Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  MECHENKOV v. RUSSIA

  Art. 3 MRK
  Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (englisch)

Wird zitiert von ... (0)Neu Zitiert selbst (7)

• EGMR, 26.10.2006 - 59696/00

  KHUDOBIN v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 07.02.2008 - 35421/05

  Nevertheless, the Court points out that in cases where detainees were unable to produce documents to support their complaints it has relied on other evidence, for example, written statements signed by eyewitnesses (see, for example, Khudobin v. Russia, no. 59696/00, § 87, ECHR 2006-... (extracts)).

  The Court reiterates that the authorities of the penitentiary institution should have kept a record of the applicant's state of health and the treatment he underwent while in detention (see Khudobin v. Russia, no. 59696/00, § 83, ECHR 2006-... (extracts)).

• EGMR, 27.09.2007 - 76114/01

  SOLOVYEV v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 07.02.2008 - 35421/05

  The Court observes at the outset that it has already examined cases concerning alleged violations of Article 3 of the Convention on account of poor conditions of detention entailing high risks of contracting tuberculosis (see, for example, Kalashnikov v. Russia, no. 47095/99, § 98, ECHR 2002-VI, and Solovyev v. Russia (dec.), no. 76114/01, 27 September 2007).
• EGMR, 25.01.2000 - 34979/97

  WALKER v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 07.02.2008 - 35421/05

  It marks out the temporal limits of the supervision carried out by the organs of the Convention and signals to both individuals and State authorities the period beyond which such supervision is no longer possible (see Walker v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 34979/97, ECHR 2000-I).

 
• EGMR, 02.12.2004 - 4672/02

  FARBTUHS c. LETTONIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 07.02.2008 - 35421/05

  Furthermore, if the authorities decide to maintain a seriously ill person in detention, they must demonstrate special care in guaranteeing such conditions of detention that correspond to his special needs resulting from his disability (see Farbtuhs v. Latvia, no. 4672/02, § 56, 2 December 2004).
• EGMR, 28.01.1994 - 17549/90

  HURTADO c. SUISSE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 07.02.2008 - 35421/05

  Although the medical assistance available in prison hospitals may not always be at the same level as in the best medical institutions for the general public, the State must ensure that the health and well-being of detainees are adequately secured by, among other things, providing them with the requisite medical assistance (see Kudla, cited above, § 94, ECHR 2000-XI; see also Hurtado v. Switzerland, judgment of 28 January 1994, Series A no. 280-A, opinion of the Commission, pp. 15-16, § 79).
• EGMR, 26.10.2000 - 30210/96

  Das Recht auf Verfahrensbeschleunigung gemäß Art. 6 Abs. 1 S. 1 EMRK in …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 07.02.2008 - 35421/05

  Nevertheless, in the light of Article 3 of the Convention, the State must ensure that a person is detained under conditions which are compatible with respect for human dignity, that the manner and method of the execution of the measure do not subject the individual to distress or hardship exceeding the unavoidable level of suffering inherent in detention, and that, given the practical demands of imprisonment, the person's health and well-being are adequately secured (see Kudla v. Poland [GC], no. 30210/96, §§ 92-94, ECHR 2000-XI), with the provision of the requisite medical assistance and treatment (see, mutatis mutandis, Aerts v. Belgium, judgment of 30 July 1998, Reports 1998-V, p. 1966, §§ 64 et seq.).
• EGMR, 24.03.2005 - 21894/93

  AKKUM AND OTHERS v. TURKEY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 07.02.2008 - 35421/05

  Where the applicant makes out a prima facie case of treatment contrary to Article 3 of the Convention and the Court is prevented from reaching factual conclusions for lack of such documents, it is for the Government to argue conclusively why the documents in question cannot serve to corroborate the allegations made by the applicants, or to provide a satisfactory and convincing explanation of how the events in question occurred (see, mutatis mutandis, ToÄŸcu v. Turkey, no. 27601/95, § 95, 31 May 2005; Akkum and Others v. Turkey, no. 21894/93, § 211, ECHR 2005-... (extracts)).