CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 11 septembre 2007

.s3ABFC313 { font-size:10pt } .sEB86A30B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; page-break-after:avoid } .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 } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s5F48796F { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s5CB9E8AB { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; 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 No. 100 August-September 2007 Ghvaladze v. Georgia - 42047/06 Decision 11.9.2007 [Section II] Article 3 Degrading treatment Inhuman treatment Conditions of detention of a patient who alleged lack of proper medical care – possible administrative practice: communicated   After being arrested in 2005, the applicant alleged that he had been imprisoned for several months in poor conditions. In particular, prisoners had been detained in a lice‑infested cell and had to take turns to sleep for three hours out of every twenty‑four. There had been no light or ventilation system. The applicant had not been allowed any exercise. He had been diagnosed with health problems prior to his arrest and was admitted to the prison hospital on several occasions. He was subsequently detained in a closed prison, where he claimed to have been in a state of permanent starvation which aggravated his poor health. An official diagnosis found him to be suffering from eye trauma and recommended that one eye be surgically removed. It further found that his mental state required appropriate treatment in a hospital setting. According to the applicant, in spite of this diagnosis, it was only after pressure had been brought to bear from various quarters that he had been transferred to the prison hospital. He alleged that he had not received appropriate medical care since his arrest and requested that the Government, under Rule 39 of the Rules of Court, provide him with treatment appropriate to his condition in the prison hospital. The request for application of Rule 39 was refused. After six months in hospital the applicant was returned to the closed prison. Before the Court, he produced a medical certificate stating that he had been admitted to hospital with epileptic seizures prior to his arrest. He complained that his conditions of detention were intolerable and that he had received no treatment, and reiterated his request for application of Rule 39. The President of the Chamber examining the case decided to indicate to the Government, under Rule 39 of the Rules of Court, that it was desirable in the interests of the parties and the proper conduct of the proceedings before the Court, and following the applicant’s return to prison, that the latter be admitted to a hospital setting where he could receive the appropriate medical care. The applicant was transferred to the prison hospital. The domestic court found the applicant guilty on two counts of theft and sentenced him to eight years and three months’ imprisonment in accordance with the principle of aggregation of sentences (Article 59 § 1 of the Criminal Code as in force after commission of the offences). The longer sentence was seven years and six months and the shorter nine months. After the portion of a previous prison sentence remaining to be served, amounting to two years, seven months and eleven days, had been added (Article 59 § 2 of the Criminal Code as in force after commission of the offences), the final sentence came to ten years and eleven days. The applicant appealed. Communicated under Articles 3 and 7. Noting the existence of other applications before it which had already been communicated to the respondent Government, the Court put a question to the parties asking whether there existed within the Georgian prison system an administrative practice consisting of keeping detainees in unsatisfactory conditions, and/or a structural problem underlying the lack of medical treatment in prison. Were this to be the case, the applicant would be exempted from the requirement laid down by Article   35 § 1 to exhaust domestic remedies for the purposes of his complaints under Article 3 of the Convention.   © 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