CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 8 février 2017

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .sA6BC7FA7 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:right } .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 } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s68C46B95 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s3F59B822 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; 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 } .s9296A950 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; 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 }   Communicated on 4 April 2016   THIRD SECTION Application no 17492/16 Yekaterina Vladimirovna NUSALOVA against Russia lodged on 1 April 2016 STATEMENT OF FACTS The applicant, Ms Yekaterina Vladimirovna Nusalova, is a Russian national, born in 1979 in Murmansk. She is represented before the Court by Mr S. Peteryakov, a lawyer practising in Kazan, Republic of Tatarstan. The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows. A.     Conviction On 26 March 2015 the applicant was convicted of drug trafficking and sentenced by the Pervomaiyskiy District Court of Murmansk to seven years’ imprisonment in a correctional colony. B.     Medical treatment Prior to the arrest, the applicant was diagnosed with HIV and hepatitis C. According to her, in a remand prison she complained about a lump in the right breast, but the prison doctor was unable to properly examine her, and therefore he advised to wait until the upcoming transfer to a correctional colony. On 23 June 2015 the applicant was admitted to correctional colony no.   20/02 in the Leningrad Region where she was diagnosed with fibrocystic breast changes, and noncancerous breast lumps. Three months later the applicant’s lymph nodes enlarged. Having noted this symptom, a prison doctor ordered her transport to Gaaza   prison hospital in St   Petersburg (“the prison hospital”). On 22 September 2015, already in the prison hospital, the applicant was diagnosed with the end-stage breast cancer with the metastatic spread to uterus, ovary and bones. The applicant submits that only symptomatic medical treatment was available to her in the hospital, while curative treatment, such as chemotherapy, was not provided. Upon her return to the correctional colony in the late March 2016, she was denied even the basic treatment, including pain-relief medication. C.     Application for early release on health grounds On 22 January 2016 a medical panel examined the applicant and concluded that her medical condition warranted her early release. On 17 March 2016 the Smolninskiy District Court of St Petersburg examined the application to that effect. At the hearing the applicant’s attending doctor from the prison hospital stated that her life expectancy was no more than three months and that her medical condition called for chemotherapy, which could have extended her life. However, the hospital was not licensed to provide such treatment. Therefore the treatment consisted exclusively of painkillers. The prosecutor argued that should the applicant’s health deteriorate, she would be transferred to a cancer hospital. Having heard the parties, the court dismissed the application for early release. It held as follows: “... [the applicant] receives medical treatment, including painkillers and vitamins. The fact that her transfer to a cancer hospital [where she could receive the radiation therapy] is complicated by bureaucratic formalities does not mean that [she] does not receive medical treatment adequate to her diagnosis and cannot expect receiving other types of medical treatment.” On 26 March 2016 the applicant challenged the above decision before the St   Petersburg City Court. Her appeal is pending. D.     Application for interim measures On 1 April 2016 the applicant lodged with the Court a request for interim measures under Rule 39 of the Rules of Court. On 4 April 2016 the Court granted the request requiring the Russian Government to ensure the applicant’s immediate access to the necessary medical treatment as recommended by her attending doctor. The Court also noted that, if the penitentiary medical institutions were unable to ensure such treatment, the applicant should be transferred to a civilian medical institution. COMPLAINTS The applicant, in substance, complains about the quality of medical treatment in detention and about the absence of effective domestic remedies for her to complain in that respect. QUESTIONS 1.     Taking into account the applicant’s medical history, have the Government met their obligation to ensure that her health and well-being are being adequately secured by providing him with the requisite medical assistance as required by Article 3 of the Convention? a)     When did the authorities become aware of the applicant’s cancer symptoms? b)     When did the diagnostic and treatment of that condition commence? c)     What is the standard treatment for breast cancer at the stage at which it was diagnosed in the applicant’s case? d)     Was the applicant prescribed and provided with chemotherapy? e)     What kind of medical treatment did she receive?   The Government are asked to provide a copy of the original and the typed versions of the applicant’s medical records, including the doctors’ prescriptions and notes on their execution.   2.     Did the applicant dispose of effective domestic remedies as required by Article 13 of the Convention for her complaint about the lack of effective medical treatment in detention?