USTYUGOV v. UKRAINE
Inadmissible
Aleš Pejchal;Angelika Nußberger;Ganna Yudkivska;Helena Jäderblom;Josep Casadevall;Síofra O’Leary;Vincent A. De Gaetano
The applicant, Mr Igor Gennadyevich Ustyugov, is a Ukrainian national, who was born in 1970 and lives in Dnipropetrovsk. He is represented before the Court by Ms L.Y. Solonik, a lawyer practising in Dnipropetrovsk. The Ukrainian Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, most recently Ms N. Sevostianova, of the Ministry of Justice of Ukraine. The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows. On 26 April 2000 the Zhovtnevyy District Court of Dnipropetrovsk convicted the applicant of, among other crimes, robbery and extortion and sentenced him to nine years’ imprisonment. On 17 May 2000 the applicant was taken to the Synelnykivska Prison no. 94 (Синельниківська виправна колонія №94, hereafter “the prison”). On 6 June 2000 the decision of 26 April 2000 was upheld by the Dnipropetrovsk Regional Court. On 22 February 2002 the Synelnykivskyy District Court, Dnipropetrovsk Region, reclassified the offences according to the new Criminal Code, 2001, and reduced the term of the applicant’s imprisonment by one month. In his application form of 7 July 2004 the applicant stated that he had shared 60-square-metre sleeping quarters with eighty other inmates. Sanitary conditions in the prison were poor, in that there was only one bathroom for each two cells. Thus 150 inmates had to share two water taps and four lavatory pans. The cells were infested with lice and the rations were meagre. The applicant was not given any clothes, any hygiene products or any cutlery by the prison authorities. Tuberculosis-infected inmates were not segregated from the general prison population. Nor were there any other measures in place to prevent the spread of the disease. In 2002 the applicant contracted tuberculosis and spent three months in the prison hospital. According to the applicant, he was placed in a disciplinary cell where he remained for fifteen days (particular dates not specified), under constant video surveillance. In 2004 the applicant suffered a heart attack and was moved to a prison hospital. After a short stay there, he was returned to the prison. On his readmission he was allegedly beaten up by prison guards. The applicant, a Lutheran, stated that it had been impossible to practise his religion while it had been possible to practise other religions (the applicant mentioned Jehovah’s Witnesses and Protestants (in particular, Pentecostals)). The applicant finally stated that the prison authorities had given him letters from the Court with delays, had not dispatched his letters to the Court, had opened his correspondence and had withheld unspecified enclosed documents. The Government submitted that between 2000 and September 2007 the applicant had been detained in three different detention units: - 2000-03 – unit no. 9; - 2004 – unit no. 10; - 2005-September 2007 – high-security unit. The sleeping quarters in units nos. 9 and 10 were 187 and 192 square metres and at the material time there were ninety-two and sixty-four detainees respectively. In each of the units there were nine hand basins and eight lavatory pans. Each detainee had a bed and a stool. There were tables, one bedside storage locker per two detainees and a television set. There was a dining room and a locker room. The premises had electricity and ventilation. Windows allowed access to fresh air and there was sufficient light. In the high-security unit the applicant was detained in cell no. 1 (21 square metres). The cell had been designed for four persons. There were four beds, four chairs, four bedside storage lockers, a rubbish bin, two coat racks, a table and a television. The total space of the cells in the high-security unit was 166.5 square metres. In September 2007 there were 23 detainees there. There were eight washing facilities, including twelve lavatory pans and twelve hand basins as well as three showers. The applicant had crockery and linens and was given food three times a day. The applicant had a special diet since previously he had had tuberculosis. The applicant also had daily walks. Once a week he could have a shower and received 200 grams of soap monthly for this purpose. Since 1999 the applicant was subject to regular medical check-ups as he had previously suffered from tuberculosis. In August 2001 and between 11 March and 3 April 2002 the applicant was treated in the Dnipropetrovsk pre-trial detention centre hospital for a degenerative spinal disease and other spinal problems. In April 2002 he was diagnosed with a post-tuberculosis condition and between 2002 and April 2005 he received prophylactic treatment in spring and in autumn. In April 2005 it was established that the applicant had been completely cured of tuberculosis. In 2007 it was established that the applicant was disabled on account of his spinal problems. According to the applicant’s personal records, he was placed in a disciplinary cell in July and August 1999 (eleven days total), May 2001 (ten days), October 2001 (ten days), February and October 2002 (ten days total), June 2003 (ten days) and June 2006 (five days). The Government further submitted that the prison was visited by various Christian priests. There were religious services three times a week. The relevant part of the European Prison Rules provides as following: “18.1 The accommodation provided for prisoners, and in particular all sleeping accommodation, shall respect human dignity and, as far as possible, privacy, and meet the requirements of health and hygiene, due regard being paid to climatic conditions and especially to floor space, cubic content of air, lighting, heating and ventilation.” The relevant part of the Commentary provides as following: “The CPT, by commenting on conditions and space available in prisons in various countries has begun to indicate some minimum standards. These are considered to be 4m2 for prisoners in shared accommodation and 6m2 for a prison cell. These minima are, related however, to wider analyses of specific prison systems, including studies of how much time prisoners actually spend in their cells. These minima should not be regarded as the norm. Although the CPT has never laid down such a norm directly, indications are that it would consider 9 to 10 m2 as a desirable size for a cell for one prisoner. This is an area in which the CPT could make an ongoing contribution that would build on what has already been laid down in this regard. What is required is a detailed examination of what size of cell is acceptable for the accommodation of various numbers of persons. Attention needs to be paid to the number of hours that prisoners spend locked in the cells, when determining appropriate sizes. Even for prisoners who spend a large amount of time out of their cells, there must be a clear minimum space, which meets standards of human dignity.” In its Guidance the ICRC outlined the following principles: “Shared or dormitory accommodation: 3.4 m2 per person, including where bunk beds are used. ... As previously mentioned, space alone is a limited measure of the quality of life and conditions of detention. As such, it is merely a starting point when evaluating the conditions in which detainees are held. Space norms cannot be specified separately from the total environment. The appropriateness of the ICRC’s recommended specifications in any given situation will depend on a number of other factors including: the specific individual needs of, for example, sick, old or young prisoners, women and/or people with disabilities; the physical condition of the buildings; the amount of time spent in the accommodation area; the frequency and extent of opportunities to take physical exercise, work and be involved in other activities outside the accommodation area; the number of people in the accommodation area (to allow a degree of privacy and avoid isolation); the amount of natural light and the adequacy of the ventilation; other activities being undertaken in the accommodation area (e.g. cooking, washing, drying); other services available (e.g. toilets and showers); and >>the extent of supervision provided.”