I incorrectly predicted that there was a violation of human rights in TYURIN v. RUSSIA.

Information

  • Judgment date: 2010-11-04
  • Communication date: 2016-09-19
  • Application number(s): 32695/14
  • Country:   RUS
  • Relevant ECHR article(s): 3, 8, 8-1, 8-2, 13
  • Conclusion:
    Remainder inadmissible
    Violation de l'art. 6-3-b and 6-3-c
    Non-violation de l'art. 6-3-e
    Pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage - award
  • Result: No violation
    • SEE FINAL JUDGMENT

JURI Prediction

  • Probability: 0.710591
  • Prediction: Violation

  • Inconsistent


Legend

 In line with the court's judgment
 In opposition to the court's judgment
Darker color: higher probability
: In line with the court's judgment  
: In opposition to the court's judgment

Communication text used for prediction

The applicant, Mr Stanislav Nikolayevich Tyurin, is a Russian national who was born in 1973 and was being detained in St Petersburg at the time the application was lodged.
He is represented before the Court by Ms M.A.
Belinskaya, a lawyer practising in St Petersburg.
The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows.
On 8 April 2010 the applicant was detained on suspicion of kidnapping and murder.
On an unspecified date in December 2012 the applicant was released.
He was taken back into detention on 4 June 2013 after a jury found him guilty of the charges.
The applicant was placed in a solitary confinement cell in wing 2/1 of remand prison IZ-47/1 in St Petersburg.
He was kept alone for the whole day, including during the daily outdoor exercise period.
There was no ventilation, hot water, or access to natural light or fresh air in the cell.
The walls were covered with mould and the lighting was poor.
Constant video surveillance also deprived him of any privacy when using the toilet.
Lastly, the applicant was unable to have hot food on the days he had to attend hearings because he was not provided with hot water for the dried food he received.
COMPLAINTS The applicant complains under Article 3 of the Convention that his solitary confinement and the conditions of his detention on remand amounted to inhuman and degrading treatment.
The applicant also complains under Article 8 of the Convention about the constant video surveillance of his cell in the remand prison.
The applicant complains under Article 13 of the Convention that he did not have effective domestic remedies in respect of his complaints.

Judgment