CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 2 avril 2014

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s379BC09C { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s9793A85B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s8229ABDD { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s68C46B95 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s2D57E2E { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline; text-transform:uppercase } .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 } .sF7A86111 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; font-size:10pt } .sD3B63DAD { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s5F897A7E { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:0pt } Communicated on 2 April 2014   THIRD SECTION Application no. 60450/13 A.C. against the Republic of Moldova lodged on 12 September 2013 STATEMENT OF FACTS 1.     The applicant, A.C., is a Moldovan national. He is represented before the Court by Mr   A. Lungu, a lawyer practising in Durleşti. A.     The circumstances of the case 2.     The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows. 3.     The applicant is on trial for armed robbery. 4.     Since 31 May 2012 the applicant has been detained in Prison No.   11 in Bălți. 5.     According to the applicant, he is HIV positive and has latent tuberculosis. 6.     From March to June 2012 he was detained in a cell measuring 11.25   sq.m with six other inmates. From June 2012 to March 2013 he was detained in a different cell of the same size with five other inmates. From August to October   2012 the same cell accommodated a total of eight inmates. After March 2013 he was detained in two further cells with three other inmates. 7.     According to the applicant, the cells had damp on the walls and wet floors, leaking ceilings and no ventilation. They were also infested with cockroaches and bedbugs. Due to overcrowding, the applicant had to share a bed with another inmate with whom he took turns to sleep. In summer the air indoors was hot, humid and smelly which made it difficult to breathe. In cold weather the heating was not turned on and the temperature in the cells would become so low that the applicant could see his breath. The squat toilet was separated by a one metre high wall and stood twenty centimetres away from the table where the applicant would normally eat. 8.     The applicant was detained with inmates diagnosed with open and multi-drug resistant tuberculosis. In hot weather the applicant would regularly feel weak and suffer nosebleeds, but his verbal requests for medical assistance were ignored. In March   2013 he was offered medical assistance for a tooth infection, but not until fourteen days after he had requested it. According to the applicant, he did not receive any treatment for the HIV opportunistic infections he would suffer from regularly. He made no complaints concerning the medical treatment he received for his tuberculosis. 9.     The applicant submitted that he did not receive food of a sufficient quantity and quality, despite there being domestic regulations in force setting out the amount and type of food required for inmates in his state of health. At times he would also be prohibited from receiving food from his relatives. 10.     During his detention the applicant did not receive any bedding or clothing. 11.     On hearing days the applicant was away from prison from 7.30 a.m. until 2 p.m., which meant that he left prison before breakfast and returned after the midday meal. He was detained in a very small cell without ventilation or windows and was given no food throughout the day. This happened on at least ten occasions. 12.     On 14 February 2013 the applicant explained to the Bălți prosecutor that on 5 and 6 February he had mutilated himself in order to protest against the detention conditions and lack of food. 13.     In a letter addressed to the administration of Prison no.   11 dated 19   February 2013, the Bălți prosecutor pointed out the applicant’s complaints regarding the inappropriate material conditions of detention with a request for remedial works to be carried out. 14.     According to the applicant, in May 2013 he submitted complaints to the Ministry of Justice and Prosecutor General’s Office, but did not receive a reply. B.     Report of the European Committee for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (CPT) on its visit to Moldova in 2011 – CPT/Inf (2012) 3 15.     The relevant part of the report of the visit to Moldova carried out by the CPT from 1 to 10 June 2011 reads as follows (unofficial translation): “53. ... Established in 1812, in the centre of Bălţi, Prison no. 11 is one of the oldest prisons in the country. ... 73. Concerning the cell occupancy rate in the prisons visited, the delegation found that inmates were for the most part detained in completely unacceptable conditions of overcrowding. The living space per inmate in cells, integrated toilets included, was generally less than 3.5 m² and could be reduced to 1.5 m² (for example 18 inmates in a cell of about 28 m² in Bălţi and four inmates in a cell of about 11 m², with six beds, in Rezina). 74. The dilapidated condition of premises in these prisons is a serious challenge. With a few exceptions, the material conditions in the cells were very modest in the Bălţi prison. In addition, a number of inmates (in block no. 2 in particular) were placed in large capacity cells (30 beds in one cell of 60 m², for instance), inevitably involving a lack of privacy for inmates in their daily life and designed to encourage the development of criminal subcultures. The toilets were not always partitioned ...” COMPLAINTS 16.     The applicant complains under Article 3 of the Convention that the material conditions of detention and lack of adequate medical assistance and food in Prison no. 11 amounted to inhuman and degrading treatment. 17.     He also complains that he did not have, as required by Article 13 of the Convention, any effective remedies at his disposal for his complaint under Article 3. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Has there been a violation of Article 3 of the Convention? In particular, was the applicant held in inhuman or degrading conditions of detention? Was the applicant suffering from any serious health problems during detention? If so, did the applicant receive adequate medical treatment in respect of such health problems, as required by Article 3 of the Convention? 2.     Did the applicant have at his disposal an effective domestic remedy for his complaints under Article 3 regarding his conditions of detention and medical treatment, as required by Article 13 of the Convention? The Government are requested to submit an information note on the medical assistance provided to the applicant in detention, as well as copies of all relevant documents.