CEDH · CASELAW;JUDGMENTS;CHAMBER;ENG — 11 octobre 2011

.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 } .s598389F8 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:11pt } .s598389FB { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:14pt } .sF5E1C6CF { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline; color:#ff0000 } .s6CCEAD68 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; color:#ff0000 } .s491F5244 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic; color:#ff0000 } .sA1D3DA2E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s1F6AC3E7 { font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; font-style:italic } .s4ACA9207 { page-break-before:always; clear:both; mso-break-type:section-break } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sB9D5CABB { width:28.35pt; 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 } .s401C450A { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .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 } .s11869A80 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .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 } .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 } .s984A15CA { margin-top:6pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .sD5DF731 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .sB6F98828 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:36.6pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-indent:-15.05pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s360DA689 { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:48.75pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-17pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .s6477A72F { margin-top:0pt; 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 } .sEC2CB098 { margin-top:6pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s8378218E { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:48.75pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-17pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .s9D48DD53 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .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 } .s1913A4C6 { margin-top:6pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .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 } .s3B3A5DE9 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:36pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s507703F { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .sB1BD30C0 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:24pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .s6B505E72 { margin:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .sAFBF1196 { margin-top:24pt; margin-left:29pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:0.6pt; font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s33C53B69 { margin-top:24pt; margin-left:36.6pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-indent:-15.05pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s39A3E02A { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:31.75pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .s9BAE5781 { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:11.6pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s8DD3F840 { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:11.6pt; margin-bottom:24pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s677DA8A { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:48.75pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-indent:-17pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .s8C50CFA1 { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:59.5pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-17.85pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .sCA71A5BA { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:59.5pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-17.85pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .s6EF3B654 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:48.75pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-indent:-17pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .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 } .sC1F0960A { margin-top:24pt; margin-left:29.2pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17.6pt; text-align:justify; page-break-after:avoid } .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 } .s60723A49 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:39.7pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .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 } .s48DB3670 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:36pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s7CB9076 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s507451D6 { width:4.53pt; display:inline-block } .s299839C6 { width:212.77pt; display:inline-block } .s115C6F62 { width:5.64pt; display:inline-block }       FIRST SECTION           CASE OF KHATAYEV v. RUSSIA   (Application no. 56994/09)               JUDGMENT       STRASBOURG   11 October 2011   FINAL   11/01/2012     This judgment has become final under Article 44 § 2 of the Convention. It may be subject to editorial revision . In the case of Khatayev v. Russia , The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting as a Chamber composed of:   Nina Vajić, President,   Anatoly Kovler,   Peer Lorenzen,   Mirjana Lazarova Trajkovska,   Julia Laffranque,   Linos-Alexandre Sicilianos,   Erik Møse, judges, and Søren Nielsen, Section Registrar, Having deliberated in private on 20 September 2011, Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date: PROCEDURE 1.     The case originated in an application (no. 56994/09) against the Russian Federation lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) by a Russian national, Mr Shamil Elsiyevich Khatayev (“the applicant”), on 27 October 2009. 2.     The applicant was represented by Ms V. Shaysipova, a lawyer practising in the town of Tambov. The Russian Government (“the Government”) were represented by Mr G. Matyushkin, the Representative of the Russian Federation at the European Court of Human Rights. 3.     The applicant alleged, in particular, that he had not received adequate medical assistance in correctional facilities after his conviction in 2007, and that his complaints of having been subjected to inhuman and degrading treatment by warders in a prison hospital on two occasions had not been effectively investigated. 4.     On 2 March 2010 the President of the First Section decided to give notice of the application to the Government. It was also decided to rule on the admissibility and merits of the application at the same time (Article   29   §   1). Further to the applicant’s request, the Court granted priority to the application (Rule 41 of the Rules of Court). THE FACTS I.     THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE 5.     The applicant was born in 1976 and lived until his arrest in the village of Serebryaniki in the Tver Region. A.     General information on the applicant’s arrest and conviction 6.     On 2 August 2001 the Vyshne-Volotsk Town Court of the Tver Region found the applicant guilty of aggravated rape and sexual assault on a minor and sentenced him to six years’ imprisonment. He was released on 28   February 2007, having served the sentence. 7.     On 7 April 2007 the applicant was arrested on suspicion of aggravated robbery. 8.     On 1 October 2007 the Tverskoy District Court of Moscow found the applicant guilty of having attempted to commit an aggravated robbery and sentenced him to two years and six months’ imprisonment, which he was sent to serve in correctional colony no. 5 in the town of Morshansk in the Tambov Region. In December 2008 he was transferred to special medical correctional facility no. 7 (“the medical colony”) in the village of Polevoy in the Tambov Region. B.     The applicant’s medical history 1.     Prior to the applicant’s arrest in 2007 9 .     Copies of medical records presented to the Court indicate that in 2000 the applicant was diagnosed with pulmonary tuberculosis accompanied by bacterial excretion and tuberculous papillitis of the kidneys and right ureter. From 16 February to 19 May 2000 the applicant underwent treatment in the Vyshne-Volotskiy Tuberculosis Hospital. 10.     Subsequently, the applicant was regularly monitored in the Tver Regional Clinical Tuberculosis Hospital (“the TB hospital”). In particular, on 30 January 2001, following a complex examination in the TB hospital, the applicant was diagnosed with infiltrative tuberculosis in the disintegration stage. The examining doctors concluded that the tuberculoma was growing and that the applicant should undergo surgery to remove it. The applicant refused surgery and was admitted to the TB hospital for treatment with antimicrobial medicines. He was discharged from the hospital on 10 April 2001 following numerous unauthorised leaves and violations of hospital regulations. An extract of his medical record shows that by the date of his discharge the applicant’s state of health had not improved. 11.     On his admission to a temporary detention facility in Tver after his arrest in 2001, the applicant was diagnosed with “focal pulmonary tuberculosis in the infiltration stage”. On a number of occasions in 2001, 2002 and 2003 the applicant was admitted to prison hospital no. 3 or the Tver Regional TB hospital for anti-tuberculosis treatment. On 24 August 2004 a medical commission, comprising a number of specialists from prison hospital no. 3, examined the applicant and issued the final diagnosis: “clinical recovery from the focal tuberculosis of the upper lobe of the left lung accompanied by small residual post-tuberculosis changes in the form of pulmonary fibrosis, and clinical recovery from renal tuberculosis”. 12.     In September 2004 the applicant was transferred to correctional colony no. 4 in the Tver Region to serve the remaining part of his sentence. He was placed under regular supervision by a tuberculosis specialist, underwent complex in-patient medical examinations and received seasonal antibacterial prophylactic treatment twice a year. 2.     After the arrest in April 2007 (a)     Detention between April 2007 and October 2009 13.     On admission to the detention facility in Moscow following his arrest on 7 April 2007, the applicant underwent a complex prophylactic examination, inter alia by a tuberculosis specialist. The following diagnosis was noted in the applicant’s medical record: “clinical recovery from pulmonary tuberculosis, dense nidi , pulmonary fibrosis”. He was placed on a special diet, received multivitamins and underwent a two-month course of anti-tuberculosis drug treatment in the tuberculosis department of the prison hospital. 14.     When he arrived at correctional colony no. 5 in the town of Morshansk in the Tambov Region on 30 January 2008, the applicant did not make any complaints concerning his health. A medical examination performed on his admission to the colony confirmed the previous diagnosis of clinically treated pulmonary tuberculosis with residual changes. The doctor’s recommendation was that the applicant should be placed on an enriched diet, should undergo X-ray testing twice a year and should receive prophylactic treatment with two anti-bacterial drugs each spring and autumn. 15.     According to a letter sent by the head of the Tambov Regional Department of the Service for the Execution of Sentences to the applicant’s lawyer on 23 December 2008, the applicant applied for medical assistance once during the entire period of his detention in correctional colony no. 5. In particular, the applicant’s medical history shows that on 8   February 2008 he complained to a prison doctor about a phlegm cough. Following an examination, including a chest X-ray, he was diagnosed with “clinical recovery from pulmonary tuberculosis [and] bronchitis.” After undergoing conservative treatment, the applicant was considered to have been cured of bronchitis. 16 .     The Government stressed that the recommendations given on the applicant’s admission to correctional colony no. 5 had been followed to the letter. The applicant disputed that assertion, arguing that he had not received the requisite medical attention. According to the applicant’s medical history submitted to the Court in 2008, during the first year of his detention in colony no. 5 the applicant was given a chest X-ray once and received a full course of anti-bacterial treatment in the autumn of 2008. At the same time a prison medical assistant or a prison doctor attended the applicant once a month, took his blood pressure, measured his body temperature and recorded no health complaints on the applicant’s part. 17.     During a medical examination on admission to the medical colony in December 2008, the applicant made no complaints about his health. His state of health was considered to be satisfactory. At the same time, he was registered for regular medical check-ups because of his medical history. The examining doctor confirmed the diagnosis of the applicant’s clinical recovery from pulmonary tuberculosis, but noted the unclear status of the applicant’s renal illness and authorised blood and urine tests. As the tests could not be performed in the medical colony for lack of a laboratory technician, the applicant’s transfer to the Tambov Regional Prison Hospital was authorised. 18 .     From 13 to 23 December 2008 the applicant underwent a complex medical examination, including blood and urine tests and X-ray exams of the urinary tract and chest, in the tuberculosis department of the Tambov Regional Prison Hospital. Tests for the presence of mycobacterium tuberculosis (“MBT”) in the urine were also performed, producing negative results. The applicant was treated for acute cystitis and also received prophylactic anti-tuberculosis treatment. His medical record drawn up in the hospital, in so far as relevant, read as follows: “Diagnosis: clinical recovery from focal tuberculosis of the upper lobes of both lungs resulting in circumscribed post-tuberculosis pneumosclerosis... Acute cystitis. The diagnosis in respect of the tuberculosis was made on 17 December 2008 by the Central Medical Commission of the Tambov Regional Tuberculosis Hospital. Fitness for work: able to work, excluding types of work involving exposure to cold, dust and gas pollution. [The applicant] is recommended treatment twice a year (spring and autumn) for two or three months with two anti-tuberculosis drugs to prevent a relapse of tuberculosis and X-ray examinations twice a year in compliance with [internal regulations]. [The applicant] should be detained in correctional facilities in general conditions.” The final diagnosis was made on 17 December 2008 by the Central Medical Commission of the Tambov Regional Anti-Tuberculosis Clinic. 19.     According to the applicant, the recommendations were never complied with. On a number of occasions he requested the facility administration to admit him for medical treatment, but to no avail. 20 .     The applicant’s medical history, however, shows that following his transfer back to the medical colony he was regularly examined (at least once a month) by the colony medical personnel or independent medical specialists, including a tuberculosis specialist from the Kirsanov Town Tuberculosis Hospital. In particular, examinations by independent tuberculosis specialists were carried out on 8 March, 3 and 24 May and 9   August 2009. Relying on the applicant’s medical record, the Government argued that the personnel of the medical colony had fully complied with the recommendations given by the independent tuberculosis specialists. At the same time, those recommendations had met with resistance from the applicant. For instance, following the examination on 8 March 2009 the tuberculosis specialist noted the applicant’s satisfactory state of health and recommended maintaining a three-month course of prophylactic antibacterial treatment. The applicant refused to take the anti-bacterial medicines, however, expressing a general disinclination to submit to medical procedures. A report recording the applicant’s refusal to undergo treatment was drawn up and signed by four colony staff members. It was also noted that the applicant would not confirm his refusal in writing. 21 .     In response to the applicant’s refusal to submit to the treatment, the colony administration intensified the frequency of his medical examinations by a prison doctor or medical assistant to a rate of at least once a fortnight. The applicant submitted that on 1 May 2009, when the colony administration had attempted to reason with him, he had gone on a hunger strike, being dissatisfied with the conditions of his detention and appalled by the fact that he had to use the same crockery as “inmates of a lower social status”. The attending prison doctor noted the applicant’s complaint about dizziness, fatigue and stomach ache, recommended his transfer to the colony hospital and asked to be informed of the result of the applicant’s urine test for the presence of the MBT in the urine. A chest X-ray performed the following day revealed no changes. An independent tuberculosis specialist who saw the applicant on 3 May 2009 confirmed the need to perform additional testing in the tuberculosis hospital, suspecting reactivation of the tuberculosis process in the urinary tract. 22.     The applicant was transferred to the therapeutic department of the prison hospital. While he started receiving prophylactic anti-bacterial treatment, the necessary tests and X-rays were carried out, revealing no presence of MBT in the applicant’s urine and no reactivation of the tuberculosis process in his lungs. The report drawn up by the attending doctor read, in so far as relevant, as follows: “Taking into account the results of additional examinations (microbiological and X ‑ ray [testing]) there is no sufficient evidence of any reactivation of the tuberculosis process in the kidney and urinary tracts. Recommended: dynamic supervision, chest X-ray testing once every six months, repeated urine testing for the presence of MBT after six months ... Diagnosis: clinical recovery from pulmonary tuberculosis resulting in fibrosis and firm nidi in the upper lobes of the lungs... No evidence of recurrence of the illness...” 23 .     After the applicant’s release from the hospital, the colony medical personnel examined him at least once a month. The applicant’s medical record shows that he had no health complaints apart from those raised on the following occasions. On 4 July 2009 a doctor called to the applicant made the following two entries in his medical record. The first entry read as follows: “4 July 2009. A medical examination of [the applicant] was performed after special measures (handcuffs) and physical force were used [against him]. No injuries were discovered during the medical examination ...” The second entry read as follows: “...[the applicant] made two slash wounds to his right and left forearms at 11.05 a.m. During the examination he did not make any complaints. Objectively: his general condition is satisfactory, lungs and heart are without any peculiarities; blood pressure is 125/80 mm. [There is] a cut measuring 4   cm in length and 0.2   cm in width on his right forearm; insignificant bleeding. [There is] a cut measuring 5   cm in length and 0.2   cm in width on his left forearm; insignificant bleeding. [The applicant] refused to explain why he had cut himself. Diagnosis: self-injuring. Slash wounds on both forearms. [Treatment provided]...”   24 .     In the early morning of 17 August 2009 the doctor on duty was called to the punishment unit, where the applicant was detained at the time. The doctor made the following entry in the applicant’s medical record: “Complaints about headache, dizziness. Special measures were applied to [the applicant]. Objectively: temperature 36.4 degrees. [The applicant] exited [the cell] without assistance. [He] is threatening the colony administration with ‘his relatives’. Oedematous face. A bruise measuring 2.5   cm on the forehead. There are no fresh injuries on the body ... Diagnosis: Quincke’s oedema? Self-injury? ...” 25 .     The doctor treated the applicant’s bruise and gave him an analgesic, an antiallergenic and a sedative. At each subsequent daily examination the attending doctor recorded the applicant’s facial oedema and the absence of any other health complaints. Suspecting that the applicant was suffering from an allergic reaction of some kind, the doctors continued treating him with antiallergenics. 26 .     On 18 August 2009 a medical assistant reported to the head of the medical colony that a medical examination of the applicant performed that same day had revealed that, in addition to the facial oedema, the applicant had an abrasion 1.5   cm in length on his left shin. The necessary medical assistance was provided. On 21 August 2009 the applicant complained to the doctor of severe back pain. After examining him, the doctor concluded that he was suffering from allergic oedema of the face and was feigning a kidney injury. Two days later the applicant complained of severe headache and dizziness. The attending doctor found no signs of health problems apart from the facial oedema. 27 .     The acting deputy head of the medical colony drew up the final report, which read as follows: “On 17 August 2009 [the applicant] was examined by the doctor on duty, who noted that the inmate had a facial oedema and a bruise 2.5 centimetres in length on the left side of his forehead. [He] did not record any other objective pathological data, or any fresh injuries. Over the following three days of proactive supervision, as [the applicant] did not apply for medical assistance himself, the facial oedema (of the paraorbital region), which revealed no changes symptomatic of a traumatic pathology was still recorded. No other objective pathological changes to the body or viscera were noted (such as changes in the colour of the urine [or] phlegm, the stool, blood pressure, body temperature, heart beat, breathing, etc.). [After the applicant] had taken special medicines, including antiallergenics, the dynamic of the oedema was arrested, which shows that the oedema was of the allergic aetiology typically associated with insect bites.” 28.     Following an examination by a number of prison medical specialists on 27 August 2009, the applicant’s transfer to a hospital was recommended “for subsequent supervision and examination to exclude his feigning illness”. The applicant was immediately transferred to the therapeutic department of the Tambov Regional Prison Hospital. 29 .     On 31 August 2009 the applicant underwent blood and urine testing and chest and skull X-rays, which revealed no signs of injuries. He was also examined by a surgeon, a neurologist, a tuberculosis specialist, a psychiatrist and a general practitioner. Having heard the applicant’s complains of chest pain, headache, pain in the lumbar region and stomach, dizziness and nausea, which he alleged were caused by a beating in the medical colony on 17 August 2009, and having noted healing abrasions on the applicant’s head, the medical specialists concluded that the applicant was simulating the kidney injury and the general deterioration of his health. The tuberculosis specialist also found that there were no signs of reactivation of the tuberculosis process and recommended keeping up the seasonal prophylactic treatment. 30 .     A course of prophylactic antibacterial treatment was initiated on 1   September 2009. On 9 September 2009 a medical assistant made an entry in the applicant’s medical record noting his refusal to continue treatment. The applicant submitted that he had been admitted to the therapeutic department of the hospital by mistake instead of to a specialised tuberculosis medical facility. He argued that any treatment he received there would accordingly be ineffective. (b)     Detention after October 2009 31 .     On 30 September 2009 the applicant was transferred to temporary detention facility no. 4 to take part in criminal proceedings instituted against him. A prison doctor examined him on admission to the facility, recorded his complaints of chest pain and his slurred speech, noted his generally satisfactory state of health, authorised continuation of his enriched food ration and re-initiated his seasonal prophylactic anti-tuberculosis treatment. Medical records submitted by the Government show that the applicant was placed on a two-month chemotherapy course, with each intake of antibacterial drug observed and noted in the applicant’s medical record by the medical personnel. 32.     Another medical examination, performed on 2 October 2009 in response to the applicant’s complaints of a constant ache in the lumbar region, chest pains and a burning sensation during urination, led to his being diagnosed with lower back pain. The applicant was prescribed treatment on the condition that it should not interfere with the prophylactic anti ‑ tuberculosis procedures. 33 .     On 14 October 2009 the applicant, suffering from a slight fever, shortness of breath, a runny nose and fatigue, was diagnosed with acute respiratory disease, for which he started receiving treatment. Following subsequent medical examinations the chemotherapy was adjusted to respond to the changes in the state of the applicant’s health, his health complaints and his refusals to take certain medicines. On 21 October 2009 a schedule for the applicant’s clinical examinations and X-ray testing was developed. However, it was not until his transfer to the Tambov Regional Prison Hospital on 9 November 2009, given no positive changes in his condition, that the applicant was subjected to an X-ray exam. The delay was due to the fact that temporary detention facility no. 4 did not have the necessary equipment to perform the exam and had no means of transporting the applicant to the tuberculosis hospital for testing. 34.     During the applicant’s stay in the prison hospital, he underwent a full clinical examination, including blood and urine tests, chest, abdominal and kidney X-rays and ultrasound scans, sputum smear and urine culture testing, monitoring of renal functions, screening by a tuberculosis urologist, which revealed no new signs of tuberculosis. At the same time, as the medical records show, the applicant refused to submit to additional MBT tests. His attitude towards the examinations and treatment was recorded by the attending doctor in his medical record in the following manner: “During his in-patient treatment, [the applicant] failed to cooperate, occasionally refusing to take injections and submit to clinical testing.” The applicant was released from the hospital on 26 November 2009 with a recommendation to admit him to the tuberculosis department of the Tambov Regional Prison Hospital for additional testing after the new round of criminal proceedings against him came to an end. 35 .     In December 2009 and January and February 2010 the applicant received treatment for migraines, intercostal neuralgia, a slight cold and dental problems, as well as undergoing prophylactic treatment against acute respiratory illness. In March 2010 he started the spring course of his seasonal prophylactic anti-tuberculosis treatment. An examination of the applicant in April 2010 showed that his health was satisfactory and there were no signs of any deterioration of his health. 3.     Complaints about the lack of medical assistance 36.     On 10 March 2009 the applicant’s lawyer, Ms Shaysipova, arrived at the medical colony and, after producing identification papers and a writ issued by the Bar Association to represent the applicant’s interests, asked the colony administration to organise a meeting with her client. The request was refused because the lawyer had not submitted a copy of the power of attorney showing that the applicant had retained her as his counsel. 37.     The lawyer lodged a complaint with the Tambov Regional Prosecutor, describing the events of 10 March 2009 and asking for permission to see the applicant. 38.     On 20 April 2009 the Tambov Regional Prosecutor supervising correctional institutions sent a letter to the applicant’s lawyer, which, in so far as relevant, read as follows: “It was established that on 10 March 2009 at 7.15 a.m., having arrived at the check ‑ point of [the medical colony] in the Tambov Region and disregarding the orders of an officer on duty... to wait until the beginning of the working day, you entered the restricted area adjacent to the [medical colony]. On arriving at the office building, you did not file a request for a meeting with [the applicant] with the colony administration. The facility administration considered that your actions constituted an administrative offence proscribed by Article 19.3 of the Russian Code of Administrative Offences; you were accordingly asked to produce identification documents in order to draw up a report [of an administrative offence], but you categorically refused [to comply with the request] and left the premises. However, the inquiry shows that [the applicant], when asked why he needed to see a lawyer, refused to give any explanation; a report on the incident was drawn up on 14   April 2009 and it was signed by deputy directors of the colony Mr D. and Mr K. and by the head of the duty unit, Ms A. ... In these circumstances there is no ground for the prosecution authorities to apply supervisory measures.” 39.     The lawyer sent a letter to the Prosecutor General of the Russian Federation complaining about the applicant’s poor state of health, the lack of medical assistance in the colony and her inability to visit her client. 40.     On 19 June 2009 the lawyer received a letter from a deputy prosecutor of the Tambov Region. The relevant part of the letter read as follows: “The Regional prosecutor’s office examined your complaint which was forwarded by the office of the Prosecutor General of the Russian Federation [and in which you complained] about beatings and threats of violence against [the applicant], about the refusal of the [colony] administration to provide him with medical assistance, about the refusal to organise meetings with the lawyer and so on. In the course of the inquiry no acts of violence, threats of violence against [the applicant] either on the part of the administration or other convicts... have been objectively proven. In fact, in his statement to a deputy head of the medical colony on 4 June 2009 ... [the applicant] affirmed that he did not have any complaints against the administration. [The applicant] unequivocally refused to give prosecution officials any explanation pertaining to the facts laid down in your complaint and a complaint lodged by [the applicant’s female partner]. During a medical examination of [the applicant] performed on 10 June 2009 by officers of the medical department of the prison hospital in the presence of an officer from the Tambov Regional Prosecutor’s office... no injuries were discovered on [the applicant’s] body. During his detention in correctional facilities in the Tambov Region [the applicant] received and continues to receive appropriate medical treatment for his illnesses. Following additional medical tests and an additional examination by a prison tuberculosis specialist on 12 May 2009, no convincing evidence showing any reactivation of the tuberculosis process in the applicant’s lungs and urinary tract was discovered; therefore, there is no medical data calling for [the applicant’s] routine admission to the tuberculosis department of the hospital ... [The applicant] is detained in a [solitary] cell in [the medical colony]; his state is satisfactory.” The remaining part of the letter repeated the content of the letter sent to the lawyer on 20 April 2009. 41.     On 23 June 2009 the lawyer arrived at the medical colony. Once again, however, she was not allowed to see the applicant. She was given a note allegedly handwritten by the applicant to the head of the colony in which he stated that he did not need legal assistance. The applicant, relying on the handwritten power of attorney filled in and submitted by him to the European Court of Human Rights in compliance with Rule 36 of the Rules of Court, disputed the authenticity of that note. 42.     Two days later the applicant went on a hunger strike in response to the facility administration’s alleged refusal to provide him with legal assistance. C.     Ill-treatment in the medical colony. Institution of criminal proceedings against the applicant. His detention on remand 1.     Events of 4 July 2009 43 .     According to the applicant, on 4 July 2009 warders at the medical colony began beating an inmate, K., who had recently been transferred there. In response to inmate K.’s cries for help, the applicant and other inmates started banging on their cell doors demanding that the beating stop. The warders, a deputy director, Mr D., and a junior inspector, Mr S., forced the applicant out of his cell and beat him up. The applicant alleged that as a result of the beating his ribs had been broken and he had had severe chest and head pains and numerous injuries and bruises to the head and legs. The applicant further submitted that when he was put back in his cell following the beating, Mr D. had thrown a razor blade at him, urging him to commit suicide. In response to this treatment the applicant had slashed his forearms with the razor blade. 44.     The Government disputed the applicant’s version of events. Relying on records of disciplinary offences drawn up in correctional colony no. 5, they noted that during his detention in the colony between January and December 2008 the applicant had violated the regulations fifty-four times and had been ranked a “persistent offender”. On three occasions he had been placed in a punishment ward, where he had spent thirty-seven days in all. On 28 November 2008 a decision was taken to place the applicant in a solitary confinement cell for ten months. When transferred to the medical colony, the applicant had continued his unruly behaviour, and was reprimanded almost on a daily basis. The Government submitted that a conflict between the administration of the colony and the applicant had come to a head on 4 July 2009, when the applicant had attempted to cut junior inspector S. with a piece of glass, part of which was wrapped in a white cloth for use as a handle. The warder had grabbed the applicant by the hands and handcuffed him behind his back. The applicant had then been taken to a punishment ward, where he broke a glass in the window and cut his forearms with a piece of broken glass. The Government stressed that a prison doctor had examined the applicant twice on 4 July 2009: after the use of physical force and handcuffs on him and after the act of self-mutilation. No injuries, save for two small cuts on the forearms, were reported on the applicant’s body. 45.     On 4 July 2009 duty officer Mr F. reported to the head of the medical colony that physical force in the form of arm-twisting and handcuffing had been used against the applicant in response to his attack on junior inspector S. Similar reports were made by two other warders who had witnessed the incident. 46.     On the same day junior inspector S. addressed a complaint to the Kirsanovskiy District Prosecutor. The complaint read as follows: “On 4 July 2009, at 9.23 a.m., when I was on duty, [the applicant]..., who is serving a disciplinary penalty in the punishment ward of the [medical colony], attacked me, Mr S., with a piece of glass in the corridor of the punishment ward near cell no. 17 when a partial search of his person was being performed”. The complaint was registered with the Kirsanovskiy District Prosecutor’s office on 9 July 2009. Ten days later an investigator from the prosecutor’s office instituted criminal proceedings against the applicant for having attacked junior inspector S. and threatened him with violence on 4 July 2009. 47 .     In the meantime an investigator from the operations unit of the medical colony carried out an internal inquiry into the incident of 4 July 2009. The inquiry was closed following a decision of 20 July 2009 that the use of force and handcuffs had been lawful, reasonable and proportionate to the applicant’s violent behaviour. The investigator also addressed the applicant’s self-inflicted injuries to the forearms, noting that the applicant had refused to explain his conduct. He concluded that the applicant had intended to “blackmail” the colony administration to avoid detention in a solitary punishment cell and to secure more comfortable conditions of detention. A similar conclusion was reached on 24 July 2009 by the Tambov Regional Prosecutor supervising detention facilities. 2.     Events of 17 August 2009 48.     Without offering any description of the events of 17 August 2009, the applicant submitted that he had again been given a severe beating by the warders. He further stated that since the beating he had suffered from stammering and distorted facial expressions when speaking. 49.     The Government submitted that in the morning of 17   August 2009 the applicant had violently resisted the warders’ attempts to transfer him to a punishment cell, where he was to stay for fifteen days because of another disciplinary offence. The applicant had tried to punch the director of the punishment ward, Mr St., in the face. Warders had restrained the applicant by holding his hands behind his back and handcuffing him. Inside the punishment cell the applicant had immediately started hitting his head against the bars of a bed, causing abrasions. The Government stressed that, in an attempt to “make matters worse”, the applicant had placed a wasp on the bridge of his nose. The wasp had stung him, causing an allergic reaction in the form of facial swelling. The applicant had received treatment for both the abrasions and facial swelling. On the following day the applicant had cut his left shin with the sharpened handle of a tooth brush. The medical assistant who had treated his cut had not observed any other injuries on his body and had not reported any health complaints. 50.     On 20 August 2009 warder F. wrote an explanatory note to the head of the medical colony which, in so far as relevant, read as follows: “...on 17 August 2009, at 6.00 p.m., I went on duty supervising the inmates in [the punishment ward]. After the lights-out call at 9.30 p.m., [the applicant], who was detained in a solitary confinement cell, started talking to inmates in neighbouring cells... He referred in particular to the fact that the warders had used physical force and handcuffs against him in the morning when taking him to the punishment cell. He had intentionally ‘pulled a stunt’ [“ mastyrka ” was the term he used in inmates’ slang] and injured himself and [he urged] other inmates to certify that handcuffs had not been used and that [the applicant] had been beaten up instead. He said it was necessary for their ‘common benefit’ and that he would file a complaint about the unlawful actions of the colony administration... Before the wake-up call, at approximately 4.30 or 4.40 a.m. during a scheduled round of the cells, I looked through a peephole in the door of cell no. 05 and saw [the applicant] sitting on the lower bunk with his back to the door and his legs tucked up beneath him, doing something. I called out, startling him. He turned and, after a while, replied that he was waiting for the wake-up call, ready to brush his teeth, and he showed me a tooth brush. I warned him that he was violating the regulations and he laughed at me. I thought no more of the incident”. 51.     An internal inquiry into the events of 17 August 2009 resulted in the following decision: “On 17 August 2009, at 8.00 a.m., by decision of the head [of the medical colony], [the applicant], who had breached prison regulations, was found guilty of a disciplinary offence and was to be placed in the punishment ward for fifteen days. While being escorted to the punishment cell, in a corridor near the entrance to cell no.   05 [the applicant] started pushing away the warders ... [and] grabbing their uniforms. He was warned to stop misbehaving. [The applicant] disregarded the warning and continued pushing the warders. At the same time he proffered threats of violence against the officers and their families. Suddenly, he turned towards the head of the [punishment ward], Mr St., and tried to punch him in the face. Given [the applicant’s] unruly conduct, handcuffs were used to restrain him, but without harming him .... After a medical examination [the applicant] was placed in a punishment cell as a disciplinary measure. [He] did not make any complaints or requests. The inquiry did not reveal that any other physical force had been applied to [the applicant].” 52.     Another inquiry looking into the applicant’s self-mutilation ended with decisions of 20 and 21 August 2009 which, in so far as relevant, read as follows: Decision of 20 August 2009 “On 17 August 2009... [the applicant] applied for medical assistance, complaining of abrasions on the head and swelling round both eyes. ... After [the applicant] had been placed in [the punishment cell], at 8.45 a.m., while checking cells, the officer on duty heard a noise in the cell and, looking through a peephole, discovered that [the applicant] was attempting to injure himself, hitting his head against the bars of the bunk, and uttering obscenities against the administration of [the facility]. He ignored orders to calm down. Warders and a medical assistant, called to the scene, took [the applicant] from the cell. Once outside the cell, [the applicant] was calm. On examining him a prison doctor noted two abrasions in the region of the forehead and swelling round both eyes. [The applicant] did not make any complaints or requests. The inquiry established that [in the evening] of 17 August 2009, after the lights-out call, [the applicant] started talking to inmates in other cells, telling them that the warders had used physical force against him and that he had taken advantage of the opportunity and injured himself, banging his head and getting a wasp to sting him on the bridge of his nose for extra effect. He was intending to apply to human rights organisations and to lodge a frivolous complaint about the actions of the prison staff. To help him put his plan into action [the applicant] asked the other inmates to corroborate the reality of the beating when representatives of the human rights organisations arrived ... and to organise their visit by calling his wife on the phone and giving her the following message: ‘Do the same as the last time’. She would know what to do. He threatened anyone who refused to comply with his instructions with violence. [The applicant] wanted to discredit the administration ... and blackmail them into closing the criminal proceedings against him ... The facts were confirmed by witnesses; [the applicant] angrily refused to give any explanation.” Decision of 21 August 2009 “[The head of the detention facility] talked to [the applicant to prevent further self ‑ mutilation, but the applicant] did not abandon his plan [to discredit the administration] and on 18 August 2009 he again injured himself. In particular, he inflicted a small cut measuring 1.5 centimetres in length on his left shin, using the rough end of his toothbrush, which he had heated on a fire before he was placed in the punishment cell; [the applicant] constantly picked open his cut. That fact is confirmed by eyewitness statements and reports by medical staff. 53 .     The conclusions of the internal inquiry that the use of handcuffs had been lawful and well-founded and that the applicant’s injuries were the result of his own actions were reproduced by the Tambov Regional Prosecution in a decision of 28 August 2009. 54.     On 1 September 2009 the applicant’s lawyer, Ms Shaysipova, found out that criminal proceedings had been instituted against the applicant in July 2009. On the following day she informed the investigator in charge of the applicant’s case of her intention to represent the applicant and submitted a power of attorney. On the same day the investigator sent a letter to the head of the medical colony to notify him of the applicant’s counsel’s name. The investigator misspelt the lawyer’s last name as Ms Shaysinova. 55.     The lawyer arrived at the colony for the first consultation with the applicant, but was not allowed to see him on 2 September 2009. The same thing happened the next day. She immediately lodged a complaint with the Kirsanovskiy District Prosecutor’s office, asking to have her client medically examined. Two days later a prosecution investigator dismissed the request, finding that it was groundless and unnecessary for the criminal investigation. The lawyer was notified of the investigator’s decision on 15   September 2009. 56.     On 4 September 2009 the lawyer lodged a complaint with the Prosecutor General of the Russian Federation and the Tambov Regional Prosecutor, alleging numerous violations of the applicant’s defence rights. She also complained about the investigating authorities’ refusals to interview the applicant and to medically examine him in response to his ill ‑ treatment complaints. On the same day the lawyer applied to various human rights organisations in the Tambov Region asking for their assistance. 57.     On 8 September 2009 the lawyer and representatives of two regional human rights NGOs arrived at the colony and asked to see the applicant and a number of other inmates who had complained of numerous instances of ill-treatment in the facility. While the human rights activists were allowed to enter the premises of the medical colony, the administration did not consent to the lawyer’s visit. A handwritten note by the head of the medical colony in response to the lawyer’s written request for a meeting with the applicant stated that the visit “was not allowed on the investigator’s orders because no investigative actions were being performed [with the applicant] in connection with the criminal proceedings” at the time when the request for a meeting was lodged. 58 .     Following their visit to the prison hospital, the representatives of the human rights organisations i