CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 3 septembre 2013

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s8229ABDD { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s72EB7DC5 { margin-top:18pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .s2D57E2E { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline; text-transform:uppercase } .s9793A85B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sC7EAD8B { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline } .sA8776625 { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:29.2pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17.6pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s72C8F48C { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:36.6pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-15.05pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s5FFF0A7F { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:9pt } .sADADF4A7 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline } .sDA09BF8E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:27pt } .sF7A86111 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; font-size:10pt } .s83BE5C30 { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; vertical-align:super } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .s68C46B95 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s23A41E03 { width:36pt; display:inline-block } .s3F59B822 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-transform:uppercase } .s9296A950 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s37CDBE05 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s39A7D870 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s4ACA9207 { page-break-before:always; clear:both; mso-break-type:section-break } .s28F5597F { margin-top:18pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s6DB91820 { text-align:center } .s25B97BCD { margin-right:auto; margin-left:auto; border:0.75pt solid #808080; border-collapse:collapse } .sE4A74500 { height:37.4pt } .sD1CDDC62 { border-right:0.75pt solid #808080; border-bottom:0.75pt solid #808080; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#e0e0e0 } .sDF237D91 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:8pt } .s2490CDBC { border-right:0.75pt solid #808080; border-left:0.75pt solid #808080; border-bottom:0.75pt solid #808080; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#e0e0e0 } .s8DB21C27 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:center; font-size:8pt } .s26ADB50A { border-left:0.75pt solid #808080; border-bottom:0.75pt solid #808080; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#e0e0e0 } .sFD306575 { height:35.55pt } .s2F4AF114 { border-top:0.75pt solid #808080; border-right:0.75pt solid #808080; border-bottom:0.75pt solid #808080; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s6B505E72 { margin:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .s6CF83D49 { margin-left:11.67pt; padding-left:6.18pt; font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; font-weight:bold } .s898DAE93 { border:0.75pt solid #808080; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sB217F55D { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; font-size:8pt } .sA0B2759 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:0.45pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-0.45pt; text-align:justify; font-size:8pt } .sB71F2881 { border-top:0.75pt solid #808080; border-left:0.75pt solid #808080; border-bottom:0.75pt solid #808080; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sFD82DC6 { margin-left:16.12pt; padding-left:1.73pt; font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; font-weight:bold } .sBCA334AF { border-top:0.75pt solid #808080; border-right:0.75pt solid #808080; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s7CB6920E { border-top:0.75pt solid #808080; border-right:0.75pt solid #808080; border-left:0.75pt solid #808080; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s62945D10 { border-top:0.75pt solid #808080; border-left:0.75pt solid #808080; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } FIRST SECTION Application no. 36028/07 Leonid Dmitriyevich BUYSKIKH against Russia and 12 other applications (see list appended) STATEMENT OF FACTS   The applicants are Russian nationals. The facts of the cases, as submitted by the applicants, may be summarised as follows.   1.     Application no 36028/07 lodged on 17   July   2007 by Leonid Dmitriyevich BUYSKIKH who was born on 31   October   1953 and lived before his arrest in the town of Abakan, Khakasiya Republic. He was represented by Mr V. Lepekhin, a lawyer practicing in Abakan. On 17   January 2008 the applicant died in a medical detention facility in the town of Chernogorsk, Khakasiya Republic. His sister, Ms Yelizaveta Dmitriyevna Buyskhikh, informed the Court of the applicant’s death, having expressed her wish to pursue the application originally introduced by her brother. Ms Y. Buyskhikh is also represented by Mr Lepekhin. A.     Facts 1.     Applicant’s arrest and criminal proceedings against him The applicant was arrested on 26 May 2005 on suspicion of murder. On 21 February 2007 the Supreme Court of the Khakasiya Republic, in the final instance, found the applicant guilty of murder and sentenced him to eight years of imprisonment to be served in a correctional colony on strict regime. 2.     Applicant’s state of health As follows from the medical evidence submitted by the applicant, between 31 December 2004 and 5 May 2005 he underwent treatment in the Khakasiya Republican Tuberculosis Hospital in respect of his infiltrative tuberculosis of the upper lobe of the right lung in the disintegration and insemination stages. The applicant was released from the hospital after he was no longer smear-positive and the disintegration cavity in the lung had closed. Medical certificates issued in the hospital also showed that in addition to tuberculosis the applicant suffered from second-degree diabetes. In 2005 the applicant was declared disabled. It appears that the applicant suffered the reactivation of the tuberculosis in detention. On 13 December 2005 he was admitted to a tuberculosis prison hospital where he remained until 25 May 2006. After his release from the prison hospital the applicant was detained in a temporary detention facility which only employed an inmate nurse. The facility did not have specialists, equipment or medicines to adequately address the applicant’s medical needs. He was readmitted to the hospital on 21 January 2007. Each year a medical expert commission confirmed the applicant’s disability. The applicant submitted that he did not receive adequate medical treatment in detention. He insisted that his condition continued deteriorating. In particular, he stressed that following his arrest he had been placed in a dark, damp and cold cell where he remained for six days having been stripped of warm clothes, having been given food once a day and having not been provided with insulin. In October 2005, in a diabetic shock, he was taken from a temporary detention facility to the Abakan Town hospital where he was immediately placed under a drip. Two and a half years after his arrest the applicant’s condition progressed to fibrous cavernous tuberculosis of the upper lobe of the right lung, Type 1 diabetes in the subcompensation stage and severe phase, diffused diabetic encephalopathy in a moderately severe stage mostly affecting the lower extremities, moderately developed paresis of the both feet, first-degree myopia, diabetic retinopathy of the both eyes, chronic obstructive pulmonary illness in the moderately severe stage, and second–degree respiratory failure. By a letter on 19 March 2007 the head of the Department for Execution of Sentences in the Khakasiya Republic informed the applicant’s sister that the applicant’s illness made him eligible for early release. The head of the Department also promised to file papers with a court seeking the applicant’s release. The applicant and his lawyer lodged a motion for early release before the Chernogorsk Town Court, having argued that the applicant was a seriously ill person who could not receive necessary medical attention in detention and whose condition deteriorated rapidly. Having cited the applicant’s diagnosis, the Town Court dismissed the request. It held that the applicant had fallen ill prior to his arrest and that he could obtain adequate medical assistance in detention. Furthermore, the court did not agree that the applicant’s illnesses made him eligible for an early release given that the medical documents showing his diagnosis had been issued in violation of the established procedure. The Town Court’s findings were upheld on appeal on 15 August 2007 by the Supreme Court of the Khakasiya Republic. It appears that sometime after the judgment the applicant was sent to medical detention facility no. 34. The head of the facility allegedly notified the applicant and his sister that the facility had not been equipped to maintain the applicant’s health. On 17 January 2008 the applicant died in that facility. Death certificate no. 66 issued on the day following the applicant’s death listed an acute heart and lung failure as well as tuberculosis as causes of his death. B.     Complaint(s) The applicant complained, among other matters, under Article 3 of the Convention about a lack of proper medical assistance in detention.   2.     Application no. 30575/08 lodged on 13 May   2008 by Nikolay Viktorovich IVKO who was born on 21 August 1973 and lived until his arrest in the town of Volzhskiy, Volgograd Region. A.     Facts On 9 September 2008 the Volgograd Regional Court, in the final instance, upheld the applicant’s conviction of attempted drug trafficking. He was sentenced to six years of imprisonment. Acting upon the applicant’s supervisory-review request, on 13 January 2010 the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation decreased his sentence by six months. On a number of occasions the applicant unsuccessfully attempted to institute criminal proceedings against police officers and prosecutors involved in the criminal case against him. The applicant was sent to serve his sentence to correctional colony no. 9 in the Volgograd Region. He insisted that the colony was not a medical facility equipped to detain ill inmates, such as he was. The applicant suffered from tuberculosis and hepatitis C. He stressed that he had not received prophylactic treatment for his illnesses and had not been tested to assess the state of his health. In November 2012 the applicant informed the Court that following a drastic deterioration of his health when he had started coughing blood he had been transferred to medical detention facility no. 15. His tuberculosis reactivated with the applicant now being smear-positive. He was diagnosed with infiltrative tuberculosis of the both lungs. B.     Complaint(s) The applicant complained, among other matters, under Article 3 of the Convention about a lack of proper medical assistance in detention.     3.     Application no 42372/08 lodged on 11 June 2008 by Yuriy Leonidovich Yeremenko, who was born in 1963 and lived before his arrest in the village of Serebryaniye Prudy, Moscow Region. He is now serving the life sentence in a correctional colony in the Yamalo-Nenetskiy Autonomous Region. A.     Facts 1.     Criminal proceedings against the applicant On 17 July 2006 the Supreme Court of the Tatarstan Republic found that the applicant had organised and had led a stable armed criminal group within which he had committed numerous counts of aggravated murder. He was also found guilty of aggravated extortion, fraud and money laundering. The applicant was sentenced to the life imprisonment. The judgment became final on 12 December 2007 when it was upheld on appeal. 2.     Applicant’s state of health It appears that in 2000 the applicant was diagnosed with encephalopathy in the decompensating stage against the background of the closed craniocerebral injury accompanied by a brain concussion, arterial hypertension, chronic hepatitis C with renal failure and liver cirrhosis of the first degree. The applicant underwent treatment in the Federal Centrosoyuz Hospital. In February 2001 a forensic medical social commission declared that the applicant had a third-degree disability. As follows from an extract from the applicant’s medical record issued by a deputy head of temporary detention facility no. IZ-16/1 where the applicant was detained pending the investigation and trial, his state of health was considered stable. On a number of occasions the applicant’s lawyer asked the administration of the detention facility and the Service for the Execution of Sentences to authorise a forensic medical examination of the applicant, having argued that his health continued deteriorating. They also asked to adequately address the applicant’s health problems. It appears that no response followed. The applicant also submitted that following his transfer to a correctional colony, he sent a number of requests seeking his admission to a prison hospital for an in-depth examination and treatment. Following one of those requests, in July 2010 the acting head of the correctional colony sent the applicant’s medical file to the head of the Yamalo-Nenetskiy Regional Service for Execution of Sentences, seeking authorisation for the applicant’s admission to the hospital for proper diagnosing, complex testing and examinations by a specialist on infectious diseases. Following the absence of any response, a similar attempt was made by the head of the correctional colony in 2012. It appears that that request was also to no avail. On 5 April 2012 the acting head of the Federal Service for Execution of Sentences sent a letter to the applicant’s wife, having informed her that the applicant was under the dynamic supervision in the medical unit of the correctional colony, that his condition is satisfactory and that there was no necessity to urgently examine or treat the applicant. The applicant’s wife was also notified that in February 2012 the applicant had been examined by a surgeon who had recommended a surgery. The latter was not urgent. At the same time the applicant argued that, apart from a purely visual examination in the medical unit of the correctional colony, he had not been subjected to any medical procedures or tests. B.     Complaint(s) The applicant complained, among other matters, under Article 3 of the Convention about the lack of adequate medical assistance in detention.     4.     Application no 17790/11 lodged on 4   March   2011 by Oleg Igorevich KISTERNYY who was born on 30   January   1979 and lived before his arrest in the town of Orsk, Orenburg Region. He is now serving his sentence of imprisonment in a correctional colony in the Orenburg Region. A.     Facts 1.     Applicant’s arrest and criminal proceedings against him On 29 March 2009 the applicant was arrested on suspicion of drug trafficking. Police officers allegedly used excessive force during the arrest. The applicant was taken to the Orsk town police station where, according to him, officers continued beating and ill-treating him. Two days later the Sovetskiy District Court of Orsk authorised his detention on remand. Following the court hearing, the applicant was taken to detention facility no. IZ-56/2. The applicant’s requests for medical assistance went unanswered. The applicant complained to a prosecutor’s office about the police brutality. The most recent decision, finding no evidence of ill-treatment or unlawful behaviour by the police, was issued on 18 March 2010. On 14 March 2010 the applicant was committed to stand trial before the Sovetskiy District Court of Orsk. According to him, at least on fifty occasions he was taken from the detention facility to the courthouse to take part in hearings. He submitted that the conditions of his transport to the courthouse and the conditions of his detention on the days of the hearings had been inhuman. On 28 June 2010 the Sovetskiy District Court found the applicant guilty as charged and sentenced him to eleven years of imprisonment. The District Court found it established that, having been arrested on 29 March 2009 by the police, the applicant had been in possession of more than 600 grams of heroine which he had intended to sell. On 7 September 2010 the Orenburg Regional Court upheld the judgment on appeal. 2.     Conditions of detention From 31 March 2009 to at least until the end of May 2011 the applicant was kept in detention facility no. IZ-56/2 in Orsk. He alleged that he had been detained in cells nos. 43, 111, 108, 104, 103, 105, 124, 110, 42, 161, 118, 53, 57, 30 and 121. The cells, save for three, measured approximately 12 to 15 square metres, had four to eight sleeping placed and housed 6 to 14 inmates. The three bigger cells were of approximately 38 square metres, had 16 sleeping places and accommodated 20 to 30 detainees. At all times he did not have an individual sleeping place. The cell did not have the artificial ventilation system. Inmates were allowed to smoke in the cell. It was extremely cold in winters and cold in summers. The cell was damp and dark, having only been lightened by a 40-watt bulb. A lavatory pan was separated by a small partition from the living area. Thus, inmates did not have any privacy. Bedding provided to the detainees was dirty and worn of. Sanitary conditions in the cell were unsatisfactory. The food was poor and scarce. Prison recreation yards were too small to house the prison population. The applicant was allowed to take a shower once a week for fifteen minutes when the entire prison population had to share three shower heads. 3.     Applicant’s state of health The applicant has hepatitis C. He also suffers from effects of a closed craniocerebral injury, such as severe headaches, dizziness and nausea. Relying on information by the Orsk Town prosecutor published in a local newspaper, the applicant argued that he had been unable to receive adequate medical assistance in detention as facility no. IZ-56/2 had lacked necessary medical specialists and resources. He argued that he had never been examined by a competent medical specialist in relation to his condition. No tests were performed and no treatment was provided. His complaints to various officials, including the prosecutor’s office, went unanswered. In particular, on a number of occasions the applicant unsuccessfully asked authorities to perform a complex medical examination pertaining to his suffering from hepatitis C and to provide him with a consultation with an infectious diseases specialist. 4.     Defamation proceedings On 1 October 2009 a federal TV station broadcasted a programme in which Mr G., the director of detention facility no. IZ-56/2, described the circumstances of the applicant’s arrest with a large quantity of heroine. According to the applicant, information provided by the facility director to the reporter pointed to the applicant as the perpetrator of the offence in question. The applicant stated that Mr G. had also stressed that the act of drug trafficking had been committed “by not even a petty or middle-hand criminal”. Furthermore, the applicant submitted that Mr G. and the reporter disseminated his personal information, including his name, date of birth, his diagnosis and the state of his health. The reporter also informed the views that the applicant and his mother had lodged a number of false complaints about the lack of medical assistance in detention. In 2010 the applicant lodged a defamation action against the TV station, the reporter and Mr G., seeking compensation for non-pecuniary damage. Having considered that the programme had not contained any accusations against the applicant and that the remaining information disseminated by the reporter was no more than her personal views on the drug-trafficking problem, on 16 November 2010 the Leninskiy District Court of Orsk dismissed the applicant’s action. While the respondents attended the hearings and made oral submissions, the applicant was not brought to the courthouse. The District Court cited the lack of a legal norm allowing the transfer of detainees to hearings in their civil cases. On 2   February 2011 the Orenburg Regional Court, in the applicant’s absence, upheld the judgment on appeal. Having addressed the applicant’s argument of his inability to attend hearings in his civil case, the Regional Court endorsed the District Court’s explanation. B.     Complaint(s) The applicant complained, among other matters, under Article 3 of the Convention about the lack of adequate medical assistance in detention and the conditions of his detention in a temporary detention facility. He further complained under Article 6 of the Convention that the authorities had failed to ensure his presence at the court hearings in the defamation proceedings.   5.     Application no 39563/11 lodged on 1   June   2011 by Mikhail Georgiyevich SAAKOV who was born on 18   August   1977 and lived before his arrest in the town of Volgograd. He is now serving his sentence in a correctional colony in the Mordoviya Republic. A.     Facts 1.     Applicant’s state of health According to the applicant, after his arrest on 28 July 2008, on suspicion of several counts of aggravated robbery, he was severely beaten up by police officers. As follows from a letter sent on 17 September 2009 by the head of the Volgograd Regional police department to a judge of the Volgograd Regional Court, on the applicant’s admission to the police detention unit on 28 July 2008 a prison nurse had recorded the following injuries on the applicant’s body: a bruise around his right eye and abrasions on his nose and lower lip. The applicant had complained to the nurse about a severe headache and dizziness. On the same day, as well as on 29 July and 1   August 2008 emergency teams had been called to assist the applicant who had been diagnosed with a craniocerebral injury, injuries of the soft tissues, “other injuries” and neurocirculatory dystonia. The applicant submitted that he had been again beaten up by police officers in his cell in the police detention unit on 30 July 2008. On 1 August 2008 the applicant was taken to hospital no. 1 for an examination. He was diagnosed with a closed craniocerebral injury, brain concussion and bruises of the soft tissues. Although doctors recommended the applicant’s admission to the hospital for inpatient treatment, on the same day the applicant was transferred to temporary detention facility no. 1. According to the applicant he was admitted to the surgical department of prison hospital no. 15 where he remained until 23 August 2008. On 15 January 2009 a forensic medical expert issued a report on the applicant’s state of health and the cause of his injuries. The relevant part of the report read as follows: “1.     Having studied the presented medical documents, [it was established] that [the applicant] had the following injuries:   - a closed craniocerebral injury in the form of a brain concussion, a fracture of nose bones with the bruise extending to eyelids of both eyes. 2.   The abovementioned injuries were caused by blunt firm objects such as hands, legs, etc., it is impossible to identify the specific qualities of the objects by which the injuries were caused.” On 19 January 2009 the applicant complained to a prison dentist about suspicious “clicking” in his lower jaw. The dentist concluded that the applicant had a posttraumatic subluxation of the temporomandibular joint on the left side. He also noted that no urgent treatment was required and that after the conviction the applicant should be sent to a prison hospital to confirm the diagnosis and to determine the course of the treatment. The applicant continued complaining about his lower jaw. His medical record shows that on 22 January 2010 he informed the prison dentist that he experienced severe pain in the lower jaw as a result of which he was unable to eat firm food. The dentist supported his conclusion made a year before, recommended diet and the applicant’s transfer to a prison hospital after his conviction. The applicant repeated his complaints to prison medical staff until on 17   May 2010 a prison physician authorised his transfer to a prison hospital. From 20 May to 1 June 2010 the applicant stayed in the surgical department of the prison hospital where he was diagnosed with posttraumatic arthritis of the temporomandibular joints on the left and right sides. Following the release from the hospital the applicant was recommended treatment with anti-inflammatory drugs and physiotherapeutic procedures. The applicant continued complaining of a pain in the jaw and a drastic loss of weight given his inability to eat properly. The prison dentist recommended continuing treatment with anti-inflammatory drugs which, as confirmed by his medical record, the applicant received from his relatives. On 7 September 2010 the applicant was examined by the head of the dentofacial surgical department of the Regional Clinical hospital, Mr G. Having connected the applicant’s jaw problems to the traumas sustained in July 2008, professor G. confirmed the diagnosis of posttraumatic arthritis of the temporomandibular joints and noted that the applicant needed a complex treatment in a specialised dentofacial surgical facility. The treatment should include, among other things, X-ray examinations of temporomandibular joints, orthopaedic treatment and physiotherapeutic procedures. In the following few days the head of the cardiology department of the Regional Clinical hospital, Mr B., also saw the applicant. He recorded the applicant’s complaints of severe and frequent headaches, dizziness, nausea, heartaches and frequent episodes of high blood pressure which had necessitated urgent assistance by emergency medical teams. The cardiologist also noted that the applicant did not eat properly and that he weighed 62 kilograms and that he was 186 centimetres tall. His diagnosis was that the applicant suffered from arterial hypertension of the second degree, asthenic syndrome and dystrophy of the second degree. The doctor recommended the applicant’s examination in the cardiology department of the hospital, including the ECG testing, clinical blood and urine tests, ultrasound scans of his liver and kidneys, and so on. As follows from an extract of the applicant’s medical record, in response to the recommendations made by doctors G. and B., a physician from the applicant’s temporary detention facility authorised the applicant’s transfer to prison hospital no. 15. At the same time, it appears that the hospital refused to accept the applicant. A deputy head of the prison hospital made the following note in the applicant’s medical record: “Dear colleagues! It is necessary to read [doctor B.’s] recommendations attentively. He recommends [the applicant’s] examinations in the specialised cardiology department where [the applicant] can be subjected to ECG testing and liver and kidneys ultrasound scans. His transfer to the prison hospital was unsubstantiated. It is recommended to organise [the applicant’s] examination in the specialised cardiology department.” In the meantime, courts extended the applicant’s detention on a number of occasions given the gravity of the charges against him and his liability to abscond, re-offend and obstruct justice. Each time the applicant and his lawyer complained to the courts about the applicant’s poor health and his inability to receive adequate treatment in detention. For instance, in the proceedings before the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation which examined the applicant’s appeal against the detention order of 27 September 2010, he relied on letters from various penitentiary officials confirming the lack of medical personnel, facilities and equipment in the detention facilities to support the applicant’s health. In particular, in a letter sent to the applicant’s lawyer on 20 October 2010 the head of prison hospital no. 15 informed him that the hospital did not have either the cardiology or dento-facial surgical departments. It also did not employ medical specialists who could have provided the applicant with required medical assistance. The head of the hospital also stated that the applicant could not undergo procedures and testing recommended by doctors B. and G. as the hospital did not have relevant equipment. A similar letter was received from a deputy head of the detention facility where the applicant stayed at the time. The applicant also submitted copies of letters sent by the trial judge to the head of the detention facility. On a number of occasions the judge asked to postpone the applicant’s transfer to the prison hospital for assessment and treatment as his participation in the hearings was required. 2.     Conditions of detention The applicant submitted that for several years he had been detained in a cell measuring approximately 12 square metres, equipped with four sleeping places and accommodating four inmates. A part of the cell was taken up by a lavatory pan and a basin installed in a 1.5-square-metre cubicle in a corner. He further argued that at least since the winter of 2009 he had stopped going on daily outdoor walks in the recreation yard as he had been too weak and exhausted. He had stayed on his bunk day and night. B.     Complaint(s) The applicant complained, among other matters, under Article 3 of the Convention about the lack of adequate medical assistance in detention and the conditions of his detention in a temporary detention facility.   6.     Application no 44214/11 lodged on 23   June   2011 by Yelena Pavlovna SUSLOVA who was born on 19   December   1981 and lived until her arrest in the town of Vladimir. She was represented by Mr F. Bagranskiy, Mr A. Mikhaylov and Mr M. Ovchinnikov, lawyers practising in Vladimir. A.     Facts 1.     Applicant’s arrest and detention On 22 April 2010 the applicant was arrested on suspicion of an attempt to commit aggravated drug trafficking. On the following day the applicant’s detention on remand was authorised. It was extended on a number of occasions until on 29 September 2010 the Frunzenskiy District Court of Vladimir changed the measure of restraint to house arrest. 2.     Applicant’s state of health The applicant suffered from diabetes, obesity (she weighed more than 188 kilograms), essential hypertension and dysmetabolic myocardiodystrophy. Having been admitted to detention facility no. IZ-33/3 in Vladimir, the applicant immediately informed the facility medical personnel of her diagnosis. The applicant’s condition started deteriorating. Her face was covered by black spots. Her legs and face were swollen. She suffered from dizziness, extreme headaches and insomnia. The left side of her body was numb. She experienced a severe pain in the lumbar region and stomach. The applicant complained to the prison medical personnel about her condition. A prison nurse informed her that a doctor was on leave and that, in the doctor’s absence, the nurse could not prescribe any medicines or give any recommendations. On 14 May 2010 the applicant’s lawyer complained to the director of facility no. IZ-33/3 about the applicant’s poor health and about the lack of the medical aid. He insisted on the applicant’s examination by an endocrinologist, cardiologist and gastroenterologist and asked to authorise necessary testing of the applicant. The lawyer also pointed to the necessity to transfer the applicant to a prison hospital. The lawyer’s complaint went unanswered. A similar complaint followed on 3 June 2010 when the lawyer drew the facility director’s attention to the fact that the prison doctor was on leave and that in his absence even a basic medical advice could not be given to the applicant. Four days later the prison doctor examined the applicant having diagnosed her with moderately grave form of 2 nd -type diabetes, diabetic polyneuropathy, 2 nd -degree essential hypertension and 3 rd -degree obesity. No treatment was recommended. On 11 June 2010 the facility director informed the applicant’s lawyer of the examination on 7 June 2010 and about the applicant’s diagnosis. He also stated that treatment was prescribed and that on 16 June 2010 the applicant would be examined by a mobile medical team from correctional colony no. 3, comprising a physician, a surgeon and a neurologist. However, on 16 June 2010 the applicant was transferred to detention facility no. IZ-33/1 in Vladimir and therefore she did not undergo a medical examination as promised. A prison nurse noted the applicant’s diagnosis on admission to facility no. IZ-33/1. Several days later the applicant’s lawyer complained to the director of facility no. IZ-33/1 about a serious deterioration of the applicant’s health and sought her urgent transfer to a prison hospital. A similar request was sent to the head of the Vladimir Regional Service for Execution of Sentences. On 26 June 2010 the applicant’s lawyer received a letter from an acting head of the medical unit in facility no. IZ-33/1. The letter, in so far as relevant, read as follows: “On 18 May 2010 [the applicant]... was examined by a physician in facility no. IZ-33/1 [and] was diagnosed with: acute respiratory illness of the rhinopharyngitis type. Treatment was prescribed, tests were performed (clinical blood and urine tests, an X-ray exam of the lungs). [The applicant’s] condition ameliorated in view of the treatment. It is impossible to send [the applicant] to a prison hospital in correctional colony no. 3 as it does not have a department for female inmates. The medical unit of facility no. IZ-33/1 does not employ the following medical specialists: an endocrinologist, a cardiologist, a nephrologist and a gastroenterologist.” Following another request from the lawyers, on 8 July 2010 the applicant was examined by the head of the prison hospital in correctional colony no. 3 and the head of the medical department of the Regional Service for Execution of Sentences. The two officials confirmed the applicant’s diagnosis as made in facility no. IZ-33/3 and recommended an examination by an endocrinologist and ECG testing. They also noted that the applicant received necessary treatment and that she would be examined by necessary specialists on 14 July 2010 to determine a further course of her treatment. On 13 and 15 July 2010 the applicant’s lawyers received letters from officials of detention facility no. IZ-33/1 informing them that the applicant was treated by a prison physician, that she received necessary medicaments, that her conditions was satisfactory and did not call for an urgent inpatient treatment in a prison hospital. The lawyers continued complaining about the lack of adequate medical assistance and insisted on the applicant’s admission to a hospital where she could receive specialised medical attention appropriate for her condition. On 21 July 2010 the applicant was transferred back to facility no. IZ-33/3. Given that after the transfer the applicant had not been seen by a doctor and had not received any treatment, the lawyer informed the director of facility no. IZ-33/3 about an imminent risk to the applicant’s life and limb. No response followed. On 11 August 2010 the applicant was sent to facility no. IZ-33/1 only to be transferred back to facility no. IZ-33/3 on 1 September 2010. Another transfer to facility no. IZ-33/1 followed two weeks later. On 6 September 2010 the lawyers applied to the Leninskiy District Court in Vladimir with a complaint about the authorities’ failure to ensure adequate medical assistance to the applicant. In particular, the lawyers argued that despite a drastic deterioration of the applicant’s health, she had been left without any medical attention until 7 June 2010. During the subsequent period she had been treated by a prison physician in the absence of any specific diagnostic procedures, testing or examinations required by her condition. The lawyers asked the District Court to authorise the applicant’s treatment by medical specialists in a hospital. On 13 October 2010 the Leninskiy District Court dismissed the complaint having considered it to be unfounded. The District Court noted that the lawyers had failed to support their claim of inadequate treatment and that, in any case, following the applicant’s release from detention on 29   September 2010, the request for her examinations by specialists and her admission to the prison hospital lacked any legal basis. On 23 December 2010 the Vladimir Regional Court upheld the judgment on appeal, having fully endorsed the District Court’s reasoning. Following the applicant’s release from detention, she applied to a civil hospital where she was diagnosed with 2 nd -type diabetes, obesity, arterial hypertension, hemochromatosis, mutation of allochromosomes, hepatomegaly, fatty hepatosis, diffusive changes of pancreas, metabolic syndrome, hypercorticalism, hypothalamic syndrome, and dysmetabolic changes in the kidneys. B.     Complaint The applicant complained under Article 3 of the Convention about the lack of adequate medical assistance in detention.   7.     Application no 52873/11 lodged on 7   July   2011 by Gleb Viktorovich PETROV who was born on 1   April   1973 and lived until his arrest in the town of Vyborg, Leningrad Region. He is serving his sentence of imprisonment in the village of Puksinka, Sverdlovsk Region. A.     Facts 1.     Conviction By the final judgment of 9 December 2010 the Leningrad Regional Court found the applicant guilty of an attempt to sell drugs and sentenced him to four years of imprisonment. 2.     Conditions of detention and the applicant’s state of health The applicant suffers from the HIV infection in the 4A stage with the CD-4 cell count of 123 cells/mm (according to the test performed on 22   March 2011) and chronic viral hepatitis C in the latent form. Tests performed in February 2012 show a drastic decrease of the CD-4 cell count. On 1 February 2011 the applicant was transferred to detention facility no. IZ-66/1 in Yekaterinburg where he stayed in cell no. 203 until 4 March 2011. The cell measured approximately 40 square metres, had 16 sleeping places and accommodated 30 to 50 inmates. The applicant did not have an individual sleeping place, having been forced to share a bunk or even a mattress on a floor with other inmates. He complained about the lack of personal space, lack of privacy, poor lighting and ventilation, extreme cold and inadequate sanitary conditions. The applicant also submitted that recreation yards had been too small to accommodate 10 to 25 inmates when they had been authorised to take an hour-long daily walk. The same lack of space he experienced in shower rooms where 20 to 50 inmates had to use four shower heads. They could only take a shower once in ten days. The applicant’s health started deteriorating rapidly. On 11 February 2011 he had experienced a sharp pain in the chest and had fever. Five days later the applicant was seen by a prison nurse, who prescribed him antibiotics and a cough medicament. Despite the applicant’s and his inmates’ persistent complaints that the applicant was very ill, the following visit by a medical specialist only occurred on 23 February 2011. Having noted that the applicant suffered from the progressing form of the HIV infection, the doctor again prescribed the applicant antibiotics and a cough medicine. On 6 March 2011 the applicant was transferred to the medical unit and placed in cell no. 6. The cell measured 32 square metres, had 20 sleeping places and accommodated 18 to 20 inmates. The applicant provided a similar description of the conditions of his detention in that cell as those given in respect of cell no. 203. The applicant was diagnosed with double-sided pneumonia and sent the prison hospital in correctional colony no. 15 in the Sverdlovsk Region where he arrived on 16 March 2011. However, he was not subjected to any examinations or testing and two weeks later he was transferred to correctional colony no. 14 to serve his sentence. The applicant argued that despite the deterioration of his condition, including the rapidly progressing HIV infection, he was not provided with medical assistance, including the antiretroviral therapy. B.     Complaint(s) The applicant complained, among other matters, under Article 3 of the Convention about the lack of adequate medical assistance in detention and the conditions of his detention in the temporary detention facility.   8.     Application no 8720/12 lodged on 13   January   2012 by Tamara Aleksandrovna PARYGINA who was born on 2   February   1954 and lives in Berkshire, the United Kingdom. She was represented by Mr A. Kurskiy, a lawyer practicing in the town of Tolyati, Samara Region of the Russian Federation A.     Facts 1.     Conviction On 28 October 2011 the Zheleznodorozhniy District Court of Samara found the applicant guilty of several counts of aggravated fraud and sentenced her to three years of imprisonment to be served in a reservation colony. The applicant was, however, relieved from serving the sentence by an amnesty act and was immediately released. The judgment was upheld on appeal on 21   December 2011 by the Samara Regional Court. 2.     Conditions of detention and state of health From 27 April to 28 October 2011 the applicant was in custody. She stayed in detention facility no. 77/6 in Moscow between 27 April and 16   May 2011 when she was transported to detention facility no. 63/3 in the village of Kryazh, Samara Region where she was kept for the remaining period of her detention, save the periods when she was admitted to the prison hospital. The applicant provided a similar description of the conditions of her detention in the two facilities. She stressed that at all times she had had less than 1.5 square metre of personal space. The cells were dirty, damp and stuffy. The food was poor and scarce. She did not have privacy, having been at all times observed either by inmates or by warders. Inmates were allowed to take a shower once a week for no more than ten minutes. Certain cells did not have a lavatory pan, but a hole in the floor. An awful smell lingered in the cells. The applicant was not provided with bedding or toiletries. Windows were covered with shutters that did not let in fresh air or lighting. The applicant had a long history of hypertension. Her condition rapidly deteriorated in detention, with her having suffered a number of hypertonic crises. At the same time the detention facilities did not employ a medical specialist who could have dealt with the applicant’s condition. The medical personnel of the facilities, only comprising medical assistants, refused to prescribe necessary treatment, having insisted that it was outside their professional expertise. On 26 October 2010 an ambulance was called to the Zheleznodorozhniy District Court of Samara, following the applicant’s complaints of a severe headache, breathlessness, elevated heart rate and dizziness. The emergency doctors assessed the applicant’s conditions as moderately grave, having noticed that the applicant experienced particular problems in the right part of her body. She was taken to the prison hospital. An emergency doctor noted in the report that it had taken them over twenty-five minutes to admit the applicant to the hospital. On 11 July 2011 the applicant was taken to the court house to take part in a hearing before the Samara Regional Court. In the courtroom the applicant suffered a hypertonic crisis. She lost consciences, fell to the floor, hit her head and sustained a head trauma and cut her lip. Convoy officers called an ambulance. Having examined the applicant emergency doctors recommended her immediate admission to a hospital. However, that recommendation was dismissed by the presiding judge and the head of the convoy service. The applicant was taken back to the detention facility where no medical assistance was provided to her. According to the applicant, on the following day the applicant again had a hypertonic crisis and was taken to the Samara Regional prison hospital. She insisted that in the absence of any medical assistance, her condition continued deteriorating and she suffered an ischemic stroke with the right-sided hemiparesis. The right side of the applicant’s body was paralysed. She experienced serious difficulties with talking and understanding what others said. She also suffered tremor of the left side of her body. As follows from an extract from the applicant’s medical record, an emergency team was called to the applicant on 18 and 19 July 2011 and the applicant was admitted to the hospital on 19 July 2011. She was diagnosed with a closed craniocerebral injury, brain concussion, acute impairment of the cerebral blood flow of the ischemic type and hypertension. The applicant was released from the hospital on 22 August 2011 when her condition was considered stable. She was released on a recommendation to continue with the treatment. The applicant submitted that the hospital did not have necessary medicaments as they were extremely expensive and her relatives could not afford them. In the morning on 22 September 2011 the applicant, despite her complaints about poor health, was taken from the detention facility to the Zheleznodorozhniy District Court of Samara. She was transported in a prison van. The applicant alleged that the van driver had hit the brakes and, given her inability to support herself due to the partial paralysis, she had accidentally hit her head against a metal bar in the van and had lost consciousness. She supported her description of the events by reports from the detention facility officials and medical certificates. An emergency team was called to attend on the applicant. Doctors issued the preliminary diagnosis: a closed craniocerebral injury and brain concussion. The emergency doctors insisted on the applicant’s urgent hospitalisation, but instead she was taken back to the detention facility. Several hours later another emergency team was called to attend on the applicant in the detention facility. Having noted the deterioration of the applicant’s condition, the emergency doctors again urged for the applicant’s placement in a hospital for treatment. The applicant was urgently transported to the prison hospital. The applicant was admitted to the surgical department of the prison hospital where the diagnosis made by the emergency doctors was confirmed. She remained there for treatment until her release on 28 October 2011. The applicant submitted a copy of a written statement issued by an emergency doctor, Ms S. The doctor stated that she had been called to the applicant who had been in the moderately grave condition. The applicant had very high blood pressure and suffered from complications of the stroke. The doctors decided to admit the applicant to a hospital. However, the head of the detention facility dismissed the request for hospitalisation. The doctors therefore decided to accompany the applicant to the prison hospital. The applicant, however, declared a hunger strike and refused medical assistance. The doctor also stated that she and other members of her team had been under pressure from the detention authorities and had not therefore been able to provide the applicant with necessary medical assistance. Ms S. insisted that she had informed the detention authorities about the risk to the applicant’s health and that she had insisted on her urgent admission to the hospital. A similar report was written by another member of the emergency medical team, Mr Sa., who had seen the applicant in the court house. Doctor Sa. noted that the warders had forbidden the applicant’s placement to the hospital despite of the urgent necessity to do so. On 20 October 2011 the head of the prison hospital sent a letter to the Zheleznodorozhniy District Court informing the presiding judge that the applicant was undergoing treatment and that she was not fit to take part in court hearings. B.     Complaint(s) The applicant complained, among other matters, under Article 3 of the Convention about the lack of adequate medical assistance in detention and the conditions of her detention in the temporary detention facilities.   9.     Application no 35782/12 lodged on 16   May   2012 by Konstantin Ivanovich PANTYUKHIN who was born on 23   November   1967 and lived until his arrest in the town of Mozhga, Udmurtiya Republic. He is now serving his sentence in the correctional colony in the village of Khokhryaki, Udmurtiya Republic. A.     Facts 1.     Conviction By the final judgment of 24 May 2011 the Supreme Court of the Udmurtiya Republic found the applicant guilty of several counts of aggravated