The applicant, Mr. Čuprakovs, was serving his prison sentence. He was admitted to prison hospital where he spent approximately 3 weeks. Among other things, the hospital cell had a large window which could not be completely closed. There were gaps around the edges of the window therefore the temperature inside the cell depended on the temperature outside.
Mr. Čuprakovs complained that the conditions in the prison hospital cell violated his rights under Article 3 of the Convention.
The Court noted that other international organizations have also emphasized the problem of inadequate conditions in that particular prison hospital. The Court concluded that window in the cell could not be fully closed and had large gaps around its frame. The Government argued that the cell had a functioning heating system; however, the Court did not consider that this casts reasonable doubt on the applicant’s submission that the temperature in the cell was low and the prisoners had to sleep wearing their outdoor clothes and hats.
The Court stated that the cumulative effect of inadequate temperature and other conditions in the prison hospital, such as lack of toiletries, insufficient privacy while using the toilet as well as severe overcrowding were such as to subject him to distress or hardship of an intensity exceeding the unavoidable level of suffering inherent in detention, in particular in view of his health condition. Therefore there was a violation of Article 3 of the Convention.