CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 14 décembre 2016

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .s23A41E03 { width:36pt; display:inline-block } .sA6BC7FA7 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; 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 } .s3F59B822 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-transform:uppercase } .s662121A1 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic }   Communicated on 14 December 2016   THIRD SECTION Application no. 57496/16 Eduard Yuryevich RAZIN against Russia lodged on 29 August 2016 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the poor quality of medical treatment in detention and the lack of an effective remedy to complain about inadequate medical services. The applicant, a detainee suffering from the HIV infection, has received the antiretroviral therapy since 2010. He claims that for more than five months, from 10 July to 20 December 2015, the therapy has been interrupted by detention authorities. He further submits that antiretroviral drugs given to him on 17   August 2016 were far beyond their expiration date and that no other medication was provided.   QUESTIONS tO THE PARTIES 1.     Was the applicant provided with the antiretroviral therapy between 10   July and 20 December 2015?   2.     Has the applicant received treatment for the HIV infection on 17   August 2016? If yes, has it been adequate? In particular, was the medication given beyond its expiration date?   3.   Taking into account the applicant’s medical history, have the authorities met their obligation to ensure that that his health and well-being are being adequately secured by, among other things, providing him with the requisite medical assistance (see McGlinchey and Others v. the United Kingdom , no. 50390/99, § 46, ECHR 2003-V), as required by Article 3 of the Convention, in the present case?   4.     Did the applicant have at his disposal an effective domestic remedy for his complaints under Article 3 about the lack of medical treatment as required by Article 13 of the Convention?   5.     The Government are asked to produce the applicant’s medical record drawn up after his arrest.