37.  The Government also claimed that in accordance with domestic rules in force at the material time, it was necessary to separate the sanitary unit from the rest of the cell with a partition of at least 1.5 metres high (see paragraph 17 above), and in the applicant’s case the sanitary facilities had been separated from the rest of the cell by a brick partition. The Government thus were of the view that the applicant’s conditions of detention in Lukiškės Remand Prison had not reached the threshold of severity required by Article <mask> of the Convention.


93.  The applicant submitted that from 11 December 2007 and, at least, until 19 September 2008 he had been constantly handcuffed to his bed while in the hospital – with one hand during the day and with both hands during the night. He further noted that he had been constantly guarded by three SIZO officers and had been in a ward with a barred window, which significantly reduced the likelihood of his escaping. Moreover, neither in the SIZO nor in the hospital had the applicant attempted to escape or behaved aggressively. Therefore, in the applicant's opinion his handcuffing to the bed had not been justified and constituted inhuman treatment in breach of Article <mask> of the Convention.


59.  The applicants submitted that they could still be considered victims of the ill-treatment, despite the conviction of the three police officers. Given the intensity and the aim of the ill-treatment to which they had been subjected (namely, to extract confessions), it had to be recognised as torture, within the meaning of Article 3. They argued that the investigation into their ill-treatment had been slow (having lasted for almost four years), contrary to the procedural requirements of Article <mask> of the Convention. They also submitted that the authorities had not complied with their positive obligations under Article 3 of the Convention, namely to ensure the preventive effect of legislation prohibiting ill-treatment. In particular, the officers had been sentenced to the minimum penalty provided for by law and even that penalty had been suspended, so that they had never been deprived of their liberty. Moreover, the officers had not been convicted of torture, but of the less stigmatising offence of abuse of power.


31.  The Government argued that the applicant’s complaint under Article <mask> of the Convention was premature. They pointed out that he had raised the same complaints in his constitutional complaint of 17 August 2010 and that the proceedings before the Constitutional Court were still pending. The Government also argued that the applicant had failed to bring a civil action for damages against the Republic of Croatia although it had been open to him to do so under the Civil Obligation Act and the State Administration System Act. Moreover, he had failed to seek protection of his rights by lodging an action under the Administrative Disputes Act although he could have done so under domestic law.


106.  The applicants relied on Article <mask> of the Convention, submitting that as a result of their relative’s disappearance and the State’s failure to investigate it properly, they had endured mental suffering in breach of Article 3 of the Convention. They also stated that it was highly probable that Mr Ismail Dzhamayev had been subjected to treatment contrary to Article 3 of the Convention, which reads as follows:


88.  The applicant argued that the circumstances that he will face in Afghanistan will amount to a breach of Article <mask> of the Convention as a result of the poor provision for and ignorance surrounding persons with disabilities there. He argued that his case could be distinguished from N. v. the United Kingdom, cited above, because it did not involve a naturally occurring illness or merely the consequences of the lack of sufficient treatment available in Afghanistan. He argued that the Court should consider his case in light of M.S.S. v. Belgium and Greece, cited above, and his inability to cater for his basic needs to Afghanistan.


32.  The Government maintained that the treatment that the applicant complained of had not attained the level of severity proscribed by Article <mask> of the Convention. Furthermore, as the applicant had resisted the police officers during the arrest, the force used had been justified. As to the procedural limb of Article 3, the Government contended that no responsibility could be attributed to the domestic authorities.


137.  The applicant submitted that he had been ill-treated and humiliated during his arrest in the street and at Kentron Police Station after he had been taken there on 1 March 2008. The violence he had faced was above the required threshold to be qualified as torture under Article <mask> of the Convention and was attributable to the police officers. Being in a very bad condition as a result of ill-treatment, he had not even been able to give testimony to the investigator who had come to question him. He had consistently raised the fact of his ill-treatment in all his submissions to the domestic authorities, including the courts and the prosecutor’s office. The Government did not deny that the police officers had been responsible for his injuries but, relying on the statements of the alleged perpetrators, simply doubted that those injuries had been inflicted during his arrest.


63.  The applicant alleged that the conditions of his detention and the health care in the prison hospital had been so inadequate as to amount to inhuman and degrading treatment, in breach of Article <mask> of the Convention. He also contended that the respondent State should be held liable for having failed to investigate his allegations and that the domestic inquiry had fallen short of the requirements of Article 3 of the Convention, which reads as follows:


23.  The Government maintained that all medical reports concerning the first applicant concluded that there had been no traces of blows on her body. Moreover, although the medical report dated 29 July 2001 concerning the second applicant concluded that he had an abrasion on his upper lip and a hyperaemia on his chest, the Government argued that this was not sufficient evidence to show that the treatment had attained the level of severity required for there to be a violation of Article <mask> of the Convention.


69.  The Government acknowledged that during some periods of detention in the remand centre the statutory requirement of floor space of four square metres per detainee had not been complied with. However, this had not necessarily entailed a violation of Article <mask> of the Convention. The other material conditions of detention (such as an individual bed, ventilation, access to natural light, and food) complied with the requirements of Russian law (see, for details, paragraphs 40-42 above).


89.  The applicant also complained, referring to her health problems since March 2002, that the search of her house had amounted to inhuman and degrading treatment in breach of Article <mask> of the Convention. She also complained under Article 6 that she had been wrongly denied access to the file in respect of her criminal complaint and that her complaints in that regard had not been addressed with due diligence.


53.  The Government notes that the applicant’s unstable health and old age might have placed him in a more precarious situation compared to other detainees and might have increased his feeling of distress or anguish, but they noted the fact that the applicant had by that time already been charged with and convicted of premeditated murder at two levels of jurisdiction. In spite of this, the actions of the medical experts led to the applicant’s release from detention. Accordingly, the Government considered that the applicant’s detention could not be construed to have constituted inhuman or degrading treatment in contravention of Article <mask> of the Convention.


154.  The Government submitted that the applicant's claims for non-pecuniary damages for an alleged violation of Article <mask> of the Convention in connection with his detention conditions on death row and the alleged lack of effective investigation into the ill-treatment were exorbitant. They asked the Court to determine the just satisfaction on an equitable basis taking into consideration its case-law on similar issues and the economic situation in Ukraine. In addition, they found the applicant's claims for non-pecuniary damages for alleged ill-treatment unsubstantiated.


61.  The Government submitted that, following NA., cited above, in order to establish a breach of Article <mask> of the Convention, the applicant would have to show that there were serious reasons to believe that he was of sufficient interest to the authorities to warrant his detention and interrogation, either because he was likely to be detained and interrogated at Colombo airport, or because he had such a high profile as an opposition activist or as someone viewed by the LTTE as a renegade or traitor so as to be at risk more generally in Colombo. The Government argued that it was clear from the evidence before the Court that the applicant did not fall into the second category. In particular, they noted that he had been allowed to leave the LTTE and return home, and that he had subsequently led a normal life until his detention in 1996. The question of whether the applicant was likely to be detained and interrogated at the airport had to be assessed by reference to the risk factors identified by the Asylum and Immigration Tribunal in LP and approved by the Court in NA (cited above, § 13).


33.  The Government submitted that the applicant had not suffered a significant disadvantage and that his complaint under Article <mask> of the Convention was therefore inadmissible and should be rejected in accordance with Article 35 § 3 (b) of the Convention. They emphasised that the administrative courts at two levels of jurisdiction had adjudicated on the applicant’s complaints on the merits, and that the fact that the judgment had not become final would not preclude the application of Article 35 § 3 (b) of the Convention.


65.  The applicant further stated that his case was even stronger than Soering v. the United Kingdom (judgment of 7 July 1989, Series A no. 161) where a violation of Article <mask> of the Convention was found on account of the effects of the “death row phenomenon”. In particular, he was not merely a potential victim of the “death row phenomenon” but actually suffered it by spending many years awaiting execution. Secondly, unlike Soering, there was no justification for this protracted detention, such as pending appeals: the only reason for his suffering was the existence of a temporary moratorium on executions and the inability of the Bulgarian Parliament to decide on the application or abolition of the death penalty. Thirdly, the applicant's situation had been exacerbated by fluctuating attitudes and policies in Parliament, especially when influential politicians supported the death penalty.


37.  The applicant complained under Article <mask> of the Convention that she had been ill-treated while in police custody. She alleged that she had been beaten with a truncheon, hosed down with cold water and banged against walls, which had brought about intense mental suffering leading to a suicide attempt, considering in particular her age at the material time. The applicant also maintained under Articles 6 § 1 and 13 of the Convention that the respondent State had failed to conduct an effective investigation into her allegations of ill-treatment as her request to initiate criminal proceedings against the accused police officers had not been dealt with by an independent and impartial tribunal.


98.  The Government disagreed with these allegations and argued that the investigation had not established that Lom-Ali and Umar-Ali Aziyev had been subjected to inhuman or degrading treatment prohibited by Article <mask> of the Convention or that State agents had participated in the beating of the first applicant. Moreover, in the absence of any evidence suggesting that the applicants’ sons had been abducted by representatives of the State, there were no grounds for alleging a violation of Article 3 of the Convention on account of the applicants’ mental suffering.


47.  The Government claimed that the applicant himself had been partly responsible for being placed in B wing, because he had stated that he did not want to work. The applicant did not deny this fact. The Court does not accept the Government's argument that conditions of imprisonment could be determined according to whether an inmate was working or not, since all inmates should be afforded prison conditions which are in conformity with Article <mask> of the Convention.


63.  The applicant alleged that the search and seizure in his office and its sealing had amounted to degrading treatment. He said that these events had been widely publicised in the press and seen by several of his clients, which had had a negative impact on his professional reputation. He relied on Article <mask> of the Convention, which provides, as relevant:


67.  The Government referred to the conclusions of the pre-investigation inquiry, asserting that the applicants’ allegations were unfounded. Given that they were provided as a result of a domestic pre-investigation inquiry falling short of the requirements of Article <mask> of the Convention, which was later quashed by the supervising prosecutor as unlawful and unsubstantiated (see paragraph 28 above), the Court finds that they cannot be considered as satisfactory or convincing explanations.


91.  The applicant alleged that the poor conditions of his detention were in violation of Article <mask> of the Convention. The parties’ submissions as regards the material conditions of detention have been summarised in paragraphs 56-59 and 66-67 above. The main facts relevant to the assessment of the conditions of detention, in particular the size of the cells, the number of inmates detained there concurrently with the applicants, and the sanitary and hygiene arrangements were not in dispute between the parties. Nevertheless, they disagreed whether these conditions had amounted to degrading treatment within the meaning of Article 3 of the Convention. The applicant maintained, in particular, that four square metres of personal space had been insufficient to avoid overcrowding, and that it was aggravated by other factors, such as inadequate ventilation and lighting, incomplete separation of the lavatory from the living space and the daily one-hour limit on outdoor exercise per day. The Government, on the contrary, contended that the applicant’s detention conditions had been in conformity with the standards applicable in respect of personal space, light, room temperature, sanitary facilities and hygiene arrangements.


109.  The applicants further relied on Article <mask> of the Convention, submitting that their relatives had most likely been tortured after their abduction and that such a possibility had not been investigated. The applicants also claimed that as a result of their relatives' disappearance and the State's failure to investigate those events properly, they had endured mental suffering in breach of Article 3 of the Convention, which reads as follows:


93.  The applicants relied on Article <mask> of the Convention, submitting that Gilani Iriskhanov had been subjected to inhuman or degrading treatment prohibited by Article 3 of the Convention and that as a result of the disappearance of their son Zurab Iriskhanov and the State's failure to investigate it properly they had endured mental suffering in breach of Article 3 of the Convention. Article 3 reads:


33.  The Government submitted that the complaint under Article <mask> of the Convention concerning the applicant’s alleged infection with tuberculosis in prison was inadmissible for non-exhaustion. Notably, in line with the Court’s conclusion in the Goloshvili case (cited above, §§ 32-33), they maintained that there were several effective civil remedies that had not been used by the applicant in the present case, in particular those under Article 207 of the General Administrative Code and Article 413 of the Civil Code. The applicant did not comment on the Government’s non-exhaustion plea.


53.  The applicant conceded that he had undergone a course of chemical treatment in the hospital of remand prison no. IZ-77/1 in Moscow. However, the hospital did not have all the medicine required and his mother had to send him antihistamines and badger and bear fat. Besides, the chemical treatment had been interrupted due to his transfer to medical correctional colony no. LIU-10 in the Omsk Region. The conditions of his transfer were incompatible with Article <mask> of the Convention since he did not receive any medical assistance during the whole time of the transfer.


25.  The Government submitted that the applicant had failed to exhaust domestic remedies. According to the Government, the applicant could have argued that he was a suicide risk and raised Article <mask> of the Convention in the context of his appeal against deportation, but did not do so, relying instead only upon Article 8. He could also have raised the fact of his risk of suicide in his application for judicial review but, again, did not do so. He also failed to renew his application for judicial review. The first time that the applicant claimed to be at risk of suicide was in his request to this Court for interim measures under Rule 39 of the Rules of Court.


99.  The Government contended that the investigation had obtained no evidence confirming that the applicants' eight relatives had been subjected to treatment in breach of Article <mask> of the Convention. They argued that the reports on the forensic medical examination of 12 April 2004 did not attest the presence on the corpses of any injuries other than multiple gunshot wounds.


94.  The applicant complained that on 5 September and 17 October 1999 he had been subjected to treatment incompatible with Article <mask> of the Convention and that the authorities had not carried out an effective investigation of those events, amounting to a breach of Article 13. The Court will examine this complaint from the standpoint of the State’s negative and positive obligations flowing from Article 3 of the Convention, cited above.


72.  The applicants maintained that the mutilation of their relatives' bodies, before or after their death, had been in violation of Article <mask> of the Convention. They further contended that their own suffering as a result of that disfigurement amounted to a breach of this provision. The applicants lastly alleged that the investigation initiated into their allegations by the Turhal public prosecutor had been inadequate.


76.  The applicant contested the Government’s view that he had lost his victim status in connection with the Warsaw Regional Court’s judgment. He stressed that it was impossible to answer the question of whether he had lost his initial status of a victim of a breach of Article <mask> of the Convention without having first established how the applicant’s case had been treated by the authorities in the context of their positive obligations under Article 3 (cf. Gäfgen v. Germany [GC], § 116). In his view, these positive obligations were not respected. Defects of the investigation were not rectified in the course of the private prosecution proceedings or civil proceedings against the State Treasury and against P.O. and T.G. Accordingly, he could still claim to be a victim of the alleged violation. He found it incomprehensible that in the private prosecution proceedings the Warsaw Regional Court quashed the decisions of the lower court four times, yet the lower court eventually decided that the private prosecution was time-barred.


73.  The applicant’s injuries (as described above) were confirmed on numerous occasions by the findings of forensic medical experts. It is not contested by the Government that the treatment described by the applicant reached the threshold of severity necessary for the events in question to fall within the ambit of Article <mask> of the Convention. It remains to be determined whether the State authorities treated the applicant in the way described and therefore should be held accountable under Article 3 of the Convention.


114.  The applicants complained that as a result of their relative's killing and the State's failure to investigate it properly they had endured profound mental suffering. Furthermore, referring to the forensic expert examination report, the applicants alleged that Umar Zabiyev had sustained an injury to his lower jaw prior to his death and that no investigation had been carried out in respect of his ill-treatment. Lastly, the first applicant complained that on 10 June 2003 she had been seriously wounded by State agents and that no effective investigation had been conducted into the incident. They relied on Article <mask> of the Convention, which reads:


57.  The Government submitted that the applicants’ complaints of ill-treatment were largely unsubstantiated and exaggerated. Instead of providing sufficient details to illustrate in what manner each of the applicants had been individually ill-treated, they focused on the general events that had taken place during the march of 17 May 2012. Referring to the degree of the injuries that some of the applicants sustained during the altercation with the counter-demonstrators, as well as other circumstances surrounding the incident, the Government submitted that even if a certain amount of physical assault and verbal insults against some of the applicants had taken place, it had not reached the requisite threshold of severity under Article <mask> of the Convention. They also added that two separate criminal investigations had been launched with respect to the alleged ill-treatment of the sixth and fourteenth applicants on 19 May and 24 October 2012, and a number of investigative measures had already been carried out.


44.  The applicant also complained under Article <mask> of the Convention that the conditions of his detention in the Simferopol SIZO had been degrading; under Article 5 § 1 (c) of the Convention that his arrest and detention between 28 February and 26 June 2005 had not been based on relevant and sufficient reasons; under Article 5 § 3 of the Convention that the length of his detention before conviction had been excessive; and under Article 6 § 3 (b) of the Convention that the conditions of his detention had impeded his ability to prepare his defence properly in the criminal proceedings.


68.  The applicant argued that the medical evidence indicated that the ill-treatment he had been subjected to on 4 July 2009 amounted to torture. In particular, he referred to a broken rib, scratches, abrasions and bruises, crepitation in the area of the eighth and ninth ribs and blood in the urine. The ill-treatment had been particularly serious and cruel and capable of causing “severe” pain and both physical and mental suffering within the meaning of Article <mask> of the Convention.


88.  The applicants complained that Isa Zaurbekov had been subjected to torture and inhuman treatment while being apprehended. The applicants further claimed that they had serious grounds to believe that he had also been ill-treated in custody. They also complained that they had suffered severe mental distress and anguish in connection with their relative’s disappearance. The applicants referred to Article <mask> of the Convention, which reads as follows:


51.  The applicant complained of having been ill-treated by his cellmates while in detention pending the outcome of the investigation into his case and the failure of the domestic authorities to protect him, and of the absence of an effective response on the part of the domestic authorities in that regard. He relied on Article <mask> of the Convention, which reads as follows:


40.  The Government stressed that the issue of whether the first, second and fourth applicants’ mental health should entitle them to residence permits on grounds of exceptionally distressing circumstances (Chapter 5, Section 6 of the Aliens Act) had been considered by the domestic authorities. In their view, the concept of exceptionally distressing circumstances offered a wider protection than Article <mask> of the Convention.


110.  The Government requested the Court to declare the complaints under Article <mask> of the Convention inadmissible for failure to exhaust domestic remedies. They submitted that the 1999 Enforcement of Prison Sentences Act envisaged a number of remedies for the protection of the rights of persons deprived of liberty, including judicial protection against proceedings and decisions of the prison administration. The applicant should have firstly addressed his complaints to the prison administration. The applicant had, however, addressed only some of his complaints directly to a judge responsible for the execution of sentences.


158.  The applicants submitted, with reference to the medical documents they had furnished, that Zelimkhan Isayev had been ill-treated in breach of Article <mask> of the Convention and that the treatment to which he had been subjected had amounted to torture. They also stated that there had been a breach of Article 3 in its procedural aspect on account of the authorities’ failure to investigate their relative’s torture.


153.  The applicant submitted that the conditions under which he had been detained at the three police stations for such a long duration had constituted inhuman and degrading treatment, in breach of Article <mask> of the Convention. Those establishments had been inadequate for the purposes of custody exceeding a few days. The CPT in its reports of 2012 and 2014 on Cyprus had expressed its concern regarding the detention of persons under the Aliens and Immigration legislation in police stations. Furthermore, those police stations had not been specialised detention facilities designed for third-country nationals, pending their deportation in accordance with the domestic law – specifically, the Law and the Regulations for the Establishment and Regulation of Premises of Illegal Immigrants (respectively Law no. 83(I)/2011 and Regulations 161/2011). More specifically, the Minister of Justice had never declared them to be facilities in which third-country nationals found to be illegally staying in the country could be detained; moreover, the facilities had not complied with the minimum standards provided in the above-mentioned Regulations.


38.  The applicant complained that his punishment by solitary confinement had been excessive and that the conditions in Rahova Prison’s solitary confinement cells were inhuman and degrading. He also alleged that on 27 January 2006 he had been beaten by members of a special intervention unit wearing masks, and that the investigation that followed had been ineffective. He relied on Article <mask> of the Convention, which reads as follows:


183.  The applicant initially complained under Article <mask> of the Convention that if returned to Uzbekistan he would run a real risk of being subjected to ill-treatment in breach of Article 3 of the Convention. His representatives further supplemented his complaint, submitting that there had been a violation of Article 3, as his illegal transfer to Uzbekistan could only have been achieved with the active or passive involvement of the Russian authorities, and that the authorities had failed to conduct an effective investigation.


81.  The Government noted that from May to December 2007 the applicant had participated in nine court hearings. When scheduling the hearings the court had periodically verified whether the applicant was fit to participate in the hearing. When being transported to the court hearings the applicant was accompanied by a medical professional. The Government further noted that the applicant had insisted on participating in the hearing of 5 October 2007. Moreover, he had refused to be examined by a doctor at the court hearing of 5 November 2007. Therefore, the Government were of the opinion that the conditions in which the applicant was transported to the court hearings did not attain the minimum threshold of severity necessary for Article <mask> of the Convention to apply.


119.  The Government further submitted that a thorough investigation was necessary not only to determine if the alien in question has adequately established that he can expect to be subjected to treatment prohibited by Article 3 upon returning to his country of origin but also because it was necessary to ensure that the State is not simply forced to resign itself to the alien's presence which may represent a threat to the fundamental rights of its citizens, particularly in cases like the present one where national security was at stake. Relying on the Court's considerations in the cases of Vilvarajah and Others v. the United Kingdom (30 October 1991, § 111, Series A no. 215), Pranjko v. Sweden ((dec.), no. 45925/99, 23 February 1999) and Taheri Kandomabadi v. the Netherlands ((dec.), nos. 6276/03 and 6122/04, 29 June 2004), the Government considered that the guiding principle here was that the “mere possibility of ill-treatment” is insufficient to assume that expulsion is incompatible with Article <mask> of the Convention.


77.  The applicant's situation is comparable with that in the Kalashnikov case, in which the applicant had been confined to a space measuring 0.9‑1.9 sq. m. In that case the Court held that such a severe overcrowding raised in itself an issue under Article <mask> of the Convention (Kalashnikov v. Russia, no. 47095/99, §§ 96-97, ECHR 2002‑VI). In the Peers case even a much bigger cell – namely that of 7 sq. m for two inmates – was noted as a relevant aspect for finding a violation of Article 3, albeit in that case the space factor was coupled with the established lack of ventilation and lighting (Peers v. Greece, no. 28524/95, §§ 70-72, ECHR 2001‑III). By contrast, in some other cases no violation of Article 3 was found, as the restricted space in the sleeping facilities was compensated by the freedom of movement enjoyed by the detainees during the day-time (Valašinas, cited above, §§ 103 and 107; Nurmagomedov v. Russia (dec.), no. 30138/02, 16 September 2004).


35.  The Government denied that the applicants had been subjected to any treatment contrary to Article <mask> of the Convention. They maintained that the claim that the applicants had been kept outside for a long period without being allowed to get properly dressed was not true. Moreover, they pointed out that in their initial submissions to the authorities the applicants had not mentioned this, or the claim that the fifth applicant had been threatened with a gun.


104.  The Government claimed that the conditions of the applicant's detention in the remand prisons in Moscow and Volokolamsk and in the Dmitrov detention centre, as well as the conditions in which he had been transferred to the courts and back, were compatible with Article <mask> of the Convention. They submitted their account of the conditions of detention in the above-mentioned facilities (see the “Facts” part above).


26.  The applicant pointed out that, according to the medical report compiled after he had arrived at the police station, he had not had any injuries at that time. However, after his release from police custody he had undergone a medical examination which had confirmed the presence of injuries on his body. He also alleged that the injuries had been sufficiently serious to attain the minimum level of severity required to fall within the scope of Article <mask> of the Convention. Lastly, the applicant argued that the investigation into his allegations of ill-treatment in police custody had not been effective. The investigation had been ongoing since 2007. Practically no action had been taken by the investigative authorities between 1 March 2007 and 24 December 2014. The opening of the investigation had been delayed: the applicant had been prompt in reporting the incident of ill‑treatment on 11 January 2007, but the criminal case had not been opened until 19 February 2007 and the applicant had been questioned only on 1 March 2014. No perpetrators had been identified. Those police officers who had taken part in the applicant’s arrest or had been present at the police station on 11 January 2007 had not been questioned. The statements made by the police officers and submitted by the Government had been recorded in the course of the criminal investigation against the applicant on the charge of possessing a grenade. The Government’s argument that the applicant had been unavailable for questioning was completely without foundation. The applicant had been convicted and sentenced to imprisonment for an unrelated offence two years after the events in question. For another twenty months he had remained in State custody serving a prison sentence. In 2015 the prosecutor’s office had identified all the shortcomings in the investigation but the Government had presented no evidentiary material showing that those shortcomings had been remedied.


119.  The applicants relied on Article <mask> of the Convention, submitting that as a result of their relatives’ disappearance and the State’s failure to investigate it properly, they had endured mental suffering in breach of Article 3 of the Convention. They also stated that their relatives had been subjected to ill-treatment contrary to that provision. Article 3 of the Convention reads as follows:


38.  The applicant complained that during his arrest and subsequent detention he was subjected to acts of police brutality which caused him great physical and mental suffering amounting to torture, inhuman and/or degrading treatment or punishment, in breach of Article <mask> of the Convention. He also complained that the investigative and prosecuting authorities failed to proceed with a prompt and effective official investigation into the incident capable of leading to the identification and punishment of the police officers responsible. The applicant therefore claimed that, contrary to Article 3, taken together with Article 13 of the Convention, he had had no effective domestic remedy for the harm suffered while in police custody.


49.  The Government submitted that the applicant could have had recourse to administrative authorities i.e. a complaint to the penitentiary authorities. They further stressed that on 26 October 2006 the applicant had been released from the Gdansk Remand Centre. In these circumstances, the situation giving rise to the alleged breach of Article <mask> of the Convention no longer existed and that the applicant should have brought a civil action under Article 24 taken in conjunction with Article 448 of the Civil Code in order to seek compensation for the past violation.


69.  The applicants submitted that the allegations of ill-treatment rested on a solid evidentiary basis which included their original complaints to the authorities in May 2001, the reports on the use of rubber truncheons and materials of the criminal investigation. It was undeniable that the treatment complained about had been in breach of Article <mask> of the Convention. However, they had not had an effective remedy for their grievances. All of them had complained to the authorities, but the investigation had been neither comprehensive nor adequate because it had not led to the identification and punishment of those responsible. Many detainees had been pressured into withdrawing their complaints or giving false testimony; the third and fourth applicants had been unlawfully refused recognition of their victim status in the domestic proceedings.


118.  The applicant maintained that her son had been ill-treated during his apprehension as he had been ordered to get half undressed, to kneel on the rails and to stay in this position for over two hours while his hands had been tied behind his back with iron wire. She further contended that the State had failed to conduct an effective investigation into these events. The applicant also contended that the anguish and suffering she had endured amounted to a violation of Article <mask> of the Convention.


50.  The Government argued that the treatment provided to the applicant in detention facility no. IZ-24/1 had been in accordance with the applicable domestic legal norms and Article <mask> of the Convention. They further pointed out that the applicant had undergone a number of medical examinations, tests and procedures. He had regularly received prescribed medication and followed a special dietary regimen. They also stressed that test results had revealed no pathology, and that the CD4 cell count tests had shown “positive dynamics”. The Government concluded by noting that the applicant had been provided with adequate care during the entire period of his detention.


37.  The Government maintained that the applicant had failed to substantiate his complaint under Article <mask> of the Convention. He had never made any such allegations before the domestic authorities. They considered that his reference to the reports describing the general human rights situation in Belarus were insufficient and that evidence was needed that the applicant himself ran a personal risk of facing ill-treatment in Belarus. They noted that the applicant had not challenged the decision on his extradition before the administrative courts under the Code of Administrative Justice.


112.  The Government conceded that the entry of the police into their home, and the search of the house, had undoubtedly aroused negative feelings in the applicants. However, they submitted that these were the normal and inevitable consequence of this kind of investigative measure; hence, the unpleasantness caused had not exceeded the threshold of severity beyond which Article <mask> of the Convention applied. This was borne out, for instance, by the fact that the elder of the two girls had been taken to school as usual. The Government also maintained that if Mr Gutsanov had opened the front door of the house, the police officers would not have needed to resort to special measures to enter his home, which would have spared the members of his family the unpleasantness they had experienced.


20.  The Government contested that argument. They submitted that the conditions of the applicant’s detention, including the time during which he had been detained in a disciplinary cell, had been compatible with Article <mask> of the Convention. At all times he had received necessary medical treatment. The Government submitted a copy of the applicant’s medical case-file in support of their argument. They further argued that the applicant failed to exhaust effective domestic remedies in respect of his complaint. In particular, he could have lodged a civil claim before a court. However, he had not explained why he considered such recourse to be futile in the circumstances of his case.


67.  The applicant complained that the conditions of his detention were inhuman. In particular, he submitted that he suffered from heart, stomach, kidney and liver pain, was constantly at risk of contracting tuberculosis and was not provided with adequate medical treatment in detention. He further complained of lack of food, leading to significant weight loss, and inadequate heating and light in the Colony. The applicant invoked Article <mask> of the Convention, which reads as follows:


130.  The Government insisted that the tissue removal had been carried out in accordance with domestic law. The applicant had failed to demonstrate that the removal of tissue from her husband’s body had amounted to inhuman or degrading treatment. With reference to Selçuk and Asker v. Turkey (24 April 1998, § 78, Reports 1998‑II), the Government argued that the applicant had failed to demonstrate “anguish and suffering” on account of the removal of tissue without her prior consent. With reference to Ireland v. the United Kingdom (18 January 1978, § 167, Series A no. 25), they likewise argued that she had failed to demonstrate that she had experienced “feelings of fear, anguish and inferiority capable of humiliating and debasing” her. The Government reiterated that only dura mater had been removed from the body. Even if the applicant might have experienced a certain level of emotional suffering and distress on account of the removal of tissue without her consent or knowledge, accompanied by the suffering and distress inherent in losing a close family member, such suffering did not attain the minimum level of severity required for it to fall within the scope of Article <mask> of the Convention. The Government also argued that during the autopsy, the heart had also been removed from the applicant’s husband’s body and that dura mater had in any event had to be removed and examined in order to assess whether his skull had been damaged. This could also be said to have caused emotional suffering, but would not attain the minimum level of severity required for Article 3 to apply.


97.  The applicants next alleged that their relatives had been ill-treated after having been detained, which constituted a violation of Article <mask> of the Convention. They referred to the medical certificate of death issued on 8 October 2001 in respect of Umar Musayev, confirming that there had been multiple stab wounds and bruises on the latter's head and chest. They further submitted that the authorities had failed to conduct an effective investigation in this respect, in violation of their procedural obligation under Article 3 of the Convention.


51.  The applicant further complained that, as a result of the repeated refusal by the Ministry of Labour of his requests for retirement benefits in 1996 – 1997, the ensuing civil proceedings and the quashing of the judgment in his favour, he suffered severe anguish and distress which amounted to inhuman and degrading treatment, contrary to Article <mask> of the Convention.


51.  The applicant claimed that the conditions of his detention in the EPKT, the disciplinary cells and the old wing of the prison hospital had been appalling; that he had not benefited from proper medical care; that he had been beaten up by the guards and that these incidents of ill-treatment had not been duly investigated. He relied on Article <mask> of the Convention, which reads:


316.  The applicants' representatives alleged that there had been a violation of the right to life in respect of Mr Aziev. They considered that the Georgian authorities had exposed the extradited applicants to the risks of imposition of the death penalty, extra-judicial execution and ill-treatment in Russia in breach of the requirements resulting from Articles 2 and 3 of the Convention. They also alleged that, were the other applicants to be handed over to the Russian authorities, they would be exposed to the same fate. In addition, they claimed that, during the night of 3 to 4 October 2002, the applicants had been subjected to treatment that was contrary to Article <mask> of the Convention.


80.  The applicant stressed that under the legislative scheme currently in force in Cyprus there was no parole board system and no provision was made for the granting of parole to prisoners or for the protection of their rights during the execution of their sentence and their readmission to society. Thus, the principal purpose of the sentence of imprisonment imposed by the Cypriot courts and subsequently enforced by the relevant authorities was punitive. This, in the applicant’s view, coupled with the mandatory nature of the sentence, was contrary to Article <mask> of the Convention (relying, inter alia, on Mastromatteo v. Italy [GC], no. 37703/97, § 72, ECHR 2002-VIII). The procedure currently in place granted unfettered discretion to the President and was arbitrary in its nature. In this context the applicant referred to the ex officio report of 26 May 2004 by the Cypriot Commissioner for Administration (Ombudsman) on the penitentiary system of Cyprus and the conditions of detention in the Central Prisons (see paragraph 63 above).


50.  The applicants complained that the first applicant's removal to Kazakhstan amounted to a violation of Article <mask> of the Convention. The first applicant alleged a violation of Article 5 § 1 (f) on account of his detention between 17 January and 15 April 2003. Under the same heading he alleged a violation of Article 5 § 5. The applicants claimed that the decision of the Golovinskiy District Court of 17 January 2003 had been adopted in breach of the fair trial guarantees of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention. They claimed a violation of Article 14 in so far as the above violations had occurred on account of their Chechen ethnic origin. Finally, the applicants alleged a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 7 to the Convention, because the first applicant had been expelled in breach of its guarantees for aliens lawfully residing in the territory of a Contracting Party.


40.  The Government did not comment on the merits of the complaint under the substantive aspect of Article <mask> of the Convention. As to the procedural aspect, they argued that the prosecution authorities had carried out a thorough investigation, and that its discontinuation as a result of the expiry of the statutory time-limit had to a considerable extent been due to the applicant, who had not lodged his complaint with the prosecution authorities until almost a year and a half after the alleged assault on him.


9.  The applicant complained under Article <mask> of the Convention about the conditions of his detention in the detention facility of the Ministry of Internal Affairs, Prison no. 13 and Prison no. 8. In his reply to the Government’s observations dated 15 July 2011, the applicant also complained for the first time about the conditions of his transportation during the criminal proceedings and the conditions of his detention in the courts. Article 3 reads as follows:


102.  The Government submitted that the first applicant had been released from prison on 2 February 2009 and that the second applicant had been moved to a prison in which he had been secured at least the statutory minimum standard space of 3 square metres per person shortly after the delivery of the Orchowski and Norbert Sikorski pilot judgments. In these circumstances, the situation giving rise to the alleged breach of Article <mask> of the Convention no longer existed and the applicants should bring a civil action under Article 24 taken in conjunction with Article 448 of the Civil Code in order to seek compensation for the past violation.


144.  The Government submitted that on no occasion had the applicant been subjected to treatment which would result in a breach of Article <mask> of the Convention. The applicant might have felt some stress or discomfort, but the treatment complained of had not approached the threshold of severity sufficient for it to fall within the ambit of this provision. Even assuming that the applicant’s conversations with some doctors could have been stressful or unpleasant, or that the doctors had expressed their views in a rude or impolite manner, as the applicant seemed to consider, this did not raise any issue under Article 3.


47.  The Government pleaded that the applicant had failed to exhaust available effective domestic remedies in respect of his complaint under Article <mask> of the Convention. In particular, they submitted that the examination of the applicant’s refugee status application by the migration authorities and domestic courts, including at the appeal stage, had had “an automatic suspensive effect” in respect of the extradition order. If the applicant had applied for and been granted temporary asylum, his extradition would have been suspended. Examination of an application for temporary asylum would also have had “an automatic suspensive effect” vis‑à-vis the extradition order.


34.  The applicants submitted that they had less than 3 square metres of personal space per cell. The Court has frequently found a violation of Article <mask> of the Convention on account of an extreme lack of personal space for detainees (see, for example, Ananyev and Others, cited above, §§ 143 et seq.; Bakhmutskiy v. Russia, no. 36932/02, §§ 88-97, 25 June 2009, which also concerned the conditions of detention in remand prison no. IZ-61/1; and Lăutaru v. Romania, no. 13099/04, §§ 99-104, 18 October 2011).


49.  The Government disagreed with the amount claimed by the applicant, arguing that it had not been proved by the applicant and was excessive in light of the Court's case-law. They submitted that the case-law cited by the applicant dealt with situations which had nothing in common with his case in terms of the nature and seriousness of the alleged violations, the effects on the applicant and the attitude of the State authorities. The authorities had taken all possible measures to accommodate the applicant's needs and his treatment did not reach the minimum threshold under Article <mask> of the Convention. Any finding of a violation of Article 5 of the Convention should constitute in itself just satisfaction.


43.  The applicant complained under Article 3 about the conditions in which she had been held throughout almost the entire duration of her time in government custody, that is, the period from 5 February to 17 May 2009, when she was held at Ta’ Kandja Detention Centre; the period from 17 February to 17 June 2011, particularly when she was held in the Female Forensic Ward, which like the Asylum Seekers’ Unit, forms part of a ward known as M8B at Mount Carmel Hospital; and the period from 17 June 2011 to 30 August 2012, when she was held at Lyster Barracks, Hal Far. She claimed that the conditions of her detention had been in breach of Article <mask> of the Convention, which reads as follows:


83.  The Government argued that the conditions of the applicant’s detention had not violated Article <mask> of the Convention. They stressed that the applicant’s detention had been of a relatively short duration (three days and four hours). Moreover, the police officers entrusted with guarding the applicant had tried to keep the inconveniences suffered by the applicant as a result of her detention to a minimum throughout her detention.


39.  The Government further submitted that the applicant could have brought a civil action for the protection of her personal rights under Article 23 and 24 of the Civil Code or could have claimed damages against the State Treasury under Article 417 of the Civil Code. In the civil proceedings the court would have had to establish whether the allegations of ill-treatment were well-founded and thus to determine whether there had been a breach of Article <mask> of the Convention. The Government stressed that the civil courts were not bound by the findings reached in the criminal investigation.


39.  The applicants complained, under Article <mask> of the Convention, that they had been ill-treated by prison officers during the arrest following their unsuccessful attempt to escape from prison and immediately thereafter on 30 March 2009. They further alleged that the relevant national authorities had failed to conduct a thorough, adequate, and independent investigation into their allegations of ill-treatment. They relied on Article 3 of the Convention, which reads as follows:


56.  The Government argued that the applicant’s placement in solitary confinement had been a measure taken to protect the applicant himself and the other detainees rather than a disciplinary sanction. The Government insisted that the applicant’s fellow detainees had objected to his presence in the regular cells because of his temper and psychiatric state. Referring to the cases of Rohde v. Denmark (no. 69332/01, § 98, 21 July 2005) and Ramirez Sanchez v. France ([GC], no. 59450/00, §§ 134‑135, ECHR 2006‑IX), they further argued that the applicant’s stay in solitary confinement had been only a temporary and ad hoc measure that did not breach the provisions of Article <mask> of the Convention.


22.  The applicants complained under Article <mask> of the Convention of the first applicant's ill-treatment by the police during his detention and the authorities' failure to conduct a proper investigation into the complaints concerning ill-treatment. They also complained of the failure to give the first applicant medical assistance and of the very poor conditions in which he was detained. The second applicant complained that her son's ordeal had caused her intense anguish. Article 3 reads as follows:


31.  The applicant complained, under Article <mask> of the Convention, of inhuman and degrading treatment on account of the material conditions of his detention and the lack of adequate medical care in Bacău and Vaslui prisons. In particular, he complained of overcrowding, poor hygiene, the presence of pests and of dampness in the cells and the poor quality of food. He further complained of inadequate health care for his hepatitis and dental problems.


97.  The applicant originally complained that, if extradited to Tajikistan, he would run a real risk of being subjected to ill-treatment in breach of Article <mask> of the Convention. Following the subsequent developments, his representatives supplemented the complaint, submitting that the applicant was forcibly transferred from Moscow to Tajikistan in violation of Article 3 for which the Russian authorities were responsible. The Court consequently requested that the parties provide additional observations in that respect, insisting in particular on the need to provide exhaustive information on the investigation conducted by the authorities into the impugned events. Article 3 of the Convention provides as follows:


28.  The Government submitted, in relation to the applicant’s isolation, that the “special regime” normally applicable to life prisoners, which entailed keeping them constantly under lock and key, as well as segregating them from other prisoners, was not incompatible with Article <mask> of the Convention. This regime was required by law on account of the seriousness of their offences, and was necessary for the purposes of assessment of the risk posed by the applicant.


133.  The applicant disputed the Government’s factual submissions concerning the conditions of his detention in the MNS Detention Facility (see paragraphs 63-64 above) and maintained that the actual conditions of his detention, as described by him (see paragraphs 59-62 above), amounted to ill-treatment under Article <mask> of the Convention. He further claimed that the Government had relied selectively on the 2002 CPT Report and that this same report also contained “numerous criticisms” of the conditions in the MNS Detention Facility. In any event, in the applicant’s opinion, the 2002 CPT Report was old and outdated and did not provide an accurate representation of the conditions of detention during the period of his detention in the MNS Detention Facility.


59.  The applicant submitted that he had not been properly treated for his serious illnesses during the period in question. In particular, there had been no perceptible treatment in the Simferopol ITT, the Daryivka no. 10 Prison, the Sofiyivka no. 45 Prison, and the Hola Prystan no. 7 Prison. In view of the constant and serious deterioration of his health, the applicant contended that the medical care had been manifestly insufficient and this amounted to ill-treatment prohibited by Article <mask> of the Convention.


44.  The Government argued that the conditions of the applicant’s detention had been in compliance with the standards set out in Article <mask> of the Convention. They relied on the excerpts from the remand prison’s population register for each day of the applicant’s detention in remand prison SIZO-1 in Samara, the remand prison floor plans and the information provided by the prison governor.


24.  The Government further stated that the applicant had been allocated to IK-7 in the Krasnoyarsk Region in his own interests, in view of the need to avoid overcrowding. The Russian authorities could not allow a situation where the applicant’s fundamental right under Article <mask> of the Convention would be breached in order to protect his family values. They noted that Article 73 § 2 of the CES provided for an exception to the general distribution rule in cases where it was impossible to allocate a prisoner to a detention facility located in the “home” region.


32.  The Government argued that the applicant had not exhausted the domestic remedies available to him. The Government further commented on the conditions of the applicant’s detention. In particular, they pointed out that the fact that the applicant had been detained in overcrowded cells in the both detention facilities could not serve as the basis for finding a violation of Article <mask> of the Convention because the remaining aspects of the detention conditions (availability of an individual sleeping place, bedding, compliance with sanitary norms, etc.) had been satisfactory. The Government further noted that the problem of overcrowding exists in the detention facilities of many member States of the Council of Europe. In Russia the overcrowding in detention facilities has objective justification: high crime rate and limited capacity of detention facilities.


51.  The Government contended that the injuries the applicant had sustained had not been serious enough to engage the State’s responsibility under Article <mask> of the Convention. They also argued that his allegations of ill-treatment by the police were unfounded and unsubstantiated since they had not been borne out by the available evidence. The applicant had sustained these injuries as a result of necessary force being used by the police because he had fiercely resisted his arrest.


55.  The applicant complained that the conditions of his pre-trial detention in Kharkiv SIZO had been poor. He further stated that, from 6 October 2005 to 5 May 2009, during his pre-trial detention in Donetsk SIZO, he had been handcuffed whenever he had left his cell, including during family visits and daily walks. The applicant considered such treatment to be inhuman and degrading. He relied on Article <mask> of the Convention, which reads as follows:


221.  The applicant complained that the medical assistance available to him in the YaCh-91/5 prison in Sarapul was inadequate. In particular, he was not getting the regular medical supervision required, including examination by specialists and specialised tests. He also alleged that he was not getting any adequate treatment and was only occasionally given painkillers. The applicant further complained about the material conditions of detention in the disciplinary cells of the YaCh-91/5 prison in Sarapul. He also alleged that upon admission to the YaCh-91/5 prison all newcomers were shaved with the same shaving set that was used for prisoners infected with HIV. The applicant relied on Articles 2 and 3 of the Convention. The Court will examine the complaint under Article <mask> of the Convention.


161.  The Government reiterated that relevant medical care and counselling were available to the applicants and, largely because of their failure to exhaust domestic remedies, they had not demonstrated any good reason for not availing themselves of these services. No act of the State prevented consultation and any perceived taboo or stigma causing the applicants’ hesitation to consult did not flow from the impugned legal provisions. Even accepting a perceived stigma or taboo, the applicants had not demonstrated “beyond all reasonable doubt” treatment falling within the scope of Article <mask> of the Convention.


70.  The Government underlined the need to test domestically whether any damage had been done to the applicant and his health by the conditions of his detention. The administrative and civil law provided remedies in which the courts would make rulings to remedy the applicant’s rights under Article <mask> of the Convention. In this connection, the Government advanced two arguments.


78.  The Government submitted that the applicant had not exhausted all the domestic remedies available to him, without specifying the relevant complaints. In particular, they reasoned that he could have, but did not, make use of the provisions of Article 53 of the Constitution, Article 1405 of the Civil Code and of Law 1545 (see paragraphs 69-71 above). Moreover, he could have invoked directly Article <mask> of the Convention, as did the applicant in the case of Drugalev (see paragraph 68 above).


32.  The applicant considered that imprisonment should merely entail depriving a person of his freedom of movement and that all other fundamental rights remained intact during detention. The Court should therefore, in his opinion, set out to determine whether the suffering he had endured in the course of his illness while in prison had attained a sufficient level of severity to fall within the scope of Article <mask> of the Convention.


51.  The applicants submitted that agents of the State had subjected them to torture while in custody to make them confess to the crimes they had been accused of committing. They also argued that the investigation in response to their complaints had fallen short of the standards set forth in Article <mask> of the Convention. The authorities had limited themselves to a superficial pre-investigation inquiry and had never instituted a fully-fledged investigation into their credible allegations.


22.  The applicant complained that his detention in solitary confinement between 26 March 2008 and 17 November 2008 in the CFECC detention facility had amounted to inhuman and degrading treatment under Article <mask> of the Convention. He also complained that the material conditions of his detention in Prison no. 13, between 17 November 2008 and 21 June 2010, had likewise amounted to inhuman and degrading treatment.


33.  The applicant complained under Article <mask> of the Convention that he had been subjected to ill-treatment by the police officer, R., and that there had been no adequate or effective investigation of his complaints. The applicant further complained under Article 13 of the Convention of the absence of effective remedies for his complaints. The relevant Articles read as follows:


39.  The applicant submitted that his unlawful stay in a strict-regime prison for a duration of eighteen days amounted to treatment prohibited under Article 3. In support of his argument he contended that during this period he had been deprived of the prisoners’ rights to which he was entitled under domestic law. In particular, he had had to spend all day, except one hour, in a cell with other eleven inmates, breathing their smoke, although he himself did not smoke. The applicant also submitted that his stay in Daugavpils Prison had coincided with the period when the conditions in that prison were not in compliance with the requirements of Article <mask> of the Convention, as the Court had recognised in Savičs v. Latvia (no. 17892/03, 27 November 2012); however, contrary to the circumstances in Savičs, in the instant case the applicant had been held in those conditions without any lawful basis.


86.  The Government disagreed with the amount claimed by the applicant, arguing that it was excessive in light of the Court's case-law. They submitted that the case-law cited by the applicant dealt with situations which had nothing in common with his case in terms of the nature and seriousness of the alleged violations, the effects on the applicant and the attitude of the State authorities. The authorities had taken all measures to accommodate the applicant's needs and his treatment had not reached the minimum threshold under Article <mask> of the Convention. Any finding of a violation of Article 5 of the Convention should constitute of itself just satisfaction.


54.  The applicant complained that the procedural response to the ill‑treatment to which he had been subjected had not been adequate. In particular, he took issue with the penalties imposed on the three officers who had ill-treated him, arguing that their leniency did not correspond to the seriousness of their act. He relied on Article <mask> of the Convention, which provides:


32.  The Government contended that the applicant failed to substantiate his allegations of an alleged violation of his rights under Article <mask> of the Convention. They further accepted that indeed the recreation yards in the wing where the applicant had been held were not equipped with toilets and running water. However, prisoners who needed to use the toilet were taken by the prison guards to the toilets inside their cells if they asked. In addition, prisoners were allowed to carry bottles of water with them in the yard.


34.  The Government considered the applicant’s allegations to be baseless. According to the Government, when the applicant and his fellow demonstrators had refused to obey the police officers’ orders to disperse, they had been warned not to violate the law. However, when the group had insisted on continuing with their protests which impeded the circulation of the traffic, the police officers had formed a cordon around them and arrested them. No struggle had taken place between the police and the demonstrators. When the applicant had resisted the police officers’ attempts to arrest him, the police officers had had to use force which could not be considered excessive. Since the use of force by the police officers had been proportionate to the aim of maintaining public order, there had been no violation of Article <mask> of the Convention.


31.  The Government maintained that the applicant had not been subjected to treatment contrary to Article <mask> of the Convention. They submitted that the police officers had not denied the use of physical force. Nevertheless, the force used in the instant case had been proportionate and not excessive. In particular they referred to the trial court's decision that the facts established during the investigation had given no reason to conclude that the police officers had abused their powers and had acted against Polish law.


72.  The applicant complained under Article <mask> of the Convention about the degrading effect of the allegedly arbitrarily imposed disciplinary penalties in Jelgavas, Grīvas and Daugavpils prisons. The Court observes that even though it seems that the applicant has on occasion challenged the legal and factual basis of the individual penalties (see, for example, paragraphs 13 and 17 above) and his complaint in that regard has been dealt with, albeit summarily, by the Daugavpils Court on 8 February 2001 (see above, paragraph 32), it appears that the first time he raised a complaint about their degrading effect was in his application to the Court. The applicant having failed to show that he has tried to approach national authorities with any comparable complaint, the Court cannot speculate as to the existence or lack of national remedies. Accordingly it declares the applicant’s complaint about the allegedly degrading effect of the disciplinary penalties inadmissible for non-exhaustion of domestic remedies.


30.  The applicant complained that on 5 December 1999 he had been subjected to treatment incompatible with Article <mask> of the Convention and that the authorities had not carried out an effective investigation into those events, amounting to a breach of Article 13 of the Convention. The Court will examine this complaint from the standpoint of the State’s negative and positive obligations flowing from Article 3, which reads as follows:


35.  The Government submitted that the applicant’s allegations of ill‑treatment had been carefully checked by the domestic authorities and had been reasonably found unsubstantiated. The conclusions reached by the domestic authorities were confirmed by relevant evidence which the applicant failed to refute. Referring to the inquiry set up by the domestic authorities after the communication of this complaint in 2009 (see paragraphs 28-29 above), the Government put forward a version of the facts in which the applicant sustained the injuries prior to his arrest as a result of several falls from his own height. The Government summed up that there had therefore been no violation of either the substantive or the procedural aspect of Article <mask> of the Convention.


19.  The applicant finally argued that he had not been hospitalised with a view to treating his ear infection and the injury to his abdomen. The Court notes that the applicant failed to substantiate his assertion that he needed hospitalisation for his condition. Moreover, the Court notes that the applicant was taken to a hospital in order to treat the wound to his abdomen (see paragraph 7 above). At the same time, it appears from the documents in the case-file that the applicant was seen by doctors and medication was prescribed which he eventually received. Accordingly, the Court concludes that this part of the complaint under Article <mask> of the Convention is manifestly ill-founded, and therefore inadmissible within the meaning of Article 35 §§ 3 and 4 of the Convention.


22.  The applicant invoking Article <mask> of the Convention complained about a refusal to allow him to visit his seriously injured daughter in the hospital and the delay in examining his appeal against this decision. The complaint falls to be examined under Article 8 (see, Lind v. Russia, no. 25664/05, § 88, 6 December 2007), which in so far as relevant provides:


54.  The Government submitted that the applicant failed to produce any conclusive evidence showing that he had been ill-treated while in police custody. The medical expert opinion of 30 October 2003 did not exclude the possibility that the applicant suffered his injuries on 16 October 2003, i.e. prior to his arrest and during the public disorder in the aftermath of the elections. The Government also argued that in any event, according to the forensic report, the applicant's injuries did not seriously affect his health. Therefore, the alleged ill-treatment did not attain the minimum level of severity required by Article <mask> of the Convention.


70.  The applicant complained that his extradition to Kazakhstan would subject him to a risk of ill-treatment. He formulated his complaint under Article <mask> of the Convention and vaguely referred to Article 6 of the Convention without making a specific detailed complaint in this respect. The Court considers that the complaint falls to be examined under Article 3 of the Convention, which reads as follows:


18.  The applicant complained that the conditions of his detention in Ljubljana prison amounted to a violation of Article <mask> of the Convention. In particular, he complained of severe overcrowding which had led to a lack of personal space, poor sanitary conditions and inadequate ventilation, as well as excessive restriction on out-of-cell time, high temperatures in the cells, inadequate health care and psychiatric support and exposure to violence from other inmates due to insufficient security.


104.  The applicant submitted observations concerning Y.C.’s medical care in relation to his complaint under Article <mask> of the Convention that were similar to those that he submitted in relation to his Article 2 complaint (see paragraph 75 above). He added that the police had not recognised that Y.C. had already been on hunger strike for several days before he had announced it. Therefore, during these days the authorities had not followed the applicable regulations. Intensive medical care should have been provided in the days before Y.C.’s death, as he had been in a life-threatening condition because of the inaccurate calculation of his critical body weight. Instead, he had been placed alone in a security cell. The applicant concluded that Article 3 of the Convention had been violated because of the inhuman situation that Y.C. had been in.


63.  The Government submitted that the cells in which the applicant had been detained were sufficiently heated and ventilated; tap water was available, and the toilet was separated by a wall from the rest of the cell. Each detainee had a bed and bed linen and could have a shower once a week. Detainees were allowed to bring their own television set. Food was sufficient and corresponded to sanitary and nutritional norms. Detainees also enjoyed an hour’s exercise each day. Moreover, the applicant never complained about the conditions of his detention while actually detained, which confirmed the absence of a violation of his rights. His application to the Court did not contain any evidence in support of the complaint, which consisted of declarations, while reference to the findings of the CPT could not, in itself and without reference to particular circumstances applying to the applicant, lead to a violation of Article <mask> of the Convention.


34.  The applicant complained under Articles 2 and 3 of the Convention that he had not been provided with the adequate medical care in the remand prison, and that the conditions of his detention and treatment in the colony’s medical unit did not correspond to his needs. His grievances fall to be examined Article <mask> of the Convention, which reads:


46.  The Government submitted that when deciding on the applicant’s pre-trial detention the authorities had at all times relied on the medical experts’ opinions and took their recommendations into account. In addition, the authorities assisted the applicant with the relevant medical treatment both inside and outside the detention facility. The Government were of the opinion that the quality of medical care provided to the applicant was adequate in view of his condition. All doctors working in the Bytom Detention Centre were specialists in their fields of medicine. Even after the applicant was placed in a regular cell he was frequently examined by the doctors in the hospital ward. He attended 17 appointments. In addition, when it was impossible to provide the applicant with certain medical services in the hospital ward, such services were provided to him by a relevant public health establishment. The Government concluded that the applicant had received relevant medical assistance (for example he had a valve implant operation) and the authorities had fulfilled their positive obligation deriving from Article <mask> of the Convention.


40.  The Government further submitted that should the Court find that the applicant had maintained his victim status and had exhausted domestic remedies, his complaints about lack of medical care, his solitary confinement in facility no. IZ-47/1, and the conditions of detention in the correctional facility were in any event manifestly ill-founded. In particular, the Government noted that after his conviction and sentencing to life imprisonment the applicant had been transferred to a cell where he had been detained alone from 10 December 2008 until 8 October 2010. That decision had been taken in full compliance with Russian law, which required prisoners to be detained separately from the rest of the inmate population. The decision had had the purpose of guaranteeing the security of the other detainees in facility IZ-47/1. The applicant had been kept in conditions which complied with the requirements of Article <mask> of the Convention.


65.  The applicant complained that the pre-trial investigation and criminal proceedings concerning the circumstances of the accident had not been effective. He invoked Articles 6 § 1 and 13 of the Convention. The Court, being the master of the characterisation to be given in law to the facts of a case, considers that this complaint falls to be examined under the procedural limb of Article <mask> of the Convention, which reads:


29.  The Government submitted that the applicant’s description of conditions of his detention was not sufficiently detailed. Alternatively, they argued that in view of the particular circumstances of the case and of the length of the applicant’s detention, the treatment to which he had been subjected had not attained the threshold of severity required by Article <mask> of the Convention.


79.  The Government disagreed with these allegations and argued that the investigation had not established that Mr Abu Aliyev had been subjected to inhuman or degrading treatment prohibited by Article <mask> of the Convention by State agents. Likewise, since it had not been established by the domestic investigation that Mr Abu Aliyev had been abducted by State agents, the applicant's mental suffering could not be imputable to the State.


52.  The Government submitted that, should the Court find a breach of Article <mask> of the Convention, it should make an award only in respect of the procedural aspect of the applicant’s complaint. They added that he still had a chance of obtaining compensation domestically, depending on the outcome of the on-going criminal investigation. In any event, the amount sought was exaggerated in the light of similar case-law.


48.  The applicant complained that his continued detention, in spite of his deteriorating medical condition, amounted to inhuman and degrading treatment in contravention of Article <mask> of the Convention. He referred, in particular, to his advanced age, prior disability and difficulty in walking, the herniotomy performed on 10 March 1998, the stroke suffered on 28 January 2000 and the fear and anguish he felt that he would die in detention as a result of the allegedly inadequate medical capacity of the facilities where he had been detained.


33.  The Government did not raise any objection as regards the admissibility of this complaint. However, as the domestic courts have already acknowledged the applicant’s ill-treatment, the Court considers it necessary to satisfy itself that the applicant can be considered as a victim within the meaning of the Convention in respect of his complaint under Article <mask> of the Convention.


132.  The applicant submitted that the failure to provide him with adequate medical care, such as proper examination and treatment of his diseases, concealment of his true state of health, as well as his arbitrary discharge from the hospital and forced attendance at the court hearings despite his poor state of health, all proved that there had been a breach of the Government’s positive obligation to prevent prisoners’ suffering which exceeded the unavoidable level of suffering inherent in detention. The failure of the Government to provide him with adequate medical care proved that he had received inhuman treatment and the intention of the Government was to create feelings of despair and inferiority in him and to humiliate and belittle him, as well as to prove his vulnerability. Such treatment of the applicant is in breach of Article <mask> of the Convention.


86.  The applicants further relied on Article <mask> of the Convention, submitting that the first applicant had been tortured after his abduction, but that no effective investigation had been carried out on that account. The applicants also claimed that, as a result of Valid Dzhabrailov's death and the State's failure to investigate it properly, they had endured mental suffering in breach of Article 3 of the Convention. Article 3 reads:


38.  The applicant complained about the conditions of his detention in remand prison no. IZ-24/1 in Krasnoyarsk from 12 October 2004 to 3 June 2008. In particular, he alleged that he had not been afforded sufficient personal space as he had been detained with a large number of inmates, some of whom had been suffering from tuberculosis. As a result, he had contracted tuberculosis. He referred to Article <mask> of the Convention, which reads as follows:


52.  The Government accepted that, in view of the applicant’s young age, the use of physical force against him had attained the minimum level of severity in order to fall within the scope of Article <mask> of the Convention. Nonetheless, they submitted that the force used by the police had been used not to threaten or humiliate the applicant but that it had been necessary and proportionate owing to the applicant’s own actions. They noted that it was not disputed that the applicant had initially refused to comply with the officers’ orders and had run away from them. The Government further submitted that several police officers had given consistent statements about the applicant’s violent behaviour during his arrest, and that this justified using physical force against him. They lastly submitted that the police officers could not have known that the applicant was a minor at the time because of his mature appearance and because it was dark.


135.  The Government maintained that there was no violation of the second applicant’s rights under Article <mask> of the Convention and no violation of the first and third applicants’ rights under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1, therefore these claims were to be rejected. As regards the remainder of the applicants’ just satisfaction claims the Government submitted that such claims were premature as the investigation at the national level was still pending and the issues of compensation might be resolved by means of national proceedings.


65.  The Government submitted that the first applicant had failed to exhaust domestic remedies in respect of his complaint under Article <mask> of the Convention because he had not lodged his complaint with the domestic courts before lodging his application with the Court. Alternatively, the Government submitted that he had lost his victim status after the Centru District Court had examined his claim for compensation, on 27 June 2007. Finally, the Government argued that the first applicant had also failed to exhaust domestic remedies in respect of his complaint under Article 5. In particular, he had lodged a court action on 18 May 2008 claiming compensation for the alleged breach of his Article 5 rights and the proceedings are still pending.


57.  The Government contended firstly that the applicant had failed to raise before the Court a complaint under the procedural head of Article <mask> of the Convention concerning the length of the procedures for the revocation of his pre-trial detention for medical reasons. They further submitted that the applicant did not contract any disease in detention and that there was no proof that his state of health had deteriorated during his pre-trial detention. Therefore, they concluded that the suffering allegedly experienced by the applicant due to the extension of his pre-trial detention did not reach the minimum level of severity so as to fall within the ambit of Article 3 of the Convention.


74.  The applicant also invoked Article <mask> of the Convention in respect of the conditions of his detention, including lack of personal space, poor sanitary arrangements, medical assistance, and various actions of the authorities in the Odessa SIZO, in transit to the Kryvyy Rig Colony and upon his arrival to the latter. He further complained under Article 13 of the Convention that he had had no effective remedies with respect to the above complaints. The latter provision reads as follows:


65.  The Government concluded that the applicant had received proper and adequate medical care and treatment. The deterioration in his health had not been caused by detention; that had been a process independent of the prison authorities. What is more, the applicant’s health had not deteriorated irreversibly; the doctors had found that he would be able to return to the detention facility after his surgery. Taking all the above considerations into account the Government invited the Court to find no violation of Article <mask> of the Convention.


81.  The Government maintained that Articles 2 and 3 were not applicable to the circumstances of the present case. As regards Article 2, they argued that the applicants’ lives had never been put at risk in any way. As regards Article <mask> of the Convention, the Government submitted that the requisite level of severity had not been reached since the harassment complained of had mostly been verbal while the injuries the first applicant had sustained on 4 April 2009 had been of a mild nature. They also submitted that the fact that the first applicant had expressed a wish to walk around showed that he had not been traumatised by the events in issue.


249.  The applicant argued that a positive obligation arose in the present case to protect Ms Rantseva from ill-treatment from private individuals. He contended that the two forensic reports conducted following Ms Rantseva’s death revealed that the explanation of her death did not accord with the injuries recorded. He argued that the witness testimony gathered did not provide a satisfactory response to the question whether there were injuries present on Ms Rantseva’s body prior to her death. Despite this, no investigation was conducted by the Cypriot authorities into whether Ms Rantseva had been subjected to inhuman or degrading treatment. Further, no steps were taken to avoid the risk of ill treatment to Ms Rantseva in circumstances where the authorities knew or ought to have known of a real and immediate risk. Accordingly, in the applicant’s submission, there was a breach of Article <mask> of the Convention.


93.  The applicant noted that the Chamber’s admission that the conditions in most Czech hospitals were questionable, as far as respecting the mother’s choices was concerned, was in fact a very euphemistic way of describing treatment which often attained the level of inhuman and degrading treatment prohibited by Article <mask> of the Convention. In her submission, hospital births in the Czech Republic were associated with a high risk of procedures that did not respect women’s choices and often were even detrimental to their health or the health of the newborn child. In addition, the national courts had repeatedly failed to afford protection where the rights of women had been violated in Czech maternity hospitals. This represented a type of violence which, in the Czech context, was completely ignored and downplayed.


49.  The applicant submitted that the conditions of his detention in Łowicz Prison had fallen short of standards compatible with Article <mask> of the Convention. In particular, he complained that he had been detained in overcrowded cells with less than 3 square metres of space per person and allowed to spend a very limited time outside the cell, e.g. he had only a one‑hour long outdoor exercise per day and a right to take only one shower per week.


293.  The Government submitted that there were no records in the Prison's Medical Registers of requests from the applicants for medical assistance. The Government maintained that the applicants received necessary medical treatment and were provided with any required prescription drugs whilst serving their sentences and therefore concluded that Article <mask> of the Convention was not breached. They further stated that the applicants were provided with necessary medical treatment and assistance in general.


62.  The applicants alleged that there had been a violation of Article <mask> of the Convention on account of the infliction of “torture” on their relatives' bodies, either before or after their deaths. They further complained under the same head about the emotional distress which they had suffered when they had seen the state of the corpses. The applicants lastly contended that the investigation initiated into their complaints had been ineffective.


54.  The applicants Mr Makhov, Mr Resin (in two cases), Mr Anikanov, Mr Lebetskiy, Mr Gromovoy, Mr Gordeyev, Mr Martirosyan and Mr Vinokhodov complained that the conditions of their detention in the Russian penal facilities or the conditions of transport between them had amounted to inhuman and degrading treatment prohibited under Article <mask> of the Convention. The Court reiterates that in the absence of an effective remedy for that grievance, the complaint about inadequate conditions of detention or transport should have been introduced within six months of the last day of the applicants’ detention or transport (see Norkin v. Russia (dec.), no. 21056/11, 5 February 2013, and Markov and Belentsov v. Russia (dec.), nos. 47696/09 and 79806/12, 10 December 2013). However, the periods complained of had ended more than six months before they lodged their complaints with the Court. The date of the final decision rejecting their claims for compensation cannot be relied upon as resetting the time-limit for their complaints. It follows that these complaints are inadmissible for non-compliance with the six‑month rule set out in Article 35 § 1 of the Convention, and must be rejected pursuant to Article 35 § 4.


185.  The applicant further complained that he had been subjected to treatment prohibited by Article <mask> of the Convention in Magadan remand prison IZ‑49/1. Thus, being one-legged he had experienced difficulties in view of the lack of any arrangements for his condition, in particular, on account of receiving food through a window in the door of his cell and carrying it to a table while holding on to crutches, taking a shower while leaning on crutches, using toilet facilities and getting into a car for being transported to court. Furthermore, he had allegedly been denied medical treatment for his urolithiasis. Article 3 of the Convention reads as follows:


174.  The Government submitted that the applicant’s claims for non-pecuniary damage in respect of an alleged violation of Article <mask> of the Convention in connection with his conditions of detention on death row and the alleged lack of an effective investigation into the ill-treatment were exorbitant. They asked the Court to determine the just satisfaction on an equitable basis, taking into consideration its case-law on similar issues and the economic situation in Ukraine. In addition, they found the applicant’s claims for non-pecuniary damage in respect of alleged ill-treatment unsubstantiated.


34.  The applicant complained of inadequate conditions of his detention in Bjelovar Prison from 22 March 2010 to 5 January 2011. In particular, he complained of lack of personal space, poor sanitary and hygiene conditions, no prison work, insufficient recreational and educational activities, poor quality food and inadequate medical care. He relied on Article <mask> of the Convention, which reads as follows:


131.  The applicants relied on Article <mask> of the Convention, claiming that Ibragim Tsurov had been ill-treated by Russian servicemen and that there was no effective investigation into the ill-treatment. They further complained under this heading that as a result of their relative’s disappearance and the State’s failure to investigate it properly, they had endured mental suffering in breach of Article 3 of the Convention. Article 3 reads:


105.  The Government admitted that the conditions of the applicant’s detention in the temporary detention cell of the Mozhaiskiy District police station were in breach of Article <mask> of the Convention. They specified that, while the applicant’s detention in that cell between 30 and 31 July 2013 (date of the judgment of the Kuntsevskiy District Court of Moscow, see paragraph 31 above) was in compliance with domestic law requirements, the remainder of the detention period between 31 July 2013, after the delivery of the impugned judgment, and 5 August 2013 was not. They admitted that the cell for detaining persons charged with administrative offences was not designed for the detention of foreign nationals in respect of whom administrative removal orders had been issued by the domestic courts. Such persons were supposed to be detained in special detention centres of the Ministry of the Interior of the Russian Federation.


73.  The Government contended that the first applicant had failed to demonstrate that he had been ill-treated by the police and that his complaints had been disproved by the police officers’ reports and statements. The Government further argued that the medical records of 19 and 26 October 2005 suggested that the first applicant could have inflicted the injuries by himself and that at the time they had been inflicted the first applicant had not been “under the jurisdiction of police officers”. According to the Government, the first applicant’s submissions before the domestic authorities regarding the alleged ill-treatment had lacked clarity and consistency and had been rejected as unfounded by the prosecutors and the courts. For the Government, the situation in the first applicant’s case was comparable to that in Aleksandr Smirnov v. Ukraine (no. 38683/06, 15 July 2010). Referring to the Court’s finding that there had been no violation of Article <mask> of the Convention under its substantive limb in the latter case (see Aleksandr Smirnov, cited above, §§ 54-55), the Government argued that in the present case the origin of the first applicant’s injuries could not be established.


28.  The Government further submitted that detention conditions in facilities nos. IZ-77/2 and IZ-77/3 had been adequate. They relied on certificates issued by the Federal Service for the Execution of Sentences confirming that the applicant had been provided with an individual sleeping place and that the sanitary, hygienic and temperature conditions had been satisfactory. According to them, the mere fact that the applicant had been detained in overcrowded cells cannot serve as a basis for finding a violation of Article <mask> of the Convention.


86.  The Government maintained that in general there is no basis for claiming that pre-trial detention in solitary confinement as provided for by Danish law constitutes torture in contravention of Article <mask> of the Convention. More specifically they submitted that the applicant's detention on remand in solitary confinement, which lasted eleven months and fourteen days, was not in breach of the said provision. There had been reasonable grounds for suspecting that the applicant had committed a very serious crime that might have resulted in prolonged imprisonment, and solitary confinement was necessary to prevent the applicant from impeding the police investigation. Moreover, the applicant himself gave rise to a considerable extent to the duration of the pre-trial detention in solitary confinement by maintaining until 26 September 1995 his false statement, as agreed with the other co-accused, PL, and by fabricating false diary notes in support thereof. The solitary confinement had been lifted as soon as the applicant could no longer influence the investigation, for example through communication with the co-accused in order that they harmonise their statements.


49.  The applicant complained that the authorities in colony no. 8 had not taken steps to safeguard his health and well-being, failing to provide him with adequate medical assistance in breach of Article <mask> of the Convention. He also complained under the same Convention provision that the conditions of his detention in the medical colony had been appalling. Article 3 of the Convention reads as follows:


65.  The applicant complained that she had been subjected to inhuman and degrading treatment on account of her sterilisation without her and her representative’s full and informed consent, and that the authorities had failed to carry out a thorough, fair and effective investigation into the circumstances surrounding her sterilisation. She relied on Article <mask> of the Convention, which reads as follows:


109.  The Government submitted that the conditions of the applicant’s transport had been compatible with Article <mask> of the Convention. The prison van had been technically in good order, had been heated and ventilated. It had not been overcrowded. The applicant’s medical record showed that he had been fit to be transported and that he could be transported unaccompanied by a doctor.


67.  The Government did not argue in their written observations that the Court should not have regard to facts which occurred after the final domestic decision in January 2008. The Court recalls that according to its established case-law under Article <mask> of the Convention, the existence of a risk faced by an applicant in the country to which he is to be expelled is assessed by reference to the facts which were known or ought to have been known at the time of the expulsion; in cases where the applicant has not yet been deported, the risk is assessed at the time of the proceedings before the Court (see Saadi v. Italy [GC], no. 37201/06, § 133, ECHR 2008‑...). The Court sees no reason to take a different approach to the assessment of the proportionality of a deportation under Article 8 of the Convention and points out in this regard that its task is to assess the compatibility with the Convention of the applicant’s actual expulsion and not of the final expulsion order (see Maslov, cited above, § 93). Any other approach would render the protection of the Convention theoretical and illusory by allowing Contracting States to expel applicants months, even years, after a final order had been made notwithstanding the fact that such expulsion would be disproportionate having regard to subsequent developments. The Government have not explained whether further remedies within the domestic legal system are now available to allow the applicant to challenge his deportation a second time, nor have they suggested that the Court is precluded from examining developments on the basis that the applicant has failed to exhaust domestic remedies. In the circumstances, it is appropriate for the Court itself to assess the effect of this additional lapse of time on the proportionality of the applicant’s deportation.


27.  The applicants complained under Article <mask> of the Convention that that they had been treated in an inhuman and degrading manner. The applicants’ complaints do not concern the material conditions of the Riihimäki prison, nor their isolation as such but rather the use of closed overalls while in isolation. They claim that the use of overalls, especially dirty ones, was degrading. There was no evidence that the applicants had been involved in smuggling drugs into the prison.


81.  The applicant complained that he had been ill-treated by police officers following his arrest on 18 September 2001 and that there had been no effective investigation into the matter. He relied on Articles 3 and 13 of the Convention. The Court considers it appropriate, however, to examine the above complaints only under Article <mask> of the Convention, which reads as follows:


16.  The applicant complained that the conditions of his detention in Ljubljana prison amounted to a violation of Article <mask> of the Convention. In particular, he complained of severe overcrowding which had led to a lack of personal space, poor sanitary conditions and inadequate ventilation, as well as excessive restriction on out-of-cell time, high temperatures in the cells, inadequate health care and psychiatric support and exposure to violence from other inmates due to insufficient security.