5.  The applicants were born in 1965, 1977 and 1976 respectively.
6.  The first two applicants are currently serving sentences in penal institutions in the Krasnoyarsk Region, namely UP-288/T (prison) in Minusinsk and OIK-36 (correctional colony). The third applicant lives in Shilka in the Zabaykalskiy Region.
7.  By a first-instance judgment of 21 May 2002 the Supreme Court of the Republic of Buryatiya convicted the first applicant of several offences including robbery, theft, forgery, destruction of property, banditry, possession and transportation of firearms and murder, sentencing him to life imprisonment.
8.  The judgment was upheld on appeal by the Supreme Court of Russia on 19 June 2003. The first applicant did not allege in his appeal arguments that the composition of the first-instance court had been unlawful.
9.  On 22 September 2004 the Eniseyskiy District Court of the Krasnoyarsk Region brought the first applicant’s conviction in line with newly introduced amendments to the Russian Criminal Code, having made minor corrections to the legal characterisation of his acts. His sentence was left essentially unchanged.
10.  That decision was upheld following a supervisory review by the Krasnoyarsk Regional Court on 30 May 2006.
11.  In 2007 the first applicant made some enquiries to check the lawfulness of the composition of the first-instance court in his case. Eventually, he found out that two lay assessors who had sat in his case at the first level of jurisdiction had not had authority to take part in the proceedings. Thereafter, in an attempt to contest the lawfulness of his conviction on the above-mentioned grounds, he requested that the Prosecutor’s Office of the Republic of Buryatiya institute supervisory review proceedings with a view to setting aside the judgment of 21 May 2002. His requests were unsuccessful.
12.  By a judgment of 5 December 2003 the Leninskiy District Court of Krasnoyarsk convicted the second applicant of murder and destruction of property and sentenced him to fifteen years’ imprisonment to be served in a correctional colony with a strict regime.
13.  On 5 February 2004 the Krasnoyarsk Regional Court upheld the second applicant’s conviction on appeal.
14.  On 6 April 2007 the Sovetskiy District Court of Krasnoyarsk changed the regime of the second applicant’s imprisonment and ordered that three years of his sentence be served in prison.
15.  The details of the third applicant’s criminal history are unknown.
16.  The first applicant was placed in UP-288/T prison in Minusinsk, where it appears he remains to date.
17.  The case file shows that his cell is under constant surveillance by prison guards by a closed-circuit television camera (hereinafter “CCTV camera”) installed inside. The first applicant submitted a copy of a judgment in the case of another inmate, which stated that the prison guard who monitored the cells in that prison was a woman.
18.  He also submitted screenshots of the CCTV camera installed in each of the two cells in which he had been kept. The screenshots show that in both cells there was a CCTV camera installed above the door, at ceiling level, in such a manner that the entire cell was clearly visible, including the bed. The toilet was located directly below the CCTV camera and was almost entirely hidden from the camera’s view by a shield.
19.  Between 22 May 2007 and 24 May 2010 the second applicant also served a sentence in UP-288/T prison. According to him, during his detention in that facility he was unable to take walks and undertake outdoor exercise in wintertime because he was not provided with winter boots of a suitable size, despite numerous requests to that effect.
20.  On an unspecified date the second applicant was transferred to IK-5 (strict-regime correctional colony) in Krasnoyarsk. According to him, his cell was under constant surveillance by prison guards by a CCTV camera installed inside the cell. The applicant submitted that the prison guard who monitored his cell was a woman, as at times he could hear her giving him orders via loudspeaker.
21.  Whilst serving a prison sentence in IK-2 (special-regime correctional colony) in the Zabaykalskiy Region, on 22 June 2013 the third applicant was transferred to IZ-1 (pre-trial detention centre) in the same region with a view to ensuring his participation in court proceedings unrelated to this case. The third applicant was placed in cell no. 465, where he remained until 22 February 2014.
22.  According to him, the cell was designed for two inmates, but most of the time he was there alone. The cell was under permanent surveillance by a CCTV camera operated by female guards. A screenshot of the CCTV camera submitted by the third applicant shows that it was installed above the entrance door, at ceiling level, in such a manner that the entire cell was clearly visible, including, at least in part, the bed. The screenshot also shows that the toilet was separated by a partition at each side, but had no cover, with the result that the upper part of the cubicle was visible.
23.  On an unspecified date the third applicant lodged a complaint against the actions of the administration of pre-trial detention centre IZ-1 (“the detention centre authorities”) with the Ingodinskiy District Court of Chita (“the District Court”). He argued that permanent video surveillance of his cell by female operators was humiliating as, in particular, he had to undress in plain view of them, which breached his rights. He asked the court to oblige the detention centre authorities to bring the violation to an end.
24.  At a hearing a representative of the detention centre authorities conceded that the duty officers who performed video surveillance were women, but argued that they were merely performing their professional duties. The representative also pointed out that all the other cells in the pre‑trial detention centre were equipped with CCTV cameras, which had been installed for security purposes. The representative further argued that the applicant’s sleeping place and cell toilet were outside the CCTV camera’s field of view.
25.  In a judgment of 5 July 2013 the District Court dismissed the third applicant’s complaint.
26.  It found it established that the third applicant’s cell and all the other cells in pre-trial detention centre IZ-1 were equipped with CCTV cameras located under the ceiling for the purposes of surveillance of detainees. It further accepted the argument of the detention centre authorities that the toilet and sleeping place were outside the camera’s field of view.
27.  The court further observed that Article 83 of the Russian Code of Execution of Criminal Sentences (see paragraph 33 below) and section 34(1) of the Pre-trial Detention Act (see paragraph 34 below) enabled the use of audio and video equipment for surveillance and control with a view to preventing escapes and other crimes or breaches of internal order. Moreover, those legal instruments, as well as the relevant regulations of the Russian Ministry of Justice, including executive order no. 204-dsp of 3 November 2005, as amended on 25 May 2011 (see paragraphs 35-38 below), provided that only body searches and supervision of detainees during hygienic procedures should be performed by officers of the same sex, whereas surveillance of cells by CCTV cameras by officers of the opposite sex was not prohibited by the above-mentioned legal instruments. Officers of pre-trial detention centre IZ-1 were civil servants who performed the professional duties within their competence, as established, in particular, by section 21 of executive order no. 204-dsp of 3 November 2005 (see paragraph 36 below). In that connection, the court noted that no evidence had been submitted to it to show that the officers of pre-trial detention centre IZ-1 had breached or acted outside the scope of their professional duties.
28.  The District Court also pointed out that decision no. 1393-O-O of the Constitutional Court of Russia dated 19 October 2010 (see paragraphs 42-43 below) stated that use by the authorities of various pre-trial detention centres and penal institutions of technical means of surveillance and control was part of the mechanism that ensured detainees’ personal safety and respect for their rights, as well as performance by them of their obligations. In the District Court’s view, such use thus pursued constitutional aims and could not be regarded as a disproportionate restriction of the third applicant’s rights.
29.  The District Court concluded that, under the applicable law, as interpreted by the Constitutional Court of Russia, it was permissible for officers of the opposite sex to perform CCTV camera monitoring of detainees, thus the situation had not debased the third applicant’s dignity, as the female officers had acted within their competence and in the performance of their professional duties.
30.  On 11 September 2013 the Zabaykalskiy Regional Court upheld the first-instance judgment on appeal, endorsing its reasoning.