Arama yapmak için lütfen yukarıdaki kutulardan birine aramak istediğiniz terimi girin.

The Case of Nedayborshch V. Russia (
01.07.2010)

Burak YEŞİLALTAY

The application was made on 15 September 2004 by a Russian national Mr. Sergey Anatolyevich Nedayborshch against the Russian Federation on the basis of Article 34 (the individual applications) of the Convention for Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedom. The applicant alleged that he had been detained in inhuman and degrading conditions in the temporary detention centre in the town of Kopeysk.

3Article of European Convention on Human Rights, Detention Centre Conditions.

THE FACTS

The applicant was born in 1985 and is currently serving a prison sentence in Kopeysk in the Chelyabinsk Region. He was taken into custody in connection with the criminal proceedings against him on 5 December 2003 and was placed in the Chelyabinsk Remand Prison. Same day he had a medical examination including an X-ray of his lungs which revealed no signs of tuberculosis. On various dates between 25 Dec ‘03 - 05 Aug ‘04 , the applicant was taken to the Kopeysk temporary detention centre (IVS). His stays in the centre lasted at least from one night up to four consecutive days. In total, he spent 36 days there. Approximately a year later from the date of custody, the applicant was diagnosed with tuberculosis according to the medical examination made in the prison hospital.

The applicant complained to the prosecutor’s office about the conditions of his detention. Considering the applicant’s and other inmates’ complaints, the town prosecutor made an inquiry and stated that the conditions of the facility were inadequate and there was a breach of the requirements of law. But no action was taken by the administrators of the facility.

The applicant alleged that there was no flush toilets and no running water in the facility. Allegedly, the cells were overcrowded and matresses, bedlinen and dining table were non-existent. The applicant also claimed that the cells were infested with insects and small rodents. The Government declared that the storage period for the official records relating to the cell population had expired; therefore it was impossible to prove the number of detainees in a cell. The Government also denied the claim about infestation and submitted that the facility had regularly undergone disinfection & rat extermination but it did not dispute the other claims presented by the applicant.