STX Cell II Lacrosse Arm Pads
Lacrosse Arm Protection Sizing Guide
This size chart provides approximate weight and height suggestions for Shoulder Pads. For more information on sizing, check out our article on Lacrosse Arm Pad Sizing. You can also reach out to our customer service at 800-225-7603, and they can help you find the perfect size.
|STX Arm Protection Sizing Chart|
|X-Small||5 and Under||50 and Under||3’4″ and Under|
|Small||5 – 9||50- 80||3’4″ – 4’6″|
|Medium||9 – 12||80 – 130||4’6″ – 5’6″|
|Large||13 – 18||130 – 180||5’6″ – 5’10”|
|X-Large||18 and Above||180 and Above||5’10” and Above|
|This sizing chart is provided as a general guideline. Please contact customer service for additional sizing guidance.|
STX lacrosse equipment and certain other STX Items (excluding pockets, stringing, Mini-STX, accessories, promotional items (e.g. camp giveaways), finishes (e.g. chrome, paint), graphics and overmolding) are covered by the following “Limited Warranty”: STX will replace unusable or broken products (or provide a replacement with equal value) that break or become unusable under normal playing conditions due to poor workmanship and/or material failure within:
THIRTY (30) DAYS from the date of purchase of protective equipment (gloves, arm guards, arm pads, shin guards etc.) bags, accessories and apparel.
Please email STX Customer Service at [email protected] for replacement instructions.
For more information please visithttps://www.stx.com/legal/.
STX Cell 2 Lacrosse Arm Guards Review
You know as a lacrosse player that the most important features you need in your arm guards is for them to fit well while protecting you. Unfortunately, most arm guards usually only have one of these.
But not the STX Cell 2 arm guards. They are one of the few that has all of the features you need.
If you’re an attack player who needs mobility and protection, these arm guards are exactly what you’re looking for.
Comfort is a high priority for all lacrosse players. You want to be focusing more on the defender sliding at you than your arm guards sliding off you.
The Cell 2’s are full length arm guard which has an adjustable upper arm strap for a customized fit.
For the forearm strap, instead of dealing with a Velcro strip, STX upgraded to two crossing straps. These are better at helping keep them in place.
Silicone nubs are one of the best ways to keep your arm protection fixed in place. These have them all throughout the internal lining. Also with the nubs, these arm guards have a stretchable sleeve.
Keeping your arms safe during a game is so important and the Cell 2 arm guards hold their own. They are fitted with isoBLOX technology on the forearm and the upper bicep regions. This disperses the energy from a check and directs it down to the plastic elbow cup keeping your arms safer.
Along with the energy redirection, the Cell 2’s have a low profile plastic elbow cup. This makes sure your arms don’t bulk out allowing you to slip through those narrow spaces between the defenders.
The Cell 2 arm guards from STX would be great for any attack player who wants the best of what an arm guard can bring. Combining comfort and protection, the Cell 2’s will help you achieve your goals as a lacrosse player.
These come in sizes XS, S, M, and L. The colors available are black, navy, red, royal blue, forest green, maroon, and gold.
STX Cell V Lacrosse Arm GuardsSTX Cell V Lacrosse Arm Guards Skip to Content
The STX Cell V Arm Guards offer protection and comfort, utilizing GeoFlex II technology and a Breathable Lycra material to ensure optimal mobility. The 360+ Strap System allows for customization of fit, and prevents against any pad slippage, allowing you to perform your best without having to worry about your gear getting in the way. Additionally, the hard plastic elbow cap provides slash protection.
Click here to view our Protective Sizing Chart
The STX Cell V Arm Guards offer protection and comfort, utilizing GeoFlex II technology and a Breathable Lycra material to ensure optimal mobility. The 360+ Strap System allows for customization of fit, and prevents against any pad slippage, allowing you to perform your best without having to worry about your gear getting in the way.
Click here to view our Protective Sizing ChartKey Features
- GeoFlex II™ – flexible protection for the power player
- Dual 360+ Strap system ensures customized fit and prevents annoying pad slippage
- Breathable Lycra™ sleeve for optimal comfort
Positions: Attack, Midfield, Face-off
Skill Level: Advanced
STX Cell IV Men’s Lacrosse Arm Guards
STX Cell IV Men’s Lacrosse Arm Guards – Black
Model: Cell IV
Model Number: PD AGC4 01
Sizes: Small, Medium, Large, X-Large
Sold as a Pair
Men’s Lacrosse Arm Guards
Lightweight, Flexible, and Improved Range of Motion
New Geo-Flex II Technology is lighter and 25% more flexible
Hard Plastic Elbow Cap is contoured and low profile to reduce bulk
Full Length Lycra Sleeve for excellent comfort and moisture management
Dual Straps and Silicone Tape inside the sleeve helps keep the pad stable
New Breathable Protection System allows air to flow through the pad to help keep you cool and dry
The STX Cell IV Men’s Lacrosse Arm Guards are the ideal choice for any experienced lax player looking for a more reliable and high quality set of arm guards. The Cell 4 Arm Guards are made with new Geo-Flex II Technology which is lighter and 25% more flexible than last year’s Cell 3 model. The New Breathable Protection System allows air to flow through the pad to keep you cool so you can play at a high level through out the whole game. The Full Length Lycra Sleeve provides excellent moisture management and optimal comfort so you won’t have to worry about making adjustments for the sake of being comfortable. Overall, the STX Cell IV Men’s Lacrosse Arm Guards are an awesome set of protective pads that will help you stay safe season after season.
Warranty & Return Info Easy Returns – Money Back Guarantee
Everysportforless. com is committed to bringing you an easy and fair customer friendly new/unopened return policy. If you are not 100% satisfied with what you have purchased from Everysportforless.com, return it within 60 days of purchase and take advantage of no-hassle money back guarantee. We’ll refund you the product price on any returned item(s). You won’t have to worry about your refund or store credit. We have you covered. To quote Brianne P. of Naples, Florida, “Rockstar Customer Service”
Note: We do not accept returns on used products. All returns must be in their original packaging with original hang tags and shoe boxes must be free of tape and labels. Otherwise a restocking fee may apply.Warranty
All of the products we carry are from the top name brands in the industry and come with a full manufacturer warranty covering any and all product defects. If specific Warranty information applies for a product it will be available by clicking the warranty tab just above the description. If you have any questions about the warranty on a given product, let us know via email at [email protected]
For an in-depth look at our Return Policies please visit our Returns & Shipping Page
Home Security Systems, Alarm Systems & AccessoriesWhat is the Ring Alarm and Ring Alarm Pro Security Kit? Arrow Icon
Ring Alarm and Ring Alarm Pro are DIY home security systems that work on any house or apartment. Security kits come with a Base Station, Contact Sensor, Motion Detector, Keypad and Range Extender.
Ring Alarm and Ring Alarm Pro are simple enough to install without any tools or professional installation. Simply place the Contact Sensor on any door or window in your home, and you’ll get a mobile notification when it opens. You can also place the Motion Detector in any room of your home, and you’ll get a notification when motion is detected.
Ring Alarm Pro gives you a Ring Alarm for trusted physical security, and an eero Wi-Fi 6 router for fast wifi and network security in a single system. Unlike traditional home security systems, Ring Alarm Pro also offers optional layers of backup protection to help stay connected in case the power or internet goes out. By combining Alarm Pro with a Ring Protect Pro plan, you have more protection, and more ways to secure your home.
The Ring Alarm Security Kit comes with everything you need to protect your home. The Base Station controls your entire Ring Alarm system and is only available in a kit.
Ring Alarm Pro Base Station is sold separately, so you can customize your entire home security system.
Additional Contact Sensors, Motion Detectors, Keypads, Range Extenders and future Ring Alarm components can be purchased separately to expand the coverage of both systems.
With Ring Alarm pro you can add eero 6 Extenders to expand coverage and Ring Power Packs for additional back up power.What’s the difference between Ring Alarm and Ring Alarm Pro? Arrow Icon
Ring Alarm Pro gives you the trusted security and customizable features of Ring Alarm plus an eero Wi-Fi 6 router built in for network security and fast, reliable internet. The Ring Protect Pro Plan also offers 24/7 Backup Internet that is only available for use with a Ring Alarm Pro Base Station, giving you cellular internet connectivity when there’s no internet access available.
Yes, you can enroll in 24-7 professional monitoring with fire and medical emergency support for $20 / month / location with the Ring Protect Pro Plan.Do I need Ring Protect Pro to get Professional Monitoring? Arrow Icon
Yes. Professional monitoring for Ring Alarm systems is only available with a Ring Protect Pro plan. Ring Protect Pro is not available in Canada. Canadian customers, learn more about your Protect Plans here.How do I control Ring Alarm and Ring Alarm Pro? Arrow Icon
You can easily arm and disarm your system with the free Ring App (compatible with iOS and Android phones and tablets). You can also use the Keypad if you’re indoors and not near your phone or tablet. Ring Alarm provides three Security Modes to control your smart home security system:
- Away mode arms all of your Contact Sensors and Motion Sensors, by default.
- Disarmed mode disarms your security devices so you can come and go.
- Home mode arms Contact Sensors around the perimeter of your home, by default.
For Ring Alarm Pro, while you can control your wireless security system from the Ring App, to control and manage your wifi, you do so from the eero app.What happens if the power goes out? Arrow Icon
Ring Alarm comes with a 24-hour backup battery that kicks in whenever the power at home goes out. You can also get cellular backup with a Ring Protect Pro Plan, giving you essential security features to help protect your home during an outage.
With Ring Alarm Pro, when the power goes out you have two options:
- 1. Alarm Pro has an internal backup battery inside the Base Station that can provide backup power. When using the internal battery, you may have limited access to Alarm features only.
- 2. Ring Power Packs (sold separately) can provide external battery backup for your Alarm Pro. Connect up to four fully-charged Power Packs to a single Alarm Pro to keep it working for hours and all Alarm Pro features will be available.
Ring Power Packs can also be used to provide backup power to your eero 6 Extenders, which will keep your expanded wifi network up if you lose power.What happens when the internet goes out with Ring Alarm Pro? Arrow Icon
Your Ring Protect Pro plan offers 24/7 Backup Internet when you need it. This means that if the internet goes out, or if you don’t have internet service, you can use cellular data to connect all devices on your wifi network to the internet.
The 24/7 Backup Internet* feature included with the Ring Protect Pro plan gives you 3GB of data every month. If you need more, you can opt in to Extra Data, and you’ll only pay for data you use. We recommend opting in to Extra Data if you’re using Alarm Pro at a location without an internet connection.
Note: If you don’t opt in to Extra Data and use up your 3GB for the month, Alarm Pro will switch to Alarm Cellular Backup which provides access to only critical Ring Alarm security features. When an internet connection is restored, Alarm Pro will automatically switch back to using it. Your 3GB will reset on the first day of the new billing cycle.Does Ring Alarm and Ring Alarm Pro offer professional monitoring for commercial businesses? Arrow Icon
Yes! Professional monitoring is available for commercial businesses. Learn more about our business security offerings, including professional monitoring at ring.com/business.Is professional monitoring available in my area? Arrow Icon
Ring Alarm 24/7 monitoring service is available only within the U.S. (all 50 states, but not U.S. territories) and in Canada (excluding Quebec). Canadian customers, learn more about your Protect Plans here.
In some areas, a permit is required in order to have a professionally-monitored alarm system. If you do need a permit, we’ll email you with all the details and can help answer any questions you may have.
Yes. Every new Ring Alarm comes with a free1 30-day trial of Ring Protect. If you enroll in to professional monitoring during your trial, you can arm and disarm your Ring Alarm to get 24/7 emergency response if you need it most, and enjoy the other benefits of Ring Protect Pro. For the first 7 days of professional monitoring, you can take advantage of our 7-Day Practice Period designed to help you learn the ins and out of your Ring Alarm and avoid false alarms. Before your trial is over, we’ll remind you to subscribe to Ring Protect Pro on Ring.com to keep your alarm professionally monitored.
1 Free trial is not applicable for locations with an existing Ring Protect Plus or Protect Pro subscription. Terms and limitations apply. See Ring Protect Subscription Plans for more information.Will my existing eero products work with Alarm Pro? Arrow Icon
Yes. All generations of eero products will work as wifi extenders for your Ring Alarm Pro, but we recommend eero 6 Mesh Wifi Extenders, which are compatible with Ring Power Packs.
Set up Ring Alarm Pro as your primary internet router or “gateway” (meaning it should be plugged directly into your modem), and then set up your existing eero devices as wifi extenders using the eero app.
Note: We do not recommend using Ring Alarm Pro as a wifi extender for your existing router. Using your Alarm Pro as an extender will prevent you from accessing many of the Protect Pro subscription features, including 24/7 Backup Internet.How do I upgrade my Ring Alarm to Ring Alarm Pro? Arrow Icon
We’ve made this step easy. Simply open the Ring app, begin to set up your Ring Alarm Pro, and choose the location which has the Ring Alarm Base Station that you’d like to replace. The app will help you save your Ring Alarm settings and devices, then restore them to your new Alarm Pro Base Station after it’s set up on your Ring account.Does Ring have a glass break sensor? Arrow Icon
Ring Alarm pairs with Alexa-enabled devices and can listen for glass breaking with Alexa Guard. Alexa can also listen to existing Smoke/CO detectors for Smoke/CO alarms. If you have professional monitoring with Ring Protect Pro, you can also request emergency response.Do I need to get a permit? Arrow Icon
If you have signed up for 24/7 professional monitoring, you may need a permit to dispatch emergency services. After signing up for Ring Protect Pro, you’ll get an email from our dedicated Permits Team so you can have everything you need to apply for your permit. In some cases, our team will handle the entire permitting process, but for others, we’ll walk you through every step to help you get your permit as quickly as possible.Does Ring have special programs for HOAs and communities? Arrow Icon
Yes, we offer a number of customizable options and promotions to help keep communities safe. Please visit our community programs page to learn more.What is Ring Edge and how does it work? Arrow Icon
Ring Edge gives you local video storage and processing for select Ring Security Cameras and Doorbells. With Ring Edge, you can locally process Smart Alerts and store videos using Ring Alarm Pro and a microSD card. You can also watch your saved videos via the Ring App. To use Ring Edge, you’ll need a Ring Alarm Pro and a Ring Protect subscription. Additionally, a microSD card is required for Local Video Storage. All sold separately.
Vaccination Clinic Information | Pitkin County COVID-19 Response & Recovery
Q: How does COVID-19 affect children?
A: While COVID-19 causes mild illness in most children, some children do have more severe illness requiring hospitalization for treatment of COVID-19 pneumonia and Multisystem Inflammatory Syndrome in children (MIS-C), which can affect multiple organs, including the heart. Some children can also have “long COVID” with persistent symptoms for months after infection, including extreme fatigue, “brain fog,” breathing problems, and body aches. Children with preexisting conditions, such as asthma, are at highter risk to display mild to severe COVID symptoms.
Q: What measures were taken to test the COVID-19 vaccine on children?
A: Children have distinct developmental and physiological differences that affect not only their susceptibility to disease, but also how their immune systems respond to health interventions. The volunteer participants were divided into three groups: ages 5 to 11; 2 to 5; and 6 months to 2 years. Children between the ages of 5 and 11 years old in the Pfizer trial received 10 micrograms, but children under age 5 only received 3 micrograms.
As children grow and change, their immune systems do too. A 6-year-old is not the same as a 16-year-old. Researchers do “age de-escalation” studies with participants placed in different groups. For example, 6-to-12-year olds, 2-to-6-year olds, and 6-month-to-2-year olds. Doses start at the lowest safest level and researchers increase them in different groups to determine whether a larger dose is more effective or whether a lower dose provides a complete response.
Q: Why should children get the COVID-19 vaccine?
A: Medical and public health experts, including the CDC and the American Academy of Pediatrics, recommend that children and adolescents 12 years of age and older get a COVID-19 vaccine to help protect them from contracting and spreading the virus. Children and adolescents are typically at lower risk than adults of becoming severely ill or hospitalized from COVID-19, but it is still possible. While most children with COVID-19 have mild or no symptoms, they can still spread the disease to others. COVID-19 has caused serious illness, complications, and even death in some children and teens, and those with underlying health conditions may be more likely to become severely ill.
Another important reason for children to get the COVID-19 vaccine is to protect their friends, family, and the broader community. And being vaccinated will allow kids to get back to the things they have missed: in-person school, playing with friends, and participating in sports activities. Vaccinated individuals have a very low risk of contracting COVID-19 or spreading it to others, which adds a layer of protection for unvaccinated individuals around them – such as younger siblings and other children who are not currently eligible. Additionally, as more and more people get vaccinated, the infection rate among the general population will continue to lower, decreasing the chance that the coronavirus will mutate into dangerous variants.
Q: Is the COVID-19 vaccine safe for children?
A: In short, yes any vaccine approved by the FDA and CDC for use in children is safe. On October 29th the FDA approved a reformulation of the Pfizer vaccine for use in ages 5-11. In order to receive this approval, the vaccine has to go through a rigorous study for safety and efficacy. The FDA approval means that the vaccine was safe and effective at preventing COVID-19 infection in this age group.
For any specific medical concerns regarding your child and vaccination, please consult with your pediatrician.
Q: When can my child get vaccinated?
A: Any child ages 5 and older are currently eligible to receive the Pfizer vaccine. Children ages 5-11 need to seek out the pediatric Pfizer dose specifically, while those 12+ years od age should seek out the adult dosage. Please speak to providers in your area to assure which vaccines are available and to make an appointment.
Q: Why has it taken longer to gain approval for children under 12?
A: Conducting clinical trials to determine an appropriate vaccine dose in children requires additional work over that done in the adult studies, including ensuring that the vaccine dosage and formulation strength used is the appropriate one from the perspective of safety and generating an immune response.
Q: What side effects do children experience from the vaccine?
A: Children may experience mild side effects, such as soreness in the arm, fatigue, headache, or a slight fever, and most will pass in one to two days. These are signs that their body is building immunity, but even if they don’t experience any side effects, their immune system is still building protection against the virus. Serious side effects are rare and treatable.
Q: What is the risk of hospitalization/death if my child is not vaccinated?
A: Of the almost 600,000 deaths attributed to COVID-19 in the United States in just over 17 months, about 325 have been people under the age of 18.
Compared to the flu, which typically kills about 100 children a year, at current rates child deaths related to COVID-19 stand at more than 200 a year. Evidence is also emerging about the long-term effects of COVID-19 on young people, including fatigue, headaches, and loss of sense of taste or smell for months, as well as long-term issues with the brain.
Q: Which children cannot be vaccinated?
A: If your child has a significant health issue – such as those resulting in a compromised immune system or severe allergice reactions – check with their physician to determine if they should be vaccinated.
Q: Should I wait for my child to get the vaccine to ensure there are no long-term effects?
A: Though long-term side effects are unknown at this time, they are unlikely to occur. COVID-19 vaccines have been authorized to be distributed to millions of people since December 2020 with no identified long-term side effects.
Q: How can I be sure the vaccine won’t affect my child’s development?
A: If coronavirus vaccines were to interfere with teens’ development, they would need access to their DNA. At no point does the vaccine interact with a person’s DNA or cause genetic changes because the mRNA does not enter the nucleus of the cell, which is where our DNA is kept. There’s no biological reason or proof that hormones associated with puberty can impact immune responses to coronavirus vaccines.
Q: Should I be worried about the risks for heart problems in young boys?
A: This effect is called myocarditis. Out of more than 12 million doses administered to youth ages 16 to 24, the CDC says it has 275 reports of heart inflammation following the COVID-19 vaccine. The side effect seems to be more common in teen boys and young men than in older adults and women, and may occur in 16 cases for every 1 million people who got a second dose. Most of the young adults who experienced myocarditis recovered quickly. Read the full study. Myocarditis and heart inflammation is also a potential side effect of COVID-19 infection and is actually more likely due to infection than vaccination. Read the full study here.
Q: What is myocarditis, and is there a risk of myocarditis after vaccination?
A: Yes, there is a risk but a small one. Out of more than 12 million doses administered to youth ages 16 to 24, the CDC says it has 275 reports of heart inflammation following the COVID-19 vaccine. Myocarditis and heart inflammation is also a potential side effect of COVID-19 infection and is actually more likely due to infection than vaccination. Read the full study here.
Q: Could the vaccine impact my child in any serious way, such as long-term reactions to COVID-19 that don’t go away?
A: Vaccines are highly unlikely to cause side effects long after getting the shot. Science and history shows that even the most serious side effects for any vaccine, including COVID-19, occur within just a few weeks.
Q: Will children need a COVID-19 vaccine to return to school in the fall?
A: Vaccination requirements for public schools vary according to state laws, and that will likely be true for COVID-19 vaccines as well. All 50 states require certain immunizations – including tetanus, measles, polio, and chicken pox vaccinations – and some states have additional requirements. While many states and school districts have not yet announced their COVID-19 vaccination policies for the fall, requirements and/or recommendations will be issued at the state, local, and district levels as officials review guidance and as more children become vaccinated. Regardless of any requirement, all children who are eligible are encouraged to get the vaccine to protect themselves and others from catching and spreading the virus.When can I get the COVID-19 vaccine?,
We are working to schedule vaccine appointments as fast as we can, but we are limited by supply. Future vaccine shipment dates and quantities are not guaranteed, so we cannot provide estimated vaccination dates.
Vaccination appointments will be offered to priority groups as outlined within the Michigan COVID-19 Vaccination Interim Prioritization Guidance. This guidance outlines several phases and priority groups, which we will utilize during our vaccine distribution efforts.
Individuals who completed Livingston County’s COVID-19 Vaccination Interest Form will be sorted by priority group and randomly selected to schedule appointments as they become available. Please be patient and continue to check this webpage for timely updates regarding vaccine availability.
No fees will be charged to get vaccinated. There will be no cost sharing from insurance plans. Vaccine doses purchased with U.S. taxpayer dollars will be given to the American people at no cost. COVID-19 providers agree to administer vaccine regardless of an individual’s ability to pay and regardless of their coverage status, and may not seek any reimbursement, including through balance billing, from a vaccine recipient. However, vaccine providers will be able to charge administration fees for giving or administering the shot to someone. Vaccine providers can get this fee reimbursed by the patient’s public or private insurance company or, for uninsured patients, by the Health Resources and Services Administration’s Provider Relief Fund.Will more than one dose of COVID-19 vaccine be required?,
The number of doses required depends on the manufacturer.
The Pfizer and Moderna vaccines need two shots to be effective. It is very important that you receive the vaccine from the same manufacturer both times and get the doses within the required time frame to ensure the best protection from COVID-19. If you receive the Pfizer vaccine the second dose should be administered between 3-6 weeks after the first. The second dose of the Moderna vaccine should be administered between 4-6 weeks after the first.
The Johnson & Johnson vaccine only requires one dose.
Initially, the federal government will distribute a limited supply of vaccine to each state. Michigan has allocated this limited supply to hospitals and health care settings where workers have contact with patients. Long term care facilities where some of the most vulnerable people live will also receive supply, which will be distributed through pharmacies and local health departments with support from the Michigan National Guard.
Doctor’s offices, clinics, and pharmacies who are enrolled in the vaccination program can offer the vaccine when the vaccine becomes available to them. As supply increases, doctor’s offices, clinics, and pharmacies will be able to obtain the vaccine directly, hopefully in late Spring 2021.
In the meantime, you can add your name to multiple waiting lists:
In addition to completing our COVID-19 Vaccination Interest Form, you can also check the websites of your primary healthcare provider and local pharmacy for more information about being added to their vaccination waiting list. See more locations below.
COVID-19 Vaccination Clinic at Ford Field in Detroit: The Michigan Department of Health and Human Services says this mass
vaccination site is set to officially open on March 24th, and will
operate seven days a week, from 8am to 8:30pm through mid-May. Sign-up is available through three options:
- Online at meijer.com/register/CL2021
- Text EndCOVID to 75049
Call the MDHHS COVID-19 Hotline at 888-535-6136 (press 1)
Kroger store pharmacies in Michigan are now offering COVID-19
vaccinations. Individuals must meet the current phase eligibility
criteria in order to
make a vaccination appointment at https://www. kroger.com/rx/covid-eligibility or by calling
Rite Aid Pharmacy: Rite Aid has also begun offering limited vaccination appointments. When appointments are available, you will be able to view and schedule them at: https://www.riteaid.com/pharmacy/covid-qualifier.Is the vaccine safe?,
The process used to approve the COVID-19 vaccines is the same proven process that was used to create safe and effective vaccines for the flu, polio, measles, whooping cough and more. While the COVID-19 vaccines are being developed as quickly as possible, routine processes and procedures remain in place to ensure the safety of any vaccine authorized or approved for use.
More information about the safety of the COVID-19 vaccine is available at the CDC’s website:
After COVID-19 vaccination, you may have some mild side effects. This is a normal sign that your body is building protection. The side effects from COVID-19 vaccination may feel like flu and might even affect your ability to do daily activities, but they should go away in a few days. Your arm may be sore, red, or warm to the touch. You may experience a low-grade fever, headache, and just a general feeling of “not yourself”. These are signs that your immune system is doing exactly what it is supposed to, which is produce an immune response for you to have protection against this disease.
How are side effects being tracked?
The CDC runs the Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System (VAERS), a national system to detect any possible symptoms or side effects that occur after someone has had a vaccine. Anyone who has had a vaccine can report concerns to VAERS.
No. None of the COVID-19 vaccines currently in development in the United States use the live virus that causes COVID-19. There are several different types of vaccines in development. The goal for each of them is to teach our immune systems how to recognize and fight the virus that causes COVID-19. Sometimes this process can cause symptoms, such as fever. These symptoms are normal and are a sign that the body is building immunity. Learn more about how COVID-19 vaccines work.
It typically takes a few weeks for the body to build immunity after vaccination. This means it is possible a person could be infected with the virus that causes COVID-19 just before or after vaccination and get sick. This is because the vaccine has not had enough time to provide protection.
No. Vaccines currently in clinical trials in the United States won’t cause you to test positive on viral tests, which are used to see if you have a current infection.
If your body develops an immune response, which is the goal of vaccination, there is a possibility you may test positive on some antibody tests. Antibody tests indicate you had a previous infection and that you may have some level of protection against the virus. Experts are currently looking at how COVID-19 vaccination may affect antibody testing results.
No. mRNA stands for messenger ribonucleic acid and can most easily be described as instructions for how to make a protein or even just a piece of a protein. mRNA is not able to alter or modify a person’s genetic makeup (DNA). The mRNA from a COVID-19 vaccine never enters the nucleus of the cell, which is where our DNA are kept. This means the mRNA does not affect or interact with our DNA in any way. Instead, COVID-19 vaccines that use mRNA work with the body’s natural defenses to safely develop protection (immunity) to disease.
Learn more about how COVID-19 mRNA vaccines work.Will people who have already had COVID-19 be able to get vaccinated?,
Yes. People who have had COVID-19 can still get a vaccine. CDC recommends getting it after you have recovered. You should check with your health care provider if you have questions.
Yes, you should still get the COVID-19 vaccine, even if you have had COVID-19. There is not enough information currently available to say if or for how long after infection someone is protected from getting COVID-19 again; this is called natural immunity. Early evidence suggests natural immunity from COVID-19 may not last very long, but more studies are needed to better understand this.Do I need to keep wearing a mask after I get vaccinated?,
Yes. Michiganders should continue to wear masks, social distance from those not in their household and wash their hands, even after receiving vaccine. More information is available on the CDC website in their FAQ document.Where can I find more information?,
For more information:How can I help / volunteer?,
If you are interested in volunteering at one of our vaccination clinics in either a medical or non-medical role, please apply to become a member of our Medical Reserve Corps.
Apply here: https://livingston.applicantpool.com/jobs/154244.html
Complete the COVID-19 Vaccination Interest Form to request a vaccination appointment. If you cannot complete the form online, call us at 517-546-9850 for assistance. Please reserve phone lines for those who cannot access online resources.
No further action is required to request an appointment. Individuals who completed the COVID-19 Vaccination Interest Form will be sorted by priority group and randomly selected to schedule appointments as vaccine supplies become available. Please be patient. Supplies of the COVID-19 vaccine at the local level are extremely limited and it may take weeks to months to move through the phases, depending on vaccine supplies.
If you have other questions or concerns, e-mail [email protected] and we will respond as soon as we can.Where will vaccination clinics be located? ,
Locations for vaccine distribution are determined prior to a clinic being scheduled. Locations are chosen based on the population being served and the amount of vaccine being provided during the clinic. Location information is not released until a clinic is scheduled and opened for registration.90,000 Everyday life of punitive psychiatry | OVD-Info
When he approached Red Square, he found that the passage through it was closed. Dadin asked the police whether they had legally blocked the square, and began filming what was happening on his mobile phone. Instead of answering, the policeman (according to Dadin, a colonel) began to strangle him, hit him in the stomach and took away the phone. After that, Ildar was pushed into a car and taken to the Kitay-Gorod police station. Ildar Dadin himself tells about what happened in the police department and further:
Since my rights had been violated, I began to demand that they tell me the names of the employees who brought me in, since they grabbed me illegally and did not introduce themselves as usual. This was not done, the police officers grinned and laughed in response. I began to demand that my right to make a phone call in accordance with the provisions of the law on the police be satisfied, and that they provide me with a lawyer under Article 48 of the Constitution. In response, these comrades continued to laugh and simply went to their little room, they did not listen to me. Then I started making noise – I kicked the wall so that they could hear me, so that they couldn’t just sit there. They did not like this, and they handcuffed me to the cage.Then I again announced my demands and began to rattle the handcuffs with which I was fastened. Among other things, I did not introduce myself in protest. I said that until they gave me the names and surnames of the policemen who brought me in and did not fulfill the norms to which I referred, I would not name myself. Apparently, they were also tired of this, they grinned among themselves and called the orderlies with the doctor from the psychiatric hospital.
A doctor came and asked me why I didn’t identify myself. I calmly, not in a raised voice, like the police, explained my motives to him, assuming that he was a normal person.He named his demands and started making noise again. The doctor looked at me for a minute or a half, and after that the orderlies grabbed my handcuffs and began to stretch my arms, pressing on my wrists so that it would hurt me, and twist the handcuffs. When I started asking why they were doing this, they didn’t answer. Then, when I began to demand that they stop doing this, they went inside the cage and began to choke me in turn. Then they again began to methodically stretch my arms out – they were tied behind my back, and the orderlies also raised them as high as possible – it turned out something like a rack.Finally, they tied my hands and legs behind my back and dragged me out into the street, saying, “Do you think that’s all? Now we will continue to beat you. ” They carried me like a ram, carried me upside down, laughed along the way and said that they would drop me face down. They threw me into their car and there they continued to scoff: “Since you don’t introduce yourself, we will now take you to the crematorium for homeless people, so no one will know what happened to you.” All the way they humiliated me, insulted me, called me nit, scum, chock.
They took me to some institution, again carried me out like a ram, pulling by the ropes with which I was tied, so that the ropes dug into the body, and carried upside down.It was some kind of medical facility, people there wore robes, but I don’t know what kind of place it is. But, as I understand it, it was here that a referral was written to me. In this institution they put me on a chair, some doctor came out and asked why I didn’t introduce myself. I explained everything to him again and said that the orderlies are sadists, mock people, and, naturally, I will not introduce myself. I sat there for about ten minutes, the ropes on my hands were slightly loosened, it became a little better. After that, the same orderlies again carried me into the car and took me to the Gannushkin Psychiatric Clinical Hospital No. 4.
There, in the resident’s office, the doctor read a direction, where it was written that I must first be tied up. They took me to the ward where the patients were lying, tied me to the bed, stretching my arms and legs, so that I lay on my back and could do nothing. This went on for at least six hours – from about two in the morning until eight or nine in the morning. When the nurse asked my name, I nevertheless thought that there was no point in not introducing myself further, and I called myself. At six o’clock in the morning, when they were supposed to give injections to the sick, I was preparing to say that during this time I did not behave inadequately and that I was not injected with something, and that they had no reason to tie me up and inject anything to me …Two nurses came with a syringe, and I began to calmly explain everything to them. They got nervous, but since I was tied up and could not resist, they still injected something into my leg, and then I lay there until about eight or nine.
In the morning the manager came and started talking to me. They untied me in front of her, took a blood test. After that I began to fall asleep. After some time, the manager woke me up, and pretty quickly a commission of four people, including her, looked at me. Later, the manager told me that it seems that they should let me out today.She called my family and explained to me that, according to the law, she could only release me if my parents came, so I had to give my mother’s phone number. Then I fell asleep and slept until seven in the evening. When I woke up, I still really wanted to sleep, as if I had not slept at all before. I was almost immediately taken out into the corridor and asked to sign a paper that I have no complaints. I signed it. At that moment, everything was indifferent to me. I remember that before that I wanted to say a lot to my friends, to express indignation, but here my head was empty, and I only remembered that I had such a desire before, but now I didn’t want anything. Friends later said that when I left the hospital, I was very sluggish and very different from myself. My sister arrived, and she was still allowed to pick me up, although she is neither a father nor a mother to me. We demanded an extract, but they didn’t give it to us. The nurses said that the manager was not there and would not give me anything, and they escorted me out.
Two days later I went there with four friends at about seven o’clock in the evening. The manager was not there again. But one of the friends had a press card, he introduced himself as a journalist, the other filmed everything on video.The nurses didn’t like it. I demanded a discharge, because my friends explained to me that when a person is discharged from the hospital, they are obliged to give him an extract. The nurses got nervous, first they tried to take the camera away, then they called the guards and slammed the door. We went out with the guards. The next day I came with nine people at about four o’clock, and when they saw this, they asked us to wait five minutes, after which, in a surprising way, they very politely let me in. Here three doctors met me (the manager was on vacation), put me in an easy chair, asked what and how, and gave me an extract (although at first they explained to me that they could only give a certificate to the housing office).After I received a discharge with a diagnosis and had already left there, my friends told me that the tests that they took from me and the drugs that were injected should be named there. I went there again, they wrote to me by hand, supposedly from their own piece of paper, but also very politely. I think they were scared of the publicity. Naturally, I understand that it is far from the fact that the drugs that were injected to me are mentioned. I was advised to do a blood test right away to check, but I missed this opportunity.
I remember that at about ten in the evening that day, when I was released from the hospital, leaving the subway, I felt as if the veil that had been in front of me before had suddenly taken off, and I became an ordinary person again. After that, I wanted to sleep for several days, otherwise I feel fine .
This is not the first time the police have called detainees to transport mental health care. Indeed, the police officers are annoyed when the detainee is too active and especially when he refuses to identify himself. Civil activist Vera Lavreshina was summoned eight times. Twice she was brought to the Gannushkin hospital, but was released without any medical procedures – once, even on the same day, without an overnight stay.The first such story happened on February 21, 2012, when Lavreshina, along with 24 other people, was detained during the dispersal of the rally “Let’s Stop the Dictatorship!” at the Central Election Commission. By Vera Lavreshina:
I was especially lucky: since I did not allow myself to be searched, several police officers detained me. I fought back because it was ugly and rude. They put me in a punishment cell in a very cold cell, where, not only was it impossible to sit down – you couldn’t lean against the wall. And since I sang songs in English there, as well as prayers – to the Mother of God, to the Holy Spirit – my task was to hold out there somehow emotionally – it shocked them.Get me a psychiatric transportation. The orderlies also began to search me, because they did not find my documents, and I did not introduce myself, because I explained that I did not cooperate with the police occupation regime that was established in our country. The psychiatrist and his nurses beat me, tied me up and dragged me, without ever establishing my name.
They beat me on the way – those who take me to the psychiatric hospital are very rude, they can hit their face on the table to calm down. Moreover, doctors are also engaged in this.They say: “We are not cops for you, we will calm you down once, you will not leave us at all.”
When I was brought to Gannushkina, there was a rude orderly, he took my things from me, poked me in the side several times. But the doctor on duty turned out to be extremely sane. She literally exchanged a few phrases with me and asked: “Whom did you bring me?” They say: “She was violent there, fought off the police, overturned chairs, shouted that they were invaders, and did not introduce herself.”The doctor said that soon they would not have enough room for ordinary patients. And they left me there for the night. I was already behaving calmly, they did not give me injections. The doctor talked to me, said: “I don’t think you are insane and I’m not going to detain you here, but since such a story has happened, you’ll spend the night with us, because it’s late now, and in the morning we will let you go. You will be examined by a doctor, you will calm down, because now you are inflated. ” I say: “I wouldn’t be overwhelmed — they were beating us.” She says: “I understand everything, calm down, and tomorrow morning you will go home.”It was clear that in the morning, of course, a commission would examine me. And so it happened. The next day, in the morning, a commission was assembled, and the first thing I said when I appeared before them was that if they leave me here for treatment by their verdict, then tomorrow they will be brought in packs, dozens from Triumfalnaya Square, from the Central Election Commission, and they will not they will deal with patients who are in full swing in the waiting room, in need of treatment, and they will fight with those who are not satisfied with Putin’s regime. The conversation quickly even acquired some kind of ironic, playful character, they said that, of course, they did not want this, and an hour later they let me go from there after this commission.I must say, outside there was informational support from my friends, there were calls to this institution, one of the human rights defenders even called. Maybe if everything was quiet, they would have left me there.
One more time they drove me in May (2013 – “OVD-info”). I don’t know if they understood that I had been there once before. But I don’t introduce myself there either. As a result, a mini-consultation was held in the hospital on the same day, several doctors talked to me and released me on the same day. In other cases, after talking with psychiatrists, I just stayed at the police station, and then in most cases they let me go home, not knowing what to do with me .
The rudeness and even cruelty of the orderlies, the delivery to the Gannushkin hospital – all this is not new. However, in the history of Ildar Dadin there is a fundamental difference from the previous ones: he was injected with drugs without his consent. In the extract, a copy of which is at the disposal of OVD-info, tiapridal and sibazon are indicated. Tiapridal is an antipsychotic, it can be given for behavioral disorders (agitation, aggressiveness). Sibazon is a tranquilizer, it is given for neuroses, borderline states with symptoms of tension, anxiety, anxiety, fear.
In the extract, the diagnosis is also indicated – “accentuation of a person of a mixed type (emotionally labile epileptoid)” (in the document itself a misprint is written “epitheptoid”). In other words, Ildar revealed some character traits associated with mood swings, excitability, tension, but which are within the clinical norm. True, the code “F 60.8” is indicated next to it, which already means a personality disorder, that is, a type of mental disorder, a deviation from the norm.It is argued that in the emergency room Ildar “was agitated, unavailable to productive contact, demanded the return of his“ constitutional rights ”(sic!)”. A psychiatrist on duty called in the police department diagnosed him with an acute mental disorder, he noted in the detainee’s statements “fragmentary ideas of persecutory content” (that is, related to persecution) and “lack of criticism”.
The document contains a reference to the protocol of the police inspector, from which it follows that Dadin “was possessed by the constitutional order” (sic!), In the cell he “beat various parts of his body against the walls.He claimed that the President of the Russian Federation V.V. restricts him in the right of movement, that the president controls his every move. ”
However, below, the commission already assesses Ildar’s behavior more calmly – “fixed on moments that are emotionally significant for him”, “thinking is affectively colored”, “the background of mood is not reduced”, “some emotional lability is revealed in the conversation,” “explains [his behavior in the police department ] “Nervous breakdown”, “agrees that he was irritated, excited. ” And – most importantly – “at the time of examination, the criteria for involuntary hospitalization are not found.”
As a result, the head of the 25th department and the attending physician T.A. The document also says that the patient did not receive treatment (remember that the names of the drugs were written in by hand later, only after Ildar specifically demanded that they be indicated).
According to article 29 of the Law on psychiatric care and guarantees of the rights of citizens during its provision, hospitalization in a psychiatric hospital on an involuntary basis is possible if a person suffers from a mental disorder that is serious and causes, in particular, an immediate danger of this person to himself and others … Apparently, the psychiatrist on duty considered that a person who does not introduce himself as a policeman and rattles with handcuffs is dangerous. It is not clear whether it is possible to challenge his actions under the law.But what can be said for sure is that, according to article 40 of the same law, the discharge of a patient admitted to a psychiatric hospital in an involuntary manner is carried out on the conclusion of a commission of psychiatrists or a judge’s order to refuse to extend such hospitalization, and according to article 32, in the case when hospitalization is recognized as unreasonable and the hospitalized person does not express a desire to remain in a psychiatric hospital, he is subject to immediate discharge. The law does not say anything that an adult (Ildar Dadin is 31 years old) can be discharged only in the presence of his parents.The law also states that within 24 hours from the moment a patient is admitted to a psychiatric hospital in an involuntary manner, the administration and medical personnel are obliged to notify the relatives of the person who came to them (not only the parents).
We know very well how the police obstruct the control over the observance of the rights of detainees (the Kitay-Gorod police station, by the way, is famous for this). Managing involuntary admissions to psychiatric hospitals is clearly even more difficult.Here, apparently, they do not always strive to comply with the law, and the psychiatrists on duty, who are called by the police, are not always ready to listen to the detainee. Vera Lavreshina six times managed to convince psychiatrists that she was sane and just in this way (refusing to be named and in any way to obey the authorities) expresses her protest. Dadin did not succeed.
It should also be remembered that in recent times, psychiatry has often, as in the past, turned out to be a means of struggle of the authorities with dissidents.In 2007, in the city of Apatity, a member of the Murmansk branch of the United Civil Front, Larisa Arap, was forcibly placed in a psychiatric hospital. First of all, it was a clear revenge of the doctor for an article in the newspaper “March of Dissent”, in which Arap talked about abuses and bullying in this hospital. The court decision on hospitalization was made only two weeks later, and not within five days, as required by law. Arap was released only on the 46th day, after the events received wide publicity, including international ones.An activist of the movement “F.A.K.E.L.-P.O.R.T. OS “Yulia Privedennaya, unjustifiably accused of creating an illegal armed formation, illegal imprisonment of minors and torturing children, was twice for a long time placed in the Serbsky Center for a stationary forensic psychiatric examination.
Punitive psychiatry is also present in the “Bolotnaya business”. First of all, compulsory psychiatric treatment threatens a disabled person of the II group, Mikhail Kosenko, who is registered at a neuropsychiatric dispensary.And Oleg Arkhipenkov, who was eventually released on recognizance not to leave (but he was not charged with participation in the riots, although he was not even on Bolotnaya), was placed in a psychiatric hospital before entering Butyrka. The SIZO administration claims that at his own request, however, it is hard to believe in it. At the first meeting with a lawyer after his stay in the hospital, Archipenkov could not clearly communicate and could hardly move. What he was injected, he does not know.
CASE OF KORNEYKOVA AND KORNEYKOV VERSUS UKRAINE
00 DEAL KORNEYVA 12)
This judgment will become final in the circumstances set out in Article 44 § 2 of the Convention.It can be edited.
In the case of Korneikova and Korneikova v. Ukraine,
European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting as a Chamber composed of:
Angelika Nußberger, Chairperson,
Andrhab163 Potoiscki ,
Mārtiņš Mits, judges,
and Claudia Westerdiek, Section Secretary,
After hearing the case in camera on 1 March 2016,
announced that the following decision was taken same day:
1.This case is based on an application (no. 56660/12) against Ukraine, filed with the Court in accordance with Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (hereinafter – the “Convention”) by two citizens of Ukraine, Ms Victoria Yurievna Korneikova (hereinafter – “the first applicant”) and her son, Mr Denis Yuryevich Korneikov (hereinafter “the second applicant”), on 31 August 2012.
2. The applicants were represented by Ms Y. Zaikina and Mr G. Tokarev, lawyers practicing in Kharkiv. The Ukrainian Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, more recently Mr B.Babin, from the Ministry of Justice.
3. The first applicant submitted that she was bedridden while in the hospital. She also complained that she was placed in a metal cage during the court hearings. Finally, she complained, on her own behalf and on behalf of the second applicant, that the material conditions of their detention and the medical assistance provided to the second applicant in the Kharkiv Investigative Isolation Center (“Kharkiv SIZO”) had been inadequate.
4. On 12 October 2012 the President of the Fifth Section decided to apply Rule 39 of the Rules of Court, indicating to the Government that the applicant should have been detained in conditions suitable for a small child and a nursing mother.It was stated, in particular, that the second applicant should be provided with adequate medical supervision and care during the proceedings before the Court.
5. On the same date, the case was assigned priority under Rule 41 of the Rules of Court and brought to the attention of the Government.
6. On 22 February 2013 the application of Rules 39 and 41 of the Rules of Court was terminated at the Government’s request, as by that time the first applicant had been released (see paragraph 75 below).
I. THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE
7. The applicants are mother and child, born in 1990 and 2012 respectively.
A. Case file
8. On 16 January 2012 the first applicant, who was five months pregnant, was arrested by the police on suspicion of robbery.
9. On January 26, 2012 the Dzerzhinsky District Court of Kharkiv (hereinafter – the “Dzerzhinsky Court”) issued an order on pre-trial detention as a preventive measure pending trial.
10. On the same day the first applicant was placed in the Kharkiv SIZO.
B. Conditions of the first applicant’s detention in the maternity hospital
11. On 22 May 2012 the first applicant was taken to Kharkiv maternity hospital no. 7 (“the maternity hospital”).
12. On the same day she gave birth to the second applicant, 49 cm tall and weighing 2.9 kg.
13. The first applicant was guarded at the maternity hospital by three guards. According to her, they spent all the time in the ward. The government said they left the ward during childbirth.
14. The first applicant submitted that she was constantly chained to a hospital bed or to a gynecological chair, the handcuffs were only removed during childbirth. It is not clear from the applicant’s statements how she was chained, in one case she stated that after giving birth she was shackled to the bed by her leg. At the same time, she submitted that the guards removed the handcuffs from her wrists only for breastfeeding.
15. According to the Government, the first applicant was never handcuffed in the maternity hospital.
16. On 25 May 2012 the applicants were discharged.
17.On 12 November 2012 the first applicant wrote in her statement to the SIZO administration (see paragraphs 41 and 76) that the maternity hospital staff treated her well, that she was not handcuffed and that the two guards who were in her ward , helped her to care for the child.
18. In December 2012 and January 2013 the prosecutor’s office questioned some of the maternity hospital staff and the guards who were guarding the first applicant in order to verify her allegations, in particular with regard to her handcuffing (seeparagraphs 76-82 below).
19.On 21 December 2012 the head physician of the maternity hospital approached the head of the Kharkiv SIZO, in response to his request, and argued that during her stay in the maternity hospital the first applicant was guarded all the time by the SIZO staff, that these employees were not in the maternity ward, and that the first applicant was not shackled during childbirth.
20.On 24 December 2012, the head midwife, Ms Tee., Gave a written statement to the prosecution authorities. She submitted that the applicant had been shackled by her wrists to the gynecological chair during examinations, both in the emergency room and in the obstetric unit, and that the shackling of detainees and the guarding of the three guards was a common practice.
21. Two other midwives, Ms F. and Ms S., and a nurse, Ms To., Gave similar statements. Ms F. submitted that she could not recall any details about the second applicant’s birth. Mrs To. clarified that the first applicant was not shackled during childbirth and subsequently during breastfeeding.
22. The head physician of the neonatal ward, Ms Vl., Also submitted that the applicant was chained to a gynecological chair. In addition, she indicated that two of the guards remained in the ward next to the applicant, the third was standing outside the door.
23. The security officers guarding the applicant denied that she had been handcuffed in the maternity hospital.
24. The applicant’s lawyer questioned the former nurse, Ms P., about the conditions faced by women in detention during childbirth, referring to her relevant work experience. On 7 February 2013, Ms P. wrote to him that she did indeed work as a nurse at the Donetsk Regional Childcare Center and the Maternal Health Center from 1996 to 2005, and that in 2004 or 2005 a detained woman was confined to a bed during childbirth. …
C. Conditions of detention in Kharkiv SIZO
1. Physical conditions of detention
25. While the first applicant was detained in several different cells of the SIZO, her application form only mentioned the conditions of her detention with the child in cell no. 408, where she was kept from March 14 to November 8, 2012. Therefore, the summary below only applies to this camera.
(a) The first applicant’s submissions
26. The cell located in the semi-basement room was cold and damp.There was no hot water in it, and only an irregular supply of cold water. Therefore, the applicant rarely had the opportunity to take a shower and bathe her newborn son. She was forced to store cold water for personal use in plastic bottles. She boiled water on a faulty electric stove in a kettle, which she had to borrow from the administration, and which she was given for no more than 15 minutes each time. The toilet and shower were located in a niche not separated from the living area.The toilet was often blocked. There was no changing table or cot in the cell.
27. The first applicant was not provided with hygiene products for the child. She did not receive food to meet her needs. On trial days, her only meal was breakfast, which consisted of bread and tea. She was not given packaged meals.
28. The applicants could walk in the fresh air for 10 minutes a day, but not every day, in the common walking area.
29.Finally, one of the inmates was HIV positive.
(b) The Government’s submissions
30. Cell no. 408 was an enhanced comfort cell designed for pregnant women and mothers with children. It was located on the ground floor, measuring 52 square meters, and could accommodate up to six people. The first applicant shared her with two or sometimes three inmates.
31. The cell had three windows, totaling 8 square meters. There was hot and cold water, as well as a cooler with drinking water with a capacity of 10 liters.
32. In addition, there was all the necessary furniture and amenities such as air conditioning, refrigerator, electric stove, baby cot and stroller. There was also a supply of diapers and hygiene products. The toilet and shower have been separated from the living area.
33. The first applicant was provided with adequate food in accordance with the standards in force (the total energy value of her daily meals was 3284 kilocalories). She received hot food three times a day, except on hearing days when she skipped lunch.The applicant was breastfeeding her baby and refused baby food, which was provided in the SIZO. There was no restriction on food and other transfers from relatives.
34. The applicants walked for two hours a day in a specially equipped area.
35. They did not share a cell with HIV-positive detainees.
36. The Government submitted 4 color photographs of camera no. 408 showing a bright and spacious room in a visually good state of repair.There were three large windows with curtains. The cell was equipped with a washbasin. There was also a toilet with a bidet, and a shower stall, separated from the living area by an opaque glass door. In addition, the photographs showed a wardrobe, two beds with bedside tables, a cot, a table with two chairs, a children’s stool, a shelf with dishes, a microwave oven, a TV, and a changing table.
37. Another photograph showed a walking area for detained mothers with babies, with a flower bed and a wall with natural frescoes.The photograph showed the first applicant with her baby, as well as another woman with a stroller.
(c) Submissions of other detainees and related information
38. On 1 and 2 February 2012 the local sanitary-epidemiological service examined the SIZO in the context of an unidentified investigation. She noted the presence of a special cell for women with babies, equipped with all the necessary amenities. The report noted that at the time of the inspection there were no pregnant detainees or those detained with children in the pre-trial detention center.
39. On 24 May 2012, the Sanitary and Epidemiological Service also examined the drinking water in the SIZO to verify its compliance with the applicable standards. No violations were found.
40. On 22 October 2012 the Kharkiv Regional Prosecutor’s Office informed the Government ombudsman that there had been no complaints on the part of the first applicant regarding the conditions of detention or medical assistance to the second applicant in the SIZO.
41. On 12 November 2012 the first applicant wrote a statement in which she gave a detailed description of her cell in the SIZO, similar to the description provided by the Government (see.paragraphs 30-37 above). The last point also concerned her stay in the hospital (see paragraph 17 above).
42. On 13 November 2012 one of the SIZO officers wrote to the State Penitentiary Service, claiming that the first applicant’s testimony was given voluntarily.
43. During her detention in the Kharkiv SIZO the first applicant received about thirty food parcels from her mother, often with basic food items such as bread, butter, tea, sugar and milk.
44. The first applicant lodged numerous requests for release on recognizance not to leave the first instance court in charge of her criminal case (dated 6 July, 6, 26 and 31 August, 3 September and 9 October 2012). She argued, in particular, that the conditions of detention in the SIZO were not sufficient for her child. The court rejected these requests.
45. The applicants’ case was covered by the media. For example, in November 2012, the Kharkiv Human Rights Group published an article on the Internet “A child as a victim of inhuman treatment”.In December 2012, a television program was broadcast in which the first applicant and the State authorities gave evidence, in particular, about the conditions of detention in the SIZO. The parties did not submit to the court a copy of the relevant article or a video recording or transcript of a television broadcast.
46. On 12 December 2012 one of the detainees, Ms B., wrote a statement to the head of the local branch of the State Penitentiary Service. She submitted that in November 2012 she had been detained in the same cell as the first applicant and had been satisfied with the conditions of detention there.The statement noted that the cell had large windows, a shower stall with hot and cold water, and all the necessary furniture, including a refrigerator and a TV.
47. On 19 December 2012 the Kharkiv Regional Department of the State Penitentiary Service issued a memorandum stating that the first applicant did not submit any complaints during her detention in the Kharkiv SIZO.
48. The case file contained three statements from the detained Ms M. regarding the conditions of detention in the SIZO.She wrote two of them while there (on an unspecified date and December 25, 2012), and the third on January 30, 2013, when she had already begun serving her prison sentence elsewhere. In the first two statements Ms M. described the conditions of her detention in cell no. 408 as satisfactory and comfortable. Her testimony was similar to that of the Government (see paragraphs 30-32 above). The first two applications also contained criticisms of the first applicant, in particular, alleging that she had been negligent towards her child and acted in bad faith when applying to the Court.In the third statement, Ms M. submitted that the food in the SIZO was meager. More specifically, the bread was stale and the meat was blue. She also submitted that there was no hot water in cell no. 408. Finally, she submitted that on two occasions she had witnessed the first applicant asking for medical assistance for her son when he had a stomach ache, but her requests had been ignored.
49. On 28 December 2012 a former inmate, Ms Sa., Wrote a statement to the first applicant’s lawyer and certified it by a notary.She submitted that she had shared cell no. 408 with the first applicant from an unspecified date in March until 19 April 2012. Ms Sa. at that time she was pregnant. She described the conditions of detention as follows. The cell was located in a semi-basement, and the detainees practically did not see daylight. The windows were so high that they could not be opened without the help of a guard. There were about seven detainees in the cell, some of them suffering from HIV and other diseases. The toilet was separated from the living area by a waist-high partition and leaked.As a result, there was always a bad smell. The shower was leaking too, and the stall door was broken. The cell was so damp that plaster peeled off the ceiling and the walls were covered with mold. The cell was swarming with mice and lice. It didn’t have any household appliances like a kettle or microwave. Nor were there any beds or nightstands shown on television by the State Penitentiary Service (see paragraph 45 above). Ms Sa. stated that none of the detainees had actually been detained in the cell shown by the authorities on the television broadcast.There was no hot water in the cell, and the cold water pressure was so low that the detainees had to store water for their own needs. In addition, the SIZO administration did not provide them with any utensils. Their daily walk lasted only 20 minutes and took place in a small walking area covered with bars. In addition, according to Ms Sa., The food in the SIZO was neither fresh nor tasty. Finally, she stated that she was bedridden while undergoing treatment at a maternity hospital in Kharkiv while she was pregnant.
50. On an unspecified date Ms Ve., Who also shared cell no. 408 with the first applicant (the exact date is unknown), wrote a statement about the conditions of detention. Her testimony coincided with that of Ms. Sa., Regarding a leaky toilet, high levels of humidity, lack of hot water and interruptions in cold water, as well as the length and conditions of daytime walks, and poor nutrition.
2. Medical care of the second applicant
51.On 25 May 2012 the applicants were discharged from the hospital. The second applicant’s health condition was found to be satisfactory.
52. According to a letter from the head physician to the first applicant’s lawyer dated 12 December 2012, on 25 May 2012 the second applicant was transferred to Children’s Hospital no. 19 (“children’s hospital”). All other relevant documents in the case file indicate that on 25 May 2012 both applicants were taken to the Kharkiv SIZO.
53.According to the first applicant’s statement and a letter from the head doctor of the children’s hospital to the first applicant’s lawyer dated 6 September 2012, the pediatrician from that hospital examined the second applicant on 28 May 2012. The child was considered to be in good health, but he had phimosis (a condition of the penis in which the foreskin cannot be fully abducted).
54. However, according to the second applicant’s medical file kept in the SIZO, a pediatrician from the children’s hospital examined him for the first time on 31 May 2012.The child was in a period of adaptation, and the first applicant was given advice on caring for the child.
55. According to the second applicant’s medical file, on 12 June 2012 he was again examined by a pediatrician and diagnosed with intestinal colic and recommended Espumisan, massage, feeding on demand and walking in the fresh air. The doctor also suspected that the boy had an open oval window (the oval window circulates blood to the heart of the fetus and closes in most people at birth).
56. The second applicant’s next medical examination appears to have taken place on 20 July 2012. The medical file noted that the pediatrician had given the first applicant advice on feeding and care.
57. The first applicant denied that any examinations had taken place after 28 May 2012. She submitted that her child was not examined by a pediatrician until 10 September 2012. She submitted that her son’s previous medical records had been forged.According to her, the first page mentions the inspection on September 10, 2012, and records of earlier inspections were written on separate pages and subsequently pasted into the map. The case file in the Court’s possession contains separate copies of each page of the map, which makes it impossible to verify the applicant’s allegations.
58. On 28 August 2012 the first applicant’s lawyer asked the administration of the Kharkiv SIZO to provide him with details about when the second applicant had been examined by a pediatrician and whether the conditions of detention were suitable for such a small child.He also requested copies of the relevant documents.
59. On 4 September 2012 the SIZO administration replied that they would be able to provide comprehensive information about the second applicant’s state of health after a full medical examination at the children’s hospital, which was supposed to take place.
60. On 31 August 2012 the first applicant asked the judge in charge of her case to order a medical examination of her son “given that the SIZO administration ignored her requests to do so”.It appears that her request was denied.
61. On 6 September 2012 the chief doctor of the children’s hospital wrote to the first applicant’s lawyer a reply to his request of 5 September 2012. He said that in the absence of the pediatrician in the Kharkiv SIZO, the pediatrician from the hospital examined the children born there. He also noted that the second applicant had been examined by a pediatrician from the hospital on 28 May 2012 (see also paragraph 53 above). To the extent that the lawyer inquired about the child’s state of health at the time, the head physician argued that it was impossible to provide him with such information, since the first applicant had not asked for any medical assistance until that moment.
62. On 10 September 2012 the second applicant was examined by a dermatologist, cardiologist, otolaryngologist, neurologist and pediatrician. He was diagnosed with allergic dermatitis, dysplastic cardiomyopathy and phimosis. In addition, the diagnosis of the oval window was questioned. The doctors concluded that the second applicant did not need any medical treatment, but recommended that the mother follow a hypoallergenic diet.
63. According to the first applicant, the examination was carried out in the context of a custody proceedings initiated by the second applicant’s stepfather.She clarified that this was done with her consent so that the second applicant could be taken out of the SIZO, where he did not receive adequate care.
64. On 14 September 2012 the SIZO administration sent a copy of the second applicant’s medical file to the applicants’ representative, in addition to the request made by him on 28 August 2012 (see paragraph 58 above).
65. On 18 October 2012 the chief doctor of the children’s hospital wrote to the first applicant’s lawyer, in response to an inquiry made on 10 October 2012, claiming that the hospital was responsible for the medical supervision of the children in the Kharkiv SIZO, if necessary, obeying the relevant statements of the administration SIZO.It was also noted that the second applicant needed additional examination at the regional cardiology center and that the children’s hospital had already asked the SIZO administration for assistance in this regard.
66. On 19 October 2012 the pediatrician and cardiologist examined the second applicant again. He was diagnosed with an open oval window (heart condition, see paragraph 55 above for more information) and further testing was recommended.
67. On the same day the second applicant underwent an electrocardiographic examination and was declared healthy.
68. On 14 November 2012 the first applicant did not allow her son to undergo the pediatric examination that was offered to her.
69. On the following day the first applicant was released (see paragraph 75 below).
70. On 30 November 2012 the first applicant’s lawyer asked the children’s hospital if it had kept the second applicant’s medical record and whether he had been vaccinated while staying with the first applicant in the SIZO.
71. On 4 December 2012 the chief physician replied that the children’s hospital provided medical assistance to children permanently residing in its coverage area.As for the children living there temporarily, this required the written permission of the parents. The first applicant did not submit such an application. Accordingly, the hospital did not maintain a medical record in respect of the second applicant. At the same time, her doctors examined him at the request of the SIZO administration. The results of each examination were reflected in the medical file provided by the SIZO. As regards the second applicant’s vaccinations, it was noted that he was always brought in for examination without his mother’s accompaniment and that no vaccinations were given without her consent.
D. Placement of the first applicant in a cage during court hearings
72. On 12 April, 17 May, 15 June, 2 and 31 August and 15 November 2012 the first applicant took part in the court hearings, during which she was held in a metal cage. Her requests not to be placed in a cage were denied.
73. On 14 March 2013 the judge of the Dzerzhinsky court, who was in charge of the first applicant’s case, wrote to the Government agent, in response to his request, stating that the first applicant had indeed been detained in a metal cage in the courtroom during the hearing.The judge stressed that there is a legal requirement to place criminal defendants in a metal cage, and there are no exceptions to this rule. Moreover, he considered that allowing the applicant to remain outside the cage in the courtroom would have meant temporary release for the applicant, which was contrary to the preventive measure imposed.
74. On 15 March 2013 the Ministry of the Interior confirmed to the Government Agent that the first applicant had been detained in a metal cage in the courtroom during the hearing.In addition, they specified that the second applicant remained with the SIZO doctor outside the cage and was handed over to her for breastfeeding at her request.
E. Complaints of the first applicant after her release and their investigation
75. On 15 November 2012 the first applicant was released on recognizance not to leave.
76. On 25 December 2012 she complained to the Kharkiv Regional Prosecutor’s Office, claiming that she had been bedridden during her entire stay in the hospital, including during childbirth.She also complained that the conditions of detention and food in the SIZO were inadequate. Finally, the first applicant submitted that the statement she wrote on 12 November 2012 expressing her satisfaction with the conditions of detention had been made under psychological pressure (see paragraphs 17 and 41 above).
77. On 27 December 2012 the State Penitentiary Service completed an internal investigation, which it carried out following the media coverage of the applicants’ case (see paragraph 45 above). The first applicant’s allegations were dismissed as unsubstantiated.
78. On 2 January 2013 the first applicant complained to the Kharkiv Oktyabrskiy District Prosecutor’s Office (“the Oktyabrskiy Prosecutor’s Office”), alleging that she had not received adequate medical assistance during pregnancy and childbirth; that she was chained by her arms and legs to a gynecological chair or bed during the entire period of her stay in the hospital, including during childbirth; that the conditions of her detention in the Kharkiv SIZO were poor; and that neither she nor her child received adequate medical attention during their stay there.On the same day, her complaint was registered in the consolidated register of pre-trial investigations and an investigation was launched.
79. On 18 January 2013 the Oktyabrskiy prosecutor’s office ordered a forensic medical examination of the case file in order to establish the following: (i) whether the first applicant had any injuries and, if so, what caused them; (ii) is there any forensic evidence that the first applicant was handcuffed from 26 January to 15 November 2012; (iii) whether there is forensic medical evidence that the applicants were not provided with adequate or sufficient medical assistance in the Kharkiv SIZO; (iv) whether there is forensic evidence that the applicants were not provided with adequate or sufficient medical care in the maternity hospital; and (v) if the applicants were not provided with adequate or sufficient medical care, whether this had any negative impact on their health.
80. The above-mentioned investigation lasted from 18 January to 26 March 2013. In the report, all five questions were answered in the negative.
81. On 1 April 2013 the Oktyabrskaya Prosecutor’s Office terminated the criminal investigation due to the lack of evidence that a criminal offense had been committed.
82. Also in April 2013 the State Penitentiary Service, following a request from the Government Ombudsman, conducted an internal investigation into the lawfulness of the second applicant’s detention in the SIZO.On April 22, 2013, it was completed, with the conclusion that there were no violations. The report noted that although in August 2012 the first applicant orally expressed her intention to transfer custody of the child to her mother, she later changed her mind as the child was breastfed.
II. RELEVANT DOMESTIC LAW AND PRACTICE
83. Pursuant to section 9 of the Pre-Trial Detention Act 1993, detained women have the right to keep children under the age of three with them.As stated in this provision, all detainees have the right to daily outdoor exercise for an hour, while the duration of such walks for pregnant women and women with children can be increased to two hours.
84. The Rules on Custody in Pre-trial Detention Centers, approved in 2000, reaffirm the above provisions (Rules 2.1.5 and 4.1.3). In accordance with Rule 8.1.2, detainees at a late stage of pregnancy (more than 5 months) and detainees with children must have access to a living space of at least 4.5 square meters.The beds for such detainees should be on the same level. Cots must also be available. The annexes to the rules require that there be grass, flowers and children’s sandboxes in walking areas for pregnant detainees and those detained with children.
85. The Clinical Protocol for the care of children under three years of age, approved by order of the Ministry of Health No. 149 in 2008, provides for integrated standards in this area. Section 2.1 provides that children under three years of age must undergo medical examinations.More specifically, they should include an overall health assessment; assessment of the physical and psychomotor development of the child; assessment of the child’s nutrition; timely detection of any diseases and pathologies; vaccinations; advising parents on child care, nutrition, development and prevention of accidents, and defining tactics for further medical supervision and care.
86. The clinical protocol also establishes the following mandatory medical check-ups (as far as this case is concerned): once a week during the first month of life and once a month thereafter until the child is one year old (section 2.2.9).
87. In accordance with Article 27 of the 1994 Law on the Sanitary and Epidemiological Welfare of the Population (as amended), vaccinations against tuberculosis, poliomyelitis, diphtheria, pertussis, tetanus and measles are mandatory in Ukraine.
88. The vaccination schedule approved by the order of the Ministry of Health in 2011 (in the modern version) contains a list of vaccinations and the age at which they must be given. A newborn baby should receive 12 shots before reaching six months of age (including booster doses).
III. RELEVANT INTERNATIONAL MATERIALS
A. UN documents
89. The relevant provisions of the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women (1979) read as follows:
“… States Parties shall provide women with appropriate services during pregnancy , childbirth and the puerperium, by providing free services when necessary, as well as appropriate nutrition during pregnancy and lactation.”
90. The Convention on the Rights of the Child (1989) states, in the relevant part:
” … whereas the need for such special protection of the child was provided for in the 1924 Geneva Declaration of the Rights of the Child and the Declaration of Rights child, adopted by the General Assembly on November 20, 1959, and recognized in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (in particular in Articles 23 and 24), in the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (in particular , in article 10), as well as in the statutes and relevant documents of specialized agencies and international organizations dealing with the welfare of children,
Whereas, as stated in the Declaration of the Rights of the Child, in special protection and care, including proper legal protection, both before and after birth ”,
” 1. The best interests of the child are given priority in all action against children, whether taken by public or private social welfare agencies, courts, administrations or legislatures.
2. States Parties undertake to provide the child with such protection and care as is necessary for his well-being … ”
91.The relevant parts of the Rules for the Treatment of Women Prisoners and Non-custodial Measures for Women Offenders (2011) read as follows:
In its resolution 58/183 of 22 December 2003, entitled“ Human rights in the administration of justice, ”the General Assembly called for increased attention to the situation of women in prisons, including issues related to women’s children in prisons, in order to identify key issues and identify ways to address them. … ”
3. Where children are allowed to remain in correctional facilities with their mothers, staff at such facilities are also provided with information on the child’s development process and basic training in medical care for children so that appropriate action can be taken when necessary and in emergencies.
” 1. Pregnant or breastfeeding women prisoners receive health and nutritional counseling through a program designed and supervised by a qualified medical professional.Adequate and timely food is provided free of charge to pregnant women, infants, children and nursing mothers, and a healthy environment and opportunity for regular exercise is created.
2. Women prisoners shall not be prevented from breastfeeding their children, unless there are special medical contraindications for this.
3. Correctional work programs specify the medical needs and nutritional requirements of women prisoners who have recently given birth but whose children are not with them in the correctional facility.”
“ Decisions to allow children to remain with their mothers in the institution are made in the best interests of the children. Children in such institutions with their mothers are never treated as prisoners. ”
“Women prisoners whose children are in the institution with them are given the greatest opportunities to spend time with their children.”
” 1. Children living with their mothers in the correctional institution are provided with ongoing health care and their development is monitored by specialists in collaboration with community health services.
2. For the upbringing of such children, conditions are created that are as close as possible to the conditions for raising children outside the correctional institution. ”
92. In accordance with the recommendations of the World Health Organization (hereinafter – “WHO”), which were adopted after its Joint Interregional Conference on Technology for Birth (Fortaleza, Brazil, April 22-26, 1985), a healthy newborn should remain with the mother whenever their state of health allows it.The WHO guidelines for postpartum mother and child care 2013 also dictate that mother and child should not be separated and must remain in the same room 24 hours a day.
B. Council of Europe documents
93. The standards of the Committee for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (CPT) (Document No. CPT / Inf / E (2002) 1 – Rev. 2015, p. 45) contain the following relevant provisions:
Medical care in prisons
Extract from the third General Report [ CPT / Inf (93) 12]
“64.There are several specific categories of particularly vulnerable persons deprived of their liberty. The health service of the institution where they are kept must pay particular attention to their needs.
i ) mother and child
65. It is a generally accepted principle that children should not be born in prison, and the Committee’s experience shows that this principle is respected.
66. The mother should be allowed to be with the child for at least a certain period of time.If the mother and child are in prison together, they should be placed in an environment that provides them with an equivalent substitute for crèches and staff specialized in post-natal and infant care. … ”
VI. Women deprived of their liberty
Extract from the tenth general report [ CPT / Inf (2000) 13]
Antenatal and postnatal care
“26. Every effort should be made to meet the special dietary needs of pregnant women in prison.They should be offered a high-protein diet rich in fresh vegetables and fruits.
27. It goes without saying that children should not be born in prison and it seems that it has become a practice in Council of Europe member states to transfer pregnant women prisoners to regular hospitals at the appropriate time.
However, from time to time the CPT is faced with examples of pregnant women being handcuffed or otherwise fastened to beds or other furniture during gynecological examinations or childbirth.Such an approach is completely unacceptable and can confidently be defined as inhuman and degrading treatment. Other security measures can and should be found.
28. Many women in prison have dependent children and other family members whose well-being may be affected by their imprisonment.
One particularly problematic question in this regard is whether it is possible for infants and young children to remain in prison with their mothers and, if possible, for how long.It is difficult to give an unambiguous answer to this question. On the one hand, it is clear that prisons will not provide an environment suitable for babies and young children, but on the other hand, forced separation of mothers and babies is highly undesirable.
29. From the CPT’s point of view, the welfare of the child should be the guiding principle in all cases. This implies, in particular, that any prenatal and postnatal care provided in custody must be adequate to the care provided in normal settings.Where infants and young children are held in prison conditions, they should be cared for by specialists in social work and child development. The goal should be to create a child-friendly environment free of visible prison signs such as uniforms and jingling keys.
Steps should also be taken to ensure that the motor and cognitive skills of children in prison develop normally. In particular, they should be provided with adequate play and exercise equipment and, where feasible, be able to leave the institution and live a normal life outside the prison.
Allowing family members to raise the child outside of the institution can also help ease the burden of parenting (for example, it will also be carried out by the child’s father). Where this is not possible, compensation should be provided in the form of access to childcare facilities. Such measures may allow women prisoners to participate in work and other activities on the prison grounds on a larger scale than would otherwise be possible.”
94. The report to the Ukrainian government on the visit to Ukraine by the CPT from 29 November to 6 December 2011 (CPT / Inf (2012) 30) reads as follows:
“ 43. The delegation received a generally positive impression of the material conditions in the juvenile wards in [SIZO] in … Kharkiv.
However, the conditions of detention were simply appalling in many other departments [SIZO]. Many cells were in very poor condition and had only very limited access to daylight.In addition, the Committee is concerned about the severe overcrowding in many offices [institutions]. At the time of the visit, there were 3,415 inmates […] in the Kharkiv SIZO […] (official capacity: 2,808 places). ”
I. SCOPE OF THE CASE
95. In her submissions of 10 February 2013, in response to the Government’s observations, the first applicant complained for the first time about the conditions of her detention in cell no. 409, where she had been held since 27 January to 2 March 2012.More specifically, she submitted that although she was pregnant, she had to sleep on the upper bunk bed.
96. The Court considers that this complaint does not constitute a detailed description of the first applicant’s initial complaint about the conditions of detention with the child from 14 March to 8 November 2012 in cell no. 408. Accordingly, the Court does not consider it appropriate to accept this new issue in the context of the present application (see, for example, Irakli Mindadze v . Georgia , no. 17012/09, § 25, 11 December 2012, with further references).
II. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 3 OF THE CONVENTION RELEVANT TO THE ALLEGED HANDLING OF THE FIRST APPLICANT IN THE MOTHERHOUSE
97. The first applicant complained that she was bedridden in the hospital, in violation of Article 3 of the Convention. This provision reads:
“No one shall be subjected to torture or inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.”
98. The Court notes that this complaint is not manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 (a) of the Convention, and that it is not inadmissible on any other grounds. Therefore, it must be declared acceptable.
1. Submissions by the parties
99. The first applicant maintained her complaint on the basis of her version of events, which is summarized in paragraph 14 above. She stressed that handcuffing her was completely unjustified, painful and humiliating given her physical and psychological condition.
100. The Government submitted that the first applicant had not submitted any evidence to support her claim. The Government examined the application of the former nurse, Ms P., and considered that it was irrelevant to the present case, as it concerned events that allegedly took place about seven years ago in a different area (see paragraph 24 above) …
101. Moreover, the Government submitted that the first applicant’s statements had been refuted by statements by the guards and numerous members of the hospital staff.
102. The Government also noted that the first applicant had failed to indicate exactly how she was shackled and that her testimony in this respect was contradictory.
103. Finally, the Government submitted that there had been a significant delay in the first applicant’s complaint in this respect at the national level.
104. The first applicant, in response to the Government’s observations, submitted that, given her condition at the time, she could not remember all the factual details of her handcuffing in the maternity hospital.
105. She also challenged the government’s interpretation of the testimony of the hospital staff. In her opinion, they rather confirmed the accuracy of her statements.
2. The Court’s assessment
106. The Court noted at the outset that the parties were in dispute as to whether the impugned measure had been taken against the applicant at all.
107. The only available evidence in the case file, to which both parties referred, was the testimony of the maternity hospital staff and the guards.
108. The Court agrees with the Government that the testimony of the former nurse, Ms P., is not relevant to the circumstances of the present case.
109. However, the Court does not share the Government’s opinion that the statements of other witnesses contradict the first applicant’s allegations. It notes in this connection that none of the six maternity hospital staff questioned by the domestic authorities stated that the applicant was not handcuffed in the maternity hospital; on the contrary, most of them witnessed being chained to a gynecological chair or bed (see.paragraphs 20-22 above). It is true that, according to several witnesses, the first applicant was not chained during childbirth; however, she did not deny this in her application to the Court (see paragraph 14 above). Finally, the Court takes into account the fact that the application of any security measures to the applicant was the direct responsibility of her guards. Accordingly, he is not prepared to take on faith their statements denying handcuffing her (see paragraph 23 above).
110. Overall, on the basis of the evidence available, the Court finds it sufficiently established that the first applicant was permanently shackled during her stay in the maternity hospital from 22 to 25 May 2012.
111. The Court observes that handcuffing does not necessarily raise an issue under Article 3 of the Convention if the measure was applied in connection with lawful detention and did not entail the use of force or social pressure in excess of what was reasonable considered necessary. In this regard, it is important to consider, for example, the danger of a person escaping or causing injury or damage (see Raninen v. Finland , 16 December 1997, § 56, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1997 ‑ VIII, and Henaf v. France , no. 65436/01, §§ 50-53, ECHR 2003-XI). The court has also repeatedly ruled that handcuffing a sick or otherwise weak person does not meet safety requirements and implies unjustified humiliation, intentional or unintentional (see, for example, Okhrimenko v . Ukraine , no. 53896 / 07, § 98, 15 October 2009, and Salakhov and Islyamova v . Ukraine , no. 28005/08, §§ 155 and 156, 14 March 2013).
112. In the present case the first applicant was already chained to the gynecological chair in the emergency room, where she was taken on the birthday of her child (see paragraph 20 above). Any risk of her aggressive behavior or attempts to escape is difficult to imagine given her condition. In fact, there were no allegations that the applicant behaved aggressively towards the hospital staff or the police, or that she tried to hide or posed a threat to her own safety.
113. The Court notes that the unjustified restraint of the first applicant continued after childbirth, when she was particularly sensitive.
114. The Court also attaches importance to the fact that she was guarded at all times by three guards. This measure appeared to be serious enough to respond to any potential risks.
115. Accordingly, the Court considers that in the circumstances of the present case, when the impugned measure was applied to a woman suffering from labor pains and immediately after childbirth, it amounted to inhuman and degrading treatment.
116. There has therefore been a violation of Article 3 of the Convention in this respect.
III. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 3 REGARDING THE CONDITIONS OF THE FIRST APPLICANT
117. The applicants also complained under Article 3 of the Convention that they were held in poor conditions in the Kharkiv SIZO (see also paragraphs 25, 95 and 96 above), the applicant was not provided with adequate medical assistance.
118.The Court notes that this complaint is neither manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 (a) of the Convention, nor inadmissible on any other grounds. Therefore, it must be declared acceptable.
1. Submissions by the parties
(a) Physical conditions of detention
119. The parties insisted on their statements about the physical conditions of the applicants’ detention in the SIZO (see paragraphs 26-37 above).
120. The Government relied on the statements of several detainees who shared a cell with the applicants and were satisfied with the conditions of their detention (see46 and a summary of the first two statements by Ms M. in paragraph 48 above).
121. The first applicant submitted that these detainees were completely dependent on the SIZO administration, therefore their statements could not be relied upon. She noted in this connection that Ms M. changed her testimony regarding the conditions of detention in the SIZO as soon as she was transferred to the prison (see paragraph 48 above). The first applicant, in turn, referred to statements by several other inmates who criticized the conditions of detention (see49-50 above).
122. The first applicant also argued that cell no. 408 was not equipped with items necessary for pregnant women or women with children. She assumed that the administration prepared this chamber before each inspection. More specifically, she suggested that the refrigerator and other household appliances and furniture were placed in the cell for inspection purposes only. To substantiate her suspicion, the first applicant argued, in particular, that the inspectorate on 1 February 2012 did not report that there were pregnant women in the SIZO at that time, while her presence was evidence to the contrary (seeparagraph 38 above). She also noted that the photographs provided by the Government did not show any disorder or any other indication that the cell contained detainees with children (see paragraph 36 above).
123. As regards her photographs in the special walking area (see paragraph 37 above), the first applicant submitted that she was allowed to walk there “only a couple of times”.
124. She did not dispute the Government’s allegations regarding the large number of food transfers from the mother; However, in the applicant’s opinion, this rather showed that the SIZO administration did not provide her with adequate food.
125. Finally, the first applicant referred to the CPT’s report following the delegation’s visit to the Kharkiv SIZO from 29 November to 6 December 2011 (see paragraph 94 above), which, in her opinion, supported her allegations of poor conditions of detention.
(b) Medical care of the second applicant
126. The second applicant argued that her newborn son, the second applicant, had not been provided with regular and adequate medical supervision and care. More specifically, she submitted that he had not been examined by a pediatrician between 28 May and 10 September 2012.She noted that in the absence of a pediatrician in the SIZO medical unit, she was completely dependent on the SIZO administration, which ignored her requests for an examination of her son or medical assistance for him, especially when the child had a stomach ache. The applicant also complained that her child’s health problems, phimosis and the open oval window (see paragraph 55 above) had not received due attention from the medical specialists. She also submitted that the second applicant had not received any vaccinations, contrary to the regulations in force.Finally, she submitted that inappropriate records had been kept in regard to his growth, development and health, and that the corresponding medical file in the SIZO had been forged (see paragraph 57 above).
127. The Government insisted that the second applicant was under constant medical supervision and that he was provided with timely and sufficient medical assistance. Moreover, the Government submitted that even if there were some minor health problems of the child, they could be described as normal for a newborn and did not require any medical intervention.Finally, the Government noted that the first applicant had not raised any claims in this respect at the national level.
2. The Court’s assessment
(a) General considerations
128. The Court reiterates that, in accordance with Article 3 of the Convention, the State must ensure that a person is detained in conditions compatible with respect for human dignity in order that and the method of execution of the preventive measure did not subject him to hardships that exceed the inevitable level of suffering inherent in detention, and that, taking into account the practical requirements of imprisonment, his health and well-being are adequately protected (see Kalashnikov v . Russia , no. 47095/99, § 95, ECHR 2002-VI).
129. As has been recognized in relevant international instruments, in particular the CPT standards, the question of whether infants and young children can remain in prison with their mothers is particularly problematic. The CPT noted in this regard “[this] question is very difficult to answer, given that, on the one hand, prisons clearly do not provide an appropriate environment for infants and young children, while, on the other hand, the forced separation of mothers and babies highly undesirable…. In the CPT’s view, the guiding principle in all cases should be the well-being of the child ”(see paragraph 93 above). In addition, the UN Rules for the Treatment of Women Prisoners state that “decisions to allow children to remain with their mothers in prison must be made in the best interests of the children” (see paragraph 91 above).
130. The principle of protecting the best interests of the child is also enshrined in the Court’s case-law in cases where children have suffered (see, for example, Kleuver v . Norway (dec.), No. 45837/99, 30 April 2002), and X v . Latvia [GC], no. 27853/09, § 95, ECHR 2013).
131. In addition, the Court takes note of the WHO recommendations that a healthy newborn should remain with the mother (see paragraph 92 above). This imposes an obligation on the authorities to create the appropriate conditions for the implementation of requirements in practice, including in places of deprivation of liberty.
132.Returning to the circumstances of the present case, the Court notes that, strictly speaking, only the first applicant was detained, while her newborn son, the second applicant, was allowed to remain with her in the SIZO. He could not be separated from his mother, given his especially young age. Accordingly, he remained under the full control of the authorities and it was their duty to ensure his health and well-being as appropriate.
(b) Physical conditions of detention
133.The Court has ruled on a number of occasions that cases concerning allegations of improper conditions of detention do not lend themselves to the strict application of the principle affirmanti incumbit probatio (whoever claims something must prove his allegations), since in In such circumstances, only the respondent State has access to information capable of corroborating or refuting such allegations. Accordingly, applicants may experience certain difficulties in obtaining evidence to substantiate a complaint in this regard.However, in such cases, it is likely that the applicants can be expected to provide at least a detailed description of the facts about which they are complaining – to the greatest extent possible – some evidence to support their claims (see Visloguzov v . Ukraine , no. 32362/02, § 45, 20 May 2010). However, after the Court draws the attention of the Government to the applicant’s complaint, the task of collecting and submitting the relevant documents rests with the Government.The Government’s failure to provide convincing evidence of the material conditions of detention may lead to inferences as to the validity of the applicant’s allegations (see Gubin v . Russia , no. 8217/04, § 56, 17 June 2010, and Khudoyorov v. Russia , no. 6847/02, § 113, ECHR 2005-X (extracts)).
134. Turning to the present case, the Court notes that the parties disagree on many aspects concerning the conditions of the applicants’ detention.Moreover, both parties relied on statements by the first applicant’s inmates, who sometimes contradicted each other. In this regard, it is necessary to find out which of the facts presented in the case materials can be considered as sufficiently established.
135. The Court notes from the outset that the first applicant’s statement of 12 November 2012, given within a month after the Court applied Rule 39, in which she argued that she was fully satisfied with the conditions in the SIZO (see41 above) cannot be taken on faith. As the Court has previously held in a case with similar allegations, the applicant’s position may be particularly vulnerable when he or she is in detention and his or her contact with the family and the outside world is limited (see Enache v . Romania , no. 10662/06, § 68, 1 April 2014).
136. The Court takes note of the photographs submitted by the Government as evidence. It also notes that the first applicant did not dispute that these were photographs of the cell in which she was indeed detained, despite her allegations that some pieces of furniture and equipment were present there for reporting purposes only.She also did not claim that the cell was repaired at any point during her detention. Therefore, the Court rejects the description of this cell by the former detainee, Ms Sa., As clearly contrary to what can be seen in the photographs.
137. Accordingly, the Court considers it sufficiently established that the applicants were kept in a bright cell in a good state of repair. Moreover, as can be seen from the photographs, the toilet was properly separated from the living area, contrary to the first applicant’s assertion in this regard (seeparagraphs 26 and 36 above).
138. The Court further notes that the first applicant did not provide any factual details to substantiate her allegations of insufficient heating or any other health risks associated with the other detainees who shared her cell.
139. As regards her allegations about the lack of hot water and the irregular supply of cold water, the Court notes that her allegation is sufficiently detailed and corroborated by the statements of several inmates (paragraphs 28, 48 and 50 above).The Court does not consider that the Government’s statement to the contrary, formulated in general terms, refutes the applicant’s assertion.
140. The court has already criticized the detention center for the fact that insufficient water supply has led to pollution of the environment, which causes suffering in people (see, for example, Vitkovskiy v . Ukraine , no. 24938/06, §§ 120 and 121, 26 September 2013). In the present case, the Court cannot fail to emphasize that adequate hygiene conditions are vital for a newborn and a nursing mother.
141. In addition, the Court notes that the first applicant’s allegation of inadequate and inadequate food in the SIZO is corroborated by the testimony of another detainee (see paragraph 48 above). The fact that her mother sent her about 30 parcels, often with basic food, is further evidence that such food was not provided to the first applicant by the SIZO administration (see paragraph 43 above). The Court has already held that if food is given to a person in insufficient quantities, this in itself raises an issue under Article 3 of the Convention (see v. Kadiķ is v. Latvia (no. 2), no. 62393/00, § 55, 4 May 2006, and Stepuleac v. Moldova , no. 8207/06, § 55, 6 November 2007). This issue becomes crucial in the case of a nursing mother.
142. Moreover, the Court’s attention is not escaped by the fact that, according to the respondent Government, on the days of the court hearings the first applicant was forced to miss at least one meal and was not provided with a packed lunch instead (seeparagraph 33 above).
143. The Court emphasizes that the absence of any restrictions on the number of food parcels from the first applicant’s relatives, and, probably, on the possibility to take their own food on the days of the hearing, is not a substitute for the corresponding catering mechanisms, since it is primarily the State is responsible for the well-being of people deprived of their liberty (see Vlasov v . Russia , no. 78146/01, § 96, 12 June 2008).
144. Therefore, the Court concludes that the first applicant did not receive sufficient and effective nutrition to meet her needs as a nursing in custody mother.
145. Furthermore, the Court notes that the Government have not presented convincing evidence to refute the first applicant’s complaints about the length and location of her daily outdoor walks with the child. In addition, the relevant legal provisions do not establish a clear duration of daily walks for detained women with children.Compared to ordinary prisoners, who are entitled to a daily walk of one hour, the duration of walks for women with children can be extended “up to two hours”. In other words, a refusal to grant such an extension or a very minor extension would not be contrary to this requirement.
146. It should be emphasized that when assessing conditions of detention, attention must be paid to the cumulative effects of such conditions, as well as the applicant’s specific allegations (see Art. Dougoz v. Greece , no. 40907/98, § 46, ECHR 2001-II, and Idalov v. Russia [GC], no. 5826/03, § 94, 22 May 2012).
147. The Court considers that, in the circumstances of the present case, the cumulative effect of the first applicant’s malnutrition, the inadequate sanitary and hygienic conditions for her and her newborn son, and the lack of outdoor exercise must be intense enough to cause her physical suffering and mental anguish, equal to inhuman and degrading treatment of her and her child.
148. Accordingly, there has been a violation of Article 3 of the Convention on account of the physical conditions of the applicants’ detention in the SZO.
(c) Medical care for the second applicant
149. The Court notes that the “sufficiency” of medical care in places of deprivation of liberty remains the most difficult element to determine. The mere fact that a detainee was examined by a doctor and prescribed a certain type of treatment cannot automatically lead to the conclusion that the medical assistance provided was sufficient (see Art. Hummatov v. Azerbaijan , nos. 9852/03 and 13413/04, § 116, 29 November 2007). The authorities should also ensure that comprehensive health records are maintained and treated during detention (see, for example, Khudobin v . Russia , no. 59696/00, § 83, ECHR 2006-XII ), fast and accurate diagnosis and treatment (see Hummatov , cited above, § 115, and Melnik v . Ukraine , no. 72286/01, §§ 104-106, 28 March 2006), and that, where the nature of the medical condition so requires, follow-up should be regular and systematic, and include a comprehensive therapeutic strategy aimed at treating detainees’ illnesses or preventing their exacerbation rather than relieving symptoms (ibid., §§ 109 and 114; Sarban v . Moldova , no. 3456/05, § 79, 4 October 2005; and Popov v . Russia , no. 26853/04, § 211, 13 July 2006). The authorities must also show that the necessary conditions have been created for the prescribed treatment to actually be carried out (see Hummatov , cited above, § 116, and Holomiov v . Moldova , no. 30649 / 05, § 117, 7 November 2006).
150. In general, the Court reserves sufficient flexibility in determining the required health standards, making decisions on an individual basis.These standards must be “compatible with the human dignity” of the detainee, but must also take into account the “practical requirements of imprisonment” (see Aleksanyan v . Russia , no. 46468/06, § 140, 22 December 2008).
151. As the Court has already held (see paragraph 132 above), it was the authorities’ duty in the present case to ensure adequate medical supervision and care for the second applicant, a newborn who was with his mother in the remand prison.
152. The Court notes that the second applicant remained in the SIZO for almost six months, starting from the fourth day of his life. As a newborn, he was especially vulnerable and needed close medical supervision by a specialist; in accordance with the current regulations of the Ministry of Health, he was to be examined by a pediatrician every week during the first month of life, and every month thereafter. In reality, however, things were different.
153.The court considers it plausible that the first applicant’s assertion that some of the entries in her son’s medical file kept in the SIZO were inaccurate.
154. He notes in this connection that one such inaccuracy concerned the date of the initial medical examination of the child after he was discharged from the hospital. According to the first applicant, with confirmation from the chief physician of the children’s hospital, it took place on 28 May 2012, while in the relevant record it is indicated as an examination of 31 May 2012 (see para.53-54 above).
155. The Court also considers that the case file provides a sufficient basis for the factual finding that, according to the first applicant, her son was not examined by doctors between 28 June and 10 September 2012. The Court notes, in particular, that neither the SIZO administration nor the chief doctor of the local children’s hospital were able to answer the questions asked by the applicant’s lawyer about the child’s health, sent on 28 August and 6 September 2012, respectively. The SIZO administration sent the child’s medical record to the lawyer only after undergoing a full examination (not carried out in connection with this – see.paragraphs 62-63 above). In addition, if the child was actually examined by a pediatrician on June 12 and July 20, 2012, as recorded in the card, it is not clear why the chief doctor of the children’s hospital refers only to the examination on May 28, 2012 in his letter dated September 6, 2012. The doctor also stated that it was not possible to provide any information about the child’s health in the absence of any requests for medical assistance prior to that time (see paragraph 61 above).
156. Another contradiction in the available documents does not escape the Court’s attention.According to the head physician of the children’s hospital, when the second applicant was examined by a pediatrician, it was in the absence of the first applicant, while the SIZO administration recorded in the child’s medical file that the pediatrician had consulted the applicant on childcare (paragraphs 54, 56 and 71 above) …
157. Accordingly, the Court finds it established that the second applicant was left without any supervision by the pediatrician from 28 May to 10 September 2012. Paying particular attention to the second applicant’s young age, the Court considers that this circumstance alone is sufficient to conclude that adequate health care standards were not followed in this case, finding it unnecessary to analyze all other factual details (such as problems the health of the second applicant and lack of vaccinations).
158. Accordingly, the Court concludes that there has been a violation of Article 3 of the Convention in this respect.
IV. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 3 OF THE CONVENTION RELEVANT TO THE FIRST APPLICANT’S PLACEMENT IN A METAL CAGE DURING THE COURT Hearings
159. The first applicant also complained under Article 3 of the Convention in the metal cage that she had been placed in a metal cage during the trial.
160. The Court considers that this complaint is neither manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 (a) of the Convention, nor inadmissible on any other grounds.Therefore, it must be declared acceptable.
161. The first applicant submitted that, although she was suspected of having committed a violent criminal offense, her placement in a metal cage during the court hearings had been completely unjustified and humiliating.
162. The Government insisted that the first applicant had been detained behind metal bars in the courtroom in accordance with domestic law.The Government explained that the bars were intended to separate the defendants, who were subject to detention in custody, and the people in the courtroom, so that they could be reliably guarded during the trial.
163. The Government submitted that the State authorities had no intention of insulting or humiliating the first applicant. She was kept behind a metal bar in the interests of public safety. Moreover, the detention of the first applicant behind metal bars could in no way cause her suffering or humiliation, the intensity of which would exceed the inevitable level of suffering or humiliation inherent in detention.The Government also noted that during the court hearings the first applicant’s child had been with the SIZO medical officer outside the cell and that he was handed over to the applicant on every request.
164. The Court held in its recent judgment of the Grand Chamber in cases Svinarenko and Slyadnev v . Russia , that placing a person in a metal cage during a trial is in itself – given its degrading nature, incompatible with the standards of civilized behavior that are the hallmark of a democratic society – is an insult to human dignity, in violation of Article 3 ( [GC], nos.32541/08 and 43441/08, § 138, ECHR 2014 (extracts)).
165. Turning to the present case, the Court notes that the first applicant was detained in a metal cage during all hearings in her case, which took place on 12 April, 17 May, 15 June, 2 and 31 August and 15 November 2012. During the first two hearings, she was in a very late stage of pregnancy, while during the remaining four hearings, a metal grate separated the mother from the baby in the courtroom. In fact, no grounds were considered for such a measure of restraint, given the judge’s position that the very presence of the first applicant outside the cage would amount to her release, contrary to the prescribed measure of restraint (seeparagraph 73 above).
166. Accordingly, the Court finds a violation of Article 3 of the Convention in this respect.
V. APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION
167. Article 41 of the Convention reads as follows:
“If the Court declares that there has been a violation of the Convention or the Protocols thereto, and the domestic law of a High Contracting Party allows only partial elimination of the consequences of this violation, the Court , if necessary, award just satisfaction to the injured party.”
A. Compensation for damage
168. The applicants claimed EUR 150,000 (EUR) in respect of non-pecuniary damage, including EUR 50,000 for the first applicant and EUR 100,000 for the second applicant.
169. The Government contested this claim as unsubstantiated and disproportionate.
170. The Court considers that the applicants suffered non-pecuniary damage in respect of violations of their rights under Article 3 of the Convention, which cannot be compensated for by a mere admission of a violation of their rights under the Convention.Having regard to the circumstances of the case, and rendering its judgment on an equitable basis, as required by Article 41, the Court awards the first applicant EUR 12,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage, plus any tax that may be imposed on that amount. The court also awards the second applicant EUR 7,000 in this part, plus any tax that may be imposed on that amount.
B. Reimbursement of costs and expenses
171. The applicants also claimed EUR 13,059 in respect of their legal representation, which amounted to approximately 124 hours in domestic and Court proceedings.
172. The Government contested this claim.
173. The Court must establish, firstly, whether the costs and expenses indicated by the first applicant were actually incurred and, secondly, whether they were necessary (see McCann and Others v. the United Kingdom , 27 September 1995, § 220, Series A no. 324).
174. In the present case, having regard to the documents in its possession and the above criteria, the Court considers it reasonable to award the first applicant EUR 3,000 to cover all costs.
C. Default interest
175. The Court considers it reasonable that default interest should be based on the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank, plus three percentage points.
FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT, UNANIMOUSLY,
1. Declares the application admissible;
2. Holds that there has been a violation of Article 3 of the Convention on account of the first applicant’s handcuffing in the maternity hospital;
3. Holds that there has been a violation of Article 3 of the Convention on account of the physical conditions of the applicants’ detention in the Kharkiv SIZO;
4. Holds that there has been a violation of Article 3 of the Convention in respect of the medical assistance provided to the second applicant during his stay with the first applicant in the Kharkiv SIZO;
5. Holds that there has been a violation of Article 3 of the Convention on account of the placing of the first applicant in a metal cage during the trial;
(a) that the respondent State is under an obligation 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, converted into the respondent State’s currency at the exchange rate in force on the date payments:
(i) to the first applicant:
(α) EUR 12,000 (twelve thousand euros), plus any tax that may be charged in respect of compensation for non-pecuniary damage;
(β) EUR 3,000 (three thousand euros), plus any tax that may be levied on the first applicant in respect of costs and expenses; and
(ii) to the second applicant: EUR 7,000 (seven thousand euros), plus any tax that may be charged in respect of compensation for non-pecuniary damage;
(b) that from the expiration of the aforementioned three months until payment, a default interest shall be charged on the above amount equal to the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank for that period, with the addition of three percentage points;
7. Dismisses the remainder of the applicants’ claim for compensation.
Done in English and promulgated in writing on 24 March 2016, in accordance with Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
Claudia Westerdijk Angelika Nüssberger
Translation of the Kharkiv Human Rights Group
Focus at the cost of life: how illusionists are freed from handcuffs and locks | Culture
These tricks are performed by artists who are called liberation masters.One of them, Jonathan Goodwin, even shows him how he does it on the Discovery Channel’s “One Way Out” (on Fridays at 10 pm). It all started with the legendary Harry Houdini.
There is no generally accepted translation of the English term escape artist in Russian. As a rule, we call the performers performing tricks free from ropes, handcuffs or from barrels of water illusionists, and their numbers – tricks. When the rabbit is “magically” pulled out of the hat, the audience has no doubt that they were simply cheated.When a person frees himself from a straitjacket at a height of several tens of meters, we are ready to believe our eyes, and the answer to the question “How did he do it?” we are really interested.Harry Houdini before performing the self-liberation stunt, 1899. Photo: Commons.wikimedia.org
Harry Houdini was at the origin of the genre. Artists from all over the world are still trying to repeat his numbers, constantly improving them. In all fairness, it should be noted that emancipation tricks appeared long before Houdini.But it was he who managed to create the show that kept the audience in suspense throughout the entire number.
Houdini followed two key rules, they became the laws of the genre, and they are strictly observed by modern performers. The first is to show that the number is extremely difficult, even if it is not. The public must believe that the artist is putting himself at mortal risk. For example, Houdini’s “Breaking Free from a Locked Safe” lasted over forty minutes. The spectators began to worry if the magician was alive – there were no holes in the safe, and the person should have suffocated during such a time.At that moment, when the especially nervous were already ready to call the police, the artist came out from behind the screen, behind which was the safe. Later, Houdini admitted that he was released from the safe in 3-4 minutes, and the rest of the time he just sat behind the screen and read a book.
The second rule is that the viewer must create traps himself. Houdini staged demonstrations in prisons and police stations, freeing himself from “local” locks and handcuffs. He was challenged more than once, to which he usually responded and emerged victorious.In 1911, English sailors invited the artist to stand in front of the muzzle of a loaded cannon with a lit fuse. Houdini was chained to the floor with steel chains, and his hands were tied to the muzzle with intricate nautical knots. The master had 20 minutes at his disposal – that is how much the wick burned. Houdini did it in twelve. If he had not had time, this number would have become the last in his life.
Secrets Not Revealed
How did Houdini perform his stunts? The answer to this question is hidden behind seven seals, or rather, locks.In 1974, the world was waiting for the secret to finally be revealed: there were rumors that Houdini left a will with an order to open the envelope when he was one hundred years old from the date of his birth. But when that date came, no will was found.
Houdini’s numbers are performed by many illusionists. But this does not shed light on the mystery. The fact is that artists of the illusion genre have the main “guild rule” – not to give out secrets to the audience. Magicians assure: the mechanics of Houdini’s numbers have been known for a long time and the assertion that most of the great master’s tricks have not yet been revealed is a myth necessary to preserve intrigue.
Several years ago, a museum in the American city of Appleton exposed one of Houdini’s most famous numbers. The artist was handcuffed, placed in a sack, and the sack was placed in a locked chest. According to the proposed version, the back wall of the chest simply moved aside. A video showing the mechanics of the stunt was even shown on display at the museum. This caused the condemnation of many magicians, and the museum had to increase its security to avoid sabotage. However, Houdini himself at one time “framed” his colleagues, informing the press that radio was used in the “talking kettle” trick, popular at the beginning of the century.One thing is certain – Houdini had an incredible skill in handling locks and master keys. At the beginning of his career, he spent several months in a locksmith’s workshop as an apprentice, and then he constantly improved.
He really could masterfully open almost any lock in a matter of seconds. But before performing such numbers, Houdini was thoroughly searched, or the artist performed naked. To the question “Where does the master key come from?” there is no exact answer. According to one version, they were so small that they could be hidden in folds of skin; on the other – Houdini swallowed them, tied with a thread to his tooth.Perhaps the keys or lockpicks were handed over to Harry by his wife, who was his permanent assistant during the performances. Before performing the number, she usually kissed her husband “for good luck”, they say that with the help of Houdini’s kiss she received the instrument.
In addition, the master was constantly engaged in training, developing flexibility of joints, ligaments and strength. He knew how to subtly flex his muscles when he was tied, so that then, relaxing, free from the rope.
Houdini said that once he could not get out of the milk can for a long time.The air holes in the lid were too narrow, the artist did not have enough air, and the count went on for seconds. Harry managed to swing and drop the can, and at that moment one of the braces holding the lid flew off from the impact.
Still, the main thing for Houdini, according to him, was not luck or preparation, but the ability to conquer fear. He argued that for success it is necessary at all costs to remain calm and not for a second succumb to panic, which could threaten death.Freeing Harry Houdini underwater.Photo: www.globallookpress.com
Classics and Contemporaries
If Houdini had performed in our time, he would most likely have failed miserably. Let’s remember what Houdini’s performances looked like. Take, for example, the still unrevealed trick of the Chinese water torture chamber. A straitjacket was put on the performer, tied, shackled hand and foot, and lowered headfirst into the water. Then the cell was covered with a screen, and Houdini tried to get out for 30-40 minutes, or even longer. It is difficult to imagine an audience that today would agree to look at a boring screen for half an hour.The audience has become more discerning, and the artist’s followers have to surpass the teacher. Our contemporary Englishman Jonathan Goodwin was quite successful in this. It demonstrates real miracles in a matter of seconds and without a screen. Jonathan performs the same trick with a Chinese water torture chamber in front of a TV camera that records every movement. His head is in the water all the time, and he has exactly as much time as he is able to hold his breath. Unlike Houdini, Jonathan does not hide secrets – simply because they do not exist.In an interview that Idea X managed to get from the artist, he assured that there was no trick or deception in the performances.
Jonathan’s stunts are more like a stuntman than an illusionist’s numbers. Here they put him in a barrel, handcuffed, and let the barrel down the mountain at a speed of 126 revolutions per minute. And the artist successfully finds a way out of this situation. Fearfully? To this question, Jonathan replied that he has no right to fear, otherwise the trick is doomed to failure.
When Goodwin performed “Breaking Out of the Bee Cage,” he was wearing only shorts and 200,000 angry bees, and the cage was on a running washing machine with a high vibration level.Goodwin recalls this stunt as one of the most difficult and says that he got off with only thirty bites. One of the “golden” rules Jonathan observes sacredly – each of his numbers seems deadly. This is perhaps the only illusion present in his tricks. The rooms are really dangerous, but in principle it does nothing that poses a direct threat to life. For example, Jonathan dreams of a parachute jump in handcuffs, unable to pull the ring. But the dream will remain a dream until his team can figure out how to meet safety standards.
However, Jonathan still has something to shock the audience. He has a lot of tricks in his arsenal, and he shows them every week on the Discovery Channel’s “One Way Out”
Who will receive the million?
Harry Houdini (pictured) was known as a whistleblower of fraudsters who announced their supernatural powers. Sometimes he, together with a disguised policeman, went to the spiritistic séances that were fashionable at the beginning of the century, leading the deceivers to the surface. Because of this, he even fell out with his friend Arthur Conan Doyle – the writer believed in the possibility of communication with the other world.Houdini’s tradition of exposing charlatans is continued by modern illusionists. The most famous figure in this sense is the American James Randy. In 1996, Randy created a foundation that tests all sorts of supernatural phenomena, from UFOs to psychics. The Foundation undertakes to pay the prize to those who prove their supernatural abilities by absolutely scientific and reliable methods. The rates are growing: initially a bonus of $ 1000 was offered, then in 2000, and since 2002 the fund has increased the amount to a million.
So far, no one has received the award, although there are quite a few applicants – about fifty applications are received annually. About 80% of applicants are so-called dowsers, who can allegedly find various items underground. James Randi has repeatedly tried to involve famous psychics, including Uri Geller, in the check, but his attempts were unsuccessful.
Jonathan Goodwin – specially for Idea X
Idea X: Do you take part in creating traps from which you have to get out?
Goodwin: I write most of the numbers myself.I am surrounded by kind people who do not want it to be too difficult for me, but I do not feel sorry for myself. But I trust the implementation of my ideas to a professional – a brilliant engineer Terry Stroud. He is ready to set up any trap for me. And if I say to him: “Terry, I need a giant slingshot with which they will launch me into the lake,” he writes it down in a notebook and adds something like: “Okay, what should be the force of impact on the surface of the water?”
Idea X: Why are you doing these tricks: out of a desire to become famous, you don’t have enough adrenaline, or you just want to find the key to secrets not yet open?
Goodwin: I think the last one.I am delighted when I find out from my own experience that this or that is actually possible. For example, when I was buried alive and I managed to get out, it was damn dangerous, but no one had done this before me. I had no idea if I could do it or not, and if so, how. Or one day I had to get out of a tank of ice water, and on top there was ice ten centimeters thick. When we came up with this trick, I had no idea how I could pull it all off. I needed to break through the ice and open the tank, and until I tried it I didn’t know how to do it.
History of one props
Liberation from a Chinese Water Torture Cage is one of Houdini’s most famous tricks. The first such cage was designed in 1911 in England, and the magician called the trick “Upside Down Houdini” and thus patented it.
The first performance of the stunt took place in 1912, and the number was shown for 14 years – until the death of the master. There were even rumors that Houdini died just during his performance, but this was nothing more than a fiction.After Houdini’s death, the cage went to his brother, who worked in the same genre under the pseudonym Theo Hardin. According to legend, Houdini bequeathed that the cage be destroyed and burned, but Theo disobeyed him. However, Hardin did not dare to perform the number either, and in 1940 he gave the cage to the American Sidney Radner, who collected everything that was associated with Houdini.
The cage was kept by Radner until 1971, and then it was displayed in the Houdini Hall of Fame in Niagara Falls, Canada. In 1995, a fire broke out in the museum, and only a metal frame remained of the cell.However, it was restored, and in 2004 it was auctioned to illusionist David Copperfield. It is kept in his house to this day.
In a shirt and a hat with rabbits
About the British illusionist Shahid Malik, who also performs tricks for liberation, colleagues in the shop say that he was born in a shirt and top hat with rabbits. Over a fairly long career – Shahid began performing in front of the public in 1972 at the age of 18 – the artist has miraculously managed to survive more than once.So, after the failure with the “Escape from the fire” trick, the burns were so severe that the doctors did not believe that the illusionist would survive. During the performance “Liberation from the straitjacket” the rope on which he was hanging broke several times and the Shahid fell from a height of 12 m. The mentioned trick brought him two world records – for the highest performance (the master is freed from the straitjacket at an altitude of 548 m, tied to a helicopter) and for the fastest (all this takes Shahid 13 seconds).
Shackled with one chain
It is easy to free the mind and go to nirvana.It is more difficult to free the body from the real shackles with this most liberated mind. But, no matter how difficult it is, people have experimented in this direction for a long time. And the experiments were successful.
IIV century BC – Assyro-Babylonian magicians with the help of “magic power” untied the knots and cut the ropes
1st century A.D. – philosopher Apollonius of Tyana, known as a miracle worker, according to legend, freed himself from the shackles in front of many people
1430-1520 – “Engineering art magic book” was written in Weimar, which, among others, mentions the trick “Breaking free from chains”
XIV century – Abraham Colornus (Italy) demonstrates the ability to free himself from any prison.He gets out of the pit for heretics, casemate and closed dungeons
Second half of the 19th century – The Davenport brothers in the USA invent the Davenport Brothers Wardrobe. The tied artists are locked in a closet with musical instruments, after which the instruments begin to sound, although the tied person, according to the idea of a trick, would not be able to reach them. The brothers themselves pretended to be mediums and explained the trick with supernatural abilities
Second half of the 19th – early 20th century – tricks with liberation from the shackles and from locked rooms are performed by the French Reinali and Dixon, the German Max Rösner, the Englishman Gustav Fazola, Owen Clark
1892 – 18-year-old artist Erich Weiss begins performing under the pseudonym Harry Houdini.Houdini’s early career was dominated by handcuffing and water jar release numbers. Originally toured the United States with brother
Beginning of the 20th century – in Russia, after Houdini’s tour in 1903, liberation tricks are gaining popularity. They are performed by the “king of chains” Buchini, “the king of chains and shackles” Logini and other artists
1910s – “criminal” performances come into fashion on the basis of liberation tricks. The artists take on the appearance of famous robbers or detectives, demonstrating freedom from chains, shackles, and so on.The pseudonyms of the illusionists are also quite typical: Nick Carter, Nat Pinkerton, Sonya the Golden Hand, and so on
1912 – Houdini shows his famous release from a Chinese Water Torture Cage for the first time
40-50-ies of the XX century – British illusionist Alan Alan (Alan Rabinovich), suspended on a burning rope from a crane, performed the act “Liberation from the straitjacket.” Alan is credited with inventing this trick. Later, the number was repeated by other artists, including David Copperfield on April 6, 1974 – on this day, Houdini’s will was supposedly to be announced, in which he revealed the secrets of his tricks.No will was found in the safe that was closed during Harry’s lifetime
1992 – American entertainer Lance Burton performs a freeing trick chained to Desperado, one of the fastest roller coasters in the United States: the ascent lasts a minute and the descent takes 3.5 seconds. Performing the number nearly cost Burton his life
2007 – Hungarian American artist David Merlini sets the record for the longest time underwater while performing a freeing trick.David managed to hold his breath for 10 minutes and 17 seconds, he did not use any breathing devices either before or during the number
April 2008 – The Discovery Channel first airs the “One Way Out” program featuring Jonathan Goodwin in front of the camera performs tricks with
Houdini’s contemporaries constantly tried to catch the illusionist, offering him such handcuffs, from which he could not free himself.Sometimes it succeeded – once, during the execution of a number in a police station in New York, the lock of the handcuffs was specially wedged so that it was impossible to open them. After that, Houdini, before taking the handcuffs from the audience, first asked them to open and close them. Another famous attempt to put Houdini in a galosh, however, was unsuccessful, made in 1904, when he was challenged by the London newspaper Daily Mirror. For the manufacture of handcuffs, from which the illusionist had to free himself, the locksmith spent five years.It took Houdini over an hour to get out. He later said that it was one of the most difficult performances of his career. For a long time there were rumors that the trick was rigged, and there was a conspiracy between the Daily Mirror and Houdini – in this way the magician allegedly made an advertisement for both himself and the newspaper. These rumors have not yet been proven. But they have not been refuted either.
Watch “One Way Out” on Fridays at 10 pm on Discovery Channel
All rights to this material belong to the magazine “Idea X” .When publishing this material on the Internet, a link to the journal “Idea X” and the site AIF.RU is required. New issue of the magazine – on sale since July 1, 2009
See also:90,000% d0% bd% d0% b0% d0% b4% d0% b5% d1% 82% d1% 8c% 20% d0% ba% d0% b0% d0% bd% d0% b4% d0% b0% d0% bb% d1% 8b – from all languages to all languages
All yazykiRusskiyAngliyskiyIspanskiy────────Aynsky yazykAkanAlbanskiyAltayskiyArabskiyAragonskiyArmyanskiyArumynskiyAsturiyskiyAfrikaansBagoboBaskskiyBashkirskiyBelorusskiyBolgarskiyBuryatskiyValliyskiyVarayskiyVengerskiyVepsskiyVerhneluzhitskiyVetnamskiyGaityanskiyGrecheskiyGruzinskiyGuaraniGelskiyDatskiyDolganskiyDrevnerussky yazykIvritIdishIngushskiyIndoneziyskiyInupiakIrlandskiyIslandskiyItalyanskiyYorubaKazahskiyKarachaevskiyKatalanskiyKvenyaKechuaKirgizskiyKitayskiyKlingonskiyKomiKomiKoreyskiyKriKrymskotatarskiyKumykskiyKurdskiyKhmerskiyLatinskiyLatyshskiyLingalaLitovskiyLyuksemburgskiyMayyaMakedonskiyMalayskiyManchzhurskiyMaoriMariyskiyMikenskiyMokshanskiyMongolskiyNauatlNemetskiyNiderlandskiyNogayskiyNorvezhskiyOrokskiyOsetinskiyOsmanskiyPaliPapyamentoPendzhabskiyPersidskiyPolskiyPortugalskiyRumynsky, MoldavskiySanskritSevernosaamskiySerbskiySefardskiySilezskiySlovatskiySlovenskiySuahiliTagalskiyTadzhikskiyTayskiyTatarskiyTviTibetskiyTofalarskiyTuvinskiyTuretskiyTurkmenskiyUdmurdskiyUzbeksky UyghurUkrainianUrduUrumanFaroeseFinnishFrenchHindiCroatianChurch Slavic (Old Church Slavonic) CircassianCherokeeChechenCzechChuvashCheyenneSwedishShoorSumerianEvenkyElsassianErzyanEsperantoJapanese3000
All yazykiRusskiyAngliyskiyIspanskiy────────AymaraAynsky yazykAlbanskiyAltayskiyArabskiyArmyanskiyAfrikaansBaskskiyBashkirskiyBelorusskiyBolgarskiyVengerskiyVepsskiyVodskiyVetnamskiyGaityanskiyGalisiyskiyGrecheskiyGruzinskiyDatskiyDrevnerussky yazykIvritIdishIzhorskiyIngushskiyIndoneziyskiyIrlandskiyIslandskiyItalyanskiyYorubaKazahskiyKarachaevskiyKatalanskiyKvenyaKechuaKitayskiyKlingonskiyKoreyskiyKrymskotatarskiyKumykskiyKurdskiyKhmerskiyLatinskiyLatyshskiyLingalaLitovskiyLozhbanMayyaMakedonskiyMalayskiyMaltiyskiyMaoriMariyskiyMokshanskiyMongolskiyNemetskiyNiderlandskiyNorvezhskiyOsetinskiyPaliPapyamentoPendzhabskiyPersidskiyPolskiyPortugalskiyPushtuRumynsky, MoldavskiySerbskiySlovatskiySlovenskiySuahiliTagalskiyTadzhikskiyTayskiyTamilskiyTatarskiyTuretskiyTurkmenskiyUdmurdskiyUzbekskiyUygurskiyUkrainskiyUrduUrumskiyFarerskiyFinskiyFrantsuzskiyHindiHorvatskiyTserkovnoslavyansky (Old Church Slavonic) ChamorroCherokiChechenskiyCheshskiyChuvashskiyShvedskiyShorskiyEvenkiyskiyElzasskiyErzyanskiyEsperantoEstonskiyYakut skyjapanese90,000 Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners – Conventions and Agreements – Declarations, Conventions, Agreements and Other Legal Materials
Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners
Adopted at the First United Nations Congress on the Prevention of Crime and the Treatment of Offenders, held in Geneva in 1955, and endorsed by the Economic and Social Council in its resolutions 663 C (XXIV) of 31 July 1957 and 2076 (LXII) of 13 May 1977
1.The following rules are not intended to describe in detail an exemplary prison system, but only to set out, on the basis of generally recognized achievements of modern thought and taking into account the basic elements of the currently most satisfactory systems, what is generally considered to be correct in principle and in practice in areas of treatment of prisoners and management of institutions.
2. Given the diversity of legal, social, economic and geographical conditions, it is clear that not all of these rules can be applied universally and simultaneously.They must, however, give rise to a constant desire to overcome the practical difficulties in the way of their implementation, since, by and large, they reflect the minimum conditions that the United Nations considers acceptable.
3. On the other hand, they cover the field of activity, where thought is constantly moving forward. They are not intended to discourage experimentation and practice that are consistent with the principles set forth in them and aimed at achieving their stated goals.
4. 1) Part I of the Rules deals with the general management of establishments and applies to all categories of prisoners, regardless of whether the latter are in criminal or civil custody and whether they are only under investigation or convicted, including prisoners who are subject to “ security measures ”or corrective measures ordered by the judge.
2) Part II sets out the rules applicable to the special categories referred to in each section.However, the rules in section A concerning convicted prisoners should equally apply to the categories of persons referred to in sections B , C and D , provided that they do not conflict with the rules, developed for these categories, and improve the position of the latter.
5. 1) The Rules are not intended to regulate the management of establishments for minors such as Borstal establishments or correctional homes.However, Part I can be used in these establishments as well.
2) The juvenile category should include at least all those young prisoners who are subject to the jurisdiction of the juvenile delinquent courts. As a general rule, such young people should not be sentenced to imprisonment.
Part I. General Applicable Rules
6. 1) The following rules are to be applied with impartiality.Discrimination on the basis of race, color, sex, language, religious, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, family origin or social status is unacceptable.
2) On the other hand, the religious convictions and moral attitudes of prisoners belonging to certain groups of the population must be respected.
7.1) All places of detention should have a register in the form of a bound journal with numbered pages, which should include the following information for each prisoner:
a ) information concerning his personality;
b ) the reasons for his imprisonment and the authorities that made the decision on the imprisonment;
from ) the day and hour of his arrival and departure from the given place of detention.
2) No one may be admitted to prison without a valid order of imprisonment, the details of which are previously entered in the register.
Breakdown by category
8. Different categories of prisoners are held in separate institutions or in different parts of the same institution, taking into account their gender, age, previous convictions, legal reasons for their imprisonment and prescribed treatment.Thus:
a ) men and women should, if possible, be kept in separate institutions;
b ) if men and women are kept in the same institution, then women should be placed in completely separate premises;
c ) unconvicted prisoners should be placed separately from convicted prisoners;
d ) persons convicted of non-performance of debts and other prisoners in civil cases should be placed separately from persons who have committed a criminal offense;
e ) juvenile offenders should be kept separate from adults.
9. 1) Where prisoners sleep in cells or rooms, each of them must have a separate cell or room. If, for special reasons, such as temporary overloading of the prison, the central prison office has to abandon this rule, it is undesirable to place two prisoners in the same cell or room.
2) Where there are shared cells, prisoners should be carefully selected to ensure that they are able to live together in such conditions.Constant supervision should be exercised at night, consistent with the nature of the establishment.
10. All rooms used by prisoners, especially all sleeping rooms, must meet all sanitary requirements, and due attention must be paid to climatic conditions, especially to the cubic capacity of these rooms, to their minimum area, lighting, heating and ventilation.
11. In the premises where prisoners live and work:
a ) windows must be of sufficient size to enable prisoners to read and work in daylight and must be designed to provide fresh air, whether or not there is an artificial ventilation system;
b ) artificial lighting must be sufficient to enable prisoners to read or work without jeopardizing their eyes.
12. Sanitary facilities should be sufficient to ensure that every prisoner can satisfy his natural needs, when he needs it, in conditions of cleanliness and decency.
13. Bath facilities and the number of showers should be sufficient so that each prisoner can and should be able to bathe or take a shower at a temperature suitable for each climate and as often as required by the conditions of general hygiene, taking into account the season and geographic area, that is, at least once a week in a temperate climate.
14. All parts of the institution regularly used by prisoners must be kept in proper order and the strictest cleanliness at all times.
15. Prisoners should be required to keep themselves clean. To do this, they need to be supplied with water and toiletries necessary to maintain cleanliness and health.
16. In order for prisoners to maintain an appearance compatible with their human dignity, they need to be given the opportunity to take care of their hair and beard by allowing men to shave regularly.
Clothes and sleeping accessories
17. 1) Prisoners who are not allowed to wear civilian clothes should be provided with a set of uniforms appropriate for the given climate and allowing them to maintain their health in satisfactory condition. This clothing should not be offensive or derogatory.
2) Clothing must be kept clean and in good condition. Fresh laundry should be washed and dispensed in accordance with hygiene requirements.
3) In exceptional cases, when a prisoner leaves the institution with the permission of the authorities, he should be allowed to change into his own dress or wear other non-conspicuous clothing.
18. If prisoners are allowed to wear civilian clothes, measures should be taken at the time of imprisonment to ensure that they are clean and suitable for wearing.
19. Each prisoner should be provided with a separate bed, in accordance with national or local regulations, with separate bedding that must be clean at the time of issue, maintained in good condition and changed frequently enough to keep it clean.
20. (1) The prison administration shall, during normal hours, provide each prisoner with food nutritious enough to maintain his health and strength, of sufficient quality, well prepared and served.
2) Every prisoner should have drinking water when he needs it.
Exercise and sports
21. 1) All prisoners not engaged in outdoor work are entitled to at least an hour of suitable physical exercise in the yard every day, weather permitting.
2) Juveniles and other prisoners of an appropriate age and in adequate physical condition should be provided with physical exercise and play during the exercise period. To do this, you need to have the necessary sites, installations and equipment.
22. 1) All establishments must have at their disposal at least one qualified medical professional with knowledge of psychiatry.Medical care should be organized in close liaison with local or state health authorities. It should cover psychiatric diagnostic services and, where necessary, treatment of mentally abnormal prisoners.
2) Sick prisoners requiring specialist services should be transferred to special institutions or to civilian hospitals. Prison hospitals should have the equipment, facilities and medicines necessary for the proper care and treatment of the sick, and adequately qualified personnel.
3) Every prisoner should be able to have access to the services of a qualified dentist.
23. 1) Women’s institutions shall have special premises for the care of pregnant women and women in labor. Where possible, care should be taken to ensure that childbirth does not take place in a prison, but in a civilian hospital. If the child is born in prison, then this circumstance should not be mentioned in the birth certificate.
2) Where imprisoned mothers are allowed to keep their babies with them, provision should be made for a nursery with qualified personnel, where children should be placed during periods when they are not being cared for by the mother.
24. Every prisoner should undergo a medical examination upon admission and thereafter, as necessary, in order to establish whether he is physically or mentally ill; take the necessary measures; isolate prisoners who are suspected of having an infectious or contagious disease; identify physical or mental handicaps that might hinder their re-education, and determine what their physical ability to work.
25. 1) A physician must take care of the physical and mental health of prisoners, who must receive or visit all patients on a daily basis, all those who complain of illness, as well as all those to whom his special attention was paid.
2) Whenever a physician believes that the physical or mental balance of a prisoner has been disturbed or threatens to be disturbed as a result of his confinement or in connection with any conditions of confinement, he shall report this to the director.
26.1) The doctor is obliged to regularly inspect and report to the director on the following issues:
a ) quantity, quality, preparation and distribution of food;
b ) hygiene and cleanliness of the establishment and the persons contained therein;
s ) sanitation, heating, lighting and ventilation in the institution;
d ) the suitability and cleanliness of prisoners’ clothing and bedding;
e ) compliance with the rules concerning physical education and sports in cases where this work is not entrusted to specialized personnel.
2) The Director shall take into account the reports and advice given to him by the physician in accordance with rules 25 (2) and 26, and, if he agrees with the latter’s recommendations, take immediate steps to implement them; if these recommendations go beyond his competence or if he does not agree with them, then he must immediately submit to the higher authorities both his own report and the doctor’s recommendations.
Discipline and punishment
27.Discipline and order should be maintained with firmness, while imposing, however, only those restrictions that are necessary to ensure reliable supervision and adherence to the proper rules of the institution’s dormitory.
28. 1) Prisoners should not be disciplined to serve the institution itself.
2) However, this rule should not impede the proper functioning of the system of self-government, in which responsibility for certain types of social, educational or sports activities lies with the prisoners themselves, who work under supervision as part of groups created for the purpose of their re-education.
29. The following factors shall always be determined by law or by order of the competent administrative authority:
a ) conduct constituting a disciplinary offense;
b ) the type and duration of punishment to which the prisoner may be subjected;
with ) a body entitled to impose punishments.
30.(1) Punishment may only be imposed in accordance with such law or such regulations, and no prisoner may be punished again for the same offense.
2) Not a single prisoner can be punished without being previously informed of the offense that is being blamed on him, and without having received the due opportunity to speak out in his defense. The competent authorities should subject each case of this kind to a careful scrutiny.
3) Where necessary and practicable, prisoners should be given the opportunity to defend themselves through an interpreter.
31. Corporal punishment, imprisonment in a dark cell and cruel, inhuman or degrading punishment should be prohibited as punishment for disciplinary offenses.
32. 1) Punishments involving severe imprisonment or reduced food intake may only be imposed after the prisoner has been examined by a doctor, who must confirm in writing that the prisoner is capable of undergoing such punishment.
2) The same applies to other types of punishment capable of causing physical or psychological harm to the person being punished. Such penalties must in no way conflict with or deviate from the provisions of rule 31.
3) The doctor is obliged to visit daily prisoners subject to such punishments, and to bring his opinion to the attention of the director if he considers it necessary to interrupt or change the punishment for reasons of the prisoner’s physical or mental condition.
Means of restraint
33. Restraints such as handcuffs, shackles, straitjackets or chains should never be used as punishment. In addition, shackles and chains should not be used at all as a means of pacification. Other means of restraint can only be used in the following cases:
a ) to prevent escapes during transport, provided that prisoners are released from their bonds as soon as they appear before judicial or administrative authorities;
b ) for medical reasons and as directed by a physician;
with ) by order of the director, if other measures are invalid, when the prisoner needs to be prevented from harming himself or others, or from causing material damage; in such cases, the director is obliged to immediately consult a doctor and submit a report to the higher administrative authorities.
34. The methods and means of using restraints are determined by the central prison administration. These funds should not be used for longer than it seems strictly necessary.
Prisoners’ information and complaints
35. 1) Upon admission to prison, each prisoner should be provided with written information regarding the rules for the treatment of prisoners of his category, the disciplinary requirements of the institution, as well as the permitted methods of obtaining information and filing complaints, as well as all other issues that allow him to give himself account of his rights and obligations and adapt to the conditions of life in this institution.
2) Illiterate prisoners should be informed orally.
36. 1) Every prisoner should have the opportunity to address the director of the institution or an employee authorized by him with statements or complaints on weekdays.
2) During inspection, prisoners should be able to make statements or complaints to the prison inspectors whenever possible. They should have the right to speak with the inspector or some other inspection officer in the absence of the director or other staff of the establishment.
3) Every prisoner should be able to make statements or complaints to the central prison administration, the judicial authorities or other competent authorities that are not subject to censorship in terms of content, but must be properly drafted and transmitted through the prescribed channels.
4) Unless such statements or complaints are of a superficial or pointless nature, they are subject to urgent consideration and should be responded to without undue delay.
Contacts with the outside world
37. Prisoners should be allowed to communicate at regular intervals and under appropriate supervision with their families or reputable friends, both by correspondence and during visits.
38. 1) Foreign nationals in detention should be provided with a reasonable opportunity to communicate with diplomatic and consular representatives of their country.
2) Prisoners who are citizens of countries that do not have diplomatic or consular representation in this state, as well as refugees and stateless persons, must be able to communicate with diplomatic representatives of the state that has assumed the protection of their interests, or with any national or international body protecting them.
39. Prisoners should be regularly informed of the most important news by allowing them to read newspapers, magazines or special prison publications, listen to the radio and attend lectures, or by any other means permitted and controlled by the administration.
40. Each institution should have a library accessible to all categories of prisoners and containing books of both entertainment and educational content. All prisoners should be encouraged to use the library.
41. 1) Institutions that contain a sufficient number of prisoners belonging to the same denomination should appoint a qualified minister of the cult or allow him to perform the appropriate rituals there.If the number of such prisoners is large enough and there are adequate opportunities, such a minister should be appointed for a full time.
2) A qualified minister of worship appointed or admitted to an institution pursuant to paragraph 1 must be able to regularly perform religious services and, during the time allotted for this, periodically visit in private prisoners belonging to his faith for discussions on religious topics.
3) Prisoners must not be denied access to qualified members of any faith.On the other hand, if a prisoner protests against his attendance by a minister of worship, his wishes should be treated with full respect.
42. To the extent practicable, every prisoner should be able to satisfy his religious needs by participating in religious rituals within the walls of his institution and having at his disposal the religious scriptures characteristic of his religion.
Storage of prisoners’ property
43.1) Money, valuables, clothing and other property, which, according to the rules in force in this institution, the prisoner has no right to keep with him, shall be handed over when he is accepted for storage. The list of this property is signed by the prisoners. Care should be taken to ensure that it is stored securely.
2) When a prisoner is released from a given institution, all property and money belonging to him shall be returned, with the exception of the amounts that he was allowed to spend, things that he was allowed to send outside the institution, or clothes that were deemed necessary to be destroyed for sanitary purposes. considerations.The prisoner signs for the receipt of money and things belonging to him.
3) The same applies to all money and things received by the prisoner during his stay in this institution.
4) If a prisoner has medicines or medical supplies with him, the doctor decides what to do with them.
Notification of death, illness, transfer, etc.
44. 1) In the event of death, serious illness or serious injury of a prisoner, or in the event of his transfer to an institution for the mentally ill, the director immediately notifies his spouse, if any, his next of kin and in any case the person , indicated earlier by the prisoner himself.
2) Prisoners should be informed promptly of the death or serious illness of any of their close relatives. In the event of a critical illness of a close relative, the prisoner should be allowed, when circumstances permit, to visit, either under guard or on his own.
3) Every prisoner should have the right to immediately inform his family members of his imprisonment or transfer to another institution.
45.(1) When prisoners are sent to their place of detention or transferred from one place of detention to another, they should be kept as far as possible from prying eyes and all measures should be taken to protect them from insults, curiosity and any kind of publicity.
2) The transport of prisoners in conditions of insufficient ventilation or lighting, or in any other physically unnecessarily difficult conditions, shall be prohibited.
3) Prisoners are transported by management, and their transport must be carried out in the same conditions for all.
46. 1) Prison authorities must take care of the careful selection of staff of all categories, for the good performance of prison institutions depends on the integrity, humanity, competence and personal qualities of these officers.
2) Prison officials must tirelessly instill in their staff and the public at large the conviction that they are doing work of great public interest. To reinforce this conviction, it must use the power of public information.
3) In order to achieve the above objectives, prison officials should be appointed full-time as specialized prison officials who enjoy the status of civil servants and who have the confidence to retain them in office, provided they are well-behaved, efficiently employed and physically able to carry out those assigned to them. their tasks. Their wages should be set so as to attract and retain capable men and women in the work.Given the extremely difficult conditions of this work, these people should be provided with appropriate benefits and working conditions.
47. 1) These personnel must be sufficiently educated and developed.
2) Before starting work, he must be prepared to perform his general and specific duties, after which he must be required to pass exams in theoretical and practical terms.
3) After joining the job and in the course of all their further activities, these employees should maintain and improve their qualifications by taking on-the-job training courses organized at suitable intervals.
48. All prison staff must at all times behave and carry out their duties in such a way as to serve as an example to prisoners and earn their respect.
49. 1) To the extent possible, these staffs should include a sufficient number of professionals such as psychiatrists, psychologists, social workers, teachers and trade instructors.
2) Social workers, teachers and trade teachers should be appointed as permanent employees, without neglecting, however, the work of part-time workers or volunteers.
50. 1) The appointment of directors of establishments should be persons who are sufficiently qualified by virtue of their nature, administrative ability, training and experience.
2) The director must devote all his time to the fulfillment of the duties assigned to him, working full-time.
3) He must live either on the territory of the institution entrusted to him, or in the immediate vicinity of it.
4) When the management of two or more establishments is entrusted to the same director, he is obliged to visit each of them in fairly short periods of time.The management of each of these establishments should be entrusted to a responsible officer residing in the field.
51. 1) The director, his deputy and most of the staff of the institution must know the language spoken by the majority of prisoners, or a language that most of them understand.
2) Where necessary, use the services of an interpreter.
52. 1) In establishments whose size justifies the presence of one or more full-time doctors, at least one of the latter must reside either in the establishment itself or in its immediate vicinity.
2) Other establishments must be visited by a doctor every day, and the doctor must be close enough to be immediately called in critical cases.
53. 1) In establishments where both men and women are detained, the women’s department should be run by a responsible female officer, who must hold the keys that open access to this department.
2) Male employees are allowed into the women’s section only when accompanied by female employees.
3) The care and supervision of women in prison should be assigned only to female staff. This should not, however, prevent male staff members, in particular doctors and teachers, from fulfilling their professional duties in women’s institutions or in other women’s offices.
54. 1) In their relations with prisoners, staff of establishments have the right to resort to violence only in the case of self-defense or attempts to escape, as well as in cases of active or passive opposition to orders based on applicable laws or regulations.Violent staff members are required to remain within the necessary and immediately report such incidents to the facility director.
2) Prison staff should be provided with special physical training to tame aggressive prisoners.
3) Staff members who are in direct contact with prisoners in the performance of their functions shall carry weapons only in exceptional cases. In addition, only trained personnel should be allowed to carry weapons.
55. Penitentiary institutions and services should be subject to regular inspection by qualified and experienced inspectors appointed by the competent authorities. Inspectors should, in particular, ensure that places of detention are managed in accordance with applicable laws and regulations and that their work is consistent with the tasks assigned to penitentiary and correctional services.
Part II.Rules applicable to special categories
A. Convicted prisoners
56. The following guidelines reflect the spirit in which penitentiary institutions should be governed and the goals they should strive to achieve, based on preliminary observation 1 of this text.
57. Imprisonment and other measures that isolate the offender from the outside world inflict suffering on him by virtue of the fact that they deprive him of the right to self-determination, since they deprive him of his freedom.Therefore, unless segregation appears to be justified, or where disciplinary considerations require it, the prison system should not exacerbate the suffering resulting from this situation.
58. The purpose and justification of a sentence of imprisonment or imprisonment in general is ultimately to protect society and prevent crimes that threaten society. This goal can be achieved only if, after serving the sentence and upon returning to normal life in society, the offender is not only ready, but also capable of obeying the law and ensuring his existence.
59. For this purpose, the institution must use all the correctional, educational, moral and spiritual forces and types of assistance that it has and that it considers appropriate, applying them taking into account the needs of the re-education of each prisoner.
60. 1) The regime adopted in the institution should strive to minimize the difference between life in prison and life in freedom, which kills in prisoners a sense of responsibility and consciousness of human dignity.
2) It is advisable that before the end of the sentence, measures are taken to gradually return the prisoner to life in the community. This goal can be achieved taking into account the characteristics of each offender, introducing a special regime for those released either in the institution itself or in some other institution, or by releasing prisoners on probation, during which they still remain under supervision, provided that such supervision is not vested in the police authorities and is combined with effective social assistance.
61. In the treatment of prisoners, it is not their exclusion from society that should be emphasized, but the fact that they remain members of it. Community organizations should, therefore, be encouraged, wherever possible, to co-operate with institutional staff in order to bring prisoners back to life in the community. Every institution should have social workers who are concerned with maintaining and strengthening the desirable relationship of the prisoner with his family and with social organizations that can benefit him.Measures should be taken to ensure that prisoners are able to retain the maximum rights compatible with the law and the conditions of their sentence in the area of their civic interests, social security and other social benefits.
62. Institutional medical services must identify any physical or mental illness or disability that might impede the prisoner’s re-education and take care of their cure. To this end, institutions must be able to provide all necessary medical, surgical and mental health services.
63. 1) Implementation of these principles requires an individual approach to prisoners, and, consequently, a flexible system of classifying them into groups; it is therefore desirable that such groups be housed in separate establishments suitable for working with each of them.
2) In these establishments it is not necessary to take the same security measures for each group. It is even desirable to grade the severity of these measures depending on the group. The most favorable conditions for the re-education of carefully selected prisoners exist in open settings, where the emphasis is not on physical means of preventing escapes, but on self-discipline.
3) It is desirable that the number of inmates held in the institution is not too large for an individual approach to be applied to them. In some countries, it is considered that the population of such establishments should not exceed 500 people. As few prisoners as possible should be kept in open establishments.
4) On the other hand, prisons must be large enough to provide adequate facilities and services.
64. The obligations of the community do not end with the release of the prisoner. Therefore, it is necessary to have public or private bodies capable of effectively caring for released prisoners, combating the prejudices of which they are victims and helping them to re-enter society.
Treatment of prisoners
65. In the treatment of persons sentenced to imprisonment or other similar punishment, an effort should be made, taking into account the length of their sentence, to instill in them a desire to obey the law and ensure their existence upon release.Treating them should reinforce their self-esteem and responsibility.
66.1) To this end, all appropriate measures should be taken, including religious services in countries where possible, education, vocational training and orientation, case studies, employment counseling, physical education and character building, taking taking into account the individual needs of the prisoner, his social background, the history of his crime, his physical and mental abilities and capabilities, his temperament, the length of his sentence and his possibilities after release.
2) For every prisoner sentenced to a sufficiently long term, the director shall receive, as soon as possible upon his acceptance, a complete information on the matters listed in the preceding paragraph. This information should always contain a report by the doctor, who is as well versed in psychiatry as possible, on the physical and mental state of the prisoner.
3) These reports and other documents concerning the prisoner must be attached to his personal file.The file should be updated with all new information and kept in such a way that the relevant employees can refer to it if necessary.
Classification and individualization
67. The purposes of the classification are:
a ) the separation of prisoners from those who, due to their criminal past or negative character traits, threaten to exert a bad influence on them;
b ) the division of prisoners into categories, making it easier to work with them in order to return them to life in society.
68. Work with different categories of prisoners should, as far as possible, be carried out in different institutions or in different departments of the same institution.
69. As soon as possible after the admission of each prisoner and on the basis of a study of his character, a program of work with him should be developed, taking into account his individual needs, abilities and inclinations.
70.Each institution should have a system of benefits and develop different methods for treating different categories of prisoners in order to encourage them to behave well, develop a sense of responsibility, instill in them an interest in their re-education and seek their cooperation.
71. 1) The labor of prisoners must not bring them suffering.
2) All convicted prisoners are obliged to work in accordance with their physical and mental abilities, certified by a doctor.
3) Prisoners should be assigned useful work sufficient to fill a normal working day.
4) The work provided to prisoners shall, as far as possible, be such as to enhance or equip them with qualifications to enable them to engage in honest labor upon release.
5) Prisoners who are able to benefit from this, especially minors, should be trained in useful trades.
6) Prisoners should be able to carry out the work of their choice if this is compatible with the correct choice of trade and the requirements of management and discipline in the establishment.
72. 1) The organization and methods of work in institutions should be as close as possible to those adopted outside their walls, so that prisoners are thus accustomed to working conditions in freedom.
2) However, the interests of prisoners and their vocational training should not be subordinated to considerations of profit from prison production.
73. 1) The management of industrial and agricultural production in establishments is best left to the prison administration itself, rather than to private contractors.
2) Prisoners performing work not controlled by the institution must be under constant supervision of the institution’s staff. Unless inmates work for other government agencies, employers are required to pay the establishment the full wages due for the work in question, taking into account the productivity of the inmate.
74. (1) The rules concerning the safety and health of free workers should also be applied in establishments.
2) In the event of industrial injury or occupational disease, prisoners should be compensated. The conditions for this compensation must be no less favorable than the conditions for compensation prescribed by law for free workers.
75. 1) The maximum length of a working day or week is established by law or on the basis of administrative regulations, taking into account local rules and customs in the field of working conditions of free workers.
2) Working hours should be allocated in such a way that prisoners have at least one day of rest per week and sufficient time for study and other activities necessary for their re-education.
76. (1) For their work, prisoners should receive fair remuneration within a defined system.
2) Under this system, prisoners should be able to spend at least part of the money they earn on the purchase of permitted personal items and send part of their earnings to the family.
3) This system should also provide that part of the money earned by the prisoner remains in the custody of the administration, which transfers these savings to him at the time of his release.
Education and recreation
77. (1) Prisoners who are able to benefit from it should be provided with the possibility of further education, including religious education in countries where this is allowed. Education for the illiterate and youth should be considered compulsory and should be given special attention by the prison authorities.
2) The education of prisoners should, as far as possible, be linked to the country’s educational system so that released prisoners can continue to study without difficulty.
78. In all institutions, prisoners should be provided with recreational and cultural activities in the interests of their physical and mental health.
Relations with the outside world and post-liberation custody
79. Particular attention should be paid to maintaining and strengthening ties between the prisoner and his family, which are desirable and serve the interests of both parties.
80. From the very beginning of serving the sentence, one should think about the future that awaits the prisoner after his release. Therefore, he should be helped to maintain and strengthen ties with individuals or institutions outside the institution who are able to protect the interests of his family and facilitate his inclusion in society after his release.
81. 1) Government or other bodies and institutions that help released prisoners find their place in society should, where possible and necessary, ensure that such prisoners receive the necessary documents and identity documents, find suitable housing and work, have clothing suitable and sufficient for the climate and season of the year and have sufficient means to travel to their destination and to live in the period immediately following their release.
2) Accredited representatives of such institutions should have the opportunity to visit prison institutions and those imprisoned therein. They should be consulted about the prospects for the future life of prisoners from the very beginning of their term.
3) It is desirable that the work of such institutions should be centralized or coordinated to the extent possible, in order to ensure the most effective use of their work.
V.Insane and mentally disabled prisoners
82. (1) Persons deemed to be mentally ill should not be imprisoned. Therefore, measures should be taken to transfer them to institutions for the mentally ill as soon as possible.
2) Prisoners suffering from other mental illnesses or disabilities should be monitored and treated in special institutions under the supervision of doctors.
3) During their stay in prison, such prisoners must be under special medical supervision.
4) Medical or psychiatric services working in penitentiary institutions shall provide mental treatment for all prisoners who need it.
83. In co-operation with the competent authorities, it is advisable to take, if necessary, measures to provide mental health care for released prisoners, as well as social psychiatric custody of them.
C. Persons under arrest or awaiting trial
84.1) Persons arrested or imprisoned on charges of a criminal offense and held either in police stations or in prisons, but not yet summoned to court and not convicted, are referred to in the following rules as “remand” prisoners.
2) Prisoners under investigation are presumed innocent and should be treated accordingly.
3) Subject to the legal provisions on personal freedom or the procedure for the treatment of remand prisoners, these prisoners should be subject to a special regime, the basic rules of which are set out in the following rules.
85. 1) Prisoners under investigation should be kept separate from convicts.
2) Young prisoners under investigation should be held separately from adults and, in principle, in separate institutions.
86. At night, persons under investigation should be housed singly in separate rooms, taking into account, however, local peculiarities due to climatic conditions.
87. When it does not violate the established order of the institution, remand prisoners may be allowed, if they so wish, to receive food from outside at their own expense, either through the prison authorities or through their family members or friends.Otherwise, the administration provides food for the prisoner.
88. 1) Prisoners under investigation have the right to wear civilian clothes, provided that they are kept clean and of a decent character.
2) If a prisoner under investigation wears a prison uniform, it must be different from the uniform of a convicted person.
89. Prisoners on remand should always be given the opportunity to work.However, labor is not their responsibility. If such a prisoner decides to work, his work should be paid.
90. All remand prisoners should be able to purchase, at their own expense or at the expense of third parties, books, newspapers, writing utensils and other items that allow them to spend time, provided that they are compatible with the interests of the administration of justice, security requirements and the normal course of life in the institution.
91.Prisoners under remand should be allowed to use their own doctor or dentist during their stay in prison if their request to do so appears justified and if they are able to cover the costs involved.
92. Prisoners under remand should be able to immediately inform their families of the fact of their imprisonment, take advantage of reasonable opportunities to communicate with relatives and friends and receive them in prison, subject only to those restrictions and supervision necessary for the proper administration of justice, compliance with security requirements and ensuring the normal operation of the institution.
93. In order to protect themselves, detainees under investigation should have the right, where possible, for free legal advice, receive, in the opinion of the legal adviser who has taken over their defense, prepare and transmit confidential instructions to him. For this purpose, writing instruments should be provided at their disposal upon request. Visits between a prisoner and his legal adviser should take place in front of, but outside the ears of, police or prison officials.
D. Civil prisoners
94. In countries where the law allows imprisonment for non-performance of debts or by order of a court in connection with any other civil matter, persons imprisoned in this manner should not be subjected to more severe treatment than is necessary for reliable supervision and maintenance of proper order. The treatment of such persons should be no less lenient than the treatment of prisoners under investigation, with the only difference that their labor may be compulsory.
E. Persons arrested or imprisoned without charge
95. Without prejudice to article 9 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, persons arrested or imprisoned without charge shall be afforded the same protection as those accorded to persons under Parts I and II, section C . The relevant provisions of Section A Part II also apply where their application would benefit this special group of detainees, provided that no action is taken that would imply that the methods of correction or re-education are applicable to persons not convicted of any criminal offense.90,000 X and Y v. Russia (translation of the judgment)
CASE “X and Y against RUSSIA”
(Complaint No. 43411/06)
September 22, 2020
This ruling is final and subject to revision.
In X and Y v. Russia
The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting as a Committee as follows:
Alena Poláčková, Chairman of the Section,
Gilberto Felici, judges,
and Olga Chernyshova, Deputy Secretary of the Section,
Pay attention to
an application (no. 43411/06) against the Russian Federation, lodged with the Court in accordance with Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (hereinafter referred to as the Convention) by two Russian citizens, Mr X (hereinafter referred to as the first applicant) and his mother, Mr -joy Y (hereinafter referred to as the second applicant) 18 October 2006;
communication to the Government of the Russian Federation (hereinafter referred to as the “Government”) about the first applicant’s complaints about unlawful detention, ill-treatment and lack of effective domestic remedies in relation to these complaints;
the decision not to disclose the names of the applicants;
the parties’ comments,
Sitting on 1 September 2020 behind closed doors,
Delivers the following judgment, adopted on the same day:
1.The case concerns the first applicant’s complaints about his unlawful detention and subsequent ill-treatment by the police officers, as well as the lack of an effective investigation in this regard.
2. The first and second applicants (a son and his mother) were born in 1981 and 1955 respectively. The applicants were represented by lawyers of the NGO Pravovaya Initsiativa in partnership with ANO Astreya (hereinafter referred to as SRJI / Astreya).
3.The Russian Government were first represented by Mr G. Matyushkin, the Representative of the Russian Federation at the European Court of Human Rights, and then by his successor, Mr M. Galperin.
4. The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, can be summarized as follows.
I. PRELIMINARY INFORMATION
5. At the relevant time, the first applicant lived in the village. Kolos city of Karabulak, Ingushetia. The second applicant lived in g.Grozny. The first applicant regularly traveled to Grozny to visit his mother, attended lectures and took exams at the Chechen State University.
6. According to the medical documents, the first applicant was in good physical condition and did not complain about his health. He did not seek medical attention from 2003 to 26 May 2004.
II. ARRESTING THE FIRST APPLICANT AND ALLEGED ABUSE
7. The Government submitted that at 5.30 pm on 27 May 2004 the police officers arrested the first applicant on suspicion of having committed a criminal offense. The first applicant was then taken to the Leninskiy District Police Department of Grozny (hereinafter – the Leninskiy ROVD) and questioned. During the interrogation, the police officers did not put pressure on him. The Government referred to the first applicant’s arrest report of 27 May 2004., which was signed by attesting witnesses Mr P. and Mr D., the first applicant and his lawyer, and the record of the first applicant’s questioning dated the same day, it did not contain any complaints of ill-treatment by the police officers.
B. Applicants’ version
8. At 4 am on 26 May 2004, when the first applicant was sleeping in the second applicant’s house in Grozny, a group of armed masked men broke into the house. They knocked the first applicant to the floor and beat him.The men then put a black plastic bag over the first applicant’s head and took him to the Leninskiy ROVD. On the way they questioned the first applicant and kicked him if his answers did not satisfy them.
9. At the Leninskiy ROVD the first applicant realized that he had been abducted by the police officers. They took the first applicant to an office and handcuffed him to a chair. Then several officers in camouflage uniforms, including officers R.Kh. and I.A., hit him on the feet with rubber truncheons, strangled him with a plastic bag and tortured him with electric current through wires attached to various parts of his body, including the anus, until he lost consciousness.
10. In the course of the ill-treatment the police officers ordered the first applicant to confess to a number of crimes. When he refused, the torture continued.
11. When the police officers had left the office, investigator D. entered and pushed the first applicant against the wall. The investigator said that the first applicant was implicated in several crimes and therefore was obliged to cooperate with the investigation. The first applicant replied that the officers had arrested the wrong person, since he did not know anything about the crimes that investigator D., nor about the persons involved in them. Investigator D. said that the first applicant would regret his refusal to cooperate and left.
12. The police officers then returned to the room and continued to beat and humiliate the first applicant. The officers pulled off his pants, put a truncheon to his anus and threatened to stick him inside. They also took photographs and videos of the first applicant in this position and threatened to distribute the photographs and tapes to his neighbors. They also threatened to rape him.
13. At some point the first applicant surrendered, wrote a “confession statement” and a number of other documents dictated by the police officers and signed them. This did not stop the beating. The police officers wanted the first applicant to memorize the details of each crime to which he “confessed”. For every mistake in the retelling, they beat him. The ill-treatment continued until late at night, when suddenly all of Grozny was cut off from electricity. Then the police officers handcuffed the first applicant and left him in the room with a plastic bag on his head.
14. On the morning of May 27, 2004, the staff returned to the office. One of them pressed the first applicant’s face against the wall, aimed a rifle at his back and threatened to kill him if he refused to do what they told him. They then showed photographs of several people. When the first applicant said that he did not know anyone, the police officer hit him on the head with his fist and kicked him in the scrotum. Later the first applicant was transferred to the ITT.
15.The ill-treatment of the first applicant continued for several days. On one of these days, his heart ached, and the police called an ambulance. The doctor provided the first applicant with medical assistance. According to the applicant, the doctor’s visit was not registered. On another day (apparently 29 May 2004) the first applicant was transferred from the IVS to an upstairs office, where the police officers beat him in order to force him to refuse the services of the lawyer R.D., hired by the second applicant. The first applicant was introduced to another lawyer, Mr G.B. – and said that from that moment on, Mr G.B. will be his lawyer. The first applicant refused his assistance and insisted that Mr R.D. be his lawyer. Then investigator D. and lawyer G.B. ordered the first applicant to confess, threatening to be transferred to the operational-search bureau no. 2 (hereinafter – ORB-2), where he would be tortured.
16. Later investigator D. and lawyer G. B. left the office and the police officers continued to beat the first applicant, handcuffing him to a chair.They hit him on the head and injured his right ear. When the first applicant fell out of his chair during the beating, the police officers started kicking him. After that he was transferred back to the temporary detention facility, and in the evening – to ORB-2.
17. The first applicant was detained in ORB-2 for 18 days from 29 May 2004.
18. On 30 May 2004 the first applicant was taken to a room where another handcuffed inmate (Mr MV) was sitting on a chair with visible signs of torture on him.The police officers demanded that he name the detainee as his accomplice. When he refused, police officers beat both detainees. Obviously, these officers were from the Leninskiy ROVD, as the first applicant recognized their voices. He also heard the screams of torture from detainees in the next room. All this led to a nervous breakdown in the first applicant.
19. On 14 July 2004 the second applicant was allowed to visit the first applicant. According to her, she could not recognize her son, as his whole body was covered with bruises and abrasions.The first applicant told her that he had been severely beaten on the orders of investigator D.
20. After 18 days of detention in ORB-2, the first applicant was transferred back to the IVS. On the day of his return, the first applicant was threatened that his mother would be killed if he refused to name his accomplice. Later the first applicant was shown the detainee M.V., whom he had seen in ORB-2. The first applicant should have named him as his accomplice. Under strong pressure from investigator D.the first applicant said that the detainee was an accomplice. After that investigator D. left the room and the police officers started insulting and humiliating the first applicant and hitting him on the head.
21. In September 2004 the first applicant was transferred to remand prison no. 20/1 in Grozny.
III. CRIMINAL CASE AGAINST THE FIRST APPLICANT
22. On 29 May 2004 the Leninskiy District Court authorized the first applicant’s detention pending the completion of the investigation.It appears that at the hearing the first applicant’s lawyer noticed the injuries on his client and then asked investigator D. to explain their origin (see paragraph 33). The first applicant remained in detention pending the completion of the investigation and trial.
23. On 23 June 2004 the first applicant was charged in connection with his participation in the activities of an illegal armed group (hereinafter – illegal armed groups).
24. On 22 November 2004 an indictment was drawn up against the first applicant and Mr M.B. The first applicant was charged with participation in an illegal armed group consisting of several people, including M.V., and with committing terrorist acts in Chechnya.
25. On 30 March 2005 the Chechen Supreme Court acquitted the first applicant and Mr M.V. and ordered the immediate release of the first applicant from custody.
26. The court found that the questioning of the first applicant on 27 and 28 May 2004 was conducted in violation of the procedural rules and declared the records of the interrogations, obtained under duress, inadmissible evidence.He also noted that the medical examination of the first applicant had revealed numerous injuries on him and that during the trial the first applicant and Mr M.V. identified employees R.Kh. and I.A., who were involved in their ill-treatment. The court stated that the investigating authorities had incited these officers to accept the information received from the first applicant in violation of procedural rules. Comparing various documents from the case file, the court concluded that the record of the first applicant’s arrest of 27 May 2004was rigged. This fact is confirmed by the testimony of the attesting witness Mr D., who said that he was not present during the arrest. Instead, he was asked to report to the Leninsky ROVD, where the police made a copy of his passport. However, the court noted that, according to the expert opinion, the signature on the arrest report had been made by Mr D. …The fact that the first applicant sustained injuries after 27 May 2004 is confirmed by medical documents.
27. The court also noted that, at the first applicant’s request, the Leninskiy District Prosecutor’s Office carried out a pre-investigation inquiry and refused to institute criminal proceedings in connection with the alleged ill-treatment. The decision did not provide information on exactly where, at what time, by what officers and under what specific circumstances the first applicant was detained.
28. The court held that the charges against the first applicant were largely based on his confessions, which had been declared inadmissible and which the court had refuted during the preliminary investigation, and that no other evidence supported the first applicant’s guilt in the relevant crimes.
29. On 14 April 2005 the prosecutor of the Chechen Republic appealed against the acquittal.
thirty.On June 1, 2005, the Russian Supreme Court overturned the acquittal and remitted the case for a new trial, as the impugned decision contained conflicting conclusions.
31. The first applicant’s lawyer lodged an appeal with the Presidium of the Supreme Court of Russia for a supervisory review of the above decision. The court refused to consider the application on 4 October 2005.
32. On 1 September 2005 the Supreme Court of Chechnya held the first hearing of the case after it had been submitted for examination.The first applicant did not appear at the hearing as by that time he had left Russia. Therefore, the court put him on the wanted list and ordered him to be taken into custody during his arrest.
IV. INVESTIGATION OF ALLEGED ABUSE
33. On 2 June 2004, noticing injuries on the first applicant’s body (see paragraph 22), his lawyer R.D. complained to investigator D. about the unlawful arrest of his client on 26 May 2004, the unreported detention and ill-treatment of the applicant by the police officers.Following this complaint, the investigator ordered a forensic medical expert to examine the first applicant.
34. On 4 June 2004 a forensic expert examined the first applicant and drew up report no. 521. The copy of this expert report submitted by the applicants is not readable in full. As can be seen from the copy, the first applicant informed the expert that on 27 May 2004 he had been abducted from his home by armed men and taken to the Leninskiy ROVD, where he was ill-treated. The expert’s report also indicates that, according to an entry in the IVS log dated May 28, 2004 No., the first applicant was not injured and did not complain of health. Later (the date is illegible) he required medical attention due to a bruise in the lumbosacral region and (word inaudible) trauma to the anterior abdominal wall. An examination carried out on 4 June 2004 revealed that the first applicant had numerous bruises and abrasions on his chest and lower limbs, caused by hard blunt objects. The expert argued that they could have been obtained at the time and in the circumstances described by the first applicant.
35. On 4 June 2004 the investigator received “explanations” from four officers of the Leninskiy ROVD (including R.Kh. and IA) concerning the circumstances of the first applicant’s arrest and questioning. They submitted that the first applicant had been arrested on 27 May 2004 and that no pressure had been exerted on him during the interrogation.
36. On the same day, taking into account the expert opinion and the statements of the police officers, investigator D. refused to open a criminal investigation into the unlawful detention and ill-treatment.
37. On 2 July 2004 investigator D. ordered a repeated forensic medical examination of the first applicant. The report, drawn up at his request, concluded that the first applicant had four scars on his chest and one on his right knee, from three to six months earlier. After the lapse of time, it was impossible to determine how they were applied.
38. Later, on an unspecified date, the Leninskiy ROVD opened an internal investigation into the first applicant’s alleged ill-treatment.It appears that during the investigation investigator D. was questioned. He denied that the first applicant had been ill-treated. On 15 July 2004 the investigation was closed, finding that the first applicant’s complaints were unsubstantiated. A copy of the relevant judgment has not been submitted to the Court.
39. On different days, including 4 and 11 August, 4 October and 15 November 2004, the applicants complained to the Chechnya prosecutor about the unlawful arrest and ill-treatment of the first applicant. Apparently, the complaints were dismissed as unsubstantiated.
40. On 17 February 2006 the second applicant again complained to the Chechnya prosecutor’s office about the ill-treatment of her son. In response, the investigating authorities carried out a new pre-investigation check. They questioned investigator D. and three officers of the Leninskiy ROVD, who unanimously stated that no pressure had been exerted on the first applicant. On this basis, on 2 March 2006 the authorities refused to initiate criminal proceedings. The second applicant appealed against this decision to the Chechnya prosecutor’s office, which dismissed the complaint on 7 July 2006.
41. On an unspecified date at the ROVD, at the request of the NGO Committee Against Torture, a second internal investigation was carried out into the first applicant’s allegations of ill-treatment. As a result, it was established that the complaints were not substantiated. A copy of the corresponding opinion has not been submitted to the Court.
42. In the meantime, on 5 April 2006 the second applicant found the witness Mr T, who was being held in the cell with the first applicant. He stated in writing that the first applicant had been ill-treated and that he had been forced to confess against himself.
43. On 29 May 2006 the Chechnya prosecutor informed the second applicant that her complaints about the alleged ill-treatment of her son would be examined in criminal case no. 50057, which had been opened following a complaint by Mr M.V. for his ill-treatment during pre-trial detention.
44. On 28 April 2007 the Russian Prosecutor General informed the second applicant that the last refusal to institute criminal proceedings had been quashed and that a new preliminary investigation had been initiated into the alleged ill-treatment.It follows from the Memorandum of the Russian Federation that the pre-investigation check ended on June 4, 2009 with a decision to refuse to initiate a criminal case. A copy of this judgment was not provided to the Court.
V. APPEALING THE DECISION OF THE COURT ON THE REFUSAL OF INITIATION OF THE CRIMINAL CASE
45. On 25 September 2006 the second applicant lodged a complaint with the Leninskiy District Court of Grozny about the refusal of the investigating authorities to open a criminal investigation into the ill-treatment of her son.The outcome of this trial is unknown.
46. Later, on an unspecified date, she appealed against the investigator’s decision of 3 March 2006 to the Zavodskoy District Court of Grozny.
47. On 25 December 2006 the Zavodskoy District Court dismissed this complaint. It found that the pre-investigation inquiry had been carried out in accordance with the law and that the second applicant had not submitted any evidence that could refute the investigator’s conclusion that the first applicant had not been ill-treated.
48. The second applicant appealed against the above decision to the Supreme Court of Chechnya, which dismissed her complaint on 18 April 2007.
Vi. HEALTH STATUS OF FIRST APPLICANT AFTER ALLEGED ABUSE
49. In 2008 the first applicant was treated at the Center for Victims of Torture in Finland (hereinafter referred to as the Center). According to a report of 10 September 2009 prepared by a psychologist practicing at the Center, the first applicant suffered from post-traumatic stress disorder (hereinafter PTSD) and anxiety.At the beginning of treatment, he seemed to be in constant anxiety. He had a very high level of anxiety and found it difficult to sit up during the appointment. He experienced severe headaches almost daily and could not sleep at night. Headache problems were not resolved. The first applicant continued to experience dissociative disorder typical of PTSD, including difficulties with orientation and concentration, as well as changes in his emotional state.
50.On 7 and 14 September 2009 the Center’s physiotherapist examined the first applicant in connection with an injury allegedly caused by police officers in 2004.The doctor discovered several scars on his body, including a 10 cm scar on the back of the middle of his skull, scar tissue on the ear the concha of the right ear, scars on both shoulder blades and back (in the lumbar region and in the area of the twelfth rib), as well as scars on both hands and wrists. In addition, the first applicant suffered from limited (stiffness) movement, back pain and other symptoms.The doctor concluded that the marks on the body and the symptoms were consistent with the consequences of the first applicant’s ill-treatment.
51. On 16 September 2009 the first applicant was examined by a specialist at the Center for Neurology and Psychotherapy. The first applicant complained to this doctor about health problems related to the alleged ill-treatment in 2004. The doctor found that his symptoms were consistent with the allegations of torture.
RELEVANT LEGAL FRAMEWORK AND MATERIALS OF THE COUNCIL OF EUROPE
52. The relevant provisions of the Criminal Code and the Criminal Procedure Code of the Russian Federation are summarized in the judgments Ryabtsev v. Russia (no. 13642/06, § 42–52, 14 November 2013) and Lyapin v. Russia (no. 46956/09, § 99-102, 24 July 2014).
II. INFORMATION FROM CPT
53. On 10 July 2003 the European Committee for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (hereinafter – the CPT) made a Public Statement concerning the Chechen Republic of the Russian Federation (CPT / Inf (2003) 33), which reads, in so far as relevant:
“4.During the CPT’s visits to the Chechen Republic in 2002, and in particular during a very recent visit, from 23 to 29 May 2003, many persons interviewed separately and in different places claimed that they had been subjected to ill-treatment while under guardianship in law enforcement agencies. The allegations were detailed, consistent, and related to methods such as severe beatings, electric shocks and suffocation with a plastic bag or gas mask. In many cases, these claims have been supported by medical evidence.Thus, some of the persons examined by the delegation’s doctors had traces of ill-treatment on their bodies and were in a state that completely coincides with their statements. In addition, medical evidence was collected consistent with allegations of ill-treatment while in law enforcement …
5. One institution stands out in terms of both the frequency and severity of the alleged cases of ill-treatment. We are talking about ORB-2 (Operational Investigation Bureau of the North Caucasus Operational Directorate of the Main Directorate of the Ministry of Internal Affairs of Russia in the Southern Federal District) in Grozny… ”
54. On 13 March 2007 the CPT made a Public Statement concerning the Chechen Republic of the Russian Federation (CPT / Inf (2007) 17), which reads, in so far as relevant:
“15. During visits to the North Caucasus in 2006, the CPT delegation again received many credible allegations of recent ill-treatment of detainees by law enforcement and security officials in the Chechen Republic.The alleged ill-treatment was often so severe that it could be considered torture; Methods used included severe beatings, suffocation with a plastic bag or gas mask, electric shocks, hanging by limbs, hyperextension, and, less commonly, burns with cigarettes, lighters, or other devices. There were also reports of threats of execution or sexual abuse in order to obtain confessions or information. The overall picture was that any detainee who did not promptly confess to the crime of which he was suspected (or did not provide the information requested by those responsible for the arrest) would be in imminent risk of ill-treatment…
With regard to the official law enforcement agencies, a particularly large number of complaints of ill-treatment continue to be linked to ORB-2 in […] Other law enforcement structures, which apparently have a particularly high risk of ill-treatment, include the Leninsky ROVD … ”
I. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 3 OF THE CONVENTION
55. The first applicant complained about a violation of Article 3 of the Convention, that after his arrest the police officers tortured him in order to obtain a confession and that the authorities had not carried out an effective investigation into this matter.Article 3 states:
“No one should be subjected to torture or inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.”
56. The Government submitted that the first applicant’s complaint was manifestly ill-founded. They also noted that the applicants had not appealed against the refusal to institute criminal proceedings on 2 March 2006, but that the domestic authorities, on their own initiative, had carried out an additional pre-investigation inquiry.
57. The first applicant insisted on his complaint. He submitted that the admissibility requirements had been fully complied with. In particular, domestic remedies have been exhausted as the judgment of 2 March 2006 was challenged before the domestic courts.
58. The Court notes that the second applicant, on behalf of the first applicant, did, first before the Zavodskoy District Court of Grozny and then before the Supreme Court of Chechnya, appealed against the refusal to institute criminal proceedings into the alleged ill-treatment of the first applicant by the investigator on 2 March 2006.and that her complaints were dismissed. It follows that domestic remedies in respect of the complaints in question have been exhausted (see Belevitskiy v. Russia, no. 72967/01, § 61, 1 March 2007, and Meshengov v. Russia [CTE], no. 30261/09, § 35 , 26 March 2019).
59. The Court notes that this complaint is not manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 of the Convention. It also notes that it is not inadmissible on any other grounds. Thus, it must be declared acceptable.
1. Arguments of the parties
60. The Government submitted that there was no evidence that the first applicant was tortured. The investigating authorities carried out a preliminary investigation into the first applicant’s complaints of ill-treatment by the police officers and found that the injuries had been inflicted with a hard, blunt object. As a result of the pre-investigation check, it was decided not to initiate a criminal case, since the charges turned out to be unfounded.Finally, the Government noted that the criminal proceedings against the first applicant were still pending, as he had evaded the investigation by leaving the country.
61. The first applicant insisted on his complaint. He pointed out that the Government had not explained the origin of his injuries. The credibility of his version of events is confirmed by two expert opinions prepared in 2004, a decision of the Supreme Court of the Chechen Republic dated March 30, 2005, and three conclusions of the Center’s medical specialists prepared in 2009.The first applicant also argued that the internal investigation was ineffective, in particular because investigator D. was biased and did not carry out the main investigative steps: he did not question key witnesses and did not examine the scene of the incident.
2. The Court’s assessment
(a) Basic principles
62. The basic principles of the Court, consistent with the merits of the case, are summarized in Bouyid v. No. Belgium ([GC], no.23380/09, § 81–90 and 114–123, ECHR 2015) and Lyapin, cited above, § 109–115.
(b) Application of the aforementioned principles in the present case
(i) Credibility of allegations of ill-treatment and presumption of fact
63. The parties did not dispute that, prior to his arrest on 8 January 2005, the first applicant had no injuries on his body. Several days later, he required medical attention for a back injury and trauma to the anterior abdominal wall (see.paragraph 34). On 4 June 2004, a forensic expert found numerous bruises and abrasions on his body. The expert found that these injuries could have been the result of the alleged ill-treatment by the police officers (see ibid.). On 2 July 2004 another expert established that the first applicant had scars on his chest and knee (see paragraph 37). About five years later, in September 2009, doctors at the Center for Torture Victims discovered several scars, scars on the body and symptoms that matched the applicant’s detailed description of police ill-treatment (seeparagraphs 49-51).
64. In the light of the foregoing, the Court considers that the first applicant’s injuries could possibly have been the result of the violence allegedly suffered by the police officers, who pressured him to confess to the crimes. This finding is consistent with the CPT’s public statements (see paragraphs 53 and 54). This is sufficient to give rise to the presumption of the first applicant’s account of ill-treatment during the first days of his arrest, and the Court is satisfied that his allegations are credible.
(ii) Whether there has been an effective investigation into the allegations of ill-treatment
65. The Court also notes that the first applicant’s complaints that his injuries were the result of ill-treatment by the police officers were dismissed by the domestic investigating authorities. The authorities drew their conclusions from the results of a pre-investigation inquiry, which is the initial stage of a criminal case under Russian law, and usually must be followed by a criminal investigation and investigation if the information gathered reveals elements of a criminal offense (seeLyapin, cited above, § 129).
66. The Court has already held that a mere pre-investigation inquiry is not enough if the authorities are to comply with the standards set out in Article 3 of the Convention to effectively investigate credible allegations of ill-treatment in police custody. The authorities are under an obligation to institute criminal proceedings and conduct a proper criminal investigation, during which the full range of investigative actions is carried out (ibid., § 129 and 132-136, and see.Sergey Ryabov v. Russia, no. 2674/07, § 44, 17 July 2018).
67. In the present case, the manner in which the pre-investigation investigation was carried out is particularly displeasing. The Court notes that the first refusal to institute criminal proceedings was made within two days of the first applicant’s lawyer’s submission of the complaint (see paragraph 35). The Court also notes that, as far as can be seen from the documents in its possession, the investigators did not carry out the main investigative steps: they did not question key witnesses, including the first applicant’s lawyer, the second applicant, Mr M.V., the first applicant’s cellmates, the SIZO officers, and the officer who provided the first applicant with medical assistance in connection with a back injury and an injury to the anterior abdominal wall. The investigators did not examine the alleged scene of the incident.
68. The above elements are sufficient to conclude that the authorities failed to carry out an effective investigation into the first applicant’s complaints of ill-treatment by the police, as required by Article 3 of the Convention.
(iii) Did the authorities provide explanations that would cast doubt on the applicants’ account
69.The Court notes that neither the Government nor the investigating authorities explained the origin of the first applicant’s injuries. The Court therefore concludes that the Government failed to fulfill their burden of proof.
(iv) Legal classification of circulation
70. The medical documents before the Court confirm the theory that the first applicant was beaten by the police officers. Even if the Court has no evidence that the criminals had used electric shocks, because no specific marks were found on the first applicant’s body, given the long period of ill-treatment, its cruelty, long-term negative impact on the first applicant’s health in order to obtain a confession in crimes, the Court concludes that the first applicant was tortured by the police officers (seeLyapin, cited above, § 119-120).
71. T There has therefore been a violation of Article 3 of the Convention on its substantive and procedural side.
II. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 5 OF THE CONVENTION
72. The first applicant complained that his arrest and unregistered detention from 4 am on 26 May 2004 to 5:30 pm on 27 May 2004 were unlawful.He relied on Article 5 of the Convention, which, in so far as relevant, provides as follows:
“1. Everyone has the right to liberty and security of person. No one may be deprived of liberty except in the following cases and in the manner prescribed by law … ”
73. The Government submitted that the complaint at issue was manifestly ill-founded.
74.The first applicant contested this argument, arguing that he had complied with the admissibility requirements.
75. The Court notes that this complaint is not manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 of the Convention. It also notes that it is not inadmissible on any other grounds. Thus, it must be declared acceptable.
1. Arguments of the parties
76. The Government submitted that the first applicant had been arrested at 5.30 pm on 27 May 2004.and taken to the Leninsky District Department of Internal Affairs. His detention pending investigation and trial was authorized in accordance with domestic law. In support of this, the Government referred to a copy of the first applicant’s arrest report of 27 May 2004, the registration log of the Leninskiy ROVD and statements by several police officers. However, copies of the registration logs and statements by the police officers were not provided to the Court.
77. The first applicant contested the date of his arrest.According to him, the arrest took place at 4 am on 26 May 2004. The first applicant noted that the Government did not provide a copy of the registration log of the Leninskiy ROVD and the statements of the police officers. Moreover, the Government did not provide the Court with a detailed account of the surrounding circumstances and did not disclose the names of the police officers who had apprehended the first applicant.
2. The Court’s assessment
78. The Court notes that the Government did not submit a copy of the registration log of the Leninskiy ROVD or the statements of the police officers who allegedly corroborated the Government’s account of events.Thus, the Government’s assertion that the first applicant was arrested on 27 May 2004 is supported only by the record of his arrest. However, the veracity of this evidence is questioned by the decision of the Supreme Court of the Chechen Republic of March 30, 2005, which, having compared the protocol with other documents, established that it was falsified. This conclusion was corroborated by the statements of the attesting witnesses, who stated that they had not been present when the first applicant was arrested. Although the decision of the Supreme Court was overturned by a higher instance, the conclusion that the detention protocol was falsified has never been refuted either by the courts or by the investigating authorities.The government made comments in this regard.
79. In view of the above, the Court accepts the applicants’ version of events that was detailed, consistent and of which the investigating authorities were promptly notified.
80. Accordingly, the Court finds that the first applicant was arrested at 4 a.m. on 26 May 2004 by police officers and unlawfully detained at the Leninskiy ROVD until his arrest was officially registered at 5:30 p.m. on 27 May 2004. G.His unreported detention left him completely at the mercy of those who held him, which endangered his personal safety and made him vulnerable to ill-treatment (see Fartushin v. Russia, no. 38887/09, § 50, 53 and 54 , 8 October 2015).
81. It follows that there has been a violation of Article 5 of the Convention in respect of the first applicant.
III. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 13 OF THE CONVENTION IN RELATION TO ARTICLES 3 AND 5 OF THE CONVENTION
82.Finally, the first applicant complained, under Article 13 of the Convention in relation to Articles 3 and 5, about the lack of effective domestic remedies with which to complain of ill-treatment by police officers and unlawful detention. Article 13 states:
“Everyone whose rights and freedoms recognized in this Convention are violated has the right to an effective remedy before a public authority, even if the violation was committed by persons acting in an official capacity.”
83. The Government submitted that the complaint at issue was manifestly ill-founded.
84. The first applicant contested this argument, arguing that he had complied with the admissibility requirements.
85. The Court notes that this complaint is not manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 (3) of the Convention. It also notes that it is not inadmissible on any other grounds.Thus, it must be declared acceptable.
1. Arguments of the parties
86. The Government submitted that the first applicant had effective domestic remedies at his disposal to challenge his detention and ill-treatment by the police officers. The authorities carried out a thorough preliminary investigation and internal investigation into the police officers following the first applicant’s complaints of ill-treatment.Moreover, the first applicant had the opportunity to raise his complaints in the course of the criminal proceedings against him.
87. The first applicant insisted on his complaint.
2. The Court’s assessment
88. Having regard to its finding of a violation of Article 3 in its procedural part on account of the Government’s failure to conduct an effective investigation, as well as its finding of a violation of Article 5 in connection with the unreported detention of the first applicant, the Court considers that the complaint of a violation Article 13 in relation to Articles 3 and 5 does not raise separate issues and therefore does not need to be considered (see para.Lyapin, cited above, § 144, and Fartushin, cited above, § 59-60).
IV. OTHER ALLEGED VIOLATIONS
89. The second applicant complained under Article 3 of the Convention that she suffered distress and distress in relation to the ill-treatment suffered by the first applicant and because of the lack of an effective investigation into his complaints. She also complained under Article 13 of the Convention that she did not have an effective domestic remedy to complain about the alleged violations.Finally, she complained under Article 34 of the Convention about a violation of her right to lodge an individual complaint.
90. The Court has examined these complaints. However, in the light of all the materials in its possession and given the extent to which the issues complained of fall within its competence, the Court concludes that they do not contain any signs of a violation of the rights and freedoms set out in this Convention or the Protocols to her. It follows that this part of the application is manifestly ill-founded and must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 §§ 3 (a) and 4 of the Convention.
V. APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION
91. Article 41 of the Convention provides:
“If the Court declares that there has been a violation of the Convention or the Protocols thereto, and the internal law of a High Contracting Party allows only partial elimination of the consequences of this violation, the Court, if necessary, awards just satisfaction to the injured party.”
A.Compensation for damage
92. The first and second applicants claimed EUR 50,000 and EUR 5,000 respectively in respect of non-pecuniary damage. They requested that compensation be paid to the first applicant and that the entire amount be transferred to the bank account of his representative, since disclosing his address could lead to his detention.
93. The Government argued that a finding of a violation would have amounted to sufficient just satisfaction for the applicants’ suffering.
94. In these circumstances, the Court considers that the first applicant’s suffering and anguish cannot be compensated for by the mere fact of a finding of a violation. Having assessed the fairness of the claim and taking into account the severity of the ill-treatment, the Court awarded the first applicant EUR 50,500 in respect of non-pecuniary damage, plus any tax that may be charged on that amount.
B. Costs and expenses
95.The applicants claimed EUR 7,011.75 in respect of costs and expenses incurred in the proceedings before the Court, which were to be transferred to the bank account of the applicants’ representative.
96. The Government argued that the amount claimed was unsubstantiated.
97. According to the Court’s case-law (see Merabishvili v. Georgia [GC], no. 72508/13, § 370, ECHR 2017 (extracts)), the applicant is only entitled to reimbursement of costs and expenses to the extent that they actually had location, were necessary and reasonable.In this case, taking into account the documents before the Court and the above criteria, it considers it reasonable to award EUR 2,000 in compensation for costs and expenses incurred, plus any tax that may be charged on this amount, and this compensation should be transferred to the bank account representatives indicated by the applicant.
C. Payment of interest
98. The Court considers it appropriate that the default interest should be based on the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank, to which should be added three percentage points.
FOR THE STATED REASONS, THE COURT UNANIMOUSLY:
1. Declares the first applicant’s complaints of ill-treatment and the lack of ineffective remedies in connection with his complaints admissible, and the remainder of the application inadmissible.
2. Holds that there has been a violation of Article 3 of the Convention in its substance, as the first applicant was tortured.
3.Holds that there has been a violation of Article 3 of the Convention on account of the lack of an effective investigation into the first applicant’s ill-treatment complaints.
4. Holds that there has been a violation of Article 5 of the Convention on account of the first applicant’s unregistered detention.
5. Holds that there is no need to examine the complaints under Article 13 of the Convention in relation to Articles 3 and 5 of the Convention.
(a) that the respondent State is obliged, within three months from the date of entry into force of this judgment, to pay the first applicant the following amounts in Russian rubles at the exchange rate at the date of execution of the judgment:
(i) 50,500 (fifty thousand five hundred) euros to the first applicant in respect of non-pecuniary damage and any tax that may be applied to this amount;
(ii) 2,000 (two thousand) euros, as well as any tax that may be applied to this amount, as compensation for costs and expenses to be transferred to the bank account of the applicant’s representatives;
(b) that after the expiry of the above three months and pending the time of calculation, ordinary interest shall be paid on the above amounts at a rate equal to the lending rate for loans from the European Central Bank during the default period plus three percent.