CASE OF SHATOKHIN v. RUSSIA
Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading treatment;Inhuman treatment) (Substantive aspect)
Dmitry Dedov;Luis López Guerra
4. The applicant was born in 1982 and lives in the Altay region. 5. At the material time the applicant was serving a sentence for robbery in correctional colony no. LIU-8 in the Altay region. 6. On 22 June, 12 July and 20 December 2004 he attempted suicide by opening his veins. 7. On 12 July 2004 a prison psychiatrist diagnosed the applicant as suffering from a slight mental retardation, psychopathy and claustrophobia with elements of self-aggression. An entry was made in his medical records that solitary confinement was contraindicated for mental health reasons. The correctional colony authorities were informed accordingly. The applicant was prescribed treatment. Since that time he had been examined by the prison psychiatrist at regular intervals. The prison psychiatrist’s diagnosis and recommendations were confirmed by the psychiatric unit of prison hospital no. 12 where the applicant was treated from 2 to 26 April 2005. 8. On 3 May 2005 the governor of the correctional colony ordered the applicant’s placement in a punishment cell for thirteen days as a punishment for the disorderly state of his bed and bedside table. 9. On 5 May 2005 the applicant was examined by the prison doctor on duty who found that his state of health permitted his placement in a punishment cell, provided that he was not held in solitary confinement. 10. The applicant was then placed in punishment cell no. 32 designed to accommodate two inmates. He was left alone in the cell, but the door was kept open. 11. On the same day the applicant went on a hunger strike in protest against his placement in solitary confinement. 12. At 8 p.m. on 8 May 2005 the applicant was visited by the prison doctor on duty who examined him and found that his health was satisfactory. He reiterated the recommendation that given the applicant’s mental condition solitary confinement was contraindicated. 13. After the doctor left, the door of the applicant’s cell was shut. About an hour later the applicant had a panic attack and attempted to open his veins with his teeth. The doctor was called back. He noted numerous lacerated wounds on the applicant’s forearms and made bandages. 14. By letters of 15 June, 8 August and 1 November 2005 the applicant asked the prosecutor’s office of the Altay Region to initiate criminal proceedings against the warders on duty. 15. On 15 December 2005 a deputy prosecutor of Barnaul refused to open criminal proceedings. He referred to statements by a warder, Mr Sh., that the applicant had himself asked him to shut the door. Moreover, the applicant’s health had not been seriously damaged as a result of the incident. 16. It follows from the letter of 16 December 2005 from the prosecutor of Barnaul that the prosecutor’s office had found that the applicant had been lawfully placed in a punishment cell. At the same time, the warders had disrespected the doctor’s recommendation by leaving the applicant alone in a closed cell. The governor of correctional colony no. LIU-8 had been warned against “permitting similar incidents to occur in future”. 17. Following to further complaints by the applicant, in which he stated in particular that he had never asked the warders to close the door, the prosecutor of Barnaul conducted an additional inquiry. He questioned the applicant and Mr Sh. He also questioned warders Mr K. and Mr S. who testified that the door to the applicant’s cell had been temporarily closed to prevent his communication with other inmates who were at that time receiving clean bedding in the storage room opposite to the applicant’s cell. 18. On 27 January 2006 the prosecutor of Baranaul refused to open criminal proceedings against the warders. He found that the warders had acted in compliance with the internal regulations and had had no intention of provoking the applicant to self-injury. 19. The applicant challenged the prosecutor’s decisions of 15 December 2005 and 27 January 2006 before the Tsentralniy District Court of Barnaul. 20. On 27 September 2006 the Tsentralniy District Court upheld the prosecutor’s decisions, finding that the inquiry had been thorough and the refusals to open criminal proceedings had been lawful and justified. 21. The applicant appealed. He submitted, in particular, that the warders had known that he suffered from claustrophobia and had closed the door to take vengeance on him for going on a hunger strike. 22. On 2 November 2006 the Altay Regional Court upheld the decision of 27 September 2006 on appeal.