CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 19 mars 2018

.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 } .s68C46B95 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s3F59B822 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-transform:uppercase } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold }   Communicated on 19 March 2018   FOURTH SECTION Application no. 70043/17 Magomedganipa Gadzhiyevych GARUMOV against Ukraine lodged on 26 September 2017 SUBJECT MATTER OF the CASE The application concerns alleged lack of medical assistance and treatment of a detainee’s heart and neurologic diseases. The applicant has been held in the Kyiv Pre-trial Detention Centre since 2   June 2017 on suspicion of having participated in a conspiracy aimed at kidnaping. On 3   September 2017, while in custody, he suffered a stroke, which, according to him, is not being adequately treated. The applicant further states that the domestic courts, when ordering his arrest and continued detention on remand, did not provide sufficient reasons for their decisions. On 19 March 2018, the Court decided to refuse the interim measure sought by the applicant in accordance with Rule 39 of the Rules of Court and to communicate the case immediately to the respondent Government. Referring to Article 3 of the Convention the applicant complains that he was not given access to appropriate medical assistance while detained. He further complains, relying on Article 5 §§ 1 (c), 3 and 4 of the Convention, that the domestic courts’ decisions on his detention were arbitrary and lacked reasoning. QUESTIONS 1.     Was the medical assistance and treatment provided to the applicant while in detention in compliance with the requirements of Article 3 of the Convention?   2.     Was the applicant’s detention from 2   June 2017 onwards free from arbitrariness and based on sufficient reasons for the purposes of Article 5 §§   1 and 3 of the Convention (see, for example, Khayredinov v. Ukraine , no.   38717/04, §   27-31, 14   October 2010)?