Beșleagă v. the Republic of Moldova and Russia (Application no. 48108/07)

A selection of key paragraph(s) can be found below the document.

27. The State must ensure that a person is detained in conditions which are compatible with respect for human dignity, that the manner and method of the execution of the measure of deprivation of liberty do not subject him to distress or hardship of an intensity exceeding the unavoidable level of suffering inherent in detention (see Kudła, cited above, § 94; Svinarenko and Slyadnev v. Russia [GC], nos. 32541/08 and 43441/08, § 116, ECHR 2014 (extracts), Ananyev and Others v. Russia, nos. 42525/07and 60800/08, § 141, 10 January 2012, and Muršić v. Croatia [GC], no. 7334/13, § 99, 20 October 2016).

29. The court recalls in particular that clear insufficiency of food given to a detainee in itself raises an issue under Article 3 of the Convention (see Stepuleac v. Moldovano. 8207/06, § 55, 6 November 2007 and Kadiķis v. Latvia (no. 2), no. 62393/00, § 55, 4 May 2006). In the present case, the applicant was given food once a day and denied access to food brought by his relatives.

30. On the basis of the material before it and in the absence of any material contradicting the applicant’s submissions, the Court finds it established that the conditions of the applicant’s detention amounted to inhuman and degrading treatment within the meaning of Article 3.

46. The Court reiterates that it is well established in its case-law on Article 5 § 1 that any deprivation of liberty must not only be based on one of the exceptions listed in sub-paragraphs (a) to (f) but must also be “lawful”. Where the “lawfulness” of detention is in issue, including the question whether “a procedure prescribed by law” has been followed, the Convention refers essentially to national law and lays down the obligation to conform to the substantive and procedural rules of national law. This primarily requires any arrest or detention to have a legal basis in domestic law; it also relates to the quality of the law, requiring it to be compatible with the rule of law, a concept inherent in all the Articles of the Convention (see, for example, Del Río Prada v. Spain[GC], no. 42750/09, § 125, ECHR 2013; and Mozer, cited above, § 134).