Gusev v Russia

Facts

On 2 February 2000, the applicant was convicted of theft committed in 1998 and sentenced to probation of an unspecified duration. The sentence was not executed on the basis of the Amnesty Act 2000. In 1999, he was the subject of further criminal proceedings for the theft of goods worth around eight euros. The indictment was delayed in reaching the applicant and he missed the subsequent hearing. He refused to attend the adjourned hearing unless the summons was received by post.

Consequently, he was remanded in custody on 23 April 2000 and transferred to a pre-trial detention facility until his release on 26 September 2001. On 25 September 2000, the charge was reduced and the punishment relieved although he remained in custody during a third investigation. The Court dismissed his challenges concerning the lawfulness of his detention. He submitted that detention conditions, conduct by officers and cellmates and the unlawfulness and length of detention amounted to violations of Arts. 3 (inhuman and degrading treatment) and 5 (liberty and security) of the ECHR.

Judgment

On 15 May 2008 the ECtHR held that it was clear from the facts that the conditions of the applicant’s detention, specifically his cell, amounted to degrading treatment in violation of Art. 3. It deemed that there had been no violation of Art. 5(1) concerning the lawfulness of his detention as the trial court had acted within its powers and there was no evidence to suggest invalidity or unlawfulness under domestic law. However, there had been a violation of Art. 5(3) in relation to the length of his detention as it had not been extended on sufficient grounds. He was awarded €5,000 euros in damages.

Comments

The ECtHR stated that it could assess compliance with the ECHR on the basis of undisputed facts without having to examine every allegation. It emphasised the onus on each State to ensure that its penitentiary system guarantees respect for detainees’ dignity.

The ECtHR further reiterated that a continued period of detention could only be justified if there was evidence to show that such detention was in the public interest, despite the presumption of innocence, to warrant the loss of personal liberty and that the burden rests upon the state to show such justification.

Gusev_admiss

Gusev_judgment

The above admissibility decision and judgment are taken from the website of the European Court of Human Rights http://www.echr.coe.int/ and can be accessed via HUDOC on the court's website: http://cmiskp.echr.coe.int/tkp197/default.htm

The Court's case-law is also collated in Reports of Judgments and Decisions, published by Carl Heymanns Verlag KG.