CEDAW/C/49/D/23/2009
Interior Department of Lenin District of Brest City. She was accused of hanging
blue ribbons and posters calling for participation in the “European March”, which
constitutes “minor hooliganism”. In the early morning of 11 October 2007, at
1.45 a.m., she was placed in the temporary detention facility (“IVS facility”) of the
Interior Department of Lenin District. On the same day, her case was examined by
the Lenin District Court, which found the author guilty of minor hooliganism. The
court imposed on the author an administrative sanction in the form of five days of
administrative arrest. She was released from detention on 15 October 2007.
2.2 The author claims that the cell where she was detained was located
underground and was used to detain persons on criminal charges as well as those
under administrative arrest. She claims that all staff working in the IVS facility were
male. From time to time a nurse came to visit the detainees, but she was not an
employee of the Interior Department.
2.3 She further submits that the IVS facility consisted of nine cells, two of which
were intended to house women. She was detained in a cell of 4 by 3 metres with a
height of 2.7 metres. The cell was designed to accommodate six persons, and was
equipped with a table, six bunk beds and a wooden commode. All the furniture was
nailed to the floor.
2.4 The author submits that the cells were cold; the heaters were turned off
although the outside temperature was as low as 1° C. She claims that detention in
such conditions amounted to torture. The cell was equipped with a washstand with
one cold water tap and a toilet bowl. The toilet was located inside the cell and was
separated from the rest of the cell only on one side by a small screen of 50 by
50 centimetres. Thus, if a cellmate was sitting on a bed situated opposite the toilet,
she could see anyone using the toilet. Male prison staff periodically watched the
prisoners through the door peephole. Since the screen did not obstruct the view of
the toilet from the door, they could observe the author using the toilet. It was
unpleasant and embarrassing for her to use the toilet in such circumstances. She
claims that having to use the toilet without a proper separation between it and the
rest of the cell amounted to degrading treatment.
2.5 She adds that the bedding provided was dirty and the cells were full of spiders.
Her cell was full of smoke as her cellmates were smokers and the ventilation did not
disperse the tobacco smell. The lighting was also poor, the window was small and
the glass was so dirty that the daylight did not penetrate. She saw daylight only once
during her five-day detention, when she was allowed a 15-minute walk outside. The
light provided by the light bulb in the cell was not sufficient to read by and she had
to get up and stand next to it to be able to read. The light was switched on around
the clock, which prevented her from sleeping. She was fed only twice a day.
2.6 The author claims that she suffers from kidney problems and therefore must
avoid catching cold. After the first night spent in the cold cell, she developed severe
back pain. At her request, an ambulance team intervened and provided her with
medical aid. She also had headaches and fever. The author claims that she has had
many health problems since her detention in such conditions.
2.7 Before her admission to the IVS facility, she was taken to a railway station for
a body search. There were no female staff at the IVS facility to perform the search.
At the time of her admission to the IVS facility, one of the guards allegedly poked
her with his finger on the pretext of checking whether she was wearing a belt. She
11-51730
3