Violation of Art. 3 (certain aspects);No violation of Art. 3 (other aspects);Pecuniary damage - claim dismissed;Non-pecuniary damage - financial award;Costs and expenses partial award - Convention proceedings

The applicant , Mr PERSON , is a GPE national who was born in DATE . As far as the ORG is aware , he is currently living in GPE , GPE , GPE .

The applicant , a kickboxing instructor by trade who also had business interests , was arrested on GPE on DATE on a charge of inflicting grievous bodily harm . He was placed in detention on remand in ORG ( ORG GPE – “ the ORG ” ) .

GPE is a “ country ” ( land ) of GPE ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) . It is CARDINAL of a group of NORP islands known as ORG . Its climate is tropical .

The applicant and the Government disagreed on many of the events that occurred after the applicant had been placed in detention .

It appears that on DATE a dispute took place between the applicant and a prison guard , after which the applicant was placed in solitary confinement in the punishment cell ( cachot ) .

The applicant alleged that on DATE he had been surreptitiously drugged , after which some guards had come in and illtreated him . He stated that a bag had been placed over his head and that when he came to he was lying on the floor in his own blood , covered in urine . He also stated that he had not been let out of the punishment cell for fresh air until CARDINAL DATE and that he had never received any medical attention despite asking for it .

On DATE a violent incident took place in which the then acting governor of the ORG , Mr PERSON , was seriously injured . The applicant was subsequently charged with inflicting grievous bodily harm on him ( see below ) . For his part , the applicant denied having harmed PERSON ; according to his version of events , when entering his cell PERSON had bumped into a prison guard , Mr GPE , and had fallen to the floor .

On DATE the interim prison governor , Mr PERSON , who had by that time replaced PERSON , ordered that the applicant be subjected to a special detention regime : he was to spend the remainder of his detention in the committal cell ( gijzelaarscel ) , a solitary confinement cell located next to the punishment cell . In addition , the special regime applicable to the applicant was to comprise the following CARDINAL points :

“ CARDINAL . Under no circumstances may [ the applicant ] leave his cell without handcuffs and fetters ;

Prisoner PERSON shall be taken out of his cell and locked back in again by CARDINAL members of staff ;

Outdoor exercise [ luchten ] shall take place in the space located behind the multi - purpose area for TIME a day , to be decided by the head of department of the internal service or , in his absence , the ORG team leader ;

Telephone calls shall be made from telephone no . CARDINAL , which shall be brought to Prisoner PERSON 's cell ;

Visits by , among others , counsel , probation officers [ reclassering ] , social workers , the medical service and spiritual counsellors , shall take place in his cell where possible ;

NORP However , a suitable area shall be made available to the above persons ;

The ORG reserves the right to revoke point CARDINAL should problems arise [ mocht het spaak lopen ] ;

Visits by relatives [ relatiebezoek ] and church services shall take place as normal , in the multi - purpose area ;

Items from the canteen shall be brought to Prisoner PERSON in his cell ;

The prisoner shall also be allowed mail , books and , for example , magazine subscriptions [ leesmappen ] which are being circulated , once they have been censored . ”

On DATE the applicant 's lawyers , PERSON and Mr Römer , wrote to the public prosecutor responsible , PERSON , complaining about the applicant 's treatment leading up to the events of DATE . It was stated that the acting prison governor , PERSON , had entered the punishment cell with CARDINAL prison guards , Mr Janga and PERSON , to interrogate the applicant about some threats he had allegedly made to a prison guard . When the applicant refused to cooperate , they had placed a bag over his head and beaten him , apparently with truncheons . As he lay on the floor , the applicant was kicked with booted feet . At that point the applicant had begun to request medical treatment , which , however , had been withheld . In the course of the scuffle , the acting governor , PERSON , had collided with Mr GPE and fallen to the ground , sustaining severe injuries to his face . The applicant had then been locked in the committal cell , where he had later been visited by PERSON and PERSON . Conditions in the applicant 's cell had been revolting : the cell offered insufficient protection from the elements and the floor was covered in filth , including rotting food scraps DATE . Even assuming that the applicant had been abnormally aggressive , the conditions were tantamount to ill - treatment . A request was made on behalf of the applicant for appropriate action to be taken to ensure his detention in humane conditions . The letter was copied to the Governor of GPE , the NORP Minister of ORG , the Procurator General of GPE , the President of ORG ( PERSON ) of GPE and GPE , the NORP parliament ( GPE van GPE ) , PERSON ( member of the ORG of ORG for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment ( ORG ) ) and the ORG prison authorities .

NORP The public prosecutor , PERSON , replied to the letter on DATE , stating that matters were not as serious as had been alleged . The prison was being refurbished and the applicant himself had refused to keep his cell clean . She promised that the glass fibre - reinforced resin sheet covering the hole in the ceiling would be raised in order to improve ventilation .

On DATE an MRI ( magnetic resonance imaging ) scan of the applicant was taken by PERSON , a radiologist at Dr PERSON Hospital in GPE 's capital , PERSON . The medical report drawn up noted degeneration of the fifth lumbar disc ( discusdegeneratie LCARDINAL/SCARDINAL ) and no nerve root compression ( geen wortelcompressie ) .

On DATE a radiological examination by Dr I.F.M. GPE , a radiologist at Dr PERSON Hospital , showed some lumbar lordosis ( excessive backward curvature of the spine , causing concavity of the back ) and possible limited sclerosis ( hardening ) of the CARDINAL lumbosacral joints , but no degenerative abnormalities .

On DATE Dr PERSON , the neurosurgeon at Dr PERSON Hospital , wrote a note finding the applicant to be suffering from lumbago and prescribing “ more mobilisation ” and “ active physical therapy ” for his lower back .

It appears that on CARDINAL DATE an altercation took place in the prison courtyard , in the course of which the applicant sustained injuries . A medical report of the same date by CARDINAL PERSON of the Dr PERSON Engelbrecht Medical Centre – completed on a pre - printed form in NORP – described the applicant as having suffered “ ill - treatment ” ( mishandeling ) . The report stated that the applicant had been found lying on the ground with a head wound and complaining of pain .

On DATE the applicant 's wife , PERSON , lodged an official complaint with the GPE police alleging grievous bodily harm inflicted on the applicant by CARDINAL prison staff .

On an unknown date , probably in DATE or DATE , the applicant was referred by the prison doctor to the island 's neurosurgeon , PERSON PERSON .

On DATE Dr PERSON examined the applicant . On CARDINAL May and again on several occasions over DATE he prescribed , in particular , outpatient physiotherapy and painkillers . On CARDINAL DATE Dr PERSON signed an application for physiotherapy for the applicant 's lower back problems . A physiotherapist described the treatment as “ mobilisation with walker [ a walking frame ] ” .

On DATE the applicant was taken to hospital .

On DATE the applicant was examined by a radiologist , Dr PERSON , using magnetic resonance imaging . The report noted increased rupturing of the annulus fibrosus LCARDINAL/SCARDINAL on the left side .

Another document of the same date , in an unidentifiable hand , contained the query “ Got beaten ? ! ” , noted pain in the applicant 's lower back area and legs DATE with a query as to whether it had been simulated DATE and suggested mobilisation with a walking frame .

On DATE Dr PERSON wrote to the ORG asking permission for the applicant to complete the physiotherapy treatment programme as an outpatient .

On DATE Dr PERSON wrote to the social worker PERSON , asking whether it was possible to transport the applicant to hospital twice a week for physiotherapy , surgery not being an option at the prison . On DATE one Major PERSON replied , writing on the same note , that it had been agreed that the ORG would make the appropriate arrangements .

On DATE the applicant was released from hospital with the following diagnosis , in the form of a handwritten note by PERSON :

“ PERSON ... compression LCARDINAL-SCARDINAL

II . Lumbar discal hernia LCARDINAL-SCARDINAL

III . Lumbar disc . extrusion LCARDINAL-SCARDINAL

Plan : PERSON Physical therapy . B. Surgery . ”

On DATE the interim prison governor , Mr PERSON , wrote to the hospital saying that a prison nurse would ensure that the applicant was taken to hospital for treatment DATE .

It appears that it had been agreed at a meeting DATE before that arrangements would be made for the applicant to be taken to the rehabilitation department of Dr PERSON Hospital DATE .

On DATE Dr PERSON and PERSON of ORG wrote to the interim governor of the ORG asking that the applicant be given a wheelchair in order to prevent , in particular , falls like the one that had taken place DATE .

Also on DATE ORG , on behalf of the interim governor , imposed a punishment regime on the applicant for DATE : the applicant was not to receive any visits or use the telephone . The applicant was said to have attacked prison staff with his walking frame and incited fellow inmates in the remand unit to violence . His actions , moreover , were made more serious by the fact that they had been premeditated .

On DATE another inmate by the name of PERSON complained to the Queen , the Minister of Justice of GPE , ORG and the ORG about an incident that had taken place DATE . The incident had been caused by the alleged refusal of the prison authorities to show PERSON papers justifying the prolongation of his detention . When he had asked to see them , instead of showing him the papers , prison guards had ill - treated him . This had been witnessed by the applicant , who had told the prison guards to stop . The applicant had not attacked anybody : he had merely tried to block CARDINAL of the prison guards with his walking frame to prevent further violence . The complaint was co - signed by CARDINAL inmates , including the applicant .

On DATE another of the applicant 's fellow prisoners , CARDINAL PERSON , signed a statement describing a fire that had broken out in the remand unit , after which prison guards had allegedly come in and ill - treated the applicant .

On DATE Dr PERSON examined the applicant . He noted a slight inflammation of the skin where the handcuffs had been and pain in the lumbar region from CARDINAL to SCARDINAL , which increased when the applicant moved his lower limbs , and made a diagnosis . He prescribed treatment as indicated by the specialist ( Dr PERSON ) , urgent palliative care , rest and continued physiotherapy .

On DATE the interim prison governor , PERSON , imposed a disciplinary punishment on the applicant . The punishment involved DATE confinement , commuted in view of the applicant 's state of health to DATE without visits or telephone . The applicant was said to have orchestrated premeditated attacks on prison staff , to have incited fellow prisoners to violence , threatened prison staff , failed to follow orders immediately and to have been an accomplice to arson and the destruction of public property . The punishment was to begin on DATE , in view of the earlier disciplinary measures imposed on DATE .

On DATE fellow prisoner PERSON signed a statement to the effect that the prison management had fabricated a case against the applicant .

On DATE the neurosurgeon PERSON wrote the following statement ( original in LANGUAGE ) :

“ Mr PERSON [ sic ] , with ORG pain at the level of ORG Hernia SCARDINAL-SCARDINAL ) is under medical treatment with ORG , but his condition is not so good , specially the aspect of the pain . Considering the situation of the patient like prisoner ( ORG ) it is very difficult to give guarantee that the medical treatment and ORG treatment are going in the normal direction .

PERSON has indication for surgical procedure , but this indication at the present is not so clear , because of the abnormal situation of the patient . I suggest to have a second opinion with another PERSON and then it will be possible to define this difficult case .

Considering that GPE has CARDINAL PERSON , we have to explore the needs to get a second opinion with the PERSON that periodically is visiting the LOC or one PERSON from abroad .

The need for a second opinion to evaluate the case of PERSON is Medically necessary .

[ signed ] Dr PERSON ”

On DATE a fellow prisoner named PERSON signed a statement to the effect that a fire had broken out in the remand unit , near the applicant 's bed . PERSON blamed an unnamed fellow inmate . He stated that guards had come in and beaten the applicant . The applicant had been handcuffed , fettered , beaten and given electric shocks . A statement dated PERSON described ill - treatment inflicted on the applicant in the form of beating , fetters and handcuffs . According to a further statement by the same prisoner , dated DATE , a guard called PERSON had threatened to kill the applicant when he asked for his pills ; PERSON did not remember the date on which that had happened .

On DATE the lawyer Mr PERSON wrote to the interim governor of the ORG noting that the applicant was once again being detained in the committal cell . Pointing out that ORG had held , in its judgment of DATE , that the conditions of the applicant 's detention there bordered on the unacceptable , he demanded his transfer to another cell and improved conditions of detention .

On DATE PERSON wrote to the interim governor of the ORG asking for the applicant to be examined by a doctor of his choice and offering to take responsibility for all costs incurred .

On DATE she received a fax , on ORG stationery , which read as follows ( original in LANGUAGE ) :

“ Dear Doctor PERSON [ sic ] ,

Your husband can be referred to any specialist of his choice in GPE , as long as the specialist in question is registered in GPE according the current law .

According to several medical reports PERSON needs no surgery , he 's supposed to have some medical treatments , but he wo n't cooperate .

Let 's get that clear , if PERSON wo n't cooperate in his healing , he can not be forced to do so .

Sincerely ,

PERSON

Director PERSON [ FAC Service]/KIA

[ signed per procurationem ] GPE ”

On DATE PERSON wrote to the Governor of GPE , Mr O. GPE , informing him of the reply she had received and asking him to order that the applicant be removed from the committal cell without further delay and be seen by a specialist medical practitioner from abroad .

On DATE Dr PERSON and PERSON wrote to the ORG prison authorities noting that the applicant had had difficulty attending physiotherapy sessions in DATE . The letter contained the following passages :

“ And without wishing to violate any established rules of the ORG of which we are not aware , we propose and prescribe the following :

Resumption of physiotherapy as soon as possible .

Cooperation of prison staff in helping the patient to attend physiotherapy , as he is currently being kept in a place where he has to walk down stairs and is therefore in danger of falling , which would aggravate his condition .

NORP If for any reason the above prescription can not be followed , it will be necessary to transfer the patient to another place where he does not have to go down stairs and to offer him a wheelchair , as already suggested in our previous request , so that he can find his own way to the point from where he can be taken for physiotherapy .

That he continue to be given assistance in cleaning his cell , as has been done hitherto .

Note : The patient suffers from a discal hernia ( LCARDINAL-SCARDINAL ) which , even if it does not result in paralysis of his lower limbs , is very painful . That is why the patient declines to walk or to adopt certain positions that cause him pain . ”

On DATE the applicant again wrote to the interim prison governor , PERSON , complaining that he was still being denied a wheelchair and physiotherapy and being made to walk down CARDINAL flights of stairs to meet his visitors despite his condition . He stated that his pain was so severe that he had difficulty sitting upright through a TIME visit .

Apparently on DATE the applicant was informed orally that he would not be granted early release . It was claimed that he had not been issued with a formal written decision . He submitted a copy of an unsigned document dated DATE sent by the registry of ORG to the GPE Minister of Justice , phrased in the following terms :

“ Please find attached the documents sent to ORG [ ORG voor de Reclassering ] relating to the release of PERSON . The ORG has the honour of informing you as follows .

It appears from the appended reports that the above - mentioned PERSON has acted contrary to the conditions for granting provisional release , in particular , by causing grievous bodily harm to a member of staff , fleeing from hospital , failing to follow orders given by ORG staff , issuing threats and insults , disturbing the order , peace and safety of the institution , causing unrest , destroying property , etc .

ORG therefore suggests that you consider not granting provisional release to PERSON , born on GPE on DATE . ”

DATE . On DATE the applicant wrote to the supervisory board ( GPE PERSON ) of the ORG . He complained that PERSON had ordered that he be placed in solitary confinement on the basis of a misunderstanding and without interviewing him first . He had been forced to see his lawyer in the punishment cell while naked . He also complained that he had been ill - treated on DATE .

On DATE the applicant , through his lawyer , complained to the ORG 's supervisory board about the regime imposed on DATE and the condition of the committal cell . Promises to improve these had not been kept . Appended was a handwritten statement addressed to the interim governor of the ORG , Mr PERSON , describing the treatment of the applicant as “ illegal ” , “ corrupt ” and “ tourcher ” ( torture ) ; it was signed by a large number of other ORG inmates .

On DATE the applicant , through his lawyer , wrote to the ORG supervisory board noting that the roof of the committal cell had finally been repaired , but that the other complaints set out in the letter of CARDINAL DATE remained valid . The applicant had not been allowed outdoor exercise for DATE and was still being denied the physiotherapy prescribed for him .

On DATE the applicant himself wrote to Ms E.M.D. Angela , the chairperson of the ORG supervisory board , complaining that despite the promises made by the public prosecutor , PERSON , in her letter of DATE , his situation had not improved . Since DATE he had not been allowed access to fresh air , as prison staff refused to carry his wheelchair downstairs . Physiotherapy was being denied him by the ORG prison authorities , who refused to take the trouble to transport him to hospital . In addition , the lack of ventilation was causing him headaches .

On DATE the applicant was arrested by order of the public prosecutor on charges of violence against a former employee . He was placed in police custody and subsequently in detention on remand . He was placed in the remand unit of the ORG , where he remained until he was released on DATE .

On DATE the applicant was rearrested , this time for inflicting grievous bodily harm using weapons , and again placed in the remand unit of the ORG .

On DATE the applicant was taken to hospital by ORG personnel for the treatment of stomach complaints . The applicant absconded from hospital DATE . DATE , accompanied by his lawyer , he returned to the ORG and gave himself up ; he was given DATE solitary confinement for absconding .

The Government submitted a report by a prison guard stating that on DATE the applicant had refused to return to solitary confinement after outdoor exercise – “ for the umpteenth time ” ( voor de zoveelste keer ) , in the words of the report DATE and had been accompanied back to his cell by several guards .

Another report by a prison guard , dated DATE , described the applicant refusing to return to his cell and threatening violent retribution .

On DATE the applicant and some fellow inmates refused to return to their cells for locking in . The prisoners broke down a partition to use parts of it as weapons . This led the acting prison governor , PERSON , to place the applicant in solitary confinement for DATE . The applicant was also denied telephone calls and outdoor exercise until further notice .

On DATE , upon being refused outdoor exercise , the applicant threatened the prison guards .

The incident in which PERSON was badly injured took place on DATE . The ORG stated that the applicant had deliberately broken PERSON eye socket , cheekbone and skull and caused him severe concussion by punching him and kicking him in the head . The Government pointed to the applicant 's conviction by ORG and ORG and the rejection of the applicant 's appeal on points of law by ORG on DATE ( see below ) .

As a result of this violent altercation the applicant was given DATE solitary confinement . On DATE , after the end of this term , a special regime was ordered by the interim prison governor , Mr PERSON , which was intended to last for the remainder of the applicant 's detention in the ORG . The CARDINAL - point order , which was submitted by both parties , is quoted in extenso above ( see paragraph CARDINAL ) .

On DATE the applicant 's special regime was changed : the applicant would no longer be required to wear fetters as well as handcuffs when leaving his cell unless he endangered prison staff by using his feet . On DATE an order was given granting him TIME of outdoor exercise every day .

The applicant 's conduct did not , however , change for the better . He continued to threaten prison staff and transgress the rules . The Government submitted reports which described the applicant removing his handcuffs during outdoor exercise , hiding a mobile telephone in his cell and damaging the padlock on the door of his cell beyond repair .

On DATE the applicant was asked to leave his cell so that the roof could be repaired . When he stated that he could not walk , prison guards offered to carry him out on a stretcher . The applicant , however , refused , saying that he was suffering from headaches and pain in his back and wanted to see a doctor . He had been seen DATE , on DATE , by the prison doctor , Dr PERSON ; PERSON had given him an injection and prescribed medicine . He had also been seen on CARDINAL DATE by the prison nurse , PERSON . Given the applicant 's refusal to be moved , work on the roof of the cell was halted .

A report by a prison guard dated DATE stated that on DATE at TIME the applicant had been seen doing push - ups , apparently untroubled by his physical condition .

Violent behaviour was reported in DATE . CARDINAL official report , by ORG PERSON , related the following events , alleged to have taken place on DATE :

“ On taking over from Prison Guard Semerel , the reporting officer was told that Prisoner PERSON , who was in a wheelchair , unhandcuffed , near the inner guard post , had been brought back and had to be locked up again . Around TIME the reporting officer ordered PERSON to go to his cell with the help of CARDINAL outdoor workers ( fellow inmates ) . PERSON refused and informed the reporting officer that he needed to speak with the governor or a supervisor , otherwise he would not return to his cell . The reporting officer telephoned ORG and notified him of the situation . PERSON then informed the reporting officer that he would send reinforcements to get PERSON back into his cell . The reporting officer was joined by prison officers PERSON and PERSON and again ordered PERSON to go to his cell otherwise he would be carried there . PERSON replied that he would not go to his cell and did not want the CARDINAL designated , bona fide outdoor workers ( fellow inmates ) to touch the wheelchair . Knowing PERSON , the reporting officer took out his handcuffs in order to put them on PERSON so as to be prepared for the worst . Unfortunately the reporting officer only succeeded in handcuffing PERSON 's right hand since PERSON began to put up fierce resistance and even ripped off a piece of the metal armrest on the wheelchair , which he brandished in the air , with the clear intention of using it as a weapon . At CARDINAL point PERSON bit the reporting officer 's right hand very hard , and the reporting officer responded by elbowing PERSON in the back of his head , but PERSON continued his fierce resistance , waving his hands and feet in the direction of the reporting officer and his colleagues PERSON and PERSON . PERSON finally managed to pull the piece of metal out of PERSON 's right hand . With the help of PERSON and PERSON , PERSON was held firmly and carried in the direction of the committal cell . PERSON continued to offer fierce resistance by waving his hands and feet , and tried to throw the reporting officer and his CARDINAL colleagues down the stairs . The reporting officer received a hard blow from the back of PERSON 's head , resulting in a cut to the reporting officer 's lower lip . While going down the stairs leading to the observation section , PERSON seized the opportunity to fasten the still open handcuff to the rail to prevent his being carried any further . By constantly moving his whole body , PERSON sustained injuries to the back of his head on the metal rail . PERSON pulled out his handcuffs in order to secure both of PERSON 's hands , and the prisoner was then carried to his cell and locked up . As a result of PERSON 's fierce resistance , the reporting officer sustained a broken finger among other injuries . Thus drawn up by the reporting officer under oath of office for forwarding to whomsoever it is deemed necessary . ”

Apparently on DATE an incident took place , recorded in the following terms in an official report by ORG :

“ Prisoner PERSON was told CARDINAL times by ORG that he had to be transferred to the committal cell . PERSON got out of bed , remained standing ( without a walking frame ) , persistently refused to go to the committal cell , became insolent and began to attack the officers by kicking and punching them . The undersigned tried to grab the prisoner 's hands , but PERSON punched the undersigned in the face . The reporting officer , with the help of Prison Guard PERSON , resorted to force in order to handcuff PERSON so that he could be moved ; this was not easy since PERSON offered fierce resistance . With great difficulty , the reporting officer and ORG PERSON managed to handcuff PERSON . He was then put on a stretcher so that he could be taken to the committal cell . On the way , PERSON became aggressive and insolent again and deliberately fell off the stretcher several times , with the clear intention of hindering his transfer . Once on the ground , PERSON began to threaten the reporting officer and officers present with death or murder . PERSON was put back on the stretcher . While being carried , PERSON shouted at the reporting officer and those present in LANGUAGE : ' All of you get fucked when I come out , I have DATE to do , do n't worry ! ' Upon reaching the committal cell , the handcuffs were removed and the prisoner was locked in the cell . As a result of the blows the reporting officer received from PERSON , the reporting officer had to go to the LOC outpatient department to receive medical attention . Knowing PERSON , and in view of his past deeds , the reporting officer feels threatened and fears that PERSON will put his words into action . The reporting officer has therefore notified the criminal investigation authorities . ”

The Government suggested that this might in fact have been the incident referred to in the statement by CARDINAL of the applicant 's fellow prisoners dated DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) .

DATE . By way of disciplinary punishment , the applicant was for each of these incidents denied private visits and use of the telephone for DATE , in lieu of DATE confinement he would otherwise have received . These disciplinary measures were enforced consecutively DATE and DATE .

The Government denied all knowledge of any incident on DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) .

In the course of DATE a further attempt was made to detain the applicant in a normal ( multi - person ) cell , but the problems were such that he had to be returned to the committal cell .

The Government stated that since the applicant had refused to keep his cell clean , a job normally left to the occupants themselves , the prison authorities had paid another inmate to do it for him .

On DATE the Government informed the ORG that the Governor of GPE had decided to grant the applicant early release on the occasion of the Queen 's official birthday on DATE . The applicant was released on that date .

The Government stated that the applicant had reported stomach complaints from the beginning of his detention , but had refused to take prescribed medicines or give a blood sample .

In DATE it became apparent that the applicant was injuring his ankles deliberately by rubbing the fetters against them . A nurse treated the wounds with bethadine ( a disinfectant ) and sterile gauze . The applicant was seen twice by the prison doctor in connection with these complaints , on DATE and DATE . On DATE it was decided that the fetters would no longer be applied .

On DATE the applicant saw the nurse , complaining of headaches and eye problems ; on DATE he was duly taken to the outpatient department . On DATE he was given a check - up by the ORG medical staff .

DATE . On DATE the applicant complained that he was suffering from a stomach ache and passing blood . However , he refused to give a urine sample .

On DATE the prison doctor again saw the applicant .

On DATE the applicant put his back out while doing strenuous physical exercise . He was seen by the doctor and given painkillers . He was seen again on DATE .

On DATE the applicant refused treatment by a psychiatrist from GPE .

On DATE the applicant was apparently examined by a doctor from GPE , who found nothing wrong with him .

On DATE the applicant was provided with a wheelchair .

On DATE the applicant was taken to hospital so that he could consult Dr PERSON and PERSON . They examined him using PERSON and magnetic imaging scans . They found that the applicant was suffering from lumbago and prescribed physiotherapy .

A report by ORG nursing staff dated DATE stated , among other things , that physiotherapy had to be financed by the prisoners themselves and that the applicant had refused to meet the expense involved out of his own pocket ; for that reason he was not being given such treatment . It also stated that the applicant had not seen a psychiatrist because of preconditions which he had set before he would agree to do so ; finally , despite his allegedly poor physical condition , the applicant did not present the complications that might be expected in the case of a bedridden patient ( including constipation , bedsores , poor hygiene – the applicant was able to take showers by himself – loss of appetite and depression ) .

On DATE the applicant had some stitches to the back of his head , which were removed on DATE .

In DATE and DATE the applicant again complained of back pains , claiming that the painkillers were not effective .

On DATE the applicant was again seen by PERSON , who again prescribed physiotherapy .

On DATE the applicant was admitted to hospital for intensive physiotherapy . He remained in hospital until DATE , the intention being that treatment should continue in the ORG .

On DATE the applicant refused to attend physiotherapy .

On DATE the applicant stated that he had fallen on his back . He was taken to the outpatient department for treatment .

The applicant missed his appointments with the physiotherapist on CARDINAL and DATE and CARDINAL , DATE and DATE . He attended physiotherapy on DATE .

Physiotherapy was resumed on DATE , after the applicant had again reported back pains , but discontinued shortly afterwards because the physiotherapist could not identify the problem clearly .

Following an intervention by the supervisory board ( see below ) , physiotherapy was again resumed on DATE .

The Government stated that the applicant had first written to the supervisory board of the ORG on DATE . The board had considered the applicant 's complaints at its meetings of DATE and DATE . It had sent him a reply on DATE , phrased as follows :

Nearly all your complaints relate to the special regime in the ORG which has applied to you since the incident with PERSON on DATE . You are DATE presumably – aware of what the regime involves .

attitude , in particular vis - à - vis ORG staff ) that regime can be relaxed . Everything depends on your behaviour and your attitude .

On DATE the applicant again wrote to the board , through his lawyer , complaining about the regime and the state of his cell .

By letter of DATE , again through his lawyer , the applicant acknowledged that the roof had been repaired but complained that he had not been allowed outdoor exercise for DATE and that he had still not been given the prescribed physiotherapy .

On DATE the applicant himself wrote to the supervisory board restating his complaints . On DATE the board inspected the applicant 's cell and interviewed him in person about his complaints . This led the board to suggest to the interim governor of the ORG that the applicant be moved back to an ordinary cell subject to certain conditions . The interim governor promised to organise this .

Later , however , the interim governor withdrew his promise following the theft of X - rays from the hospital instigated by the applicant and the latter 's refusal to accept the letter setting out the conditions subject to which he would be returned to detention under the ordinary regime .

The supervisory board discussed this problem with the NORP Minister of ORG , who instructed the interim governor to place the applicant in an ordinary cell . The instruction was obeyed .

However , after the applicant had been placed in a ground - floor cell with other prisoners , an incident took place which led to his being returned to solitary confinement in the committal cell .

After receiving medical information from the applicant 's wife , the supervisory board requested the ORG governing body to ensure that the applicant received physiotherapy . They received the reply that no physiotherapist was prepared to treat the applicant : the problem was that the applicant was not willing to meet the expense , and it had not been demonstrated that either he or his family was indigent .

The supervisory board engaged the services of a physiotherapist , PERSON PERSON , who stipulated that ORG should guarantee payment for his services . This condition was met and treatment began on DATE . The ORG submitted his handwritten report , which reads as follows ( original in LANGUAGE ) :

“ DATE

TIME

PERSON [ sic ]

c / o – severe lumbago ( L ) > ( R )

Diff – gait , stairs prolonged w.b .

Onset : + DATE , gradually worse

ORG [ an analgesic ]

Prev PT – hospital DATE & no effects .

Obs : gait & walker . Partial w.b .

Able to t. steps & use of railing . + CARDINAL steps .

Walked + QUANTITY to nurses ' station .

Climbed onto treatment table & min ass .

c / o PI during massage – trembling . ( Aloe heat lotion )

After massage – turned prone to side ... RC and sat up before standing .

– used a comode [ sic ] on wheels to return to cell .

Pt complained of too much pain to carry out traditional physical testing however able to stand / turn unassisted .

S+S do not make sense , or correlate with his physical activities .

P – D / C physio . due to my inability to determine exactly what the problem is . ORG carries out complex physical activities such as twisting lumbar spine and stairs & no or little complaints while trembles and complains of severe pain while massaging his back . He also states that he does not feel the heat from the Aloe heat lotion which was used to massage . My final impression is that physiotherapy at this time ( by myself ) is unable to help this patient .

[ signed ]

PERSON

PERSON .

ORG

GPE . CARDINAL - CARDINAL ”

On DATE ORG ( PERSON in PERSON ) delivered its judgment in the criminal case against the applicant . It convicted the applicant on CARDINAL charges of inflicting grievous bodily harm and sentenced him to DATE imprisonment . The applicant appealed .

On DATE ORG of Justice gave judgment on the applicant 's appeal against his conviction and sentence . It quashed the first - instance judgment of DATE . In a fresh decision , it held that the applicant 's conditions of detention on remand did not constitute grounds for declaring the prosecution inadmissible . It went on to find the applicant guilty of , firstly , having on DATE , together with another person , inflicted grievous bodily harm on QUANTITY ( kicking and beating resulting in fracture of the nose and the zygoma ) and , secondly , having on DATE , acting alone , inflicted grievous bodily harm on PERSON ( punching and kicking resulting in the fracture of an eye socket , the sinus , the cheekbones and the cranium , as well as severe concussion ) . ORG of ORG 's reasoning included the following :

“ In determining the sentence ORG will further consider the circumstances in which the suspect has been , and is still being , detained .

The following is apparent in relation to the suspect 's conditions of detention . On DATE the suspect was placed in a punishment cell . He had already been placed in a punishment cell at an earlier stage for various reasons , including an escape . His stay in the punishment cell was twice extended for DATE , until DATE , first for failing to follow an order given by a staff member and subsequently for disturbing the order , peace and security of the institution . The second extension related to the action of a number of detainees who refused to return to their cells after outdoor exercise . On DATE , the date [ of the attack on PERSON ] , the prisoner 's solitary confinement was extended for DATE for threatening and spitting on a prison guard . Afterwards , his solitary confinement was extended until DATE for [ the attack on PERSON ] , with the result that the suspect has spent a total of DATE in the punishment cell . By letter of DATE the ORG authorities let it be known that the suspect was to spend the remainder of his detention in the committal cell , subject to restrictive measures including not being allowed to leave the cell without handcuffs and fetters . This measure was amended on DATE by being limited to the use of handcuffs .

As regards the committal cell , it appears that the roof is made of corrugated plastic sheeting and was defective during at least part of the detention period . During [ the suspect 's ] stay in the committal cell he has had no television , activities , work or sport . Moreover , outdoor exercise no longer takes place on a regular basis since the suspect has indicated that he is unable to walk .

ORG considers that the applicant has established that during his period of detention on remand DATE which has lasted until DATE he has been kept under an exceptionally severe regime . The [ suspect 's ] continuous placement in a punishment cell , which began shortly after [ his ] detention , suggests that the interaction between the suspect and the staff of the ORG has resulted in a downward spiral , in the sense that an incident was followed by punishment , which in turn was followed by a reaction from the suspect , and so on . All this culminated in the attack on Mr GPE . It is understandable in itself that after such an act the ORG should not have wished , after having imposed an extended stay in the punishment cell , to place the suspect under the normal detention regime again . However , this does not alter the fact that prolonged detention in the punishment cell and the committal cell in restrictive conditions approaches the limits of what is acceptable , assuming that these have not already been exceeded . ORG of Justice also considers it plausible that the conditions of detention have negatively influenced the suspect 's health .

The above leads ORG of Justice to impose a considerably lighter sentence than would be justified by the crimes .

The suspect has also argued that he has been ill - treated in detention . However , an investigation of [ that allegation ] falls outside the scope of the present proceedings .

As a result of the conditions which the suspect has set for his cooperation in drawing up psychiatric reports and a probation report [ reclasseringsrapport ] , no such reports are available . ORG of Justice can therefore consider the suspect 's person and personal circumstances only to the extent that these are known from the case file and the hearing . ”

ORG of Justice indicated that it would normally have been minded , in view of the crimes committed , to sentence the applicant to DATE imprisonment , but that the sentence would be reduced to DATE in view of the conditions of his detention .

The applicant appealed on points of law ( cassatie ) to ORG ( PERSON ) against this judgment . The appeal was dismissed with summary reasoning on DATE .

On DATE the applicant brought summary civil proceedings in ORG to secure his release from solitary confinement and restrictive conditions of detention .

ORG gave judgment on DATE finding that it had no jurisdiction to consider the applicant 's action in civil proceedings : the remedy open to the applicant was the “ criminallaw summary suit ” ( strafrechtelijk kort geding ) ( LAW ) , which – since the applicant 's appeal against his conviction and sentence was pending before ORG of Justice – should be heard by that court also .

Accordingly , on DATE , the applicant lodged a request with ORG under LAW to be restored to ordinary prisoner status and to have the restrictions lifted .

ORG of Justice held a hearing on DATE . The applicant challenged all the judges on the ground that they had participated in decisions at first instance affecting him .

On DATE ORG rejected the challenge . The hearing on the merits of the applicant 's request was resumed on CARDINAL DATE .

On DATE ORG of ORG gave an interlocutory decision on the applicant 's request for the lifting of the restrictive conditions of detention . It adjourned the case , summoned the interim governor of the ORG as a party and set him a deadline ( DATE ) for a written statement of defence .

On DATE ORG of ORG gave a decision in the proceedings adjourned on DATE It ordered the interim governor to have regard to the following guidelines in relation to the restrictions to which the applicant was subject :

“ ( a ) The need for detention in the committal cell should be assessed at regular intervals , at least once DATE . In the absence of incidents , transfer to the normal regime should be considered , it being reasonable to expect [ the applicant ] to abide by the conditions set down in writing by the governor .

( b ) Any use of irons outside the cell should also be assessed at regular intervals , at least once DATE . In the absence of incidents , this restriction should be lifted .

( c ) [ The applicant ] should be given the opportunity to go to the outdoor exercise and visiting areas . The ORG does not consider it appropriate to oblige the ORG to carry [ the applicant ] to these areas or to enable him to receive visitors in his cell . [ The applicant ] has not denied that he can walk with a walking frame . Nor is it apparent from the medical statements that [ the applicant ] is not able to go to the outdoor exercise and visiting areas himself or that independent walking is itself harmful .

( d ) It does not appear that [ the applicant ] has been subjected to special restrictions as regards censoring of his mail .

( e ) Clearly [ the applicant ] should be given the medical care considered necessary by the physicians treating him . However , it is not apparent that this has been withheld from him .

( f ) The Joint Court of Justice would add the following . The said downward spiral has resulted in the applicant 's being detained in difficult conditions . Even though he is not blameless in this regard , he should nonetheless be treated as humanely as possible . If , for whatever reason , outdoor exercise , visits or other activities do not take place , then in order that the applicant 's detention should remain ' within the limits of what is acceptable ' the ORG must consider and decide on each occasion whether measures to compensate the loss may be offered , such as the use of a television or personal computer .

( g ) In so far as this is not already being done , a written record shall be kept of any future incidents which cause the restrictions to be maintained , as well as of the ( reasoned ) decisions referred to under ( f ) , in order to determine in any future proceedings whether this decision has been complied with . ”

On DATE Dr PERSON of ORG wrote to PERSON inviting him as a specialist to give an expert opinion and advise on appropriate treatment .

On DATE the applicant requested ORG to release him from detention on remand .

On DATE ORG declared the request inadmissible , there being another procedure for that purpose . ORG of ORG 's reasoning included the following :

“ CARDINAL.CARDINAL PERSON has asked , in the alternative , that the public prosecution service and/or the prison governor be ordered to transfer him to the formal detention regime applicable to the other prisoners . The public prosecution service has no competence in this matter . The actual execution of orders for detention on remand is the responsibility of ORG , represented by the governor of the ORG . The request directed against the public prosecution service will be dismissed for this reason .

It is clear from the decision of DATE 's date given by ORG on PERSON 's other request , for the lifting of his detention on remand , that this request has not been granted . Accordingly , PERSON has a legitimate interest based on his alternative claim against the governor of the ORG ( transfer to the ' normal detention regime ' ) .

CARDINAL NORP GPE has the responsibility to ensure that the execution of judicial detention orders takes place in accordance with the regulations in force . PERSON 's complaints about the way [ his detention order is being executed ] may be summarised as follows :

( a ) he is currently being kept in the committal cell for an indeterminate period ;

( b ) he is not being allowed outdoor exercise ;

( c ) he can not receive visits ;

( d ) he has not been offered compensation as referred to in paragraph CARDINAL ( f ) of the decision of ORG DATE ;

( e ) he was not interviewed prior to the imposition of disciplinary measures ;

( f ) the operation he needs is being withheld from him .

As to ( a ) :

CARDINAL NORP In its decision of DATE ORG of Justice ruled that detention in the committal cell should be assessed DATE . This was based on the consideration that PERSON had been returned to the committal cell in response to an incident . It has become clear in the meantime – since the prison governor has admitted as much at the hearing DATE that [ the applicant 's ] placement in the committal cell should not ( any longer ) be seen as a response to an incident , but as – in the prison governor 's perception – the only possible regime for PERSON . It has been argued in support of this proposition that PERSON is quite unsuited to detention on remand in a communal setting . This prompts the question whether this is in fact the case , and , if so , what consequences should ensue for the complaints raised in these proceedings by PERSON .

Ever since PERSON was first detained in FAC there have been problems , in particular PERSON 's unpredictable behaviour . Reports by prison staff of recalcitrant behaviour , followed by the ( sudden ) use of violence by PERSON , are legion . The number of reported incidents is such that it may be concluded that it is no longer feasible to let PERSON undergo his detention on remand in a communal setting . It is now sufficiently plausible that there is no alternative within ORG , given the aforementioned conclusion , than to keep PERSON detained in the committal cell . It can not be ruled out that at some point PERSON 's attitude and behaviour may show such a change that it may be possible to return him to a communal regime , but ORG sees no indications that such is the case now or will be in the near future . It is therefore pointless to set the prison governor a time - limit for reconsidering the matter .

As to ( b ) and ( c ) :

As regards outdoor exercise and receiving visits , it does not appear that the present circumstances are any different from those noted at the time of ORG of ORG 's decision of DATE . That means that it can once again be considered established that PERSON is given the opportunity to take outdoor exercise and to receive visits in the visitors ' area . It is up to PERSON whether or not he makes use of that opportunity . In the absence of medical information to the contrary the ORG assumes that PERSON is still able to reach the outdoor exercise and visitors ' areas unaided [ op eigen kracht ] .

As to ( f ) :

As it did at the time of its decision of DATE , ORG of Justice again finds nothing to indicate that PERSON is being denied the medical assistance he requires . According to the neurosurgeon PERSON , in his letter of DATE , ' surgery is indicated ' . The conditions of PERSON 's detention , according to that letter , are CARDINAL reason why the ' prospects ' are ' uncertain ' at present . Although it is not quite clear to ORG of Justice what is meant by this , CARDINAL thing is clear : the letter does not state that an operation is necessary now , without further delay . On that basis alone there is no need to order any measures . In addition , the public prosecution service and the prison governor have promised that PERSON will receive the necessary medical care . There is no indication that the public prosecution service and the prison governor will fail to honour that promise . For that reason also there is no need to order any measure . ”

The ORG governor was ordered to make provision for the applicant to have his own television in his cell ; the applicant 's other requests DATE including a request to be transferred to GPE ( the Realm in Europe ) DATE were refused .

The ORG is reported by the Government to be capable of holding CARDINAL prisoners . It comprises a dormitory for prisoners serving short terms of detention in lieu of unpaid fines and separate sections for female prisoners and juveniles . Adult male remand prisoners and convicted prisoners are typically kept in CARDINAL - person cells . There are CARDINAL single - prisoner cells intended for convicted prisoners serving very long sentences . There are CARDINAL observation cells intended for mentally unstable prisoners ; these tend to be occupied most of the time .

The committal cell in which the applicant was detained is described as being QUANTITY long and QUANTITY wide and equipped with a bed , a table , a chair , a lavatory and a shower . It is located on the second floor , directly under the roof .

A new highsecurity wing is being added to the ORG ; it is expected to be suitable for detaining aggressive prisoners .

The applicant was seen by Mr PERSON , a chiropractor in GPE , GPE , on DATE . He complained to Mr Lancellotti of severe lower back pain with numbness in his left leg and occasionally in his right leg . The pain prevented him from walking up and down stairs . He had difficulty getting up from a seated position and walking for any length of time . He further complained of neck pain , headaches , blurred vision and pain and cracking in both knees . He used a walking frame . PERSON report described the applicant as , at that time , “ totally disabled ” and contained a plan for treatment .

PERSON saw the applicant on subsequent occasions . The applicant submitted records of visits dated DATE , DATE , DATE and CARDINAL May ; CARDINAL , DATE , DATE , DATE , DATE , DATE , DATE , DATE , DATE and DATE ; CARDINAL , DATE , DATE , DATE , DATE , DATE , DATE and DATE ; and CARDINAL , DATE , DATE , DATE , DATE , DATE , DATE , DATE and DATE . A record of a re - evaluation undertaken by PERSON on DATE , based on magnetic resonance images and the applicant 's subjective complaints of pain , expressed the opinion that the applicant “ has a permanent physical impairment of the body as a whole caused by ill - treatment and neglect ; progress is slow ” .

The applicant submitted copies of colour photographs , the first showing a man of very muscular build , stated to be the applicant , lying prostrate on a floor , clad only in underpants , with another person 's foot on his head , and the second the same man lying prostrate on a floor , with large spatters of a red substance around his head .

The red spatters are not visible in the first photograph . No laceration or other injury is discernible in either photograph , although the first shows dark patches on the man 's left shoulder and left thigh that might be bruising .

The Government did not deny that the man shown in the photographs was the applicant but they stated that the photographs were bogus . They submitted that the boot and the trousers worn by the person holding his foot on the applicant 's head ( who was clearly also the person taking the photograph ) in the first photograph were identifiable as part of the uniform worn by prison staff : it was obvious , therefore , that the applicant had bribed a member of the ORG staff to take the pictures and smuggle them out of the prison .

The photographs were published , together with others also stated to be an accurate reflection of the treatment meted out to the applicant and of conditions in the ORG generally , in the NORP press and on an Internet site . The other published photographs included one of a man 's ankle that appeared to be bleeding from a small laceration and CARDINAL of a hole in a roof which was only partially covered by grating and by a sheet of corrugated translucent material .

The publication of the photographs prompted the interim governor of the ORG , Mr PERSON , to lodge a criminal complaint of libel with the NORP police on DATE . The police investigation was eventually discontinued , with the permission of the public prosecutor , on DATE . PERSON was suspected of involvement in the matter but no prosecution was brought .

The provisions of the Charter for GPE ( NORP voor het FAC ) relevant to the present case provide :

“ The GPE , GPE and GPE ,

noting that in DATE the GPE , GPE and GPE expressed freely their will to establish a new constitutional order in GPE , in which they will conduct their internal interests autonomously and their common interests on a basis of equality and will accord each other assistance , and resolved in consultation to adopt the Charter for the GPE ;

noting that the ties with GPE under the LAW were terminated as of CARDINAL DATE

considering that GPE has expressed freely its will to accept the aforesaid constitutional order as a Country ;

have resolved in consultation to adopt the LAW for the GPE as follows . ”

“ The GPE , GPE and GPE shall accord one another aid and assistance . ”

“ Judgments given and warrants issued by courts in the GPE , GPE and GPE , and engrossments of authentic acts issued by them , may be enforced throughout the GPE , with due observance of statutory provisions in the Country of enforcement . ”

“ CARDINAL . The GPE , GPE and GPE shall conduct their internal affairs autonomously .

NORP The interests of the GPE shall be a matter of common concern to the ORG . ”

Article CARDINAL of the common Code of Criminal Procedure of the GPE and GPE provides in its relevant parts :

“ CARDINAL . In all cases in which a measure [ voorziening ] not provided for by the LAW is necessary in the interests of the proper administration of criminal justice [ een goede strafrechtsbedeling ] , a request for such a measure can be made by the suspect or by the person directly concerned .

The measure may include an order or a prohibition as regards future behaviour .

The decision shall be given as speedily as the interest of the case requires .

The court shall be competent to order the provisional execution of its decision , notwithstanding any appeal .

The following extracts are taken from ORG :

CARDINAL . At every institution there shall be available the services of CARDINAL qualified general practitioner . The medical services should be organised in close relation with the general health administration of the community or nation . They shall include a psychiatric service for the diagnosis and , in proper cases , the treatment of states of mental abnormality .

Sick prisoners who require specialist treatment shall be transferred to specialised institutions or to civil hospitals . Where hospital facilities are provided in an institution , their equipment , furnishings and pharmaceutical supplies shall be suitable for the medical care and treatment of sick prisoners , and there shall be a staff of suitably trained officers .

The use of chains and irons shall be prohibited . Handcuffs , restraint - jackets and other body restraints shall never be applied as a punishment . They shall not be used except in the following circumstances :

( a ) if necessary , as a precaution against escape during a transfer , provided that they shall be removed when the prisoner appears before a judicial or administrative authority unless that authority decides otherwise ;

( b ) on medical grounds , by direction and under the supervision of the medical officer ;

( c ) by order of the director , if other methods of control fail , in order to protect a prisoner from self - injury , injury to others or to prevent serious damage to property ; in such instances the director shall at once consult the medical officer and report to the higher administrative authority . ”

The following extracts are taken from the CARDINALnd ORG of the ORG ( ORG ( CARDINAL ) CARDINAL ) :

“ CARDINAL . Prison staff will on occasion have to use force to control violent prisoners and , exceptionally , may even need to resort to instruments of physical restraint . These are clearly high risk situations insofar as the possible ill - treatment of prisoners is concerned , and as such call for specific safeguards .

A prisoner against whom any means of force have been used should have the right to be immediately examined and , if necessary , treated by a medical doctor . This examination should be conducted out of the hearing and preferably out of the sight of non - medical staff , and the results of the examination ( including any relevant statements by the prisoner and the doctor 's conclusions ) should be formally recorded and made available to the prisoner . In those rare cases when resort to instruments of physical restraint is required , the prisoner concerned should be kept under constant and adequate supervision . Further , instruments of restraint should be removed at the earliest possible opportunity ; they should never be applied , or their application prolonged , as a punishment . Finally , a record should be kept of every instance of the use of force against prisoners .

NORP The ORG pays particular attention to prisoners held , for whatever reason ( for disciplinary purposes ; as a result of their ' dangerousness ' or their ' troublesome ' behaviour ; in the interests of a criminal investigation ; at their own request ) , under conditions akin to solitary confinement .

The principle of proportionality requires that a balance be struck between the requirements of the case and the application of a solitary confinement - type regime , which is a step that can have very harmful consequences for the person concerned . Solitary confinement can , in certain circumstances , amount to inhuman and degrading treatment ; in any event , all forms of solitary confinement should be as short as possible .


CASE OF DENISENKO AND BOGDANCHIKOV v. RUSSIA

Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Substantive aspect);Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Procedural aspect);No violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security

Anatoly Kovler;Christos Rozakis;Elisabeth Steiner;George Nicolaou;Giorgio Malinverni;Khanlar Hajiyev

The first applicant , Mr PERSON , was born in DATE and the second applicant , Mr PERSON , was born in DATE . The applicants are serving their prison sentences in correctional colonies USh PERSON and USh CARDINAL respectively , in GPE .

On DATE patrol officers from Khamovniki police station in GPE arrested the applicants and a certain Mr Nikitin on suspicion of attempted murder and robbery by an organised gang .

On DATE the applicants were questioned . The interview record contains a handwritten statement by the first applicant to the effect that he had been apprised of his “ rights and obligations ” and required no legal assistance at that stage of the proceedings .

On DATE the Khamovniki district prosecutor of GPE authorised the first applicant ’s pre - trial detention on the ground that he had been arrested at the crime scene , was suspected of particularly dangerous crimes and , if released , could abscond and interfere with the establishment of the truth . The prosecutor ’s decision referred to ORG CARDINAL and CARDINAL of the Code of Criminal Procedure .

On DATE the first applicant was charged with attempted aggravated murder and several robberies committed in concert . The decision was served on him on DATE in the presence of a legal - aid lawyer .

On an unspecified date the first applicant ’s mother asked the district prosecutor for permission to visit her son , without success . On DATE the first applicant ’s mother was allowed to visit him in custody for the first time . It appears that the first applicant did not complain about the refusal of visits by his mother to the competent authorities .

On DATE the NORP district prosecutor extended the first applicant ’s and his co - accused ’s detention until DATE . The prosecutor noted that on DATE the first applicant and his co - accused had been arrested on suspicion of committing several robberies and an attempted murder in concert , and that their placement in custody had been authorised on DATE . On DATE the first applicant had been charged with the crimes of which he was suspected and the preventive measure had been upheld .

NORP The prosecutor further referred to the fact that the first applicant and his co - accused had been arrested at the crime scene and that the victims of the attempted murder and the robberies had identified them as their assailants . The prosecutor considered that the first applicant and his coaccused should not be released because , once at large , they could interfere with the establishment of the truth and abscond . It was further noted that the term of detention of the accused expired on DATE , but that it was impossible to complete the investigation by that date because it was necessary to obtain forensic reports from expert examinations initiated earlier , to carry out formal identifications and confrontations between the victims and the accused and to provide the accused with access to the case file . Finally , it was noted that during that phase of the investigation the investigators had questioned the victims , the accused and the officers who had arrested them , organised confrontations between the accused and the victims , carried out a fingerprint examination and ordered CARDINAL medical examinations to establish the nature of the injuries sustained by the victims , as well as CARDINAL forensic biological examinations of the physical evidence .

The first applicant complained to the courts , alleging that the prosecutor ’s decisions authorising his placement in custody and extending his detention had been unlawful and unreasonable .

By a decision of CARDINAL DATE the Tverskoy District Court of GPE rejected the first applicant ’s complaints , finding as follows :

“ ... There were no serious breaches of the law on criminal procedure which could have called for the annulment of the decisions to place the accused [ the first applicant ] in custody and to extend his pre - trial detention . The placement in custody of the accused and the extension of [ his ] detention were ordered by a competent authority .

The court has had regard to the personality of the [ first applicant ] , who has no criminal record , is being prosecuted for the first time , has a permanent place of residence in GPE , has produced positive references from his school and employer and is of a young age ( DATE ) ; the court has also had regard to other circumstances mentioned in the complaints of the accused and his lawyer .

However , taking into account the nature and the level of danger represented by the acts imputed to the [ first applicant ] , the number of the accused , and the fact that pretrial detention may be imposed on the sole ground of the dangerousness of the offence , the court concludes that , in bringing charges against [ the first applicant ] , the investigators had collected sufficient information to justify prosecuting him and imposing this preventive measure on him . The decisions concerning the [ first applicant ’s ] placement in custody and extension of his detention are lawful and justified and the court sees no reason to annul them . ”

On DATE ORG dismissed an appeal against the above decision for the following reasons :

“ ... In examining the question of the lawfulness and reasonableness of the placement in custody and extension of the detention of [ the first applicant ] , the [ District ] court verified whether the prosecutor had complied with all the requirements of the law on criminal procedure with regard to application of a preventive measure in the form of detention to [ the first applicant ] . The court had at its disposal the relevant materials from the case file and information on [ the applicant ’s ] personality and his state of health . Having studied the materials , the court arrived at the well - founded conclusion that the preventive measure and its extension until DATE had been lawful and well - founded because this measure had been applied and extended by a competent person within the prescribed time - limits , with regard being had to the gravity of the charge and the information on the personality of the detainee . ”

The first applicant ’s detention was subsequently extended by the prosecutor and ORG . The applicant did not challenge the prosecutor ’s decisions before the courts , nor did he challenge ORG decisions before the court of appeal .

On an unspecified date in DATE the applicants’ criminal case was listed for trial before ORG . The first applicant was represented by a lawyer and a lay representative .

On DATE the ORG convicted the first applicant and his co - accused of several counts of aggravated robbery , infliction of grievous bodily harm and hooliganism committed in concert . The court established that on DATE the defendants had violently attacked PERSON with the intention of stealing her possessions but had discovered that she had no articles of value . Immediately thereafter , they had attempted to PERSON , had kicked and punched him , and had stabbed him numerous times with a knife in the chest and back . The defendants had tried to escape once they had seen O. and PERSON approaching . On seeing A. bleeding on the ground , NORP and ORG had attempted to stop the defendants and a violent fight had ensued . In the fight ORG had been kicked and punched and ORG had been kicked , punched and stabbed several times with a knife . At about that moment the passing police patrol had intervened and arrested the defendants .

The court based the finding of the applicants’ guilt on oral testimonies by the CARDINAL victims ( M. , A. , NORP and ORG ) who identified the applicants as their attackers , oral testimony by police officers PERSON and PERSON , reports on identification parades , records of confrontations between the victims and defendants , forensic reports and physical evidence ( knife and bloodstained clothing ) . The first applicant was sentenced to DATE imprisonment .

On DATE ORG upheld the applicants’ conviction on appeal .

According to the first applicant and his mother , in TIME following his arrest ( that is , on DATE ) police officers from PERSON police station had ill - treated him with a view to extracting a confession . They had hit him on the head with a pile of books and a plastic bottle . They had also hit him on the body with a wooden board , injuring his coccyx . They had kicked him in the area of the kidneys , as a result of which he had had pain in the kidneys afterwards and , finally , had handcuffed him to a radiator , causing burns on his wrist . Being unable to stand the illtreatment , the applicant had confessed .

On DATE at TIME a medical assistant at GPE narcotics clinic no . CARDINAL examined the first applicant with a view to establishing whether he was drunk . According to his report ( no . DATE ) , the first applicant was sober and calm , did not make any complaint , his clothing was clean and he had a burn on his right wrist . The first applicant countersigned the report .

On DATE the first applicant was transferred to remand centre ORG subsequently renamed ORG , hereafter “ GPE ” ) in GPE .

On DATE the first applicant complained of the alleged illtreatment to the PERSON district prosecutor . His mother sent numerous telegrams to prosecutors at various levels , complaining that her son had been ill - treated at the police station and requesting them to initiate criminal proceedings against the police officers or , if they refused to do so , to provide her with a decision to that effect .

On DATE investigator PERSON district prosecutor ’s office decided not to institute criminal proceedings against the police officers , giving the following reasons :

“ ... On DATE the Khamovniki district prosecutor ’s office received the PERSON ] by Mr PERSON [ the first applicant ] ... and his mother about the use of unlawful methods of investigation against [ the first applicant ] ...

According to the complaint of [ the first applicant ] , ... police officers of NORP police station used unlawful methods of investigation against him ; in particular , [ they ] inflicted bodily injuries on him [ and ] forced him to give untrue statements , threatening him with reprisals ...

The statement by [ the first applicant ] is refuted by the following evidence :

Officer PERSON police station in GPE , when questioned as a witness , submitted that on DATE he had been patrolling the area ... together with [ officers ] PERSON and PERSON At TIME [ PERSON ] had observed QUANTITY persons attempting to escape after they had seen [ the police officers ] . CARDINAL of the persons , who had subsequently turned out to be [ the second applicant ] , had thrown away a knife which had red spots on it . [ The second applicant ] and [ the first applicant ] had resisted their arrest and [ police officers ] had used martial art techniques against them ... Subsequently , citizens O. , A. , PERSON and PERSON had approached PERSON and stated that [ the second applicant ] and [ the first applicant ] had assaulted them and had inflicted bodily injuries on them .

Officers PERSON and PERSON police station , when questioned as witnesses , made statements similar to that given by PERSON

According to the explanation given by PERSON . , head of PERSON police station , on DATE at TIME an on - duty officer informed him of a robbery on FAC in GPE . TIME later [ the second applicant ] , [ the first applicant ] and PERSON were brought to PERSON police station with a view to verifying whether they had been involved in the above crime ... The [ second applicant ] and the [ first applicant ] were questioned by officers of NORP police station . Following the arrival of investigators from the PERSON district prosecutor ’s office the detainees were transferred to them with a view to carrying out the investigative measures . Kh . did not see any bodily injuries on [ the first applicant ] . No physical force or moral pressure was used against the arrestees and they did not complain about infliction of bodily injuries either to PERSON . or to the on - duty officer of PERSON police station . On completion of the necessary investigative actions , [ the second applicant ] and [ the first applicant ] ... were brought to the temporary detention wing of GPE police station . On their admission to the wing , [ the second applicant ] and the [ first applicant ] ... did not have bodily injuries and did not complain that unlawful methods of investigation had been used .

According to a certificate obtained by the PERSON district prosecutor ’s office of GPE from [ remand centre ] IZ-CARDINAL/CARDINAL [ subsequently GPE ] , no bodily injuries were found on [ the first applicant ] on his arrival at ORG .

Having regard to the foregoing , the investigator concludes that [ the first applicant ] complained of unlawful methods of investigation in order to mislead the investigation and to escape criminal responsibility ; accordingly , there is no corpus delicti in the acts of the officers of NORP police station ... ”

It was further stated that a copy of the decision was to be sent to the PERSON district prosecutor .

By telegrams of CARDINAL May and DATE and DATE , CARDINAL DATE and DATE , the first applicant ’s mother requested prosecutors at various levels to provide her with a copy of the decision not to initiate criminal proceedings into the alleged ill - treatment of her son . She averred that she needed the decision in order to challenge it before the courts . It appears that her requests were unsuccessful .

By a letter of DATE , sent in response to a query from the first applicant ’s mother , the authorities of remand centre IZ/CARDINAL - CARDINAL informed her as follows :

“ ... On his arrival at the remand centre from NORP police station your son was found to have the following bodily injuries : injury of the left elbow joint ; first - degree thermal burn to the skin in the area of the right wrist joint ; skin abrasion in the lumbosacral area . ”

The first applicant raised the ill - treatment issue at trial and requested the court to exclude his confession as having been obtained under duress . He provided the following details of the alleged ill - treatment :

“ ... I ran to FAC and [ then ] stopped . A patrol car with police officers stopped nearby . An officer got out of the car and knocked me down . He searched me and asked me why I was running away . I was handcuffed and put in the car ... then they put me in a different car and took me to the police station . They put me against the wall , took away all my belongings and started beating me up . They told me that I was a murderer and that I had killed CARDINAL people ... Then they took me to the fourth or fifth floor and [ again ] questioned me ... I told them what had happened . They beat me up and attached me to the ‘ GPE [ the fenced - in area within the police station used for holding suspects ] . They cuffed me to the radiator and beat me up , told me that if I did not tell them what they were asking me to tell they would fake my escape and kill me . They also told me that they would put me in a cell and rape me . I withdraw all my depositions made on DATE because they are all distorted and do not reflect my statements accurately ...

When I was questioned ... on DATE ... I felt unwell . I told those who were questioning me but they laughed at me . I did not get medical assistance . The burn occurred because I was handcuffed to a radiator and was held [ like that ] for TIME . The persons who questioned me saw the traces of my bodily injuries . ”

The trial court rejected the first applicant ’s request for exclusion of evidence as premature and accepted the above letter dated DATE for inclusion in the file . It appears that the investigator ’s decision of DATE was also appended to the case file .

While being questioned about the circumstances concerning the charges of robbery and infliction of bodily harm on the victims , the first applicant stated as follows :

“ ... I saw [ my co - defendants ] involved in a scuffle with somebody . I decided to help ... and ran closer . I was grabbed by the shoulders and thrown backwards onto [ the second applicant ] . Then somebody started hitting me but I did not see who it was . ”

The court examined officer PERSON , who had participated in the arrest of the defendants . He testified that the person whom he had arrested had not offered any resistance and that he did not know whether the other arrestees had offered resistance to his colleagues .

In their final pleadings , referring to the letter of DATE and the prosecutor ’s decision of DATE , the first applicant ’s lawyer and lay representative stressed that the investigator and the court had failed to examine properly his complaint concerning ill - treatment . They also averred that the investigator had disregarded the first applicant ’s requests for a medical examination made shortly after the alleged ill - treatment . They claimed that the first applicant had confessed under duress to the crimes of which he stood accused .

On DATE ORG convicted the first applicant as charged and dismissed his allegations of ill - treatment , giving the following reasons :

“ It was established at the court hearing that the defendants’ arguments that they were pressurised at the pre - trial investigation stage by police officers , whose surnames , first names , ranks and appearance they could not provide , were unfounded ; the materials in the case file also refute them ... ”

On DATE ORG upheld the applicants’ conviction . It noted that the applicants’ allegation of ill - treatment had been duly examined and rejected by the trial court .

The Government submitted a written statement dated DATE made by officer PERSON police station to an officer of ORG of ORG . The statement , in its relevant parts , reads :

“ ... I was on duty on TIME ... TIME I joined the car patrol team including officers PERSON and M ...

At TIME we drove past house no . CARDINAL on FAC . The house had an archway . PERSON told us that QUANTITY persons were leaving through the archway and that we should check their identity ...

Our car stopped and the persons also stopped . Subsequently , I learnt that they were Mr PERSON [ the first applicant ] , Mr PERSON and PERSON .

When I opened the door I saw the persons run away from our car [ the first applicant ] ran along FAC ... I ran after him ...

I caught up with him and grabbed his shoulder . He did not fall , I turned him round and asked ‘ Why are you running?’ . He answered that he did not have a valid registration in GPE . I asked him to show his passport . He handed it over to me and I saw that he did have a valid registration . I became suspicious . While trying to understand why he was lying to me I noticed that his knuckles were covered with blood . His jacket was also covered with blood ... I asked him where the blood had come from and why his hands were bruised . He started mumbling something about a scuffle ...

I decided to arrest [ the first applicant ] to verify all the circumstances . At that moment [ officer ] PERSON told me by walkie - talkie that several victims had been discovered in the courtyard of the house and that I should bring the apprehended persons [ to the car ] . [ The first applicant ] did not resist his arrest even after having heard the message . I think that he was frightened by my appearance because he is skinny and shorter than me and it would not have been difficult for me to prevent him from escaping ... I put a handcuff on [ the first applicant ’s ] right hand ...

I did not use physical force against him during his arrest because he did not resist and , in my view , was depressed .

Together with [ the first applicant ] I approached [ officer ] PERSON who was in the courtyard of the house where the victims had been discovered .

I saw ... CARDINAL men .. CARDINAL of them had numerous bruises and abrasions on his head . On his clothing ... I saw numerous slits and traces of blood . On seeing [ the first applicant ] , ... he pointed to him and said ‘ That is CARDINAL of the men who stabbed GPE ...

Then [ officers ] PERSON , PERSON , myself and one of the arrestees ( I do n’t remember which ) drove to the police station .

On our arrival ... I removed the handcuffs from [ the first applicant ] ... in my presence the on - duty officer searched the arrestees and drafted the necessary documents , . I drafted the report on their arrest . I do n’t remember which detainee started shouting , requesting a lawyer , a prosecutor and his own immediate release . None of the police officers reacted to the shouting , everybody waited for the arrival of the investigators . After being checked out [ the first applicant ] and PERSON were put in cells for administrative detainees at the police station until the arrival of the investigator .

On the arrival of the investigation team , PERSON and I were sent to look for the knife with which the detainees had injured the victims .

During the time I spent at the duty unit ... I did not hear the detainees complain about their health . Neither I nor other officers of [ Khamovniki ] police station in my presence used physical force against the detainees , humiliated or tortured them ...

The cells at the police station are separated from the other area by bars [ through which one could see inside the cells ] . The whole area of the duty unit on the first floor did not at the relevant time and does not now have uncovered radiators , i.e. , the radiators are covered ... with chipboard with round holes . That ’s why I can reliably state that [ the first applicant ] could not have been handcuffed to a radiator . I did not see anybody handcuff [ the first applicant ] to the bars of the cell or beat him .

In my presence nobody questioned ... [ the first applicant ] , but after a while I was given an address where PERSON might be hiding .

When we brought PERSON [ to the police station ] , I saw [ the first applicant ] and PERSON in the cell for administrative detainees , that is , after their conversation with police officers . I would say that they were calm , did not complain and looked the same as when we had brought them there , i.e. , they did not have bruises or abrasions .

Later , at TIME , an investigator from the prosecutor ’s office and the deputy prosecutor PERSON arrived . Until their arrival the detainees were held in the cells .

Some time later an investigator from the prosecutor ’s office questioned me ; his questions concerned only the evidence in the criminal case . The investigator did not question me about the use of physical force against the detainees or the use of special methods or weapons [ against them ] , from which I concluded that the detainees had not complained about us .

Then I left and did not see what happened with the detainees subsequently ...

I did not give any explanations to anybody concerning the above events and I did not know that PERSON had complained about ill - treatment at PERSON police station until the [ present ] summons to ORG of ORG . ”

DATE to DATE the applicants were held in remand centre GPE in GPE .

The cells where the first applicant was held contained CARDINAL sleeping places in CARDINAL - tier bunk beds and accommodated up to CARDINAL inmates during the relevant period . The inmates had to sleep in shifts and rarely slept TIME a day .

The first applicant was not provided with bedding and had access to a shower only once DATE . The cells had little or no ventilation and were each lit by CARDINAL fluorescent lamp TIME a day . The windows were not glazed , the cells were extremely cold in DATE and the inmates had to stuff blankets in the window frames to keep the warmth inside . The sanitary conditions were unsatisfactory . The first applicant was kept together with inmates suffering from tuberculosis or infected with HIV . On CARDINAL occasions the occupants of the first applicant ’s cell were placed in quarantine because of jaundice .

NORP In support of his submissions the first applicant presented a written statement from Mr PERSON , who had been detained in the same remand centre from DATE to DATE , in particular in cell no CARDINAL . In his statement Mr PERSON confirmed the first applicant ’s submission that there was severe overcrowding and a lack of individual beds .

The second applicant submitted that the conditions of his detention in remand centre GPE were the same as those described by the first applicant .

Relying on certificates issued by remand centre GPE on DATE and CARDINAL and DATE , the Government presented the following description of the first applicant ’s conditions of detention .

The first applicant was held in cell no . CARDINAL ( from DATE to DATE ) and cell no . CARDINAL ( from CARDINAL DATE to DATE ) . Both cells measured QUANTITY and had CARDINAL beds . At the relevant time cell no . CARDINAL accommodated QUANTITY inmates and cell no . CARDINAL had CARDINAL inmates . Although the remand centre was overcrowded , the first applicant was at all times provided with an individual bed and bedding .

The windows in the cells were glazed and the air temperature and humidity level were in conformity with the relevant standards . The cells had no artificial ventilation system at the time of the first applicant ’s detention ; this was introduced DATE . In accordance with the applicable regulations , the first applicant had access to a shower once DATE .

On DATE of court hearings , that is , on DATE , according to the hearings transcript submitted by the first applicant , he was woken up at CARDINAL a.m. He had no breakfast and was not given any ration . Although ORG had a café , the applicant ’s relatives were not allowed to buy him food there or otherwise supply him with food . The first applicant returned to the remand centre at TIME and had to wait for a further TIME to be escorted to his cell . Thus , he had no dinner at the remand centre on DATE .

In the courthouse convoy cells he was not given anything to drink and could drink tap water only when he visited the toilet . The cell measured QUANTITY and accommodated CARDINAL to QUANTITY detainees . The cell was gloomy because it was lit by a QUANTITY bulb . It lacked ventilation and when other detainees were smoking the first applicant had to endure the smoke . A visit to the toilet was possible only twice a day as directed by the warden . Of the CARDINAL hearings referred to in the court hearings transcript , CARDINAL started at TIME , CARDINAL at TIME , CARDINAL at TIME , CARDINAL at TIME and CARDINAL at TIME . Occasionally , the first applicant would spend TIME a day in the courthouse cell .

At a hearing on DATE the applicant complained to the trial judge in the following terms :

“ I ask the court to note that I am not being given any food or rest . I can not participate adequately in the trial . This is a statement , not a request . I ask the court to include it in the case file and to oblige the management of the remand centre [ unclear ] ” .

The court rejected the request , finding that it was not within its jurisdiction . The applicant also raised the complaint about the lack of food on appeal . The appeal decision was silent on that point .

With reference to the letter of the President of ORG dated DATE , the Government submitted that the sanitary conditions in the convoy cells were in conformity with the domestic regulations . In its relevant parts the letter reads as follows :

“ The convoy premises ... are in conformity with the requirements , including sanitary ... Defendants are held at the court ’s premises after their transfer by the remand centre escort service for the period of examination of the case in court and also during the breaks in the examination of the case .

On hearing DATE the court regularly orders a lunch break . According to LAW DATE no . CARDINAL-FZ , defendants have the right to be provided with meals free of charge ; however , implementation [ of this right ] is ensured by ORG ” .

With reference to the above letter and a certificate issued by the head of remand centre GPE , the ORG submitted that on the dates of his transfers to ORG the applicant had received a dry ration ( bread , tinned meat and fish , tea , salt , sugar and disposable tableware ) , in accordance with the applicable regulations . The Government did not provide a copy of the certificate to the ORG .

The RSFSR Code of Criminal Procedure ( in force until DATE , “ the CCrP ” or “ the Code ” ) 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 and could order specific investigative actions , transfer the case from CARDINAL investigator to another or order an additional investigation ( ORG CARDINAL and CARDINAL ) . If there were no grounds for initiating or continuing a criminal investigation , the prosecutor or investigator issued a reasoned decision to that effect which had to be served on the interested party . The decision was amenable to appeal to a higher - ranking prosecutor or to a court of general jurisdiction ( Articles CARDINAL and CARDINAL ) .

Section CARDINAL of ORG no . CARDINALFZ of DATE ) provides that detainees should be kept in conditions which satisfy health and hygiene 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 . Detainees should be given free of charge sufficient food to maintain them in good health in line with the standards established by ORG of GPE ( section CARDINAL ) .

On DATE ORG adopted the rules on food supplies for convicted prisoners and persons detained in remand centres . According to Annex no . CARDINAL to these rules , a daily dry ration ( bread , tinned beef or fish , sugar , tea and salt ) is provided to the following categories of persons : convicted prisoners on their way to a prison , remand centre or colony ; persons released from custody on the way to their place of residence ; persons during their stay in patient - care institutions or convicted juveniles . Those rules were amended in DATE and repealed in DATE .

On DATE ORG adopted the rules on the supply of dry rations , according to which persons suspected or accused of criminal offences should be supplied with a dry ration ( bread , pre - cooked first and second courses , sugar , tea and tableware ) during their stay at the courthouse . Detainees were to be supplied with hot water with which to consume the ration .

At the relevant time preventive measures ( меры пресечения ) , including pre - trial detention , were governed by the ORG , which provided as follows :

“ No one may be arrested other than on the basis of a judicial decision or a prosecutor ’s order . ... ”

“ If there are sufficient reasons to believe that the accused will elude the investigation or evade justice , obstruct the establishment of the truth in the case or engage in a criminal activity ... , CARDINAL of the following preventive measures may be imposed : an order not to leave the place of residence , a personal security , ... placement in custody ... ”

“ In exceptional circumstances , a preventive measure may be imposed on a suspect who has not been charged . In such cases , charges must be brought against the suspect within DATE after the preventive measure has been imposed . If no charges are brought within that period , the preventive measure shall be lifted . ”

“ When considering the need to impose a preventive measure and choosing CARDINAL of them , ... the investigator , prosecutor or court shall take into account , in addition to the circumstances enumerated in LAW , the gravity of the charges , the personality of the suspect or accused and his occupation , age , state of health , family status and other circumstances . ”

“ A preventive measure shall be imposed by means of a reasoned order issued by an ... investigator or prosecutor or a reasoned decision by a court , which must specify the offence of which the person is suspected or with which he has been charged and the grounds for imposing the preventive measure . The person concerned must be informed of the order or decision and , simultaneously , of the procedure for bringing a complaint against the decision to impose such a measure . ”

“ Placement in custody shall be imposed as a preventive measure ... in respect of a person suspected of or charged with having committed an offence punishable by imprisonment of DATE . In exceptional circumstances , this preventive measure may also be applied to a person suspected or accused of an offence punishable by imprisonment of DATE .

Persons charged with having committed the offences set out in Articles CARDINAL , ... CARDINAL § § CARDINAL , DATE and ... of LAW may be remanded in custody on the sole ground of the dangerousness of the crime ... ”

The amendments of DATE repealed LAW , which had permitted defendants to be remanded in custody on the sole ground of the dangerous nature of the criminal offence they were charged with .

“ A period of detention during the investigation of offences in criminal cases may not last longer than DATE . This time - limit may be extended by DATE by a district or town prosecutor ... if it is impossible to complete the investigation and there are no grounds for altering the preventive measure . A further extension making a total of DATE from DATE of placement in custody may be effected only in cases of particular complexity , by a prosecutor of a subject of GPE ... ”

Article CARDINAL of the CCrP provided that a “ suspect ” ( подозреваемый ) was a person ( i ) arrested on suspicion of having committed a crime , ( ii ) against whom a criminal case had been opened or ( iii ) to whom a preventive measure was being applied , before he or she was formally charged with a particular crime . When an investigator was satisfied that there was sufficient evidence to press charges against a person , he or she issued a formal decision making that person a party to the proceedings as an accused ( постановление о привлечении в качестве обвиняемого ) ( Article CARDINAL ) . From the moment of delivery of that decision the person was considered to be an “ accused ” ( обвиняемый ) ( Article CARDINAL ) . The investigator had to serve the above decision on the accused in person not DATE after its delivery and to explain to the accused the nature of the charges ( Article CARDINAL ) .