CEDH · PRESS;CHAMBERJUDGMENTS;ENG — 14 décembre 2006

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s40F41F73 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s653E6C45 { font-family:Arial; font-size:6.67pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .s6B505E72 { margin:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .sD711EC90 { margin-left:31.52pt; padding-left:7.48pt; font-family:serif } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .sADADF4A7 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline } .sC7EAD8B { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left } .s2EB42ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:10pt } EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS   787 14.12.2006   Press release issued by the Registrar   CHAMBER JUDGMENT TARARIYEVA v. RUSSIA   The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing its Chamber judgment [1] in the case of Tarariyeva v. Russia (application no. 4353/03).   The Court held unanimously that there had been: a violation of Article 2 (right to life) of the European Convention on Human Rights on account of the Russian authorities’ failure to protect the applicant’s son’s right to life; a violation of Article 2 of the Convention on account of the Russian authorities’ failure to determine the cause of death of the applicant’s son and to bring those responsible to account; a violation of Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment) on account of the applicant’s son’s handcuffing; a violation of Article 3 on account of the conditions of transport of the applicant’s son from the civilian to the prison hospital.   The Court held by six votes to one that the allegation of hindrance of the right of individual petition (Article 34) had not been made out.   Under Article 41 (just satisfaction), the Court awarded the applicant 25,000 euros (EUR) for non-pecuniary damage and EUR 100 for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in English.)   1.     Principal facts   The applicant, Nadezhda Dmitriyevna Tarariyeva, is a Russian national who was born in 1946 and lives in Krasnodar Region (Russia). She is the mother of Nikolay Ivanovich Tarariyev, a Russian national who was born in 1976 and died on 4 September 2002.   On 6 April 2000 Mr Tarariyev was convicted of grievous bodily harm and sentenced to six years' imprisonment to be served at the correctional facility no. UO-68/9 in the town of Khadyzhensk of the Krasnodar Region (the Khadyzhensk colony).   In January 2001 he fell ill and was taken into hospital. He was diagnosed with an acute ulcer and prescribed medicines. He was later taken to Treatment and Prevention Institution no. 5 (14) (the prison hospital) where he received further treatment. On his return to the Khadyzhensk colony, he was examined and diagnosed with chronic gastroduodenitis. Certain medicines and vitamins were prescribed.   Following a new round of criminal proceedings, on 19 April 2002 Mr Tarariyev was sentenced to six years' imprisonment and sent back to the Khadyzhensk colony. According to the applicant, upon his arrival all medicines were taken away from him and no medical assistance was provided.   On 20 August 2002, after complaining about acute pain, he was diagnosed as having a perforated duodenal ulcer and peritonitis and operated on at the Apsheronsk PublicHospital.   The applicant maintained that her son’s left hand was shackled with handcuffs to the hospital bed when she visited. In support of her statements she produced a written affidavit by a friend of hers, who had also visited. (The applicant later complained to the Court that the regional prosecutor’s office had twice formally questioned her friend about that affidavit.)   On 22 August 2002 Mr Tarariyev was diagnosed with a breakdown of sutures in the duodenum, duodenal fistula and peritonitis. He was discharged from Apsheronsk Hospital and transported by prison van to the prison hospital, 120 km from Apsheronsk.   After undergoing further surgery at the prison hospital, on 4 September 2002 the applicant died. An autopsy established that the death had been caused by acute anaemia (blood loss) provoked by massive gastrointestinal haemorrhaging.   On 19 February 2003 the Apsheronsk district prosecutor issued a decision to initiate a criminal investigation into the actions of medical specialists of Apsheronsk Hospital.   On 21 May 2003 charges were brought under Article 109 § 2 of the Criminal Code (negligent manslaughter resulting from incompetent performance of professional duties) against the doctors of Apsheronsk Hospital and the prison hospital. The case against the doctors of the prison hospital was subsequently referred for investigation to the Krasnodar Regional Prosecutor and then abandoned for the lack of indications of a criminal offence. The head of the surgery department was put on trial.   On 30 September 2003 Apsheronsk District Court of the Kransodar Region acquitted the head of the surgery department for lack of evidence. The judgment said nothing about the applicant's civil claim.   On 5 November 2003 the Adygheya Republic prosecutor office reported to the applicant that an additional inquiry into the actions of the staff of the prison hospital had been carried out but no negligence on their part could be established.     2.     Procedure and composition of the Court   The application was lodged with the European Court of Human Rights on 4 December 2002 and declared partly admissible on 11   October 2005.   Judgment was given by a Chamber of seven judges, composed as follows:   Peer Lorenzen (Danish), President , Snejana Botoucharova (Bulgarian), Karel Jungwiert (Czech), Rait Maruste (Estonian), Anatoli Kovler (Russian), Javier Borrego Borrego (Spanish), Renate Jaeger (German), judges , and also Claudia Westerdiek , Section Registrar .   3.     Summary of the judgment [2]   Complaints   The applicant complained that her son had died in custody as a result of inadequate and defective medical assistance and that those responsible had not been identified and punished. She also complained about the lack of medicines during her son’s detention at the Khadyzhensk colony, his handcuffing at Apsheronsk Hospital, and the conditions of his transport from Apsheronsk Hospital to the prison hospital. She further complained that her witness had been summoned to the prosecutor’s office and interviewed in connection with her application to the Court.   She relied on Articles 2, 3, 13 and 34 of the Convention.   Decision of the Court   Article 2   Failure of the Russian authorities to protect Mr Tarariyev’s right to life The Court noted that for more than two years preceding his death, Mr Tarariyev had been in detention and the custodial authorities had been fully aware of his health problems. There was no consistency in his medical records, most of which were either mislaid or incomplete. At the Khadyzhensk colony he was not properly examined and did not receive any medical treatment. Although he was promptly transferred to a public hospital, the surgery performed was defective. The doctors of the Apsheronsk hospital authorised his discharge to the prison hospital in full knowledge of the post-operative complications requiring immediate further surgery. They also withheld crucial details of Mr Tarariyev's surgery and developing complications. The prison hospital staff treated him as an ordinary post-operative patient rather than an emergency case with the consequence that surgery was performed too late. Furthermore, the prison hospital was not adequately equipped for dealing with massive blood loss.   The Court found that the existence of a causal link between the defective medical assistance administered to Mr   Tarariyev and his death was confirmed by the domestic medical experts and was not disputed by the Russian Government. Accordingly, the Court found that there had therefore been a violation of Article 2 on account of the Russian authorities' failure to protect Mr Tarariyev's right to life.   Adequacy of the investigation The Court found that the criminal investigation was slow and its scope was restricted, leaving out many crucial aspects of the events. The applicant's right to effective participation in the investigation was not secured because she was not properly informed about the procedural decisions taken in the case. The prosecution had poorly prepared the evidentiary basis for the trial which ended in the acquittal of the suspect. Following the failure of the criminal proceedings the applicant did not have at her disposal an accessible and effective civil-law remedy, either because a civil claim was barred by operation of law or because it had no chances of success in the light of the existing judicial practice.   The Court held that there had been a violation of Article 2 on account of the Russian authorities' failure to discharge their positive obligation to determine, in an adequate and comprehensive manner, the cause of death of Mr Tarariyev and to bring those responsible to account.   Article 13   The Court also considered that no separate examination of the same issue from the standpoint of Article 13 was necessary.   Article 3   Mr Tarariyev’s handcuffing at Apsheronsk Hospital The Court noted that it was not in dispute that Mr Tarariyev had not presented any danger of absconding or causing self-harm or injury to others. He was attached to the bed on the day after complex internal surgery. He was on a drip and could not stand up unaided. It also appeared from a witness’s detailed deposition that a police officer armed with a submachine gun was present in Mr Tarariyev's room and two other officers remained on guard outside the room. In those circumstances, the Court considered that the use of handcuffs was disproportionate to the needs of security.   Having regard to Mr Tarariyev's state of health, to the absence of any cause to fear that he represented a security risk and to the constant supervision by armed police officers, the Court found that the use of restraints in those conditions amounted to inhuman treatment. It therefore held that there had been a violation of Article 3 on account of Mr Tarariyev's handcuffing at the civilian hospital.   Conditions of Mr Tarariyev’s transport to the prison hospital The Court concluded from the parties’ submissions that the vehicle at issue was designed for the transport of detainees rather than post-operative patients. It was not an ambulance or any other type of hospital vehicle. A stretcher on wheels was used to bring Mr Tarariyev to the vehicle, and inside the vehicle he was placed on padded mattresses. The distance between the civilian and prison hospitals being more than one hundred kilometres, Mr Tarariyev was transported for more than two hours in those conditions.   The Court further noted that Mr Tarariyev's state of health was extremely worrying. He had had internal surgery merely two days beforehand and on the day of transport he was diagnosed with a breakdown of sutures, a condition requiring further surgical intervention. As the medical experts subsequently found, Mr Tarariyev had been “unfit for transport”. In those circumstances, the presence of a medical nurse could not compensate for the inadequate conditions of transport.   Having regard to Mr Tarariyev's serious condition, the duration of the journey and the detrimental impact on his state of health, the Court considered that the transport of Mr Tarariyev in a standard-issue prison van must have considerably contributed to his suffering and therefore amounted to inhuman treatment. It therefore held that there had been a violation of Article 3 on account of the conditions of Mr Tarariyev's transport.   Article 34   In the particular circumstances of the applicant’s case, the Court found that the questioning of the applicant’s witness did not amount to pressure, intimidation or harassment which might have induced the applicant to withdraw or modify her application or hindered her in any other way in the exercise of her right of individual petition.   Consequently, it held that the Russian State did not fail to comply with its obligations under Article 34 of the Convention.     Judge Borrego Borrego expressed a dissenting opinion, which is annexed to the judgment.   ***   The Court’s judgments are accessible on its Internet site ( http://www.echr.coe.int ).   Press contacts Emma Hellyer (telephone: 00 33 (0)3 90 21 42 15) Stéphanie Klein (telephone: 00 33 (0)3 88 41 21 54) Beverley Jacobs (telephone: 00 33 (0)3 90 21 54 21)   The European Court of Human Rights was set up in Strasbourg by the Council of Europe Member States in 1959 to deal with alleged violations of the 1950 European Convention on Human Rights.     [1] Under Article 43 of the European Convention on Human Rights, within three months from the date of a Chamber judgment, any party to the case may, in exceptional cases, request that the case be referred to the 17 ‑ member Grand Chamber of the Court. In that event, a panel of five judges considers whether the case raises a serious question affecting the interpretation or application of the Convention or its protocols, or a serious issue of general importance, in which case the Grand Chamber will deliver a final judgment. If no such question or issue arises, the panel will reject the request, at which point the judgment becomes final. Otherwise Chamber judgments become final on the expiry of the three-month period or earlier if the parties declare that they do not intend to make a request to refer. [2] This summary by the Registry does not bind the Court.