Source: http://rdi-org.sutyajnik.ru/documents/3316.html
Timestamp: 2019-04-25 22:26:39+00:00

Document:
Судебное дело "Захаркин против России"
Zakharkin ("the applicant"), on 2 December 2003.
their Representative, Mr G. Matyushkin.
been hindered by the authorities.
its admissibility (Article 29 S: 3).
treatment of the application (Rule 41 of the Rules of Court).
escorted to the toilet only once, in the morning.
were not provided with food.
Ozersk  Town  temporary detention facility in the Sverdlovskiy Region.
temperature in November 1999 ranged from 6 C to - 21 C.
duration of the criminal proceedings against him.
judges, Ms T. and Ms O., and a substitute lay judge, Ms Ye.
unlawful composition of the trial court.
office of the lay judges.
court  then examined the applicant's appeal and upheld the conviction.
1999. Their terms of office had been extended by presidential decrees.
by lot, but refused to send a copy of the records.
appeal.  It  held,  in particular, that the lay judges Ms T. and Ms O.
was transferred to a correctional colony in the Vologda Region.
temperature inside was above 20 C in winter and above 18 C in summer.
was taken to the visitors' room, the exercise yard or the shower room.
to protect the warders and escorting officers.
yard, but in the yard the handcuffs are removed..."
system and were separated from the living area by a partition.
various  cells in buildings nos. 2 and 3 in remand centre no. IZ-66/1.
36.  On 6 July 2002 the applicant was placed in solitary cell no. 210.
window  was  covered with a metal screen with eight ventilation holes.
running water in the cell.
was dirty with mud. There was no access to natural light or fresh air.
with arthritis, suffered as a result of the cold and the damp.
the vent were not given to him.
October, November and December 2002 ranged from 9 C to - 30 C.
bars placed behind one another.
curtailed to half an hour instead of the one hour prescribed by law.
half an hour and that he was handcuffed while in the exercise yard.
that  it  was  very  cold in cell no. 10 as the window had no glazing.
had been taken away from him.
it was not possible to provide him with hot food every day.
that the complaint remained without reply.
52.  In April 2001 the applicant was diagnosed with arthritis.
wrist joints. On 8 May 2001 he was discharged.
was diagnosed with infectious allergic polyarthritis.
prescribed anti-inflammatory pills for arthritis.
21 May and 12 June 2002.
not allowed to send him food parcels exceeding 30 kg per month.
examinations in the prison hospital were necessary.
was receiving sufficient and appropriate treatment for his disease.
insufficient treatment provided, his disease had progressed.
67.  In April 2003 the applicant underwent an X-ray examination.
to  fourteen  days  until the inflammation in the joints had lessened.
is unreadable) the applicant was examined by the remand centre doctor.
applicant be taken to the prison hospital for an examination.
refused  to  take  the  anti-inflammatory medicines prescribed to him.
records and concluded that he was suffering from rheumatoid arthritis.
joints. [The applicant] has not received any disease-modifying drugs.
depending on the rate of progression.
resulted in loss of function in the joints.
[The  applicant] requires wholesome food rich in protein and vitamins.
Damp and cold places are strongly contraindicated."
insufficient medical assistance afforded to him.
in remand centre no. IZ-66/1.
75.  On 9 January 2004 the applicant was granted disability status.
admission of counsel was within the competence of the Supreme Court.
before the Court. It appears that the request was not examined.
refused to let her in. They did not give any reasons for the refusal.
not allowed to visit the applicant.
admitted to act as counsel for the applicant.
transferred to a correctional colony.
enjoyed the same rights as professional judges (Article 15).
citizens at their place of work or residence for a term of five years.
People's Deputies for a term of five years.
prolong their term of office.
to the Constitution or federal laws.
service until the adoption of the relevant federal law.
necessary to preserve the system of lay judges for the time being.
of the term of office for which they had been elected.
of the court proceedings in a particular case.
read or work without injury to eyesight.
region, but at least once a week in a temperate climate.
properly maintained and kept scrupulously clean at all times.
articles as are necessary for health and cleanliness.
order and changed often enough to ensure its cleanliness.
strength, of wholesome quality and well prepared and served.
be available, in either a civil or prison hospital.
promptness and in the manner required by their state of health.
highlighting specific problems which may arise.
the  remand  centre  which  were allegedly cold, dark, damp and dirty.
S:S: 82-84, 29 January 2009).
Article 35 S:S: 1 and 4 of the Convention.
remand  centre management in 2008 could not be considered as credible.
accurate  and  referred to the documents submitted by him in evidence.
because his hands were affected by rheumatoid arthritis.
exercise yard the handcuffs had been removed.
2001-II). The duration of the detention is also a relevant factor.
Mamedova  v.  Russia,  no. 7064/05, S:S: 61-67, 1 June 2006; Mayzit v.
Trepashkin  v. Russia, no. 36898/03, S: 94, 19 July 2007; and Peers v.
can be regarded as compatible with Article 3 of the Convention.
allegations  (see,  among other authorities, Kokoshkina v. Russia, no.
no. 21689/93, S: 426, 6 April 2004).
certificates  are therefore of little evidentiary value for the Court.
now examine the conditions of the applicant's detention in detail.
temperatures amounted in itself to inhuman treatment.
cells  are  evidently in a deplorable state of repair and cleanliness.
The concrete walls, the ceiling and the floor are damaged by dampness.
described as degrading and unfit for decent habitation.
cited above, S:S: 83 and 84).
the appalling conditions of his detention.
severe pain and his disease had progressed.
him. His state of health had always been satisfactory.
ill-founded  within  the meaning of Article 35 S: 3 of the Convention.
must therefore be declared admissible.
going beyond the threshold set by Article 3.
include any treatment with disease-modifying drugs.
absence  of treatment with disease-modifying drugs and his disability.
treatment  had  an  adverse  effect on the development of his disease.
intra-articular  hormone  injections (see paragraphs 60 and 68 above).
ointments or hepatoprotective pills prescribed by Dr L.
treatment. There has therefore been a violation of that Article.
in accordance with the procedure prescribed by domestic law.
professional judges (see paragraph 86 above).
not been tribunals "established by law" (see Ilatovskiy v. Russia, no.
6945/04, S:S: 39-43, 9 July 2009).
not be regarded as a "tribunal established by law".
of random lots were observed in the applicant's case.
many issues crucial for the preparation of the application.
July  2003  Ms Demeneva  had  been  issued  with  a  visitor's permit.
and  46951/99,  S: 102,  ECHR  2005-I).  In  this  context, "pressure"
no. 39806/05, S: 87, 10 March 2009).
individual  petition  (see,  for  example,  Shtukaturov v. Russia, no.
(see paragraphs 78 to 85 above).
with its obligations under Article 34 of the Convention.
3 and 4 of the Convention.
violation would constitute sufficient just satisfaction.
plus any tax that may be chargeable on that amount.
there is no call to make an award under this head.
Rule 77 S:S: 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.

References: v. 
 v.

 v. 
 v.

 v. 
 v. 
 v.