CEDH · CASELAW;JUDGMENTS;CHAMBER;ENG — 4 octobre 2005

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s23860FF7 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:center } .sE208486F { font-family:Arial; color:#ff0000 } .s598389FF { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:18pt } .sF5E1C6CF { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline; color:#ff0000 } .s491F5244 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic; color:#ff0000 } .sA1D3DA2E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s4ACA9207 { page-break-before:always; clear:both; mso-break-type:section-break } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sB9D5CABB { width:28.35pt; display:inline-block } .sFEE8C148 { width:13.68pt; display:inline-block } .s61E420C2 { font-family:Arial; font-variant:small-caps } .s61ED8A2B { width:14.36pt; display:inline-block } .sEC177689 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:36pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s967D43C6 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s87F05BA2 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .sC443675D { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:30pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .sD2857263 { margin-top:30pt; margin-left:17.85pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17.85pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s8ED1F3C2 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s7EE1C8F0 { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:29.2pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17.6pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s6477A72F { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s9D48DD53 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .sEC2CB098 { margin-top:6pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s984A15CA { margin-top:6pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s8F4EE4B8 { margin-top:6pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s33165EBA { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .s20FC8552 { font-family:Arial; font-size:11.5pt } .s11869A80 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s83BE5C30 { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; vertical-align:super } .s9F223FEE { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:17.85pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17.85pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s507703F { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .sA1CDB767 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .s281358E1 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .sFD4D42B6 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .sCA92750 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:42pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .sD777C0A5 { margin-top:42pt; margin-bottom:30pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s46B3B71C { margin-top:30pt; margin-left:17.85pt; margin-bottom:30pt; text-indent:-17.85pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s3C0142D3 { margin-top:30pt; margin-left:29.2pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17.6pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s401C450A { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s12E41F63 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; font-size:11.5pt } .sC5C91519 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:24pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; font-size:9.5pt } .sC31874BD { margin-top:24pt; margin-left:29.2pt; margin-bottom:24pt; text-indent:-17.6pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s25BD2B45 { margin-top:24pt; margin-left:36.6pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-15.05pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sD5DF731 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .sC702907E { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:36.6pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-15.05pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s51D801D { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; font-size:11.5pt } .s684F2214 { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:29.2pt; margin-bottom:24pt; text-indent:-17.6pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sB1BD30C0 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:24pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .sD1463EA5 { margin-top:6pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.4pt; text-align:justify } .s13F94BDE { font-family:Arial; letter-spacing:-0.1pt } .sF15BC25 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:24pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; font-size:11pt } .s804EF768 { margin-top:24pt; margin-left:29.2pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17.6pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s8E011338 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s56E27C8 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:24pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .s469162F0 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; font-size:11.5pt } .s3B3A5DE9 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:36pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .sAB173E38 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:17pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-17pt; text-align:justify } .s127C7598 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:17pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-17pt; text-align:justify } .s92275EC1 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:17pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-17pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sB2D0B857 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:17.3pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sD66C1369 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:17.3pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s81CCF55C { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:17pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17pt; text-align:justify } .s7CB9076 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s9D025815 { width:20.21pt; display:inline-block } .s495E66C1 { width:192.1pt; display:inline-block } .s7602FED2 { width:18.21pt; display:inline-block } .sC1AC44A4 { width:228.11pt; display:inline-block } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left } .s85226119 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .s653E6C45 { font-family:Arial; font-size:6.67pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 }     FOURTH SECTION     CASE OF SARBAN v. MOLDOVA     (Application no. 3456/05)     JUDGMENT     STRASBOURG     4 October 2005       FINAL     04/01/2006       This judgment will become final in the circumstances set out in Article   44 §   2 of the Convention. It may be subject to editorial revision. In the case of Sarban v. Moldova, The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting as a Chamber composed of:   Sir   Nicolas Bratza , President ,   Mr   J. Casadevall ,   Mr   M. Pellonpää ,   Mr   R. Maruste ,   Mr   S. Pavlovschi ,   Mr   J. Borrego Borrego,   Mr   J. Šikuta, judges , and Mr M. O’Boyle , Section Registrar , Having deliberated in private on 13 September 2005, Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date: PROCEDURE 1.     The case originated in an application (no. 3456/05) against the Republic of Moldova lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) by a Moldovan national, Mr Vladimir Sarban (“the applicant”), on 19 January 2005. 2.     The applicant was represented by Mr A. Tănase, a lawyer practising in Chişinău. The Moldovan Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Mr V. Pârlog. 3.     The applicant complained about his detention on remand and about various alleged violations in that connection: violations of Article 3 (lack of access to medical assistance); Article 5 § 3 (insufficient reasons given by the courts for the detention on remand and decisions taken by a judge not competent to order his release); Article 5 § 4 (length of time taken to respond to a habeas corpus request and refusal to hear a witness); and Article 8 of the Convention (privacy of communications with his lawyer). 4.     The application was allocated to the Fourth Section of the Court. On 1   February   2005 a Chamber of that Section decided to communicate the application to the Government. Under the provisions of Article 29 § 3 of the Convention, it decided to examine the merits of the application at the same time as its admissibility. 5.     In a letter of 19 January 2005 the applicant also asked for the application of Rule 39 of the Rules of Court, requesting his immediate release from detention on remand in order to undergo medical treatment. On 23   February 2005 he withdrew that request after he was given access to his doctor and wife. In his observations of 15 April 2005 the applicant informed the Court about the withdrawal of his complaint under Article 5 § 4 of the Convention regarding the refusal of the courts to examine a witness and the part of his complaint under Article 8 of the Convention regarding the alleged interference with his telephone conversations with his lawyer. THE FACTS I.     THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE 6.     The applicant was born in 1957 and lives in Chişinău. He worked as the secretary of the Chişinău Municipal Council. A.     The applicant’s detention on remand 7.     On 8 October 2004 the Prosecutor General initiated criminal proceedings against the applicant for alleged abuse of power under Article   327 § 2 of the Criminal Code, in relation to a purchase of 40   ambulances by the Chişinău Mayoralty. 8.     On 12 November 2004 the applicant was arrested by officer G.G. from the Centre for Fighting Economic Crime and Corruption (CFECC). On 15   November 2004 the Buiucani District Court issued a warrant for his remand in custody for 10 days. The reasons given by the court for issuing the warrant were that: “The criminal file was opened in accordance with the law in force. [The applicant] is suspected of having committed a serious offence for which the law provides imprisonment for more than two years; the evidence submitted to the court was obtained lawfully; the isolation of the suspect from society is necessary; he could abscond from law enforcement authorities or the court; he could obstruct the finding of truth in the criminal investigation or re-offend”. 9.     On 18 November 2004 the Chişinău Court of Appeal partly quashed that decision and adopted a new one, ordering the applicant’s house arrest. The court found that: “The [lower] court did not commit any procedural mistakes, but taking into account that [the applicant] has a permanent place of residence, has no criminal record, is ill and requires treatment in conditions of non-isolation from society and that there is no specific information about the probability of his absconding from the law-enforcement authorities, the [court] considers that in the present case the normal flow of the criminal investigation will be ensured if the accused is subjected to the preventive measure of house arrest. The [court] also notes that the criminal file was opened on 8   October 2004 and that on 13 and 16 November 2004 the applicant was summonsed by the [law-enforcement authorities] as a witness, but on 12 November 2004 he was taken into custody, and no newly discovered circumstances requiring his detention were submitted. Besides, it is necessary to take into account the presumption of innocence, guaranteed by Article 8 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and that the offence with which the applicant is charged is also punishable with a fine.” 10.     On 19 November 2004 the applicant was again arrested on suspicion of having committed the offence of exceeding the limits of his powers in exercising a public function, contrary to Article 328 § 1 of the Criminal Code, in relation to the same purchase of ambulances referred to in paragraph 7 above. The reason given for the arrest was that “eye witnesses can testify that this person has committed a crime”. 11.     On 22 November 2004 the President of the Buiucani District Court issued a warrant for his detention for 10 days. The reasons given by the court for issuing the warrant were that: “[the applicant] is suspected of having committed a serious offence, for which the law provides imprisonment for more than two years; the evidence submitted to the court was obtained lawfully; the isolation of the suspect from society is necessary; he could abscond from law enforcement authorities or the court; he could obstruct the finding of the truth in the criminal investigation or re-offend”. 12.     The applicant submitted arguments against the necessity of applying the preventive measure of detention and focused on his bad state of health. He referred to concrete facts, such as that since his first arrest he had never obstructed in any way the investigation and had appeared before the authorities whenever summonsed. His conduct regarding the investigation had always been irreproachable. He had a family, had property in Moldova and none abroad, and several newspapers were ready to guarantee his freedom in accordance with the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The applicant was ready to give up his passport as an assurance that he would not leave the country. 13.     On 25 November 2004 the Chişinău Court of Appeal upheld the decision of the Buiucani District Court of 22 November 2004. The court gave no specific reasons for its decision other than to confirm the lawfulness of the lower court’s decision. 14.     On 26 November 2004 the President of the Buiucani District Court prolonged the applicant’s detention on remand for another 30 days until 29   December 2004. The court reasoned that detention was necessary because: “[the applicant] is suspected of having committed a serious offence; there is a risk that he may put pressure on witnesses or put himself out of the reach of law enforcement authorities; and there is a continuing need to isolate him from society”. 15.     On 2 December 2004 the Chişinău Court of Appeal dismissed the applicant’s appeal without relying on any new arguments. 16.     On 14 December 2004 the President of the Buiucani District Court rejected a habeas corpus request made by the applicant, stating that: “according to the criminal file, [the applicant] is accused of having committed a less serious offence, for which the law provides the punishment of deprivation of liberty for more than two years.” 17.     On 20 December 2004 the Chişinău Court of Appeal dismissed the applicant’s appeal against the judgment of 14 December 2004. 18.     Also on 20 December 2004 officer G.G., the investigator who had arrested the applicant and who had been in charge of the case since 10   September 2004, made a declaration during a press conference. He essentially stated that the case against the Mr Urecheanu and other accused in the “ambulances case” was fabricated for political reasons in order to remove political opponents. There was nothing in the file, according to G.G., which would warrant the initiation of the criminal proceedings or the arrest of the applicant. 19.     On 21 December 2004 the investigation ended and the criminal file was referred to the Centru District Court. According to the domestic law, no prolongation of detention on remand was necessary after that and the applicant remained in custody pending a final judgment favourable to him or a court decision to end his detention. 20.     On 13   January 2005, during the first hearing on the merits of the criminal case, the applicant submitted another habeas corpus request and expressed his readiness to present further guarantees against absconding. He based his request, inter alia , on his weak state of health and on the declarations made by the investigator G.G. on 20 December 2004. At the prosecutor’s request, the court postponed the hearing until 20   January   2005 in order to decide on joining the applicant’s case with that of other suspects. 21.     On 20 January 2005 the court accepted a prosecutor’s request to join the applicant’s case with three other criminal cases of persons who worked in the Chişinău Mayoralty. In reply to the applicant’s habeas corpus request, the court held that it would be for the court examining the joined cases to decide whether the continuing detention was necessary. He complained about the court’s failure to properly respond to his request. 22.     On 27 January 2005 the hearing was postponed. 23.     On 2 February 2005 the court rejected, by a final judgment, the applicant’s habeas corpus request, finding that: “[the applicant was remanded] because he is suspected of having committed a serious offence; he may abscond from the law enforcement authorities; and he may obstruct the finding of truth in the criminal process. The grounds on which the detention on remand was ordered remain valid.” 24.     On 16   February 2005 the Centru District Court rejected another habeas corpus request made by the applicant, finding that “the grounds for detaining the applicant on remand still hold”. B.     Medical assistance provided to the applicant during detention 25.     The applicant has a medical condition called “progressive cervical osteoarthritis [1] (mielopatie) with displacement of vertebrae C5-C6-C7, with pain disorder” and has to wear permanently a device immobilizing his neck to minimize risk of fatal injuries to his spinal cord. He also suffers from gout and from arterial hypertension of second degree with increased risk of cardio-vascular complications, all confirmed by medical certificates. 26.     His complaint about the lack of sufficient medical assistance refers to the period of his detention in the CFECC remand centre between 12   November 2004 and 18 January 2005. 27.     Between 12 and 29 November 2004 (between 19 and 29 November according to the Government) the applicant held a hunger strike.   On 19   November 2004 (the day of his second arrest) he was consulted by Doctor A. E., who noted the applicant’s complaints about pain in his back and diagnosed him with serious arterial hypertension ( hipertensiune arterială esenţială ), giving him medication to decrease his blood pressure. 28.     Accord ing to the applicant, neither his family doctor, doctor G., nor any other doctor had been allowed to examine him while in detention until after communication of his application to the Government. He submitted copies of two requests lodged by his family doctor   on 22 and 29   November   2004 by which he asked permission to examine the applicant or to have him examined by any other qualified doctor. Neither of the requests was allowed or even acknowledged. 29.     According to the Government, the applicant did not personally make any request to see doctor G. at any time during his detention. 30.     On 29 November 2004 the applicant fainted during a court hearing and was rushed to a detainee hospital, where he was treated until 20   December   2004. 31.     According to the applicant, he was not examined by any neurologist while in the hospital. His personal medical file shows that he complained on numerous occasions of pain in the cervical region of his spine and numbness in his fingers and arms (on 2, 7, 13 and 15 December 2004). Only on 15   December 2004 was he visited by a neurologist who concluded that: “an examination by a neurosurgeon is recommended in order to determine the appropriate treatment”. No such further examination took place. 32.     On 20   December 2004 he was released from hospital and taken back to the remand centre. According to his release form, he was “in a satisfactory condition with the recommendation of supervision by a general practitioner and a neurologist, checks of arterial blood pressure and administration of tablets....” 33.     On 20 December 2004 a prosecutor allowed a request by the applicant’s wife to have the applicant examined by a neurologist at the remand centre. However, the doctor did not have access to the applicant due to the CFECC administration’s refusal to allow that. 34.     According to the applicant there were no medical personnel in the remand centre. 35.     According to the Government, there was a doctor, R.V., who was a general practitioner and who had provided regular medical assistance to the applicant throughout his detention. In case of an emergency, detainees could have been transported to a nearby hospital. 36.     According to the applicant, due to the lack of medical assistance, he had had to use the opportunity to have his blood pressure measured through the bars of the cage in which he was held during court hearings. 37.     The Government did not dispute that, but rather stated that the general practitioner at the remand centre had provided the applicant with medical assistance whenever he requested it. 38.     According to the Medical Register of the remand centre, submitted by the Government, during the period with which the complaint is concerned the applicant was examined only on 19 November 2004. The next record regarding the applicant is on 19 January 2005. Doctor R.V.’s name appears for the first time, in all the documents submitted by the Government, on 11 February 2005. 39.     The applicant’s wife made numerous unsuccessful attempts (on 16, 17, 20, 22, 26, 27 November 2004, as well as on 20 and 21 December 2004) to obtain permission to check on his state of health and to bring him various items. Both the applicant and his wife requested that an arterial blood monitor should be brought and, that instructions should be sought from doctor G. on how properly to use it. She was eventually allowed to give the items to the applicant. C.     Medical reports drawn after 18 January 2005 40.     On 19 January 2005 the Centru District Court allowed the applicant’s request to be examined by a doctor. On the same day he was examined by the Head of the Therapy Section of the Pruncul Hospital, who noted in the Medical Register (see paragraph 38 above) that the applicant did not complain about his health. 41.     Doctor G., who examined the applicant on 26   January 2005, concluded that his condition had substantially worsened due to the combination of the three diseases (see paragraph 25 above). In the event of lack of medical treatment, the applicant ran serious risks for his life and health. Failure permanently and correctly to monitor and react to changes in his arterial pressure, level of uric acid and other signs could lead to serious effects including myocardium infarct and cerebral-vascular accidents and even sudden death. 42.     Professor Z., the Head of the Neurology Chair of the “Nicolae Testimiteanu” hospital, was allowed to see the applicant in prison on 25   January 2005. The applicant complained of pain and numbness in his hands, of headaches and of the lack of constant supervision by a specialized doctor. In his report, professor Z. referred only to the applicant’s cervical osteoarthritis and did not recommend hospitalisation. He recommended treatment with symptomatic medication, limitation of physical movement and the permanent wearing of the neck-fixing device. While he found no major risk to the patient’s life due to osteoarthritis, he admitted that there was a constant risk of worsening   of the condition of   his nervous system. He considered that in case of aggravation of the applicant’s state of health, he would need neurosurgical treatment in a specialised clinic. 43.     Two other doctors, doctor S.G. and doctor M.G., who examined the applicant’s medical files in late January 2005, while referring to the applicant’s cervical osteoarthritis, submitted that this disease could ultimately lead to permanent loss of movement and to negative effects for the cardio-vascular system. Doctor S.G. recommended medication, special gymnastics and consultation by a neurosurgeon in order to determine the necessity of undergoing micro-neurosurgery. He also recommended the wearing of a neck immobilisation device. Doctor M.G. submitted that there was a serious risk for the applicant’s health linked to his osteoarthritis, including tetraparesis [2] . He recommended hospitalisation. 44.     A State Medical Commission created after the communication of the case to the Government found that cervical osteoarthritis presented a risk to the applicant’s health and that there was a possibility of an eventual increase in the pain suffered. The patient needed “a regime of adequate medical supervision and treatment on an out-patient basis (at home, at work, in prison)”. In a letter of 9 February 2005 to the Government Agent the Ministry of Health declared that high arterial blood pressure and gout required “an adequate psycho-emotional regime and the administration of medication prescribed by a doctor”. D.     Other issues relating to the applicant’s detention 45.     According to the applicant, except for one occasion, he was always brought to the court in handcuffs and placed in a metal cage during the hearings. The Government did not dispute that. 46.     According to the applicant the cell in which he was detained in the remand centre was overcrowded since it had 11 m 2 for 4 persons and was too hot. 47.     According to the Government the applicant had been detained with only one more person in the cell and the temperature and other conditions were within acceptable limits. In support of their submissions the Government sent the Court a copy of a report of 11 February 2005, drafted by a sanitary-epidemiological inspection and pictures and a video showing the applicant’s cell. E.     Alleged interference with the applicant’s consultation with his lawyer 48.     The room for meetings between lawyers and detainees in the remand centre had a double glass partition with holes which only partly coincided and which were covered with a thick net, to keep them separated. According to the applicant they had to shout in order to hear each other and could not exchange documents for signature. 49.     The Government did not dispute the existence of a glass partition and sent the Court a video with its images. 50.     On 15 February 2005 the applicant requested the Centru District Court to order the CFECC administration to provide a room for confidential meetings with his lawyer. On 16 February 2005 the court rejected the request on the ground that according to the CFECC administration, there were no recording devices installed in the meeting room and that the glass partition was necessary for the security of detainees and lawyers. II.     RELEVANT DOMESTIC LAW 51.     The relevant provisions of the Constitution read as follows: “Article     53 The right of a person whose rights are violated by a public authority (1)     A person whose rights are violated by a public authority through an administrative act or through the failure to examine a request within the statutory period, is entitled to obtain the recognition of the right claimed, the annulment of the act and compensation for damage. (2)     The State bears pecuniary liability, according to the law, for harm caused through errors committed in criminal proceedings by the investigating authorities and courts.” 52.     The relevant provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure (‘the CPP’) read as follows: “Article   29 Courts which deliver criminal justice (3)     Within the courts, at the criminal prosecution phase, investigating judges act as judicial organs with their own powers in the course of the criminal process. Article   41 Competence of the investigating judge The investigating judge ensures judicial control during the criminal prosecution by: 1)     ordering, replacing, terminating or revoking detention on remand or house arrest, 2)     ordering the provisional release of the person detained or arrested, ... Article   176 “(1)     Preventive measures may be applied by the prosecuting authority or by the court only in those cases where there are serious grounds for believing that an accused ... will abscond, obstruct the establishment of the truth during the criminal proceedings or re-offend, or they can be applied by the court in order to ensure the enforcement of a sentence. (2)     Detention on remand and alternative preventive measures may be imposed only in cases concerning offences in respect of which the law provides for a custodial sentence exceeding two years. In cases concerning offences in respect of which the law provides for a custodial sentence of less than two years, they may be applied if ... the accused has already committed the acts mentioned in § (1). (3)     In deciding on the necessity of applying preventive measures, the prosecuting authority and the court will take into consideration the following additional criteria: 1)     the character and degree of harm caused by the offence, 2)     the character of the ... accused, 3)     his/her age and state of health, 4)     his/her occupation, 5)     his/her family status and existence of any dependants, 6)     his/her economic status, 7)     the existence of a permanent place of abode, 8)     other essential circumstances. ... Article   190 A person detained on remand under the provisions of Article 185 may request, at any time during the criminal investigation, his provisional release under judicial control or on bail. Article   195 §   1 A preventive measure applied may be replaced by a harsher one, if the need for it is proved by evidence, or by a lighter one, if by applying it the proper behaviour of ... the accused is ensured, with the aim of ensuring the normal course of the criminal investigation and of enforcing the sentence imposed. Article   308 Examination of requests for detention on remand or house arrest ... (2)     A request for the application of a measure of detention on remand or house arrest is to be examined without delay by the investigating judge, in camera , with the participation of the representative of the prosecuting authority, of the defender and of the accused. ... (4)     After examining the request, the investigating judge shall make a reasoned decision, ordering detention on remand or house arrest or rejecting the request. On the basis of the decision, the investigating judge shall issue a warrant of arrest which is given to the representative of the prosecuting authority and to the accused and which is executed immediately. ... (6)     The investigating judge has the right to decide whether a less restrictive preventive measure should be applied. ... Article   310 Admissibility of a request for provisional release and the court’s decision (1)     The investigating judge shall verify if the request for provisional release corresponds to the provisions of Articles 191 and 192. If the request does not correspond to those requirements, the investigating judge shall adopt a decision to reject the request, without summonsing the parties. (2)     If the request corresponds to the requirements provided for in § 1 and was submitted by the accused, the investigating judge shall decide on the admissibility of the request and set a date for deciding on the request, summonsing the parties. ... (5)     On the established date, the investigating judge shall decide on the request for provisional release with the participation of the prosecutor, the accused, his defender or guardian, as well as the person who made the request. The decision shall be taken after hearing all those present. (6)     If the request is well based and conforms to the requirements of the law, the investigating judge shall adopt a reasoned decision provisionally to release the accused, setting conditions if necessary.” 53.     The relevant provisions of the Civil Code read as follows: “Article   1405. Liability of the State for damage caused by the actions of the criminal investigation organs, prosecution and courts (1)     Damage caused to a natural person through illegal conviction, illegal prosecution, illegal application of preventive measures in the form of detention on remand or of a written undertaking not to leave the city, and illegal subjection to the administrative sanction of arrest or of non-remunerated community work, is to be fully compensated by the State, whether or not officers in the criminal investigation organs, the prosecution or judges were at fault. ...” 54.     The relevant provisions of the Law No. 1545 on compensation for damage caused by the illegal acts of the criminal investigation organs, prosecution and courts read as follows: “Article   1 (1)     In accordance with the present law, individuals and legal entities are entitled to compensation for the moral and pecuniary damage caused as a result of: a)     illegal detention, illegal arrest, illegal indictment, illegal conviction; b)     illegal search carried out during the investigation phase or during trial, confiscation, levy of a distraint upon property, illegal dismissal from employment, as well as other procedural acts that limit the person’s rights; c)     illegal administrative arrest or order to work for the community, illegal confiscation of the property, illegal fine; d)     carrying out of unlawful investigative measures; e)     illegal seizure of accounting documents, other documents, money or stamps as well as blocking of banking accounts. (2)     The damage caused shall be fully compensated, irrespective of the degree of fault of the criminal investigation organs, prosecution and courts. Article   4 A person shall be entitled to compensation in accordance with the present law when one of the following conditions is met: a)     pronouncement of an acquittal judgment; b)     dropping of charges or discontinuation of investigation on the ground of rehabilitation; c)     adoption of a decision by which an administrative arrest is cancelled on the grounds of rehabilitation; d)     adoption by the European Court of Human Rights or by the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe of a decision in respect of damages or in respect of a friendly settlement agreement between the victim and the representative of the Government of the Republic of Moldova before the European Court of Human Rights. The friendly settlement agreement shall be approved by the Government of the Republic of Moldova; ...” 55.     The relevant provisions of the Law on Remand (No. 1226-XIII) read as follows: “Article   32 Measures applied to detainees refusing to take food ... (4)     A detainee who refuses to take food is detained, when possible, apart from other detainees and must be monitored by a doctor. Ambulatory and emergency medical assistance to such a person is to be given in the cell where (s)he is detained...”. 56.     The relevant provisions of the Law on Judicial Organisation (No.   514-XIII) read as follows: “Article   27. President of the Court (1)     The President of the Court: ... h)     in case of a reasoned absence of the investigating judge, may appoint an experienced judge to exercise the functions of the investigating judge.” THE LAW I.     THE GOVERNMENT’S PRELIMINARY OBJECTIONS A.     Non-exhaustion of domestic remedies 57.     The Government submitted that the applicant did not exhaust all the domestic remedies available to him. In particular he could have, but did not, make use of the provisions of Article 53 of the Constitution, Article 1405 of the Civil Code and of Law 1545 (see paragraphs 51, 53 and 54 above) and gave the example of the case of Duca (no. 1579/02), who had received compensation at the domestic level on the basis of Law 1545. 58.     The applicant recalled that he had applied for judicial review of the various alleged violations on a number of occasions, and that each time his claims had been rejected. 59.     As regards Law No. 1545 invoked by the Government, the Court notes that Mrs Duca was indeed awarded compensation on the basis of that law. The Court also notes that according to its Article 4, the law is applicable only to persons who have been acquitted or in respect of whom the criminal investigation has been discontinued (see paragraph 54 above), which is not the case of the applicant.   Consequently, the Court is not satisfied that the remedy under Law No. 1545 would have been effective in connection with the applicant’s complaints (see, Ostrovar v.   Moldova , 35207/03, (dec.), 22   March   2005). 60.     The Court notes that Articles 53 of the Constitution and 1405 of the Civil Code enunciate the principle according to which any victim of errors of justice and illegal acts of investigators, prosecutors or courts, can claim compensation. 61.     It is noted that the applicant addressed the domestic courts on a number of occasions, complaining about each of the violations alleged before this Court and claiming the breach of his rights by the investigating authorities (see paragraphs 12, 16, 20, 21 and 50 above). However, the domestic courts rejected all the complaints while finding that there was no appearance of any violation. In such circumstances the Court is not convinced that the remedies suggested by the Government would offer any prospect of success.     Consequently, the Court is not satisfied that the remedies under Article 53 of the Constitution and Article 1405 of the Civil Code were effective in the applicant’s case. 62.     In view of the above, the Court concludes that the application cannot be declared inadmissible for non-exhaustion of domestic remedies. Accordingly the Government’s objection must be dismissed. B.     Alleged abuse of the right of petition by the applicant 63.     In his observations on the merits, the applicant argued that his criminal case had a political background and that some of the arguments used by the Government in defence of their position resembled those used by the Stalinist regime. 64.     The Government considered the applicant’s statements abusive and requested that the application be struck out of the list of cases. 65.     The Court recalls that an application would not generally be rejected as abusive under Article 35 § 3 of the Convention on the basis that it was “offensive” or “defamatory” unless it was knowingly based on untrue facts. (see Popov v. Moldova , no. 74153/01, § 49, 18 January 2005). 66.     Having regard to the statements made by the applicant in the present case and to the language used by him, the Court does not consider that they amount to an abuse of the right of petition. Accordingly this objection is also dismissed. C.     Conclusion on admissibility 67.     The Court considers that the applicant’s complaints under Article   3, Article 5 §§ 3 and 4 and Article 8 of the Convention raise questions of law which are sufficiently serious that their determination should depend on an examination of the merits, and no other grounds for declaring them inadmissible have been established. The Court therefore declares these complaints admissible. In accordance with its decision to apply Article   29 §   3 of the Convention (see paragraph 4 above), the Court will immediately consider the merits of these complaints. II.     ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 3 OF THE CONVENTION 68.     The applicant complained that the lack of medical assistance in the remand centre of the CFECC between 12 November 2004 and 19   January   2005, amounted to inhuman and degrading treatment contrary to Article   3 of the Convention, which provides as follows: “No one shall be subjected to torture or to inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.” A.     Arguments of the parties 1.     The applicant 69.     The applicant submitted that his state of health had been serious enough to be incompatible with prolonged detention in the remand centre, which did not have any medical personnel. While the authorities were fully aware of his medical condition, they did not allow his examination by his family doctor or by any other qualified doctor until after the introduction of his application with the Court. He complained in particular that while in a critical state with his neck immobilised, he was not examined by a neurologist for more than two months, between 12   November 2004 and 25   January 2005. He stressed that the lack of medical care was also contrary to Article   32   §   4 of the Law on Remand, which required that persons on hunger strike be monitored by medical personnel. 70.     He argued that the Government had failed to provide evidence that there was a doctor employed at the remand centre before 11   February   2005 (such as payroll lists or lists of personnel employed at the remand centre). 71.     According to him, his cell was overcrowded and he was publicly humiliated by being handcuffed and placed in a cage during court hearings. He submitted newspaper articles in support of his submission about the publicity of his trial. 2.     The Government 72.     The Government submitted that the treatment to which the applicant had been subjected did not reach the minimum threshold under Article 3 of the Convention. Any suffering he may have experienced did not exceed what was inherent in detention. The conditions in the remand centre were appropriate, as was clear from documents submitted to the Court (see paragraph 47 above). In case of an emergency, he could be transported to a nearby hospital. 73.     They stressed that during his detention the applicant had been treated in hospital following his hunger strike (29 November to 20 December 2004) and had been visited by doctors on 19 and 25 January 2005 (by a neurosurgeon on the latter date and thereafter), on 4   and 9   February 2005 and on a regular basis afterwards. Having just been released from hospital in a satisfactory state of health on 20 December 2004, it had not been unreasonable to prevent his examination by a doctor the following day. 74.     A State Medical Commission had determined that the applicant could be treated in prison. Doctor G.’s access to the applicant needed to be restricted since they were friends and the doctor could have helped the applicant to harm his health with the aim of later claiming a violation of Article 3. B.     The Court’s assessment 1.     General principles 75.     The Court recalls that, according to its case-law, ill-treatment must attain a minimum level of severity if it is to fall within the scope of Article   3. The assessment of this minimum level is, in the nature of things, relative; it depends on all the circumstances of the case, such as the duration of the treatment, its physical and mental effects and, in some cases, the sex, age and state of health of the victim (see Kudła v.   Poland [GC], no.   30210/96, § 91, ECHR 2000-XI, and Peers v. Greece , no.   28524/95, §   67, ECHR 2001-III). Although the purpose of such treatment is a factor to be taken into account, in particular whether it was intended to humiliate or debase the victim, the absence of any such purpose does not inevitably lead to a finding that there has been no violation of Article 3 (see Peers , cited above, § 74). 76.     Moreover, it cannot be ruled out that the detention of a person who is ill may raise issues under Article 3 of the Convention (see Mouisel v.   France no. 67263/01, §   37, ECHR 2002 ‑ IX). 77.     Although Article 3 of the Convention cannot be construed as laying down a general obligation to release detainees on health grounds, it nonetheless imposes an obligation on the State to protect the physical well-being of persons deprived of their liberty, for example by providing them with the requisite medical assistance (see Hurtado v. Switzerland , judgment of 28 January 1994, Series A no. 280-A, opinion of the Commission, pp.   15-16, § 79). The Court has also emphasised the right of all prisoners to conditions of detention which are compatible with human dignity, so as to ensure that the manner and method of execution of the measures imposed do not subject them to distress or hardship of an intensity exceeding the unavoidable level of suffering inherent in detention; in addition, besides the health of prisoners, their well-being also has to be adequately secured, given the practical demands of imprisonment (see Kudła , cited above, § 94). 2.     Application of these principles to the present case 78.     In view of the parties’ submissions concerning the applicant’s material conditions of detention (see paragraphs 46 and 47 above), the Court is not convinced that they exceeded the level of severity required for an issue to arise under Article 3 of the Convention. It remains to be determined whether the applicant needed regular medical assistance, whether he had been deprived of it as he claims and, if so, whether this amounted to inhuman or degrading treatment contrary to Article 3 of the Convention (cf. Farbtuhs v. Latvia , no. 4672/02, § 53, 2   December 2004). 79.     The evidence from various medical sources submitted by both parties confirms that the applicant had three serious medical conditions which required regular medical care (see paragraphs 27 and 41-44 above). 80.     The Court notes that, according to the Medical Register submitted by the Government, during the period of his detention in the remand centre with which the complaint is concerned, that is between 12 November and 29   November   2004 and between 20   December   2004 and 19   January   2005, the applicant was examined only once by a doctor at the remand centre, on the day of his second arrest - 19   November   2004 (see paragraph 38 above). 81.     The Government’s argument that doctor R.V. provided daily medical assistance to the applicant while in detention cannot be accepted because the Medical Register does not contain any indication to that effect. Moreover, doctor R.V.’s name appeared for the first time in the documents submitted by the Government only on 11   February   2005, which is consistent with the applicant’s submission that he was employed only after the communication of the case to the Government. 82.     The Court further notes that not only was the applicant refused appropriate medical assistance by the remand centre authorities, but he was also denied the possibility to receive it from other sources, such as his family doctor or other qualified doctors (see paragraphs 28 and 33 above). The Government argued that the restriction on visits by doctor G. was justified by security reasons. The Court notes that this reason was invoked for the first time during the proceedings before it, and must therefore be treated with caution especially in the absence of any form of substantiation (see Nikolov v. Bulgaria , no. 38884/97, § 74 et seq., 30   January 2003). However, no explanation was given in respect of the refusal to allow visits from doctors other than doctor G. (see paragraphs 28 and 29 above). 83.     Accordingly, the Court consi