NCLAT: Can’t Dismiss Restoration App. if Filed in 30 Days from Date of Dismissal of Original App.  ||  Delhi HC: Communication between Parties through Whatsapp Constitute Valid Agreement  ||  Delhi HC Seeks Response from Govt. Over Penalties on Petrol Pumps Supplying Fuel to Old Vehicles  ||  Centre Notifies "Unified Waqf Management, Empowerment, Efficiency and Development Rules, 2025"  ||  Del. HC: Can’t Reject TM Owner’s Claim Merely because Defendant Could have Sought Removal of Mark  ||  Bombay HC: Cannot Treat Sole Director of OPC, Parallelly with Separate Legal Entity  ||  Delhi HC: Can Apply 'Family of Marks' Concept to Injunct Specific Marks  ||  HP HC: Can’t Set Aside Ex-Parte Decree for Mere Irregularity  ||  Cal. HC: Order by HC Bench Not Conferred With Determination by Roster is Void  ||  Calcutta HC: Purchase Order Including Arbitration Agreement to Prevail Over Tax Invoice Lacking it    

In the case of Zadonskiy and Others v. Russia - (08 Nov 2016)

No one shall be subjected to torture or to inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment

Human Rights

Present case originated in twenty-eight applications against Russian Federation lodged with Court under Article 34 of Convention for Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“Convention”) by sixteen Russian nationals. Applicants were convicted by Russian Courts and given custodial sentences and served their sentences in penitentiary facilities which were overcrowded and suffered from a shortage of sanitary installations. Applicants complained that, conditions of their detention had been inhuman and degrading in breach of Article 3 of Convention.

Article 3 of Convention provides that, no one shall be subjected to torture or to inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. Government has acknowledged a breach of applicants’ right to protection from inhuman or degrading treatment. However, the amount of compensation appears to be substantially lower than what the Court generally awards in comparable cases.

Government did not dispute the applicants’ factual submissions relating to overcrowding in penitentiary facilities, a shortage of sanitary installations and their poor state of repair. Court refers to principles established in its case-law regarding inadequate conditions of detention. It reiterates in particular that extreme lack of space in a prison cell or overcrowding weighs heavily as an aspect to be taken into account for purpose of establishing whether the impugned detention conditions were “degrading” from the point of view of Article 3 and may disclose a violation, both alone or taken together with other shortcomings.

Article 13 of Convention provides that, everyone whose rights and freedoms as set forth in Convention are violated shall have an effective remedy before a national authority notwithstanding that, violation has been committed by persons acting in an official capacity. Government were unable to show what redress could have been afforded to the applicant by a prosecutor, a court, or any other State agency, bearing in mind that the problems arising from the conditions of the applicant’s detention were apparently of a structural nature and did not concern the applicant’s personal situation alone.

Respondent-State is directed to pay the applicants, within three months, the amounts indicated, to be converted into the currency of the respondent State at the rate applicable at the date of settlement; that from expiry of above-mentioned three months until settlement simple interest shall be payable on above amounts at a rate equal to marginal lending rate of European Central Bank during default period plus three percentage points.

Relevant : Articles 34, 13, 3 of Convention for Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms

Tags : DETENTION   DEGRADING TREATMENT   COMPENSATION  

Share :        

Disclaimer | Copyright 2025 - All Rights Reserved