Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-3 - Length of pre-trial detention)

NORP The list of applicants and the relevant details of the applications are set out in the appended table .

The applicants complained of the excessive length of their pre - trial detention . Some applicants also raised other complaints under the provisions of the Convention .


Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading treatment;Inhuman treatment) (Substantive aspect)

Johannes Silvis;Josep Casadevall;Kristina Pardalos;Luis López Guerra

The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE .

DATE the applicant worked as the executive director of ORG ( hereafter , the ORG ) .

On DATE the prosecutor decided to institute criminal proceedings under paragraph CARDINAL of Article CARDINAL of the former Criminal Code ( hereafter , the former ORG ) on account of abuse of official capacity by the former management of the ORG through embezzlement of funds entrusted to it in DATE by another company . It appears that at the material time the applicant worked as an advisor to the chamber of control of the NORP parliament .

On DATE the applicant was arrested on suspicion of largescale embezzlement , abuse of official capacity and official falsification under paragraph CARDINAL of Article CARDINAL , paragraph CARDINAL of Article CARDINAL and LAW .

On DATE the applicant was formally charged under paragraph CARDINAL of Article CARDINAL , paragraph CARDINAL of Article CARDINAL and LAW ORG with embezzlement through abuse of his official capacity and official falsification through preparation and use of false accounting documents during his office as the executive director of ORG , causing damage to the ORG and its clients . It appears that CARDINAL other persons were also charged with involvement in these or related crimes .

On DATE the GPE and ORG of GPE granted the investigator ’s application to have the applicant placed in pre - trial detention for DATE . The applicant alleged that during the hearing his lawyer had requested the court not to impose detention as a preventive measure , due to the applicant ’s poor health . The applicant ’s detention was subsequently extended by ORG on CARDINAL occasions until DATE .

On DATE a group of CARDINAL members of ORG applied to the Prosecutor General requesting that the applicant ’s detention be replaced by another preventive measure in view of , inter alia , the applicant ’s poor health .

On DATE ORG addressed a letter to ORG , stating that the applicant ’s release was not possible since he had committed a grave crime and had refused to return embezzled funds .

On DATE a new Criminal Code ( hereafter , the new ORG ) entered into force in GPE .

On DATE the charges against the applicant were adapted to the new ORG and he was formally charged under LAW ( CARDINAL ) , LAW § CARDINAL and LAW ORG .

On DATE the GPE and ORG of GPE found the applicant guilty under LAW ( CARDINAL ) and LAW ORG . In particular , the applicant was found to have executed a number of financial operations involving bonds and fixed assets , the proceeds of which he embezzled . ORG sentenced the applicant to six years’ imprisonment without confiscation of property under LAW ( CARDINAL ) and terminated the proceedings under LAW by applying a statute of limitations with reference to LAW ORG ) .

On DATE the applicant lodged an appeal .

On DATE the Criminal and Military Court of Appeal decided to uphold the judgment of ORG . ORG found , inter alia , that :

“ The first instance court , considering [ the applicant ’s ] ... guilt in preparing and using false documents to be substantiated , rightly terminated the proceedings under LAW of [ the ORG ] on the ground envisaged by LAW ( CARDINAL ) of [ the ORG ] . ”

On DATE the applicant lodged an appeal on points of law . In his appeal he argued , inter alia , that Article CARDINAL of the new ORG should not have been applied to his case because documents of commercial organisations could not be considered “ official ” . He should therefore have been penalised under LAW ORG instead .

On DATE ORG dismissed the applicant ’s appeal . ORG found , inter alia , that :

“ Documents to which public authorities give legal significance are considered official . Official documents may be issued both by public authorities , their officials and bodies of local self - government , and by legal entities , commercial and other types of organisations . Such documents as credit or other financial documents drawn up by commercial banks can also be considered as [ official documents ] , since they also have legal significance ... ”

On DATE the applicant was transferred to PERSON detention facility .

On DATE the applicant was examined at the facility ’s medical unit and diagnosed as having a throat tumour . He also complained of a sore throat , loss of voice and chest pain .

On DATE the applicant was examined by an external doctor who recommended that the applicant be examined by an otolaryngology specialist .

On DATE the applicant was examined by an otolaryngology specialist who confirmed the diagnosis of a throat tumour . In order to determine the nature of the tumour , the doctor recommended : ( a ) a biopsy to be carried out ; ( b ) computer tomography of the throat ; and ( c ) further examination and treatment .

On DATE the applicant , apparently in reaction to the medication that he was taking , showed symptoms of anaphylactic shock such as urticaria , coldness of extremities , severe shivering and a drop in blood pressure to CARDINAL followed by loss of consciousness . First aid was provided by the detention facility ’s medical unit and an ambulance was called . It appears that thereafter the applicant continued to experience symptoms of allergy such as face and body swelling , itching and blood pressure fluctuations .

On DATE an external allergy specialist was called who diagnosed the applicant as suffering from ORG oedema , pollinosis and an atypical form of bronchial asthma .

On DATE the applicant ’s condition drastically deteriorated . He experienced laboured breathing , facial swelling , drop in blood pressure to CARDINAL , swelling of extremities and ORG ’s oedema . First aid was provided .

On DATE the applicant was examined by a psychiatrist . The applicant complained of low spirits , irritability , insomnia and tachycardia , as well as recurring headaches , chest pains and high blood pressure due to frequent emotional stress . From that day on the applicant remained under the psychiatrist ’s regular supervision , during which it was found that the applicant was suffering from depression , fits of anger , irritability , insomnia , headaches , chest pains , tension and anxiety .

On DATE the applicant was examined by prison doctor PERSON , who noted his complaints of haemoptysis , hoarseness and a weakened swallowing reflex . The applicant was also observed to suffer increased pallor and significant weight loss . It appears that these symptoms continued from DATE on .

On DATE the applicant was examined by prison doctor PERSON , who noted his complaints of skin rash and itching and shortness of breath , which were apparently caused by emotional stress . Medication was prescribed .

On DATE the applicant complained to prison doctor N. of asthenia , hoarseness and a cough which turned into asphyxia .

The applicant alleges that on or around DATE he was informed that he was going to be transferred from the detention facility ’s medical unit to an ordinary cell . The applicant refused to be transferred , referring to his poor health , so he was moved to a punishment cell for DATE . On TIME in the punishment cell he was not given blankets or bed linen . On TIME the applicant ’s health deteriorated and he experienced laboured breathing , asphyxia attacks and high blood pressure . The applicant asked the guard to call the feldsher ( doctor ’s assistant ) . When the feldsher arrived , he was unable to enter the punishment cell because it was locked and the guard did not have the key . It took TIME to find the key after the feldsher protested . On TIME the applicant was transferred back to the medical unit .

On DATE the applicant ’s health deteriorated . According to his medical card , his allergy worsened at TIME and he fell into a collaptoid state . The applicant complained of a cough , itchy skin and nose , shortness of breath , asphyxia attacks , and swelling of the face and lips .

On DATE a cardiologist was invited to examine the applicant , who complained of severe chest pain , headache and shortness of breath . His blood pressure rose to CARDINAL .

It appears that from DATE to DATE the applicant continued to show all of the above symptoms at regular medical checkups .

On DATE and DATE an ambulance was called as the applicant showed symptoms of stenocardia and hypertension . His blood pressure rose to CARDINAL .

On DATE the applicant was examined by a specialist and was advised , inter alia , to undergo an endoscopic examination of the throat and biopsy of the tumour .

By a letter of CARDINAL DATE the acting chief of GPE detention facility and the head of its medical unit informed ORG that the applicant had made numerous complaints about his health , including asthenia , loss of weight , voice hoarsening and haemoptysis . After an examination by specialists of ORG , the applicant was diagnosed as having a throat tumour . The applicant therefore needed to be examined in a specialised clinic of ORG .

On an unspecified date in DATE the applicant was examined by an external doctor who noted that , in order to reach a final diagnosis concerning the applicant ’s throat tumour , he needed to undergo computer tomography or a magnetic resonance imaging ( MRI ) scan .

On DATE prison doctor PERSON informed ORG that the applicant was unable to participate in the hearing to take place on DATE because he was suffering from ORG oedema .

The Government alleged , which the applicant disputed , that in DATE the doctor suggested that the applicant be transferred to a specialised establishment for treatment , but the applicant refused .

On an unspecified date in DATE the applicant experienced a rash , skin and nose itch , cough and laboured breathing followed by asphyxia and loss of consciousness . His face and lips were swollen . An ambulance was called and first aid was provided . The diagnosis of ORG oedema , pollinosis and an atypical form of bronchial asthma was confirmed .

On DATE the applicant was provided with first aid after showing the following symptoms : severe headaches , dizziness , chest pain , shortness of breath and a disruption in coordination of movements . He further experienced persistent dizziness , facial swelling and excessive sweating . The applicant was diagnosed with hypertensive crisis and an acute disturbance of cerebral blood circulation of the vertebrobasilar area .

By a letter of CARDINAL DATE the chief of GPE detention facility and the head of its medical unit informed ORG that the applicant had recently been showing symptoms of hoarseness , haemoptysis and asthenia , and that it was impossible to conduct a proper examination at the detention facility ’s medical unit . They requested the court to allow the applicant ’s transfer to ORG in order to carry out a specialised examination , to clarify the diagnosis and to decide on further treatment . ORG granted this permission .

On DATE the applicant was examined by an otolaryngologist at FAC . A tumour on the vocal cords was diagnosed and he was advised to undergo surgical treatment and a biopsy of the tumour was recommended .

By a letter of DATE the acting chief of ORG detention facility and the head of its medical unit informed the applicant ’s lawyer that the applicant had been admitted for in - patient treatment at the detention facility ’s medical unit with the following complaints : laboured breathing , asphyxia , haemoptysis , voice hoarsening , headache , dizziness and frequent loss of consciousness . Following a number of examinations the applicant was diagnosed as suffering from a throat tumour of unknown nature , allergy of unknown aetiology , ORG oedema and fits of anaphylactic shock . According to the conclusions reached by the specialists of ORG , the applicant needed to undergo specialised instrumental and histological examinations and surgery . Recently the fits of anaphylactic shock and loss of consciousness had become more frequent . The applicant was under permanent medical surveillance and was receiving symptomatic treatment .

By a letter of CARDINAL DATE the acting chief of GPE detention facility and the head of its medical unit informed the applicant ’s lawyer that it was not possible to carry out the required examinations and surgery for the applicant at the detention facility ’s medical unit .

On DATE the applicant ’s lawyer filed an application with ORG , requesting that the applicant be released for health reasons . Copies of the letters of DATE were attached to this application . The applicant alleges that ORG included this application in the case file without ruling on it .

At the hearing of DATE the applicant ’s lawyer filed another application similar to that of DATE . She further requested the court to summon the applicant ’s prison doctor . A copy of the applicant ’s medical record was attached to this application . It appears that ORG decided to postpone the examination of this application in order to establish “ certain essential circumstances ” . The court further requested the applicant ’s lawyer to submit a certified copy of the applicant ’s medical record .

DATE . At the hearing of DATE the applicant announced that he was unable to testify because of his inability to speak and that he would testify in writing . He requested the court to release him because of his poor health . It appears that ORG again decided to postpone the examination of this request in order to establish certain essential circumstances .

At the hearing of DATE prison doctor PERSON was examined in court . The doctor , at the outset , presented details of the diseases suffered by the applicant and the dynamics of their development . He further submitted that all possible treatment had been prescribed but , despite occasional improvements , the applicant ’s condition continued to deteriorate . The antiallergy treatment had yielded no results . The applicant had been examined on numerous occasions by otolaryngology and oncology specialists who had unanimously concluded that the applicant needed examination and treatment in a specialised clinic . There was no possibility to carry out such treatment at the detention facility ’s medical unit , so the applicant received symptomatic treatment . Shortness of breath and asphyxia attacks had become more frequent in DATE and DATE and were accompanied by coughing and haemoptysis leading to loss of consciousness . The applicant had been resuscitated on several occasions but the growth of the tumour could result in respiratory obstruction causing the applicant ’s death , which could occur in a matter of TIME . Doctor PERSON recommended the applicant ’s immediate transfer to a specialised clinic in order to eliminate the risk of death . He further stated that not only GPE detention facility ’s medical unit but the entire penitentiary system lacked the necessary specialists and equipment to carry out a fullscale examination and treatment of the applicant .

At the same hearing the applicant ’s lawyer filed an application requesting the applicant ’s release , which was dismissed by ORG . She further requested the court to examine the previously filed applications concerning the applicant ’s state of health . It appears that ORG again decided to postpone the examination of these applications , stating that the information at its disposal was not sufficient to resolve the question of detention .

It appears that during that period the applicant refused to be transferred to a specialised clinic . He alleged that his refusal was motivated by the fact that no assurances had been given to him that the required surgery would actually be performed , since another transfer to an outside clinic without such surgery would have been useless and would only have aggravated his condition .

On DATE the applicant was transferred to the otolaryngology department of ORG because of a drastic deterioration in his health . The applicant underwent another examination and was diagnosed with chronic laryngotracheitis and malignisation of the tumour . An urgent in - patient examination and surgical treatment in a specialised clinic were recommended .

At the hearing of CARDINAL DATE the applicant was unable to finish his testimony because of his inability to speak and the hearing was adjourned .

By a letter of CARDINAL DATE the chief of GPE detention facility informed the head of ORG of ORG that , based on the results of the relevant medical examinations , the conclusions of specialists and the progressive nature of the applicant ’s disease , he needed to undergo urgent surgery in a specialised clinic , as the tumour was growing and could cause respiratory obstruction .

At the hearing of DATE the applicant ’s lawyer filed another application with ORG seeking to have the applicant released because of his poor health . A certified copy of the applicant ’s medical record and a copy of the results of the examination of DATE were attached to this application . ORG dismissed this application on the ground that the examination of the case was in its final stage and there were no relevant documents , such as an expert opinion , justifying the need to carry out the applicant ’s urgent examination and treatment in a specialised clinic .

By a letter of CARDINAL DATE the chief of ORG detention facility and the head of its medical unit informed ORG that the applicant had been examined by specialists at ORG and it had been established that his throat tumour had grown and that he was in need of urgent surgery . They requested the applicant ’s transfer to ORG for surgery . ORG granted this request .

On DATE the head of the detention facility ’s medical unit informed ORG that the applicant was unable to participate in the hearing to take place on DATE because he was suffering from fits of asphyxia .

On DATE the applicant was transferred to ORG . He was diagnosed as having “ a vocal cord tumour ( C - R ? ) , first degree stenosis and , as accompanying pathologies , nasal septum deviation and chronic hypertrophic rhinitis ” . The applicant was advised to undergo CARDINAL operations . The first operation was scheduled for DATE but was postponed upon the applicant ’s request , as he wished to participate in a court hearing in his case .

On DATE the applicant was examined by a psychiatrist who diagnosed him as suffering from reactive depression accompanied by a phobic syndrome . It appears that the applicant showed symptoms of suicidal thoughts . Administration of tranquillisers was recommended .

On DATE the applicant underwent his first operation . Partial excision of the mucous membrane of the nasal septum and a doublesided inferior and right - side medial conchotomy were performed . The doctors noted that the applicant ’s mental condition prevented the second operation being carried out and advised that it be performed after the applicant ’s general condition had stabilised .

On DATE the applicant was again examined by a psychiatrist , who diagnosed him as suffering from a severe form of depression without mental symptoms . The psychiatrist recommended that treatment be continued and the applicant be kept under strict supervision to prevent possible suicide attempts .

On DATE the applicant ’s lawyer filed an application with ORG requesting the applicant ’s release on , inter alia , health grounds . The applicant alleges that ORG postponed the examination of this request without giving any reasons .

On DATE the applicant underwent his second operation which involved the removal of polyps on the vocal cords . The operation went smoothly but complications , including inflammation of the vocal cords , adhesions and haemorrhage , occurred in the post - operative period .

On DATE the applicant ’s condition had improved , and he was discharged from ORG and transferred back to the detention facility ’s medical unit .

On DATE the applicant was released on parole .


CASE OF KUNIĆ AND OTHERS v. BOSNIA AND HERZEGOVINA

Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Enforcement proceedings;Article 6-1 - Access to court);Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Protection of property (Article 1 para. 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Peaceful enjoyment of possessions);Respondent State to take individual measures (Article 46-2 - Individual measures);Respondent State to take measures of a general character (Article 46-2 - General measures);Pecuniary damage - award (Article 41 - Pecuniary damage;Just satisfaction);Non-pecuniary damage - award (Article 41 - Non-pecuniary damage;Just satisfaction)

Carlo Ranzoni;Ganna Yudkivska;Iulia Motoc;Paulo Pinto De Albuquerque;Vincent A. De Gaetano;Georges Ravarani

By a judgment of ORG of DATE , CARDINAL judgments of ORG of DATE , DATE and CARDINAL DATE and a judgment of ORG of DATE , which became final on CARDINAL DATE , DATE , DATE , DATE and DATE , respectively , the FAC Zeničko - dobojski kanton ; CARDINAL of the CARDINAL cantons of ORG ) was ordered to pay the applicants different sums in respect of unpaid work - related benefits together with default interest at the statutory rate and legal costs .

The writs of execution issued on DATE , DATE , DATE , DATE and DATE , respectively , by ORG and ORG , were transferred to the competent bank and were listed among the charges on the debtor ’s account .

On several occasions thereafter the bank informed the competent courts that enforcement was not possible because the budgetary funds intended for that purpose had already been spent .

On DATE the first applicant , Mr PERSON , complained of the non - enforcement to ORG the LAW ” ) .

On DATE ( decision no . ORG CARDINAL/CARDINAL ) ORG found a violation of LAW No . CARDINAL to the LAW in Mr PERSON ’s and QUANTITY other cases on account of the prolonged non - enforcement of the final judgments in the appellants’ favour . It ordered the government of the LOC to take the necessary steps in order to secure the payment of the cantonal debt arising from the final judgments within a reasonable time .

The relevant part of the decision reads as follows :

“ DATE . ... The court notes that the judgments [ in favour of the appellants ] have not been enforced due to the lack of funds on the debtor ’s bank account .

ORG reiterates that under LAW and LAW all levels of government must secure respect for individual human rights , including the right to enforcement of final judgments under LAW and the right to property under LAW No . CARDINAL to the Convention ... The scope of that obligation is not reduced in the present case , notwithstanding the large number of judgments ... [ T]he ORG notes that in NORP v. ORG , and again in Čolić and Others v. ORG , ORG reiterated that ‘ it is not open to a ORG authority to cite lack of funds as an excuse for not honouring a judgment debt . Admittedly , a delay in the execution of a judgment may be justified in particular circumstances , but the delay may not be such as to impair the essence of the right protected under LAW ...

ORG agrees with the position taken by ORG ... it is nevertheless aware of the effects the global economic crisis had on GPE ... The court notes that the federal and the cantonal governments had taken certain steps with the view to enforcement of final court decisions . LAW DATE provides that the final judgments against the GPE and the cantons shall be enforced within the amount of budgetary funds designated for that purpose ... and that the creditors shall enforce their claims in the order in which they acquired the enforcement titles ... In DATE and DATE the amount of funds for that purpose in the budget of the LOC was MONEY .

The court finds that the crux of the problem in the present case is that the Zenica - Doboj GPE did not identify the exact number of unenforced judgments and the aggregate debt ... without which it is impossible to know when all the creditors will realise their claims against this canton . Furthemore , there should exist a centralised and transparent database of all the claims listed in chronological order according to the time the judgments became final . It should include the enforcement time - frame and a list of partial payments , if any . This will also help to avoid abuses of the enforcement procedure . These measure and adequate funds in the DATE budget would ensure that all the final judgments are enforced within a reasonable time ... and the LOC would ensure the respect of its obligations from LAW and LAW No . CARDINAL to the Convention .

The court considers that the adoption of section CARDINAL of the Enforcement Procedure Act DATE had a legitimate aim , because the enforcement of a large number of judgments at the same time would jeopardise the normal functioning of the cantons . However , the limitation of the enforcement in the present case is contrary to the principle of proportionality enshrined in LAW No . CARDINAL which requires that a fair balance is struck between the demands of the general interest of the community and the requirements of the protection of the individual ’s fundamental rights ... Section CARDINAL places a disproportionate burden on the appellants ... they are placed in a situation of absolute uncertainty as regards the enforcement of their claims ...

In order to comply with its positive obligation , the government of the Zenica - Doboj GPE must , as explained above , calculate the total amount of the aggregate debt arising from the final judgments and prepare a comprehensive and transparent database ... This court will not specify what a reasonable time - limit should be ... but , in any event , it must be in accordance with LAW and LAW No . CARDINAL to the Convention .

... The current situation does not give any guarantees to the appellants that their claims against the Zenica - Doboj GPE will be enforced within a reasonable time . ”

On DATE ORG adopted a procedural decision to the effect that its decision of CARDINAL DATE and CARDINAL other decisions on the same matter in cases concerning various individual appellants ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) had not been enforced .

The final judgments in the applicants’ favour have not yet been enforced .


Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading treatment) (Substantive aspect);Violation of Article 34 - Individual applications (Article 34 - Hinder the exercise of the right of petition)

André Potocki;Angelika Nußberger;Ganna Yudkivska;Khanlar Hajiyev;Mārtiņš Mits;Síofra O’Leary;Yonko Grozev

The applicant was born in DATE and prior to his arrest his permanent address had been in GPE , GPE .

On an unspecified date prior to his arrest the applicant had been diagnosed with hepatitis C ( “ ORG ” ) .

On DATE the applicant was arrested on suspicion of committing a drug - related offence and on DATE placed in FAC no . CARDINAL ( “ the prison ” ) .

On DATE ORG remanded the applicant in custody . The applicant appealed , arguing in particular that he was suffering from ORG . On DATE ORG upheld the detention order .

The applicant ’s pre - trial detention was subsequently extended until his conviction .

On DATE ORG convicted the applicant of the unlawful purchase , possession and transportation of drugs and sentenced him to CARDINAL years’ imprisonment .

On DATE ORG amended the applicant ’s sentence and released him on probation .

On DATE the prison governor sent a letter to ORG . According to the letter , the applicant had informed the prison authorities that he had been diagnosed with ORG in DATE in ORG but that he had not provided any more detailed information in this respect . The governor asked the hospital to confirm whether the applicant had indeed been examined for ORG and if so , what the results of the examination had been . The prison received no reply .

On DATE , DATE and DATE and on DATE and DATE the applicant consulted the prison doctor , complaining in particular of discomfort in the hypochondrium ( below the lower ribs ) , on the right - hand side . According to the applicant ’s medical record , the applicant claimed to be suffering from ORG , but the doctor noted that there were no documents to support this diagnosis . The applicant asked for a medical certificate , to be provided to the courts examining his criminal case . According to CARDINAL separate reports signed by CARDINAL prison employees , during CARDINAL of those consultations DATE those of DATE and CARDINAL DATE and DATE the applicant was offered an opportunity to undergo a “ blood test ” ( it is unspecified of which type ) to verify whether he had ORG but refused without giving any reasons . The applicant denied the latter allegation .

On DATE the prison ’s medical unit issued a certificate stating that the applicant , according to his own statement , was suffering from ORG and that during his stay in the prison he had consulted the prison doctor on several occasions in this connection and received treatment for his symptoms .

On DATE the prison governor informed the applicant ’s lawyer that on DATE and DATE the applicant had consulted the prison doctor concerning his ORG and had been prescribed treatment for his symptoms . The governor went on to state that it was planned that a consultation would be arranged with an infectious diseases specialist who would be able to order the necessary examinations and prescribe treatment for the applicant .

On DATE a blood test , apparently an ORG antibody test , came up positive . On DATE an ultrasound examination showed that the applicant ’s liver had undergone diffuse changes .

On DATE the head of the prison ’s medical unit issued a certificate which stated that the applicant ’s health had worsened in DATE and that he was suffering from fatigue , nausea , and weight loss . The certificate also stated that in order to ascertain the state of his health the applicant needed to be examined by an infectious diseases specialist of ORG ( “ the GPE ” ) .

On DATE the acting President of the Section , upon the applicant ’s request under Rule CARDINAL of ORG , decided to indicate to the Government that they should present the applicant urgently for medical examination by a specialised doctor of ORG ; secure for the applicant immediately , by appropriate means , treatment to his state of health ; and inform the ORG by DATE about the applicant ’s state of health and the measures undertaken .

From CARDINAL until DATE the applicant underwent an in - patient examination at ORG in the course of which a number of blood tests and an ultrasound examination were conducted and the applicant was examined by a number of specialists .

On DATE the hospital issued an opinion according to which the applicant was suffering from сhronic ORG “ in an inactive phase ” and liver impairment . He was prescribed hepatoprotectors ( GPE and PERSON ) . It was recommended that he undergo additional blood tests , namely the polymerase chain reaction ( ORG ) test for ORG , and , within DATE , another general blood test and a biochemical blood test . The applicant was to remain under the supervision of a gastroenterologist and an infectious diseases specialist .

On DATE the Government informed the ORG about the applicant ’s examination at ORG .

On DATE the applicant complained to the ORG that the recommendations of ORG doctors were not being followed . On DATE the ORG invited the ORG to comment on those allegations .

On DATE the applicant started to be treated with hepatoprotector medicine . On DATE he underwent general and biochemical blood tests which , according to the Government , revealed no abnormality . On DATE he was consulted by a gastroenterologist and an infectious diseases specialist , who confirmed the diagnosis of inactive chronic hepatitis .

On DATE the Government informed ORG measures taken from DATE .


Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Civil proceedings;Article 6-1 - Reasonable time)

Krzysztof Wojtyczek;Nona Tsotsoria;Gabriele Kucsko-Stadlmayer

The applicants , a married couple , were born in DATE and DATE respectively and live in GPE .

On DATE the first applicant was deliberately shot by CARDINAL of his colleagues and suffered serious injuries making him disabled .

On an unspecified date in DATE , the first applicant and his family ( including his wife , the second applicant ) brought an action in damages against the first applicant ’s employer . On DATE the president of ORG ordered the priority treatment of the case .

On DATE ORG found for the applicants in an interim judgment establishing the well - foundedness of the legal basis of the claim . The first instance interim judgment was upheld by ORG on DATE .

The exact compensation amount to be paid by the employer was decided by a judgment of ORG on DATE . The decision was upheld and partly amended by the final judgment of ORG adopted on CARDINAL DATE .


George Nicolaou;Guido Raimondi;Krzysztof Wojtyczek;Ledi Bianku;Nona Tsotsoria;Paul Mahoney;Yonko Grozev

NORP The applicant was born in DATE . He is currently serving a prison sentence in FAC .

NORP The facts of the case , as submitted by the parties , may be summarised as follows :

NORP In DATE the applicant suffered an acoustic shock . He was subsequently diagnosed as having a severe hearing impairment . An audiometric test carried out on DATE confirmed QUANTITY hearing loss ( dB PERSON ) in his left ear and CARDINAL dB HL in his right ear . Medical treatment he underwent in ORG from DATE did not result in an improvement of his condition . He was released from the hospital and further outpatient treatment was recommended .

NORP Subsequent laryngological and surgical treatment and further consultations with a psychiatrist , neurologist and optician resulted in successive decisions to postpone the start of a DATE prison sentence imposed on him by ORG on DATE . On DATE the court postponed the start of his sentence until DATE on health grounds ( ref . no . PERSON ) . Having regard to the applicant ’s medical records , it was of the view that serving the sentence would have been too harsh on him . On DATE the court extended the period of postponement ( ref . no . PERSON ) , referring to the applicant ’s need to have further treatment .

He started his sentence on DATE .

The applicant was subsequently deprived of his liberty in a number of detention facilities , namely :

- Świnoujście Remand Centre ( from DATE to DATE , CARDINAL DATE , DATE to CARDINAL DATE , CARDINAL DATE and DATE to DATE ) ;

- FAC ( from DATE to DATE and CARDINAL DATE to CARDINAL DATE ) ;

ORG ( from DATE ) ;

- Koronowo Prison ( from DATE to CARDINAL DATE ) ;

- Goleniów Prison ( from DATE , DATE to CARDINAL DATE , CARDINAL DATE to DATE , DATE to CARDINAL DATE and DATE to DATE ) ;

- FAC ( from DATE ) ;

- Nowy Wiśnicz Prison ( from DATE to DATE ) ;

- FAC ( from DATE to DATE ) ;

- Nowogard Prison ( from DATE to CARDINAL DATE ) .

The applicant was examined by doctors of various prisons – twice in DATE , on CARDINAL occasions in DATE and on CARDINAL occasions in DATE . The courts twice postponed the date on which he was to start serving his prison sentence .

On DATE the applicant was provided with a medical prescription ( zlecenie lekarskie ) for a hearing aid for his right ear . Subsequently , on unspecified dates the competent court twice postponed the start of his prison sentence ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . While at liberty , he did not use a hearing aid and did not take any steps to obtain one .

On DATE the applicant underwent another audiometric test , which gave similar results to the test on DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . At that time he had PERCENT hearing loss in his right ear . A subsequent medical certificate drawn up on DATE demonstrated that his hearing had become worse , increasing to PERCENT hearing loss in his right ear and CARDINAL dB hearing loss in his left ear .

On DATE a laryngologist examined the applicant . He was informed that under LAW , he could obtain a hearing aid at his own expense . Subsequently , he took steps to obtain a hearing aid without the help of the prison service . It appears that to that end he contacted ORG ( Instytut Fizjologii i PERSON ) in GPE and had a medical appointment scheduled for CARDINAL DATE ; however , he could not attend it as he was imprisoned at the time .

On CARDINAL DATE he was registered for social insurance purposes as a person suffering from a moderate disability ( umiarkowany stopień niepelnosprawności ) .

On DATE the applicant requested ORG of ORG ( hereinafter “ the penal court ” ) to grant him shortterm prison leave to attend the medical appointment scheduled for CARDINAL DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) and further medical check - ups at liberty . He did not make a formal request to attend the relevant hearing . He requested that a lawyer be appointed under the legal aid scheme to represent him before the court . He submitted that he did not feel mentally fit to argue his own case and that he had been undergoing psychiatric treatment for DATE .

On an unspecified date in DATE the court dismissed his request for legal aid .

On DATE ORG informed the applicant that his application for prison leave would be examined at a hearing scheduled for DATE .

The hearing was held as planned , without him being present . The court dismissed his request for leave . It considered , with reference to the medical certificate , that his hearing impairment could be treated in prison , that his detention had not put his life directly at risk within the meaning of LAW of LAW , and that the legal requirements for granting him leave had not been met .

The applicant appealed , submitting that he had been deprived of the right to argue his case before the court either in person or through a legal aid lawyer . He requested to be present at the appeal hearing .

On DATE he was informed that an appeal hearing had been scheduled for DATE . On that date ORG dismissed his appeal . He was not present at the hearing .

In its decision , the penal court referred to a medical certificate issued by a prison doctor on DATE . The court was of the view that , in the light of that certificate , the applicant ’s condition could be successfully accommodated by the prison health care system . The court did not address the issue of the procedural shortcomings which had allegedly been committed by ORG .

The applicant applied to ORG to be provided with a hearing aid . The replacement hearing aid ( zastępczy aparat słuchowy ) was issued to him on DATE . He was entitled to use it until he was able to buy his own device , with the possibility of a partial refund by ORG .

The applicant secured a new date for a specialist medical consultation at ORG on DATE , but he could not attend .

On DATE ORG dismissed another request for prison leave on medical grounds . The court relied on the same reasoning and on the same DATE medical certificate as in its DATE decision ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . The applicant appealed .

On DATE ORG quashed the decision . On DATE the applicant was granted legal aid for the purposes of his request for leave . Meanwhile , he was transferred to another prison in a different court circuit . Eventually , on DATE the ORG granted him CARDINAL months’ leave to allow him to obtain a hearing aid . He left prison on DATE .

During his leave , he asked ORG for the Rehabilitation of Disabled Persons ( Państwowy ORG ) and other organisations to finance the purchase of his hearing aid .

On DATE the applicant was presented with an invoice from a private company that made hearing devices . The cost of a hearing aid fitted to his purposes was MONEY ( PLN ) ( MONEY ( ORG ) ) . He did not collect the hearing aid from the shop during his prison leave , because he could not afford to pay for it .

By a letter dated CARDINAL DATE the Świnoujście Family Assistance Centre ( PERSON ) informed him that they could not finance his hearing aid .

On DATE the ORG extended his leave for DATE until DATE ( ref . no . V Kow CARDINAL ) , as he had not managed to obtain a hearing aid within the period of leave previously granted to him . Subsequently , he obtained a left ear hearing aid . The total price of the aid with an ear insert was ORG ( approximately EUR CARDINAL ) . PLN CARDINAL ( approximately LAW ) was refunded by ORG , while ORG ( approximately EUR CARDINAL ) was refunded by ORG for the Rehabilitation of Disabled Persons . He paid MONEY ( approximately EUR CARDINAL ) from his own means .

The applicant failed to report back to PERSON at the end of his leave . He was arrested by the police and taken back there on DATE .

Once back in prison , he asked the prison authorities to provide him with a right ear hearing aid . They refused , referring to the principle that only people in employment were entitled to CARDINAL hearing aids , including persons at liberty .

On DATE a laryngologist issued an opinion that he should also be provided with a right ear hearing aid .

Subsequently , on DATE the applicant applied to ORG for further prison leave ( ref . no . V Kow CARDINAL/CARDINAL ) . He raised the issue of his hearing impairment . He submitted that he planned to undergo ear surgery and urological surgery . He was granted legal aid for the purposes of the proceedings . On DATE ORG assigned a lawyer to represent him under the legal aid scheme .

On DATE ORG refused his request for prison leave . The court referred to a medical certificate dated DATE , which indicated that he had been examined by laryngologists on several occasions , that he was suffering from hearing problems but had been using a hearing aid , that the certificate of CARDINAL DATE had not recommended that it was absolutely necessary for him to also have a hearing aid for his right ear , and , lastly , that during DATE of leave , he had committed another criminal offence and had not returned to prison on the due date .

The applicant was represented by the legal aid lawyer .

The applicant appealed and requested to be taken from prison to the appeal hearing . On DATE ORG refused to allow his request . It was of the view that he had failed to refer to any circumstances that would justify his attendance in person , that the decision was to be taken on the basis of documents in his medical file , and that he was represented by a legal aid lawyer .

On the same date the court dismissed his appeal . It noted that it was not in dispute that he suffered from various ailments which necessitated medical care , but it was possible to provide treatment to him in prison . The court referred to a medical certificate and his laryngological consultations , none of which confirmed that he was in danger of becoming deaf . There was no need for him to be provided with a right ear hearing aid .

On CARDINAL DATE the applicant was consulted by a laryngologist . The doctor was of the view that his very significant hearing loss made the use of a hearing aid for his right ear pointless . Furthermore , it was possible that the right ear hearing aid would interfere with the left ear hearing aid he had been using . The laryngologist did not recommend that he be provided with a hearing aid for his right ear .

As the ORG opinions dated DATE and CARDINAL DATE were contradictory , another consultation was arranged on CARDINAL DATE at the laryngological ward of ORG in Szczecin . Medication was prescribed as a result of this consultation . The conclusions of the opinion of DATE as to the necessity of the applicant being fitted with a hearing aid for his right ear were confirmed .

On DATE the applicant made another request to have a hearing aid provided by the penal authorities . The following day , after considering this oral request , the authorities decided to wait for the court ’s decision as to the applicant ’s possible prison leave .

On DATE ORG granted CARDINAL months’ prison leave to the applicant ( ref . no . V Kow CARDINAL pr ) . He submitted , in support of his request , that because of his disability he had found it difficult to communicate with his fellow inmates and the prison guards , which had resulted in people being aggressive and intolerant towards him . He had been insulted and humiliated . Moreover , he could not attend the education classes offered in prison or fully engage in religious practices .

The court noted that the applicant was serving a DATE prison sentence . He suffered progressive hearing loss , atrophy of the hearing nerves , myopia , and hyperglyceridemia . He was afraid of losing his hearing and wanted to be treated . He had used a hearing aid DATE , but his hearing had deteriorated . His hearing loss had caused him to have anxiety attacks and depressive thoughts . A detailed diagnosis of his hearing problems and surgical treatment , if necessary , was not possible within the confines of a prison .

On DATE the applicant was provided with a right ear hearing aid paid for by the detention facility .

On DATE a doctor working for the social insurance authorities declared the applicant partially unfit to work for DATE .

On DATE the penal court granted the applicant further leave for the purposes of his medical treatment .

NORP On DATE he had an ear implant fitted during an operation in a civil hospital in GPE specialising in treating hearing disorders . In DATE the hospital scheduled CARDINAL visits at DATE intervals , with the treatment ending on DATE , with a view to him having a clinical follow - up after each operation . On DATE he attended a follow - up appointment at that hospital .

On DATE he returned to prison to serve the remainder of his sentence . He submitted that the prison administration had not allowed him to attend a follow - up appointment scheduled for CARDINAL DATE .

The applicant tried to institute criminal proceedings against the prison staff , alleging that they had failed to provide him with appropriate medical care .

On DATE ORG dismissed an interlocutory appeal by the applicant against a decision by ORG on DATE ( ORG . PERSON ) refusing to open an inquiry into his allegations that FAC doctor had put him directly at risk of severe health damage by refusing to authorise his diagnostic hearing tests and by failing to provide him with a hearing aid .

The prosecution authorities had found that the applicant had undergone medical tests in DATE . Since then , he had been under continuous medical care in prison . He was not considered to be at risk of suffering any damage to his health . It was also noted that the ORG was under an obligation to provide prisoners with only basic health care , and not to grant their ( often excessive ) wishes to receive specialist medical services and undergo unnecessary medical procedures .

On DATE ORG dismissed an appeal by the applicant against a decision taken by ORG on DATE ( ORG . PERSON ) discontinuing an investigation against the staff of ORG who had allegedly put his life at risk by interrupting the medical treatment prescribed to him by the remand centre psychiatrist . It was established that the applicant ’s psychiatric treatment had been temporarily interrupted because he had been moved to a smaller remand centre where , for reasons unspecified in the decision , his treatment could not be continued . However , this did not amount to a criminal offence . It was further held that a hearing aid was not absolutely necessary for the applicant . His hearing impairment made his detention more difficult , but it did not render it impossible or too harsh on him .

By a letter dated CARDINAL DATE ORG of ORG ( ORG PERSON ) informed the applicant that complaints he had lodged on DATE and CARDINAL DATE concerning the administration of his medication , adequacy of his medical care and failure to provide him with a hearing aid had been declared illfounded . It was established that ( in the morning ) a prison nurse and ( in the TIME ) a prison guard administered psychotropic drugs to the applicant on prescription . He had received CARDINAL injections , whereas the fourth injection , which he had asked for , was not required . The prison laryngologist had not considered it necessary for him to use a hearing aid . Accordingly , he had been informed that the device would not be financed by the prison health care system .

By a letter dated DATE the governor of PERSON informed the applicant that his complaint regarding the alleged irregularities in the administration of his medication had been considered ill - founded , as he had received it in a manner consistent with his prescription .

After lodging his application with the ORG , on DATE CARDINAL the applicant instituted a civil action against ORG representing PERSON ( ref . no . I C CARDINAL/CARDINAL ) . Originally , his allegations concerned power cuts in the detention facility , being forced to take sleeping pills at TIME , the supposed presence of asbestos in the prison buildings , limited possibilities of employment , overcrowding and the lack of common space . During a hearing on DATE the applicant stated that he was also claiming compensation for health damage he had sustained as a result of his irreversible hearing loss as well as the overall poor prison conditions .

The applicant ’s claim concerned the period CARDINAL DATE to CARDINAL DATE .

On DATE an expert opinion prepared by a laryngologist was submitted to the court . The doctor stated that there was no doubt as to the applicant ’s very significant hearing loss in his right ear , whereas an evaluation of the hearing loss in his left ear was more difficult and had not led to unequivocal results . The expert had regard to audiograms made on DATE , DATE , DATE , DATE , CARDINAL DATE and DATE and to a number of documents in the applicant ’s medical records . There were discrepancies between results of different audiograms , as the applicant had over that time been examined by various people and with various apparatus . The applicant ’s emotional state could also have had an impact on the results . Some results indicated a deterioration of his hearing , whereas other suggested an improvement from DATE . It was noted that the applicant had been using a hearing aid since DATE .

The expert found that the applicant ’s hearing without a hearing aid was “ socially efficient ” ( wydolne społecznie ) , while with the aid it was good . He found that there were no grounds on which to establish that the applicant ’s hearing had deteriorated as a consequence of his detention . He emphasised that usage of a hearing aid had no influence on the possibility of further deterioration as it neither cured nor prevented hearing loss ; it only made the applicant ’s social functioning more comfortable .

On DATE the expert was questioned by the court , and upheld his conclusions .

On DATE ORG was provided with an expert opinion by a psychiatrist concerning the applicant ’s mental health . It was stated that it was not possible to carry out a full assessment without access to his medical records stored in the hospitals where he had been treated previously or without prior psychological tests . The applicant apparently suffered from various personality problems .

During the hearing on DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) the psychiatrist was questioned .

On DATE ORG dismissed the applicant ’s compensation claim , finding that there was no evidence to show that he had been attacked or ill - treated because of his bad hearing ; that the medical reports had certified that he could have some difficulties following conversations held in a noisy room between a number of people ; that his hearing was socially efficient ; that there was no evidence to show that it had deteriorated during and because of his detention ; that a hearing aid could assist him in everyday life but could not be regarded as treatment of his condition ; and that the refusals to provide him with a hearing aid at the public ’s expense did not result in the deterioration of his hearing , nor could be seen as humiliating or debasing treatment .

The court had regard to the applicant ’s medical records , his correspondence with ORG , certain documents in the applicant ’s prison records , the laryngologist ’s opinion referred to above , and the testimony given by the prison laryngologist , PERSON , the psychologist , the psychiatrist , the laryngologists and CARDINAL other witnesses .

The applicant appealed .

On DATE ORG dismissed his appeal , fully sharing the findings and conclusions of the first - instance court .

The provisions pertaining to medical care in detention facilities , and the relevant domestic law and practice are set out in the ORG ’s judgments in the cases of PERSON v. GPE ( no . CARDINAL , § § DATE , DATE ) , and PERSON v. GPE ( no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL , § § DATE , CARDINAL DATE ) . In particular , LAW ( NORP karny wykonawczy ) ( “ the Code ” ) provides :

“ CARDINAL . A sentenced person shall receive medical care , medication and sanitary items free of charge .

Medical care is provided , primarily , by health care establishments for persons serving prison sentences .

Health care establishments outside the prison system shall cooperate with the prison medical services in providing medical care to sentenced persons if necessary , in particular :

CARDINAL ) NORP to provide immediate medical care because of a risk to the life or health of a sentenced person ;

CARDINAL ) NORP to provide specialist medical examinations , treatment or rehabilitation to a sentenced person ;

CARDINAL ) NORP to provide medical services to a sentenced person who has been granted prison leave or a temporary break in ... the sentence ... ”

On the basis of LAW , the Minister of ORG issued the LAW of DATE on the detailed rules , scope and procedure relating to the provision of medical services to persons in confinement by health care establishments for persons deprived of liberty ( ORG w sprawie szczegółowych zasad , zakresu i trybu udzielania świadczeń zdrowotnych osobom pozbawionym wolności przez zakłady opieki zdrowotnej dla osób pozbawionych wolności ) . The LAW was in force from DATE until DATE .

Health care establishments for persons deprived of their liberty provided , inter alia , medical examinations , treatment , preventive medical care , rehabilitation and nursing services ( paragraph CARDINAL ) .

A person deprived of his or her liberty was subjected to preliminary and periodical medical examinations and check - ups ( paragraph CARDINAL ) , and had to undergo preliminary medical examinations , such as a review of his or her medical history and a physical examination as soon as he or she was admitted to a detention establishment ( paragraph CARDINAL ) . Moreover , no later than fourteen days from the admission date , a person deprived of his or her liberty had to have a chest PERSON and a dental examination .

Prison doctors were authorised to prescribe medical tests other than those mentioned above , if it was justified in the light of the health of the person deprived of his or her liberty ( paragraph CARDINAL ) . Those tests , however , were not mandatory and could only be performed with a prisoner ’s consent .

The Ordinance of DATE was replaced by a largely similar text , the Ordinance of DATE , on the provision of medical services to persons in confinement by health care establishments for persons deprived of liberty ( ORG z dnia CARDINAL grudnia DATE r. w sprawie udzielania świadczeń zdrowotnych osobom pozbawionym wolności przez zakłady opieki zdrowotnej dla osób pozbawionych wolności ) , which entered into force on DATE .


Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading treatment) (Substantive aspect);No violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading treatment) (Substantive aspect)

The applicant was born in DATE and lives in PERSON . At the time of lodging the application , he was detained at FAC .

On DATE the applicant was convicted of possession of narcotics and sentenced to CARDINAL years’ imprisonment . On appeal , on DATE ORG upheld the judgment .

The applicant began serving his sentence at FAC on DATE and was transferred to ORG on DATE . He was released on parole on DATE .

While the applicant was held at FAC , the per capita space available to him was QUANTITY . m ; the gross ground surface of the cell was QUANTITY . m for CARDINAL occupants but included the in - cell sanitary facility . He was allowed to spend TIME per day in the open air and could take part in various sports and other activities , thus reducing the time spent in the cell . He was provided with basic standard meals and was able to take a shower twice a week .

At FAC , the per capita cell space available to the applicant was QUANTITY . m ; the gross ground surface of the cell was QUANTITY . m for CARDINAL occupants but included the in - cell sanitary facility . CARDINAL and DATE and DATE and DATE he was held in a cell where a wall separated the toilet from the rest of the space . He could take a shower twice a week and pursue certain free - time activities . At his request , he was provided with NORP meals but very often consisting only of soya beans .

The applicant submitted that he suffered from epilepsy and a personality disorder . In his own submissions he stated that prior to his conviction he had cultivated and consumed cannabis partly because it alleviated his symptoms .

As regards the medical care in prison , the ORG submitted that , during the first examination at FAC , the applicant had stated that he suffered from epilepsy without presenting any relevant documentation . The doctor referred him for a psychiatric examination , which took place on DATE ; but the applicant refused the treatment prescribed by the specialist .

During his first medical examination at FAC , the doctor noted that the applicant ’s aptitude for work could be assessed only after external medical records concerning his illness had been obtained .

NORP The applicant suffered an epileptic seizure on DATE , whilst in his cell . Following medication , his condition improved but he refused the neurological examination recommended by the doctor and any further treatment . He suffered further fits on CARDINAL May and DATE , following which a neurologist prescribed him anti - epileptic drugs , but he agreed to take them only after suffering yet another seizure .


Remainder inadmissible (Art. 35) Admissibility criteria;(Art. 35-3-a) Manifestly ill-founded;Violation of Article 8 - Right to respect for private and family life (Article 8-1 - Respect for correspondence;Respect for private life);Violation of Article 13+8-1 - Right to an effective remedy (Article 13 - Effective remedy) (Article 8 - Right to respect for private and family life;Article 8-1 - Respect for correspondence;Respect for private life);Non-pecuniary damage - award (Article 41 - Non-pecuniary damage;Just satisfaction)

Alena Poláčková;Branko Lubarda;Dmitry Dedov;Georgios A. Serghides;Helen Keller;Helena Jäderblom;Pere Pastor Vilanova

The applicant was born in DATE and lives in the GPE region .

At the material time the applicant was a police officer with ORG of ORG of GPE .

On DATE a certain PERSON complained to the internal security department of ORG of GPE ( “ the internal security department ” ) that the applicant had extorted money from him . In particular , the applicant had asked for money in exchange for assisting him , through his contacts in the regional government , in obtaining a licence for the retail sale of alcoholic beverages . PERSON gave the internal security department a recording he had made of his telephone conversation with the applicant earlier the same day . During that conversation the applicant had asked PERSON to bring him money before DATE .

Police officers invited PERSON to take part in an “ operative experiment ” ( “ оперативный эксперимент ” ) , to which he consented . On DATE the head of the internal security department ordered an operative experiment in respect of the applicant with the use of audio and video recording devices .

On DATE , DATE , the head of the internal security department also ordered the interception of the applicant ’s telephone communications without judicial authorisation by reference to section ORG ) of the of the Operational - Search Activities Act ( hereafter “ the PERSON ” ) . The decision read in its entirety as follows :

“ [ The internal security department ] has received operative information that [ the applicant ] , a senior police officer with ORG of ORG of GPE , is extorting money in the amount of MONEY from [ P. ] , the director of limited liability company [ the company name ] , for assisting him in obtaining a licence for the retail sale of alcoholic beverages . At the request of the police officer the money must be delivered in the period from DATE to CARDINAL DATE ; the exact time and place for delivering the money is to be agreed in advance by telephone [ telephone number ] given by [ the applicant ] .

[ The applicant ’s ] actions contain elements of a criminal offence under LAW [ bribe - taking ] ...

It is necessary to perform the operational - search measure ‘ interception of telephone ORG with the aims of documenting [ the applicant ’s ] criminal activities in a thorough and objective way , collecting evidence and uncovering other participants in criminal offences . ”

On DATE the acting head of the internal security department sent a letter to the deputy President of ORG of GPE , informing her that on DATE and DATE the applicant ’s telephone had been tapped in accordance with the urgent procedure provided for by section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of the ORG . He then repeated verbatim the decision of DATE ordering the interception of the applicant ’s telephone communications .

On DATE , DATE , after the police had intercepted the applicant ’s telephone conversation with PERSON in which the CARDINAL men had arranged to meet DATE , PERSON was provided with a video camera , a radio transmitter and the necessary amount of money in banknotes marked with a special substance . The applicant and PERSON met in the applicant ’s car , where PERSON left the marked money . Immediately after PERSON had left , the applicant was arrested by the police , his car was searched and the money was seized .

On DATE ORG of the GPE Region opened criminal proceedings against the applicant on suspicion of attempted fraud , an offence under LAW , in connection with the aforementioned incident . The applicant was suspected of attempted fraudulent appropriation of the funds of a private company in the amount of MONEY .

On DATE , in reply to a request from the applicant for an expert examination of the recordings of his telephone conversations and the video recordings of his meeting with Mr P. , the investigator in charge of the case held , in so far as relevant , as follows :

“ ... [ the applicant ’s ] guilt for the criminal offence under LAW ... is completely proven by the preponderance of evidence collected . ”

Identical statements were made by the investigator in his decisions of DATE and DATE and CARDINAL DATE rejecting various complaints lodged by the applicant .

NORP In reply to the applicant ’s complaints that his telephone had been tapped unlawfully without judicial authorisation , the investigator stated , in his decisions of DATE and DATE , that section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of the ORG permitted the interception of telephone communications without judicial authorisation in urgent cases , provided that a court was notified within DATE hours of its commencement and judicial authorisation was obtained within TIME , failing which it had to be discontinued . Interception of the applicant ’s telephone communications had been ordered by the head of the internal security department because at the time there had been sufficient reasons to believe that the applicant was involved in a serious criminal offence punishable under LAW of LAW . ORG had been notified of the interception DATE , and on DATE , that is , before the expiry of the forty - eight - hour time - limit , the interception had been discontinued ; hence , there had been no reason for seeking judicial authorisation . The interception of the applicant ’s telephone communications had therefore been lawful .

During the trial the applicant challenged the admissibility of all the items of evidence obtained as a result of the “ operative experiment ” and the interception of his telephone communications . He argued , in particular , that the police had had insufficient grounds for carrying out the surveillance measures and that they had not obtained a judicial authorisation to intercept his telephone communications .

On DATE ORG declared the audio and video recordings admissible as evidence . It held , in so far as relevant , as follows :

“ ... [ the applicant ] argues that the operative experiment and other operational - search measures were unlawful because such measures are permissible only with the aim of suppressing , preventing and investigating criminal offences of medium severity or more serious criminal offences . I suppose that at the time when the police made the decision to carry out the operative experiment and other operational - search measures against [ the applicant ] they had information that he had committed criminal offences classified as serious or especially serious under the law ( abuse of power , bribetaking ) .

In the court ’s opinion , for ordering operational - search measures it is sufficient that there be some elements of a criminal offence , rather than the entire corpus delicti , permitting [ the police ] to make a preliminary rather than definitive classification of the offence ...

The court is not convinced by [ the applicant ’s ] arguments that the interception of his telephone communications was unlawful because the case file does not contain a judicial decision authorising this operational - search measure . The operational - search measure against [ the applicant ] was carried out in conditions of urgency .

Section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of the ORG provides that a judge must be informed within twentyfour TIME of the commencement of operational - search activities in conditions of urgency and that judicial authorisation must be obtained within TIME , failing which the activities must be discontinued .

The court agrees with [ the applicant ] that the case file does not contain a judicial decision authorising operational - search measures . At the same time it notes that a judge was informed about the operational - search measures within TIME and the measures were discontinued within TIME of their commencement , as required by section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of the ORG . No judicial refusal of authorisation was received . It therefore finds that no breaches of legal provisions governing operationalsearch measures were committed in the present case ... ”

On DATE ORG convicted the applicant as charged , sentenced him to DATE and CARDINAL months’ imprisonment , and stripped him of his rank in the police . The court based its judgment on the statements of numerous witnesses , material evidence , expert opinions , and the audio and video recordings made on DATE and DATE . It found that the recordings were authentic and had been obtained in accordance with the procedure prescribed by law , repeating the reasoning set out in the decision of DATE on the admissibility of evidence .

In his appeal submissions the applicant complained , among other things , that ORG had relied on unlawfully obtained evidence , in particular on recordings of his telephone conversations made without judicial authorisation . He also contested the authenticity of the recordings .

On DATE ORG upheld the applicant ’s conviction on appeal , adhering to the reasoning of the trial court . It found , in particular , that the audio and video recordings had been correctly declared admissible as evidence and found authentic .


Violation of Article 34 - Individual applications (Article 34 - Hinder the exercise of the right of petition);Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading treatment;Inhuman treatment) (Substantive aspect);No violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-3 - Reasonableness of pre-trial detention;Trial within a reasonable time);Respondent State to take individual measures (Article 46-2 - Individual measures);Non-pecuniary damage - award

Dmitry Dedov;Elisabeth Steiner;Erik Møse;Isabelle Berro-Lefèvre;Khanlar Hajiyev;Mirjana Lazarova Trajkovska;Ksenija Turković

The applicant was born in DATE and prior to his arrest lived in the town of GPE , GPE . He is currently being detained in a temporary detention facility in GPE - on - Don .

In DATE the applicant , at the material time the deputy Prime Minister of GPE , survived an assassination attempt . However , his spine was badly wounded and he became paralysed . He can not walk and is confined to a wheelchair . He also lost his ability to urinate or defecate without special medical procedures , such as catheters and enemas .

Since DATE the applicant has been mayor of PERSON , GPE .

Сriminal proceedings were instituted against the applicant on suspicion of organised aggravated murder and attempted murder of ORG officials , including several prosecutors , investigators , a member of the town council and the head of the investigative committee in GPE . The investigation was assigned to a group of senior investigators and criminologists from the investigative committees of various regions of GPE and led by the deputy head of ORG , a major - general . The applicant was arrested on DATE .

On DATE ORG of GPE ordered the applicant ’s detention pending trial , citing the gravity of the charges against him and the risk that he might abscond , interfere with the investigation , in particular influence witnesses , and reoffend . ORG decision was based on the applicant ’s official powers and his significant contacts with various persons involved in the investigation , as well as his consequent ability to influence the investigation . The court referred to the case - file materials , according to which a number of defendants arrested on suspicion of participating in the murders were also public officials and law - enforcement agents , investigators or police officers . They had identified the applicant as the “ master - mind ” of the murders , had provided details of the murders and had argued that certain victims had been murdered in retaliation for their failure to obey the applicant ’s orders .

At the same time , ORG dismissed the applicant ’s arguments pertaining to his poor state of health , his stable family situation , his age and his standing in the community , having considered that they did not outweigh the reasons warranting his detention . ORG was also not convinced by the description given by the head of the PERSON police department portraying the applicant as “ an example of compliance with the law and public order ” .

The decision of DATE was upheld on appeal on DATE when ORG found ORG finding reasonable and convincing . ORG also noted that no alternative measure , such as house arrest or a written undertaking , could ensure the proper course of the criminal proceedings .

On DATE ORG extended the applicant ’s detention until DATE , having again linked the gravity and nature of the charges against him , as well as his standing in society , to the likelihood that he would obstruct the course of justice , reoffend or abscond . ORG once again relied on the applicant ’s connections to support the conclusion that if released he would tamper with the evidence . At the same time , ORG took into account a medical opinion issued on DATE ( cited in detail below ) , according to which the applicant ’s state of health did not preclude his detention in the conditions of an ordinary detention facility . It also noted that there was no evidence that the authorities had delayed the pre - trial investigation . ORG concluded by stressing that the case was particularly complex , involved a large number of defendants and required a series of investigative steps to be taken .

On DATE new charges were brought against the applicant . He was charged with firearms trafficking and attempting to organise a terrorist attack on a public official , his political rival . According to the investigation , the applicant and his accomplices had intended to shoot down , with a portable anti - aircraft rocket launcher , a civilian aircraft in which the public official was to travel from GPE to GPE with other passengers .

On DATE ORG accepted the ORG request to extend the applicant ’s detention again until DATE . ORG noted the gravity of the charges , including the new ones , and the fact that the applicant was facing a sentence of up to life imprisonment . It once again cited the risks of the applicant absconding , reoffending and obstructing the course of justice , and expressed concern for the safety of the witnesses and victims . ORG noted that the investigation of certain criminal offences with which the applicant was charged was at an active stage and that the risk of his interfering with the investigation , if he were released , was well - founded . CARDINAL defendants had been arrested and certain suspects were yet to be apprehended . ORG placed particular weight on the complexity of the case and the progress that the investigators were making with it .

ORG also examined in detail the arguments put forward by the defence in favour of the applicant ’s release and the application of a more lenient measure of restraint . It concluded that neither his family ties nor his state of health outweighed the reasons for his continued detention . In particular , ORG relied on the medical opinions of DATE and CARDINAL DATE , which had found that the applicant ’s illness was not among those listed in Governmental Decree no . CARDINAL of DATE preventing the detention of a suspect . It further stressed that on a DATE basis CARDINAL medical specialists from municipal and ORG medical facilities ( “ generalists , surgeons , neurologists , urologists , endocrinologists , proctologists , an infectious diseases specialist , and a rehabilitation specialist ” ) had examined the applicant and that he had received the prescribed drug treatment in full . Moreover , he had undergone all the necessary laboratory testing and clinical examinations in certified civilian laboratories in GPE and on DATE he was to undergo yet another expert examination to determine whether he was suffering from any illness warranting his release . Having cited a long list of the applicant ’s illnesses , ORG noted that there was no evidence that his condition had deteriorated or that he required treatment in a specialised medical facility . ORG dismissed as unreliable various expert opinions and medical records prepared by specialists , including foreign ones , in various related fields of medicine and produced by the defence in support of their argument that the applicant ’s life was being put at risk by his prolonged detention in the conditions of an ordinary detention facility and in the absence of adequate medical assistance .

On DATE ORG extended the applicant ’s detention until DATE . Having again assessed the materials presented to it by the investigation and the defence , ORG concluded that the risks of the applicant influencing witnesses , reoffending , obstructing the investigation by other means and absconding were still present . In particular , the criminal proceedings against the applicant were at a crucial stage of collecting evidence and there was a risk that , using his connections in the criminal underworld , the applicant might try to influence witnesses and victims who feared him . ORG also cited the medical reports of DATE , DATE and DATE , which supported its conclusion that the applicant ’s state of health did not preclude his further detention .

It appears that the applicant ’s detention was further extended . However , neither party provided the ORG with an update .

On DATE the NORP Military Court found the applicant guilty of conspiring to organise a terrorist attack and sentenced him to CARDINAL years’ imprisonment . The applicant was stripped of all ORG awards and commendations . It appears that the criminal proceedings on the remaining charges against the applicant are still pending .

Numerous medical certificates and expert opinions submitted by the parties show that the applicant is suffering from a spinal cord injury , paraplegia , chronic urinary tract infection , chronic pyelonephritis ( kidney infection ) , chronic urinary retention , rectal prolapse ( a condition in which the rectum protrudes out of the anus ) , paraproctitis ( an inflammation of the cellular tissues surrounding the rectum ) , ischemic heart disease , chronic heart failure , hypertension , a thyroid gland disease , hepatitis C and non - insulin - dependent diabetes .

At the request of the applicant ’s representatives a panel comprising experts in neurology , urology and general medicine examined the applicant ’s medical records dating from the period DATE . Their report dated DATE found that , due to his inability to satisfy his most basic needs ( such as moving , urinating or defecating ) without help and to his very serious diseases , the applicant required constant medical supervision , treatment and assistance and that he should therefore be placed in a specialised medical facility . His detention in a temporary detention facility could aggravate his condition and , in the absence of a swift reaction to such an aggravation , could result in his death . The report also found that the applicant was suffering from diseases which , according to ORG no . CARDINAL of DATE , were incompatible with detention .

On DATE a panel of CARDINAL doctors from ORG hospital no . CARDINAL in GPE examined the applicant at the investigator ’s request . Having studied the applicant ’s medical history , the results of his recent clinical blood and urine analyses , as well as the results of his ultrasound scan and FAC examinations , the doctors confirmed the diagnoses and found that the applicant “ was not suffering from any of the serious diseases included in the list of serious illnesses precluding detention of a suspect or an accused ” . The report did not indicate the field of medicine in which the doctors specialised .

NORP In response to a request by the investigator , on DATE the director of the medical unit of temporary detention facility ( SIZO-CARDINAL ) in GPE , where the applicant was detained , prepared a certificate describing the applicant ’s state of health . Citing extracts from the medical records , the director reported that the applicant was examined by him DATE and also by various specialist doctors , including a urologist , a neurologist , a surgeon , a cardiologist and an endocrinologist . Blood and urine tests were regularly performed . He was prescribed and administered various medications . The applicant used disposable catheters to urinate . He performed that procedure himself , as he had done before his arrest , CARDINAL times a day without the facility administration having the possibility of ensuring the requisite level of asepsis . An enema was carried out by a doctor CARDINAL or CARDINAL times a week to make the applicant defecate . The applicant ’s condition was stable and no deterioration in his health had been noted , although he had continued to raise various health complaints .

At the same time , the director of the medical unit also noted that , because the applicant was confined to a wheelchair , he could not be transported to the medical unit of the detention facility . He was therefore held in an ordinary cell where he was visited by the doctors and where all the necessary medical procedures were performed . In particular , the neighbouring cell which was used to perform the enemas was not suitable for that medical procedure as it was difficult to ensure the requisite sterility . The director stressed that lack of sterility could result in a serious complication .

The applicant ’s lawyers submitted the medical report of CARDINAL DATE for assessment by CARDINAL medical specialists : a deputy president of ORG , academician and honorary doctor of GPE , PERSON ; and a member of the NORP and ORG , academician and highly respected professor - neurosurgeon , Mr S. On DATE the CARDINAL experts issued their review of the report . Having noticed the lack of information on the medical qualifications and specialisation of the CARDINAL doctors who had issued the report , the CARDINAL experts considered that the report contained a number of “ significant and important contradictions ” . In particular :

- a urologist had not examined the applicant or participated in the preparation of the report of DATE , even though the applicant was suffering from a serious urological disorder ;

- although the CARDINAL doctors had been provided with a complete set of medical records comprising the applicant ’s medical history , including those related to his injuries and complications , the report was only based on “ fragments of that information ” ; major complications arising from the applicant ’s condition , such as chronic cystitis and pyelonephritis , remained unassessed ;

- Governmental Decree no . CARDINAL of DATE listed , among the serious illnesses precluding the detention of a suspect , “ serious progressive forms of atrophic and degenerative illnesses of the nervous system accompanied by a stable disorder of the motor , sensory and vegeto - trophic functions ” , which fully corresponded to the applicant ’s diagnosis . However , that medical condition had not been taken into account by the CARDINAL doctors who had prepared the report of DATE ;

- the applicant was also suffering from a life - threatening post - traumatic pathology of the kidneys and urinary tracts . However , despite the fact that a similar condition was also listed by the ORG decree among the illnesses precluding detention , the CARDINAL doctors had paid no attention to it .

The CARDINAL experts concluded that the report of DATE was incomplete and was not objective , as it did not fully reflect the “ true picture of [ the applicant ’s ] pathology , which undoubtedly fell within the serious illnesses precluding detention pending trial , as determined by Governmental Decree no . CARDINAL of DATE ” .

On DATE the CARDINAL doctors from hospital no . CARDINAL issued another report confirming the findings in their previous report of CARDINAL DATE . The doctors again concluded that the applicant ’s condition did not warrant his release as he was not suffering from any illness listed in Governmental Decree no . CARDINAL . The findings of the CARDINAL reports were similar , the only difference being that part of the second report was based on more recent clinical tests and examinations of the applicant .

On DATE the applicant asked the ORG to apply Rule CARDINAL of ORG and to authorise his transfer to a specialised medical facility as an interim measure .

The applicant claimed that the medical assistance he was receiving in the temporary detention facility was insufficient in view of his very serious diseases , which required constant medical supervision by specialised medical staff . The facility ’s medical staff were not competent to deal with such serious conditions . The treatment he was receiving there did not correspond to the treatment he had received before his arrest . Moreover , he was unable to satisfy his most basic needs without help . In particular , when he wanted to defecate , he had to wait , suffering , until an external specialist was called , as the facility staff were not qualified to carry out an enema . According to the applicant , such inadequate medical assistance could result in a brutal aggravation of his condition and ultimate death .

On DATE the ORG decided to indicate to ORG , under LAW , that it was desirable in the interests of the proper conduct of the proceedings that the applicant be immediately examined by medical experts independent from the prison system with a view to determining : ( CARDINAL ) whether the treatment he was receiving in the detention facility was adequate for his condition ; ( CARDINAL ) whether his current state of health was compatible with detention in the conditions of a detention facility ; and ( CARDINAL ) whether his current condition required his placement in a hospital .

On DATE the Government responded to the ORG ’s letter of CARDINAL DATE , having submitted a handwritten copy of the report prepared when the applicant was examined on admission to the detention facility SIZO-CARDINAL in GPE ; documents showing that the detention facility was licensed to provide medical services to inmates ; certificates issued jointly by the head of the detention facility and the director of its medical unit describing the state of the applicant ’s health and listing the medical procedures to which he had been subjected ; extracts from the applicant ’s medical history dating back to DATE ; a certificate issued by the same CARDINAL officials informing the ORG that there was no risk to the applicant ’s life and limb and that his condition was considered stable ; a handwritten copy of the applicant ’s medical record drawn up in the detention facility in which the most recent entry had been made on DATE by a prison doctor ; a record drawn up during the applicant ’s stay in hospital no . CARDINAL in GPE from DATE , noting the applicant ’s diagnosis and assessing his condition as moderately serious ; a medical record from a psychiatric prison hospital where he had stayed from DATE and where he had been treated for an “ adaptation disorder affecting emotions and behaviour ” ; copies of the CARDINAL medical reports issued on DATE and CARDINAL DATE , respectively , by a medical commission of CARDINAL doctors from hospital no . CARDINAL who , having cited the applicant ’s medical history and the results of his examinations by various specialists and clinical tests performed in the hospital in DATE and DATE , concluded that the applicant was “ not suffering from an illness included in the list of serious illnesses precluding detention of suspected or accused persons ” .

The Government also answered the CARDINAL questions which , in its letter of CARDINAL DATE , ORG had asked them to address to independent medical experts . In particular , having provided an answer to the first question related to the adequacy of the applicant ’s treatment , the Government stressed that the applicant had been placed under dynamic medical supervision by the medical personnel of the detention facility in relation to illnesses of the musculoskeletal , endocrine , hepatobiliary and urinary systems . They acknowledged that the applicant , as a wheelchair- bound inmate , required systematic care and permanent medical attention , which were being provided to him in a special cell . He was performing the remaining hygiene procedures himself . The Government submitted that the applicant received the necessary medical attention and that no additional medical procedures were required .

In their response to the second question about the compatibility of the applicant ’s state of health with the conditions of the detention facility , the Government stressed that the applicant was under the medical supervision of the personnel of the detention facility and was also being seen by various civilian medical specialists . The prison doctors were fully complying with the treatment plan developed by the civilian specialists .

In replying to the third question as to whether the applicant needed to be transferred to a hospital , the Government relied on the CARDINAL reports issued by the CARDINAL doctors from hospital no . CARDINAL on DATE and CARDINAL DATE , according to which the applicant was not suffering from any condition included in the list of serious illnesses precluding the detention of suspected and accused persons in detention facilities , as provided for by in Decree no . CARDINAL of the Government of GPE of DATE .

On DATE the ORG reminded ORG that on DATE an interim measure had been imposed under Rule CARDINAL of ORG , in accordance with which independent medical experts were to examine the applicant and provide their expert opinion on the CARDINAL questions , assessing the quality of the applicant ’s treatment , the compatibility of his state of health with the conditions of the detention facility and the need to transfer him to a hospital . The ORG ’s attention was also drawn to the fact that the failure of a ORG to comply with a measure indicated under Rule CARDINAL may entail a breach of LAW .

On DATE the Government submitted an LANGUAGE translation of their submissions of CARDINAL DATE .

The applicant submitted a large number of medical reports and opinions issued by various NORP and foreign experts . In particular , he provided the ORG with a copy of an opinion issued by PERSON of ORG in GPE , where he had undergone treatment on a number of occasions since DATE . The doctor who had attended to the applicant on those occasions stressed that he was in need of permanent medical supervision by qualified specialists . The lack of such assistance , in the doctor ’s opinion , was life - threatening . He also noted that the conditions of a detention facility were not suitable for a person in the applicant ’s state of health .

The applicant also provided the ORG with an assessment report issued on DATE by a deputy president of ORG , academician and honorary doctor of GPE , PERSON , in response to the medical opinion prepared on DATE by the CARDINAL doctors from hospital no . CARDINAL . PERSON again criticised the opinion for the same defects as those identified in the previous report of DATE .

According to another report prepared on DATE by Professor PERSON , a surgeon from ORG in GPE , GPE , the applicant required complex DATE medical examinations and procedures to control his diabetes , hepatitis C and urological problems . The doctor , who had treated the applicant in DATE and DATE , insisted that the lack of such care would be critically dangerous for the applicant ’s life .

Another medical expert from GPE , a urologist from a hospital in GPE , in his opinion of CARDINAL DATE , described the complexity of the applicant ’s health condition and listed the treatment which he should receive on a DATE basis . He concluded that the applicant ’s detention in the absence of such treatment posed a threat to his life .

CARDINAL more specialist reports were issued in DATE : the first , by a professor of urology / andrology from GPE , Dr J. ; and the second by a professor of surgery and intensive surgical medicine from ORG , Dr PERSON The reports were based on the applicant ’s medical record and answers to their questions prepared by the applicant ’s defence team . Having noted the poor sanitary conditions in which the applicant had to undergo necessary procedures and his “ reduced immune system ” , their prognosis for him was “ very bad ” , with the likelihood that “ over time he would suffer from antibiotic - resistant urinary tract infection that [ could ] cause urosepsis with a very high risk of [ death ] ” . PERSON concluded that from the medical evidence before him , the applicant already had a permanent urinary tract infection which would probably soon develop into urosepsis . There was a PERCENT chance of developing septic shock and death in such a case , even in optimal clinical conditions . That chance became far more probable in a prison environment . The risk was even higher than for otherwise healthy paraplegic men given that the applicant was suffering from diabetes . Having listed various medical procedures and recommendations for treatment , PERSON concluded that the applicant ’s life “ was in acute danger ” and that “ high - quality medical management of [ the applicant ’s ] problems [ was ] mandatory ” .

Dr PERSON concluded his analysis of the applicant ’s health and the treatment to which he was being subjected with the following assessment :

“ In DATE of professional experience as a surgeon , I have never encountered such inhuman , demoralizing and humiliating treatment of [ a disabled person ] bound to a wheelchair . A paraplegic patient has the same life expectancy as a [ non - disabled ] person , provided the measures described above are followed . Based on the documents presented to me , I have no reason to assume that this is the case .

Given the circumstances described here , one may expect the patient to experience severe and agonizing pain . Due to the non - existent medical care , one may anticipate severe complications or his demise . ”

On DATE Dr W. amended his expert opinion . Having again listed all the illnesses with which the applicant had been diagnosed by the NORP prison authorities , PERSON stated as follows :

“ From the medical view it is absolutely insignificant if one or more of those diseases are not in the list of serious diseases preventing the holding in custody of suspects or accused of the commission of crimes .

On the other hand , it is proved in international medical literature that the combination of all these serious diseases causes an enormous life threatening situation for [ the applicant ] . The patient is really very critically ill . ” .

In the meantime , relying on the ORG ’s letter of CARDINAL DATE , on DATE the applicant ’s lawyers asked the investigators in the case to provide the applicant with an opportunity to be examined in person by a number of medical experts from various civilian hospitals , including those who had prepared the reports assessing the ORG opinions of CARDINAL July and CARDINAL DATE . The lawyers insisted that the named specialists had agreed to provide their expert opinion in response to the CARDINAL questions put by ORG before ORG under Rule CARDINAL of ORG .

On DATE the lawyers received a letter from the senior investigator “ fully refusing ” their request . Having pointed out that the applicant had already been examined twice by doctors from hospital no . CARDINAL , a civilian hospital , and that the doctors had concluded that the applicant was not suffering from an illness included in the list of serious illnesses precluding detention pending trial , the senior investigator dismissed the request .

The lawyers sent a similar request to the director of the applicant ’s detention facility . The director responded that he did not “ in principle ” object to such an examination by medical experts , but that the decision authorising the examination could only be taken by the investigator .

The applicant was again sent for an examination to hospital no . CARDINAL , where the CARDINAL doctors confirmed their previous findings of DATE and CARDINAL DATE . The new report issued on DATE was very similar .

The lawyers also submitted to the ORG a large number of certificates issued by the administration of the detention facility showing that the applicant ’s DATE needs in terms of medicines and medical materials , including catheters , were covered by his relatives . The director of the detention facility also confirmed that fact in his letter of DATE .

DATE . On DATE the applicant was transferred to temporary detention facility no . CARDINAL in PERSON - on - Don . A prison doctor attending on the applicant in that facility issued a record listing a number of visits to the applicant by various medical specialists and registering the applicant ’s mounting complaints . In the same record she stated that while the applicant remained under permanent medical supervision and was subjected to regular clinical examinations , with his condition , due to those procedures , being satisfactory , any of his illnesses at any time could lead to a significant deterioration in his health and become acute or chronic , with an unpredictable prognosis for his life expectancy .