As a civil rights attorney who regularly feels frustration when the government and the court raise the innumerable doctrines to bar access of a civil rights plaintiff to the court and preclude any meaningful remedy for a victim of governmental abuse, I wonder what would statistics have been like had the U.S. allowed a private cause of action for its own citizens to sue the American officials in the United Nations for civil rights violations...
Right now I do not believe statistics of human right abuses in the U.S. by the state and federal government is even available, as the government, naturally would not be forthcoming with such statistics and private lawsuits, especially on conditions on detention. How many meritorious lawsuits on conditions of detention are nipped in the bud by the so-called Prison Reform Litigation Act, we do not even know.
The U.S. government created a haven for itself by requiring prisoners who want to complain of conditions of detention to first file a grievance within 15 days (!) of the occurrence of the incident that the prisoner wants to sue for.
And, as you might understand, those grievance forms are hard to get for the prisoners, and if they get them, prison may suddenly become a more dangerous place for them than it was before they filed that grievance.
With no possibility of an outside-of-the-country oversight, prisoners' rights remain unprotected in the United States.
Therefore, as much as I want to criticize my native country, Russia (and I do criticize it a lot, in a Russian blog called Snob.ru), for civil rights violations, here I must admit that Russia is ahead of the United States in providing an extraneous judicial remedy of European Court of Human Rights for violations of civil rights by Russian government against its citizen, a remedy that American citizens could have, but do not have because of "restrictions, understandings and declarations" (RUDs) with which the United States ratified the International Covenant for Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR).
Unlike the U.S. Supreme Court which recently managed to duck the issue of unlawful detention of "troublemakers" by the U.S. Government, leaving the door wide open for abuses, which, no doubt, will be happening, and are happening as we speak, the Russian government, which is far from being an example of protector of civil liberties within its country, at the very least allowed its citizens lawsuits against itself in a tribunal outside of the country, in the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg.
What is the effect upon the citizenry of the availability of such a judicial remedy where a person can sue his own country for a violation of his civil rights?
I believe that having such a judicial remedy available builds confidence in the citizenry that your own government is accountable to you and may be made to pay by a power higher than the government at a country level.
That gives the citizenry empowerment and the sense of justice.
When the government, like American state and federal courts, and especially the U.S. Supreme Court, erects barricades of doctrines to block people's access to justice and precludes them from resolving their grievances against the government, such actions destroy public trust in the integrity of the government in general and of the judiciary specifically.
Lack of public trust undermines legitimacy of the government and may ultimately lead to chaos, where people repeatedly fail to obtain judicial remedies of obvious constitutional violations through courts and may lose their faith in the rule of law.
For that reason, I believe it to be wise and prudent for the U.S. government to enhance respect to itself by its citizenry and allow a private cause of action against the U.S. Government for private citizens and foreigners with standing, in the United Nations.
Below I provide the list of cases which Russian citizens and immigrants to Russia won against Russia, and where in most cases non-pecuniary money damages were awarded against Russia by the European court of Human rights.
Such a record does not establish too high a statistic of civil rights violation, as it establish the statistic of remedying those civil rights violations, something that is completely lacking in the United States in view of barriers that is artificially created by federal courts in civil rights litigation in order to clear the court's busy caseloads.
You be the judge as to whether you would like to have such a remedy here in the United States, for the U.S. citizens against violations of civil rights by the U.S. government, which is currently unavailable because of restrictions in ratification of the International Convention for Civil and Political Rights, the multitude of judicially created doctrines barring access to court and, mostly, the doctrine of judicial immunity, prosecutorial immunity and sovereign immunity leaving victims of egregious constitutional violations completely without a remedy.
You can read the full case by clicking on the case names.
No
|
Case Name
|
Relevant holdings
|
What would have been
the outcome in the U.S.
|
1.
|
Ryabikin
v. Russia (2008)
|
Russia violated Article 5 of European Convention in
denial of judicial review pertaining to detention;
Awarded EUR
15,000 (fifteen thousand euros), plus any tax that may be chargeable, in respect of non-pecuniary damage;
awarded EUR 8,299 (eight thousand two hundred and ninety-nine euros), plus any tax that may be chargeable to the
applicant, in respect of costs and expenses;
(b) that from the expiry of the above-mentioned three
months until settlement simple interest shall be payable on the above amounts
at a rate equal to the marginal lending rate of the European
|
No money damages – sovereign
immunity
There is no concept in the U.S. of the government
paying to the victim
of
its misconduct non-pecuniary
damages, or damages for emotional pain and suffering
No judicial
review outside of the country – RUDs to International Convention for Civil and
Political Rights (ICCPR) preclude
review of claims of U.S. citizens against the U.S. in the United Nations
No meaningful judicial review inside the country: see, for
example, that U.S. Supreme Court recently refused to review the issue of
unlawful detentions, see also the list of judicially created bars to federal
civil rights litigation
|
2.
|
(2008)
|
1. Declares the complaints
concerning the conditions of the applicant's detention, the lawfulness of her
detention and a lack of a procedure to have its lawfulness reviewed by a
court, admissible, and the remainder of the application inadmissible;
2. Holds that there has been a violation of
Article 5 § 1 of the Convention on account of the lack of a legal basis for the applicant's
detention from 20 February to 26 March 2007;
3. Holds that there has been a
violation of Article 5 § 4 of the Convention;
4. Holds that there has been a
violation of Article 3 of the Convention on account of the inhuman and degrading
conditions of the applicant's detention;
5. Holds
(a) that the respondent State is to pay the applicant,
within three months from the date on which the judgment becomes final in
accordance with Article 44 § 2 of the Convention, EUR 10,000 (ten thousand euros), plus any tax
that may be chargeable, in respect of non-pecuniary damage, to be converted
into Russian roubles at the rate applicable at the date of settlement;
(b) that from the expiry of the
above-mentioned three months until settlement simple interest shall be
payable on the above amount at a rate equal to the marginal lending rate of
the European Central Bank during the default period plus three percentage
points;
|
Same as above
|
3.
|
Ismoilov
et al v. Russia (2008)
|
2. Holds by six votes to one that in the event of the
extradition orders against the applicants being enforced, there would be a
violation of Article 3 of the Convention;
3. Holds
unanimously that there has been a violation of Article 5 § 1 of the
Convention;
4. Holds
unanimously that there has been a violation of Article 5 § 4 of the
Convention;
5. Holds
unanimously that there is no need to examine the complaint under Article 6 §
1 of the Convention;
6. Holds by six
votes to one that there has been a violation of Article 6 § 2 of the
Convention;
7. Holds by six
votes to one
(a) that the
respondent State is to pay the applicants, within three months from the date
on which the judgment becomes final in accordance with Article 44 § 2 of the
Convention, the following amounts, to be converted into Russian roubles at
the rate applicable at the date of settlement:
(i) EUR
15,000 (fifteen thousand euros) to each of the
applicants in respect of non-pecuniary damage;
(ii) the following
amounts in respect of the legal representation:
Mr Alimov:
EUR 1,545 (one thousand five hundred and forty-five euros);
Mr
Ismoilov: EUR 1,694 (one thousand six hundred and ninety-four euros);
Mr
Kasimhujayev: EUR 1,259 (one thousand
two hundred and fifty-nine euros);
Mr
Rustamhodjaev: EUR 1,165 (one thousand
one hundred and sixty-five euros);
Mr
Makhmudov: EUR 1,381 (one thousand
three hundred and eighty-one euros);
Mr
Usmanov: EUR 1,304 (one thousand three hundred and four euros);
Mr
Muhamadsobirov: EUR 1,304 (one thousand three hundred and four euros);
Mr
Muhametsobirov: EUR 1,235 (one thousand two hundred and thirty-five
euros);
Mr
Ulughodjaev: EUR 1,370 (one thousand three hundred and seventy euros);
Mr
Sabirov: EUR 1,292 (one thousand two hundred and ninety-two euros);
Mr Naimov:
EUR 1,221 (one thousand two hundred and twenty-one euros);
Mr
Hamzaev: EUR 1,367 (one thousand three hundred and sixty-seven
euros);
Mr
Tashtemirov: EUR 1,377 (one thousand three hundred and seventy-seven
euros);
(iii) EUR
195 (one hundred ninety-five euros) to Mr Alimov in respect of postal expenses;
(iv) any tax that
may be chargeable to the applicants on the above amounts;
(b) that from the
expiry of the above-mentioned three months until settlement simple interest
shall be payable on the above amounts at a rate equal to the marginal lending
rate of the European Central Bank during the default period plus three
percentage points.
|
Comments will be added
|
4.
|
Declares the complaints concerning the lawfulness of the applicant’s
detention pending extradition and the courts’ failure to examine speedily her
application for release admissible and the remainder of the application
inadmissible;
2. Holds that there has been a
violation of Article 5 § 1 (f) of the Convention;
3. Holds that there has been a
violation of Article 5 § 4 of the Convention;
4. Holds
(a) that the respondent State is
to pay the applicant, within three months from the date on which the judgment
becomes final in accordance with Article 44 § 2 of the Convention, EUR
5,000 (five thousand euros) in respect of non-pecuniary damage, to be
converted into Russian roubles at the rate applicable at the date of
settlement, plus any tax that may be chargeable on that amount;
(b) that from the expiry of the
above-mentioned three months until settlement simple interest shall be
payable on the above amount at a rate equal to the marginal lending rate of
the European Central Bank during the default period plus three percentage
points.
|
Comments will be added
|
|
5.
|
Eminbeyli v. Russia (2009)
|
1. Declares the
complaints concerning the lawfulness of the applicant’s deprivation of
liberty and the judicial review of his detention admissible and the remainder
of the application inadmissible;
2. Holds that
there has been a violation of Article 5 § 1 (f) of the Convention;
3. Holds that
there has been a violation of Article 5 § 4 of the Convention;
4. Holds
(a) that the
respondent State is to pay the applicant, within three months from the date
on which the judgment becomes final in accordance with Article 44 § 2 of the
Convention, EUR 5,000 (five thousand euros) in respect of
non-pecuniary damage, plus any tax that may be chargeable on that amount;
(b) that from the
expiry of the above-mentioned three months until settlement simple interest
shall be payable on the above amount at a rate equal to the marginal lending
rate of the European Central Bank during the default period plus three
percentage points;
|
Comments will be added
|
6.
|
Muminov v. Russia (2008)
|
1. Decides to join to the merits the
Government’s objections as to the exhaustion of domestic remedies in
respect of the applicant’s complaints about a risk of ill-treatment in the
event of his being expelled to Uzbekistan and the unlawfulness of his
deprivation of liberty and
rejects them;
2. Declares the complaints concerning the
alleged risk of ill-treatment in Uzbekistan, the alleged inefficiency of the
domestic remedies in respect of the applicant’s complaint of a risk of
ill-treatment, the unlawfulness of the applicant’s deprivation of liberty and
the unavailability of judicial review of his detention admissible and
the remainder of the application inadmissible;
3. Holds that there has been a
violation of Article 3 of the Convention on account of the applicant’s
expulsion to Uzbekistan;
4. Holds that there has been a
violation of Article 13 of the Convention on account of the authorities’
failure to afford the applicant an effective and accessible remedy in
relation to his complaint under Article 3 of the Convention;
5. Holds that there has been a
violation of Article 5 § 4 of the Convention on account of the unavailability of any procedure
for a judicial review of the lawfulness of the applicant’s detention with a
view to his extradition to Uzbekistan;
6. Holds that there has been a violation of Article 5 § 1 of the
Convention in relation to his detention with a view to his extradition
to Uzbekistan;
7. Holds that there is no need to
examine separately the complaint under Article 1 of Protocol No. 7;
8. Holds that there has been no
breach of the respondent State’s obligation under Article 34 of the
Convention;
9. Holds that the question of the
application of Article 41 is not ready for decision;
accordingly,
(a) reserves the question;
(b) invites the Russian Government and the applicant
to submit, within three months from the date on which the judgment becomes
final in accordance with Article 44 § 2 of the Convention, their written observations on the
matter and, in particular, to notify the Court of any agreement that they may
reach;
(c) reserves the further
procedure and delegates to the President of the Chamber the power to fix the
same if need be.
|
Comments will be added
|
7.
|
Fursenko v. Russia (2008)
|
1. Holds that the
applicant’s mother has standing to continue the present proceedings in his
stead;
2. Holds that
there has been no violation of Article 5 § 1 of the Convention on account of
the applicant’s pre-trial detention from 14 April to 14 May 2001, from 18
June to 24 September 2001, from 26 February to 26 March 2002, from 25 June to
6 August 2002 and 30 January to 14 February 2003;
3. Holds that
there has been a violation of Article 5 § 1 of the Convention on account of
the applicant’s pre-trial detention from 14 to 23 May 2001, from 23 May to 18
June 2001, from 24 September 2001 to 26 February 2002, from 26 March to 25
June 2002, from 6 to 8 August 2002, and from 8 August 2002 to 30 January
2003;
4. Holds that
there has been a violation of Article 5 § 3 of the Convention;
5. Holds that it
is unable to consider the merits of the applicant’s complaint concerning the
failure to examine his complaint of 25 April 2001, as it has been lodged out
of time;
6. Holds that
there has been no violation of Article 5 § 4 of the Convention on account of
the alleged failure to examine the applicant’s complaints lodged between 13
July and 21 November 2001;
7. Holds that
there has been a violation of Article 5 § 4 of the Convention on account of
the failure to examine “speedily” his complaint of 28 February 2002 and to
deliver a final judicial decision in this respect, as well as the failure to
examine “speedily” his appeal against the decision of 12 July 2002;
8. Holds
(a) that the
respondent State is to pay the applicant’s mother, within three months from
the date on which the judgment becomes final in accordance with Article 44 §
2 of the Convention, EUR 5,000 (five thousand euros) in respect of non-pecuniary damage and EUR
250 (two hundred and fifty euros) in respect of costs and expenses, to be converted into the
national currency of the respondent State at the rate applicable at the date
of settlement, plus any tax that may be chargeable;
(b) that from the
expiry of the above-mentioned three months until settlement simple interest
shall be payable on the above amounts at a rate equal to the marginal lending
rate of the European Central Bank during the default period plus three
percentage points;
|
Same as above, PLUS:
The complainant – the mother of the person detained –
would have been denied standing in the U.S.
|
8.
|
Popov v. Russia (2006)
|
1. Declares the complaints
concerning the
fairness of the proceedings, the
conditions of detention and lack of medical assistance in remand prison SIZO
77/1 in Moscow, the conditions of detention in disciplinary cells and lack of
medical assistance in the YaCh-91/5 prison in Sarapul, and the interference
with the right of individual petition, admissible and the
remainder of the application inadmissible;
2. Holds that there has been no
violation of Article 6 § 2 of the Convention in respect of the alleged
defects of the bill of indictment;
3. Holds that there has been no
violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention in respect of the use of the
identification reports;
4. Holds that there has been no
violation of Article 6 § 3 (c) in conjunction with Article 6 § 1 of the
Convention in that the domestic courts refused the motion to admit the
applicant's uncle to participate in the proceedings as his representative;
5. Holds that there has been a
violation of Article 6 § 3 (d) in conjunction with Article 6 § 1 of the
Convention in that the domestic courts failed to examine defence witnesses
Mrs R. and Mr Kh.;
6. Holds that there has been a
violation of Article 3 of the Convention in respect of conditions of detention and
lack of adequate medical assistance in remand prison SIZO 77/1 in
Moscow;
7. Holds that there has been a violation of Article 3 of the
Convention in respect of conditions of detention in disciplinary cells and
lack of adequate medical assistance in the YaCh-91/5 prison in
Sarapul;
8. Holds that the State has
failed to fulfil its obligation under Article 34 not to hinder the effective
exercise of the right of individual petition;
9. Holds that there is no need to
examine the complaint concerning the alleged interference with the
applicant's correspondence with his representative;
10. Holds
(a) that the respondent State is
to pay the applicant, within three months from the date on which the judgment
becomes final in accordance with Article 44 § 2 of the Convention, EUR
25,000 (twenty five thousand euros) in respect of non-pecuniary damage and EUR
3,285 (three thousand two hundred and eighty-five euros) in respect of costs and expenses, to be
converted into Russian roubles at the rate applicable at the date of
settlement, plus any tax that may be chargeable;
(b) that from the expiry of the above-mentioned
three months until settlement simple interest shall be payable on the above
amounts at a rate equal to the marginal lending rate of the European Central
Bank during the default period plus three percentage points;
|
Comments will be added
|
9.
|
Starokadomsky v.
Russia (2008)
|
1. Holds that
there has been a violation of Article 3 of the Convention on account of the
conditions of the applicant's detention in Moscow remand centre no. 77/1;
2. Holds that
there has been a violation of Article 3 of the Convention on account of the
conditions of the applicant's transport to and confinement at the Moscow City
Court;
3. Holds that
there has been a violation of Article 5 § 1 (c) of the Convention as regards
the applicant's detention on 1 and 2 July 2002;
4. Holds that
there has been a violation of Article 5 § 3 of the Convention;
5. Holds that
there has been a violation of Article 5 § 4 of the Convention;
6. Holds
(a) that the
respondent State is to pay the applicant, within three months from the date
on which the judgment becomes final in accordance with Article 44 § 2 of the
Convention, EUR 15,500 (fifteen thousand five hundred euros) in respect
of non-pecuniary damage,
plus any tax that may be chargeable, and EUR
785 (seven hundred eighty-five euros) in respect of legal costs, plus any tax that may be
chargeable to the applicant, both sums to be converted into Russian roubles
at the rate applicable at the date of settlement;
(b) that from the
expiry of the above-mentioned three months until settlement simple interest
shall be payable on the above amounts at a rate equal to the marginal lending
rate of the European Central Bank during the default period plus three
percentage points;
7. Dismisses the
remainder of the applicant's claim for just satisfaction.
|
Comments will be added
|
10.
|
Moiseyev v. Russia (2009)
|
1. Holds that there has been a
violation of Article 3 of the Convention on account of the conditions of the
applicant’s detention in the Lefortovo remand prison;
2. Holds that there has been a
violation of Article 3 of the Convention on account of the conditions of the
applicant’s transport between the remand prison and the courthouse;
3. Holds that there has been a
violation of Article 3 of the Convention on account of the conditions of the
applicant’s confinement at the Moscow City Court;
4. Holds that there has been a
violation of Article 5 § 3 of the Convention;
5. Holds that there has been a
violation of Article 5 § 4 of the Convention;
6. Holds that there has been a
violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention on account of the lack of
independence and impartiality of the Moscow City Court;
7. Holds that there has been a
violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention on account of a breach of the
“reasonable time” requirement;
8. Holds that there has been a
violation of Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (b) and (c) of the Convention;
9. Holds that there has been no
violation of Article 7 of the Convention;
10. Holds that there has been a
violation of Article 8 of the Convention on account of unjustified
restrictions on family visits;
11. Holds that there has been a
violation of Article 8 of the Convention on account of unjustified
restrictions on the applicant’s correspondence;
12. Holds
(a) that the respondent State is
to pay the applicant, within three months from the date on which the judgment
becomes final in accordance with Article 44 § 2 of the Convention, the
following amounts, to be converted into Russian roubles at the rate applicable
at the date of settlement:
(i) EUR 25,000 (twenty-five thousand euros) in
respect of non-pecuniary
damage plus any tax that may be chargeable;
(ii) EUR
3,973 (three thousand nine hundred and seventy-three euros) in respect of costs and expenses plus any tax
that may be chargeable to the applicant;
(b) that from the expiry of the
above-mentioned three months until settlement simple interest shall be
payable on the above amounts at a rate equal to the marginal lending rate of
the European Central Bank during the default period plus three percentage
points;
13. Dismisses the remainder of
the applicant’s claim for just satisfaction.
|
Comments will be added
|
11.
|
Lebedev v. Russia (2007)
|
1. Dismisses
unanimously the Government’s preliminary objections concerning the exhaustion
of domestic remedies and the applicant’s victim status;
2. Holds
unanimously that there has been a violation of Article 5 § 1 (c) of the
Convention on account of the applicant’s unauthorised detention between 31
March and 6 April 2004;
3. Holds by four
votes to three that there has been a violation of Article 5 § 3 of the
Convention on account of the applicant’s detention from 3 July 2003 to 28
August 2003;
4. Holds by five
votes to two that there has been a violation of Article 5 § 4 of the
Convention as regards the delays in the review of the detention order of 26
December 2003 by the Moscow City Court;
5. Holds
unanimously that there has been a violation of Article 5 § 4 of the
Convention on account of the delays in the review of the detention order of 6
April 2004 by the Moscow City Court;
6. Holds
unanimously that there has been a violation of Article 5 § 4 of the
Convention on account of the absence of the applicant from the detention
hearing on 8 June 2004;
7. Holds
unanimously that the temporary inability of the applicant to meet one of his
lawyers did not amount in the circumstances to a failure by the State to
fulfil its obligation under Article 34 of the Convention;
8. Holds
unanimously
(a) that the respondent
State is to pay the applicant, within three months from the date on which the
judgment becomes final in accordance with Article 44 § 2 of the Convention
the following amounts, to be converted into the national currency of the
respondent State at the rate applicable on the date of settlement:
(i) EUR 3,000 (three
thousand euros) in respect of non-pecuniary damage;
(ii) EUR
7,000 (seven thousand euros) in respect of his legal costs;
(iii) any tax that may be chargeable on
the above amounts.
(b) that from the
expiry of the above-mentioned three months until settlement simple interest
shall be payable on the above amounts at a rate equal to the marginal lending
rate of the European Central Bank during the default period plus three
percentage points;
9. Dismisses
unanimously the remainder of the applicant’s claim for just satisfaction.
|
Comments will be added
|
12.
|
Bakhmutskiy v. Russia (2009)
|
1. Declares admissible
unanimously
(a) the complaint under Article 3
concerning the conditions of the applicant’s detention in detention facility
IZ-61/1 of Rostov-on-Don;
(b) the complaint under Article
13 concerning the lack of an effective remedy for the allegedly appalling
conditions of the applicant’s pre-trial detention;
(c) the complaint under Article 5
§ 1 concerning the alleged unlawfulness of the applicant’s detention from 12
February 2002 to 17 May 2004;
(d) the complaint under Article 5
§ 3 concerning the length of the applicant’s pre-trial detention;
(e) the complaint under Article 5
§ 4 concerning the alleged ineffectiveness of the judicial review of the
applicant’s detention;
(f) the complaint under Article 6
§ 1 concerning the length of the criminal proceedings against the applicant;
(g) the complaint under Article
13 concerning the lack of an effective remedy in respect of the alleged
violation of the applicant’s right to a trial within a reasonable time;
and inadmissible the remainder of the application;
2. Holds unanimously that there has been a violation of
Article 3 of the Convention on account of the conditions of the applicant’s
detention in detention facility IZ-61/1 of Rostov-on-Don;
3. Holds unanimously that there has been a violation of
Article 13 of the Convention on account of the lack of an effective remedy
for the applicant to complain about the conditions of his pre-trial detention;
4. Holds unanimously that there
has been a violation of Article 5 § 1 of the Convention on account of the
applicant’s detention from 12 February to 1 July 2002;
5. Holds unanimously that there
has been no violation of Article 5 § 1 of the Convention on account of the
applicant’s detention from 1 July 2002 to 17 May 2004;
6. Holds unanimously that there
has been a violation of Article 5 § 3 of the Convention;
7. Holds unanimously that there
has been a violation of Article 5 § 4 of the Convention;
8. Holds unanimously that there
has been a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention on account of the excessive length of the
proceedings against the applicant;
9. Holds unanimously that there
has been a violation of Article 13 of the Convention on account of the lack of an effective remedy
for the applicant to complain about the length of the criminal proceedings;
10. Holds by five votes to two
(a) that the respondent State is
to pay the applicant, within three months from the date on which the judgment
becomes final in accordance with Article 44 § 2 of the Convention, the
following amounts, to be converted into Russian roubles at the rate
applicable at the date of settlement:
(i) EUR 40,000 (forty
thousand euros), plus any
tax that may be chargeable to the applicant, in respect of non-pecuniary damage;
(ii) EUR
2,600 (two thousand six hundred euros), plus any tax that may be chargeable to the
applicant, in respect of costs
and expenses;
(b) that from the expiry of the
above-mentioned three months until settlement simple interest shall be
payable on the above amounts at a rate equal to the marginal lending rate of
the European Central Bank during the default period plus three percentage
points;
11. Dismisses unanimously the
remainder of the applicant’s claim for just satisfaction.
|
Comments to be added
|
13.
|
Shteyn (Stein) v. Russia (2009)
|
1. Declares the
complaints concerning the conditions of the applicant’s detention, the
lawfulness of one period of detention, the length of the applicant’s
detention, the delays in the examination of his appeals against detention
orders and the length of the criminal proceedings admissible and the
remainder of the application inadmissible;
2. Holds that
there has been a violation of Article 3 of the Convention;
3. Holds that
there has been a violation of Article 5 § 1 (c) of the Convention in relation
to the detention order of 2 June 2006;
4. Holds that
there has been a violation of Article 5 § 3 of the Convention;
5. Holds that
there has been a violation of Article 5 § 4 of the Convention;
6. Holds that
there has been a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention;
7. Holds
(a) that the
respondent State is to pay the applicant, within three months from the date
on which the judgment becomes final in accordance with Article 44 § 2 of the
Convention, EUR 10,000 (ten thousand euros) in respect of non-pecuniary damage, plus any tax
that may be chargeable, and EUR 300 (three
hundred euros) in respect of costs
and expenses, to be converted into Russian roubles at the rate
applicable at the date of settlement;
(b) that from the
expiry of the above-mentioned three months until settlement simple interest
shall be payable on the above amounts at a rate equal to the marginal lending
rate of the European Central Bank during the default period plus three
percentage points;
8. Dismisses the
remainder of the applicant’s claim for just satisfaction.
|
Comments to be added
|
14.
|
Matyush v. Russia (2009)
|
1. Declares the complaint
concerning the conditions of the applicant’s detention from 8 March 1999 to
21 April 2003 in detention facility no. IZ-55/1, the unlawfulness of her
detention after 1 July 2002, the excessive length of her detention on remand
and the failure of the domestic authorities to decide “speedily” on the
lawfulness of her detention in the final instance no earlier than 25 October
2002 admissible and the remainder of the application inadmissible;
2. Holds that there has been a
violation of Article 3 of the Convention;
3. Holds that there has been no violation
of Article 5 § 1 of the Convention on account of the applicant’s detention
from 1 July 2002 to 17 April 2003;
4. Holds that there has been a
violation of Article 5 § 1 of the Convention on account of the applicant’s
detention from 17 to 21 April 2003;
5. Holds that there has been a
violation of Article 5 § 3 of the Convention;
6. Holds that there has been a
violation of Article 5 § 4 of the Convention;
7. Holds that there is no call to
award the applicant just satisfaction.
|
Comments to be added
|
15.
|
Gubkin v. Russia (2009)
|
1. Declares admissible
(a) the complaint
under Article 3 concerning the conditions of the applicant’s detention in
detention facility IZ-61/1 of Rostov-on-Don;
(b) the complaint
under Article 13 concerning the lack of an effective remedy for the allegedly
appalling conditions of the applicant’s detention;
(c) the complaint
under Article 5 § 1 concerning the alleged unlawfulness of the applicant’s
detention from 12 February 2002 to 17 May 2004;
(d) the complaint
under Article 5 § 3 concerning the length of the applicant’s pre-trial
detention;
(e) the complaint
under Article 5 § 4 concerning the alleged ineffectiveness of the judicial
review of the applicant’s detention;
(f) the complaint
under Article 6 § 1 concerning the length of the criminal proceedings against
the applicant;
(g) the complaint
under Article 13 concerning the lack of an effective remedy in respect of the
alleged violation of the applicant’s right to a trial within a reasonable
time;
and inadmissible the remainder of the application;
2. Holds that
there has been a violation of Article 3 of the Convention on account of the
conditions of the applicant’s detention in detention facility IZ-61/1 of
Rostov-on-Don;
3. Holds that
there has been a violation of Article 13 of the Convention on account of the
lack of an effective remedy for the applicant to complain about the
conditions of his detention;
4. Holds that
there has been a violation of Article 5 § 1 of the Convention on account of
the applicant’s detention from 12 February to 1 July 2002;
5. Holds that
there has been no violation of Article 5 § 1 of the Convention on account of
the applicant’s detention from 1 July 2002 to 17 May 2004;
6. Holds that there has been a violation of Article
5 § 3 of the Convention;
7. Holds that
there has been a violation of Article 5 § 4 of the Convention;
8. Holds that
there has been a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention on account of
an excessive length of the proceedings against the applicant;
9. Holds that
there has been a violation of Article 13 of the Convention on account of the
lack of an effective remedy for the applicant to complain about the length of
the criminal proceedings;
10. Holds
(a) that the
respondent State is to pay the applicant, within three months from the date
on which the judgment becomes final in accordance with Article 44 § 2 of the
Convention, EUR 40,000 (forty thousand euros), plus any tax that may be chargeable, in
respect of non-pecuniary
damage, to be converted into Russian roubles at the rate applicable at
the date of settlement;
(b) that from the
expiry of the above-mentioned three months until settlement simple interest
shall be payable on the above amount at a rate equal to the marginal lending
rate of the European Central Bank during the default period plus three
percentage points;
11. Dismisses the
remainder of the applicant’s claim for just satisfaction.
|
Comments to be added
|
16.
|
Yudayev v. Russia (2009)
|
1. Declares the complaints
concerning the alleged unlawfulness of the applicant’s detention from 5 to 22
January 2004 and the alleged violation of his right to a speedy judicial
decision concerning the lawfulness of his detention admissible, and the
remainder of the application inadmissible;
2. Holds that there has been a
violation of Article 5 § 1 of the Convention in respect of the period from 5
to 22 January 2004;
3. Holds that there has been a
violation of Article 5 § 4 of the Convention in respect of the appeal
proceedings against the detention order of 30 April 2003;
4. Holds that there has been no
violation of Article 5 § 4 of the Convention in respect of the appeal
proceedings against the detention orders of 4 August and 9 September 2003;
5. Holds
(a) that the respondent State is
to pay the applicant, within three months from the date on which the judgment
becomes final in accordance with Article 44 § 2 of the Convention, EUR
3,000 (three thousand euros), plus any tax that may be chargeable, in respect of non-pecuniary damage, to be
converted into Russian roubles at the rate applicable at the date of
settlement;
(b) that from the expiry of the
above-mentioned three months until settlement simple interest shall be
payable on the above amount at a rate equal to the marginal lending rate of
the European Central Bank during the default period plus three percentage
points;
6. Dismisses the remainder of the
applicant’s claim for just satisfaction.
|
Comments to be added
|
17.
|
Alekhin v. Russia (2009)
|
1. Declares the
complaints concerning the excessive length of the applicant’s detention, the
alleged violation of his right to a speedy judicial decision concerning the
lawfulness of his detention and the absence of an enforceable right to
compensation for detention in violation of the requirements of Article 5
admissible and the remainder of the application inadmissible;
2. Holds that
there has been a violation of Article 5 § 3 of the Convention;
3. Holds that
there has been a violation of Article 5 § 4 of the Convention;
4. Holds that
there has been a violation of Article 5 § 5 of the Convention;
5. Holds
(a) that the
respondent State is to pay the applicant, within three months from the date
on which the judgment becomes final in accordance with Article 44 § 2 of the
Convention, EUR 7,000 (seven
thousand euros), plus any
tax that may be chargeable, in respect of non-pecuniary damage, to be converted into
Russian roubles at the rate applicable at the date of settlement;
(b) that from the
expiry of the above-mentioned three months until settlement simple interest
shall be payable on the above amount at a rate equal to the marginal lending
rate of the European Central Bank during the default period plus three
percentage points;
6. Dismisses the
remainder of the applicant’s claim for just satisfaction.
|
Comments to be added
|
18.
|
Ananyin v. Russia (2009)
|
1. Declares the complaint
concerning the inhuman conditions and excessive length of the applicant’s
detention and the alleged failure to examine speedily the appeal of 14 April
2005 admissible and the remainder of the application inadmissible;
2. Holds that there has been a
violation of Article 3 of the Convention;
3. Holds that there has been a
violation of Article 5 § 3 of the Convention;
4. Holds that there has been a
violation of Article 5 § 4 of the Convention;
5. Holds
(a) that the respondent State is
to pay the applicant, within three months from the date on which the judgment
becomes final in accordance with Article 44 § 2 of the Convention, EUR
30,000 (thirty thousand euros), plus any tax that may be chargeable, in respect of non-pecuniary damage, to be
converted into Russian roubles at the rate applicable at the date of
settlement;
(b) that from the expiry of the
above-mentioned three months until settlement simple interest shall be
payable on the above amount at a rate equal to the marginal lending rate of
the European Central Bank during the default period plus three percentage
points;
6. Dismisses the remainder of the
applicant’s claim for just satisfaction.
|
Comments to be added
|
19.
|
Lamazhyk v.
Russia (2009)
|
1. Decides to join
to the merits the question of exhaustion of domestic remedies in respect of
the applicant’s complaint concerning the excessive length of his detention
after 24 December 2003 and rejects it;
2. Declares the
complaints concerning the unlawfulness of the applicant’s detention from 24
September to 24 December 2003, the excessive length of his detention, the
failure of the domestic authorities to decide “speedily” on the lawfulness of
his detention from 24 September to 24 December 2003 and the length of the
criminal proceedings against him, admissible and the remainder of the
application inadmissible;
3. Holds that
there has been a violation of Article 5 § 1 (c) of the Convention on account
of the applicant’s detention from 24 to 25 September 2003;
4. Holds that
there has been no violation of Article 5 § 1 (c) of the Convention on account
of the applicant’s detention from 25 September to 24 December 2003;
5. Holds that
there has been a violation of Article 5 § 3 of the Convention;
6. Holds that
there has been a violation of Article 5 § 4 of the Convention;
7. Holds that
there has been a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention;
8. Holds that
there is no call to award the applicant just satisfaction.
|
Comments to be added
|
20.
|
Nazarov v. Russia
(2010)
|
1. Declares the complaints under
Articles 3 and 5 §§ 3 and 4, as well as the complaint under Article 5 § 1 of
the Convention concerning the lawfulness of the applicant's detention between
4 and 16 August 2004 admissible and the remainder of the application
inadmissible;
2. Holds that there has been a
violation of Article 3 of the Convention on account of the conditions of the
applicant's detention;
3. Holds that there has been a
violation of Article 5 § 1 of the Convention on account of the applicant's
unlawful detention between 4 and 16 August 2004;
4. Holds that there has been a
violation of Article 5 § 3 of the Convention;
5. Holds that there has been a
violation of Article 5 § 4 of the Convention;
6. Holds
(a) that the respondent State is
to pay, within three months from the date on which the judgment becomes final
in accordance with Article 44 § 2 of the Convention, the following amounts,
to be converted into Russian roubles at the rate applicable at the date of
settlement:
(i) EUR
15,000 (fifteen thousand euros) to the applicant in respect of non-pecuniary damage, plus any tax
that may be chargeable thereon;
(ii) EUR
3,500 (three thousand five hundred euros) in respect of costs and expenses, to be
paid to the applicant's representatives, plus any tax that may be chargeable
to the applicant;
(b) that from the expiry of the
above-mentioned three months until settlement simple interest shall be
payable on the above amounts at a rate equal to the marginal lending rate of
the European Central Bank during the default period plus three percentage
points;
7. Dismisses the remainder of the
applicant's claim for just satisfaction.
|
Comments to be added
|
21.
|
Isayev v. Russia
(2009)
|
1. Declares the
complaints alleging the ill-treatment of the applicant by police officers,
the ineffectiveness of the investigation into the incident, the unlawfulness
of the applicant's detention from 6 November 2003 to 9 January 2004 and the
domestic courts' failure to examine speedily his applications for release
between October 2003 and April 2004 admissible and the remainder of the
application inadmissible;
2. Holds that
there has been no violation of Article 3 of the Convention on account of the
applicant's allegations of ill-treatment by the police;
3. Holds that
there has been no violation of Article 3 of the Convention on account of the
authorities' failure to investigate effectively the applicant's complaint of
ill-treatment;
4. Holds that there
has been no violation of Article 5 § 1 (c) of the Convention on account of
the applicant's detention from 6 November 2003 to 6 January 2004;
5. Holds that
there has been a violation of Article 5 § 1 (c) of the Convention on account
of the applicant's detention from 6 to 9 January 2004;
6. Holds that
there has been a violation of Article 5 § 4 of the Convention on account of
the domestic courts' failure to examine speedily the applicant's applications
for release lodged in October and November 2003;
7. Holds that
there has been no violation of Article 5 § 4 of the Convention as regards the
“speediness” of the review by the domestic courts of the application for
release lodged on 17 March 2004;
8. Holds
(a) that the
respondent State is to pay the applicant, within three months from the date
on which the judgment becomes final in accordance with Article 44 § 2 of the
Convention, the following amounts, to be converted into Russian roubles at
the rate applicable at the date of settlement:
(i) EUR
1,000 (one thousand euros) in respect of non-pecuniary damage;
(ii) EUR 2,424.16 (two
thousand four hundred and twenty-four euros and sixteen cents) in respect of costs and expenses incurred
before the Court;
(iii) any
tax that may be chargeable to the applicant on the above amounts;
(b) that from the
expiry of the above-mentioned three months until settlement simple interest
shall be payable on the above amounts at a rate equal to the marginal lending
rate of the European Central Bank during the default period plus three
percentage points;
9. Dismisses the
remainder of the applicant's claim for just satisfaction.
|
Comments to be added
|