CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 15 mars 2012

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s523616E0 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; font-size:14pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s8229ABDD { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s72EB7DC5 { margin-top:18pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sC7EAD8B { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline } .s967D43C6 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s7EE1C8F0 { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:29.2pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17.6pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sC702907E { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:36.6pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-15.05pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sA36B60A1 { 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 } .s34D46E87 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .sC83D0F34 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:46.35pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-18pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .sB83EDF5E { width:9.11pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s1671AF3C { width:9.67pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .sBE67A010 { width:11.89pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s9BAE5781 { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:11.6pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sADADF4A7 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline } .s4070A5A6 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:24pt; text-align:center; page-break-after:avoid } FIFTH SECTION Application no. 49872/11 Yuliya Volodymyrivna TYMOSHENKO against Ukraine lodged on 10 August 2011   STATEMENT OF FACTS THE FACTS The applicant, Ms Yuliya Volodymyrivna Tymoshenko, is a Ukrainian national who was born in 1960 and lives in Kyiv. She is currently serving her prison sentence. She is represented by Ms Valentyna Telychenko and Mr Sergey Vlasenko, lawyers practising in Kyiv. A.     The circumstances of the case The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows. 1.     Background of the case The applicant is the leader of the “Batkivshchyna” political party and of Yulia Tymoshenko’s Block. During the periods from 24 January to 8 September 2005 and from 18   December 2007 to 11 March 2010, she exercised the function of Prime Minister of Ukraine. Before becoming the Prime Minister, the applicant co ‑ led the Orange Revolution and openly criticised the then rival presidential candidate Victor Yanukovych. At the parliamentary elections in 2006 Yulia Tymoshenko’s Block prevailed in 14 regions in the country and polled 22,27% nation-wide. At the 2007 parliamentary election Yulia Tymoshenko’s Block polled 30,71% throughout Ukraine and received 156 seats (out of 450) in Parliament. The applicant was the main opponent of the president Victor Yanukovych at the presidential election held in 2010. In the second round of the election she won the support of 45,47% voters, while Yanukovych won 48,95%. To date, the applicant is the most visible opposition politician and the head of the strongest opposition party. According to a sociological survey by Razumkov’s Centre published on 22 August 2011, the applicant then enjoyed the support of 14,4% of the respondents and the current president 17,3%. 2.     Criminal proceedings brought against the applicant On 11 April 2011 the Prosecutor General’s Office (hereinafter “the PGO”) instituted criminal proceedings against the applicant on suspicion of involvement in abuse of power under Article 365 § 3 of the Criminal Code. The PGO considered that the applicant had committed a crime by having ordered the head of the state enterprise “Naftogaz of Ukraine” (hereinafter “Naftogaz) to sign an agreement with the Russian enterprise “Gazprom” on importing natural gas at a price of USD 450 per 1,000 cubic metres. Earlier, two other criminal cases – on “ambulance vans” and on “Kyoto protocol money” – had been opened against the applicant under Articles 364 and 365 of the Criminal Code. On 25 May 2011 the pre-trial investigation was officially completed and the applicant was given 15 working days to read the case-file, during which she was called almost daily to attend the PGO for interrogations on the two other above mentioned criminal cases. The case-file at that time comprised some 4,000 pages in 15 volumes. The applicant copied 10 volumes of her case-file. On 17 June 2011 the case was transferred to the Pechersk District Court (hereinafter “the first-instance court”). At the same time, the investigator dismissed the applicant’s lawyer’s requests for further investigation of the case. On 24 and 25 June 2011 judge K. held a preliminary hearing. During the period between 29 June and 4 August 2011 the first-instance court held sixteen hearings. The hearing scheduled for 5 August 2011 started at 9.00 am. The applicant was late and her counsel asked for a half-hour break. The applicant arrived seven minutes later. The court resumed the hearing at 9.30   am. The applicant attended and explained to the court that she was late due to her exhaustion. The previous hearing had ended at 8:02 pm the day before and she had to prepare for the next hearing late at night. During the hearing, the judge heard the current Prime Minister, Mykola Azarov. The applicant’s questions were almost all dismissed by the judge, but made the witness allegedly overtly nervous and upset. After having interviewed this witness, a representative of the PGO requested the judge to detain the applicant on the ground that she had obstructed justice and demonstrated her disrespect to judge K. and those who participated in the hearing. Judge K. granted the PGO’s request on the same day and ordered the applicant’s detention for an undetermined period of time. He stated that the applicant had systematically failed to show due respect for the proceedings, had refused to indicate her address, had refused to sign the court summons, had failed to show respect for the court, had not come to the court hearing in time and had refused to give reasons as to why she had not been able to attend the hearing in time. The judge’s decision was final, no appeal lying against it. The applicant was detained during the hearing in the court room and was transferred to the pre-trial detention facility in Kyiv (SIZO no. 13). Between 8 and 23 August 2011 the court held eight hearings. On 12 August 2011 the Kyiv Court of Appeal examined the applicant’s appeal against the detention order, where the applicant claimed that her detention was unlawful and unlimited in time. The Court of Appeal upheld the detention order finding that it was based on the commonly established judicial practice permitting to extend pre-trial detention until the end of the proceedings. It stated, inter alia, as follows: “... Pursuant to Article 274 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (“the CPC), a court may change a preventive measure during its examination of the case. When choosing a remand in custody as a preventive measure, the court shall be guided by the respective provisions of Chapter   13 of the CPC. Article 274 of the CPC does not provide, in substance, for a right to challenge the court’s decision about a change of a preventive measure during the examination of a criminal case. During the examination of the present criminal case, on 5 August 2011 the Pechersk District Court of Kyiv changed the preventive measure in respect of the defendant Yu.Tymoshenko from the undertaking not to abscond to a remand in custody, in allowing the prosecutor’s motion, which has been challenged on appeal. However, according to the Code of Criminal Procedure of Ukraine, rulings on selection, change or discontinuation of a preventive measure delivered during the judicial examination of the case are not amenable to an ordinary appeal. It follows that there are no grounds for accepting [the applicant’s] appeal against the decision of 5   August 2011 for examination.” In a judgment of 11 October 2011 the first-instance court found the applicant guilty as charged and convicted her to seven years’ imprisonment and imposed a three year prohibition on exercising public functions. The applicant appealed. Apparently, the appeal proceedings are to start in December 2011. 3.     Conditions of the applicant’s detention in SIZO no. 13 in Kyiv The applicant was transported to SIZO no. 13 in Kyiv on 5 August 2011. She was placed in a cell together with two other detainees. The size of the cell was about 14 square metres. The single window could not be opened and the cell was not ventilated which, taking into account that the two co-detainees smoked, caused serious problems for the applicant’s health. The applicant was not provided with any drinking water. The cell was not sufficiently lighted, was damp and had a poignant smell and mould. Due to the chronic diseases of the applicant, her personal physician insisted on strict diet, excluding any traces of eggs, meat or fatty foods. In order to prevent allergic disease the applicant’s physician also advised to limit the effect on the body of toxic compounds, including tobacco smoke, disinfectants and plastic utensils. The applicant could not consume any food provided by the SIZO due to her chronic gastroenterological diseases and allergies. After a few meals she had eaten there, her chronic gastroenterological diseases worsened and she experienced a constant pain in her stomach. The applicant complained about sudden subcutaneous haemorrhages, acute pain in her stomach and throat, exacerbation of chronic diseases, including chronic gastritis, chronic pancreatitis, intestinal dysbiosis, adenomyosis of the uterus, grade 2 nodular goiter, insomnia, relapsing allergic urticaria of mixed genesis, severe drug and food (egg) allergy. On 19, 25 and 29 August and 1 and 2 September 2011 judge K. and the SIZO’s authorities rejected the applicant’s requests for medical examination by physicians to whom she trusted. Instead, the applicant was offered a   medical examination by physicians assigned by the Ministry of Health Care. She refused the offer. On the moment of introducing her application to the Court, the applicant was entitled to take shower once per week and, according to her, bedding in her cell was not regularly changed. The applicant’s daily court hearings left her no time to seek medical assistance while in jail. She was not allowed to take her food with her to the court. As a result, she spent up to 16 hours without any food on days when she had to attend the court hearings. The applicant was woken up at 5 am to be transported to the court by 7   am. She had to spend two or more hours in a small room about 1,2 x 1,4 metres without a window, before and after the hearings. After the hearings, the applicant returned to her cell no sooner than 9 pm. On the days of the court hearings which were, according to the applicant, carried out almost daily, the applicant was provided with no time to exercise or to spend time in the open air. According to the applicant, on 20 September 2011, her co-inmate O. R. died in SIZO no. 13, where she was detained. She said that O. R. died due to the lack of professional treatment by the doctors assigned by the Ministry of Health Care. B.     Relevant domestic law 1.     Criminal Code of 5 April 2001 (as in force at the relevant time) Article 364.     Abuse of power or office “1.     Abuse of power or office, namely the intentional use, for financial gain or with another personal interest or in the interest of third persons, by an official of his/her power or office against the interests of the service, if it has caused serious damage to State or public interests or to lawful interests, rights and freedoms of natural or legal persons, – shall be punishable by ... 2.     The same acts, if they caused grave consequences, – shall be punishable by ...” Article 365.     Excess of power or office “1.     Excess of power or office, namely the intentional commission of acts by an official which go manifestly beyond the scope of the rights and powers vested in him or her and which cause serious damage to the State or public interest or to the lawful interests, rights and freedoms of natural or legal persons – shall be punishable by ... 2.     Excess of power or office combined with violence or use of a weapon, or combined with humiliating acts or acts causing pain to the victim, provided that such acts do not fall within the scope of torture, – shall be punishable by ... 3.     Acts as described in paragraphs 1 or 2 of this Article, if they have caused grave consequences, – shall be punished by imprisonment for seven to ten years with a prohibition of up to three years on occupying certain posts or carrying out certain activities.” 2.     Code of Criminal Procedure (as in force at the relevant time) Article 165-2.     Procedure for selection of a preventive measure “At the stage of pre-trial investigation a non-custodial preventive measure shall be selected by a body of inquiry, investigator [or] prosecutor. If a body of inquiry [or] investigator considers that there are grounds for placement in custody [it or] he shall, with the prosecutor’s consent, submit a request to the court. The prosecutor is entitled to submit a similar request. When considering the matter the prosecutor shall familiarise himself with all the material containing grounds for placement in custody, check whether the evidence was lawfully obtained and whether it is sufficient to bring charges [against the suspect]. The request shall be considered within seventy-two hours of the arrest of the suspect or accused. If the request concerns placement in custody of a person who is at liberty, the judge shall have the power to issue a warrant for the arrest of the suspect or accused and his escort to the court. In such case, the detention shall not exceed seventy-two hours, or, if the person concerned is outside the locality in which the court operates, [the detention] shall not exceed forty-eight hours from the time the arrested person was brought to the locality. Upon receipt of the request, the judge, who is assigned [to the case] according to Article   16-2 of this Code, shall study the materials of the criminal case file submitted by the body of inquiry, investigator [or] prosecutor, question the suspect or accused, and, if necessary, obtain explanations from the person dealing with the case, hear the prosecutor, [and] the defence lawyer if [the latter] has appeared before the court, and deliver a resolution: 1)     refusing the preventive measure, if there are no grounds for its application; 2)     ordering placement in custody of the suspect or accused. The court decides on the placement in custody of the person in his absence only if the latter is on the international wanted list. In such cases, after the arrest of the person and no later than forty-eight hours from the time of his transfer to the place where the proceedings are pending, the court with the participation of the person considers the application of a preventive measure in the form of placement in custody or changing it and renders a resolution. Where the court has refused to place the suspect [or] accused in custody, it shall have the power to apply a non-custodial preventive measure to him or her. The judge’s resolution may be appealed against to the court of appeal by the prosecutor, suspect, accused, his defence or representative within three days of its delivery. The introduction of an appeal shall not suspend the execution of the judge’s resolution. If placement in custody requires additionally reviewing information on the personality of the arrested person or ascertaining other circumstances of importance for taking a decision on this matter, the judge may extend period of detention for up to ten days, or, upon request of the suspect, accused, – for up to fifteen days and an appropriate resolution is made thereon.   Whenever it is necessary to decide this matter in respect of the person who has not been arrested, the judge may defer consideration of the matter for up to ten days and take measures to ensure his/her adequate behavior during this time or may arrest the suspect or accused for this period by his/her resolution. Article 274.     The selection, discontinuation and change of a preventive measure by the court “In the course of consideration of a case the court may issue a ruling changing, discontinuing or selecting a preventive measure in respect of a defendant, if there are grounds for this. The procedure for selecting detention as a preventive measure shall be governed by the relevant provisions of Chapter 13 of the Code.” 3.     Law on Health Care Article 6.     Right to health care “Every citizen of Ukraine has a right to health care which includes: a)       living standards, including food, clothing, accommodation, medical service and care which are necessary for maintaining a person’s health; b)       qualified medical and/or welfare assistance includes free choice of a doctor methods of treatment in accordance to a physician’s recommendation ... c)        ... d)       ... e)       correct and timely information about his/her state of health and a state of health of the population, including potential factors of risk and their scale; f)         compensation for health injury; g)       possibility of an independent medical examination if a person disagrees with conclusions of state medical expertise, prohibition of enforced treatment or any activities which might violate person’s rights and freedoms ...” 4.     Law on Pre-Trial Detention Article 11.     Welfare and Medical Care of Person’s Under Arrest “Persons under arrest shall be provided with living conditions which comply with sanitation and hygiene requirements. Standard size of a cell per person cannot be less than 2,5 metres square ... Persons under arrest under the regulations of the Cabinet of Ministers are entitled to free food, personal sleeping space, bedding, and other necessities. When appropriate they shall be provided with clothing and shoes of certain type. Health care and rehabilitation services, as well as anti-epidemic prophylactic work are organized and provided in accordance with the law on health care. The order of granting health service to persons under arrest, using hospitals, and examinations by physicians shall be determined by the central body of the executive power of penitentiary department of the Ministry of Defence and the Ministry of Health. C.     Documents of the Council of Europe 1.     Recommendation Rec(2006) 2 of the Committee of Ministers to member states on the European Prison Rules “... 4.     Prisons conditions that infringe prisoners’ human rights are not justified by lack of resources. ... 10.1     The European Prison Rules apply to persons who have been remanded in custody by a judicial authority or who have been deprived of their liberty following conviction. ... 18.1     The accommodation provided for prisoners, and in particular all sleeping accommodation, shall respect human dignity and, as far as possible, privacy, and meet the requirements of health and hygiene, due regard being paid to climatic conditions and especially to floor space, cubic content of air, lighting, heating and ventilation. 18.2     In all buildings where prisoners are required to live, work or congregate: a.     the windows shall be large enough to enable the prisoners to read or work by natural light in normal conditions and shall allow the entrance of fresh air except where there is an adequate air conditioning system; b.     artificial light shall satisfy recognised technical standards; ... 18.3     Specific minimum requirements in respect of the matters referred to in paragraphs 1 and 2 shall be set in national law. 18.4     National law shall provide mechanisms for ensuring that these minimum requirements are not breached by the overcrowding of prisons. ... 19.3     Prisoners shall have ready access to sanitary facilities that are hygienic and respect privacy. 19.4     Adequate facilities shall be provided so that every prisoner may have a bath or shower, at a temperature suitable to the climate, if possible daily but at least twice a week (or more frequently if necessary) in the interests of general hygiene. ... 21.     Every prisoner shall be provided with a separate bed and separate and appropriate bedding, which shall be kept in good order and changed often enough to ensure its cleanliness. 22.1     Prisoners shall be provided with a nutritious diet that takes into account their age, health, physical condition, religion, culture and the nature of their work. 22.2     The requirements of a nutritious diet, including its minimum energy and protein content, shall be prescribed in national law. 22.3     Food shall be prepared and served hygienically. 22.4     There shall be three meals a day with reasonable intervals between them. ... 27.1     Every prisoner shall be provided with the opportunity of at least one hour of exercise every day in the open air, if the weather permits. ...” 2.     Report to the Ukrainian Government on the visit to Ukraine carried out by the European Committee for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (CPT) from 9 to 21 September 2009 (published on 23 November 2011) “5.     Conditions of detention of the general prison population a.     pre-trial establishments (SIZOs) i)     the SIZO in Kyiv 100.     The SIZO in Kyiv occupies a complex of buildings in one of the central areas of Kyiv. Some of the detention buildings had been constructed some 140 years previously. Three smaller, more recent blocks provided accommodation for sentenced working prisoners, women and juveniles. A new block for women was in the process of construction, but that process had virtually been halted due to lack of resources. With an official capacity of 2,950 places, on 8 September 2009 the establishment was holding 3,440 inmates, including 217 women and 69 juveniles. The vast majority of the inmate population was on remand. The establishment was also holding 297 inmates awaiting the outcome of their appeal (including 41 life-sentenced prisoners), 93 prisoners in transit and 100 sentenced inmates assigned to work in the prison’s general services and maintenance. Further, there were 11 inmates who had been subject to forensic psychiatric assessment and who were awaiting a final decision concerning their criminal responsibility. The prisoner population comprised 210 foreign national prisoners (of whom 170 were from countries of the Commonwealth of Independent States). Since 2001, following amendments to the CC, a section referred to as an “arrest house” had been set up for first-time offenders serving sentences of up to 6 months. 101.     The vast majority of the cells holding male prisoners were seriously overcrowded (for example, 52 prisoners in a cell measuring some 50 m² and containing 40 beds; 32 prisoners in a cell measuring 33 m² and containing 20 beds). In some cells, the number of prisoners exceeded the number of beds available, and inmates took turns to sleep on the available beds or slept on the floor. The cells were packed with double bunk-beds, leaving very little space for any other furniture. In some cells, there were TV sets which belonged to the occupants. Because of the human mass, ventilation was almost non-existent and the cells were very hot and stuffy. The level of hygiene was also highly unsatisfactory: in some cells the delegation saw cockroaches, and prisoners also referred to the presence of mice and rats. The in-cell sanitary installations (a partitioned toilet and sink) were generally in a decrepit state and were clearly not sufficient for the numbers of inmates held in the larger cells. The negative consequences of the deplorable material conditions described above were compounded by the fact that some prisoners had spent lengthy periods of time at the SIZO (see paragraph 74). In the CPT’s view, the combination of negative factors to which a large number of prisoners were subjected at the Kyiv SIZO (overcrowding, appalling material conditions and levels of hygiene, and practically non-existent activity programmes) could easily be described as inhuman and degrading treatment. 102.     The basement of the men’s detention block contained eight cells to which prisoners about to be transferred to other establishments were moved on the day of the transfer. The delegation saw 14 prisoners in a cell measuring 7 m² and equipped with benches along the walls; they complained that they had spent some 4 hours in the cell without being allowed to go to the toilet. Further, there were a number of cells for inmates transiting through the SIZO. These cells were dark, badly ventilated, overcrowded (e.g. 13 prisoners in a cell measuring 25 m²), damp and dilapidated. The delegation saw 18 waiting cells , referred to as “boxes”, which measured some 4   m² each, were equipped with small benches, had no access to natural light and were poorly ventilated. Prisoners alleged that they had been kept for up to 8 hours in such “boxes”, without access to a toilet and no food provision. It is also noteworthy that the seven cells in the “ arrest house ” had metal shutters attached to the windows which severely restricted access to natural light and fresh air. The delegation requested that these shutters be removed and was assured that this would be done without delay. By letter of 2 February 2010, the Ukrainian authorities confirmed that all the shutters had been removed from cell windows in the “arrest house” of the Kyiv SIZO. The CPT welcomes this step. 103.     Material conditions prevailing in the section for women were somewhat better. In particular, the cells were less overcrowded (e.g. 6 inmates in a cell measuring 8 m²; 16 prisoners in a cell measuring 27 m²). The cells had good access to natural light, but ventilation was inadequate and prisoners complained that in the summer the cells became very hot. The in-cell sanitary annexes were fully partitioned and had both cold and hot water taps. Some of the cells had been decorated by the inmates themselves and gave a homely impression. ... 104.     The section for sentenced working prisoners provided the best conditions of detention in comparison with the other sections. The dormitories were adequately lit, well ventilated and clean. They were suitably furnished (beds, tables and chairs or stools, some shelves and lockers) and inmates could have their own radio or television. Further, the section comprised a sports hall, a spacious “club” where prisoners could watch films and play table tennis, and a chapel. 105.     The prison did not provide inmates with personal hygiene products other than soap. As mentioned in paragraph 88, access to the shower was limited to once a week. As regards food , prisoners were provided with three meals a day. The quantity of the food appeared to be sufficient, but many prisoners complained about its poor quality and lack of variety. In particular, there was no fresh fruit, eggs or milk (not even for juvenile prisoners). To supplement their diet, prisoners relied to a great extent on food parcels from their families and purchases from the prison shop. 106.     In the light of the above remarks, the CPT recommends that at the Kyiv SIZO: - immediate steps be taken to provide every prisoner with a bed; - strenuous efforts be made to decrease the overcrowding and to distribute prisoners more evenly amongst the available accommodation, the objective being to offer a minimum of 4 m² of living space per prisoner; - measures be taken to ensure, as a matter of priority, access to natural light and adequate ventilation in prisoner accommodation; - efforts be made to renovate the prisoner accommodation and ensure an adequate level of hygiene; - prisoners be guaranteed access to adequate quantities of essential personal hygiene products and cleaning products for their cells; - serious efforts be made to improve the quality and quantity of food provided to prisoners, paying particular attention to the specific dietary needs of juveniles. Reference is also made to the recommendation in paragraph 89 as regards access to a shower. ... The SIZO had a library with a collection of some 27,000 books. The delegation was surprised to learn that remand prisoners were not allowed to receive books (other than the Bible) or newspapers from outside. The CPT would like to receive the Ukrainian authorities’ comments concerning this prohibition. The only regular out-of-cell activity was outdoor exercise of one hour per day, which took place in a series of exercise yards located on the top of the accommodation blocks. By virtue of their size and configuration, these high-walled, bare areas (measuring between 16 and 60 m²) did not allow prisoners to exercise themselves physically. The CPT recommends that the Ukrainian authorities make strenuous efforts to offer organised out-of-cell activities (work, recreation/association, education, sport) to prisoners at the Kyiv SIZO. Further, the Committee recommends that steps be taken to construct more appropriate exercise yards which allow prisoners to exert themselves physically, as well as indoor and outdoor sports facilities. ... 6.     Health care a.       introduction 123.     In the course of the 2009 visit, the delegation was informed of a proposal to set up a working group to study the transfer of prisoners’ health care to the Ministry of Health. The CPT can only encourage this initiative, which is consistent with the remarks made in paragraph 142 of the report on its 1998 visit, namely that a greater involvement of the Ministry of Health in the provision of health-care services in prison will help to ensure optimal health care for prisoners, as well as implementation of the general principle of the equivalence of health care with that in the outside community. The Committee wishes to be informed of the action taken on the above ‑ mentioned proposal. In this context, the CPT also wishes to stress the need for continued professional training for prison health-care staff, with a view to enabling them to perform their duties satisfactorily. The Committee would like to be informed of the national policy in this respect. 124. The reports on previous visits by the CPT to Ukraine contain a number of recommendations, comments and requests for information in the area of provision of health care to prisoners. Despite efforts made by the Ukrainian authorities in recent years and the goodwill and commitment of health-care staff at the penitentiary establishments visited, the provision of health care to inmates remains problematic, due to the shortage of staff, facilities and resources. During the visit, the delegation heard a number of complaints from prisoners at the establishments visited concerning delays in access to a doctor, lack of medication, and the inadequate quality of care.” D.     International reports 1.     2010 Country Report on Human Rights and Practices of the US Department of State released by the Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labour in respect of Ukraine The relevant extract of the report reads as follows: “There was a sharp increase in charges brought against opposition politicians after the appointment of a new prosecutor general on November 4, giving rise to the appearance of selective and politically motivated prosecutions by the Yanukovych government. Between November 1 and December 31, prosecutors brought charges against former prime minister Yulyia Tymoshenko and more than eight high-level members of her government for abuse of office and/or misuse of state funds during their tenure. The questioning of accused individuals by government prosecutors, which often lasted for hours at a time over a period of several days, and the denial of bail in certain cases further exacerbated the perception of politically motivated prosecution (see section 4). The government contended that the prosecutions were not targeting the opposition, and that there were many ongoing investigations of members of the governing party; however, with only a few exceptions these were low-level, career officials.” 2.     Resolution of the European Parliament On 9 June 2011 the European Parliament adopted a resolution on Ukraine: the cases of Yulyia Tymoshenko and other members of the former government. The resolution reads in as far as relevant as follows: “ The European Parliament, ... G.     whereas 12 former high-ranking officials from the Tymoshenko government are in pre-trial detention, including ... the former First Deputy Minister of Justice, Yevhen Korniychuk, who was arrested on 22 December 2010 on charges of breaking the law in connection with public procurement procedures for legal services, ... I.     whereas a preliminary report of the Danish Helsinki Committee for Human Rights on the Lutsenko and Korniychuk trials has listed massive violations of the European Convention on Human Rights, ... 1.     Stresses the importance of ensuring the utmost transparency in investigations, prosecutions and trials, and warns against any use of criminal law as a tool to achieve political ends; 2.     Is concerned about the increase in selective prosecution of figures from the political opposition in Ukraine as well as the disproportionality of measures applied ... 3.     Reminds the Ukrainian authorities that the principle of collective responsibility for the decisions of the government does not permit the prosecution of individual members of the government for decisions that were taken collegially; ... ” COMPLAINTS 1.     The applicant first complains under Article 2 of the Convention about her serious health problems when being in pre-trial detention and the fact she was not provided with an appropriate medical treatment. She refused to allow any other doctors but those she trusts to examine her or take blood samples due to her suspicion of maltreatment by the prison doctors and nurses. Her fears are based on cases in which people treated by the prison doctors subsequently died. The refusal by the Government to provide the applicant with adequate medical treatment and allow the physician she trusts to examine her leads to unsatisfactory medical treatment. The applicant has a substantiated fear with regard to the prison doctors who failed to provide or offered inappropriate medical assistance or did not rescue lives of inmates in Kyiv SIZO no. 13. 2.     The applicant further complains under Article 3 of the Convention about the conditions of detention and lack of adequate medical treatment in Kyiv SIZO no. 13 which, according to her, amounted to degrading treatment prohibited by this provision. Furthermore, the fact that the order for the applicant’s detention was not limited in time constitutes constant psychological suffering for her. 3.     Invoking Article 5 § 1 (b) of the Convention, the applicant alleges that her open-ended detention for alleged obstruction of justice and non ‑ compliance with a lawful order was not based on facts or the national legislation. According to the applicant, she was present at all court sessions and arrived on time. Rather, on 5 August 2011 she arrived at the court with a 7 ‑ minute delay and explained her delay by the fact that she was exhausted by the previous day’s tiring 10-hour court hearing. Moreover, her current address and her permanent address were written in the case-file in accordance with the national law. She further states that judge K. did not provide any evidence as to the applicant’s obstructing justice within the meaning of Article 48 of the CCP. This provision defines that term as any action aimed to persuade a witness or a victim to refuse giving testimony or to provide false statement, to persuade an expert not to provide an opinion or to falsify a report, or to delay the investigation of court hearings, not to comply with the procedure during the investigation or in court. According to the applicant, her detention was requested by the GPU after her cross-examining the current Prime Minister who witnessed for the prosecution. Lastly, the applicant was arrested like a dangerous criminal by a special police unit which consisted of more than 20 heavily armed men and a special armoured vehicle was waiting for her in the court yard at 8 am, long time before the beginning of the hearing of 5 August 2011. 4.     Invoking Article 5 § 3 of the Convention, the applicant complains that the first-instance court upheld the decision of detention for unspecified period of time without considering any alternative preventive measures. 5.     The applicant further complains under Article 5 § 4 of the Convention that she could not effectively challenge the lawfulness of the length of and grounds for her pre-trial detention. The Court of Appeal dismissed her appeal on the basis of the existing national practice to extend the detention until the end of the court hearing. It did not review the reasons of that decision. 6.     The applicant submits a number of complaints under Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (b) and (c) and Article 13 of the Convention, alleging, in particular, the lack of fair trial before independent and impartial court, violation of her defence rights and lack of effective remedies in this respect. 7.     Invoking Article 18 of the Convention together with Articles 5 and 6 of the Convention, the applicant alleges that the charges against her are of a character which would hardly be considered a criminal offence in countries with a different legal tradition and would not be dealt with in the criminal system of justice. Her political activities might potentially draw political consequences for politicians or disciplinary consequences for public servants but not criminal consequences. She has a strong suspicion that her criminal cases were politically inspired and are “selective justice”, abusing the criminal system of justice. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Has the applicant been subjected to treatment in breach of Article 3 of the Convention? In particular, were the conditions of the applicant’s conditions of her detention in Kyiev SIZO no. 13, including physical, sanitary and health-care arrangements, compatible with Article 3 of the Convention standards? More specifically, was the medical assistance available to her compatible with the requirements of Article 3 of the Convention? 2.     Were the applicant’s arrest and her subsequent detention compatible with Article 5 § 1 of the Convention? In particular, were they justified by one or more reasons mentioned in Article 5 § 1 (b) or (c) of the Convention? 3.     Did the courts give sufficient and relevant reasons for the applicant’s detention for the purposes of Article 5 § 3 of the Convention? Did they consider alternative measures to ensure the applicant’s appearance at trial? 4.     Did the applicant have available to her a procedure by which she could challenge the lawfulness of her detention, as required by Article 5 § 4 of the Convention? 5.     Does the applicant have an effective and enforceable right to compensation for her detention in alleged contravention of Article 5 § 1, 3, and 4, as required by Article 5 § 5 of the Convention? 6.     Were the applicant’s arrest and detention applied for a purpose other that those envisaged under Article 5, contrary to Article 18 of the Convention?