places in the cells. 15. All cells were located in the semi-basement of the remand prison. They were poorly lit and ventilated. Metal shutters on the windows blocked access to natural light and fresh air. Heating did not function. Drinking water was available only on request from the prison guards. The toilet pan was not separated from the living area. The courtyard for outdoor exercise was very small. 16. To corroborate his claims, the applicant submitted statements by two detainees from the adjacent cells who also stated that the applicant had been ill-treated by prison guards. 17. On 25 July 2006 the Supreme Court of Russia found the applicant guilty as charged and sentenced him to life imprisonment. 18. On 30 May 2006 the applicant’s mother complained to the regional prison authority about the conditions of his detention. In response to the complaint, on 27 June 2006 the authority admitted that the cell where the applicant was held had to be repaired and directed the management of the prison to transfer the applicant to another cell. 19. On 2 August 2006 the applicant complained to the regional prosecutor about the conditions of his detention. He claimed, in particular, that there were metal shutters on windows, that the toilet pan was not separated from the rest of the cell and that the heating was too weak. Following an inquiry into the applicant’s allegations, on 19 August 2006 the district prosecutor concluded that “the [remand prison] cells [were being] renovated and properly maintained” and refused to open a criminal investigation into the matter. The applicant complained to a court. 20. On 18 September 2006 the Kirovskiy District Court of Khabarovsk dismissed the applicant’s complaint against the prosecutor’s decision of 19 August 2006. The applicant appealed against the decision of 18 September 2006, but provided no further information about the outcome of these proceedings. 21. On 9 October 2006 the applicant’s mother lodged another complaint with the regional prison authority, claiming, in particular, that the conditions of his detention had not improved. On 13 November 2006 the authority replied that the applicant’s cell had been recently renovated and satisfied the legal standards and that the applicant had no complaints in that regard.