CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 24 janvier 2008

.s3ABFC313 { font-size:10pt } .sD4B5322E { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .sA241FE93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-align:justify; page-break-after:avoid; border-bottom:0.75pt solid #000000; padding-bottom:1pt } .s2EF62ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s8F2B0B1B { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:12pt } .s97EB40D9 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:14pt; page-break-after:avoid } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s5F48796F { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s8EB5F569 { font-family:Arial; font-size:6.67pt; vertical-align:super } .s8B6C6D43 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; border-bottom:1pt solid #000000; padding-bottom:1pt } .sDF790F1E { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s3DC36BA9 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } Information Note on the Court’s case-law 104 January 2008 Aleksanyan v. Russia - 46468/06 Decision 24.1.2008 [Section I] Article 3 Degrading treatment Inhuman treatment Lack of medical assistance to a HIV-positive detainee and State’s failure to comply with Rule   39 measures in connection therewith: communicated The applicant provided legal services to the oil company Yukos and its senior executives Mr   Khodorkovskiy and Mr Lebedev. He was subsequently appointed vice-president of Yukos. Shortly afterwards, he was allegedly questioned by an investigator from the General Prosecutor’s Office who warned him to “stay far away” from the company’s affairs unless he was volunteering “to go to prison”. In April 2006 criminal proceedings were initiated against the applicant, his premises were searched and he was taken into custody. While ordering his detention on remand, the court declared itself incompetent to examine the strength of the prosecution evidence. On several occasions the applicant applied for release, citing poor health, but his requests were refused. In September 2006 he was found to be HIV-positive. By September 2007 he was suffering from a swingeing fever, had lost over 10% of his body weight and had become anaemic. He developed a number of other diseases: inter alia , stomatitis, neurological problems, encephalopathy, optic atrophy and liver lesions. A medical examination had revealed a dramatic worsening of his condition. It was recommended that he should undergo in-patient examination and treatment in the Moscow Aids Centre. The investigator in charge of the case lodged a request with a court stating that the applicant’s diseases could not be treated in a detention centre and seeking his release on bail. The court decided that it was not competent to deal with the matter and noted that the investigator did not need a court order to replace detention on remand with a milder measure of restraint such as bail. However, after receiving that decision, the investigator refused to allow release on bail, concluding that he was incompetent to decide whether the applicant should be transferred to a specialised medical institution. On 27 November 2007 the Court indicated an interim measure under Rule 39 of the Rules of Court, inviting the Government to secure immediately the applicant’s in-patient treatment in a hospital specialised in the treatment of Aids and concomitant diseases and to submit a copy of his medical file. On 4   December 2007 the Government informed the Court that the interim measure had not been yet implemented since “it required additional time”. On 21 December 2007 the Court indicated to the Government an additional interim measure while confirming the validity of the previous one (the applicant’s transfer to a specialised institution): the Government were invited inter alia to form a medical commission to be composed on a parity basis to diagnose the applicant’s health problems and suggest treatment. On 27 December 2007 the Government replied that the applicant could have received adequate medical treatment in the medical facility at the detention centre and that his examination by a mixed medical commission was against Russian law. Communicated under Articles 3, 5, 8, 13, in conjunction with Article 18 of the Convention. Remainder inadmissible .   (See also Khodorkovskiy v. Russia (N o 5829/04) in Information Note no. 85 and Paladi v. Moldova (N o   39806/05) in Information Note no. 99; the latter has been referred to the Grand Chamber – see Article   34 below).   © Council of Europe/European Court of Human Rights This summary by the Registry does not bind the Court. Click here for the Case-Law Information Notes