CEDH · CASELAW;JUDGMENTS;COMMITTEE;ENG — 2 juin 2020

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s339D85E6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s665E407E { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s34DFC730 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s2E932ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:11pt } .s4ACA9207 { page-break-before:always; clear:both; mso-break-type:section-break } .s9793A85B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sB9D5CABB { width:28.35pt; display:inline-block } .s58699FB5 { margin-top:14pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s3CA22BA { font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .s6B505E72 { margin:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .s5C381674 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:17.85pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17.85pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase; list-style-position:inside } .s743F3A55 { margin-right:0pt; margin-left:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .s37839E0D { margin-left:10.75pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:0pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:0.6pt; font-weight:bold; text-transform:none } .sDAD2B73A { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:28.6pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:0.6pt; font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sC6C7C49B { margin-left:7.35pt; margin-bottom:6pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-weight:normal; font-style:italic } .s76334B44 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:36.55pt; margin-bottom:6pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s9D48DD53 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .s9A177BD5 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:17.85pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .sE3D66594 { border:0.75pt solid #000000; border-collapse:collapse } .s41E9DBF5 { border-right-style:solid; border-right-width:0.75pt; border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s2EF62ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .s24AC208E { border-right-style:solid; border-right-width:0.75pt; border-left-style:solid; border-left-width:0.75pt; border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sF004B676 { border-left-style:solid; border-left-width:0.75pt; border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sB30C44B0 { border-top-style:solid; border-top-width:0.75pt; border-right-style:solid; border-right-width:0.75pt; border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sC3AB69A { border-style:solid; border-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s2342A031 { border-top-style:solid; border-top-width:0.75pt; border-left-style:solid; border-left-width:0.75pt; border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s546C9D04 { border-top-style:solid; border-top-width:0.75pt; border-right-style:solid; border-right-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s40B7A780 { border-top-style:solid; border-top-width:0.75pt; border-right-style:solid; border-right-width:0.75pt; border-left-style:solid; border-left-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s4F2EDFF { border-top-style:solid; border-top-width:0.75pt; border-left-style:solid; border-left-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sEDACC6AB { margin-left:17.85pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17.85pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase; list-style-position:inside } .s71EEDCF9 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:48.75pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-17pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .s30C8A987 { width:4.78pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .sC79167A { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:48.75pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-17pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .s4E0353E8 { width:4.23pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .sD0489F03 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .sD11CFAB7 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:15.01pt; margin-bottom:3pt; text-align:justify; padding-left:1.99pt; font-family:Arial } .sFBC99493 { font-style:italic } .s51DFF5CF { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:34pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-17pt; text-align:justify } .sE5BF05B1 { width:2.33pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s227984AF { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:56.7pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-22.7pt; text-align:justify } .s636BD389 { width:12.04pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s12B939F1 { width:9.38pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .sD58C010 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:15.01pt; margin-bottom:3pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:1.99pt; font-family:Arial } .s2D9C6089 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s69DCC830 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sB5B22EFB { width:176.27pt; display:inline-block } .sA2E62387 { width:204.97pt; display:inline-block }       THIRD SECTION CASE OF SOLODNIKOV v. RUSSIA (Application no. 61582/10)             JUDGMENT                 STRASBOURG 2 June 2020   This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision. In the case of Solodnikov v. Russia, The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:   Alena Poláčková, President,   Dmitry Dedov,   Gilberto Felici, judges, and Olga Chernishova, Deputy Section Registrar, Having regard to: the application 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   Sergey Aleksandrovich Solodnikov (“the applicant”), on 19 August 2010; the decision to give notice of the application to the Russian Government (“the Government”); the parties’ observations; the decision to reject the Government’s objection to examination of the application by a Committee; Having deliberated in private on 28 April 2020, Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date: INTRODUCTION The case concerns inadequate medical aid in detention, handcuffing, conditions of detention and transport, unlawful and unjustified pre-trial detention, review of detention, length of proceedings and restricted access to a lawyer. THE FACTS 1.     The applicant was born in 1976 and lived, before his arrest, in Krasnoyarsk. 2.     The Government were initially represented by Mr G. Matyushkin, Representative of the Russian Federation to the European Court of Human Rights, and then by his successor in that office, Mr M. Galperin. 3.     The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows. Criminal proceedings against the applicant 4.     On 5 August 2007 the applicant was arrested in Krasnoyarsk on suspicion of drug trafficking and detained in Krasnoyarsk remand prison no.   1 (IZ-24/1). 5.     On an unspecified date eight individuals, including the applicant, were charged with thirteen counts of drug trafficking in an organised group. 6.     On 22 September 2008 the investigation was completed and the prosecution submitted the case for trial to the Sovetskiy District Court of Krasnoyarsk (the “District Court”). 7.     Between 28 September 2008 and 2 October 2009 the Sovetskiy District Court held several hearings in the criminal case. 8.     On seven occasions (15 October 2009, 25, 26 and 30 November 2009 and 1, 2 and 3 December 2009) the applicant was transferred from the remand prison to the District Court, in order to ensure his participation in hearings. 9.     On 15 April 2010 the District Court studied the evidence collected in the criminal case. The defence asked the court to call several experts and witnesses and to order an additional chemical examination. The court rejected the requests. 10.     On 27 April 2010 the applicant was again transferred from the remand prison to the courthouse. He was not called to the courtroom. It is unclear whether a hearing took place on that date. 11.     On 4 June 2010 the District Court held a hearing. 12.     After 16 August 2010 several hearings were scheduled and then adjourned, because the applicant was ill. 13.     On 30 September 2010 proceedings against the applicant were suspended until his recovery. 14.     On 30 November 2010 the District Court held a hearing but had to interrupt it because the applicant was suffering from a hypertensive crisis. The trial was adjourned, on account of the applicant’s inability to take part in the proceedings. 15.     On 12 January 2011 the District Court found that the applicant was unfit to stand trial and decided to adjourn the trial until his state of health improved. 16.     On 21 January 2011 the District Court resumed the examination of the criminal case with reference to a medical certificate of 18 January 2011 by which the applicant was declared fit to stand trial. 17.     On 24, 26 and 28 January and 8, 10 and 28 February 2011 the hearings were adjourned because the applicant was unable to participate owing to his medical condition. 18.     On 3 March 2011 the District Court held a hearing in the applicant’s presence. 19.     On 14 March 2011 the examination of the case was adjourned because the applicant’s health had deteriorated. 20.     On 18 April 2011 the District Court convicted the applicant as charged. 21.     On 28 February 2012 the Krasnoyarsk Regional Court upheld the conviction on appeal. 22.     On 7 August 2012 the Presidium of the Krasnoyarsk Regional Court quashed the conviction by way of a supervisory review at the applicant’s request. The court remitted the case to the trial court for a fresh examination and ordered the applicant’s release from detention against an undertaking not to leave the town. 23.     The applicant remained in detention from 7 to 16 August 2012 when he was released. 24.     On 21 August 2012 the applicant’s case was remitted to the trial court. 25.     On 16 March 2015 the District Court convicted the applicant of several drug offences and sentenced him to ten years and six months’ imprisonment. The measure of restraint in respect of the applicant was accordingly changed to detention. On the same date he was placed in remand prison IZ-24/1. 26.     On 18 June 2015 the Krasnoyarsk Regional Court upheld the conviction on appeal. Compensation proceedings 27.     On 2 November 2015 the applicant claimed compensation for the excessive length of the criminal proceedings against him. 28.     On 25 February 2016 a single judge of the Krasnoyarsk Regional Court dismissed the claim. The applicant appealed, arguing that the court had failed to assess his submissions and had incorrectly applied domestic law and the Convention. 29.     On 22 June 2016 the Administrative Chamber of the Krasnoyarsk Regional Court upheld the decision on appeal. The court established that the proceedings had begun on 5 August 2007 and ended on 18 June 2015; they had thus lasted seven years, six months and fifteen days. The case had been complex, had involved several co-accused, had concerned multiple counts of drug deals and had required the examination of numerous witnesses. Several hearings had been adjourned either owing to the applicant’s poor state of health or at the request of the defence, because the defendants or lawyers had fallen ill, they had been participating in different proceedings, or on other grounds. There had been no significant periods of inaction attributable to the authorities. 30.     On 10 October 2016 the applicant lodged a cassation appeal with the Presidium of the Krasnoyarsk Regional Court. 31.     On 8 November 2016 a judge of the Krasnoyarsk Regional Court rejected the application, having found no grounds to reopen the case. The applicant’s medical condition The applicant’s state of health before 4 June 2010 32.     It follows from a medical certificate of 11 October 2007 issued by the medical unit of the Krasnoyarsk Regional Department of the State Service for Drug Control that in 2004 the applicant had suffered from eye contusion. Since 2003 he had suffered from “hypertonic type neurocirculatory dystonia”. In 2004 he was diagnosed with chronic cholecystitis. 33.     In August 2007 he developed hypertonic disease in addition to the previously diagnosed illnesses. Haemorrhagic stroke and transfer to Town Clinical Hospital no. 6 (“the town hospital”) Events of 4 June 2010 34.     On 4 June 2010 the applicant attended a hearing. He was handcuffed to a steel wire. At 5.55 p.m. he lost consciousness in the courtroom and collapsed on the floor. He rapidly developed cyanosis and oedema. His pupils were fairly dilated and there was no light reflex. His heartbeat became irregular and his breathing difficult. 35.     The public asked the judge to remove the handcuffs from the applicant. The judge left the courtroom without giving any instructions to the escorting officers and was absent for about twenty minutes. An ambulance was called in the meantime. A doctor sitting in the public gallery rushed to help the applicant. Throughout that time the applicant remained handcuffed. 36.     Twenty minutes later an ambulance arrived. The escorting officers did not allow the applicant to be transferred to a civilian hospital, arguing that he had to be examined first by prison doctors. After about forty minutes of negotiation with the head of the security department of the Ministry of Internal Affairs, the applicant was placed in the ambulance. 37.     The ambulance took the applicant to the remand prison and remained at the entrance to the remand prison for about one hour. The prison authorities refused to accept the applicant on account of his serious condition and insisted on his urgent transfer to a hospital. He was then transferred to the town hospital. The applicant’s treatment in the town hospital 38.     At 8.05 p.m. on 4 June 2010 the applicant arrived at the town hospital. He had to walk from the ambulance to the admissions room. He was handcuffed to a wheel chair during examination. 39.     From 4 to 8 June 2010 the escorting officers had restricted the doctors’ and his lawyer’s access to him. On those dates he was constantly handcuffed to a radiator or a bed. The escorting officers were present during all medical examinations except for invasive procedures. 40.     On 7 June 2010 the applicant was diagnosed with a subarachnoid ‑ type cerebral haemorrhage. 41.     On 8 June 2010 the applicant had a meeting with his lawyer. 42.     On 10 June 2010 doctors at the town hospital examined the applicant and found that he ran a risk of suffering a repeated stroke. His condition required brain surgery. The doctors concluded that the required medical treatment could not be ensured in IZ-24/1. 43.     On 15 June 2010 the applicant underwent brain surgery. Afterwards he was placed in the hospital convalescence unit and for several hours received artificial respiration. 44.     An escorting officer was constantly present at the unit, and the applicant remained handcuffed until his discharge from the hospital. He submitted photographs depicting him handcuffed to a radiator in a hospital room. 45.     On 17 June 2010 the hospital doctors informed the applicant’s lawyer that the applicant was suffering from a cerebral aneurism. The experts described his condition as severe and specified that he would need three to four weeks of post-operational rehabilitation treatment in a specialised institution. 46.     According to an extract from the applicant’s medical record of 9 July 2010 issued by the town hospital at the request of the applicant’s lawyer, during the post-operation period the applicant suffered from complications but the doctors assessed the applicant’s state of health as “satisfactory”. 47.     On 9 July 2010 the applicant was discharged from the hospital. Transfer to and treatment in the Regional tuberculosis prison hospital (“the prison hospital”) 48.     On 9 July 2010 the applicant was transferred from the town hospital to the prison hospital in an ordinary prison van, not in an ambulance, and he was not accompanied by a doctor. He had to walk from the town hospital to the prison van and carry his belongings. He did not receive any assistance from the escorting officers. 49.     From 9 July 2010 until an unspecified date, the applicant received inpatient treatment in the prison hospital. 50.     On 28 July 2010 the applicant was additionally diagnosed with left ‑ side “pyramid” insufficiency. 51.     On 16 August 2010 the applicant was discharged from the prison hospital and sent back to remand prison IZ-24/1. The applicant’s medical condition since 16 August 2010 till present time 52.     As from 16 August 2010 the applicant received medical treatment in the medical unit of remand prison. 53.     During a hearing on 20 September 2010 the applicant’s condition worsened. On 27 September 2010 the remand prison officers informed the District Court that the applicant was unable to attend the hearings on account of his poor state of health. 54.     From 27 September to 12 October 2010 the applicant received neurological treatment in the prison hospital. 55.     On 30 November 2010 the applicant was transferred to the courthouse to participate in a hearing. He suffered from a hypertensive crisis at the courtroom and was taken back to the remand prison. 56.     On 2 December 2010 the applicant was admitted to the prison hospital for examination and neurological treatment. 57.     On 3 December 2010 the head of the remand prison sent the trial court a certificate which read as follows: “In view of the hypertensive crises [the applicant has had] during the court hearings despite his relatively stable state of health in the remand prison, and taking into account that there is a significant risk of his developing complications following those hypertensive crises, possibly a repeated stroke and death, [the applicant] will no longer be transferred for the hearings.” 58.     On an unspecified date a medical panel found that the applicant had a disability of an unspecified category. 59.     On 18 January 2011 the prison hospital informed the District Court that the applicant’s medical condition had stabilised as a result of inpatient treatment and that he was again able to participate in the examination of the case. 60.     On 20 January 2011 the applicant was sent back to the remand prison. 61.     By a separate decision of 3 March 2011 the Sovetskiy District Court rejected the lawyer’s request for the applicant’s specialist examination. Referring to certificates sent by the medical unit of the remand prison, it found that the applicant’s condition had “normalised”, no complaints had been received from him and his blood pressure was normal. 62.     According to the latest medical certificate issued by the remand prison medical unit dated 3 March 2011, the applicant was suffering from a cerebral aneurism and third-degree hypertension. He was able to stand trial on condition that “the duration of hearings and the psycho emotional burden on the applicant were limited”. 63.     On 20 April 2011, after in-patient treatment, the applicant was examined by a medical commission which concluded that there were no medical grounds for his release from the prison. 64.     Since then, the applicant has been subjected to various medical examinations and treatments, including, neurological treatment, blood tests and magnetic resonance imaging. Handcuffing at the public hearings 65.     The applicant was handcuffed to a steel wire in the courtroom during public hearings of his case at the Sovetskiy District Court. Conditions of detention and transport Transfer to the courthouse and holding cells at the District Court The applicant’s account 66.     The applicant was usually taken out of the remand prison to attend court hearings early in the morning, before 6   a.m., and was taken back after midnight. No warm food was provided during the transfers. While the detainees were being transferred, he was kept with several other persons in a small space in a prison van. The prison vans were unsuitable for transporting prisoners because of overcrowding and the lack of artificial and natural ventilation or toilet facilities. It was extremely cold in the vans in winter. On several occasions the applicant shared the space in the van with other detainees suffering from tuberculosis. 67.     The transfers usually took about four hours a day: two for delivery of the detainees and two for collection and the return journey. The distance between remand prison IZ-24/1 and the District Court was about 7   kilometres. 68.     While waiting for a hearing, between court sessions or while waiting for other detainees after the hearing, the applicant was kept for hours in an unventilated cell in the courthouse together with up to twenty other prisoners and five to seven escorting officers. On several occasions he was detained in the same cell as Ms T., who suffered from tuberculosis. On several occasions the applicant was put in a tight cell measuring less than 2   square metres, where he had to await being called to the judge. No warm food or toilet facilities were provided in the holding cells. The Government’s account 69.     The applicant was transported to the District Court in adequately lit vans with natural ventilation. At the court he was held in a cell measuring 5.25 square metres without windows or a toilet and with artificial lighting and compulsory ventilation. Transfer to the prison hospital The applicant’s account 70.     On 9 July 2010 the applicant was transferred from the town hospital to the prison hospital. 71.     He was transported in an ordinary prison van and not in an ambulance. He was not accompanied by a doctor. He had to walk from the town hospital to the prison van and carry his belongings. He received no assistance from the escorting officers. The Government’s account 72.     The applicant’s transfer from the town hospital to the prison hospital was carried out in line with legal requirements and the applicant did not complain of any violations of his rights during the transfer. Conditions of detention in Krasnoyarsk remand prison IZ-24/1 The applicant’s account 73.     Between 16 March and 6 June 2015 the applicant was detained in overcrowded cells in IZ-24/1. During that period, the inmates had only 1.5   square metres of personal space. His cell was situated near a kennel and the inmates had to listen to dogs barking twenty-four hours a day and were unable to sleep. They were allowed to take a shower once a week. Sometimes they were unable to shower, as they could not regulate the temperature of the water in the shower room. There was no ventilation or access to fresh air. There was no water at night. The food was of poor quality. The Government’s account 74.     The applicant was detained from 17 March to 6 July 2015 in IZ 24/1 in cell no. 79 measuring 19.2 square metres with one or four inmates; there was a table, benches and other furniture in the cell, artificial and natural ventilation, and adequate sanitary facilities. The applicant had daily one ‑ hour walks. Conditions of detention in the prison hospital The applicant’s account 75.     Between 6 July and 8 August 2015 the applicant underwent inpatient treatment in the prison hospital. He had to share a room measuring 20   square metres with eleven inmates. Two of them were allegedly suffering from acute schizophrenia and three from epilepsy. The room, which was not equipped with a toilet, was constantly locked, and the applicant was able to leave it only two or three times a day. 76.     On 8 August 2015 the applicant was transferred to Irkutsk correctional colony no. IK-3. The Government’s account 77.     The applicant was detained together with three other inmates in the prison hospital between 6 July and 8   August   2015 in room no. 5, measuring 20.8 square metres. There were four sleeping places in the room; the room was equipped with artificial and natural ventilation, lighting and heating devices. There was a sanitary facility with five toilet bowls, which was separated from the main hospital premises. The inmates had three meals a day and access to a shower every week. The hospital premises were in line with the sanitary standards. The applicant’s pre-trial detention 78.     On 5 August 2007 the applicant was arrested and the Kirovskiy District Court of Krasnoyarsk ordered his pre-trial detention pending investigation. 79.     Thereafter the applicant’s pre-trial detention was extended several times. He applied for early release but his applications were dismissed by the courts. The courts used the same stereotyped formula when extending his detention, stating in particular that the applicant (1) was suspected of serious crimes, (2) might abscond, (3) might put pressure on witnesses, or (4) might interfere with the investigation. 80.     On 20 September 2010 at the request of the prosecution the Sovetskiy District Court extended the applicant’s pre-trial detention until 21   December 2010. The applicant was not present, but his lawyer attended the hearing. 81.     On 14 October 2010 the applicant received a copy of the decision of 20 September 2010. On an unspecified date the applicant’s lawyer appealed against the extension. He argued, in particular, that the first-instance court had decided on the extension in the applicant’s absence, the applicant had not been notified of the examination of his case in a timely manner, and he had been unable to study the court decision until 14 October 2010. 82.     On 23 November 2010 the Krasnoyarsk Regional Court, by a single decision, upheld the extension order in respect of the applicant and another co-accused, Mr K. The applicant’s lawyer was present at the hearing. The appellate court considered that the extension orders had been issued in accordance with law. As regards the applicant’s absence from the courtroom, the appellate court noted, with reference to medical documents, that he was unable to attend the hearing on account of his poor state of health. A copy of the decision was sent to him once his condition had improved. 83.     Appeals lodged by the applicant against the detention orders were rejected on the following dates:   Date of the detention order Date on which an appeal was lodged Date of the appeal hearing 18 March 2010 25, 26 and 30 March 2010 25 May 2010 9 June 2010 18 June 2010 Unknown 20 September 2010 8 and 21 October 2010 23 November 2010 30 November 2010 8 December 2010 22 March 2011 12 January 2011 18 January 2011 Unknown   RELEVANT LEGAL FRAMEWORK AND PRACTICE 84.     The relevant general provisions of domestic and international law governing the general healthcare of detainees are set out in Ivko v. Russia (no. 30575/08, §§ 55-62, 15 December 2015). 85.     The provisions of domestic law establishing legal avenues for complaints about the quality of medical services are cited in the following judgments: Patranin v. Russia (no. 12983/14, §§ 86-88, 23 July 2015); Reshetnyak v. Russia (no. 56027/10, §§ 35-46, 8 January 2013); Dirdizov v.   Russia (no. 41461/10, §§ 47-61, 27 November); and Koryak v. Russia (no. 24677/10, §§ 46-57, 13 November 2012). 86.     According to paragraph 332 of the Instruction on Service approved by Decree No. 140-dsp of the Ministry for Internal Affairs of 7 March 2006, a senior escorting officer must remain constantly in the hospital room with the suspect or accused. He or she must escort the suspect or accused when moving about the hospital and must constantly supervise the escorted person during medical examinations and questioning. 87.     As to the provisions on handcuffing, under section 14 of the Federal Law “On Police” of 18 April 1991 no. 1026-1 and section 30 of the Federal Law “On Penal Institutions”, no. 5473-1of 21 July 1993, police and prison officers may use handcuffs in the event of resistance, in order to apprehend on the crime scene a person trying to escape if the person is threatening to harm someone’s life, health or property, or for escorting apprehended persons to the police station. Officers may also use handcuffs if there are grounds to believe that a detainee may abscond or cause damage to others or himself or resist the officers; and for the suppression of riots in prisons. THE LAW ALLEGED VIOLATIONS OF ARTICLE 3 OF THE CONVENTION ON ACCOUNT OF INADEQUATE MEDICAL TREATMENT 88.     The applicant complained that he had not received timeous and adequate medical assistance immediately after the stroke that he had suffered on 4 June 2010 and in the town hospital where he had been constantly handcuffed; that he had not received adequate medical assistance while in detention; and that his state of health was incompatible with detention and he had to be released. He relied on Article 3 of the Convention: “No one shall be subjected to torture or to inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.” 89.     The Government contested the applicant’s arguments. 90.     The applicant maintained his complaints. Admissibility 91.     As regards the applicant’s complaints about the authorities’ failure to release him on account of his illness and the medical assistance in detention, the Court reiterates that Article 3 of the Convention cannot be interpreted as laying down a general obligation to release a detainee on health grounds or to transfer him to a civil hospital, even if he is suffering from an illness that is particularly difficult to treat (see Gelfmann v. France , no. 25875/03, § 50, 14 December 2004). 92.     In the instant case, after the applicant had been discharged from the prison hospital, he received the necessary medical treatment. He returned to the prison hospital to undergo neurological treatment. According to the latest medical documents, his condition has stabilised. The applicant has not furnished any specific information (documents, detailed submissions) for the Court to conclude that the medical care he received in detention was insufficient. 93.     It follows that the applicant’s complaints about medical assistance in detention and refusal to release him on health grounds are manifestly ill ‑ founded and must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 §§ 3 and 4 of the Convention. 94.     As to the applicant’s complaints about his treatment for haemorrhagic stroke and the medical assistance he received in the town hospital, the Court notes that these complaints are not manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 (a) of the Convention. It further notes that they are not inadmissible on any other grounds. They must therefore be declared admissible. Merits General principles 95.     The Court reiterates that Article 3 of the Convention enshrines one of the fundamental values of democratic society, prohibiting in absolute terms torture or inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment (see, among other authorities, Stanev v. Bulgaria [GC], no. 36760/06, § 201, ECHR 2012). However, in order to come within the scope of the interdiction contained in Article 3, the treatment inflicted on or endured by the victim must reach a minimum level of severity. The assessment of this minimum level of severity is a relative one, depending 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 M.S. v.   the United Kingdom , no. 24527/08, § 38, 3 May 2012, and Price v.   the   United Kingdom , no. 33394/96, § 24, ECHR 2001-VII). 96.     Article 3 further imposes an obligation on the State to protect the physical well-being of persons deprived of their liberty by, among other things, providing them with the requisite medical care (see Kudła v. Poland [GC], no. 30210/96, § 94, ECHR 2000‑XI; Mouisel v. France , no.   67263/01, § 40, ECHR 2002-IX; and Khudobin v. Russia , no.   59696/00, §   93, ECHR 2006-XII). Thus, the Court has held on many occasions that lack of appropriate medical care may amount to treatment contrary to Article 3 (see, for example, M.S. v. the United Kingdom , cited above, §§   44 ‑ 46; Wenerski v. Poland , no. 44369/02, §§ 56-65, 20 January 2009; and Popov v. Russia , no. 26853/04, §§ 210-13 and 231-37, 13 July 2006). Application to the present case (a)    Medical assistance provided on 4 June 2010 97.     The Government submitted that the applicant had received adequate medical assistance on 4 June 2010 and had not previously complained before the domestic authorities about the quality of medical assistance he had received at the hearing on that day. 98.     The applicant maintained his complaint. 99.     The Court notes that at 6 p.m. on 4 June 2010 the applicant lost consciousness in the courtroom and collapsed. An ambulance was called and arrived about twenty minutes later. The escorting officers did not allow the applicant to be taken to a civil hospital, arguing that he had to be examined first by prison doctors. After about forty minutes, the applicant was placed in the ambulance. 100.     The applicant was then first transferred to the remand prison. He was not taken to the hospital until 8.05 p.m., two hours after the incident. 101.     The applicant’s state of health required immediate transfer to a hospital. An ambulance was called immediately after the applicant had lost consciousness and it arrived promptly. However, due to the actions of the escorting officers and prison authorities, he was transferred to the hospital belatedly. In particular, it took too much time to decide whether to take the applicant to the medical unit of the remand prison or to the hospital. 102.     The authorities did not provide any reasonable grounds for the delay in deciding whether to place the applicant in the ambulance and take him to the hospital. 103.     There has accordingly been a violation of Article 3 of the Convention on account of the failure to provide an adequate response to the emergency situation on 4 June 2010. (b)    Medical assistance and use of handcuffs at the town hospital 104.     The Government submitted that the applicant had undergone medical tests in line with the existing standards and had received surgery in due time. Escorting officers had been present in the operating room and emergency units, but not during invasive examinations such as lumbar puncture, pan-angiography and bandaging. The applicant had not been handcuffed during or after the surgery from 15 to 16 June 2010. 105.     The applicant submitted that he had been handcuffed despite the fact that he had been in a critical condition. The escorting officers had been present at all of his medical examinations, including shaving and urinary catheterisation. 106.     The Court notes that the applicant was transferred to the town hospital in a critical condition on 4 June 2010 and remained there until 9   July 2010. There is no evidence that the applicant did not receive adequate medical aid during this period of time. However despite his critical condition he was handcuffed. 107.     In an opinion issued on 10 August 2011, the deputy head of the Krasnoyarsk Region police, referring to the medical documents in the applicant’s criminal file, stated that on 4 June 2010 the applicant “had been incapable, on account of his medical condition, of adequately perceiving the reality”. Therefore, he had not presented any danger of absconding or causing self-harm or injury to others on that day. 108.     On 15 June 2010 the applicant underwent brain surgery. It is unclear whether the applicant was in handcuffs on the day of the surgery. The photo depicting him bandaged and handcuffed in his bed, do not contain any reference to date when this photo was taken. From 17 June to 9   July 2010 the applicant was constantly chained to a radiator or his bed. It is not disputed between the parties that two escorting officers remained on guard in the room. The Government did not provide any reasonable explanation as to why the applicant, being under the constant control of two escorting officers, had had to remain handcuffed after such a serious surgery. 109.     Having regard to the applicant’s state of health, to the absence of any cause to fear that he represented a security risk and to the constant supervision by escorting officers, the Court finds that the use of handcuffs in these conditions amounted to inhuman treatment (see Tarariyeva v.   Russia , no. 4353/03, §§ 106-11, ECHR 2006 XV (extracts)). 110.     There has therefore been a violation of Article 3 of the Convention. 111.     Having regard to the above, it is unnecessary to consider whether the escorting officers’ presence during the applicant’s catheterisation and shaving amounted to a violation of Article 3 of the Convention. ALLEGED VIOLATIONS OF ARTICLE 13 OF THE CONVENTION ON ACCOUNT OF LACK OF EFFECTIVE REMEDY 112.     The applicant complained under Article 13 of the Convention that he had not had an effective remedy to protect his right to medical assistance. He relied on 13 of the Convention: “Everyone whose rights and freedoms as set forth in [the] Convention are violated shall have an effective remedy before a national authority notwithstanding that the violation has been committed by persons acting in an official capacity.” 113.     The Government submitted that the applicant had had effective domestic remedies and that he had made use of them by raising his grievances before the national courts. 114.     The applicant maintained his complaint. Admissibility 115.     The Court notes that this complaint is not manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 (a) of the Convention. It further notes that it is not inadmissible on any other grounds. It must therefore be declared admissible. Merits 116.     For a summary of the relevant general principles, see Litvinov v.   Russia , no. 32863/13, §§ 73-77, 22 March 2016. 117.     The Court has on many occasions found there to be a lack of effective domestic remedies in Russia through which to complain of the poor quality of medical treatment in detention (see, among many other authorities, Koryak v. Russia , no. 24677/10, §§ 86-93, 13 November 2012; Reshetnyak v. Russia , no. 56027/10, §§ 65-73, 8 January 2013; Gorbulya v.   Russia , no. 31535/09, §§ 56-58, 6 March 2014; Navalnyy and Yashin v.   Russia , no. 76204/11, § 106, 4 December 2014; Makshakov v. Russia , no.   52526/07, §§ 86-89, 24 May 2016; and Urazov v. Russia , no.   42147/05, §§   66-70, 14 June 2016). In the aforementioned cases the Court established that none of the legal avenues suggested by the Government, including a complaint to a court, constituted an effective remedy by means of which to prevent the alleged violations or halt their continuance, or to provide the applicant with adequate and sufficient redress for his or her complaints under Article 3 of the Convention. 118.     In the absence of any new arguments from the Government as regards the existence of effective remedies satisfying the requirements of Article 13 of the Convention in the present case, the Court cannot depart from its well-established case-law on the issue. It sees no legal avenues that would constitute an effective remedy for the applicant’s complaints under Article 3 of the Convention. Accordingly, the Court finds that the applicant did not have at his disposal an effective domestic remedy, in breach of Article 13 of the Convention. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 3 OF THE CONVENTION ON ACCOUNT OF HANDCUFFING IN THE COURTROOM 119.     The applicant complained that he had been handcuffed to a steel wire during the public hearings in his case. 120.     The Government submitted that the applicant was an ex-police officer, and had not wanted to stay together with the other co-accused at the hearings because he had been in conflict with them. The applicant had threatened the co-accused, disturbed public order and demonstrated a negative attitude towards witnesses and the prosecutor. He had also disobeyed the judge, who had expelled him from the courtroom several times. 121.     The applicant maintained his complaint. Admissibility 122.     The Court notes that this complaint is not manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 (a) of the Convention. It further notes that it is not inadmissible on any other grounds. It must therefore be declared admissible. Merits 123.     The Court reiterates that handcuffing does not normally give rise to an issue under Article 3 of the Convention where the measure has been imposed in connection with lawful detention and does not entail use of force, or public exposure, exceeding what is reasonably considered necessary. In this regard, it is important to determine, for instance, whether there is a danger that the person concerned might abscond or cause injury or damage (see Raninen v. Finland , 16 December 1997, § 56, Reports   1997   VIII, and Mouisel v. France , cited above, § 47, ECHR 2002   IX). 124.     In the instant case, the Government stated that the applicant had been attached to a steel wire in the courtroom during the hearings because he had threatened the co-accused and had disturbed public order. They provided, as evidence of such behaviour, a certificate issued by the police in 2011. The fact that this certificate was issued approximately a year after the event complained of undermines its evidential value: as the Court has pointed out on many occasions, documents prepared after a considerable period of time cannot be viewed as sufficiently reliable sources, given the length of time that has elapsed (see, mutatis mutandis , Novinskiy v. Russia , no. 11982/02, § 105, 10 February 2009, and Shilbergs v. Russia , no.   20075/03, § 91, 17 December 2009). 125.     The Government did not provide any other documents, such as the transcript of the hearings, confirming that had the applicant not worn handcuffs when appearing before the court, there might have been a risk of violence or damage, or of his absconding or hindering the proper administration of justice. When the applicant lost consciousness and it became clear that he was not pretending, the escorting officers still refused to take off the handcuffs under the pretext that he might abscond or attack them or the public. 126.     Therefore, the use of handcuffs in the instant case was not intended to exercise reasonable restraint, and was disproportionate to the security requirements. Although it has not been shown that the measure had been aimed at debasing or humiliating the applicant, his appearance in handcuffs at the public hearings amounted to degrading treatment within the meaning of Article 3 (see Gorodnitchev v. Russia , no. 52058/99, §§   98 ‑ 109, 24 May 2007). 127.     There has accordingly been a violation of Article 3 of the Convention on account of the applicant’s handcuffing in the courtroom during a public hearing. ALLEGED VIOLATIONS OF ARTICLE 3 OF THE CONVENTION ON ACCOUNT OF CONDITIONS OF DETENTION AND TRANSFER, AND DETENTION AT THE COURT 128.     The applicant complained about the conditions in which he had been transferred from remand prison IZ 24/1 to the Sovetskiy District Court of Krasnoyarsk, between the town and prison hospitals and about conditions of detention in the courthouse, the prison hospital and IZ 24/1. He relied on Article 3 of the Convention. 129.     The Government stated that the applicant had been transported and detained in adequate conditions. 130.     The applicant maintained his complaint. Admissibility Conditions of detention in IZ-24/1 and the prison hospital 131.     When assessing conditions of detention, account has to be taken of the cumulative effects of these conditions, as well as of specific allegations made by the applicant (see Dougoz v. Greece , no. 40907/98, § 46, ECHR 2001-II). The length of the period during which a person is detained in the particular conditions also has to be considered (see, among other authorities, Alver v. Estonia , no. 64812/01, 8 November 2005). 132.     The general principles concerning the establishment of facts in respect of complaints about conditions of detention are well established in the Court’s case-law and have been summarised in Fetisov and Others v.   Russia (nos. 43710/07, 6023/08, 11248/08, 27668/08, 31242/08 and 52133/08, 17 January 2012). 133.     As to conditions of detention in IZ-24/1 and the prison hospital, the Government’s evidence comprised certificates prepared by the prison administration, a plan of the premises, photographs, and excerpts from the remand prison population register covering one day per month within the period of the applicant’s detention. 134.     As regards the certificates and other evidence prepared in respect of the applicant’s detention in IZ-24/1, the Court observes that they indicate the size of the cell and the number of inmates detained with the applicant. The Court is satisfied that the excerpts from the register were taken from the original documents prepared during the detention period and showed the actual number of inmates who had been present in the cell. During that period the number of detainees in the relevant cell did not exceed the number of sleeping places, affording at least 4.8 square metres of personal space per detainee. 135.     The Court observes that the certificates prepared by the prison hospital administration concerning the surface area and the number of sleeping places in the prison hospital where the applicant had been detained were not contested by the applicant. Accordingly, the Court considers the information provided by the Government in this respect as credible (see Sizov v. Russia (no. 2), no. 58104/08, § 45, 24 July 2012). 136.     Having assessed the evidence presented by the parties in its entirety, the Court lends credence to the documents produced by the Government and rejects the applicant’s allegations as unsubstantiated. It follows that these complaints are manifestly ill-founded and must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 §§ 3 and 4 of the Convention. Conditions of transfer from IZ 24/1 to the Sovetskiy District Court and between the town and prison hospitals, as well as conditions of detention at the courthouse 137.     The Court notes that the complaints about the applicant’s conditions of transfers and detention at the courthouse are not manifestly ill ‑ founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 (a) of the Convention. It further notes that they are not inadmissible on any other grounds. They must therefore be declared admissible. Merits 138.     The Court notes that the applicant was detained in poor conditions at the courthouse and during his transfers. It refers to the principles established in its case-law regarding cramped and defective conditions in the detention and transit of prisoners (see, for instance, Khudoyorov v. &