|
Стр. 3
переданных властями Украины документов следует, что после
вступления приговора в силу условия содержания под стражей
осужденных к смертной казни регулировались главным образом
Инструкцией, принятой министром юстиции, Генеральным прокурором и
Верховным судом (см. выше з 73 - 75). Однако Кодекс устанавливает
общие правовые основы условий содержания под стражей (см. выше з
82 - 87).
a) Исправительно-трудовой кодекс
155. Европейский суд отметил, что, хотя Кодекс удовлетворяет
второму требованию выражения "предусмотрено в Законе", а именно,
что Закон должен быть доступен, он не соответствует третьему
требованию, а именно, что Закон должен быть предсказуем в части
средств и характера применяемых мер.
156. Европейский суд обратил внимание на то, то власти Украины
ссылались на пункт 3 статьи 41 Кодекса, в соответствии с которым
"осужденным, независимо от назначенного им вида режима,
позволяется получение не более как двух бандеролей за год" (см.
выше з 85). Но данная норма является частью статьи 41, которая
устанавливает правила получения осужденными к лишению свободы
посылок, передач и бандеролей. Европейский суд счел неясным из
Кодекса, включены ли осужденные к смертной казни в категорию лиц,
осужденных к лишению свободы (позбавлення волi), так как смертная
казнь назначается преступникам, которые признаны неспособными к
исправлению путем лишения свободы. Европейский суд отметил, что
правовая позиция еще более неопределенна во втором пункте статьи
41 Кодекса, который предусматривает, что "осужденным, которые
отбывают лишение свободы в тюрьмах, получение посылок и передач не
позволяется". В настоящем деле заявитель последовательно
содержался в Запорожской тюрьме N 2 и затем в Запорожской тюрьме N
1, но не в исправительно-трудовой колонии, воспитательно-трудовой
колонии или исправительно-трудовой колонии-поселении, упомянутых в
пунктах 1 и 4 статьи 41 (см. выше з 85).
157. В свете данных обстоятельств Европейский суд счел, что
ограничения, предусмотренные Кодексом, на который ссылались власти
Украины, в настоящем деле были недостаточно предсказуемы, чтобы
соответствовать требованиям пункта 2 статьи 8 Конвенции, так как
заявитель не мог знать наверняка, применялись ли к нему положения
Кодекса об ограничении числа посылок и бандеролей, которое имел
право получать заключенный.
b) Инструкция
158. Европейский суд отметил, что Инструкция являлась закрытым
документом служебного пользования; власти Украины передали
Европейскому суду только часть Инструкции.
159. В связи с этим Европейский суд счел, что вмешательство в
право заявителя на уважение его корреспонденции нельзя считать
"предусмотренным Законом" в соответствии с пунктом 2 статьи 8
Конвенции. Инструкция была заменена Временными положениями,
утвержденными Приказом N 72 Государственного управления по
исполнению наказаний от 25 июня 1999 г. и зарегистрированными
Министерством юстиции 1 июля 1999 г. под номером 426/3719, которые
вступили в силу 11 июля 1999 г. и были опубликованы. Но Временные
положения не применялись к отношениям, возникшим до 11 июля 1999
г.
160. Соответственно, в период с 11 сентября 1997 г. до 11 июля
1999 г. имело место нарушение статьи 8 Конвенции.
2. Период после 11 июля 1999 г.
161. Европейский суд отметил, что первоначальная жалоба
заявителя касалась периода до 11 июля 1999 г., когда у него
имелось право на получение двух бандеролей в год (см. выше з 74),
и что после этой даты заявитель не жаловался на ограничение права
на корреспонденцию.
162. Но Европейский суд счел, что необходимо рассмотреть также
и ограничения, введенные Временными положениями, в соответствии с
которыми заявитель имел право на получение шести посылок и трех
бандеролей в год.
Европейский суд признал, что такое ограничение является
вмешательством в право заявителя на уважение его корреспонденции.
Такое вмешательство "предусмотрено законом", а именно Временными
положениями, и может рассматриваться, как преследующее законную
цель "предупреждения нарушения общественного порядка или
преступления" и учитывающее задачу администрации тюрьмы
предотвратить проникновение в тюрьму предметов, опасных для
безопасности тюрьмы.
163. Что касается необходимости рассматриваемого вмешательства,
Европейский суд должен был учитывать материально-техническую
проблему, которая возникает в большом пенитенциарном учреждении, в
настоящем деле в учреждении содержалось 1735 заключенных, при
обработке неограниченного числа посылок и бандеролей (см. выше з
44). Предоставление заключенным права получать неограниченное
число посылок или бандеролей потребует со стороны тюремного
персонала огромного объема работы по проверке содержимого каждой
посылки в целях защиты безопасности тюрьмы. Режим безопасности в
тюрьме имеет целью защиту всего общества от опасных преступников и
защиту самих заключенных. Таким образом, администрация тюрьмы
имеет законную задачу защиты безопасности способами, которые могут
сократить или ограничить риск для безопасности. В то же время
необходимо поддерживать оптимальный баланс между интересами
безопасности и соблюдением права заключенных на поддержание
контакта с внешним миром.
164. В настоящем деле Европейский суд счел, что возможность
получения посылок или бандеролей каждые шесть недель можно
рассматривать, как соблюдение такого баланса, учитывая, что
администрация тюрьмы предоставляет всем заключенным одежду,
питание и медицинскую помощь в течение всего срока содержания под
стражей. Кроме того, Европейский суд заслушал показания властей
Украины о том, что родственники могли без ограничений посылать
заключенным денежные переводы для покупки вещей в тюремном
магазине.
165. Вопреки обстоятельствам дела и с учетом пределов
усмотрения властей Украины в регулировании условий содержания в
тюрьме Европейский суд счел, что рассмотренные меры соответствуют
цели предупреждения нарушения общественного порядка или
преступления.
166. Соответственно, в период после 11 июля 1999 г. не имело
место нарушение статьи 8 Конвенции.
V. Предполагаемое нарушение статьи 13 Конвенции
167. Заявитель утверждал, что он не имел эффективных средств
правовой защиты по смыслу статьи 13 Конвенции в отношении условий
его содержания под стражей или вмешательства в право на уважение
его корреспонденции.
Статья 13 Конвенции гласит:
"Каждый, чьи права и свободы, признанные в настоящей Конвенции,
нарушены, имеет право на эффективное средство правовой защиты в
государственном органе, даже если это нарушение было совершено
лицами, действовавшими в официальном качестве".
168. Европейский суд напомнил, что данная норма гарантирует
средства правовой защиты на национальном уровне, которые
обеспечивали бы соблюдение основных прав и свобод, предусмотренных
Конвенцией, в любой форме, требуемой для защиты этих прав и свобод
в национальной правовой системе. Таким образом, действие статьи 13
Конвенции требует предоставления внутреннего средства правовой
защиты для рассмотрения "доказуемой жалобы" по существу дела в
соответствии с Конвенцией и удовлетворения соответствующих
притязаний, хотя Договаривающиеся государства имеют некоторую
свободу действий при выборе способов соблюдения своих
обязательств, вытекающих из статьи 13 Конвенции. Объем
обязательства из статьи 13 варьируется в зависимости от характера
жалобы заявителя на нарушение Конвенции. Тем не менее, средство
правовой защиты, предусмотренное статьей 13 Конвенции, должно быть
таким же "эффективным" как на практике, так и в теории. В
частности, осуществлению права на эффективное средство правовой
защиты не должны препятствовать действия или бездействие властей
государства-ответчика (см. Постановление Большой палаты
Европейского суда по делу "Ильхан против Турции" (Ilhan v.
Turkey), жалоба N 22277/93, ECHR 2000-VII, з 97).
169. Европейский суд счел, что заявитель имел право на
доказуемую жалобу в отношении своих прав, гарантированных статьями
3 и 8 Конвенции.
170. Напоминания свой вывод в отношении предварительных
возражений властей Украины, Европейский суд счел, что заявителю не
было предоставлено эффективного средства правовой защиты в
отношении его жалоб на нарушение Конвенции.
171. Соответственно, имело место нарушение статьи 13 Конвенции.
VI. Применение статьи 41 Конвенции
172. Статья 41 Конвенции гласит:
"Если Суд объявляет, что имело место нарушение Конвенции или
Протоколов к ней, а внутреннее право Высокой Договаривающейся
Стороны допускает возможность лишь частичного устранения
последствий этого нарушения, Суд, в случае необходимости,
присуждает справедливую компенсацию потерпевшей стороне".
173. Заявитель не подавал каких-либо конкретных требований о
компенсации материального вреда или судебных расходов. Однако
заявитель потребовал компенсацию морального вреда в размере 50000
долларов США (50778 евро).
174. Власти Украины не прокомментировали данное требование.
175. Учитывая свои решения по жалобам заявителя на нарушение
статей 3, 8, 13 Конвенции, Европейский суд счел, что заявителю
причинен моральный вред в связи с общими условиями содержания под
стражей и ограничениями национальными властями права на уважение
его корреспонденции. Исходя из принципа справедливости,
Европейский суд присудил заявителю компенсацию морального вреда в
размере 2000 (две тысячи) евро плюс любой налог, который может
быть взыскан с этой суммы.
Процентная ставка при просрочке платежей
176. Европейский суд счел, что процентная ставка при просрочке
платежей должна быть установлена в размере предельной годовой
процентной ставки по займам Европейского центрального банка плюс
три процента (см. Постановление Европейского суда по делу "Кристин
Гудвин против Соединенного Королевства" (Christine Goodwin v.
United Kingdom) от 3 июля 2002 г., жалоба N 28957/95, ECHR 2002, з
124).
НА ЭТИХ ОСНОВАНИЯХ СУД ЕДИНОГЛАСНО:
1) отклонил предварительные возражения властей Украины;
2) постановил, что имело место нарушение статьи 3 Конвенции,
что касается условий содержания заявителя под стражей при ожидании
смертной казни;
3) постановил, что имело место нарушение статьи 8 Конвенции в
период с 11 сентября 1997 г. до 11 июля 1999 г.;
4) постановил, что отсутствовало нарушение статьи 8 Конвенции в
период с 11 июля 1999 г.;
5) постановил, что имело место нарушение статьи 13 Конвенции в
связи со статьями 3 и 8 Конвенции;
6) постановил:
a) что государство-ответчик обязано в течение трех месяцев со
дня вступления Постановления в законную силу в соответствии с
пунктом 2 статьи 44 Конвенции выплатить заявителю в возмещение
морального вреда 2000 (две тысячи) евро, переведенных в украинские
гривны по курсу, установленному на день выплаты, плюс любые
налоги, которые могут быть взысканы с этой суммы;
b) что с даты истечения вышеуказанного трехмесячного срока до
момента выплаты простые проценты должны начисляться на эти суммы в
размере, равном минимальному ссудному проценту Европейского
центрального банка плюс три процента;
7) отклонил остальные требования заявителя о справедливой
компенсации.
Совершено на английском языке, и уведомление о Постановлении
направлено в письменном виде 29 апреля 2003 г. в соответствии с
пунктами 2 и 3 правила 77 Регламента Суда.
Председатель Палаты
сэр Николас БРАТЦА
Секретарь Секции Суда
Майкл О'БОЙЛ
EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS
FOURTH SECTION
CASE OF DANKEVICH v. UKRAINE
(Application No. 40679/98)
JUDGMENT <*>
(Strasbourg, 29.IV.2003)
In the case of Dankevich v. Ukraine,
--------------------------------
<*> This judgment will become final in the circumstances set
out in Article 44 з 2 of the Convention. It may be subject to
editorial revision.
The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting as
a Chamber composed of:
Sir Nicolas Bratza, President,
Mr {M. Pellonpaa},
Mrs E. Palm,
Mr J. Makarczyk,
Mrs {V. Straznicka},
Mr V. Butkevych,
Mr R. Maruste, Judges,
and Mr M. O'Boyle, Section Registrar,
Having deliberated in private on 25 March 2003,
Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on the last-
mentioned date:
PROCEDURE
1. The case originated in an application (No. 40679/98) against
Ukraine lodged with the European Commission of Human Rights ("the
Commission") under former Article 25 of the Convention for the
Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms ("the
Convention") by a Ukrainian national, Yuriy Oleksandr Dankevich
("the applicant"), on 20 February 1998.
2. The applicant was represented by his wife, Ms N.O.
Dankevich. The Ukrainian Government ("the Government") were
represented by their Agent, Mrs V. Lutkovska, from the Ministry of
Justice.
3. The applicant complained, inter alia, that the conditions to
which he was subjected on death row in Zaporozhie Prison No. 2
amounted to inhuman and degrading treatment.
4. The application was transmitted to the Court on 1 November
1998, when Protocol No. 11 to the Convention came into force
(Article 5 з 2 of Protocol No. 11).
5. The application was allocated to the Fourth Section of the
Court (Rule 52 з 1 of the Rules of Court). Within that Section,
the Chamber that would consider the case (Article 27 з 1 of the
Convention) was constituted as provided in Rule 26 з 1 of the
Rules of Court.
6. Having consulted the parties, the President of the Chamber
decided that in the interests of the proper administration of
justice, the proceedings in the present case should be conducted
simultaneously with those in the cases of Nazarenko v. Ukraine,
Aliev v. Ukraine, Khokhlich v. Ukraine, Poltoratskiy v. Ukraine
and Kuznetsov v. Ukraine (applications nos. 39483/98, 41220/98,
41707/98, 38812/97 and 39042/97 (Rule 43 з 2)).
7. By a decision of 25 May 1999, the Chamber declared the
application partly admissible. On 6 October 1999 the Court carried
out a fact-finding visit to Zaporozhie Prisons nos. 1 and 2.
8. On 1 November 2001 the Court changed the composition of its
Sections (Rule 25 з 1). This case was assigned to the newly
composed Fourth Section.
9. The Government, but not the applicant, filed observations on
the merits (Rule 59 з 1).
THE FACTS
I. The circumstances of the case
A. Outline of events
10. On 3 April 1997 the Zaporozhie Regional Court (Запорiзький
обласний суд) convicted the applicant of the murder of three
persons and the attempted murder of one person and sentenced him
to death.
11. On the same day the Administration of the Zaporozhie
Isolation Block of the Central Department of the Ministry of the
Interior (адмiнiстрацiя слiдчого iзолятору Головного Управлiння
Мiнiстерства внутрiшнiх справ {Украiни} в Запорiзькiй областi)
decided to move the applicant to a separate cell to await
execution, in accordance with the Pre-trial Detention Act 1993
(hereinafter "the Act").
12. On 24 July 1997 the Supreme Court (Верховний суд) upheld
the judgment of the first-instance court.
13. On 15 August 1997 the Prosecutor General (Генеральний
Прокурор), on an extraordinary appeal by the applicant's mother,
found that the national courts had properly assessed all the
evidence adduced before them and had reached sound legal
conclusions. He held that the appeal was manifestly ill-founded.
14. On 27 August 1997 the applicant filed a plea for pardon
with the President of Ukraine.
15. On 19 September and 15 December 1997 the Vice-President of
the Supreme Court refused two further extraordinary appeals by the
applicant's wife and mother.
16. A moratorium on executions was declared by the President of
Ukraine on 11 March 1997. In a judgment No. 11рп/99 of 29 December
1999 the Constitutional Court held that the provisions of the
Criminal Code concerning the death penalty were contrary to the
Constitution of Ukraine. The death penalty was abolished and
replaced by life imprisonment by Act No. 1483-III of 22 February
2000.
17. On 14 June 2000 the Zaporozhie Regional Court commuted the
applicant's death sentence to one of life imprisonment.
B. Oral evidence before the Court Delegates
18. The evidence of the applicant was taken by the Court
Delegates in Zaporozhie Prison No. 1 on 6 October 1999. The
Delegation was composed of Judges {M. Pellonpaa,} J. Makarczyk and
R. Maruste. The statements of certain witnesses were taken in
Zaporozhie Prison No. 2. The evidence taken may be summarised as
follows:
1. The applicant
(a) General conditions of the applicant's detention on death
row
19. The applicant was admitted to Zaporozhie Prison No. 1 two
weeks before the Court Delegates' visit. Previously, he had been
detained in Zaporozhie Prison No. 2, where he had stayed for three
years. On the day of the Court Delegates' visit, he confirmed that
he had been informed about his rights and obligations. However,
the practice in Zaporozhie Prison No. 2 had been different. He
described it as follows: "Whenever a commission from Kiev came -
they do not care much when the local commission from the
supervising prosecutor's office comes - the prison authorities
distributed a sheet of paper with rules, posted it on the walls
and the next day took it off. Although the paper was not on the
walls in the cells, we were informed about it."
20. In Zaporozhie Prison No. 2, the applicant changed cells
every week and later every month, having generally been detained
alone. This practice had still been in force six months ago.
According to him, the windows in his cells had been covered and
there was no water tap. The cells for two inmates were the same
size as those in Zaporozhie Prison No. 1, but those for one inmate
were much smaller, even twice as small, as the cell where he was
detained on the day of the Delegates' visit. The applicant
acknowledged that he had been detained alone at his own request.
However, when the prison administration of Zaporozhie Prison No. 2
had insisted that he share the cell with somebody else, he had
agreed.
21. The applicant had not been officially informed about the
moratorium on execution of death sentences, learning about it from
the radio and other inmates.
22. When he had been transferred to death row, two inmates had
been taken out to be executed. The executions had been carried out
in Dnipropetrovsk Prison. Although inmates had rarely been
informed about any execution taking place, they could observe that
the inmates concerned had been handcuffed and taken away without
their personal belongings, which had been recovered by the prison
administration officials later.
23. According to the applicant, cells in Zaporozhie Prison No.
2 had been very cold in the wintertime until the heating was
switched on and had been hot in the summertime.
24. The applicant had repeatedly complained of the conditions
of detention in Zaporozhie Prison No. 2, but had always been told
that there were no financial resources for improving them. He
alleged that certain of his written complaints had not reached
their addressees.
25. He had suffered from stomach aches and high acidity, but
the prison medical staff had not given him medication because they
did not have any, and had prescribed the wrong drugs, which had
not helped him. A medical assistant had usually seen inmates once
or twice a week, registering those wishing to see a doctor.
However, a visit to the doctor had been permitted upon application
to the prison governor. The applicant had visited the doctor
outside his cell once or twice during his stay in Zaporozhie
Prison No. 2. He said that he had probably applied to see a doctor
only once because, on the first occasion, he had been examined not
by a general practitioner but by a psychiatrist, and had been told
that his stomach was fine, even though during the examination he
had felt pain in his stomach. The applicant had then been allowed
to have dietary food for one month.
26. The applicant said that some of his teeth had not been
treated, but only extracted. His relatives had suggested bringing
all the necessary medication for proper dental treatment, but the
prison administration had refused. He said that, according to the
regime, dental treatment had not been provided by Zaporozhie
Prison No. 2.
27. The applicant had not been allowed to watch TV, but his
relatives had brought him books and newspapers. He felt that in
Zaporozhie Prison No. 1 there was a humane attitude among the
prison staff, unlike Zaporozhie Prison No. 2, where he had been
psychologically ill-treated. According to him, inmates' relatives
had also been treated in a very improper manner.
28. The lamp in the applicant's cell in Zaporozhie Prison No. 1
where he was detained on the day of the Delegates' visit was
permanently switched on and daylight was let in through the
window. The lamp in his cells in Zaporozhie Prison No. 2 had been
much stronger.
(b) Prison practice concerning daily outdoor walks and visits
from the applicant's relatives
29. The applicant had started to have daily outdoor walks one
and a half years before the Delegates' visit. He had been allowed
to walk for 20 - 30 minutes, and sometimes for 50 minutes without
handcuffs. The prison administration had not informed him how long
walks had to last according to national law. His wife had brought
a copy of the prison rules which specified that walks had to last
for between one and two hours. To the Delegates' question: "When
you were informed by your wife about those rules, did you complain
that you had not been allowed to have meetings with your wife for
one hour or to have walks according to these rules?" the applicant
answered: "We filed complaints. Regarding the meetings, we were
told that there were too many inmates, especially those who were
still under investigation, and that the prison did not have enough
facilities to allow all inmates to have longer meetings." To the
Delegates' next question: "Does that mean that this practice
continued all the time?" the applicant answered: "Thanks to my
wife, we found out that the prison rules adopted in 1993 allowed
us to have one-hour meetings."
30. When the applicant learnt that walks should last one hour,
the prison administration prevented him from taking them. In
practice, when other inmates went for an outdoor walk, he was
summoned to a meeting. As soon as the meeting was over, the
exercise period was over too. This had lasted until the
applicant's wife and mother said that they would complain to the
Court, and had stopped about one or two months before the
Delegates' visit.
(c) Prison practice concerning receipt of parcels and small
packets [Note: Parcels to be forwarded to a prisoner may be sent
by post (посилка) or brought in person to the prison (передача).
Small items like books or periodicals can be sent by post as a
small packet (бaндepoль - literally a "bundle").], and
correspondence
31. After the applicant's death sentence had become final, he
was allowed to receive one parcel every two months. Once he had
been given permission to go for outdoor walks, his correspondence
had been limited to one letter per month and one small packet
weighing up to two kilograms every six months, including food,
toiletries and clothes. According to him, these allowances were
not sufficient, taking into account the poor quality of the food
in prison and the fact that at that time he had not been able to
buy goods in the prison shop. He said that six months prior to the
Delegates' visit a new rule was introduced allowing him to
purchase goods for an amount equal to 70 - 75% of the statutory
minimum wage. The applicant confirmed that he always had
sufficient money in his prison bank account to buy goods from the
prison shop.
32. As far as correspondence with his relatives was concerned,
the applicant confirmed that at the date of the Delegates' visit
he could send and receive an unlimited number of letters. He
further confirmed that he had the right to receive one parcel of 8
kilograms and three small packets every two months.
2. Mr Viktor Vladimirovich Lavrik
33. The witness was the governor of Zaporozhie Prison No. 1. He
had a staff of 129 officers.
(a) General conditions of the applicant's detention on death
row
34. The witness said that there were 836 detainees in the
prison, of whom 176 were serving a prison sentence, including 18
on death row. He confirmed that the applicant had been transferred
to Zaporozhie Prison No. 1 recently.
35. He confirmed that a document with prisoners' rights and
obligations was posted in cells. Inmates could read it and
familiarise themselves with the contents of the document. He said
that several changes for death row prisoners had taken place since
the moratorium on executions had been introduced: previously, they
had not been allowed to go for daily outdoor walks and could
receive only two small packages per year and one letter per month.
He confirmed that the prison administration had informed the death
row prisoners about the moratorium.
36. As to the number of prisoners in the cells, the prison
administration complied with national law requiring that no more
than two prisoners should be held in one cell. The administration
respected inmates' wishes to be detained alone, as the applicant
himself had requested. During winter, cells were heated to about
22 - 25-C.
37. Inmates could complain to him or to the public prosecutor,
but the witness had not received any complaints. He said that
every month an official from the Department for Execution of
Sentences and the Deputy Public Prosecutor walked around the cells
and collected complaints. Inmates complained of their sentences,
but not of the detention conditions.
38. The witness visited death row inmates at least every week.
On several occasions he had met the applicant, who had not
complained of his detention conditions.
39. He confirmed that a member of the prison medical staff
visited the cells on a daily basis. If need be, the inmate was
transferred to the prison medical unit for appropriate treatment,
or if necessary to a hospital.
(b) Prison practice concerning daily outdoor walks, receipt of
parcels and small packets and correspondence, and visits from
prisoners' relatives
40. The death row prisoners had started to take daily one-hour
outdoor walks in March 1998. The changes concerning parcels and
correspondence had been introduced on 25 June 1999. The prisoners
were not handcuffed during their outdoor walks. Moreover, they had
the right to have one two-hour meeting with their relatives per
month and could receive six parcels and three small packets per
year.
41. He said that outgoing letters were not censored, although
they were opened and looked through. Incoming letters from the
Court and the Prosecutor General were never opened, as provided
for in the Pre-Trial Detention Act. Unlike letters to and from
prisoners' relatives, parcels were registered in a special file.
The witness said that no inmates had complained that letters had
not been sent or received. As far as letters to inmates' legal
representatives were concerned, prisoners usually applied for a
visit by a lawyer. The witness confirmed that the procedure of not
registering letters had been introduced on 25 June 1999.
3. Mrs Larisa Mikhaylovna Lacheynaya
42. The witness was the prison doctor and had been working in
Zaporozhie Prison No. 1 for four years. She knew the applicant
personally. She confirmed that the prison administration could
provide all necessary dental treatment inside the prison.
According to her, there was no difference in the medical regime
between death row prisoners and other inmates.
4. Mr Sergey Arkadievich Oleynik
43. The witness was the governor of Zaporozhie Prison No. 2. He
took up his duties on 4 September 1998.
General conditions of the applicant's detention on death row
44. He said that on the day of the Delegates' visit, 1,735
persons were detained in the prison, all of them in pre-trial
detention. He confirmed that the applicant had recently been
transferred to Zaporozhie Prison No. 1.
45. The witness personally knew the applicant, who had not
complained about his detention conditions, although in early July
1999 he had criticised the duration of his meetings with his
relatives, alleging that they should have lasted for two hours.
The head of the department and the first deputy to the regional
prosecutor had investigated the facts and found that the
applicant's complaint was well-founded. However, the prison
administration could not grant the applicant longer meetings,
having regard to the large number of prisoners waiting for such
meetings. In general, inmates' complaints were registered in a
journal and, at the same time, in their personal files. A reply
was delivered to the inmate concerned for information and
signature.
46. The witness confirmed that, before their sentences became
final, inmates on death row could not send or receive
correspondence, but two parcels per month were allowed. After the
sentence became effective the regime changed.
47. The witness said that the applicant had moved from one cell
to another every ten days in accordance with the rules, having
been confined alone in a double cell as he had requested. He
confirmed that all four death row cells in the prison facility
were double cells of the same size. On the day of the Delegates'
visit two of them were empty.
48. He confirmed that he had met the applicant's wife when she
had asked for a meeting with her husband, but he had never heard
any complaints from her regarding the applicant's conditions of
detention.
5. Larisa Petrovna Ponomarchuk
49. The witness was the doctor in Zaporozhie Prison No. 2,
where she had been working since June 1999. She had heard about
the applicant, although he had never applied to her for any
medical assistance.
50. She confirmed that every other day the feldscher (фельдшер)
(medical assistant) walked around the cells and registered
complaints and requests to see a doctor. She had not heard about
the applicant's stomach problems, and denied that the applicant
would have been refused dental care. According to her, the prison
administration had a high-level professional dentist, and all
inmates were entitled to his assistance.
51. The prison medical unit contained 15 persons including a
radiologist, a dermatologist, a psychiatrist, a dentist, a
physician and feldchers. The unit had all the necessary equipment
and medication to provide qualified medical assistance. If
inmates' relatives brought medicines or vitamins, the inmates
received them through the medical unit. The witness confirmed that
an inmate's consent was necessary for an HIV test. According to
her, it was not possible that an inmate suffering from
tuberculosis would be held together with another inmate: on
arriving at the prison he underwent an X-ray examination, the
results of which were ready on the same day. If he was diagnosed
with tuberculosis, he was kept separately. If he came from
preliminary detention, he had his medical record with him.
C. Inspection of Zaporozhie Prison No. 1
52. The Delegates visited the cell where the applicant was
detained. The cell was about 10 square metres. It was renovated,
in order and clean. There was an open toilet, a washbasin with a
cold water tap, two beds and a table fixed to the floor, central
heating and a window with bars. There were some books, a
newspaper, and a stock of soap and toilet paper. The cell was
sufficiently ventilated.
53. The Delegates saw the prison shower area, which seemed to
be renovated and was clean. They also visited the exercise yard.
D. Inspection of Zaporozhie Prison No. 2
54. The Delegates visited two cells intended for inmates
sentenced to death, which were empty on the day of their visit.
The size of the cells was about 12 square metres. There was an
open toilet, a washbasin with a cold water tap, two beds fixed to
the floor, central heating and a window with bars. The cells were
properly ventilated.
55. The Delegates saw the prison shower area shortly after a
group of female detainees had taken a bath. The area included two
rooms without windows. They were very humid and dirty.
56. The Delegates were not allowed to visit cells which were
occupied by death row inmates.
E. Documentary evidence
57. According to the prison records, the applicant's wife and
mother applied to visit the applicant on 21 August, 23 September,
23 October, 21 November and 23 December 1997 and on 18 and 25
February, 25 March, 18 April and 21 May 1998. They visited the
applicant on 23 September, 23 October, 21 November and 23 December
1997 and on 23 January, 25 February, 25 March, 24 April and 26
May, 25 September and 27 October 1998. His mother also visited him
on 26 January 1999 and his wife, on 25 December 1998 and 26
February 1999.
58. On 26 August, 27 October and 26 December 1997 and on 27
February, 24 April and 27 October 1998, the applicant received
packages from his wife and mother. They generally contained food
and toiletries, but also clothes.
59. The applicant regularly purchased goods from the prison
shop. According to the prison shop records, in October and
December 1997 he spent 16.30 Ukrainian hryvnas (UAH) and UAH
10.40. In February and March 1998 he bought different articles for
UAH 10.25 and UAH 17.50. On 23 June (UAH 45.20), 18 August (UAH
64.66), 10 September (UAH 16.40), 19 October (UAH 18) and 12
November 1998 (UAH 6.20), he purchased food and toiletries. In
January and February 1999 he spent UAH 38.94 and UAH 8.70.
60. According to the prison records, the applicant received
money in his prison bank account on 3 July (UAH 40), 26 June (UAH
100), 8 September (UAH 30) and 27 October 1998 (UAH 50).
61. According to the prison records, the applicant sent letters
on 18 May, 15 June, 19 August, 28 September and 29 October 1998.
However, the document submitted to the Court did not specify the
addressees.
62. On 12 November 1998 the Zaporozhie Regional Prosecutor
informed a certain Mrs Belova that the prosecutor, on a complaint
by her, had inspected Zaporozhie Prison No. 2. He had found that
none of the death row inmates had complained of any violation of
the Convention. As far as the regime and conditions of detention
were concerned, the prison administration followed the provisions
of the Instruction of 20 April 1998 (see paragraph 73 below). He
further said that Mrs Belova's suspicion about tuberculosis being
spread in the cells of the death row inmates had not been well-
founded. He acknowledged that one inmate had died in March 1998
but his cell and those of his neighbours had been cleaned and
disinfected. Moreover, inmates regularly underwent X-ray
examinations and, so far, no inmates had had to be treated for
tuberculosis.
II. Relevant domestic law
A. The Constitution of Ukraine
63. Under Article 8 зз 2 and 3, the Constitution is directly
applicable. There is a guaranteed right to lodge an action in
defence of the constitutional rights and freedoms of the
individual and of the citizen directly on the basis of the
Constitution of Ukraine.
64. Article 9 з 1 provides that international treaties, which
are in force and agreed on as binding by the Verkhovna Rada of
Ukraine, are part of the national legislation of Ukraine.
65. Article 15 з 3 prohibits censorship.
66. Under Article 19 the legal order in Ukraine is based on the
principles according to which no one may be forced to do what is
not envisaged by the legislation. State authorities and local self-
government bodies and their officials are obliged to act only
according to these principles, within the limits of their
authority, and in the manner envisaged by the Constitution and the
laws of Ukraine.
67. Article 22 provides that human and citizens' rights and
freedoms are guaranteed and may not be diminished by the adoption
of new laws or the amendment of laws that are in force.
68. Under Article 29 зз 2 and 4 no one may be arrested or held
in custody other than pursuant to a reasoned court decision and
only on grounds and in accordance with procedures established by
law. Everyone arrested or detained must be informed without delay
of the reasons for his arrest or detention, apprised of his
rights, and from the moment of detention must be given the
opportunity to defend himself in person, or to have the assistance
of a defence lawyer.
69. Under Article 55 зз 2 and 4, everyone is guaranteed the
right to challenge the decisions, actions or omissions of State
authorities, local self-government bodies, officials and officers
of a court of law. After exhausting all domestic legal remedies
everyone has the right to appeal for the protection of his rights
and freedoms to the relevant international judicial institutions
or to the relevant authorities of international organisations of
which Ukraine is a member or participant.
70. Under Article 59 everyone has the right to legal
assistance. Such assistance is provided free of charge in cases
envisaged by law. Everyone is free to choose the defender of his
rights. In Ukraine the Bar (адвокатура) ensures the right to a
defence against charges and the provision of legal assistance in
deciding cases in courts and before other State authorities.
71. Article 63 з 3 provides that a convicted person enjoys all
human and citizens' rights, subject only to restrictions
determined by law and established by a court ruling.
72. Under Article 64, human and citizens' rights and freedoms
guaranteed by the Constitution may not be restricted, except in
cases envisaged by the Constitution of Ukraine.
B. Statutory regulations governing the conditions
on death row
73. Conditions on death row in the Ukrainian prison system were
successively governed by an Instruction of 20 April 1998 on
conditions of detention of persons sentenced to capital punishment
(hereinafter "the Instruction") and by Temporary Provisions of 25
June 1999 on the conditions of detention of persons sentenced to
capital punishment in the isolation blocks (hereinafter "the
Temporary Provisions").
74. The Instruction provided that after the sentence had become
final, persons sentenced to death had to be kept in isolation from
other prisoners in specially designed cells. Save in exceptional
cases, no more than two such prisoners were to be detained in one
cell. The cell area allocated to one prisoner in a single cell had
to be not less than 4 square metres and in a double cell not less
than 3 square metres. The prisoners were provided with an
individual sleeping-place and with bed linen. They wore a uniform
designed for the category of especially dangerous recidivists.
Reference was also made to their legal status and obligations.
This determined the frequency of meetings with relatives and the
number of letters inmates could send and receive: they were
allowed one visit per month and could send one letter per month.
There was no limitation on the correspondence they could receive.
The inmates could receive two small packets a year. They were
allowed to have a daily one-hour walk in the fresh air. Outside
their cells, inmates were handcuffed. They were not allowed to
work.
Prisoners were also allowed to read books, magazines and
newspapers borrowed from the prison library and/or bought through
the prison distribution network; they could receive money
transfers; they could keep personal objects and food in their
cells and buy food and toiletries in the prison shop twice a month
(up to the value of the statutory minimum wage), and play board
games. They could meet lawyers. Medical treatment was provided in
accordance with national legislation.
The prisoners could lodge complaints with State authorities.
Such complaints had to be dispatched within three days. Complaints
to the Public Prosecutor were not censored.
75. The Temporary Provisions extended the rights of persons
sentenced to capital punishment in comparison with the
Instruction. In particular, prisoners were allowed to have eight
hours of sleep during the night; they could receive six parcels
and three small packets per year, buy food and toiletries in the
prison shop (up to the value of 70% of the statutory minimum
wage), pray, read religious literature and have visits from a
priest, and write complaints to State authorities. They were
allowed to send and receive letters without any limits and to have
monthly visits of up to two hours from their relatives. A prison
official had to be present during visits.
C. Pre-Trial Detention Act 1993 ("the Act")
76. According to the Code of Criminal Procedure, pre-trial
detention is a preventive measure in respect of an accused, a
defendant or a person suspected of having committed a crime
|
