Originally from The Journal of Eurasian Law (JEL)

Editor’s note: The reproduction of this case contains the second and final part (paragraphs 458-942) of the judgment of the ECHR. The first part was published in Journal of Eurasian Law, Vol. 6, No. 1.

THE LAW

I. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 3 OF THE CONVENTION—CONDITIONS OF DETENTION OF THE SECOND APPLICANT IN THE REMAND PRISON

1. Under Article 3 of the Convention the second applicant complained about conditions of his detention in remand prison IZ-77/1. Article 3 of the Convention provides as follows:

“No one shall be subjected to torture or to inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.”

A. The parties’ submissions

1. The Government’s submissions

2. According to the Government, Russian law provided that conditions of detention on remand must be compatible with human dignity and presumption of innocence. Detention on remand was possible only on the basis of a court order. Criminal prosecution of a suspect inherently entailed limitations of his or her Convention rights which would not be permissible in other situations. One of those limitations concerned the possibility of detaining the suspect; this was done in order to help the State authorities maintain public order and prevent further crimes.

3. The Government informed the Court that sanitary treatment and disinfestation of cells in the remand prison had been entrusted to a private subcontractor. They produced copies of service agreements with the subcontractors and certificates of completed work. The cells were examined on a daily basis by the prison medical staff.