The application was lodged with the ORG by Mr PERSON , Mr PERSON , PERSON and in the name of Mr PERSON . Mr PERSON and PERSON , born in DATE and DATE respectively , are NORP nationals and reside in GPE . Mr PERSON , who was born in DATE and died on CARDINAL DATE , was a GPE national . PERSON is a NORP national and resides in GPE . They are represented before the ORG by Ms S. Reppenhagen , a lawyer practising in GPE .

The respondent Government are represented by their agent , PERSON ORG , PERSON , of ORG .

The facts of the case , as submitted by the parties , may be summarised as follows .

During the Second World War Mr Poznanski , PERSON , Mr PERSON and PERSON late husband PERSON , then NORP nationals , were subjected to forced labour in the ORG concentration camp which was operated by ORG ( ORG ) . The forced labourers had to carry out physically hard work for TIME a week without receiving adequate nutrition . Once they were no longer physically capable of working , the forced labourers were sent to the FAC - Birkenau extermination camp to be killed .

PERSON , PERSON and PERSON PERSON , who are of NORP faith , and PERSON late husband had been arrested by the NORP army following the occupation of GPE . Having been detained in several concentration camps , they were finally transferred to the ORG - Monowitz concentration camp , where they remained until their liberation by ORG in DATE .

Following the end of the Second World War , the allied forces split up ORG inter alia into the companies ORG , ORG and ORG . Legal successor to the corporation was ORG in liquidation ( ORG in GPE , “ FAC ” ) .

GPE , after its foundation on CARDINAL DATE , did not establish any compensation schemes for forced labourers .

Under LAW on GPE ’s ORG ) of DATE , the regulation of compensation claims was deferred until the final settlement of reparation .

Subsequently many actions brought by former forced labourers against NORP companies were rejected with reference to LAW . Nevertheless , GPE paid compensation to victims of the NORP regime , mostly to those who were living in GPE , GPE and other GPE , in particular pursuant to the provisions of LAW ( Bundesentschädigungs - gesetz ) , which entered into force on DATE . It provides inter alia compensation for the detention in a concentration camp and the resulting damage to the health of the former detainees . Forced labour as such was not covered by the existing legislation .

PERSON received payments of CARDINAL ORG in DATE and CARDINAL ORG in DATE , as well as a DATE pension of CARDINAL ORG as of CARDINAL DATE . In DATE he received additional payments of CARDINAL and CARDINAL ORG and his DATE pension was increased from CARDINAL to CARDINAL DEM . As of DATE the applicant has been in receipt of a DATE pension of MONEY ( ORG ) .

PERSON received a payment of CARDINAL DEM in DATE .

On DATE PERSON and the Conference on NORP Material Claims against GPE ( “ NORP Claims Conference ” ) entered into a friendly settlement during the course of a lawsuit brought by a former forced labourer ( the so - called PERSON case ) . Pursuant to that settlement PERSON undertook to pay CARDINAL million DEM to its former forced labourers . PERSON and Mr Silberstein received CARDINAL ORG each under that settlement . Although the settlement stipulated that the recipients were to waive all further claims against PERSON , it is not clear whether the applicants signed such a waiver .

After DATE GPE paid lump sums to several ORG , which then created funds for victims of the NORP regime . GPE paid CARDINAL ORG to a NORP foundation , which then granted compensation to former detainees of concentration camps .

That NORP foundation granted PERSON late husband benefits amounting to CARDINAL new Polish zlotys ( ORG ) on DATE and CARDINAL ORG on DATE .

However , individual compensation for forced labour as such was still not provided by GPE . Many of those former forced labourers brought actions against NORP companies , in particular class action suits in GPE . Against that background the Government of GPE and ORG of GPE concluded a treaty that envisaged the creation of the foundation “ PERSON , Responsibility and Future ” ( Stiftung “ GPE , Verantwortung und FAC ” - hereinafter called “ Foundation ” ) which would provide individual compensation for former forced labourers .

GPE , GPE , GPE , GPE , GPE , ORG , legal representatives of former forced labourers and representatives of NORP industry had participated in those negotiations .

In DATE PERSON , PERSON , PERSON and PERSON late husband brought actions for compensation for non - pecuniary damages and actions for restitution of the unjustified enrichment ( ORG der ungerechtfertigten GPE ) against the PERSON requesting between CARDINAL ORG ( CARDINAL ORG ) and CARDINAL DEM ( CARDINAL ORG ) each .

On DATE the “ Law on the Creation of the ORG “ Remembrance , Responsibility and Future ” ( Gesetz PERSON “ GPE , PERSON DATE hereinafter called “ LAW ” ) entered into force ( see “ Relevant domestic law and practice ” below ) . The ORG was subsequently set up and both the Government of GPE and the NORP companies provided for the ORG ’s funding . PERSON did not make any contributions .

ORG rejected the actions stating that claims against PERSON were excluded by LAW .

Rejecting the PERSON appeal the court held that their claims were excluded by LAW . Nevertheless , the court came to the conclusion that some of their claims had not been time - barred when LAW entered into force . At the outset the court recalled that the statute of limitations ( Verjährung ) for claims relating to forced labour during the Second World War had been suspended ( gehemmt ) by LAW . That suspension had been lifted with the conclusion of LAW on the Final Settlement with respect to GPE of CARDINAL DATE ( the socalled TwoPlusFour Treaty ) .

As regards the claims for compensation for non - pecuniary damages the court applied a prescription period of DATE , holding that the claims had become time - barred in DATE . In respect of their claims of restitution of the unjustified enrichment ( ORG der ungerechtfertigten GPE ) the court found that , contrary to the case - law of ORG ( see “ Relevant domestic law and practice ” below ) , those claims were not time - barred . Instead of applying a prescription period of DATE as ORG had done , ORG applied a prescription period of DATE .

In its reasoning the court stressed that before LAW had entered into force the question whether claims for forced labour were time - barred had not been finally settled . Leave to appeal on points of law was refused .

ORG rejected the complaint against the refusal of leave to appeal on points of law . The court stated that ORG holding that claims of restitution of the unjustified enrichment were not time - barred deviated from the existing case - law of ORG . However , the court found it unnecessary to rule on that issue because the claims were excluded by LAW in any event .

During the proceedings before ORG Mr PERSON died and his widow pursued the proceedings . ORG refused to admit the constitutional complaint against the aforementioned decisions and LAW of LAW , holding that they did not violate the ORG rights under LAW ( right of property ) . The court found that LAW was applicable , because the complainants had had claims for restitution of the unjustified enrichment prior to ORG entry into force , as held by ORG ; the findings of which were binding as a starting point for the constitutional review insofar the question of prescription was concerned . ORG went on to say that although there had been an interference with the ORG right of property , it did not constitute an expropriation . It found that the exclusion of claims under LAW was not undertaken for public purposes ( ORG öffentlicher ORG ) . On the contrary , the exclusion of claims was meant to balance the purely private interests of the former forced labourers on the one hand and NORP industry on the other hand . Therefore , section CARDINAL of the Foundation Law determined the extent of the right of property and its limitations ( Inhalts- PERSON ) . The court concluded that LAW was an overall settlement ( Gesamtregelung ) which had struck a fair balance between those competing interests . The court held that both the creation of a compensation scheme on the one hand and the achievement of legal certainty for NORP companies and the ORG on the other hand pursued legitimate interests . The court acknowledged that the amount of compensation under the ORG ’s scheme was in some cases inferior to the claims the former forced labourers had had under NORP civil law . However , the court pointed out that the overall settlement as set up by LAW had several advantages that balanced its shortcomings . First , the court noted that the Foundation PERSON created legal certainty for former forced labourers by replacing their claims against companies which were bankrupt or no longer existed with claims against a foundation endowed with sufficient funds . Moreover , ORG highlighted that , before LAW had entered into force , it had been open whether ORG would change its case - law regarding the prescription of claims for forced labour . Hence the former forced labourers did not have to bring proceedings before the NORP courts , which would have entailed considerable financial risks and would have been time - consuming . In this respect the court stressed that all former forced labourers were well advanced in DATE and that only the ORG ’s compensation scheme guaranteed that they would receive compensation within their lifetime .

The decision was served on DATE .

On an unknown date PERSON , PERSON , Mr PERSON and PERSON , as her late husband ’s heir , were granted payments under LAW amounting to the equivalent of CARDINAL ORG each .

On DATE Mr PERSON died .

According to the preliminary sixth report of ORG on the activities of the ORG , which covers its activities until DATE , CARDINAL applications for compensation had been lodged with the ORG ’s partner organisations . In CARDINAL cases the partner organisations rendered positive decisions , while CARDINAL requests were denied . CARDINAL cases were still pending before the partner ORG appeals boards . All partner organisations combined had awarded payments amounting to MONEY ORG . In CARDINAL cases the partner organisations were still in the process of making the payments .

According to the judgment of ORG of DATE , claims against a company for the restitution of the unjustified enrichment or claims for compensation for non - pecuniary damages for forced labour carried out during the Second World War were time - barred . The court found that tort claims were prescribed after DATE , while claims for restitution of the unjustified enrichment became time - barred after either DATE ( no . ORG CARDINAL/CARDINAL , Decisions of ORG in ORG ( BGHZ ) vol . CARDINAL , pp . CARDINAL et seq . ) .

In decisions rendered after DATE several ORG held that the statute of limitations for claims relating to forced labour during the Second World War had been suspended ( gehemmt ) by LAW . That suspension had been lifted with the conclusion of LAW on the Final Settlement with respect to GPE of DATE ( the socalled TwoPlusFour Treaty ) because that treaty was considered a final settlement of reparation . However , applying the prescription periods ( PERSON ) as determined by ORG in its aforementioned judgment , the courts concluded that the claims against the respondent companies had become time - barred before the actions were brought ( see the judgment of ORG of DATE , no . CARDINAL U CARDINAL/CARDINAL ; the decision of ORG of ORG of DATE , no . CARDINAL W CARDINAL/CARDINAL ; the decision of ORG of DATE , no . CARDINAL W CARDINAL/CARDINAL ; decision of ORG of DATE , no . QUANTITY ) .

There has never been a final judgment confirming the existence of claims arising from forced labour carried out during the Second World War .

The Foundation Law stipulates that the ORG should be endowed with MONEY DEM ( MONEY ORG ) , to be provided equally by the Government of GPE and NORP companies . The sum of CARDINAL ORG was intended for the compensation of forced labour . The remaining funds inter alia aimed at compensating the loss of property or were granted as humanitarian aid to ORG and ORG on ORG which finance social programmes for Holocaust survivors .

All NORP companies which exploited forced labourers during the Second World War are protected by LAW , regardless of whether they actually contributed to the ORG .

Requests for compensation are not processed by the ORG itself , but by its regional partner organisations in several NORP countries . The highest amount of compensation - for forced labour in a concentration camp - is CARDINAL DEM ( CARDINAL ORG ) . That amount can be reduced if the funds do not suffice to fully compensate all individuals entitled under LAW . The compensation is made in CARDINAL instalments . First , CARDINAL % or PERCENT of the total sum is paid out , while the second instalment is made after all requests have been processed , provided that the funds suffice . As a matter of principle , only the forced labourers themselves are entitled to compensation . Heirs are only eligible if the forced labourer died after DATE .

According to section CARDINAL of the Foundation Law all further claims against the NORP ORG or NORP companies are excluded . That provision reads as follows :

“ Exclusions from Claims

( CARDINAL ) Payments from public funds , including social security , and from NORP business enterprises for injustice suffered under ORG as defined in LAW may be claimed only under the terms of this PERSON . Any further claims in connection with ORG injustices are excluded . This applies also to cases in which claims have been transferred to third persons by operation of law , transition , or a legal transaction .

( CARDINAL ) On receipt of a payment under this PERSON , each claimant shall provide a statement ... irrevocably renouncing , without prejudice to Sentences DATE , after receipt of a payment under this PERSON any further claim against the authorities for forced labour and property damage , all claims against NORP enterprises in connection with ORG injustice , and forced - labour claims against GPE or NORP enterprises . The renunciation becomes effective upon receipt of a payment under this PERSON . ... ”


Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Civil proceedings;Article 6-1 - Reasonable time)

The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE .

On DATE the applicant brought a civil action in ORG ( Općinski građanski sud u GPE ) against insurance company GPE seeking damages .

On DATE that court adopted a judgement for the applicant .

On DATE ORG ( Županijski sud u GPE ) dismissed an appeal by the defendant and upheld the first - instance judgement . The judgement was served on the applicant ’s representative on DATE .

Meanwhile , on DATE the applicant lodged a request for the protection of the right to a hearing within a reasonable time ( zahtjev za zaštitu prava na suđenje u razumnom roku ) with ORG .

On DATE the ORG found a violation of the applicant ’s right to a hearing within a reasonable time , awarded him CARDINAL NORP kunas ( HRK ) in compensation and ordered ORG to give a decision in the applicant ’s case within DATE of service of its decision . This decision was served on the applicant ’s representative on CARDINAL DATE .

On DATE the applicant appealed against ORG decision in its part concerning the award of compensation . He argued that the compensation that court had awarded him was too low and sought HRK CARDINAL instead .

On DATE ORG ( PERSON ) allowed the applicant ’s appeal in part and awarded him additional HRK CARDINAL , that is , HRK CARDINAL in total .

On DATE the ORG decision of DATE was served on ORG with a view to deciding the applicant ’s case within the time - limit set forth in that decision .

The relevant provisions of LAW ( Zakon o sudovima , ORG nos . CARDINAL , CARDINAL and CARDINAL/CARDINAL ) , governing the request for the protection of the right to a hearing within a reasonable time , as the remedy for the length of judicial proceedings in GPE , are set out in GPE v. GPE , no . CARDINAL , § DATE , DATE .


Violations of Art. 3 (substantive aspect);No violation of Art. 3 (substantive aspect);Violation of Art. 3 (procedural aspect);Violation of Art. 13;Violation of Art. 6-1;No violation of Art. 6-1;Remainder inadmissible;Non-pecuniary damage - award

Anatoly Kovler;Christos Rozakis;Dean Spielmann;Elisabeth Steiner;George Nicolaou;Giorgio Malinverni;Sverre Erik Jebens

The applicant was born in DATE and lived until his arrest in the town of GPE , Kaliningrad Region .

On DATE ORG of GPE found the applicant guilty of aggravated blackmail and sentenced him to DATE imprisonment .

In separate proceedings , on DATE ORG of GPE , in the final instance , convicted the applicant of disruption of order in a detention facility and sentenced him to DATE imprisonment .

From DATE to DATE the applicant was detained in GPE no . IZ-CARDINAL/CARDINAL detention facility . According to the applicant , that detention facility was built in DATE and no construction works to the cells have been carried out since .

According to certificates issued on DATE by the director of the facility and produced by the ORG , the applicant was kept in CARDINAL different cells which measured CARDINAL , CARDINAL and QUANTITY . The Government submitted that the information on the exact number of inmates detained together with the applicant was not available . They noted that the cells could have occasionally been overcrowded , but at all times the applicant had had an individual bunk and bedding . Relying on the information provided by the director of the facility , the Government further argued that the sanitary conditions in the cells were satisfactory .

The applicant did not dispute the cell measurements . However , he alleged that the cells which measured QUANTITY had had CARDINAL sleeping places and usually had housed from CARDINAL inmates . The smaller cells had either CARDINAL or CARDINAL sleeping places and accommodated from CARDINAL to CARDINAL detainees . Given the lack of beds , inmates had slept in shifts . The applicant further submitted that the sanitary conditions had been appalling .

On DATE the applicant lodged an action against facility no . IZ-CARDINAL/CARDINAL and ORG , seeking compensation for damage . He described the conditions of his detention in TIME detail and claimed that his detention had amounted to torture . He also sought leave to appear before the court .

On DATE ORG of GPE refused leave to appear because the domestic law did not require the applicant 's presence . DATE the applicant again unsuccessfully sought leave to appear and asked to be assisted by legal aid counsel , arguing that he had no means to pay for legal assistance .

On DATE ORG dismissed the action because the applicant had failed to prove that the facility administration had been liable for damage allegedly caused to him and he had not produced evidence showing that his rights had been violated . That judgment was quashed by ORG on DATE . The case was remitted for fresh examination .

On DATE the applicant received a letter from a judge of ORG informing him that he could not be granted leave to appear as the law did not allow a transfer of detainees from facilities where they are serving their sentence to enable them to take part in civil proceedings . The judge noted that ORG had no right to bring the applicant to the hearing , as his regime of detention would be violated . The judge further informed the applicant that he could appoint a representative or authorise ORG to examine the action in his absence .

On DATE ORG , in the applicant 's absence , dismissed the action . The relevant part of the judgment read as follows :

“ [ The applicant ] was not brought to the hearing because the law on civil procedure does not prescribe the transport of prisoners who serve sentence in detention facilities to court hearings to allow them to take part in examination of civil cases . [ The applicant ] did not want to make use of his right to issue a power of authority to a representative to ensure his participation in the examination of the case ; he was duly informed about the date and time of the hearing .

As it follows from information presented on DATE by the administration of detention facility no . PERSON , cell no . DATE [ where the applicant was detained ] measures QUANTITY ; it is impossible to establish how many inmates were detained in the cell as such data were not recorded . Mr S. [ who was detained together with the applicant ] indicates in his claim that the cells in which he had been detained had been overcrowded . As it follows from [ the applicant 's ] detention record he was detained in CARDINAL different cells during his detention .

The above - mentioned circumstances attest to the fact that there is no objective , true and sufficient evidence corroborating [ the applicant 's ] statement that QUANTITY [ of personal space ] were afforded to each CARDINAL inmates . Moreover , funds were not provided from the federal budget for the construction of the second building of the detention facility DATE .

According to certificate no . CARDINAL issued on DATE by ORG , due to lack of funds reconstruction and major repair works were not carried out in the detention facility in DATE and DATE .

By virtue of Article CARDINAL of LAW of GPE , damage caused to an individual by unlawful actions ( omissions ) of ORG authorities , municipal authorities or their officials is to be compensated and is compensated at the expense of the ORG of GPE , treasuries of the constitutive entities of GPE or treasuries of the municipal authorities respectively .

Taking into account the above - mentioned circumstances , the court concludes that having regard to the lack of funds in the federal budget for the reconstruction and major repair works of the detention facility and to the fact that [ the applicant 's ] arrest was authorised by a prosecutor , the actions of the administration of detention facility no . IZ-CARDINAL/CARDINAL pertaining to [ the applicant 's ] placement and detention in the facility had a lawful character and complied with requirements of the law ; thus , the respondents do not bear responsibility under LAW of GPE .

By virtue of LAW of GPE , if an individual sustained non - pecuniary damage ( physical and moral sufferings ) as a result of actions which violated his personal non - pecuniary rights or which encroached on his other non - pecuniary interests or in other cases which are prescribed by law , a court may order that the adversary should compensate non - pecuniary damage .

As it was indicated above , the respondents are not those who caused damage due to the overcrowding in the detention facility cells ; lack of repair works ; [ the applicant ] contracting a skin rash ; the deterioration of [ the applicant 's ] eyesight ; as to [ the applicant 's ] allegations of insufficient food , lighting and provision of essentials , they were refuted by the case file materials ; accordingly , the court dismisses [ the applicant 's ] action . ”

The applicant lodged an appeal statement , complaining , inter alia , that he had not been afforded an opportunity to attend the hearings before ORG and thus he had been unable to argue his case effectively . The applicant sought leave to appear before the appeal court .

On DATE ORG upheld the judgment of DATE , endorsing the reasons given by ORG . The relevant part of the judgment read as follows :

“ As to [ the applicant 's ] claims of overcrowding in the cells in which he was detained and inability to shower at least once DATE , as prescribed by the Rules on ORG , those allegations were confirmed ; at the same time , those violations of the detention rules did not have a gross and malicious character amounting , as [ the applicant ] claimed , to torture . For instance , [ the applicant ] could shower DATE in view of the throughput capacity of the bathhouse ; that fact can not be considered a serious violation of [ the applicant 's ] rights .

As it follows from a certificate submitted by the facility administration to the court , during the period indicated by [ the applicant ] from CARDINAL persons were detained in the facility , while the maximum permitted number of inmates was CARDINAL . In such circumstances , the cells in fact occasionally accommodated more inmates than was permitted , however the [ permitted ] number was not exceeded threefold as [ the applicant ] claimed . At the same time the [ ORG rightfully considered that there was no guilt on the part of the detention facility in such circumstances , as the facility did not have the right not to admit the detainees when the maximum capacity of the facility had been exceeded . The [ ORG lawfully found that there were no grounds for accepting [ the applicant 's ] action for compensation for non - pecuniary damage as the responsibility under LAW of GPE only arises on the condition of guilt on the part of the ORG authorities , which is absent in the present case .

The court can not accept [ the applicant 's ] argument that his right to defence was violated . Norms of the Code of Civil Procedure ( in force at the material time ) do not require transport of detainees to courts which examine civil cases . The [ ORG informed [ the applicant ] of his right to participate in a court hearing through his representative , however , [ the applicant ] did not want to make use of that right . His requests for appointment of legal aid counsel also could not be granted by the [ ORG because there is no norm in LAW which requires ORG to represent interests of such persons in civil cases . At the same time , nothing precluded [ the applicant ] from asking ORG to represent him . ”

The applicant was not brought to the appeal hearing .

On DATE the applicant was transferred from a colony where he was serving his sentence pursuant to the judgment of DATE to facility no . IZ-CARDINAL/CARDINAL to take part in the trial on the charge of disruption of order in the colony . He remained in facility no . PERSON until DATE .

According to the applicant , he was detained in a number of cells . He provided description of the CARDINAL cells : cell no . CARDINAL which measured QUANTITY , had CARDINAL sleeping places and accommodated CARDINAL inmates , and cell no . CARDINAL , which measured QUANTITY , had CARDINAL sleeping places and accommodated CARDINAL inmates . The inmates took turns to sleep . The applicant argued that the sanitary conditions in the cells had been unsatisfactory . The ventilation system did not function , making the heat in summer unbearable . The cells were permanently lit by CARDINAL bulbs . The toilet was not separated by a partition from the living area . At no time did the applicant have complete privacy . Anything he happened to be doing – using the toilet , sleeping – was subject to observations by the guard . He could shower twice a month . Of the QUANTITY shower heads CARDINAL worked and a large group of inmates had to fight for a place to shower within the afforded TIME . The cells were dirty , damp and full of insects .

The Government , relying on certificates issued by the director of the detention facility on DATE , argued that the applicant had been detained in CARDINAL different cells , of which CARDINAL cells measured CARDINAL and QUANTITY and had CARDINAL sleeping places and the remaining CARDINAL cells measured CARDINAL and QUANTITY and were fit to accommodate CARDINAL inmates . The Government submitted that the number of inmates in the cells had always corresponded to the number of bunks . As follows from a certificate issued by the facility director , the information on the exact number of inmates detained together with the applicant was unavailable as the registration logs had been destroyed .

The Government further submitted that each cell had a glazed window QUANTITY high and QUANTITY wide , which was covered by thick bars with so - called “ eyelashes ” , that is , slanted plates QUANTITY apart welded to a metal screen , which gave no access to natural air or light . In compliance with the recommendations of ORG issued on DATE , the latter construction was removed from the windows before DATE . According to the Government the sanitary conditions were satisfactory . The cells were ventilated and had a central heating system , water supply , sewerage , natural and electric lighting and sanitary equipment . The applicant had free access to drinking water . The toilet was separated by a QUANTITY - high partition from the living area of the cell . The electric lighting was constantly on for surveillance and safety reasons . At TIME lower - voltage bulbs were used . The cells were disinfected at least once DATE . The applicant was afforded an opportunity to shower DATE for TIME . He was provided with an individual bed , mattress , pillow and bed linen .

On DATE the applicant sued facility no . IZ-CARDINAL/CARDINAL and ORG of ORG for compensation for damage . In his statement of claim he gave a detailed account of the conditions of his detention from DATE to DATE .

On DATE ORG stayed the adjudication of the action and asked the applicant to indicate possible evidence showing that the alleged violations had in fact occurred . On DATE ORG upheld that decision . There is no indication that the applicant sought resumption of the proceedings .

On DATE the applicant was taken from the colony to facility no . IZ-CARDINAL/CARDINAL to attend an appeal hearing pertaining to CARDINAL of his actions . He was sent back to the colony on DATE .

The Government , relying on a certificate issued on DATE by the director of facility no . PERSON , submitted that during that period the applicant had been detained in CARDINAL different cells , each measuring QUANTITY . The Government further noted that the sanitary norm of personal space per inmate had not always been complied with , but the applicant had had an individual sleeping place at all times . According to the Government , the applicant was detained with CARDINAL other detainees in the first cell . They were unable to indicate the exact number of inmates in the second cell . However , as it follows from the above - mentioned director 's certificate , the facility did not have any information on the number of inmates in either of the cells in which the applicant had been detained .

Citing the information provided by the director of the facility , the ORG further submitted that the cells received natural light and ventilation through a large window , which was double - glazed and measured QUANTITY . The windows had a casement . Inmates could request warders to open the casement to bring in fresh air . The windows were covered with latticed partitions to ensure “ sound and visual insulation ” . The cells had ventilation shafts . The cells were equipped with lamps which functioned day and night . Each cell was equipped with a lavatory pan , a sink and a tap for running water . The pan was separated from the living area by a QUANTITY - high partition . Inmates were allowed to take a shower once in DATE . Each inmate was afforded at least TIME to take a shower . The cells were disinfected . The Government , relying on the information provided by the director of the facility , further stated that the applicant was given food “ in accordance with the established norms ” . According to the Government , detainees , including the applicant , were provided with medical assistance . They had regular medical check - ups , including X - ray examinations , blood tests , and so on . The applicant did not ask for particular medical services . The Government furnished a copy of the applicant 's medical record and medical certificates .

The applicant did not contest the cell measurements . However , he insisted that the cells had been severely overcrowded and he had had QUANTITY of living surface . Inmates had to take turns to sleep . The applicant further submitted that the sanitary conditions had been appalling . The cells were infested with insects but the administration did not provide any insecticide . The windows were covered with metal blinds which blocked access to natural light and air . It was impossible to take a shower as inmates were afforded only TIME and QUANTITY to CARDINAL men had to use CARDINAL shower head at the same time . That situation was further aggravated by the fact that inmates could only take a shower once in DATE . Inmates had to wash and dry their laundry indoors , creating excessive humidity in the cells . Inmates were also allowed to smoke in the cells . The lavatory pan was not separated from the living area by any partition . Thus , inmates were afforded no privacy . No toiletries were provided . The food was of poor quality and in scarce supply . The applicant further argued that medical assistance had been unavailable .

The applicant complained to various authorities , including the ORG of the President of GPE , ORG , the Governor of LOC , various prosecutors and ORG in GPE , about the conditions of his detention . The complaints were to no avail .

On DATE the applicant lodged an action against facility no . IZ-CARDINAL/CARDINAL , seeking compensation for damage caused as a result of his detention in appalling conditions from DATE to DATE . He also sought leave to appear before the court .

On DATE ORG dismissed the action , relying on the same grounds as were cited in the judgment of DATE . In particular , ORG noted that LAW renders authorities amenable to responsibility for causing damage to individuals only if there has been fault in their actions or omissions . As there was no fault on the part of the domestic authorities for “ mental and emotional sufferings or other damage ” caused to the applicant , his action could not be accepted .

The applicant lodged an appeal statement , complaining , among other things , that ORG had not granted him leave to appear . The applicant asked to be brought to the appeal hearing .

On DATE ORG , in the applicant 's absence , upheld the judgment , endorsing the reasons given by ORG . As to the applicant 's complaints that he could not attend the hearings before ORG , ORG noted that the applicant was serving his sentence in a correctional colony and thus it had been impossible to transport him to the hearings . ORG pointed out that the applicant was aware of his procedural rights as a claimant .

At the material time the applicant was serving a prison sentence in correctional colony no . OM-CARDINAL/CARDINAL in the village of NORP , GPE , GPE ( also known as facility no . OM-CARDINAL/CARDINAL , hereinafter “ the colony ” ) .

NORP In DATE a group of officers of a special - purpose unit of ORG ( отдел специального назначения PERSON Наказаний Минюста PERSON по PERSON области ) arrived at the colony for the purpose of “ performing searches in DATE of the colony ” .

The applicant submitted that on DATE , at TIME , several officers had entered cell no . CARDINAL where he had been detained . The officers wore balaclava masks . Without warning or any apparent reason they started hitting the applicant and his CARDINAL inmates with rubber truncheons and fists . The applicant fell to the floor but was forced to stand up . The officers , hitting and kicking the inmates , forced them to leave the cell .

The inmates were lined up in a corridor with their faces to the wall and were ordered to spread their legs , put their hands against the wall and to remain spread - eagled for TIME . The beatings continued . Subsequently the applicant and his inmates were taken to the entrance door where they saw CARDINAL rows of officers wearing balaclava masks . The applicant was told to run between these rows to a car . While he was running , he received several blows to his back and his head with rubber truncheons . On the way back the applicant and other inmates again had to pass between the rows of masked officers , who subjected them to the beatings with rubber truncheons .

The applicant and the inmates were lined up with their hands against the wall and their legs wide apart . After TIME of maintaining that position the applicant started feeling dizzy and his legs and arms swelled up . An officer hit the applicant with his fist on the left side of the back . Then several wardens in balaclava masks approached the inmates and started beating them up . The applicant was hit several times on the head , back and legs . He had been pushed strongly against the wall and his forehead was cut and bleeding . The beatings continued for TIME .

During DATE the applicant unsuccessfully requested the colony director to be examined by a doctor . On DATE the applicant was visited by a colony doctor , who refused to record his injuries but ordered him to be confined to bed . According to the applicant , that fact was recorded in register no . CARDINAL of the penal ward ( журнал учета № CARDINAL ПКТ-ШИЗО ) .

The Government disputed the applicant 's description of events . They relied on a handwritten report by the head of the special - purpose unit , PERSON , who stated that no force or special measures had been used on DATE .

The Government submitted that on DATE inmates in cell no . CARDINAL had broken the sewage system and had begun “ demanding to be detained in satisfactory conditions ” . The officers of the special - purpose unit and the colony administration ordered the detainees to leave cell no . CARDINAL and to move to cell no . CARDINAL . After the inmates had been body searched , they complied with the order . The unit officers searched the cell and found several forbidden objects , such as a metal pipe and a shaver . The Government noted that the colony doctor present during the search had recorded that the inmates had not had any complaints . The Government did not produce a copy of the relevant part of register no . CARDINAL of the penal ward alleging its destruction in DATE .

In his numerous letters to the ORG and complaints to domestic authorities , the applicant provided accounts of events which had occurred on DATE . Inconsistencies abounded in those various accounts , but , in general , the applicant 's version was as follows . He alleged that on DATE he had complained to an officer on duty , PERSON , that the injuries sustained by him on DATE had not still been properly recorded . Mr L. quickly looked through written complaints given to him by the applicant and started insulting and threatening the applicant . Following a quick argument , PERSON took the applicant to his office and hit him several times in the hip area . The applicant fell down and the officer hit him twice in the face with his fist . Before placing the applicant back in his cell , the officer again hit him several times on the side of the back and pushed him into the cell . The latter episode was witnessed by CARDINAL inmates detained together with the applicant in the cell and QUANTITY warders .

The Government , relying on a report written by the officer on duty , PERSON , on DATE , submitted that the applicant had disobeyed a lawful order by the duty officer and force had been used to suppress the disobedience . The report read as follows :

“ [ I ] report that on DATE , at TIME , during a check - up and examination of cells in the penal ward [ I ] made a remark to an inmate , [ the applicant ] , as he was dressed improperly ( [ he ] was standing in his underwear ) . [ He ] started explaining that he had washed his trousers . He was told to put on clean trousers . In response he began talking in a loud voice . Subsequently he was informed that he would be reported to [ the facility administration ] . In response he said : “ Write CARDINAL of those . ... [ obscene language ] ” ) . [ The applicant ] was instructed to go to the duty room for a discussion concerning his dishonourable behaviour . When accompanied to the duty room , he tried to offer resistance . Having pushed me , [ he ] tried to run to his cell . Subsequently [ I ] used physical force , put [ the applicant ] on the floor using a fight method , and [ I ] gripped his arm , using a fight method . ”

The applicant was examined by a doctor on DATE . The doctor recorded an abrasion on the side of the applicant 's back . The applicant alleged that the doctor had refused to record other injuries . On DATE the applicant applied to the head of the colony seeking a thorough medical examination and asking for his injuries to be properly recorded . According to the applicant , that complaint brought no response .

According to the Government , on DATE CARDINAL inmates , including the applicant , went on hunger strike . CARDINAL inmates performed acts of self - mutilation . DATE a group of officers of a special - purpose unit of ORG arrived at the colony to give assistance in “ performing searches in DATE of the colony ” as the hunger strike and self - mutilations continued .

The Government further submitted that on DATE , at TIME , a group of officers had entered cell no . CARDINAL , where the applicant had been detained , with the intention of searching it . The applicant refused to leave the cell , used offensive language , insulted warders and pulled their clothes . Following the applicant 's refusal to stop his unlawful behaviour , an officer was forced to “ use a rubber truncheon ” against him . The applicant was taken out of the cell and body searched . A razor from a disposable shaver was seized . Relying on a certificate issued by the head of the colony medical division , the Government noted that the applicant had not applied for medical assistance between CARDINAL DATE and DATE .

The applicant disputed the ORG 's version of events , arguing that after he had made known to the colony administration his intention to go on hunger strike , on DATE a group of officers wearing balaclava masks had stormed into his cell and had taken inmates , apart from him , into a corridor . Then they hit him twice in the chest and head . The officers accompanied the beating with questions about the applicant 's refusal to eat . Afraid for his life , the applicant promised to renounce his intention to take part in the collective hunger strike . He was taken to a corridor where some forty officers in balaclava masks stood . They intimidated and beat the applicant and his inmates . The applicant unsuccessfully asked the colony administration to record injuries sustained as a result of the beating .

The applicant submitted several detailed complaints to ORG about the events of DATE and DATE and DATE . He referred to LAW , urging the prosecutor to institute criminal proceedings against the officers involved in the beatings , and identified witnesses who could have corroborated his complaints . It appears that a number of inmates lodged similar complaints of ill - treatment before ORG .

DATE . On DATE ORG refused to institute criminal proceedings upon the applicant 's and his inmates ' complaints , finding no prima facie case of ill - treatment . That decision was based exclusively on statements by warders and officers of the special - purpose unit .

On DATE ORG of FAC upheld the prosecutor 's decision . That decision was quashed on appeal on DATE by ORG on the ground that the applicant had not been allowed to attend the hearing before ORG or to present his version of events .

On DATE ORG again upheld the prosecutor 's decision of DATE . ORG decision was quashed on appeal on DATE because ORG had not examined the complaints pertaining to the events on DATE .

On DATE the ORG quashed the prosecutor 's decision and remitted the case for a fresh inquiry . ORG reasoned that the prosecutor had not addressed the applicant 's complaints of ill - treatment which had allegedly occurred on DATE .

DATE , on DATE , ORG dismissed the applicant 's ill - treatment complaints , refusing to institute criminal proceedings . The decision , based on the statements by the colony administration , warders and officers of the special - purpose unit , indicated that on DATE no force had been applied to the applicant and his inmates because there had been no need to use force and that the applicant had not complained to a doctor about his state of health .

In respect of the events on DATE the prosecutor found that the use of force had been necessary because the applicant had disobeyed lawful orders of the officer on duty and had tried to run in the corridor . The applicant had been examined by a prison doctor , who had not recorded any injuries , save for an abrasion on his back which could have been sustained for some other reasons .

As to the events on DATE , the prosecutor established that the applicant had refused to leave his cell , had sworn obscenely , had threatened wardens and pulled their clothing . The applicant had been hit with a rubber truncheon to stop his unlawful behaviour . The prosecutor concluded that the use of force had been lawful .

The applicant appealed against the prosecutor 's decision to ORG . He furnished a list of inmates who could have corroborated his description of events , asked for them to be heard and also sought leave to appear before the court .

On DATE ORG dismissed the complaint . The relevant part of the decision read as follows :

“ [ The applicant ] was duly informed about the place and time of the hearing ; it was explained to him that it was impossible to transport him to the hearing ; his absence could not preclude the examination of the complaints by the court .

Having examined the case file materials , the decision of DATE , materials pertaining to [ the applicant 's ] complaints to supervisory review instances , similar complaints by inmates , PERSON , PERSON , PERSON , and by a lawyer , PERSON . , and having heard the prosecutor who had insisted that the decision of DATE and the prosecutor 's actions were lawful and well - founded , the court finds as follows .

... The [ prosecutor ] carried out an inquiry into the CARDINAL episodes [ on DATE and DATE and DATE ] and the court considers it lawful that while examining [ the applicant 's ] new complaints , which did not contain any new information or facts pertaining to those episodes , [ the prosecutor ] used the findings of the previous inquiry .

... Thus , while carrying out an inquiry a prosecutor has the right to assess the necessity ( or its absence ) to question an applicant or witnesses , or to take other investigative measures .

ORG , PERSON . , examined [ the applicant 's ] request of DATE concerning the necessity to interrogate inmates of detention facility no . OM-CARDINAL/CARDINAL , and informed [ the applicant ] about it .

The court did not establish , and [ the applicant ] did not present any evidence concerning a violation of his constitutional rights and freedoms or his right of access to a court by the contested decision of DATE by which the institution of criminal proceedings had been refused or by other actions ( omissions ) of the prosecutor .

Having regard to the above - mentioned circumstances , the court dismisses [ the applicant 's ] complaint ...

The court does not grant [ the applicant 's ] request for witnesses to be heard , because LAW indicates the exhaustive list of persons who can take part in an examination of a complaint against a prosecutor 's decision not to institute criminal proceedings or against other decisions and actions of a prosecutor . Those whose appearance before the court [ the applicant ] sought are not included in that list ; a number of [ witnesses ] are inmates serving sentences in detention facilities and therefore they may not be transported to the courthouse to take part in the proceedings . [ The applicant ] was informed that it was impossible for witnesses to be heard . ”

The applicant appealed , complaining , inter alia , that neither the prosecutor nor ORG had heard him or other detainees who could have confirmed his statements , that they had not taken medical evidence and had limited their inquiry to statements by the colony officers .

On DATE ORG upheld the decision of DATE , endorsing the reasons given by ORG . ORG noted that the applicant 's presence at the hearings before the courts had not been necessary and that ORG had rightfully refused to hear witnesses .

On DATE the Presidium of ORG , by way of a supervisory review , quashed the decisions of DATE and DATE , noting a violation of the applicant 's right to take part in the hearings before the courts .

On DATE the ORG quashed the prosecutor 's decision of DATE and ordered a fresh inquiry into the applicant 's ill - treatment complaints . The relevant part of the decision read as follows :

“ ... during an inquiry into a complaint concerning a criminal offence committed , a prosecutor must thoroughly and objectively investigate all circumstances pertaining to the facts indicated in that complaint ; this means that he must question all interested parties , in [ the applicant 's ] case [ he ] must order an independent medical examination of the detainee , following which and having analysed all established circumstances and having performed an evaluation , [ he ] should issue one of the decisions indicated in LAW .

As it appears from the investigation file presented by the prosecutor and from the materials of the supervisory review , the inquiry into [ the applicant 's ] complaints was not performed consistently , it was chaotic , [ the applicant ] himself and the eyewitnesses , indicated by [ the applicant ] in his complaints , were not questioned ; [ the prosecutor ] received merely formal explanations from the officers ; it is clear from those explanations that the prosecutor himself did not interrogate those officers ; an independent medical examination of [ the applicant ] for a purpose of establishing injuries was not performed .

In such circumstances , [ the court ] considers that the prosecutor 's inquiry into [ the applicant 's ] complaint was performed formally and subjectively , and that the contested decision by which the institution of criminal proceedings was refused is unsubstantiated .

However , it is necessary to take into account that DATE have passed since the events complained of by [ the applicant ] and it will be difficult to remedy the insufficiency of the prosecutor 's inquiry into the complaints about the crime . ”

The applicant attended the hearing .

It appears that the investigation is now pending .

On DATE the applicant and another inmate , PERSON , lodged actions against colony no . OM-CARDINAL/CARDINAL and ORG of ORG , seeking compensation for damage caused by beatings on DATE and DATE and DATE .

In DATE and DATE the applicant submitted several motions to the court , seeking leave to appear , asking to summon witnesses on his behalf and to obtain certain medical documents from the respondents .

On DATE the ORG , LOC , held a hearing in colony no . OM-CARDINAL/CARDINAL . ORG heard the applicant , his co - plaintiff , the representative of the colony , and a number of witnesses . Both the applicant and his co - plaintiff insisted that the beatings had taken place . The representative of the colony confirmed that on DATE physical force and rubber truncheons had been used against the applicant . However , he stressed that the use of the force and special means had been lawful . The head of the medical department of the colony and a prison doctor did not remember examining the applicant after the beatings . Having heard the parties and witnesses , ORG dismissed the actions , holding , in so far as relevant , as follows :

“ At the plaintiffs ' request the court heard , as witnesses , inmates who are serving sentences in that colony . Thus , witness T. confirmed that [ the applicant ] had been beaten by officers of the special - purpose unit on his way to the penal ward and in the walking area , while witnesses PERSON . and GPE ( warders in the colony ) did not confirm that allegation in the court hearing .

An extract from [ the applicant 's ] medical record confirms that on DATE [ the applicant ] consulted a prison doctor , and an extract from register no . CARDINAL of the penal ward corroborates the fact that the prison doctor , PERSON , had ordered that [ the applicant ] should be confined to bed until DATE .

A witness , [ the prison doctor ] , PERSON stated in the court hearing that there is no information in the [ applicant 's ] medical record pertaining to his applying for medical assistance on DATE . On DATE he ordered [ the applicant ] to be confined to bed at the latter 's request , as [ the applicant ] claimed that he was tired . [ Mr PERSON ] never refused to examine inmates , and in DATE he was on leave .

Witnesses Mr Gr . , PERSON , PERSON . and PERSON . testified that in TIME DATE there had been a loud argument between [ the applicant ] , who was not dressed properly , and the officer on duty , PERSON , [ and ] stated that [ the applicant ] had been taken out of the cell and that PERSON had twice hit [ the applicant ] with his fist on the back when the latter was brought back to the cell .

As it follows from the statements by PERSON , [ the applicant ] responded rudely to PERSON remark about his clothes ; he was taken to the duty room to provide an explanation about the incident . However , [ the applicant ] pushed PERSON aside and began running to his cell , screaming that he had been beaten up . Due to such disobedience , physical force in the form of a fight method was applied to [ the applicant ] . The testimony of this witness is confirmed by his report to the director of colony no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL made on DATE .

An act was drawn up on DATE as a confirmation of a use of force against [ the applicant ] , on DATE a medical assistant , PERSON . , recorded an abrasion on the left side of the small of [ the applicant 's ] back .

[ The applicant ] applied to a Justice of the Peace of the CARDINALst Court Circuit with a complaint , seeking institution of criminal proceedings against PERSON , the warder in colony no . DATE , alleging that he had committed libel by writing that report .

The above - mentioned ORG of the Peace , in his decision of DATE , acquitted PERSON of the charge of libel brought against him by [ the applicant ] ... Thus , the court , in the course of the examination of the case , established that there had existed circumstances caused by [ the applicant 's ] behaviour which had prompted the use of force against [ the applicant ] , and that PERSON report had described the events of DATE correctly . The decision of DATE was upheld on appeal by the decision of the appellate court on DATE and became final on CARDINAL DATE .

An extract from [ the applicant 's ] medical record certifies that he did not apply for medical assistance between DATE and DATE .

On DATE , on an order of the head of ORG , officers of the special - purpose unit arrived to colony no . OM-CARDINAL/CARDINAL to give assistance to the colony administration in searching DATE and cells , having regard to an ongoing collective hunger strike and self - mutilations . At the same time a number of forbidden objects were seized from the penal ward , where [ the applicant and his co - plaintiff ] were detained .

A rubber truncheon was used against [ the applicant ] who tried to resist an officer from the special - purpose unit , which is confirmed by the report and act of application of a rubber truncheon issued on DATE .

As it follows from [ the applicant 's ] medical record , medical assistance was not provided to him DATE and DATE .

ORG carried out an inquiry pertaining to the CARDINAL episodes of beatings of which [ the applicant ] complained ; as a result of the inquiry the prosecutor issued a decision on DATE refusing to institute criminal proceedings as there was no criminal conduct in the actions .

[ The applicant ] appealed against that decision in compliance with LAW . ORG of FAC , by its decision of DATE , dismissed [ the applicant 's ] complaint , finding that the disputed decision of the prosecutor was lawful and well - founded . The court decision became final on DATE .

The ORG does not have any grounds to doubt the above - mentioned court decisions . [ The court ] did not establish any instances of unlawful use of physical force against the plaintiffs in the course of the present proceedings , which allows the court to conclude that [ the applicant 's ] ... claim is unsubstantiated . ”

The applicant appealed , also requesting the appeal court to ensure his presence at the hearing .

On DATE ORG upheld the judgment of DATE , endorsing the reasons given by ORG . Neither the applicant nor the representative of the respondents was present .

On DATE CARDINAL HIV - positive detainees arrived at the colony , where they stayed until CARDINAL DATE . The ORG , relying on the information provided by the colony director , submitted that the HIV - positive detainees had been accommodated in a separate colony unit . The colony administration assigned DATE when only those detainees could take showers and allocated separate medical equipment to them . Bedding provided for those detainees was changed and washed separately from that of the rest of the detainees . The tableware given to the HIV - positive detainees was also washed and disinfected separately . The colony administration , assisted by medical specialists , organised a meeting with the detainees and lectured them on AIDS and on how the virus could be transmitted . They also warned the HIV - positive detainees that knowingly transmitting HIV was a criminal offence . The Government submitted that the colony administration had taken every necessary precaution to prevent the spread of the disease in the colony . In particular , they prevented the use of drugs , sexual contact between inmates and tattooing . They also provided contraceptives to inmates who were allowed to have long - term meetings with relatives . The Government stressed that as a result of those actions no detainee had contracted HIV .

In DATE and DATE the applicant unsuccessfully sought institution of criminal proceedings against the colony administration because the HIV - positive detainees had been admitted to the colony .

DATE . On DATE ORG sent a letter to the applicant informing him that his request had already been dismissed in DATE .

The applicant complained to a court that the prosecutor had failed to discharge his duties by refusing to reconsider his request .

On DATE ORG , in the final instance , dismissed the complaint and discontinued the proceedings because an appeal should have been lodged against the decision of DATE rather than against the letter of DATE .

On DATE the applicant lodged an action against ORG and ORG , seeking compensation for non - pecuniary damage . He claimed that he had feared for his life because the HIV - positive detainees had stayed in the colony . He also sought leave to appear .

On DATE the ORG informed the applicant that the hearing had been listed for DATE . ORG also noted that the law did not provide a detainee with the right to attend a hearing in a civil case and that the applicant could appoint a representative or allow ORG to adjudicate the action in his absence .

On DATE ORG dismissed the action , holding that the colony administration had taken the necessary steps to prevent the risk of HIV contagion and that no - one in the colony had contracted HIV . The administration provided the HIV - positive detainees with separate kitchenware . The detainees took showers separately and medical assistance was provided to them in a separate facility and with separate equipment . The colony administration organised meetings with detainees and lectured them on how AIDS could be transmitted . At the same time ORG noted that the applicant could not contract HIV by taking showers or eating in the same premises as the HIV - positive detainees .

On DATE ORG upheld the judgment . The applicant was not present .

On DATE and DATE the applicant lodged CARDINAL tort actions against the LOC police department and colony no . OM-CARDINAL/CARDINAL . In the first action the applicant claimed that in DATE police officers of the LOC police department had seized his personal belongings and had not returned them to him . He further argued that he had been placed in the facility of that police department , where he had been detained in poor conditions and had only been provided with food once a day . In the second action he complained that the administration of colony no . OM-CARDINAL/CARDINAL had not arranged screenings of films , as provided for by the domestic law .

DATE . On DATE ORG dismissed the first action , finding that the applicant 's allegations of insufficient food were false , and that his personal belongings had been seized lawfully .

On DATE ORG dismissed the second action , holding that the domestic law did not provide detainees , including the applicant , with the right to see films .

On DATE and DATE ORG upheld the judgments of CARDINAL May and DATE respectively . The applicant was not brought to either the first - instance or the appeal hearings despite his requests .

On DATE the applicant asked the colony administration to provide him with his medical records . On DATE the administration provided him with general information about the state of his health and refused to give him the full record .

On DATE the applicant unsuccessfully asked a prosecutor to institute criminal proceedings against the administration . On DATE ORG , acting on an appeal by the applicant against the prosecutor 's decision , discontinued the proceedings .

On DATE and DATE the applicant unsuccessfully asked various prosecutors to institute criminal proceedings against a judge who had determined CARDINAL of his claims . Subsequently , the applicant complained to a court that the prosecutors had failed to discharge their duties . On DATE and DATE ORG , in the final instance , disallowed the complaints and discontinued the proceedings .

On DATE the applicant asked for a transfer to another colony . On CARDINAL DATE ORG , in the final instance , granted the request and held that the applicant should stay in a lower security colony .

Section CARDINAL of ORG no . CARDINAL-FZ of DATE ) provides that detainees should be given free food sufficient to maintain them in good health according to standards established by ORG of GPE . Section CARDINAL provides that detainees should be kept in conditions which satisfy sanitary and hygienic requirements . They should be provided with an individual sleeping place and given bedding , tableware and toiletries . Each inmate should have QUANTITY of personal space in his or her cell .

When using physical force , special means or weapons , the penitentiary officers must :

( CARDINAL ) NORP state their intention to use them and afford the detainee(s ) sufficient time to comply with their demands unless a delay would imperil life or limb of the officers or detainees ;

( CARDINAL ) NORP ensure the least possible harm to detainees and provide medical assistance ;

( CARDINAL ) report every incident involving the use of physical force , special means or weapons to their immediate superiors ( section CARDINAL ) .

Rubber truncheons may be used for

( CARDINAL ) putting an end to assaults on officers , detainees or civilians ;

( CARDINAL ) NORP repressing mass disorders or group violations of public order by detainees , as well as for apprehension ( задержание ) of offenders who persistently disobey or resist the officers ( section CARDINAL ) .

The RSFSR Code of Criminal Procedure ( in force until DATE , “ the CCrP ” ) established that a criminal investigation could be initiated by an investigator on a complaint by an individual or on the investigative authorities ' own initiative , where there were reasons to believe that a crime had been committed ( Articles CARDINAL and CARDINAL ) . A prosecutor was responsible for overall supervision of the investigation ( ORG CARDINAL and CARDINAL ) . He could order specific investigative actions , transfer the case from CARDINAL investigator to another or order an additional investigation . If there were no grounds to initiate or continue a criminal investigation , the prosecutor or investigator issued a reasoned decision to that effect which had to be notified to the interested party . The decision was amenable to appeal to a higher prosecutor or to a court of general jurisdiction ( Articles CARDINAL and CARDINAL ) .

On DATE the old Code was replaced by LAW ( “ the new ORG ” ) . LAW ORG provides for judicial review of decisions by investigators and prosecutors that might infringe the constitutional rights of participants in proceedings or prevent access to a court .

Article CARDINAL § CARDINAL of LAW of GPE provides that the damage caused to the person or property of a citizen shall be compensated in full by the tortfeasor . Pursuant to LAW , a ORG agency or a ORG official shall be liable to a citizen for damage caused by their unlawful actions or failure to act . Such damage is to be compensated at the expense of the federal or regional treasury . ORG CARDINAL and QUANTITY of LAW provide for compensation for non - pecuniary damage . Article CARDINAL states , in particular , that non - pecuniary damage shall be compensated irrespective of any award for pecuniary damage .

Limitation of a citizen 's rights and freedoms because of his or her HIV status may be authorised only by federal law ( section CARDINAL of the Law on Prevention of Propagation of HIV infection , CARDINAL of CARDINAL DATE ) . Detainees are subject to a compulsory medical examination ( section QUANTITY of the Law ) . A person who has tested HIV - positive must be informed thereof , be informed of the need to take precautions for preventing transmission of HIV and warned that contamination of others or exposing others to a risk of contamination is a criminal offence ( section CARDINAL of the PERSON ; LAW ) .

According to the Rules on Compulsory Testing of Prisoners for HIV infection ( adopted by ORG on DATE ) , the prison administration must take measures preventing transmission of HIV ; medical and other staff must not disclose information relating to a detainee 's HIV status ( LAW and CARDINAL ) .

Section CARDINAL § CARDINAL of the Penitentiary Code provided that medical penitentiary establishments should be organised for treatment and detention of drug addicts , alcoholics , HIV and tuberculosis infected prisoners . Federal Law No . CARDINAL-FZ of DATE repealed that provision in so far as it related to HIV - positive prisoners .

The Code of Civil Procedure of GPE provides that individuals may appear before a court in person or act through a representative ( LAW ) . A court may appoint an advocate to represent a defendant whose place of residence is not known ( LAW . LAW ( Law no . CARDINAL-FZ of DATE ) provides that free legal assistance may be provided to indigent plaintiffs in civil disputes concerning alimony or pension payments or claims for health damage ( section CARDINAL § CARDINAL ) .

The Penitentiary Code provides that convicted persons may be transferred from a correctional colony to a temporary detention facility if their participation is required as witnesses , victims or suspects in connection with certain investigative measures ( Article CARDINAL ) . The Code does not mention the possibility for a convicted person to take part in civil proceedings , whether as a plaintiff or defendant .

On several occasions ORG has examined complaints by convicted persons whose requests for leave to appear in civil proceedings had been refused by courts . It has consistently declared the complaints inadmissible , finding that the contested provisions of LAW and LAW did not , as such , restrict the convicted person 's access to court . It has emphasised , nonetheless , that the convicted person should be able to make submissions to the civil court , either through a representative or in any other way provided by law . If necessary , the hearing may be held at the location where the convicted person is serving the sentence or the court hearing the case may instruct the court having territorial jurisdiction over the correctional colony to obtain the applicant 's submissions or carry out any other procedural steps ( decisions no . CARDINAL-O of DATE , no . CARDINAL of DATE , and no . CARDINAL of DATE ) .

ORG for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment ( ORG ) visited GPE from DATE . The section of its ORG to ORG ( ORG ( DATE ) CARDINAL ) dealing with the conditions of detention in temporary holding facilities and remand establishments and the complaints procedure read as follows :

“ b. temporary holding facilities for criminal suspects ( ORG )

According to LAW establishing the internal rules of ORG temporary holding facilities for suspects and accused persons , the living space per person should be CARDINAL m² . It is also provided in these regulations that detained persons should be supplied with mattresses and bedding , soap , toilet paper , newspapers , games , food , etc . Further , the regulations make provision for outdoor exercise of TIME per day .

The actual conditions of detention in the ORG establishments visited in DATE varied considerably .

It should be stressed at the outset that the ORG was pleased to note the progress being made on an issue of great concern for the NORP penitentiary system : overcrowding .

When the ORG first visited GPE in DATE , overcrowding was identified as the most important and urgent challenge facing the prison system . At DATE visit , the delegation was informed that the remand prison population had decreased by CARDINAL since DATE . An example of that trend was GPE No CARDINAL in GPE , which had registered a PERCENT decrease in the remand prison population over DATE .

The ORG welcomes the measures taken in DATE by the NORP authorities to address the problem of overcrowding , including instructions issued by ORG , aimed at a more selective use of the preventive measure of remand in custody . Nevertheless , the information gathered by the ORG 's delegation shows that much remains to be done . In particular , overcrowding is still rampant and regime activities are underdeveloped . In this respect , the ORG reiterates the recommendations made in its previous reports ( cf . paragraphs CARDINAL and CARDINAL of the report on the DATE visit , ORG ( CARDINAL ) CARDINAL ; paragraphs CARDINAL of the report on the DATE visit , ORG ( DATE ) CARDINAL ; paragraph CARDINAL of the report on the DATE visit , ORG ( DATE ) CARDINAL ) .

As during previous visits , many prisoners expressed scepticism about the operation of the complaints procedure . In particular , the view was expressed that it was not possible to complain in a confidential manner to an outside authority . In fact , all complaints , regardless of the addressee , were registered by staff in a special book which also contained references to the nature of the complaint . At Colony No CARDINAL , the supervising prosecutor indicated that , during his inspections , he was usually accompanied by senior staff members and prisoners would normally not request to meet him in private “ because they know that all complaints usually pass through the colony 's administration ” .

In the light of the above , the ORG reiterates its recommendation that the NORP authorities review the application of complaints procedures , with a view to ensuring that they are operating effectively . If necessary , the existing arrangements should be modified in order to guarantee that prisoners can make complaints to outside bodies on a truly confidential basis . ”

The relevant extracts from the CARDINALth ORG [ ORG ( DATE ) CARDINAL ] prepared by ORG for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment ( ORG ) concerning transmissible diseases read as follows :

“ CARDINAL . The spread of transmissible diseases and , in particular , of tuberculosis , hepatitis and HIV / AIDS has become a major public health concern in a number of NORP countries ....

... [ T]he act of depriving a person of his liberty always entails a duty of care ...

The use of up - to date methods for screening , the regular supply of medication ... constitute essential elements of an effective strategy ... to provide appropriate care to the prisoners concerned .

... [ T]he prisoners concerned should not be segregated from the rest of the prison population unless this is strictly necessary on medical or other grounds . In this connection , the ORG wishes to stress in particular that there is no medical justification for the segregation of prisoners solely on the grounds that they are HIV - positive .

... [ I]t is incumbent on national authorities to ensure that there is a full educational programme about transmissible diseases for both prisoners and prison staff . Such a programme should address methods of transmission and means of protection as well as the application of adequate preventive measures . More particularly , the risks of HIV or hepatitis B / C infection through sexual contacts and intravenous drug use should be highlighted and the role of body fluids as the carriers of HIV and hepatitis viruses explained ... ”

The relevant parts of the Appendix to Recommendation no . R ( CARDINAL ) CARDINAL of ORG concerning the ethical and organisational aspects of health care in prison read as follows :

“ CARDINAL . Medical confidentiality should be guaranteed and respected ...

The isolation of a patient with an infectious condition is only justified if such a measure would also be taken outside the prison environment for the same medical reasons .

No form of segregation should be envisaged in respect of persons who are HIV antibody positive , subject to the provisions contained in paragraph CARDINAL .

Those who become seriously ill with Aids - related illnesses should be treated within the prison health care department , without necessarily resorting to total isolation . Patients , who need to be protected from the infectious illnesses transmitted by other patients , should be isolated only if such a measure is necessary for their own sake to prevent them acquiring intercurrent infections ... ”

The relevant part of the Appendix to Recommendation no . R ( CARDINAL ) CARDINAL of ORG concerning prison and criminological aspects of the control of transmissible diseases including Aids and related health problems in prison reads as follows :

“ CARDINAL . As segregation , isolation and restrictions on occupation , sport and recreation are not considered necessary for seropositive people in the community , the same attitude must be adopted towards seropositive prisoners . ”

Detention of HIV - positive persons was also examined in the following ORG to Member GPE : no . R ( CARDINAL ) CARDINAL on the ethical issues of HIV infection in the health care and social settings ; and no . R ( CARDINAL ) CARDINAL concerning the ethical and organisational aspects of health care in prison .

Similar recommendations were made by the DATE World Health Organisation in the LAW on HIV infection and AIDS in prisons :

“ DATE . Since segregation , isolation and restrictions on occupational activities , sports and recreation are not considered useful or relevant in the case of HIV - infected people in the community , the same attitude should be adopted towards HIV - infected prisoners . Decisions on isolation for health conditions should be taken by medical staff only , and on the same grounds as for the general public , in accordance with public health standards and regulations . Prisoners ' rights should not be restricted further than is absolutely necessary on medical grounds , and as provided for by public health standards and regulations ...

Isolation for limited periods may be required on medical grounds for HIV - infected prisoners suffering from pulmonary tuberculosis in an infectious stage . Protective isolation may also be required for prisoners with immunodepression related to AIDS , but should be carried out only with a prisoner 's informed consent . Decisions on the need to isolate or segregate prisoners ( including those infected with HIV ) should only be taken on medical grounds and only by health personnel , and should not be influenced by the prison administration ....

Information regarding HIV status may only be disclosed to prison managers if the health personnel consider ... that this is warranted to ensure the safety and well - being of prisoners and staff ... ”