Deteriorating conditions of detention in a temporary detention facility

Facts

The author of the communication is a Russian national who was sentenced to one year and six months in prison in 2011 and, prior to his transfer to a prison colony, he was placed in a temporary detention facility and in a solitary confinement cell. The small cell reflected internal temperatures below 10°C, with 10-15cm of snow on the cell floor and window frames with no glass. Following complaints regarding the conditions of the cell through a lawyer, the author was transferred to different cells, and was eventually transferred to a prison colony to serve his sentence. The author was transferred again to the temporary detention facility, and he was moved to different cells following complaints regarding the conditions. The author alleges that the conditions of his detention deteriorated further, and he was no longer provided with medical attention despite his requests.

Subsequently, while serving his sentence in a prison colony, the author was charged with murder, and he was transferred to the same temporary detention facility after consecutive requests by the investigator. The author’s appeals regarding the extension of his detention were rejected. The author was found guilty of murder and sentenced to life imprisonment, and this conviction was upheld by the State party’s Supreme Court. The author’s motion on the ground that one of his lawyers was unable to attend a judicial investigation hearing was dismissed, and his appeals were unsuccessful. Finally, the author submitted a civil claim for damage caused by the inhuman conditions of his detention in the temporary detention facility, but a city court concluded that the author had failed to substantiate his claim, and this decision was upheld on appeal.

The author claims that the State party violated his rights under articles 7, 9, 10 (1), and 14 (3) (b) and (d) of the Covenant. Under article 7, he refers to his right not to be subjected to cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment, given the harsh conditions of his detention. Under article 9, he highlights his right to liberty and security, including protection against arbitrary detention and the right to have a court review his detention. He also invokes article 10 (1), which requires that anyone deprived of liberty be treated with humanity and respect. Lastly, he argues that article 14 (3) (b) and (d) were violated, as he was denied enough time and facilities to prepare his defence and was not properly assisted by a lawyer of his choice during the proceedings.

Admissibility

The Committee considers that the author’s claims under article 10 regarding his conditions of detention at the temporary detention facility are admissible. However, the Committee considers that the author’s claims under article 9, which pertain to arbitrary arrest and detention pursuant to court decisions, are inadmissible. The author was already serving a prison sentence when the decisions in question was adopted and, while the question of transfer of detainees might raise questions under the Covenant, the author has failed to substantiate how the choice of the place of his detention falls under article 9 of the Covenant. In addition, the Committee notes the author’s claims that his detention in poor conditions was used to make him confess guilt, that his health deteriorated due to the poor conditions of detention, and that he was handcuffed arbitrarily whenever he was taken out of the cell, are inadmissible under article 7 for insufficient substantiation. The author’s claims under article  14 (3) (b) are also inadmissible for lack of substantiation, insofar as they pertain to the author’s inability to prepare his defense as a result of being detained in inhuman conditions. Finally, the Committee considers that the author’s claim under article 14 (3) (b), regarding the violation of his right to defense because only of his two contracted lawyers was present at a hearing, is inadmissible for lack of substantiation.

Merits

The Committee considers that the conditions of the author’s detention in the temporary detention facility, as described by the author, amounted to inhuman and degrading treatment and constitute a violation of article 10 (1) of the Covenant. The Committee notes the author’s detailed accounts, as well as the findings of State party’s prosecutor and penitentiary service which noted the generally unsatisfactory condition of the building, the missing glass in many windows, the unsafe electricity isolation, missing parts of the floor, the humidity level and the presence of insects in the cells. The Committee considers that the author’s conditions of detention violated his right to be treated with humanity, with respect for the inherent dignity of the human person.

Recommendations

The State party should, inter alia:

• (a) make full reparation to individuals whose Covenant rights have been violated;
• (b) take appropriate steps to provide the author with adequate compensation; and
• (c) take all steps necessary to prevent similar violations from occurring in the future.

Implementation

Deadline for implementation: 9 January 2025