CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 13 juillet 2006

.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 } .s9FF10068 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt } .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. 88 July-August 2006 Popov v. Russia - 26853/04 Judgment 13.7.2006 [Section I] Article 3 Degrading treatment Inhuman treatment Conditions of detention and lack of medical assistance: violations   Article 6 Article 6-3-d Examination of witnesses Court’s refusal to hear defence witnesses despite earlier granting of motions to that effect: violation   Article 34 Hinder the exercise of the right of petition Prisoner intimidated by illicit pressure from State officials: failure to comply with obligations under Article   34   Facts :In the context of a murder enquiry the applicant took part in an identification parade where he was identified by two of four schoolboys who had not been eyewitnesses to the murder. In May 2002 he was charged with murder and transferred the next day to remand prison SIZO 77/1 in Moscow. In June 2002 his lawyer filed a complaint with the prosecutor concerning the conduct of the investigation. He alleged, among other things, that the identification parade had been in breach of procedural requirements and that no steps had been taken to verify the applicant’s alibi. The prosecutor’s allowed the applicant’s representative motion to have examined as witnesses Mrs R. the applicant’s neighbour, and Mr   Kh., a carpenter working at his flat. Their testimonies, however, were never heard. In 2003 the applicant was convicted of murder and sentenced to ten years’ imprisonment. Apart from the conflicting account given by the schoolboys, the court relied on other evidence such as the victim’s post-mortem reports, crime scene and various other reports without, however, explaining how those items had proved the applicant’s guilt. Since 1994 the applicant has been suffering from cancer of the urinary bladder. In 1999 he underwent a resection of the cancerous tumour and subsequent chemotherapy. While the applicant was in the medical unit of the remand prison, it was recommended that he be examined by an uro-oncologist and undergo a cystoscopy. The examination was scheduled a number of times but did not take place because he had to attend court hearings that coincided with the medical appointments. The applicant was discharged from the medical unit in March 2003. From February to March 2004 the applicant was held in YaCh-91/5 prison in Sarapul. Owing to the constant pain in his loins and stomach he refused to perform certain compulsory work in the prison and consequently was kept in various disciplinary cells. While he was in the prison he underwent certain laboratory tests and an ultrasound scan. On 1 September 2005, under Rule   39 of the Rules of Court, the European Court indicated to the Government that they should secure an independent medical examination of the applicant in a specialised uro-oncological institution. On 16   September 2005 the applicant was examined by an uro-oncologist and underwent a cystoscopy. He was recommended dispensary supervision and a cystoscopy once a year. Law : Article   3 – Conditions of detention in the remand prison – Medical assistance :Having regard to the medical documents before it, the Court concluded that the minimum scope of medical supervision required for the applicant’s condition included regular examinations by an uro-oncologist and a cystoscopy at least once a year. However, neither of these had been carried out during the applicant’s detention which had lasted one year and nine months. The applicant had not therefore been provided with the medical assistance required for his condition. In addition, Dr M. had not been provided with the information concerning the neoplasm detected by the ultrasound scan which had made it impossible for him to make an accurate diagnosis of the applicant’s condition and recommend appropriate treatment. Since his operation in 1994 the applicant had been well informed about his medical condition and the risks associated with it. He had been informed that in case of further development of the cancer, any delay in diagnosis could have fatal consequences as even surgical treatment would no longer be possible. This must have caused him considerable anxiety, especially as he was aware of a neoplasm in his prostate detected by an ultrasound scan and could not have recourse to a qualified specialist for a conclusive diagnosis. Material conditions of the detention on remand :Both parties agreed that the cells in which the applicant had been detained had been overpopulated. Apart from the periods when he had been placed in the medical unit, at any given time there had been 0.9 to 2.34 sq. m of space per inmate in his cell and he had been confined to his cell for more than 23 hours a day. The fact that he had been obliged to live, sleep, and use the toilet in the same cell with so many other inmates had been in itself sufficient to cause distress or hardship of an intensity exceeding the unavoidable level of suffering inherent in detention, and arouse in him the feelings of fear, anguish and inferiority capable of humiliating and debasing him. In sum, the applicant’s conditions of detention combined with the length of time for which he had been held and his state of health, exacerbated by the failure to provide him with adequate medical assistance, had amounted to inhuman and degrading treatment. Conclusion : violation (unanimously). Conditions of detention in the second prison – Medical assistance :The applicant had been examined by an uro-oncologist and had undergone a cystoscopy a year and a half after his admission to the prison and only after such an examination had been ordered by the Court under Rule 39. Furthermore, from his medical file it should have been clear to the prison doctors that he had not undergone the required examination for the preceding one year and nine months of his detention in the remand prison. That should have prompted the prison authorities to make adequate medical arrangements without undue delay. The applicant had not therefore been provided with the medical assistance required for his condition. Material conditions of detention :The applicant had spent over a month of his detention in disciplinary cells which measured from 2.03 sq. m to 3 sq. The cells had been equipped in particular with collapsible bunk beds and two narrow benches without backs. Since the bunk beds had only been unfolded for seven hours a day, the applicant, who regularly had complained about pain in his loins and had been diagnosed by the prison doctors as having a number of urological diseases, had to remain in his cell for 23 hours a day, out of which for 16 hours he had been practically confined to a narrow bench with no back. In conclusion, the applicant’s conditions of detention in this prison as well, combined with the time he had spent therein and his physical condition, exacerbated by the failure to provide him with the requisite medical assistance for his condition, had amounted to inhuman and degrading treatment. Conclusion : violation (unanimously). Article   6 – In refusing to examine two defence witnesses the trial court had not considered whether their statements could have been important for the examination of the case. However, from the fact that the defence’s previous motions to have them examined had been formally granted a number of times both during the preliminary investigation and the court proceedings, it followed that the domestic authorities had agreed that their statements could have been relevant. Taking into account that the applicant’s conviction had been founded upon conflicting evidence against him, the domestic courts’ refusal to examine the defence witnesses without any regard to the relevance of their statements had limited the defence rights in a manner incompatible with the guarantees of a fair trial enshrined in Article   6. Conclusion :violation of Article   6(3)(d) in conjunction with Article   6(1) (unanimously). Article   34 – The Court reiterated that it was of the utmost importance that applicants or potential applicants should be able to communicate freely with the Court without being subjected to any form of pressure from the authorities to withdraw or modify their complaints. The applicant had been contacted a number of times by State officials with regard to his complaints concerning various aspects of the conditions of his detention in YaCh-91/5 prison and his allegations of having received threats from the officials of the prison administration. The Court found it unacceptable that the applicant had been contacted by officials of the very same prison administration and that such contacts, moreover, had occurred repeatedly. The applicant must have felt intimidated as a result of those contacts, especially as he had been detained and would have to remain in the prison for a lengthy period, which might give rise to a legitimate fear of reprisals. Such contacts had constituted illicit pressure amounting to undue interference with the applicant’s right of individual petition. Conclusion : failure by the Government to comply with its obligations under Article   34 not to hinder the effective exercise of the right of individual petition (unanimously). Article   41 – EUR 25,000 for non-pecuniary damage.   © 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