CEDH · CASELAW;JUDGMENTS;COMMITTEE;ENG — 25 mars 2021

.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 } .sD9DA4929 { margin-top:72pt; 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 } .s598389F8 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; 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 } .sFE57F359 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:14.15pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s3CA22BA { font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .s58699FB5 { margin-top:14pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s6B505E72 { margin:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .s586AA269 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:11.67pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:8.18pt; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .sCD7D0356 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:15pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:4.85pt; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .sC47DA4E2 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:18.34pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:1.51pt; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .s7CAC83C { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:19.67pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:0.18pt; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .sCBF2D345 { margin-left:11.67pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:8.18pt; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .sB14F9765 { font-family:Arial; color:#292b2c } .s3AAE10DF { margin-top:14pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s9D48DD53 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .s5E8F5A28 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:25.5pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s743F3A55 { margin-right:0pt; margin-left:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .s2044A09A { margin-left:6.51pt; margin-bottom:6pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:1.99pt; font-weight:normal; font-style:italic } .sAE6FB95D { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:32.01pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:1.99pt; font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sF54F3725 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:42.55pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-17.05pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .sDBC81028 { width:4.83pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s65DDED6B { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:42.55pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-17.05pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .s7AE800C3 { width:4.28pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s33165EBA { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .sC66C6FB1 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:16.34pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:3.51pt; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .s5E1F8B46 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:19.85pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .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 } .sE8D1DB15 { margin-top:14pt; margin-bottom:3pt; text-indent:19pt; text-align:justify } .sF920FE69 { font-family:Arial; color:#f8f8f8 } .s86D3EA10 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:7.1pt } .sC47659CA { width:145.97pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .s968CD866 { width:189.42pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left } .s85226119 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .s653E6C45 { font-family:Arial; font-size:6.67pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .s2EB42ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:10pt }     FIFTH SECTION CASE OF ALEKSANDROVSKAYA v. UKRAINE (Application no. 38718/16)         JUDGMENT   STRASBOURG 25 March 2021         This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision. In the case of Aleksandrovskaya v. Ukraine, The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:   Stéphanie Mourou-Vikström, President,   Ganna Yudkivska,   Lado Chanturia, judges, and Martina Keller, Deputy Section Registrar, Having regard to: the application against Ukraine lodged with the Court under Article   34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) by a Ukrainian national, Ms   Alla   Aleksandrovna Aleksandrovskaya (“the applicant”), on 6 July 2016; the decisions to give notice to the Ukrainian Government (“the Government”) of the applicant’s complaints: under Article 3 of the Convention concerning medical assistance in detention and access to it during the house arrest, and conditions of her participation in court hearings; under Article 5 §§ 1-5 concerning her arrest and continued detention; under Article 8 concerning her visiting rights; under Article 13 related to her complaints under Article 3 about medical assistance in detention and participation in court hearings; and under Article 14, taken together with Article 5 § 3, and to declare the remainder of the application inadmissible; the parties’ observations; Having deliberated in private on 4 March 2021, Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date: INTRODUCTION 1.     The case concerns the applicant’s complaints: under Article 3 of the Convention that she was placed in metal cages during court hearings; under Article 5 § 1 (c) that her arrest was unlawful; and under Article 5 § 3 that her continued detention was unjustified. She also raised other complaints. THE FACTS 2.     The applicant was born in 1948 and lives in Kharkiv. She was represented by Mr M. Tarakhkalo, Ms O. Chilutyan, Ms O. Protsenko (lawyers practising in Kyiv) and Mr O. Shadrin (a lawyer practising in Kharkiv). 3.     The Government were represented by their Agent, Mr I. Lishchyna. 4.     The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows. Criminal proceedings against the applicant 5.     The applicant is a former member of parliament and politician. 6.     On 27 June 2016 the Security Service applied to the Kyivskyy District Court of Kharkiv (“the Kyivskyy Court”) for a warrant to search the applicant’s flat. The Kyivskyy Court issued the warrant on 28 June 2016, and on the same day Security Service investigators conducted a search of the applicant’s flat. During the search they seized her passport and electronic and storage devices. After the search they arrested her. 7.     The arrest report stated that the applicant had been arrested under Article 208 § 1 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (“the CCP”, see   paragraph 58 below) on charges of attacking the territorial integrity of Ukraine and bribery (Articles 110 § 2 and 369 § 3 of the Criminal Code, see   paragraphs 53 and 54 below).   According to the report, on 24 June 2016 the applicant, acting through R. and G., had given B. – the mayor of Pivdenne – 1,000 United States dollars (USD) for his assistance with the Pivdenne Town Council’s adoption of decisions concerning local elections. After those decisions had been adopted, the applicant had given USD 8,000 to R. (through S.), to be given to B. The plan had been to publish the decisions on the Internet on 28 June 2016, in order to make a number of people more inclined to organise a local referendum with the aim of proclaiming the Kharkiv Region independent.   In the report, the applicant stated that there were no grounds for her arrest under Article 208 § 1 (2) of the CCP, and that it was in breach of Article 5 of the Convention. 8 .     On 29 June 2016 the investigator lodged an application with the Kyivskyy Court for the applicant’s continued detention. He reiterated the facts stated in the arrest report, and further stated that the reasonable suspicion against the applicant was confirmed by a number of pieces of evidence: the record of the inspection of the crime scene, transcripts of interviews with the witnesses R. and S., a transcript of an interview with the suspect G., and so on (the parties did not provide copies of those documents). With reference to Article 177 § 1 (1), (3) and (4) of the CCP (see paragraph 56 below), the investigator also stated that if the preventive measure of continued detention was not adopted, the applicant might abscond, unlawfully influence witnesses or other suspects, or otherwise obstruct the criminal proceedings. Lastly, he stated that under Article 176 §   5 of the CCP (see paragraph 55 below), non-custodial measures could not be applied in her case. 9.     The applicant’s lawyers objected, stating that her arrest had been unlawful, and that the investigator had not proved the risks provided for by Article 177 of the CCP and formally referred to Article 176 § 5 of the CCP. However, the applicant had no intention of absconding. Referring to Article 178 of the CCP (see paragraph 57 below), they further submitted that in choosing a preventive measure, the court should take the following factors into account: the suspicion against the applicant was groundless; she had strong social ties in her place of residence, an excellent reputation and no criminal records; she suffered from chronic diseases; the alleged offences had caused no pecuniary damage; and four persons were willing to act as sureties for her as provided for by Article 176 § 1 of the CCP (see paragraph   55 below). 10 .     On 29 and 30 June 2016 the court examined the investigator’s application and allowed it on the latter date, ordering the applicant’s detention until 26 August 2016. It stated that the evidence submitted demonstrated that there was a reasonable suspicion against her and that the risks under Article 177 § 1 (1), (3) and (4) of the CCP had been established. The severity of the sentence which the applicant faced, in combination with the information about her, the fact that she did not admit her guilt, and the possibility that she might influence witnesses and obstruct the criminal proceedings by informing other possible perpetrators about the investigation, rebutted her arguments that there had been no such risks. The court also stated that it had examined the possibility of applying non ‑ custodial preventive measures, but pursuant to Article 176 § 5 of the CCP, to which it referred twice, such measures could not be applied in respect of one of the crimes which the applicant was charged with (Article   110 § 2 of the Criminal Code). Taking into account the existing risks and the available evidence indicating that the applicant had committed serious crimes, the application of less restrictive measures was not therefore possible. The court did not examine the applicant’s lawyers’ complaint of the unlawfulness of her arrest, holding that it was to be examined by the prosecutor. 11.     On 5 July 2016 the applicant’s lawyers appealed against the ruling of 30 June 2016, stating that the court had not substantiated the risks under Article 177 of the CCP, and had only formally referred to them. No such risks were present: the applicant was of an advanced age and had health issues; she had a permanent place of residence, an occupation, an excellent reputation and positive character references; she had no criminal records; and she had been a member of parliament. The court had ignored the fact that several persons were willing to act as her sureties. Lastly, the lawyers submitted that Article 176 § 5 of the CCP precluded the court from taking into account the requirements of Articles 177 and 178. 12 .     On 22 July 2016 the Kharkiv Regional Court of Appeal (“the Court of Appeal”) upheld the ruling of 30 June 2016. It further added that the applicant’s son lived in Russia and maintained relations with her, that she had managerial skills, a certain reputation and was popular in the Kharkiv Region, and that she had been a member of parliament and the regional secretary of the Communist Party; those circumstances were sufficient to make one believe that, if at large, she might abscond, influence witnesses or otherwise obstruct the proceedings. Lastly, the court twice referred to Article 176 § 5 of the CCP: as an independent ground precluding the application of non-custodial measures, and taken together with other considerations. It thus concluded that the reasonable suspicion against the applicant, the existence of risks and Article 176 § 5 of the CCP excluded the application of non-custodial measures in respect of her. 13 .     On 3 August 2016 the applicant asked the Kyivskyy Court to change her detention to house arrest, stating that the risks under Article 177 of the CCP had reduced because her state of health excluded her absconding, most of the witnesses had already been questioned, and she could not obstruct the proceedings by disclosing information, as she had not been allowed to acquaint herself with the investigation material.   On 5 August 2016 the court rejected the application, in particular because the applicant’s lawyers had not proved that the risks under Article 177 of the CCP had reduced. 14 .     Following the investigator’s applications of 26 August, 9 and 27   September 2016 similar to the one he had made on 29 June 2016, the Kyivskyy Court extended the applicant’s detention. It held that the investigation had not yet been completed and a number of investigative actions still had to be taken. It further held that the investigator had not proved the risks under Article 177 § 1 (4) of the CCP. Otherwise, its reasoning was largely the same as that in the decisions of 30 June and 22   July 2016 (the existence of reasonable suspicion, the severity of the possible sentence, and the presence of other risks under Article 177 § 1). In each of its decisions the court referred to Article 176 § 5 of the CCP on two or three occasions, either as an independent ground precluding the application of non-custodial measures, or taken together with other considerations. 15.     The applicant’s lawyers appealed, stating that: there was no reasonable suspicion against her; the risks under Article 177 of the CCP had considerably reduced or ceased to exist (most of the witnesses had already been questioned, some suspects had been served with notices of suspicion, and others were on a wanted list, so the applicant could not influence them, and her health condition excluded her absconding); any remaining insignificant risks could be prevented by non-custodial measures; and the court had not taken into account her health, personality, age, positive character references, sureties and lack of a criminal record. They further submitted that Article 176 § 5 of the CCP was in breach of Article 5 of the Convention. 16 .     On 5 and 22 September 2016 respectively the Court of Appeal essentially rejected the appeals against the rulings of 26 August and 9   September 2016. It held that the seriousness of the applicant’s offences and the severity of the possible sentence indicated that she might abscond or influence witnesses or other suspects. It further referred to the circumstances mentioned in its ruling of 22 July 2016 and to Article 176 § 5 of the CCP, as an independent ground excluding the application of non ‑ custodial measures, and taken together with other considerations. 17 .     However, on 13 October 2016 the Court of Appeal allowed the appeals against the ruling of 27 September 2016, ordered the applicant’s release and placed her under twenty-four-hour house arrest until 23 October 2016, obliging her not to leave her flat without permission from the investigator, the prosecutor or the investigating judge. It held that the investigator had not provided grounds for the applicant’s continued detention other than those made in his previous applications, or evidence indicating that the risk that she might abscond or influence witnesses or other suspects still existed. The lower court had also failed to give a detailed analysis of those risks. Thus, the fact that the applicant had a certain reputation and was popular in the Kharkiv Region, and had been a member of parliament and a party secretary, spoke to the strength of her social ties and the fact that those risks had reduced. Furthermore, the lower court had confined itself to a formal enumeration of the legal grounds for continued detention, without evaluating them in their totality in the applicant’s individual circumstances. Thus, the seriousness of the offences could not be the only reason for keeping her detained. She had positive character references from her place of residence, awards from Parliament and several sureties; she also had strong relations with her sons’ families and participated in raising her grandsons. That meant that she had a stable social status, which considerably reduced the risks which had been repeatedly referred to before. The Court of Appeal thus concluded that her continued detention was in breach of Article 5 of the Convention, taking into account: her age, her poor health, her strong social ties, her permanent place of residence, the large amount of confidence which the local population had in her, her positive character references, her employment experience, the seriousness of the alleged offences, the lack of any improper procedural conduct on her part or a criminal record, and the investigator’s failure to prove that the alleged risks still existed. 18 .     On 20 October 2016 the Kyivskyy Court extended the applicant’s house arrest until 21 December 2016. On the latter date the court extended her house arrest until 21 February 2017, limiting it to a period going from 9   p.m. to 6 a.m. On 21 February 2017 that measure expired. 19.     The parties did not inform the Court about subsequent events. Conditions of the applicant’s participation in court hearings 20.     The applicant stated that during the court hearings held between 29   June and 22 September 2016 she had been held in metal cages and guarded by convoy officers. As the case had been highlighted by the media, she had been exposed to the public. During the hearing of 29 June 2016 (see   paragraph 8 above) her lawyers had requested her release from the cage in which she had been placed. The court had released her only during the hearing of 30 June 2016, in the afternoon. During the hearings of 29 and 30   June 2016 she had remained in a courtroom with poor ventilation and air conditioning, and had been exposed to high temperatures. 21 .     In a letter of 3 March 2017 sent to the Government the Kyivskyy Court stated that: during the hearing of 29 June 2019 it had examined another application by the applicant’s lawyer, and the examination of that application had not involved the examination of any other applications (such as the one for the applicant’s release from the cage); neither the applicant nor her lawyers had asked the court to release her from the cage during the hearing of 26 August 2016 (see paragraph 14 above); the applicant’s lawyers had asked the court to release her during the hearing of 9 September 2016 (see paragraph 14 above), but pursuant to the 2015 Instruction on Escorting Accused or Convicted Persons (“the 2015 Instruction”), a person could be released from a metal cage only where his or her preventive measure was changed to a non-custodial one (placement in a metal cage having been a transitional measure provided for until metal cages were replaced by glass cabins). 22 .     The applicant further stated that during the hearing of 12 July 2016 (see paragraph 31 below) she had been held in a metal cage, and that handcuffs had been used on her when she had been escorted to the courtroom. In a letter of 6 March 2017 sent to the Government the Zhovtnevyy District Court of Kharkiv (“the Zhovtnevyy Court”) stated that the applicant had been placed in a metal cage because at that time there had been no glass cabins. Also, she had made no applications in that regard. In a letter of 6 March 2017 the police informed the Government that handcuffs had not been used on the applicant, and moreover she had made no complaints. 23 .     During a hearing of 15 July 2016 the applicant’s lawyers asked the Court of Appeal to release her from the metal cage in which she had been placed. According to the audio-recordings of the hearing, the judge asked the head of the convoy service whether it was possible to do this. With reference to the 2015 Instruction, the head of the service responded in the negative, and the judge rejected the application. In a letter of 6 March 2017 the Court of Appeal informed the Government that during the hearings of 22 July and 5   and 22 September 2016 (see paragraphs 12 and 16 above) the applicant had not made any relevant complaints. Medical assistance provided to the applicant during her detention, and her access to it during house arrest 24.     On the night of 29 June 2016 the applicant stayed in the city hospital, suffering from a hypertensive crisis. She was examined by various doctors, had X-ray, ultrasound and electrocardiographic examinations, and was diagnosed with numerous diseases (ischemic heart disease, diffuse cardiosclerosis, arrhythmia, stage II hypertension, stage II-A cardiac insufficiency, a duodenal ulcer in remission, autoimmune thyroiditis, hypothyreosis and varicose veins) from which she had already been suffering for several years (together with some other diseases, such as stable angina, not diagnosed at the hospital on that day). 25 .     During the hearing of 30 June 2016 (see paragraph 8 above) the applicant was examined by a private cardiologist, Dr N., who diagnosed her with most of the above diseases. She noted that there was a very high risk of complications from those diseases, and prescribed medical examinations (brain imaging, ultrasound and X-ray examinations, several blood and hormone tests, a coronary angiogram (the angiogram to be conducted “on a non-urgent basis”) and twenty-four-hour electrocardiogram and blood pressure monitoring) and medication; she also recommended a diet (“the conclusions of 30 June 2016”). 26 .     On the same day the applicant was transferred to a SIZO, where she was examined by a doctor who noted that her condition was satisfactory and that she was not expressing any complaints. 27 .     From 30 June to 2 July 2016 the applicant received inpatient treatment in the SIZO medical unit. She underwent blood and urine tests, which detected no pathology, and received medication. On 2 July 2016 she was discharged from the medical unit upon making a request in which she stated that she did not require further inpatient treatment. 28.     According to a document issued by Dr S., the head of the SIZO medical unit, out of the recommendations made in Dr N.’s conclusions of 30 June 2016, only blood and urine tests and an X-ray examination could be carried out in the SIZO. There was also an electrocardiograph. The X-ray examination had already been carried out in the hospital and showed no pathology. The recommended diet mainly excluded fatty and spicy foods, which the meals in the SIZO did not contain. However, the parcels which the applicant had received from her relatives had contained products not recommended by that diet (meat, smoked bacon and sausage) and cigarettes. As indicated by letters from the State Prisons Service dated 14 July and 22   September 2016 and other documents in the case file, during her detention in the SIZO the applicant was provided with some of the prescribed medication, and she received other medication from her sister-in-law, Ms B. 29.     On 7 July 2016 the applicant and her lawyer asked the SIZO governor if she could have a full medical examination, owing to a deterioration in her health. The governor replied that measures would be taken in order to carry out the examination. 30 .     On 8 July 2016 the applicant was examined by a cardiologist, a neuropathologist, a vascular surgeon, a gastroenterologist, an ophthalmologist and an endocrinologist from the hospital. She was diagnosed with most of the above-mentioned diseases and prescribed necessary medication, which she started taking from 9 July 2016 onwards, and a diet was recommended. 31 .     Following an application by the applicant’s lawyer, on 12 July 2016 the Zhovtnevyy Court obliged the SIZO governor to arrange for the applicant to have medical examinations without delay, in accordance with Dr N.’s conclusions of 30 June 2016. 32 .     On 14 July 2016 the applicant had the relevant medical examinations in hospital: brain imaging; ultrasound examinations of her heart, thyroid gland, abdominal organs and neck vessels; an X-ray examination; heart rhythm analysis; and blood and hormone tests. She refused to have an endoscopy. She was examined by a cardiologist, a neuropathologist, a general practitioner and an endocrinologist, and was prescribed medication. It was established: that her state of health was stable and satisfactory and there were no signs of deterioration; that she did not require hospitalisation or urgent care; that the prescribed medication was enough to ensure her medical care at that stage; and that no other measures had been recommended. Treatment with medication was possible in the SIZO and did not require special conditions. 33.     On 14, 21 and 27 July and 1 August 2016 the applicant was examined by the SIZO doctor, who recommended that she continue taking the prescribed medication. 34.     On 3 August 2016 Dr N. examined the applicant’s medical documents and concluded that her diseases, combined with psychological pressure, high temperatures, physical exertion and bad nutrition, could cause sudden complications which, in the absence of urgent medical care, might lead to death. She also considered that quality diagnostics and intensive care were not possible in the SIZO in the event of complications. 35 .     During the court hearing of 5 August 2016 (see paragraph 13 above) the applicant was again examined by Dr N., who noted a visible deterioration in her health compared with what she had observed on 30 June 2016: increased symptoms of cardiac insufficiency (stage II-B) and cerebral circulation insufficiency, haemodynamic instability, symptoms of myocardial ischemia, and a significant increase in the number of extra systoles and episodes of atrial fibrillation. Dr N. stated that the applicant needed to be hospitalised for further examination in a specialised medical facility, as her state of health required dynamic monitoring by a cardiologist. She was prescribed examinations (twenty-four-hour electrocardiogram and blood pressure monitoring, an X-ray examination, coronaroventriculography, blood tests and a biopsy of the thyroid) and medication, to be conducted and administered without delay (“the conclusions of 5 August 2016”). 36.     On 8 August 2016 the SIZO medical unit received Dr N.’s conclusions of 5 August 2016; a SIZO doctor examined the applicant and confirmed that the medication prescribed to her in those conclusions was correct. On 12 and 17 August 2016 the doctor examined her again and confirmed that the prescribed medication was correct. 37 .     On 19 August 2016 the applicant asked the SIZO governor to arrange for her to have a consultation with a cardiologist. According to her, there was no reply. According to the information provided to the Government by Dr S., the applicant was free to choose a doctor, but did so only during the court hearings; she never asked the SIZO to allow her a visit from a doctor of her choice. Although there was no cardiologist in the SIZO, the applicant was regularly monitored by the SIZO doctors, and by hospital cardiologists during her medical examinations and inpatient treatment. 38 .     On 22 August the applicant was examined by a SIZO doctor, and thereafter she received inpatient treatment in the hospital from 22 to 25   August 2016. According to the medical documents, her condition on arrival was moderately grave. She was diagnosed with the same diseases (including stage II hypertension (high risk) and stage II-B cardiac insufficiency with cardiac asthma attacks) and stage II obesity. She was taken for blood and urine tests, had an X-ray and electrocardiography, and received medication, following which her condition improved. The applicant was released from hospital under the care of a general practitioner and a cardiologist; it was recommended that she continue to take the medication which had been prescribed earlier. 39 .     On 25 August 2016 experts D., Ch. and O. examined the applicant’s medical documents and concluded that she suffered from ischemic heart disease, stable angina, cardiosclerosis, stage I-II hypertension, arrhythmia, stage II-B cardiac insufficiency with cardiac asthma attacks, and a duodenal ulcer in remission. 40.     On 26 August 2016 the applicant returned to the SIZO, where she was examined by a SIZO doctor who confirmed that the medication prescribed to her in the hospital was correct. He further examined the applicant on 31   August and 6, 12 and 16 September 2016, produced electrocardiograms (on 6 and 12 September) which did not reveal any acute heart pathology, and recommended that the applicant continue with the same treatment that she had been receiving. 41 .     During the hearing of 9 September 2016 (see paragraph 14 above) Dr N. examined the applicant again and concluded that her condition was moderately grave and that she needed urgent hospitalisation for dynamic monitoring and emergency care to avoid fatal or incapacitating complications (“the conclusions of 9 September 2016”). She was also prescribed medication, some of which she was already taking. According to the applicant, it was not possible for her to have dynamic monitoring and emergency care in the SIZO. According to the information provided to the Government by Dr S., the applicant’s dynamic monitoring was ensured by the SIZO doctors, who examined her on a number of occasions on their own initiative. 42.     On 19 September 2016 the applicant was examined by a hospital cardiologist and underwent electrocardiography. The diagnosis given was the same as before. According to Dr S., the examination demonstrated that the applicant’s condition was stable at that moment. 43.     On 4 October 2016 the SIZO governor informed the applicant’s lawyer that in urgent situations patients could be sent to specialised medical facilities. 44.     On 12 October 2016 the applicant was examined by a SIZO doctor, who withheld one of the drugs which had been prescribed to her earlier. 45.     Following her release from detention, on 18 October 2016 the applicant’s lawyer asked the hospital to provide information on whether she needed further inpatient treatment and, if so, how long such treatment would last.   On 21 October 2016 the hospital replied saying that an answer could be given only after the applicant had been seen by doctors. 46 .     In the ruling of 20 October 2016 (see paragraph 18 above) the Kyivskyy Court held that the applicant’s twenty-four-hour house arrest did not preclude her attending medical facilities with the permission of the investigator, prosecutor or court. In upholding that ruling, on 27 October 2016 the Court of Appeal held that the prosecutor had given his mobile telephone number to the applicant, who could warn him any time if she needed to visit pharmacies, medical facilities and so on, and that there would be no obstacles in this regard. Moreover, the applicant had not provided evidence showing that the authorities had refused to allow her to visit medical facilities or had placed obstacles in her way. Nor had she provided any information indicating that she needed to visit those facilities regularly or at a certain time of the day. Therefore, house arrest was compatible with her state of health. 47 .     According to letters from the police and the prosecutor’s office dated 10 March 2017, while the applicant was under house arrest neither the police nor the prosecutors received any requests from her to visit medical facilities, or any complaints in this regard. Visits to the applicant during her detention 48.     On 7 July 2016 Ms B. asked the investigator to allow her to visit the applicant. 49 .     On 8 July 2016 the investigator replied that, as indicated by the case material, the applicant was complaining of poor health. A query had therefore been sent to the SIZO about the possibility of arranging such visits. The question of giving Ms B. permission to visit the applicant would therefore be resolved once the reply from the SIZO had been received. 50.     On 1 August 2016 the applicant complained to the Zhovtnevyy Court that the investigator was impeding her right to receive visits from Ms   B. The complaint was returned unexamined, owing to the court’s lack of jurisdiction. 51 .     On the same day, having received a positive reply from the SIZO on 25 July 2016, the investigator allowed the applicant to receive two visits: one from Ms B. and one from Ms A. (another relative). According to letters from the Security Service and the Department of the State Penal Service dated 9 and 10 March 2017, the investigator subsequently allowed all visit requests.   During her detention in the SIZO the applicant received one visit from Ms B. (on 17 August 2016) and visits from other relatives (on 10 and 18 August and 29 September 2016); the applicant was never refused a visit. RELEVANT LEGAL FRAMEWORK AND PRACTICE The 1996 Constitution 52.     Article 29 provides, inter alia , that no one can be held in custody other than pursuant to a reasoned court decision, and only on the grounds of and in accordance with a procedure established by law. The 2001 Criminal Code 53 .     Article 110 § 2 provides that deliberate acts aimed at changing the State territory or borders, public calls to commit such acts, or the dissemination of material containing such calls , when committed by a group of persons, are punishable by five to ten years’ imprisonment, with or without confiscation of property. 54 .     Article 369 § 3 provides that a proposal or promise to an official of an improper advantage , as well as giving such an advantage for the official’s actions or failure to act using his or her official position, in the interest of a person who proposes, promises or gives such an advantage, if committed by a group of persons, is punishable by four to eight years’ imprisonment, with or without confiscation of property. The 2012 Code of Criminal Procedure 55 .     Article 176 § 1 provides for the following preventive measures: a personal undertaking by a defendant, a third party acting as a surety, bail, house arrest and pre-trial detention. Article 176 §   5, introduced on 7 October 2014, provides that the preventive measures of a personal undertaking, a surety, house arrest and bail may not be imposed on people who are suspected of or charged with certain crimes related to terrorism and national security (the latter category including crimes under Article 110 of the Criminal Code). 56 .     Article 177 § 1 provides that the purpose of preventive measures is to ensure compliance with procedural obligations and prevent the risk of the suspect or accused: (1) absconding from the investigating authorities and/or the court; (2) destroying, concealing or spoiling any of the items or documents that are of essential importance for establishing the circumstances of the criminal offence; (3) exerting unlawful influence on the victim, witnesses, other suspects, the accused or an expert; (4) obstructing the criminal proceedings in any other way; (5) committing another offence or continuing the offence of which he or she is suspected or accused. 57 .     Article 178 provides that, when deciding on a preventive measure, the court, in addition to considering the risks under Article 177, must assess the totality of the circumstances on the basis of the material presented by the parties, including: (i) the weight of the evidence against the defendant; (ii)   the severity of the sentence faced in the event of conviction; (iii) the defendant’s age and state of health; (iv) the strength of the defendant’s social connections in his place of permanent residence, including any family and dependants; (v) whether the defendant has stable employment or is pursuing studies; (vi) the defendant’s reputation; (vii) the defendant’s assets; (viii) whether the defendant has a criminal record; (ix) the defendant’s compliance with previously imposed preventive measures; (x)   any concurrent charges against the defendant; and (xi) pecuniary damage caused by the suspected offence or gain from the suspected offence, and the strength of the evidence demonstrating such circumstances. 58 .     Article 208 § 1 provides that a competent official can arrest an individual in the absence of a decision by an investigating judge or court if that individual is suspected of a crime punishable by imprisonment and: (1)   the individual was caught while committing a crime or attempting to commit it; or (2) immediately after the commission of a crime an eyewitness (including a victim) or the totality of obvious signs on a body, on clothes or at the scene of the event indicates that that individual has just committed a crime. The 2019 Decision of the Constitutional Court 59 .     On 25 June 2019 the Constitutional Court declared Article 176 § 5 of the CCP unconstitutional on the grounds that: (i) it prevented the courts from issuing duly reasoned decisions concerning detention; (ii) it had removed their right to apply non-custodial measures; (iii) Article 29 of the Constitution required a reasoned court decision as grounds for detention, which reduced the risk of arbitrariness which would exist if detention was based merely on the gravity of an offence, in the absence of an examination of the specific circumstances of the case; and (iv) the provision allowed for detention on the basis of formalistic court decisions, based purely on the formal classification of an offence, which was contrary to the principles of the rule of law and did not provide for a correct balance between the public interests justifying detention and individual liberty. THE LAW scope of the case 60.     Following the Government being given notice of the case, the applicant raised a new complaint under Article 13 of the Convention of the lack of effective domestic remedies for her complaint under Article 3 concerning her access to medical assistance while under house arrest. 61.     The Court notes that the applicant did not raise that complaint in her application form. In its view, the new complaint is not an elaboration of her original complaints on which the parties have commented. It therefore considers that it is not appropriate to take this matter up in the context of the present case (see Piryanik v. Ukraine , no. 75788/01, § 20, 19 April 2005). ALLEGED VIOLATIONS OF ARTICLE 3 of the convention 62.     The applicant complained: (i) that she had not been provided with adequate medical assistance in detention; (ii) that she had not had access to adequate medical assistance while under house arrest; (iii) that she had been detained in metal cages during the court hearings between 29 June and 22   September 2016; and (iv) that she had been handcuffed when being escorted to a courtroom on 12   July 2016. She relied on Article 3 of the Convention, which reads as follows: “No one shall be subjected to torture or to inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.” The parties’ submissions Medical assistance in detention 63.     The applicant submitted that at the time of her arrest she had been suffering from a number of chronic diseases. Her condition had required specialised medical supervision and further examination. However, she had been unable to receive treatment in the SIZO at the level recommended by Dr N. Thus, recommendations made in Dr N.’s conclusions of 30 June 2016 could be complied with in the SIZO only in respect of blood and urine tests and an X-ray examination, while other examinations had not been available; she had had those other examinations in hospital, but not until 14 July 2016. Furthermore, in accordance with Dr N.’s conclusions of 5 August 2016, she had required dynamic monitoring by a cardiologist. However, there had been no cardiologist in the SIZO, and it would have been impossible for her to receive urgent care in the event of a heart attack. Also, she had taken medication without medical supervision. Moreover, the SIZO had not provided her with all medication; instead, she had received it from Ms B. She had been deprived of the opportunity to receive visits from Dr N. Her state of health had deteriorated as a result, and she was still receiving medical treatment. 64.     The Government submitted that the applicant had been under the constant supervision of the SIZO medical staff and had been provided with regular and timely medical examinations and treatment. Moreover, she had been regularly examined by specialist doctors from the hospital. Furthermore, the applicant’s own behaviour had had an adverse effect on her treatment during detention: she had received from her relatives some foods which were not on her diet and cigarettes. As to Dr N.’s conclusions, they had been made during brief examinations of the applicant at several court hearings. They were no substitute for the in-depth examinations carried out by the SIZO and hospital doctors. In any event, Dr N.’s conclusions of 30 June and 5 August 2016, which had been made available to the SIZO authorities on 1 July and 8 August 2016 respectively, had been taken into account in determining the applicant’s treatment, especially as they had not really differed from those made by the SIZO and hospital doctors. The applicant had therefore been provided with prompt and adequate medical care in detention. Access to medical assistance during house arrest 65 .     The applicant submitted that while she had been under house arrest she had been under the control of the law-enforcement authorities, and a decision on her access to medical assistance had depended on them. That had made her access to hospitalisation impossible, as she had not been able to leave the house without the authorities’ permission. Even though she had usually been allowed to visit the hospital during the day, the investigators had refused to allow her to stay there for round-the-clock monitoring. It had therefore been impossible for her to have an examination by means of a Holter device. Also, according to Dr N.’s conclusions of 9 September 2016 (see paragraph 41 above), she had required urgent hospitalisation, but she had been totally dependent on the investigator’s will, and had been afraid that her house arrest could be changed. The medical care that she had required had been related to specific procedures comprising examinations lasting longer than twenty-four hours, the use of static equipment and the involvement of medical staff, procedures which had been impossible to carry out at home. Moreover, the police could take up to twelve hours to examine a request to leave the house (see paragraph 66 below), which was too long in urgent cases. 66 .     The Government submitted that while she had been under house arrest the applicant had been entitled to receive medical assistance without any restrictions, including medical examinations, inpatient and outpatient treatment in hospitals, and visits from doctors if necessary. Although, under the 2016 instructions on house arrest, she had been obliged to inform the police about her intention to leave the house in the event of sickness, and the police would then check the relevant information within twelve hours and send it to the investigator or court, she had not made any relevant requests. Moreover, on 21 December 2016 the court had changed the conditions of her house arrest, which had simplified her access to medical assistance. Conditions of the applicant’s participation in court hearings 67.     The applicant submitted that the domestic law did not provide for people being released from metal cages in courtrooms, and that the granting of her application on 30 June 2016 had been an isolated case and not established practice. The courts had never assessed whether her physical restraint during the hearings had been necessary, and had given no reasons for holding her in cages. However, given her state of health, holding her in metal cages had added to her psychological suffering and mental anguish. Moreover, she had been a political figure whose reputation had seriously suffered. As the case had been highlighted by media, she had also been exposed to the public in general. Her placement in a metal cage could have made people think that an extremely dangerous criminal was being tried, and would also have conveyed a negative image of her to the judges examining her case. Furthermore, there had been no need to place her in a metal cage, as she had had no criminal record and there had been no evidence that she might resort to violence. Her age and health would have prevented her from doing so or from escaping from the court. As to the alleged use of handcuffs on her on 12 July 2016, the applicant stated generally that that had been in breach of Article 3 of the Convention. 68 .     With regard to the applicant’s placement in metal cages during court hearings, the Government submitted that that had been provided for by domestic law. However, on 30 June 2016 she had been released from one of those cages following an application by her lawyers. Despite that decision, no similar applications had been made during other hearings. Therefore, she could not contend that lodging such an application had been an ineffective remedy, and she had not exhausted the domestic remedies.   As to the alleged use of handcuffs on 12 July 2016, the Government submitted, with reference to the letter of 6 March 2017 (see paragraph 22 above), that no handcuffs had been used; moreover, the applicant had not made a complaint in that regard. The Court’s assessment Admissibility 69.     The Court notes that the applicant’s complaints about medical assistance in detention, access to that assistance during house arrest and about being held in metal cages during the court hearings 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. Furthermore, as regards the Government’s non-exhaustion argument in respect of the applicant’s complaint about being held in metal cages, the Court considers that it is closely linked to the merits of that complaint and thus joins it to the merits. The above complaints must therefore be declared admissible. 70.     However, as regards the applicant’s complaint that handcuffs were used on her on 12 July 2016, the Court notes that this complaint is general and not suppor