Европейский суд по правам человека
15 июня 2006 года
Facts
The applicant, Mr. Moisejevs, was detained on remand in the investigative prison. During his transfers to the court hearings, he was not given a proper lunch. He was given a simple breakfast early in the morning and supper late in the evening after his return to prison. In the courthouse he was usually given one piece of bread, an onion and a piece of baked fish. If he was returned to prison after supper, he was given only a bun of bread. During the detention he was not allowed to meet his parents and girlfriend. The judge examining his case refused several applicant’s requests to meet his family. The judge issued no written decision and gave no motivation for such decision.
Complaint
Mr. Moisejevs complained that due to the lack of food he had been subjected to inhuman and degrading treatment in violation of Article 3 of the Convention. Moreover, Mr. Moisejevs complained that there was no mechanism in force to complain about refusal of family visits.
Court's ruling
The Court reminded that the state is under an obligation to ensure that a prisoner’s health and well-being is adequately secured by, among other things, feeding him properly. The Court concluded that the meal given to Mr. Moisejevs during the transfers was clearly insufficient to meet the body’s needs, especially because participation in the hearings could cause additional stress. The Court also took note of the fact that the applicant also sometimes did not receive proper dinner, the Court concluded that Mr. Moisejevs had regularly suffered from hunger on the days of the hearings. The Court considered that the suffering experienced by Mr. Moisejevs exceeded the minimum level of severity required by Article 3 and had therefore amounted to “degrading treatment”
Regarding the visits, the Court stated that everyone must be able to enforce his or her human rights. It means that there must be an authority which is competent to deal with complaints regarding the rights protected by the Convention. The requirements this mechanism must fulfil depend on the nature of the applicant’s complaint, however it must be effective in theory as well as practice. The Court reminded that the effectiveness of the complaint mechanism does not depend on whether its decision will be favourable to the applicant. The Court observed that under Latvian law there was no complaint procedure provided to challenge a decision to refuse family visits in the investigative prison. Therefore the Court concluded that there had been a violation of Article 13 of the Convention.