CEDH · PRESS;CHAMBERJUDGMENTS;ENG — 7 février 2008

.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 } .s1C7BEF1E { margin-left:28.52pt; 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   90 7.2.2008   Press release issued by the Registrar   CHAMBER JUDGMENT MECHENKOV v. RUSSIA   The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing its Chamber judgment [1] in the case of Mechenkov v. Russia (application no. 35421/05).   The Court held unanimously that there had been: a violation of Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment) of the European Convention on Human Rights on account of the inadequate medical assistance provided to Mr Mechenkov while in detention; a failure to comply with Article 34 (right of individual petition) on account of the Russian authorities’ attempts to discuss with Mr Mechenkov his application to the European Court of Human Rights and their opening of his correspondence; and, no failure to comply with Article 34 on account of the disciplinary sanctions imposed on the applicant.   Under Article 41 (just satisfaction) of the Convention, the Court awarded the applicant 5,000   euros (EUR) in respect of non-pecuniary damage. (The judgment is available only in English.)   1.     Principal facts   The applicant, Aleksandr Mechenkov, is a Russian national who was born in 1957. He is currently serving a prison sentence in correctional facility IK-18 Novosibirsk (Russia). He suffers from tuberculosis and chronic hepatitis C.   The case concerned, in particular, the applicant’s allegation of inadequate medical treatment when in prison hospital LIU-10 in Novosibirsk.   Between April 1993 and August 2000 Mr Mechenkov served his first prison sentence during which he was diagnosed with and treated for tuberculosis.   On 28 October 2001 Mr Mechenkov was arrested on charges of inflicting bodily harm. He was subsequently convicted and sentenced to eight years’ imprisonment, later reduced to seven years. He has since been detained in various prisons in Novosibirsk with periods of detention in prison hospital LIU-10, including that hospital’s specialised tuberculosis unit.   Mr Mechenkov alleged that he was infected with hepatitis C following his arrest in October 2001 as he had had medical check-ups in August 2000 and October 2001 which had not revealed any sign of the virus. He further claimed that he was not provided with adequate medical treatment in LIU-10 and, in April 2006, was even put at risk of further infection by being held with inmates suffering from active tuberculosis and hepatitis   A.   The Government denied the applicant’s allegations. The applicant was not given medical tests for hepatitis C when arrested and placed in custody because, on examination, he had shown no signs of the illness. Furthermore, hepatitis C tests were not mandatory in prisons at that time. A medical record of 18 December 2003 mentioned that the applicant had hepatitis of unknown origin but his diagnosis with chronic hepatitis was first confirmed by a blood test on 29 November 2004. In any event, the absence of acute hepatitis proved that the infection with the virus had occurred before the applicant’s imprisonment. He was provided with palliative care, blood monitoring and therapeutic control. The applicant was repeatedly transferred to LIU-10 not on account of hepatitis C but tuberculosis, for which, from 1996, he was regularly prescribed hepatotoxic anti-tuberculosis treatment. To corroborate those denials, the Government submitted a number of documents concerning the applicant’s medical history. However, it could not provide records concerning the applicant’s hepatitis after 25 October 2005 or files from 10 June 1996 to 28 May 1998 as they had been destroyed.   The applicant further claimed that, following his application to the European Court of Human Rights, LIU-10 staff regularly obliged him to have meetings to discuss the contents of his sealed letters to the Court. He refused, however, to disclose any information or accept help with his application. He also alleged that his correspondence with the Court was interfered with on a regular basis and that he had repeated disciplinary sanctions imposed on him.   The Government admitted that LIU-10 officials had discussed the applicant’s complaints to the Strasbourg Court on ten occasions but that their sole intention had been to help the applicant resolve questions he might have had and to protect his rights and interests. It denied that any letters were opened or censored. The applicant had been confined to a punishment cell 15 times and reprimanded nine times, not in retaliation for his application, but because he had breached prison rules.   2.     Procedure and composition of the Court   The application was lodged with the European Court of Human Rights on 18 August 2005.   Judgment was given by a Chamber of seven judges, composed as follows:   Christos Rozakis (Greek), President , Loukis Loucaides (Cypriot), Nina Vajić (Croatian), Anatoli Kovler (Russian), Elisabeth Steiner (Austrian), Khanlar Hajiyev (Azerbaijani), Dean Spielmann (Luxemburger), judges , and also Søren Nielsen , Section Registrar .   3.     Summary of the judgment [2]   Complaints   Relying on Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman and degrading treatment), the applicant alleged that he was infected with hepatitis C after his imprisonment in October 2001; was not provided with adequate medical treatment; and, was put at risk of further infection by being held with inmates suffering from active tuberculosis and hepatitis A. He further alleged that, following his application to the Court, he was intimidated by officials of the prison hospital LIU-10 and his correspondence with the Court was interfered with, in breach of Article   34 (right of individual petition).   Decision of the Court   Article 3   As the applicant had not submitted any medical evidence to prove that he had had a specific blood test for hepatitis C before his incarceration in October 2001 and ordinary medical check-ups were not sufficient to identify the virus, the Court concluded that his allegations relating to the date of his infection had been based on speculation and assumption. Russia could not therefore be held responsible for the applicant’s infection with hepatitis C.   As concerned the applicant’s allegation that he had been put at risk of further infection of tuberculosis and hepatitis C, the Court noted that he had not provided any evidence to support that allegation, in particular written statements by inmates who had suffered from active tuberculosis or hepatitis A.   The Court therefore declared unanimously that those parts of the applicant’s complaints were inadmissible.   Concerning inadequate medical assistance   The Court decided that it was crucial to determine whether the Russian authorities had provided the applicant with minimum medical supervision to diagnosis promptly and treat his illnesses.   From 1996 the applicant had been regularly prescribed and given hepatotoxic anti-tuberculosis treatment, known to cause liver damage. The minimum level of medical supervision for the applicant’s condition could therefore have included regular blood tests for hepatitis, even if such tests had not been mandatory.   Regrettably, the Government had not produced a copy of the applicant’s entire medical file and had not explained why. It had provided copies of a few documents, some barely legible and most only concerning the applicant’s tuberculosis. Information relating to the treatment given to the applicant for hepatitis C was scant. Indeed, the applicant’s medical records concerning hepatitis after 25 October 2005 were unavailable and records from 10 June 1996 to 28 May 1998 had been destroyed. It followed that the Government had disregarded the opportunity to support their submissions with evidence to which only they had access.   Even the evidence which had been provided to the Court did not establish the exact date on which the applicant had been diagnosed with chronic hepatitis C. More than 11 months had elapsed between the moment when the applicant’s hepatitis had been mentioned for the first time in his medical records and the date when the first blood test had been carried out to confirm the diagnosis. The Court could not therefore conclude that the applicant had been promptly diagnosed with chronic hepatitis C.   Furthermore, the medical documents provided did not confirm whether the applicant had received any antiviral treatment following the applicant’s diagnosis with chronic hepatitis C and no detailed description had been given of the applicant’s blood monitoring and dynamic therapeutic control. Moreover, the Government had not provided information as to whether the applicant had ever been examined by a hepatologist, which would have been at least reasonable considering the hepatotoxic treatment for tuberculosis.   The Court inferred from the Government’s failure to submit copies of relevant medical documents that the applicant had not received adequate medical assistance in detention for chronic hepatitis C after 25 October 2005. It therefore concluded that the applicant had not been provided with the minimum level of medical supervision for prompt diagnosis and treatment of hepatitis C while in detention and had not received the medical assistance required for his condition, which had amounted to inhuman and degrading treatment, in violation of Article 3.   Article 34   Conversations with LIU-10 Officials The Court noted that the LIU-10 authorities had regularly held meetings with the applicant to discuss the contents of his sealed letters to the Court. The Court was not convinced that the aim of those meetings had been to help the applicant as, from the outset, he had made it plain that he had not needed their assistance.   On the contrary, Mr Mechenkov, whose health and well-being had largely depended on the staff at LIU-10, might have been discouraged by such conversations from pursuing his application before the Court, which had mainly concerned the quality of the medical assistance at LIU-10.   The Court considered that the applicant had to have felt intimidated by the repeated conversations against his will with the LIU-10 officials and could have experienced a legitimate fear of reprisals. The conversations had therefore constituted illicit pressure and had unduly interfered with the applicant’s right of individual petition, in violation of Article 34.   Opening of applicant’s correspondence The Court emphasised that, under Russian domestic law, detainees’ correspondence with the Court was not subject to censorship. The Court noted, however, that at least five of its letters to the applicant had been stamped as regular incoming mail on arrival at LIU-10. The Government had not put forward any explanation as to the origin of those stamps. The mere fact that those letters had been opened gave rise to the reasonable suspicion that the applicant’s correspondence with the Court had been censored by the authorities, in breach of domestic law and Article 34.   Sanctions imposed on the applicant The Court was satisfied with the Government’s explanations regarding the grounds for the disciplinary sanctions imposed on the applicant and found that there was no evidence to suggest that the LIU-10 authorities had intended to punish the applicant for his complaint to the Court when he had been confined to a disciplinary cell or reprimanded. Consequently, it found that those sanctions had not amounted to a hindrance of the applicant’s right to individual petition under Article 34. ***   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) Tracey Turner-Tretz (telephone: 00 33 (0)3 88 41 35 30) Paramy Chanthalangsy (telephone: 00 33 (0)3 90 21 54 91)   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 Convention, 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.