The applicant, Viktor Bordikov, was accused of unlawful possession of ammunition and drugs. Referring to the seriousness of the charges, the danger of the applicant’s absconding and his potential interference with the administration of justice by putting pressure on witnesses, the applicant was detained pending trial for four separate periods during the length of the criminal proceedings.

The applicant alleged that there had been a breach of Art.3 on account of inhuman and degrading conditions in the remand prison and on account of a lack of adequate medical treatment. He further alleged that there had been a violation of Art.5§3 as his pre-trial detention had been unreasonably long. He alleged also that the length of the criminal proceedings had been excessive which constituted a violation of his rights set out in Art.6. 

Article 3:

The cells in the remand prison, as described by the applicant and a witness, were inter alia infested with cockroaches, overcrowded and insufficiently furnished with beds, so that inmates had to take turns to sleep. Allegedly, the cells were never sanitised and the walls contained poisonous material. The Government disagreed as to most of these aspects of the conditions except for the allegation that the cells were overpopulated. However, the Government disagreed with the applicant’s statements concerning the measurements of the cells and the numbers of detainees and beds held there. 

The Court noted that severe overcrowding is in itself sufficient to constitute a violation of the applicant’s rights set out in Art.3. However, the relevant remand prison records, which would have clarified the exact measurements and numbers of beds and detainees, had been destroyed after the expiry of the time-limit for their storage. The Government did not stop the destruction although it had notice of the present application. Given that the Government alone had access to the relevant information but had failed to submit it without a reasonable explanation, the Court examined the issue on the basis of the applicant’s submissions (Ahmet Özkan and Others v. Turkey, no.21689/93, 2004). Accordingly, the Court accepted that the space afforded to the inmates did not exceed 2sq. m per person and on certain occasions were as low as 0.9sq m per person; the number of sleeping beds was insufficient and the inmates had to take turns to sleep. 

The Court reiterated that the applicant had spent a year and a half in these degrading and inhuman conditions. The Government is responsible for ensuring that their prisons are organised in a way that respects the dignity of the detainees, irrespective of the financial or logistical resources. 

The Court found a violation of Art.3 on the account of a lack of personal space for the detainees.

Other claims:

The Court did not find a violation of Art.3 on account of the lack of medical treatment, because the applicant did not provide a medical opinion confirming his point.

The Court did also not find a violation of Art.5§3. The Court noted that in the present case the domestic courts had examined all the facts and paid due regard to the presumption of innocence but could justify the period of pre-trial detention. 

Taking into account the various factors, such as the complexity of the case, the applicant’s conduct and he conduct of the competent authorities, the Court did also not find that the length of the criminal proceedings was unreasonable.

The Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Art.3 on the grounds that the applicant had been detained in inhuman and degrading conditions. Applying Art.41 of the Convention, the Court awarded the applicant EUR 3,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damages.