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!
[New search]
[Contents list]
[Printable RTF version]
[Help]
FIFTH
SECTION
CASE OF DMITRIY SAZONOV v. RUSSIA
(Application
no. 30268/03)
JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
1 March
2012
This
judgment will become final in the circumstances set out in Article 44
§ 2 of the Convention. It may be subject to editorial
revision.
In the case of Sazonov v. Russia,
The
European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting as a Chamber
composed of:
Dean Spielmann, President,
Boštjan
M. Zupančič,
Anatoly Kovler,
Ann
Power-Forde,
Ganna Yudkivska,
Angelika
Nußberger,
André Potocki, judges,
and
Claudia Westerdiek,
Section Registrar,
Having
deliberated in private on 7 February 2012,
Delivers
the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
PROCEDURE
- The
case originated in an application (no. 30268/03)
against the Russian Federation lodged with the Court
under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human
Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) by a
Russian national, Mr Dmitriy Valeryevich Sazonov (“the
applicant”), on 20 August 2003.
- The
Russian Government (“the Government”) were represented by
Ms V. Milinchuk,
former Representative of the Russian Federation at the European Court
of Human Rights.
3. The
applicant alleged, in particular, that he had been detained in
appalling conditions and had contracted tuberculosis.
- On
20 February 2007 the President of
the Fifth Section decided to give notice of the application to
the Government. It was also decided to rule on the
admissibility and merits of the application at the same time
(Article 29 § 1).
THE FACTS
I. THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE
- The
applicant was born in 1974 and lives in the
Leningradskiy Region.
A. Criminal proceedings against the applicant
- On
27 December 1998 the applicant was arrested on suspicion of murder
and robbery. He was allegedly ill-treated by the police upon arrest.
- On 5 January 1999 a confrontation between the applicant
and the witnesses Mr S. and Mr K took place. The two men stated
that they were security guards in an office building and that on 27
December 1998 they had seen the applicant carrying office equipment
out of the building. He had been armed with a knife. They had
apprehended him and called the police. They had found their colleague
stabbed to death in the toilets. The applicant was given the
opportunity to put questions to the witnesses.
- On
6 January 1999 the applicant was formally charged with aggravated
murder and robbery.
- On
18 June 2002 the St Petersburg City Court convicted the applicant as
charged and sentenced him to nineteen years’ imprisonment. It
relied on oral statements by Mr S. before the court, the written
deposition of Mr K. made at the pre-trial stage, expert reports
indicating that the victim’s blood had been found on the
applicant’s clothes, and material evidence such as a knife
found on his body.
- On
10 April 2003 the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation upheld the
judgment on appeal.
B. Conditions of the applicant’s detention
- From
29 December 1998 to 14 March 2003 and from 21 June to 6 August
2003 the applicant was held in remand centre no. IZ-47/1 in
St Petersburg.
- According to the applicant the cells were overcrowded.
His cell measured 8 sq. m and housed ten to twelve inmates. The
applicant was therefore afforded between 0.6 and 0.8 sq. m of floor
space. There were shutters on the windows.
- In reply to a complaint by the applicant that the
conditions of his detention were appalling, a St Petersburg deputy
prosecutor informed him on 1 October 2001 that overcrowding was a
systemic problem in all remand centres, including remand centre no.
IZ-47/1, and it was not possible to meet the statutory sanitary norm
of 4 sq. m per inmate or to provide each inmate with a separate bunk.
- According
to a certificate dated 7 May 2007 issued by the remand centre
administration and submitted by the Government, it was not possible
to establish which cells the applicant had been held in, or the
number of inmates in those cells, as the registers for that period
had been destroyed on expiry of the statutory storage time-limit.
- Relying
on certificates of the same date from the remand centre
administration, the Government further submitted that the applicant
had at all times had a separate bunk and had been provided with
bedding. All cells were equipped with toilet facilities which were
separated from the living area by a partition. Inmates could take a
shower once a week. They received wholesome food. The shutters had
been removed in the second half of 2002. The applicant had never
shared a cell with inmates suffering from tuberculosis.
C. Medical assistance
- On
31 December 1998, on his admission to remand centre no. IZ 47/1,
the applicant was examined by the prison doctor and given a chest
fluorography examination which revealed no signs of tuberculosis.
According to the Government, between January 1999 and October 2002
the applicant was given four more fluorography tests which revealed
no pathology in the applicant’s lungs.
- On
28 February 2003 a new fluorography test detected changes indicating
tuberculosis in the applicant’s lungs.
- According
to the Government, on 2 March 2003 the applicant was placed in the
tuberculosis ward of the remand centre. Following a number of medical
analyses carried out in the ward he was diagnosed with infiltrative
tuberculosis of the left lung. He was prescribed treatment and a
special diet.
- On
14 March 2003 the applicant was transferred to the tuberculosis ward
of remand centre no. IZ-77/1 in Moscow, where he remained until
21 June 2003.
- On
21 June 2003 the applicant returned to the tuberculosis ward of
remand centre no. IZ-47/1. A fluorography test carried out on 17 July
2003 detected an improvement in his condition.
- On
6 August 2003 the applicant was transferred to a correctional colony,
where he was placed in the prison hospital and received
anti tuberculosis treatment,
- On
2 September 2005 a tuberculosis specialist issued the following
diagnosis: “clinical recovery from infiltrative tuberculosis”.
II. RELEVANT DOMESTIC LAW
- Section 22 of the Detention of Suspects Act (Federal
Law no. 103 FZ of 15 July 1995) provides that detainees
must be given free food sufficient to maintain them in good health
according to standards established by the Government of the Russian
Federation. Section 23 provides that detainees must be kept in
conditions which satisfy health and hygiene requirements. They must
be provided with an individual sleeping place and be given bedding,
tableware and toiletries. Each inmate must have no less than four
square metres of personal space in his or her cell.
THE LAW
I. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 3 OF THE CONVENTION ON
ACCOUNT OF THE CONDITIONS OF DETENTION
- The
applicant complained that the conditions of his
detention in remand centre no. IZ-47/1 in St Petersburg had been in
breach of Article 3 of the Convention, which provides:
“No one shall be subjected to torture or to
inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.”
A. Admissibility
- The
Court notes that this complaint is not manifestly ill-founded within
the meaning of Article 35 § 3 (a) of the Convention. It further
notes that it is not inadmissible on any other grounds. It must
therefore be declared admissible.
B. Merits
- The
Government submitted that the conditions of the applicant’s
detention had been satisfactory. It was not possible to establish the
number of inmates per cell because the registers for that period had
been destroyed on expiry of the statutory storage time-limit. The
prosecutor’s letter of 1 October 2001 submitted by the
applicant could not serve as evidence of overpopulation of the
applicant’s cells because the prosecutor had only referred to
the general problem of overcrowding in Russian detention facilities
without naming any specific cells. The Government submitted that the
applicant had had an individual bunk and bedding at all times, and
the sanitary and hygienic norms had been met. In sum, the conditions
of the applicant’s detention had been compatible with Article
3.
- The
applicant maintained his claims.
- The focal point for the Court’s assessment
is the living space afforded to the applicant. The applicant claimed
that his cell measured 8 sq. m and housed ten to twelve
inmates. The Government were unable to submit any information on the
cell measurements or the number of inmates because the registers had
been destroyed.
- The
Court notes that the applicant’s allegations of overcrowding
were supported by the prosecutor’s letter acknowledging that
remand centre no. IZ-47/1 was overpopulated at the material time (see
paragraph above). It also notes that it has already found on many
occasions that remand centre no. IZ-47/1 was severely overcrowded and
has also found a violation of Article 3 in respect of applicants held
there at the same time as the applicant in the present case (see
Andrey Frolov v. Russia, no. 205/02, §§ 43-51,
29 March 2007; Gusev v. Russia, no. 67542/01, §§
54-61, 15 May 2008; Seleznev v. Russia, no. 15591/03, §§
38-48, 26 June 2008; Lutokhin v. Russia, no. 12008/03, §§
53-59, 8 April 2010; Goroshchenya v. Russia, no. 38711/03,
§§ 64-73, 22 April 2010; and Petrenko v. Russia,
no. 30112/04, §§ 35-41, 20 January 2011). The
Government have not put forward any fact or argument capable of
persuading the Court that the applicant’s cell was unaffected
by that problem.
- Considering
it established that the remand centre was severely overpopulated at
the time of the applicant’s stay there, and having regard to
the fact that the Government did not submit any convincing relevant
information in respect of the cell measurements or number of inmates,
the Court will examine the issue on the basis of the applicant’s
submissions.
- According
to the information submitted by the applicant, he was afforded less
than 1 sq. m of personal space. The Court reiterates in this
connection that in previous cases where applicants had less than 3
sq. m of personal space, it has found that the overcrowding was
severe enough to justify, in its own right, a finding of a violation
of Article 3 of the Convention (see, for example, Lind v. Russia,
no. 25664/05, § 59, 6 December 2007; Kantyrev v. Russia,
no. 37213/02, §§ 50-51, 21 June 2007; Andrey Frolov v.
Russia, no. 205/02, §§ 47-49, 29 March 2007; Mayzit
v. Russia, no. 63378/00, § 40, 20 January 2005; and Labzov
v. Russia, no. 62208/00, § 44, 16 June 2005).
- Having
regard to its case-law on the subject and the material submitted by
the parties, the Court reaches the same conclusion in the present
case. That the applicant was obliged to live, sleep and use the
toilet in the same cell with so many other inmates was itself
sufficient to cause distress or hardship of an intensity exceeding
the unavoidable level of suffering inherent in detention, and arouse
in him feelings of fear, anguish and inferiority capable of
humiliating and debasing him.
- There has therefore been a violation of Article 3 of
the Convention.
II. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 3 OF THE CONVENTION ON
ACCOUNT OF CONTRACTION OF TUBERCULOSIS
- In his application form the applicant complained under
Article 3 of the Convention that he had contracted tuberculosis
during his detention in remand centre no. IZ-47/1. In his
observations lodged with the Court on 17 August 2007, the
applicant maintained his initial complaint of having contracted
tuberculosis, and stated that he had not received any medical
assistance until his transfer to Moscow on 14 March 2003.
A. Submissions by the parties
- The Government submitted that it was impossible to
establish “beyond reasonable doubt” that the applicant
had contracted tuberculosis while in detention. He had never shared a
cell with persons suffering from tuberculosis. According to medical
specialists and research, the majority of the Russian adult
population and, consequently, the majority of individuals entering
the Russian penitentiary system, were already infected with
mycobacterium tuberculosis. They cited statistical data, arguing that
out of 100,000 persons infected with the bacteria only 89 would
develop an active form of the illness. The Government drew the
Court’s attention to the fact that modern science did not
clearly identify the factors which led to the reactivation of the
tuberculosis process. It was, however, established that persons with
a weak immune system were prone to the infection. Hereditary factors
also needed to be taken into account.
- The
Government further argued that after the applicant had been diagnosed
with tuberculosis he had been immediately placed in a specialised
medical ward where he had undergone all necessary examinations and
received treatment. That treatment had been efficient and had
resulted in his clinical recovery.
- The
applicant maintained his complaint.
B. The Court’s assessment
- The
Court observes that on 28 February 2003, more than four years after
the arrest on 27 December 1998, the applicant was diagnosed as having
tuberculosis. There is no evidence that the applicant had suffered
from tuberculosis prior to his arrest. No symptoms of tuberculosis
were discovered in the period between 31 December 1998, when the
applicant underwent his first fluorography examination in detention,
and the end of February 2003, when the disease was diagnosed. The
four fluorography tests carried out during that period revealed no
signs of infection.
- In
this regard, the Court shares the Government’s opinion that
mycobacterium tuberculosis (MBT), also known as Koch’s
bacillus, may lie dormant in the body for some time without producing
any clinical signs of the illness. However, for the Government to
argue effectively that the applicant was infected with Koch’s
bacillus even before his arrest, it would have been necessary for the
authorities to perform a Mantoux test on the applicant upon his
admission to the detention facility and, in addition, to conduct a
fluorography examination, or a special tuberculosis blood test, which
would have indicated the presence of any latent infection. However,
as is apparent from the parties’ submissions, apart from
fluorography examinations the Russian custodial facilities did not
use any other method of screening for the presence of MBT in
detainees at the time of their admission. The possibility that the
applicant might never have been exposed to the infection prior to his
arrest and that he only contracted tuberculosis during his detention
cannot therefore be ruled out, particularly as the severe
overcrowding in which the applicant found himself in facility no.
IZ-47/1 (see paragraphs 28-33 above) constitutes a recognised setting
for the transmission of tuberculosis (see, among many others,
Yevgeniy Alekseyenko v. Russia, no. 41833/04,
§ 103, 27 January 2011, and Ghavtadze v. Georgia,
no. 23204/07, § 86, 3 March 2009). Nor does the Court lose sight
of the statistical estimations that place Russia among one of the top
twenty-two high-burden countries for tuberculosis in the world, a
dramatic increase in the incidence of the disease having been
recorded in the 1990s, with some reports indicating that TB is twenty
times more prevalent in Russian prisons than in the country in
general (see Yevgeniy Alekseyenko, cited above, §
79). With all these considerations in mind, added to the fact that
the first five fluorography tests carried out between December 1998
and February 2003 showed no disease in the applicant’s lungs,
the Court considers it probable that the applicant did contract
tuberculosis in detention facility no. IZ-47/1.
- While
finding it particularly disturbing that the applicant’s
infection with tuberculosis might have occurred in a custodial
institution within the State’s control, and as an apparent
consequence of the authorities’ failure to eradicate or prevent
the spread of the disease, the Court reiterates its constant approach
that this fact in itself would not imply a violation of Article 3,
provided that the applicant received treatment for it (see Alver
v. Estonia, no. 64812/01, § 54, 8 November 2005;
Babushkin v. Russia, no. 67253/01, § 56, 18 October
2007; Pitalev v. Russia, no. 34393/03, § 53, 30 July
2009; Pakhomov v. Russia, no. 44917/08, §
65, 30 September 2010; Gladkiy v. Russia, no. 3242/03,
§ 88, 21 December 2010; and Vasyukov v. Russia,
no. 2974/05, § 66, 5 April 2011).
- The
Court observes that the applicant did not complain in his application
form that he had not been provided with adequate medical assistance.
He complained for the first time about the belated commencement of
the treatment in his observations dated 17 August 2007. Given
that that complaint relates to the period before 14 March 2003, it
has been introduced out of time and must be rejected in accordance
with Article 35 §§ 1 and 4 of the Convention.
- Further,
the applicant never complained about the quality of the medical
service provided to him starting on 14 March 2003. That issue
therefore does not fall within the scope of the Court’s
examination. Indeed, the medical record showed positive effects
following the applicant’s treatment, which ultimately resulted
in his “clinical recovery from infiltrative tuberculosis”.
Nothing in the case file leads the Court to conclude that the
applicant did not receive comprehensive medical assistance during the
various stages of his tuberculosis treatment. The applicant did not
deny that medical supervision had been provided and tests had been
carried out, or that the prescribed medication had been provided, as
indicated in the medical records submitted by the Government. In
fact, he did not indicate any shortcomings in his medical care.
- It
follows that this part of the application must be rejected as being
manifestly ill-founded, pursuant to Article 35 §§ 3 (a) and
4 of the Convention.
III. OTHER ALLEGED VIOLATIONS OF THE CONVENTION
- Lastly,
the Court has examined the other complaints submitted by the
applicant, and, having regard to all the material in its possession
and in so far as these complaints fall within the Court’s
competence, it 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 must be
rejected as being manifestly ill-founded, pursuant to Article 35 §§
3 (a) and 4 of the Convention.
IV. APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION
- Article 41 of the Convention provides:
“If the Court finds that there has been a
violation of the Convention or the Protocols thereto, and if the
internal law of the High Contracting Party concerned allows only
partial reparation to be made, the Court shall, if necessary, afford
just satisfaction to the injured party.”
- The
applicant did not submit a claim for just
satisfaction. Accordingly, the Court considers that there is no call
to award him any sum on that account.
FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT
- Declares unanimously the
complaint concerning the conditions of the applicant’s
detention admissible;
2. Declares by five votes to two the
complaint concerning the applicant’s infection with
tuberculosis inadmissible;
3. Declares unanimously the
remainder of the application inadmissible;
- Holds unanimously that
there has been a violation of Article 3 of the Convention.
Done in English, and notified in writing on 1 March 2012, pursuant to
Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
Claudia Westerdiek Dean
Spielmann
Registrar President
