Supreme Court: After the BNSS, a Pre-Cognizance Hearing is Mandatory in PMLA Cases  ||  SC: Landowners Cannot be Forced to Waive Statutory Compensation to Claim Other Benefits  ||  Supreme Court: Banks are Lenient With Big Borrowers But Strict With Ordinary Loan Applicants  ||  Delhi HC: Minimum Wages During Pending Litigation Cannot be Frozen and Must be Updated Periodically  ||  Kerala HC: ICC Can Probe Sexual Harassment Complaint Against a Director Not Controlling Affairs  ||  Delhi HC: Interim Protection From Blacklisting Does Not Remove Bidder’s Duty to Disclose in Tenders  ||  Allahabad HC: After the BNSS, Pre-Cognizance Hearing of the Accused is Mandatory in NDPS Complaints  ||  Delhi HC: Husband Cannot Avoid Maintenance For Wife and Children by Claiming Irregular Income  ||  SC: Repeated Anticipatory Bail Pleas Abuse Process and Reduce Litigation to a Gamble  ||  Supreme Court: State Officers Cannot Back Litigants Through Affidavits Against the Law    

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 2026 - All Rights Reserved