CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 11 janvier 2022

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s379BC09C { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s339D85E6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s665E407E { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sA1D3DA2E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } Published on 31 January 2022   FOURTH SECTION Application no. 78242/16 Artur SARGSYAN against Armenia lodged on 17 December 2016 communicated on 11 January 2022 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The case concerns the alleged incompatibility of the applicant’s state of health with his detention, the alleged lack of adequate medical care, medication and special diet while in detention and the alleged lack of “relevant” and “sufficient” reasons for his detention. On 2 August 2016 the applicant was charged with taking hostages and illegal acquisition, possession and transportation of weapons, ammunition and explosive substances. On 3 August 2016 the applicant was placed in pre-trial detention which was then extended on 24 September and 24 November 2016, each time for two months. At that point the applicant was already suffering from   Bechterew’s disease (ankylosing spondylitis), an abdominal hernia 15 cm in length, bulbitis and erosive gastritis. Prior to his detention, he had undergone spinal surgery resulting in partial excision of the C1 and C2 vertebrae (the first two vertebrae at the top of the spine). In the course of the detention proceedings, the applicant argued that his illness - Bechterew’s disease - was listed in Government Decree no. 825-N which sets out a list of health conditions incompatible with detention. He lodged a number of complaints with the authorities about the quality of medical care, lack of adequate medical assistance, medication and dietary food in the facility. On 17 December 2016 the applicant submitted a request under Rule 39 of the Rules of Court requesting that the Court indicate to the Government that they should provide him with adequate medical assistance. The Court decided to adjourn the examination of the request and to ask the Government to provide factual information. On 30 December 2016 a medical panel composed of four medical professionals issued an opinion stating that the applicant was suffering from Bekhterew’s disease in the chronic, progressive stage, with significant functional impairment of his motor system. On the same date the prosecutor decided to release the applicant on the grounds that his diseases significantly decreased the likelihood of absconding or committing a new offence. On 16 January 2017 the applicant withdrew his request for an interim measure. By a forensic medical report of 23 January 2017 an inter-agency expert commission concluded that the applicant’s illness was included in the list of health conditions incompatible with detention. On 31 January 2017 the investigator decided to order an additional forensic medical examination by an inter-agency expert commission, stating that the opinion of 23 January 2017 raised a number of doubts. On 8 February 2017 the relevant commission concluded, on the basis of medical documents at their disposal and without physical examination of the applicant, that he was suffering from Bekhterew’s disease at the progressive stage with a double-sided sacroiliac syndrome, syndesmophytes (category   IV) and secondary degenerative arthritis of the hip joints without infection of internal organs. It stated that the applicant’s diseases, including Bekhterew’s disease without infection of the internal organs (functional impairments), were not included in Government Decree no. 825-N. On 9 February 2017 the applicant was again placed in pre-trial detention. He was then transferred to the Hospital for Prisoners. On the same date the applicant requested the Court to disregard his request for withdrawal and pursue the examination of his request for an interim measure. On 7 March 2017, upon the personal guarantees of six parliamentarians, the applicant was released from detention. The applicant died on 16 March 2017. By letter of 17 March 2017 his mother and brothers informed the Court of their wish to pursue his application. The applicant complained that his detention and the lack of adequate medical assistance in detention were incompatible with the requirements of Article 3 of the Convention. In this connection, the applicant alleged that his already poor health deteriorated into a severe condition as a result of his detention and due to the absence of adequate medical treatment and care as required by his state of health. He further complained under the same provision that the authorities had failed to provide the medication prescribed to him, neither did they provide him with meals compatible with his medically-prescribed diet while in detention. The applicant also complained under Article 5 § 3 of the Convention that the courts failed to provide “relevant” and “sufficient” reasons for his detention. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Was the applicant subjected to inhuman or degrading treatment, in breach of Article 3 of the Convention? In particular:   - During the entire period of his detention (that is, from 3 August to 30   December 2016 and from 9 February to 7 March 2017), was he provided with prompt and adequate medical assistance, in accordance with his state of health (see Kudła v. Poland [GC], no. 30210/96, §§ 92-94, ECHR 2000‑XI; and Blokhin v. Russia [GC], no. 47152/06, §§ 136-37, 23 March 2016)?   - Was the applicant provided with the treatment, including medication and special diet, prescribed to him during the first period of his detention, that is from 3 August to 30 December 2016 (see Wenner v. Germany , no. 62303/13, § 57, 1 September 2016; and Ebedin Abi v. Turkey , no. 10839/09, § 30, 13   March 2018)?   - Having regard to the nature and severity of the applicant’s health issues, was the detention itself compatible with his state of health (see Mouisel v.   France , no. 67266/01, §§ 38-42, ECHR 2002‑IX; Khudobin v. Russia , no.   59696/00, § 92, ECHR 2006 XII (extracts); and Dorneanu v. Romania , no.   55089/13, §§ 75-80, 28 November 2017)?   2.     Did the courts provide “relevant and sufficient” reasons for the applicant’s detention, as required by Article 5 § 3 of the Convention (see Buzadji v. the Republic of Moldova [GC], no. 23755/07, §§ 84 et seq., 5   July 2016; and Ara Harutyunyan v. Armenia , no. 629/11, §§ 48 et seq., 20   October 2016)?   The Government are requested to submit a legible full copy of the applicant’s medical file and any other documents in relation to the applicant’s medical examinations and medical care provided to him while in detention. Moreover, the parties are requested to submit information pertaining to the developments of the criminal proceedings instituted in 2018 on account of the applicant’s death.