header-logo header-logo

28 June 2007
Issue: 7279 / Categories: Features , Human rights
printer mail-detail

Human rights update

Conditions in detention >>
Religious intolerance >>
Discrimination and widow’s benefits >>
Family rights: competing private and public interests >>

Conditions in detention

The applicant in Benediktov v Russia (Application No 106/02) complained that he had been detained in prison cells in Moscow, which failed to meet the minimum standards demanded by the European Convention on Human Rights (the Convention). On one occasion, his cell provided less than one square metre of personal space, and a shortage of beds required inmates to share sleeping facilities. He also complained about bed bugs, lice and a lack of fresh air and light due to windows being blocked with thick metal bars. It was extremely cold in winter and hot, stuffy and damp in summer. Similarly, the applicant in Andrev Frolov v Russia (Application No 205/02) complained that he had been held in 11 different cells over a period of four years—each measuring eight square metres which usually accommodated up to 14 inmates who all used the same lavatory pan.

Dignity & detainees

The Russian government could not provide

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Bell Yard Kysen—Liz Giles

Bell Yard Kysen—Liz Giles

Bell Yard Kysen appoints senior legal PR and ex-government communications adviser, Liz Giles

Clarke Willmott—Lee Edwards

Clarke Willmott—Lee Edwards

Clarke Willmott boosts Southampton commercial property team with addition of partner Lee Edwards

Lime Solicitors—four promotions

Lime Solicitors—four promotions

Lime Solicitors announces four promotions

NEWS
The Attorney General, Ellie Reeves KC MP, and Solicitor General, Andy Slaughter KC MP, marked the 25th anniversary of Pro Bono Week by joining lawyers, charities, students and parliamentarians at events celebrating voluntary legal work
Witness evidence can be compromised by AI before a solicitor sees the draft, leaving safeguards focused on authorship incomplete
Possession claims are entering a new digital era, with procedural traps awaiting practitioners who assume familiar rules still govern every step
A polished legal defence may owe more to artificial intelligence than legal merit—and creditors risk paying the price in delay and expense
An indemnity costs battle with a £20m gap could reopen an important question: what weight should an approved budget carry?
back-to-top-scroll