This is an analysis of the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) decision in the case of Mishkina v. Russia.
1. **Essence of the Decision:**
The ECtHR found Russia in violation of Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights due to the applicant’s confinement in a metal cage during criminal proceedings, which the Court deemed degrading treatment. The Court also addressed other complaints related to inadequate conditions of transport and the lack of an effective remedy, finding additional violations based on well-established case-law. The decision underscores the Court’s stance against the use of metal cages in courtrooms and highlights the importance of humane treatment during detention and transport. The Court held that it has jurisdiction to deal with this application as it relates to facts that took place before 16 September 2022.
2. **Structure and Main Provisions:**
The judgment begins with the procedure, outlining the case’s origin and the parties involved. It then presents the facts of the case, focusing on the applicant’s complaints about her confinement in a metal cage. The legal analysis addresses the Court’s jurisdiction, followed by a detailed examination of the alleged violation of Article 3 concerning degrading treatment. The Court references previous case-law, particularly Svinarenko and Slyadnev v. Russia and Vorontsov and Others v. Russia, to support its finding of a violation. The judgment also addresses other alleged violations related to transport conditions and the lack of effective remedies, referencing Tomov and Others v. Russia. Finally, the Court considers the application of Article 41, awarding the applicant compensation for non-pecuniary damage.
3. **Main Provisions for Use:**
The most important provision is the reaffirmation that confining an individual in a metal cage in a courtroom constitutes degrading treatment and violates Article 3 of the Convention. This decision reinforces the ECtHR’s consistent position on this issue, providing a clear precedent for similar cases. Additionally, the judgment highlights the importance of providing adequate conditions during transport and ensuring effective remedies for grievances related to detention conditions. The decision also clarifies the Court’s jurisdiction over cases against Russia for events that occurred before September 16, 2022.
**** This decision may have implications for Ukrainians who have experienced similar treatment, as it reinforces the prohibition of degrading treatment and the right to effective remedies.
