Haralds IGNATS v Latvia - 38494/05 [2011] ECHR 378 (15 February 2011)

BAILII is celebrating 24 years of free online access to the law! Would you consider making a contribution?
No donation is too small. If every visitor before 31 December gives just £1, it will have a significant impact on BAILII's ability to continue providing free access to the law.
Thank you very much for your support!

The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting on 15 February 2011 as a Chamber composed of:

Josep Casadevall, President,
Alvina Gyulumyan,
Egbert Myjer,
Ineta Ziemele,
Luis López Guerra,
Mihai Poalelungi,
Kristina Pardalos, judges,
and Santiago Quesada, Section Registrar,

1. The applicant, Mr Haralds Ignats, is a Latvian national who was born in 1982 and appears to be currently detained in Brasa prison in Rīga.

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

3. On 13 January 2004 the applicant was arrested and taken to the Rīga short-term detention facility (Rīgas īslaicīgās aizturēšanas izolators) and placed in a cell that was located in a basement.

4. According to the applicant, the lighting was so poor that he could not read magazines. There was no water tap in the cell. He had to sleep on a wooden platform without mattress, blanket or pillow. The applicant was taken to wash himself every day twice and he could also use common toilets at that time, around fifteen minutes for three to four persons. The applicant submitted that if he did not have his own bucket containing five litres of water, he could to drink any water between 8 a.m. and 8 p.m. The water flushing mechanism in the cell’s toilet did not work, which resulted in an awful smell and the applicant had to use water from his own bucket to flush it down. The toilet was not partitioned and he had to use it within the sight of the other cellmates. The applicant was not provided with toilet paper and no parcels from relatives were allowed. The applicant could not buy toilet paper in a shop because there were no supplies and he did not have financial means. Finally, there was neither a table nor a chair in the cell. There were no proper windows; a window was closed with metal pipes which connected the cell with a yard from where car exhaust fumes entered the cell and remained there for several hours as the cell was poorly ventilated.

5. On 20 January 2004 the applicant was transferred to Central prison (Centrālcietums) in Rīga and placed in quarantine cell no. 30, measuring some 24 sq. m. He was kept there alone for twenty-four hours. The cell did not have any proper window; a window was covered with a metal plate. The cell was very cold. The only shield against wind was the metal plate over the window. The applicant was not provided with a mattress, blanket, pillow or towel. He covered himself with a newspaper. The cell was equipped with one day-light lamp. The cell had a malfunctioning toilet; it was clogged and stank unbearably. There was a sink with ice-cold running water. There was no crockery and the applicant had to take the ice cold water with his hands. The cell was dirty with dust and garbage.

6. On 21 January 2004 the applicant was transferred to cell no. 36, measuring some 24 sq. m., including an area of around 2 sq. m. for a toilet and a sink and another area for a table and beds. At the time of his transfer that cell already had held seven other detainees. After a few days one more detainee was placed in that cell. The cell thus held nine detainees. According to the applicant, personal space afforded to each detainee was about one sq. m. The cell was very cold, the applicant had to sleep with two sweaters. Tea and food cooled down instantly.

7. On an unspecified date, between January 2004 and February 2005, the applicant was again transferred to cell no. 30. The conditions, as described above, had not changed.

8. On an unspecified date in January 2004 the applicant was transferred to cell no. 430, measuring some 4.5 sq. m. for two detainees, including an area around 1.50 sq. m for a toilet and 0.80 sq. m. for a bed, 0.90 sq. m. for a table and a chair. Thus the personal space for each of them was 0.65 sq. m. A window was covered with metal grill and could not be opened more than few centimetres wide. The toilets were not partitioned also in this cell.

9. On an unspecified date the applicant was transferred to cell no. 269, the conditions of detention were similar to cell no. 430. The only difference was that there was one sq. m. more for the applicant’s personal space and that the window was not covered with a metal grill. It could be opened.

10. On an unspecified date the applicant was transferred to cell no. 420, measuring some 33 sq. m. for fourteen detainees, including an area around 7.5 sq. m for a table, 1.70 sq. m. for a toilet and a sink, 5.50 sq. m. for beds. The personal space for each of the detainees was accordingly around 2 sq. m. The toilets were not partitioned.

11. On an unspecified date, between September 2004 and February 2005, the applicant was transferred to quarantine cell no. 32. The cell was dirty, toilet was clogged and bricks covered the windows leaving only a small hole for air. The applicant was placed there with sixteen other detainees. The cell was not properly lit. The designed capacity of that cell was fourteen places.

12. On an unspecified date the applicant was transferred to cell no. 38, measuring some 24 sq. m. and holding ten detainees. It was very cold and damp.

13. On an unspecified date, between September 2004 and February 2005, the applicant was again transferred to quarantine cell no. 32, where the conditions of detention had not changed.

14. On an unspecified date, between September 2004 and February 2005, the applicant was transferred to quarantine cell no. 31 with similar measures than other quarantine cells nos. 30 and 32. There were no windows. The cell was cleaner than other quarantine cells but less lit.

15. On an unspecified date, between September 2004 and February 2005, the applicant was again transferred to quarantine cell no. 30, which was even colder than before and the windows were now covered with bricks.

16. On an unspecified date, between September 2004 and February 2005, the applicant was again transferred to quarantine cell no. 32.

17. On an unspecified date in December 2004 the applicant was transferred to cell no. 451, which held two people. The conditions of detention were the same as in cell no. 430.

18. On an unspecified date, between December 2004 and January 2005, the applicant was transferred to cell no. 211, which held two people. Personal space was 0.65 sq. m. per person.

19. In January 2005 the applicant was transferred to cell no. 89, which held six detainees with each of them having no more than one sq. m of personal space. The cell was equipped with a table, beds, two chairs, a toilet, a sink and a shower. The cell was damp due to poor ventilation. There was no natural light. The applicant fell ill while staying in this cell.

20. On an unspecified date, between January and February 2005, the applicant was transferred to cell no. 525, which held eleven detainees and measured some 20 sq. m., not leaving more than one sq. m of personal space for each of them. The cell was damp, cold and windy. Some days the central heating radiators gave off no heat. There was one day-light lamp in the cell, but it was quite dark. The cell was equipped with an old table. Toilets were not partitioned.

21. On an unspecified date, between February and August 2005, the applicant was transferred to cell no. 209, with similar conditions as those in cell no. 211. There was a window, but not enough natural light because of the shadow of another building. Ventilation did not work properly and there was not enough fresh air. In his cell the applicant did not have more than 0.65 sq. m. of personal space. He appears to have been kept in this cell for six months.

23. In February, March and April 2004 the applicant, his mother and sisters allegedly approached the Rīga City Latgale District Court requesting that family visits be allowed.

24. On 23 March 2004 the city court replied to the applicant that under section 321 of the Code of Criminal Procedure a judge may allow him being visited by family only after the delivery of a judgment.

25. On 29 July 2005 the applicant complained to the city court and to the Senate that family visits had not been allowed in 2004 and required explanations.

26. On 8 August 2005 the city court replied that under section 321 of the Code of Criminal Procedure a judge should allow family visits upon an application from family members, what had been done upon his mother’s request after the delivery of the judgment by the first instance court on 25 May 2004.

27. On 17 August 2005 the Senate replied that his case file did not contain any requests for family visits. A conclusion was drawn that he had made false allegations of refused family visits.

28. On 29 August 2005 the applicant requested that the city court issue him a copy of his application for family visits and those of his mother and sisters submitted in 2004.

29. On 6 September 2005 the city court replied that no applications had been received at that court from his mother or sisters in 2004. His mother had requested a family visit in 2005 and it had been granted on 25 May 2005.

30. On 25 October 2005 the Human Rights Bureau in reply to the applicant’s complaint opined that the decision of 23 March 2004 to refuse family visits before the delivery of a judgment had not been justified. The judge had not taken into consideration the applicable legal provisions. The bureau noted, however, that the applicant had not complained to the president of the court about the refusal. Moreover, more than six months had passed since the refusal.

31. On 17 November 2005 the Human Rights Bureau, in reply to a complaint made by the applicant’s mother, again noted that no complaint had been submitted to the court’s president and that, in any event, more than six months had passed since the refusal.

32. Following the final decision taken in the criminal proceedings against the applicant, on 4 August 2005 he was transferred to serve his sentence in Brasa prison in Rīga.

33. On 20 January 2006 the applicant was transferred from Brasa prison to a short-term detention facility in Tukums under the supervision of the Tukums District Police Department (Tukuma rajona policijas pārvalde). The transfer took place in order to convey the applicant to a hearing before a civil court. The applicant appears to have stayed in that facility until 29 January 2006.

34. Upon his arrival, the applicant requested that he be allowed to make a phone call to his relatives to inform them about his placement. It was refused.

35. On 26 January 2006 the head of the Tukums District Police Department replied the applicant that his department could not allow the applicant to make a phone call because the applicant was under the supervision of the Brasa prison administration. He made a general reference to sections 63, 66 and 70 of the Law of the Criminal Procedure.

36. The applicant lodged an application with the Administrative District Court to complain about the refusal to call his relatives to inform about his placement in Tukums.

37. On 23 February 2006 that court dismissed his application because it did not come within the competence of administrative courts (lieta nav skatāma administratīvā procesa kārtībā). The refusal had been made in connection with the execution of the applicant’s sentence and thus he could lodge a complaint with the supervising prosecutor. The applicant did not appeal against this decision and it took effect on 3 April 2006.

38. On 25 April 2006 the applicant was transferred to continue serving his sentence in Valmiera prison.

39. In December 2007 the applicant was released, having served his term of imprisonment.

40. On 25 May 2004 the Rīga City Latgale District Court (Rīgas pilsētas Latgales priekšpilsētas tiesa) convicted the applicant of twelve episodes of credit card fraud under section 193, paragraph 4 (repeated unlawful utilisation) and section 177, paragraph 2 (repeated fraud in a group of persons) of the Criminal Law. His conviction was based on testimonies of three out of five victims, statements of two indirect witnesses, physical and forensic evidence. He was sentenced to five years imprisonment and the confiscation of his property (a mobile phone) was ordered.

41. The applicant appealed against this judgment and asked the court to call and issue summons to witness G.V. who allegedly was “directly related to the charges against [the applicant] and who could testify about true facts”. In addition, he pleaded guilty to all episodes but one and asked the court to alleviate or suspend the sentence. The court issued summons to G.V. but he did not attend since he had been detained in the meantime.

42. During the appellate hearings the applicant, who was assisted by counsel, pleaded guilty in relation to all episodes and maintained his appeal only in so far as his sentence was concerned. He did not dispute the facts and their legal qualification or request that any witnesses be called to testify.

43. On 31 May 2005 the Rīga Regional Court quashed the city court’s ruling as far as the applicant’s sentence was concerned. The regional court sentenced the applicant to three years’ imprisonment and did not order confiscation of his mobile phone.

44. On 18 July 2005 the Criminal Department of the Senate of the Supreme Court (Augstākās tiesas Senāta Krimināllietu departments) in a preparatory meeting rejected the applicant’s appeal on points of law, which did not include any complaints concerning the attendance of witnesses.

45. After his conviction entered into force, the applicant attempted to have re-opened the criminal proceedings against him, but in vain.

46. On 21 June 2005 the applicant approached the Criminal Department of the Senate of the Supreme Court with a view to claiming back his mobile phone (see paragraph 43 above).

47. On 19 July 2005 a judge replied that the applicant’s personal belongings are not being held by the Senate. He referred to the first-instance court’s judgment to explain that the mobile phone had been confiscated as evidence and that it would not be returned to the applicant under section 66, paragraph 2 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

48. On 23 March 2004 the Rīga City Latgale District Court sent a letter to the applicant in Central prison (see paragraph 24 above). It was addressed to the governor of Brasa prison for “handing it over to the applicant”.

49. On 26 April 2004 the city court sent a letter to the applicant in Central prison. It was addressed to the governor of Brasa prison for “handing it over to the applicant”. This letter contained an explanation that he could lodge an appeal against an unspecified decision of the Internal Security Bureau with the competent higher authority within the Ministry of the Interior.

50. On 3 October 2005 the Rīga City Centre District Court sent a letter to the applicant in Brasa prison. It was addressed to the governor of Brasa prison for “handing it over to the applicant”. Therein enclosed was the decision of 30 September 2005 adopted within civil proceedings initiated by the applicant against the State Police.

51. On 5 and 17 October 2005 the Rīga City Latgale District Court sent documents to the applicant in Brasa prison. They were addressed to the governor of Brasa prison for “handing it over to the applicant”. These were documents related to the criminal proceedings against the applicant: copies of applications and decisions.

52. On 20 October 2005 the Rīga City Centre District Court sent a letter to the applicant in Brasa prison. It was addressed to the governor of Brasa prison for “handing it over to the applicant”. The decision of 18 October 2005 was enclosed therein. The same letter was sent to the Rīga Regional Court to decide on the applicant’s appeal, which he had submitted against the decision of 10 October 2005 taken within the proceedings against the State Police.

53. On 16 November 2005 the Rīga City Latgale District Court sent documents to the applicant in Brasa prison. They were addressed to the governor of Brasa prison for “handing it over to the applicant”. Enclosed were unspecified copies of the documents that the applicant had requested.

54. On 7 December 2005 the Rīga Regional Court sent a letter to the applicant in Brasa prison. It was addressed to the governor of Brasa prison for “handing it over to the applicant”. With this letter the court informed the applicant that his claim against the State police was scheduled for examination on 4 January 2006.

55. On 19 December 2005 the Rīga Regional Court sent a letter to the applicant in Brasa prison. It was addressed to the prison and not to him personally. With this letter the court sent to the applicant the materials of two cases, altogether on 102 pages.

56. On 22 December 2005 the Human Rights Bureau examined the applicant’s complaint about the fact that the prosecution authorities and the courts often addressed their letters not to the applicant himself but instead to the prison governor. In reply they noted that correspondence with the prosecution authorities and the courts should not to be monitored. The prosecution authorities and the courts should address their letters to the applicant himself and not to the prison administration. The bureau undertook to inform the competent authorities with a view to harmonising the approach taken by the domestic authorities when addressing letters to detainees.

57. The applicant continued to receive letters sent to him by the prosecution authorities and the domestic courts through the Brasa prison administration at least until May 2006. Thus the following letters with unknown contents addressed for handing over to the applicant were sent to the governor of the Brasa prison: on 16 February 2006 a letter from the Rīga City Centre District Court and on 18 May 2006 a letter from the Zemgale Regional Court.

58. It appears that this did not change after he was transferred to Valmiera prison. Thus the following letters with unknown contents addressed for handing over to the applicant were sent to the governor of Valmiera prison: on 11 May 2006 from the Rīga City Centre District Court, on 16 August and 15 September 2006 from the Rīga Regional Court, on 14 November 2006 from the Administrative Regional Court, on 4 January 2007 from the Rīga Regional Court.

59. Also, on 21 June 2006 the Supreme Court sent a letter to the applicant informing him of the scheduled hearing for 8 August 2006 (see paragraph 72 below). It was addressed to the governor of Valmiera prison for “handing it over to the applicant”.

60. In August 2005 the applicant prepared a letter to his friend, A.Š., who at the time was held in pre-trial detention in Central prison in Rīga. He sent this letter to his sister and asked to send it to the addressee.

61. This letter was returned back to the applicant’s sister from Central prison with a note “Send back. Unauthorised correspondence.”

62. On 25 October 2005 the applicant complained to the prosecutor’s office about the refusal to correspond. On 1 November 2005 his complaint was forwarded to the Prison Administration. They appear to have explained that the refusal had been justified. The applicant then complained to the prosecutor’s office about the Prison Administration’s reply. On 1 December 2005 his complaint was forwarded back to the Prison Administration. The applicant lodged a complaint with a superior prosecutor about the forwarding of his complaints. On 3 January 2006 the prosecutor replied that no criminal offences had been committed and thus no review was necessary. The applicant lodged a complaint with the Prosecutor General and on 23 February 2006 received a negative reply.

63. On 11 November 2005 the Ministry of Justice explained the applicant’s rights, including the right to send and receive letters.

64. On 25 November 2005 the Latvian Centre for Human Rights and Ethnic Studies (Latvijas cilvēktiesību un etnisko studiju centrs) replied to the applicant’s questions about correspondence with detainees in Latvian prisons. It was noted that the applicant’s correspondence with a detained person was not prohibited because under section 49, paragraph 2 of the Code of Execution of Sentences correspondence was prohibited only between convicted persons. Such correspondence could be prohibited only with a decision of a competent investigative authority.

65. On 7 March 2006 the applicant lodged an application with the Administrative District Court to complain about the activities of the prosecutor’s office concerning the forwarding of his complaints to the Prison Administration.

66. On 10 March 2006 a judge did not proceed with his application and set a time-limit for rectifying the deficiencies until 10 April 2006 as regards proof of payment of state duty or proof of inability to pay. The court received submissions of the applicant and an extract of the applicant’s account in prison.

67. On 12 April 2006 a judge did not exempt the applicant from payment of the state duty in the amount of 10 Latvian lati (LVL) since the applicant had some financial means. The applicant lodged an ancillary complaint against this decision with the Administrative Regional Court. On 1 June 2006 the latter decided to partly exempt the applicant from the payment of the state duty. He was requested to pay the state duty in the amount of 5 LVL until 1 July 2006, which he appears not to have done.

68. On 13 April 2006 the applicant lodged another application with the Administrative District Court to complain about the lack of response from the governor of Brasa prison to his complaint.

69. On 19 April 2006 a judge did not proceed with his application and set a time-limit for rectifying the deficiencies until 19 May 2006 as regards proof of payment of state duty or proof of inability to pay. The court received submissions of the applicant and an extract of the applicant’s account in prison.

70. On 3 May 2006 the applicant repeatedly requested that the state duty be decreased. On 26 May 2006 a judge refused his request and set a time-limit until 26 June 2006 to submit a proof of payment of the state duty in the amount of 10 LVL. The applicant lodged an ancillary complaint against this decision with the Administrative Regional Court. On 27 July 2006 the latter decided to partly exempt the applicant from the payment of the state duty. He was requested to pay the state duty in the amount of 5 LVL until 31 August 2006, which he appears not to have done.

71. On 13 March 2006 the applicant lodged an application with the Administrative District Court to complain that the prosecutor’s office attached to the Tukums District Court (Tukuma rajona prokuratūra) had not addressed its letter of 10 September 2005 to him personally but rather to the governor of Brasa prison for “handing it over to the applicant”.

72. On 16 March 2006 a judge denied it as not falling within the competence of the administrative courts. On 1 June 2006, upon the applicant’s ancillary complaint, the Administrative Regional Court upheld that decision. Finally, on 8 August 2006 the Administrative Department of the Senate of the Supreme Court set aside those decisions since the applicant’s complaint did not concern criminal proceedings as it had been wrongly decided by the lower courts.

73. On 18 August 2006 another judge of the Administrative District Court examined the applicant’s case, party exempted him from the payment of the state duty, requested that he pay 1 LVL and requested additional documents. The applicant did not lodge an appeal against this decision.

74. On 28 August and 25 September 2006 the judge admitted the applicant’s complaint and invited the prosecutor’s office submit their written observations on two complaints: on the addressing of the applicant’s letter to the governor of Brasa prison and on the refusal by the same prosecutor’s office to examine the applicant’s letters of 2 and 25 November 2005 on merits.

75. On 26 September 2006 the judge decided to examine the case using the written procedure. The applicant attempted to lodge a complaint against this decision, but he appears not to have complied with the domestic law requirements.

76. On 24 July 2008 the administrative proceedings were terminated on the grounds of an unspecified reason. It appears that the applicant did not contest this decision and it took effect on 5 August 2008.

77. On 13 March 2006 the applicant lodged an application with the Administrative District Court to complain about the activities of another institution (Datu valsts inspekcija) concerning the forwarding of his letter to the prosecution authorities and about the fact that he had not received an answer on merits to his letters.

78. On 14 March 2006 it was denied as not falling within the competence of the administrative courts. Upon the applicant’s ancillary complaint, that decision was set aside and on 25 May 2006.

79. On 2 June 2006 a judge party exempted the applicant from the payment of the state duty and did not proceed with the application. She set a time-limit for rectifying the deficiencies until 26 June 2006 as regards the proof of payment of state duty in the amount of 5 LVL.

80. On 10 August 2006, upon the applicant’s ancillary complaint, the Administrative Regional Court upheld that decision and requested the applicant to pay the state duty of 5 LVL until 8 September 2006, which he appears not to have done.

81. Under section 321 of the former Code of Criminal Procedure (in force until 1 October 2005) a judge could allow a family visit for a convicted person upon a request of close relatives.

82. Under section 66, paragraph 2 of the Code of Criminal Procedure a judgment had to contain a ruling either on confiscation of the property used for perpetration of a criminal offence or its return to the owner.

83. Under paragraph 39 of Cabinet regulations no. 211 (2003) entitled “The rules of internal order in investigative prisons” (“Izmeklēšanas cietuma iekšējās kārtības noteikumi”), in force between 1 May 2003 and 1 April 2006, the competent investigative authority (procesa virzītājs) could allow an hour long family visit for a detainee (apcietinātais) every month in the presence of prison staff. The permit had to be issued in writing and the refusal had to be substantiated.

84. Sections 63, 66 and 70 of the Law of the Criminal Procedure (in force since 1 October 2005) lists procedural rights for detainees (aizturētais), suspected persons (aizdomās turētais) and persons charged with criminal offences (apsūdzētais). A right to request that the relatives of a detainee be informed of his or her detention is included amongst those rights.

85. The procedure for the monitoring of detainee’s correspondence from 1 May 2003 until 1 April 2006 was prescribed by Cabinet regulations no. 211 (2003). Under paragraph 26 of those regulations detainees had a right to correspond with persons residing outside of the particular detention facility (ārpus izmeklēšanas cietuma). Under paragraph 31 this correspondence could be monitored, if it was stopped then reasons had to be given under paragraph 32. Under paragraphs 28 and 30 of those regulations the monitoring of correspondence with human rights organisations, the prosecutor’s office, the courts and counsel was prohibited. The Law of the Criminal Procedure (see the above paragraph) in its transitional provisions specified that regulations no. 211 (2003) would remain effective until a new law on detention procedure was adopted, but no longer than until 1 April 2006.

86. The procedure for the monitoring of detainee’s correspondence from 20 April to 18 July 2006 was prescribed by the Law on Detention Procedure, adopted by the Cabinet of Ministers under Article 81 of the Constitution (this procedure no longer exists under the Latvian Constitution since 31 May 2007). Under section 23, paragraph 2 of that law the monitoring of correspondence with domestic and international human rights organisations, the competent committee of the Latvian Parliament (Saeima), the prosecutor’s office, the courts, the competent investigative authority and counsel was prohibited.

87. From 18 July 2006 onwards the Law on Detention Procedure is effective as passed by the Parliament. Now the relevant provision concerning the prohibition to monitor detainee correspondence is contained in section 15, paragraph 2 of that law; the scope of that provision remains the same as compared to the previous section 23, paragraph 2 (see the above paragraph). As concerns correspondence with others, under section 13, paragraph 1, part 5 detainees are allowed to correspond with persons residing outside of the particular detention facility (ārpus izmeklēšanas cietuma) unless it has been prohibited by a judge (section 13, paragraph 2) or on the specified grounds by the prison staff discovered during the monitoring exercise (section 28, paragraph 2).

88. The monitoring of prisoner’s correspondence is governed by the Sentence Enforcement Code (Sodu izpildes kodekss). The relevant provision is contained in section 50, paragraph 2 of that law and it also prohibits monitoring of correspondence inter alia with the courts and the prosecutor’s office. Under section 49, paragraph 1 the convicted persons can send and receive letters without limitations. At the material time, paragraph 2 of the same section prohibited, however, the correspondence between the convicted persons held in prisons (brīvības atņemšanas vietās) unless they were (family) related. Since the Constitutional Court’s judgment in December 2009, this prohibition is no longer effective.

89. Following its second periodic visit to Latvia from 25 September to 4 October 2002, the European Committee for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman and Degrading Treatment or Punishment (“CPT”) published its report on 10 May 2005. The CPT had visited the short-term detention facility in Rīga (ISO) and Central prison in Rīga. In its relevant part the report reads as follows:

“36. The CPT’s delegation carried out a follow-up visit to the ISO in Rīga, in order to review measures taken by the authorities to implement the recommendations made after the 1999 visit in respect of this establishment. At the time of the 2002 visit, the establishment was accommodating 23 inmates (most of whom were on remand).

37. No major improvement to the material conditions of detention had been made; the description given in the report on the CPT’s 1999 visit remains almost entirely valid. In general, cells were badly ventilated, and had poor access to natural light or no access at all. However, their bedding was of a better quality and cleanliness than in 1999.

Inmates were not provided with basic personal hygiene products and they still experienced long delays in getting access to toilets. The delegation was also concerned to note that waste was stored in the toilet area. As in 1999, detainees had access to showers only once every ten days.

- to ensure that all persons detained in the Rīga ISO are provided with the necessary basic personal hygiene products, and are given the opportunity to wash themselves every day and to have a shower at least once per week;

- to give custodial staff in the ISO clear instructions that requests from persons detained to be allowed to leave their cells during the day for the purpose of using a toilet should be accepted without delay, unless overriding security considerations require otherwise;

- to ensure that toilet/shower facilities in the ISO are kept clean at all times.

38. Contact with the outside world also remained inadequate. Detainees could, in principle, receive one visit per month, subject each time to the prosecutor’s authorisation; however, in practice, such authorisations were rarely given. The same approach was followed as regards correspondence. In the CPT’s view, granting of visits and correspondence should be the norm, their refusal the exception. If visits have already been granted, families should not be required to apply for permission every month; the relevant authorities could notify the family if any new restrictions appear necessary.

The CPT recommends that the Latvian authorities take appropriate steps to ensure that a less restrictive approach is adopted as regards contact with the outside world for persons detained at the Rīga ISO.

40. The interrogation room, which the CPT also recommended be withdrawn from service, was likewise still in use. It remains a totally unsatisfactory facility, and the same can be said of a second interrogation room found by the delegation.

Interrogation rooms of such a highly intimidating nature have no place in a police service. In the CPT’s view, in addition to being adequately lit, heated and ventilated, interview rooms should allow for all participants in the interview process to be seated on chairs of a similar style and standard of comfort. The interviewing officer should not be placed in a dominating (e.g. elevated) or remote position vis-à-vis the suspect. Further, colour schemes should be neutral, and the installation of spotlights directed on the person to be questioned should be expressly prohibited.

The CPT calls upon the Latvian authorities to immediately withdraw from service the above-mentioned interrogation rooms in the Rīga ISO. Further, conditions in all police interrogation rooms should be reviewed, in order to verify whether they meet the above criteria.

74. At Rīga Central Prison, material conditions of detention varied considerably from one part of the prison to another. The CPT welcomes the quality of the renovation work carried out in Block No. 2 and the northern wing of Block No. 4. By contrast, conditions in Block No. 1, which had been renovated some time ago, left much to be desired. For instance, most of the cells were covered with mildew, and both access to natural light and artificial lighting were very poor. Further, many cells were overcrowded.

The renovation of the eastern wing of Block No. 4 has brought about certain improvements (e.g. as regards sanitary facilities). However, prisoners were still being held in overcrowded conditions, although to a lesser extent than in 1999 (e.g. 20 prisoners in cells of some 60 m²). Further, most of the renovated cells had no access to natural light (the windows still being covered by metal plates), and ventilation was poor, despite the recommendations made by the CPT after the 1999 visit. Due to a lack of storage facilities, inmates were obliged to store their personal belongings in bags under their beds. In the parts of Block No. 4 which had not yet been renovated, the conditions of detention were extremely poor. In particular, conditions in cells No. 405 and 406 were so appalling as to render them, in their present state, unfit for human accommodation. Both cells should be withdrawn from service until they have been entirely refurbished. Further, the very design of cell No. 400A, which has no window, renders it unfit for use as prisoner accommodation.

Very poor conditions also prevailed in Block No. 5, particularly in the so-called "quarantine" cells No. 501 and 502, as well as in "transit" cell No. 503. The unhygienic conditions prevailing in these latter cells pose a serious health risk to prisoners (and staff). Further, many cells were overcrowded (e.g. six prisoners were being held in cells of 13 m² and twelve prisoners in cells of less than 24 m²).

75. In [Rīga Central Prison], the poor hygienic conditions were exacerbated by the fact that prisoners were not provided with any personal hygiene products (e.g. soap, toothbrush, toilet paper, etc.) and that indigent prisoners were not always provided with proper clothing.

76. The CPT recommends that the material conditions at ... Rīga Central Prison be substantially improved, in the light of the above remarks as well as the recommendation made in paragraph 65.

- access to natural light and adequate ventilation is guaranteed in all prisoners’ accommodation;

- all prisoners have adequate quantities of essential personal hygiene products as well as cleaning products for their cells, and are able to take a hot shower at least once a week;

- indigent prisoners are supplied with proper clothing, taking weather conditions into account;

- cells No. 405 and 406 are withdrawn from service until they are entirely refurbished.

77. Finally, in [Rīga Central Prison], many prisoners claimed that until shortly before the CPT’s visit the occupancy levels had been significantly higher and that, on occasion, the number of prisoners had exceeded the number of beds available. It is axiomatic that such a state of affairs would be unacceptable; the principle of one prisoner - one bed should be respected at all times.

79. The CPT is also concerned that, at Rīga Central Prison, the situation in respect of regime activities offered to remand prisoners had remained virtually unchanged since 1999. No more than 6% of them were offered any out-of-cell activities other than outdoor exercise. Consequently, prisoners usually spent 23 hours in their cells in a state of enforced idleness (cf. paragraph 108 of the report on the 1999 visit). Further, the information gathered by the delegation indicated that not all remand prisoners (including those who worked as cleaners) were able to have at least one hour of outdoor exercise per day.”

90. Following its ad hoc visit to Latvia from 5 to 12 May 2004, the CPT published its report on 13 March 2008. The CPT had visited the short-term detention facility in Rīga (ISO) and Central prison in Rīga. In its relevant part the report reads as follows:

“29. Some improvements were observed as to the material conditions (e.g. shower facilities) at the ISO in Rīga. However, a number of the recommendations made already after the CPT’s first visit to Latvia in 1999 - and repeated after the 2002 visit - have not yet been implemented. By way of example, basic personal hygiene products are not regularly provided and not all detained persons are able to take a shower at least once a week.

The Committee calls upon the Latvian authorities to implement those recommendations without any further delay.

30. Further, the arrangements concerning contact with the outside world remained unchanged. Each time a detained person wished to receive a visit or send a letter, a new authorisation by the prosecutor was required. In practice, more than half of the detainees were not allowed to receive any visits.

The CPT wishes to stress once again that granting visits and correspondence should be the norm, their refusal the exception. If visits have already been granted, families should not be required to apply for permission every month, the relevant authorities could exceptionally retract this decision, in the light of new circumstances.

The Committee reiterates its recommendation that appropriate steps be taken to ensure that a less restrictive approach is adopted as regards contact with the outside world for persons detained at the ISO in Rīga.

31. Regrettably, cell No. 10 was still being used (though rarely), for the purpose of imposing disciplinary punishment, despite the Latvian authorities’ assurances that it had been taken out of service. Detainees held in solitary confinement were still not allowed to take any outdoor exercise.

- all inmates serving disciplinary punishment enjoy at least one hour of outdoor exercise per day.

32. The CPT welcomes the quality of the renovation work carried out in the two interrogation rooms. However, far from being removed, the spotlights in the larger of the two rooms had in fact been replaced by new, more powerful ones. This is totally unacceptable.

The Committee calls upon the Latvian authorities to remove immediately the spotlights in the interrogation room of the ISO in Rīga, and to ensure that the installation of spotlights is expressly prohibited in all police establishments in Latvia; dazzling criminal suspects with bright lights is a method which must finally be consigned to history.

33. Reference should also be made to two waiting cubicles, each measuring a mere 0.90 m². They are, by virtue of their size alone, not suitable to hold a person for any time whatsoever. Immediate steps should be taken to withdraw those cubicles from service.

60. As regards material conditions, the CPT welcomes the renovation work which has been completed in Block 4 at Rīga Central Prison. Cell No. 400A has also been taken out of service, as recommended by the Committee after the 2002 visit.

That said, the material conditions at Daugavpils Prison in Block 5 at Rīga Central Prison (in particular, in the quarantine/transit cells Nos. 501, 502 and 503) remained very poor (state of repair, ventilation, etc.). In both establishments, metal shutters had still not been removed from all windows, and inmates were still not provided with basic personal hygiene products (including toilet paper). Further, in a number of cells (including in certain renovated parts of Rīga Central Prison) toilets were not (adequately) partitioned. The delegation also noted that, at Rīga Central Prison, the number of prisoners, on occasion, exceeded the number of beds available in some of the cells.

The CPT recommends that the material conditions at Daugavpils Prison and Rīga Central Prison (in particular, in Block 5) be substantially improved, in the light of the above remarks. Immediate steps should be taken to ensure that:

- access to natural light and adequate ventilation is guaranteed in all prisoners’ accommodation;

- all prisoners have adequate quantities of essential personal hygiene products as well as cleaning products for their cells, and are able to take a hot shower at least once a week.

61. Regrettably, no improvements had been made at Daugavpils Prison and Rīga Central Prison as regards regime activities offered to sentenced and remand prisoners. ... In neither of the establishments were remand prisoners offered any out-of-cell activities apart from daily outdoor exercise.

The information gathered by the delegation indicated that at Rīga Central Prison outdoor exercise was, on occasion, limited to some 30 minutes per day (in particular, at weekends). Further, both at Daugavpils Prison and Rīga Central Prison, prisoners were still obliged to take their outdoor exercise in small concrete cubicles covered with a metal grille, under conditions which did not allow them to exert themselves physically. On a more positive note, it should be added that, at Rīga Central Prison, a number of outdoor exercise cubicles had been fitted with sports equipment (e.g. weights).

In the light of the above, the CPT calls upon the Latvian authorities to take steps at Daugavpils Prison and Rīga Central Prison to devise and implement a comprehensive regime of out-of-cell activities (including group association activities) for all prisoners, including those on remand.

Immediate steps must be taken to ensure that all prisoners at Rīga Central Prison are offered at least one hour of outdoor exercise every day. The CPT also reiterates its recommendation that the outdoor exercise areas in both establishments visited be enlarged, in order to enable prisoners to exert themselves physically.

73. Following legislative changes, remand prisoners were now, as a rule, being granted access to a telephone, in practice to one call per month (two calls per week for juveniles). This is a welcome development.

That said, the CPT remains concerned that the confidentiality of correspondence between remand prisoners and their lawyers was still not guaranteed at Daugavpils Prison and Rīga Central Prison (i.e. letters had to be handed in unsealed envelopes to the prisoner on duty).

Further, as regards restrictions imposed by the relevant prosecutor upon remand prisoners on contacts with the outside world (correspondence, visits, telephone), the delegation noted that such decisions were not always formally notified to the prisoner concerned and the latter was not informed of the deadline/modalities to appeal against them.

75. The CPT calls upon the Latvian authorities to review the current arrangements in the Latvian prison system concerning prisoners’ contact with the outside world, in the light of the above remarks.

76. Not all waiting cubicles measuring less than 2 m² (some measuring a mere 0.65 m²) have been withdrawn from service at Daugavpils Prison and Rīga Central Prison, despite the assurances given to the contrary by the Latvian authorities in their response to the report on the 2002 visit.

By letter of 21 October 2004, the Latvian authorities stated that “cubicles smaller than two m² are used only for a short time (up to ten minutes) in cases when the lawyer, prosecutor, doctor, information giver is expected”. The CPT must stress that cubicles of less than 2 m² are, by virtue of their size alone, not suitable to hold a person for any length of time whatsoever.

The Committee calls upon the Latvian authorities to withdraw the above-mentioned cubicles from service without any further delay.”

91. In his first letter to the Court, mailed on 12 October 2005, the applicant introduced several complaints (see paragraphs 92-95 below) in a very concise manner.

(a) He complained that during his trial before the first-instance court, on 24 and 25 May 2004, a defence witness was not called and a victim was not heard. He considered to have been wrongly convicted and was dissatisfied that a prosecutor did not submit any protests against the trial court’s decisions. He relied on Articles 6 and 13 of the Convention in that regard.

(b) He also complained that during the appellate hearing, on 31 May 2005, a defence witness was not called and a victim was not heard. He submitted that he was wrongly convicted and was dissatisfied again that the prosecutor did not submit any protests. He relied on Articles 6 and 13 of the Convention.

93. On 12 October 2005 the applicant also complained about the conditions of his detention in Estonia in January and June 2003.

94. As concerns his detention in Latvia, he considered the conditions of detention in Rīga short-term detention facility and in Central prison in Rīga in cells no. (in the order of placement) 30, 430, 451, 211, 89, 525, 31, 32 and 209 to be in breach of Article 3 of the Convention.

(a) The applicant submitted that in May 2004 he was prevented from voting in general and local election in breach of Article 3 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention.

(b) He also complained that the State had violated his right to education (Article 2 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention) by not providing a possibility to study English, French and other languages in detention.

96. On 4 November 2005 the applicant mailed a completed application form and enclosed documents in support. He maintained his previous complaints concerning the trial (see paragraph 92 above) and relied, more specifically, on Article 6 § 3 (d) as concerns the attendance and examination of a witness and a victim. He elaborated as follows:

(a) He alleged that the domestic courts had provided insufficient reasons in their decisions allegedly in breach of his rights under Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (c) of the Convention.

(b) The applicant complained about the final decision in the criminal proceedings against him. According to him, the Senate had breached his right to access court (Article 6 § 1), right of appeal in criminal matters (Article 2 of Protocol No. 7) and right to defend oneself in person (Article 6 § 3 (c)) by rejecting his appeal on points of law. Altogether, he considered himself a victim of cruelty in breach of Article 3 and a victim of a breach of right to liberty and security of person under Article 5 of the Convention on the grounds as mentioned in this sub-paragraph b.

97. In the completed application form he further substantiated his complaint concerning the conditions of detention (see paragraph 94 above). He explained that he did not approach the prosecutor’s office or the domestic courts with these complaints since he feared reprisals from the prison staff.

98. He further supplemented his complaint concerning the conditions of detention in Central prison and alleged that they were inhuman also in cells nos. (in the order of placement) 36, 269, 420 and 38.

(a) He complained that his mobile phone was not returned to him, when the appellate court quashed the lower court’s sentence. He relied on Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention in that regard.

(b) The applicant complained, under Articles 3 and 8 of the Convention, about the refusal to receive family visits while in pre-trial detention.

(c) The applicant argued that at the time of his offence the latest amendments to the Criminal Law introducing section 193, paragraph 4 had not been in force (they had taken effect on 1 April 2004).

(d) He was dissatisfied with the fact that his criminal proceedings were not re-opened.

(e) Relying on Article 3 of the Convention the applicant alleged that he was not provided with antiseptics in Central prison in Rīga.

100. On 23 January 2006 the applicant introduced a new complaint. He alleged that his rights under Article 8 of the Convention had been breached in that the domestic court addressed their letters of 3 and 20 October 2005 and 7 December 2005 to the Brasa prison administration and not to the applicant. Thus the applicant’s correspondence could be monitored. On 6 February 2006 he complained about monitoring in respect of the letters dated 23 March and 26 April 2004 and 16 November 2005.

101. On 12 April 2006 the applicant supplemented his previous complaint (see paragraph 100 above) and added that the case materials sent to him on 5 and 17 October 2005 from the Rīga City Latgale District Court had not been addressed to him personally. He also submitted that numerous other letters from the courts and the prosecutor’s office had not been addressed to him.

(a) He complained that Brasa prison administration did not provide him with stamps to submit complaints to the Prison Administration, its institutionally superior authority.

(b) The applicant complained that on 20 January 2006, when he had been temporarily placed in the Tukums District Police Department, he was not allowed to make a phone call to inform his relatives of his placement.

103. On 19 April 2006 the applicant submitted, in support of his earlier complaint (see paragraph 99 (b) above), that relationship with his sisters considerably deteriorated following the refusal to allow family visits in pre-trial detention.

104. On 19 April 2006 the applicant supplemented his previous complaint (see paragraph 100 above) and submitted that the letter of 19 December 2005 with the case materials from the Rīga Regional Court had been addressed to Brasa prison and not him personally, thereby enabling the prison administration to monitor his correspondence with the courts.

(a) He complained about the fact that his outgoing correspondence from Central prison between 21 January 2004 and 4 August 2005 and was marked with a stamp “Central prison in Rīga”.

(b) He complained under Article 12 of the Convention that his plans to marry had been destroyed because his partner had stopped to correspond with him in January 2005 on the grounds that she did not wish her child to see that she corresponded with a man in prison.

(c) In a similar fashion he complains under Article 8 that he had to stop corresponding with other acquaintances with children who did not wish them to see the stamp “Central prison in Rīga”. He also considered that the stamp dissuaded other persons, to whom he wrote in reply to dating advertisements, not to answer.

(d) He considered that due to the stamp on the outgoing letters his family life had been interfered with; his family members had asked him not to write them.

(a) He complained under Articles 8, 10 and 13 of the Convention that he could not correspond with his friend, a detainee in Central prison, in August 2005. Under domestic law correspondence was not allowed only between convicted persons, since his friend was not convicted and did not have any prohibition on receiving letters, he submitted that the Central prison administration unlawfully returned back the applicant’s letter. He was also dissatisfied with the fact that the prosecutor’s office did not examine his complaints and forwarded them to the Prison Administration.

(b) Relying on Articles 6 § 1 and 14 of the Convention, he complained of restrictions on his rights to access to court in the first set of administrative proceedings. Relying on Articles 6 § 3 (c) and (d) and 14 of the Convention, he also complained that he was not heard before the Administrative Regional Court and that the court did not summon witnesses.

107. On 5 October 2006 the applicant introduced a new complaint, in essence under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, concerning the second set of administrative proceedings in the same terms as described in the sub-paragraph (b) above.

108. On 20 October 2006 the applicant supplemented his previous complaint (see paragraph 100 above) and added that the letter of 21 June 2006 from the Supreme Court had not been addressed to him personally.

109. On 20 October 2006 the applicant also introduced new complaints concerning the third set of administrative proceedings. First of all, he complained of an alleged breach of “a right to court’s protection” when the lower courts at first rejected his application. He complained about the length of proceedings in the third set of administrative proceedings under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention.

110. On 23 October 2006 the applicant introduced a new complaint concerning the fourth set of administrative proceedings in the same terms as described in paragraphs 106 (b) and 107 above.

111. On 17 December 2007 the applicant supplemented his previous complaint (see paragraph 100 above) and added that the letters of 16 February, 11 May, 18 May, 16 August, 15 September, 14 November 2006 and 4 January 2007 had not been addressed to him.

112. On 22 November 2010 the applicant withdrew most of the complaints described above. He maintained his complaints concerning the conditions of detention in Central prison and the monitoring of his correspondence with the domestic courts and the prosecutor’s office as well as other complaints described in paragraphs 94, 96 (b) and 99 (a) above. He stated that he did not wish to pursue the rest of the complaints.

113. The applicant complained about the conditions of detention in Central prison in Rīga (see paragraph 94 and further elaboration of this complaint in paragraphs 97 and 98 above). He relied on Article 3 of the Convention, which provides:

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

114. The Court considers that it cannot, on the basis of the case file, determine the admissibility of the applicant’s complaints and that it is therefore necessary, in accordance with Rule 54 § 2 (b) of the Rules of Court, to give notice of this part of the application to the respondent Government.

B. Monitoring the applicant’s correspondence with the domestic courts and the prosecutor’s office

115. The applicant complained that his correspondence with the domestic courts and the prosecutor’s office was monitored (see paragraph 100 and further elaboration of this complaint in paragraphs 101, 104, 108 and 111 above). He relied on Article 8 of the Convention, which reads:

“1. Everyone has the right to respect for his private and family life, his home and his correspondence.

2. There shall be no interference by a public authority with the exercise of this right except such as is in accordance with the law and is necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security, public safety or the economic well-being of the country, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others.”

116. The Court considers that it cannot, on the basis of the case file, determine the admissibility of the applicant’s complaints and that it is therefore necessary, in accordance with Rule 54 § 2 (b) of the Rules of Court, to give notice of this part of the application to the respondent Government.

117. The Court notes that the applicant has withdrawn a number of his complaints (see paragraph 112 above). The Court considers that, in these circumstances, the applicant may be regarded as no longer wishing to pursue these complaints, within the meaning of Article 37 § 1 (a) of the Convention. Furthermore, in accordance with Article 37 § 1 in fine, the Court finds no special circumstances regarding respect for human rights as defined in the Convention and its Protocols which require the continued examination of these complaints.

118. In view of the above, it is appropriate to strike the case out of the list in so far as these complaints are concerned.

119. The applicant further complained under different Articles of the Convention about numerous violations of his Convention rights.

120. However, in the light of all the material in its possession, and in so far as the matters complained of are within its competence, the Court finds that they do not disclose any appearance of a violation of the rights and freedoms set out in the Convention or its Protocols. It follows that this part of the application is manifestly ill-founded and must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 §§ 3 and 4 of the Convention.

Decides to adjourn the examination of the applicant’s complaints concerning the conditions of detention in Central prison and the monitoring of his correspondence with the domestic courts and the prosecutor’s office;

Decides to strike the application out of its list of cases, in accordance with Article 37 § 1 (a) of the Convention, in so far as it concerns the complaints the applicant does not wish to pursue;

	[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]
	European Court of Human Rights
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> European Court of Human Rights >> Haralds IGNATS v Latvia - 38494/05 [2011] ECHR 378 (15 February 2011) URL: http://www.bailii.org/eu/cases/ECHR/2011/378.html Cite as: [2011] ECHR 378