Remainder inadmissible;No violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading treatment;Inhuman treatment) (Substantive aspect);No violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Effective investigation) (Procedural aspect);Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-1 - Lawful arrest or detention;Article 5-1-c - Bringing before competent legal authority;Reasonably necessary to prevent fleeing);Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-4 - Procedural guarantees of review;Review of lawfulness of detention);Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-5 - Compensation);Violation of Article 18+5-1-c - Limitation on use of restrictions on rights (Article 18 - Restrictions for unauthorised purposes) (Article 5 - Right to liberty and security;Article 5-1-c - Bringing before competent legal authority)

André Potocki;Angelika Nußberger;Ann Power-Forde;Dean Spielmann;Ganna Yudkivska;Karel Jungwiert;Mark Villiger

The applicant , born in DATE , is serving a prison sentence in ORG no . CARDINAL in ORG . She is currently hospitalised in ORG of ORG in GPE .

The applicant is the leader of the Batkivshchyna political party and of PERSON .

During the periods from DATE to CARDINAL DATE and from DATE to DATE , she exercised the function of Prime Minister of GPE . Before becoming Prime Minister , the applicant was one of the leaders of the Orange Revolution , during which she had openly criticised the then rival presidential candidate PERSON .

In the parliamentary elections held in DATE PERSON Bloc was victorious in CARDINAL regions in the country ( out of CARDINAL ) and polled PERCENT nation - wide .

In the DATE parliamentary elections PERSON polled PERCENT throughout GPE and received CARDINAL seats ( out of CARDINAL ) in ORG .

NORP The applicant was the main opponent of President PERSON in the presidential election held in DATE . In the second round of the election she won the support of PERCENT voters , while Mr Yanukovych won PERCENT .

At the time of the introduction of the application , the applicant was the most visible opposition politician and the head of CARDINAL of the strongest opposition parties in GPE .

On DATE ORG ( hereinafter “ the ORG ” ) instituted criminal proceedings against the applicant on suspicion of abuse of power under LAW . The applicant was suspected of exceeding her authority and abusing her office in ordering the head of the ORG - owned enterprise GPE of GPE to sign an agreement with the NORP enterprise ORG providing for the importation of natural gas at a price of MONEY ( ORG ) per QUANTITY , which had caused the State to suffer considerable financial losses .

On DATE the pre - trial investigation was officially completed and the applicant was given DATE to read the case file . At the same time , she was called almost daily to attend the ORG ’s premises for questioning concerning the other criminal cases which had been initiated against her in the meantime . The case file at that time comprised CARDINAL pages in CARDINAL volumes .

On DATE the case was referred to the Kyiv ORG ( hereinafter “ the ORG ” ) for trial .

In a judgment of CARDINAL DATE the court found the applicant guilty as charged . It sentenced her to DATE imprisonment and imposed a DATE prohibition on exercising public functions on her .

On DATE ORG upheld the first - instance judgment .

On DATE the ORG delivered a final judgment in the case confirming the applicant ’s guilt and sentence .

Earlier , in DATE , CARDINAL other criminal cases – one concerning the misuse of funds allocated for the purchase of ambulances and the other concerning funds received by GPE within the framework of LAW – had been opened against the applicant under LAW and CARDINAL of the Criminal Code .

NORP In DATE ORG re - opened another criminal case against the applicant , on suspicion of financial fraud during her tenure as head of the company ORG of GPE in DATE , which had been closed in DATE .

On DATE the investigator asked ORG ( “ the ORG ” ) to order the applicant ’s remand in custody in order to facilitate the further pre - trial investigation of this case .

On DATE the court granted that motion following CARDINAL hearings conducted in the GPE medical unit , during which the applicant was lying in bed because of pain . The hearings were interrupted CARDINAL times for her emergency treatment with painkillers .

On DATE ORG upheld the above ruling .

On DATE the applicant was officially indicted .

During the initial stages of the pre - trial investigation and the trial concerning the gas agreement the applicant was at liberty , subject to an undertaking not to abscond .

DATE and CARDINAL DATE ORG held QUANTITY hearings , in all of which the applicant participated .

On DATE the hearing started at TIME The applicant was late and her counsel asked for TIME break . The applicant arrived TIME . The court resumed the hearing at TIME The applicant explained that she was late due to her exhaustion . The previous hearing had ended at TIME DATE before and she had had to prepare for the next hearing TIME .

During the hearing the judge heard the incumbent Prime Minister , PERSON PERSON . The applicant ’s questions were almost all dismissed by the judge , but allegedly made the witness overly nervous and upset . It is not clear whether the applicant asked the questions herself or through her lawyers .

After the cross - examination of this witness , a representative of the ORG asked the judge to order the applicant ’s remand in custody on the grounds that she had obstructed justice and had demonstrated her disrespect for Judge PERSON and those taking part in the hearing .

Judge PERSON granted the ORG ’s motion on DATE and ordered the applicant ’s detention for an undetermined period , with reference to LAW . His reasoning was as follows :

“ Both during the pre - trial investigation stage and the trial the defendant has systematically been violating court procedures , has been ignoring the presiding judge ’s orders , has been showing contempt towards the participants in the hearing and the court , has been knowingly protracting the judicial examination of this case , and has been performing acts aimed at impeding establishing the truth in the case , in particular , by hindering the questioning of witnesses . ”

He added that the applicant had refused to give any information about her domicile ( referring to the case file ) . The letters sent to the address indicated by her had been returned by the post office . The applicant had also repeatedly refused to sign notices informing her of scheduled hearings . As noted in the ruling , it was final , no appeal lying against it .

The applicant was detained in the court room and was transferred to ORG no . CARDINAL in GPE ( “ GPE no . CARDINAL ” ) .

In the course of subsequent court hearings held on CARDINAL , DATE , DATE , DATE , DATE , DATE , DATE , DATE , DATE , DATE and DATE and on CARDINAL , CARDINAL , DATE , DATE , DATE and CARDINAL September CARDINAL the applicant and her defence counsel repeatedly lodged requests to have her detention replaced with another preventive measure . They submitted that the applicant had complied with the obligation not to leave town , had participated in all the investigative measures as required and had attended all the court hearings . The applicant further contended that there was no legal basis for remanding her in custody as punishment for her supposed lack of respect towards the presiding judge . She also complained that her detention was contrary to the safeguards of LAW and should be replaced by a less intrusive preventive measure . Numerous letters of personal guarantee from prominent public figures including clergy , artists , writers , journalists and scientists were addressed to Judge PERSON with a request to release the applicant under their personal commitment to ensure her attendance at court . A proposal of bail in the amount of CARDINAL NORP hryvnias was also made .

ORG dismissed all the requests for the applicant ’s release with reference to its reasoning given in the ruling of CARDINAL DATE . Each subsequent dismissal was based on the earlier dismissals . The court stated , inter alia , that the applicant had continued to show disrespect for the court and the trial participants , and had not followed the instructions of , and had not responded to remarks made by , the presiding judge .

On DATE ORG examined the applicant ’s appeal against the detention order , in which the applicant had claimed that her detention was unlawful and unlimited in duration . The appellate court dismissed it without examination of the merits with the following reasoning :

“ ... Pursuant to LAW ( “ the ORG ” ) , a court may change a preventive measure during its examination of the case . When choosing remand in custody as a preventive measure , the court shall be guided by the relevant provisions of LAW of the ORG .

LAW ORG does not provide , in substance , for the right to challenge a court ’s decision about a change of preventive measure during the examination of a criminal case .

During the examination of the present criminal case , allowing the prosecutor ’s motion on DATE the GPE ORG changed the preventive measure in respect of the defendant PERSON . PERSON from an undertaking not to abscond to remand in custody . This decision has been challenged on appeal .

However , according to the ORG , rulings on selection , change or discontinuation of a preventive measure delivered during the judicial examination of a case are not amenable to ordinary appeal . It follows that there are no grounds for accepting [ the applicant ’s ] appeal against the decision of CARDINAL DATE for examination . ”

In its verdict of CARDINAL DATE convicting the applicant ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) , ORG decided to keep her in detention as a preventive measure until her conviction became final .

On DATE , CARDINAL and DATE the applicant lodged further requests for release referring , in addition to her earlier arguments , to the deterioration of her health .

The applicant was detained in GPE no . CARDINAL from DATE to CARDINAL DATE .

NORP The applicant was placed in cell no . CARDINAL together with CARDINAL other detainees . In her original application , she indicated that the size of the cell was QUANTITY , while in her observations on the admissibility and merits she stated that its size was QUANTITY . According to the Government , the cell measured QUANTITY .

The applicant also maintained that the cell had a single window which could not be opened , being too high to be reached by the inmates , and was unventilated which , taking into account the fact that her CARDINAL cellmates had smoked , had caused serious problems for her health . According to the Government , the applicant had been able to open the window , which had measured CARDINAL by QUANTITY , and CARDINAL of her cellmates had not been a smoker while the other had only smoked outside the cell during her outdoor walks . Moreover , the cell had been equipped with a ventilation system .

According to the applicant , the cell had lacked hot water and had often not had a supply of cold water , and she had not been provided with any drinking water . The Government indicated that the cell had been equipped with a supply of hot and cold water , a separate toilet and a washing stand with a tap and had been equipped with central heating . They added that during her time in the GPE , the applicant had received QUANTITY of drinking water in CARDINAL containers .

According to the applicant , the cell had not been sufficiently lit , had been damp and had had a pungent smell and mould growing in it . The light in the cell could not be switched off and had been kept permanently on . The Government specified that CARDINAL lamps each consisting of CARDINAL bulbs ( a total of CARDINAL CARDINAL-watt bulbs ) had been used for lighting during DATE and CARDINAL lamp with a QUANTITY bulb for lighting during TIME .

The applicant stated that at the time of introducing her application to the ORG , on DATE , she had been entitled to take a shower once per week and , according to her , the bedding in her cell was not regularly changed . In her observations on the admissibility and merits , she indicated that she had been allowed to shower twice per week . The Government observed that while , according to the general rule , each detainee was provided with access to bathing facilities for TIME once DATE , the applicant had been permitted to have a shower several times a week . They further pointed out that all detainees were provided with bed linen . They noted that as of CARDINAL DATE , the remaining stock of new bedding in the GPE included CARDINAL blankets , CARDINAL pillows , CARDINAL sheets , CARDINAL towels and CARDINAL pillowcases . The applicant , having received a total of CARDINAL items of bed linen from her relatives , had never asked the PERSON administration to have her bed linen changed .

The applicant noted that the Government had not mentioned the number of inmates who had been present at the relevant time in respect of the quantity of bed linen , and what bed linen had been available to her . She maintained that she had had to rely exclusively on her relatives in order to be provided with drinking water , bed linen , food and other essentials .

On DATE the applicant was temporarily moved to cell no . CARDINAL , where she stayed until DATE when she was transferred to a newly refurbished cell , no . CARDINAL , in the medical unit . According to her , there had been no heating or hot water supply in cell no . CARDINAL .

DATE and DATE an ad hoc ORG mission visited GPE no . CARDINAL . On DATE they paid a visit to the applicant . According to her , that visit was the reason for her transfer to cell no . CARDINAL and the improvement of the conditions of her detention .

On DATE of court hearings , which were , according to the applicant , conducted DATE , she was woken up at TIME in order to be transported to the court by TIME As further submitted by her , she had had to spend , before and after the hearings , TIME in a room measuring about FAC x QUANTITY without a window . The Government denied this . After the hearings , the applicant had returned to her cell no earlier than TIME . On DATE she had not been given time for exercising or an outdoor walk .

In her original application , the applicant stated that she had not been able to eat any food provided by the GPE due to her chronic gastroenterological diseases and allergies . After she had eaten a few meals there , her chronic gastroenterological diseases had worsened and she had experienced constant pain in her stomach . The applicant also argued that her DATE court hearings had left her no time to seek medical assistance while in the GPE . In addition , she had not been allowed to take her food with her to the court . As a result , she had spent TIME without any food on days when she had been required to attend court hearings .

In her observations on the admissibility and merits of the application , the applicant stated that she had not had an assigned room or time to consume food in the court building and had found it humiliating to do so in front of the public including journalists , reporters and photographers . According to her , she had been held in the courtroom for the entire hearing and had only been able to leave it to use the toilet facilities . As a result , she had remained without any food or drink for entire court hearings , which had lasted for TIME .

According to the ORG , before the start of the court hearings , the applicant had been held in the courtroom where her case was to be examined . The ORG also noted that , contrary to the applicant ’s claims , she had been given time for outdoor walks and physical exercise on the DATE of court hearings . In fact , when she had been escorted back to the GPE after court hearings before TIME , she had been able to go for an outdoor walk in accordance with the routine DATE schedule . In other instances , the applicant had usually refused to have an outdoor walk .

The Government further stated that the applicant had brought various foodstuffs and personal items of clothing back to the GPE with her after each court hearing on CARDINAL DATE , CARDINAL , CARDINAL , DATE , DATE and DATE , which indicated that she had been able to receive and consume food on the DATE of court hearings . Consequently , the PERSON administration had not prepared a packed lunch to be taken by the applicant upon being escorted to the courtroom .

The Government also observed that the applicant had received substantial food parcels after her arrival in the GPE . From CARDINAL to CARDINAL DATE , she had been provided with food in compliance with legal requirements . Subsequently , from CARDINAL DATE , the applicant had officially refused to consume food prepared in the GPE and had indicated that she would only accept food delivered from her home . The Government noted that during the period from DATE to CARDINAL DATE , the applicant had received CARDINAL parcels including , in total , CARDINAL eggs ; CARDINAL dietary food items ; CARDINAL food items with a high fat content ; CARDINAL vegetables and pieces of fruit ; and QUANTITY of drinking water .

The Government noted that the applicant had refused to consume food prepared in the ORG which had , therefore , been unable to provide her with a special diet . Moreover , despite her contention that her ORG recommendations did not allow her to eat , in particular , eggs and food items with a high fat content , the food delivered to her in the parcels suggested that the applicant had actually consumed a great number of prohibited food items .

The applicant stated that due to her chronic illnesses , her personal physician had insisted on a strict diet , excluding any traces of eggs , meat or fatty foods . In order to prevent allergies the applicant ’s physician had also advised her to limit her exposure to toxic compounds , including tobacco smoke , disinfectants and plastic utensils . She complained of sudden subcutaneous haemorrhages , acute pain in her stomach and throat , the exacerbation of chronic illnesses , including chronic gastritis , chronic pancreatitis , intestinal dysbiosis , adenomyosis of the uterus , grade CARDINAL nodular goitre , insomnia , relapsing urticaria caused by a variety of allergic reactions , and severe drug and food ( egg ) allergies .

On DATE the applicant requested ORG under Rule CARDINAL of ORG to indicate to the Government the necessity of her release given the alleged risk to her life inherent in her detention .

On DATE the ORG rejected this request .

On DATE , DATE and DATE and on CARDINAL and DATE Judge PERSON and the GPE authorities rejected the applicant ’s requests for a medical examination by doctors whom she trusted . Instead , the applicant was offered a medical examination by doctors assigned by ORG . She refused the offer .

According to the ORG , the applicant was examined by doctors from the GPE medical unit upon her arrival there on CARDINAL DATE but refused to undergo a detailed medical examination . On DATE she refused to be seen by a generalist , a psychiatrist , and a dentist , to have her blood pressure measured , to undergo an electrocardiogram , a fluorography examination , and blood and urine tests . She maintained her refusal on CARDINAL DATE .

On DATE , having returned from a court hearing to the GPE , the applicant complained of a build up of fluid in the cavity of her left elbow . She was diagnosed with a haematoma under the skin of the cavity of the left elbow with an undetermined cause . She insisted on undergoing tests in an independent laboratory .

On DATE the applicant was examined by the head of the GPE medical unit , who established that her state of health had not changed . The applicant refused to undergo a blood test in the GPE and insisted that the test be carried out in an independent laboratory in the presence of her personal doctor .

On DATE the applicant complained of newly discovered haematomas on her body but refused to undergo the suggested medical examination . She was advised to undergo laboratory tests but she refused to do so without the presence of her personal doctor , PERSON , and a nurse . She also refused to be seen by an expert panel of doctors appointed by ORG ( “ the medical panel ” ) . In TIME on the same day she complained of asthenia , vertigo , dehydration and vomiting .

On DATE the applicant complained of general asthenia , fatigue , vertigo , areas of swelling caused by a build up of fluid on the lower limbs , a nosebleed and frequent dehydration . According to her , there were no newly discovered haematomas . However , she refused to be seen by the medical panel , insisting on undergoing an examination and laboratory tests in the presence of PERSON and the nurse .

On DATE the applicant was examined by the head of the GPE medical unit , who found that her state of health was satisfactory and that there were no newly discovered haematomas . The applicant refused to undergo a detailed medical examination .

She was also seen by the head of the ORG medical unit on DATE . The doctor confirmed that her state of health was satisfactory . The applicant complained of dehydration and a bleeding nose at night ; according to her , there were no newly discovered haematomas but she refused to undergo a detailed medical examination .

On DATE the applicant agreed to be examined by the medical panel . She complained of the appearance of a petechial skin rash and haematomas and stated that she had twice had a bleeding nose at night without having high blood pressure . The panel agreed that the applicant ’s general state of health was satisfactory . The applicant was advised to undergo laboratory tests .

On DATE she was seen again by the medical panel . PERSON and her nurse were allowed to join the panel . The applicant refused to undergo a medical examination and confidential laboratory tests but agreed to have her blood clotting time assessed by the PERSON method on condition that any biological material be destroyed by incineration . The results showed that her body ’s ability to coagulate blood was normal . The applicant was told to eat food full of protein and vitamin C. In the evening she complained of headache and asthenia . She was examined but her blood flow was normal . She was given CARDINAL tablets of PERSON ( ketorolac , an antiinflammatory drug ) and her treatment with collagen and ascorutin ( vitamin C and flavonoids ) was prescribed .

DATE . On DATE the applicant was examined by the head of the GPE medical unit . She complained of asthenia , vertigo , dehydration and new haematomas , but refused to undergo a detailed examination . In the course of examinations carried out on CARDINAL and CARDINAL DATE no serious change in her state of health was established .

On DATE the applicant was offered an examination by the medical panel in the presence of PERSON and the nurse . She refused to undergo the examination or laboratory tests in CARDINAL laboratories outside the GPE and insisted on a confidential examination by doctors of her choice and on a laboratory examination without the medical panel being informed of the results .

On DATE the applicant was again advised to undergo an examination by the medical panel in the presence of PERSON and the nurse . She drew attention to the appearance of a rash on the lower third of her chest , but refused to undergo a further medical examination or laboratory tests .

On DATE and on CARDINAL and DATE she was examined by the head of the ORG medical unit , who found no serious changes in her state of health .

On DATE the applicant was advised to undergo examination by the medical panel in the presence of PERSON and the nurse . The applicant refused to do so .

On DATE she maintained her refusal .

On DATE , CARDINAL , DATE and DATE she was examined by the head of the GPE medical unit . Her state of health was found to be satisfactory . The applicant complained of asthenia , headache , dehydration , abdominal pain on an empty stomach and broken sleep but she refused to undergo a detailed examination and insisted on being seen by PERSON was told to take pariet ( rabeprazole , a drug which slows or stops the production of stomach acid ) tablets .

The head of the GPE medical unit visited the applicant again on CARDINAL DATE . He found no serious changes and added a multivitamin tablet to the applicant ’s treatment regimen . On CARDINAL , DATE and QUANTITY DATE the applicant was advised to continue the indicated treatment .

DATE . On DATE , CARDINAL , DATE and DATE she continued to be seen by the head of the GPE medical unit . She complained of pain while swallowing , asthenia , headache , vertigo , intestinal pain and broken sleep . No new haematomas were discovered and the applicant refused to undergo a further detailed examination . She was told to use a nasal spray , gargle with a solution , drink hot drinks and take paracetamol .

On DATE the applicant was advised to undergo an examination by the medical panel in the presence of PERSON and the nurse . She refused to do so .

On DATE the applicant was consulted by a medical panel composed of experts from the GPE , ORG and the O.O. Bogomolets National Medical University . She complained , inter alia , of coughing , general asthenia and periodic vertigo . She noted the improvement of her state of health after gargling and drinking tea with honey and taking vitamins . She was advised to continue gargling and to consume healthy food and drinks . However , she refused to undergo a more detailed medical examination .

On DATE the applicant was seen by the medical panel in the presence of PERSON complained of general asthenia , periodic vertigo , and right subcostal pain and irritation . The panel confirmed an improvement in her state of health . The applicant refused to undergo a further medical examination . She was advised not to eat fresh vegetables and fruits , but rather to eat them cooked and to exclude dairy products and spicy , salty and sour dishes from her diet . She was also prescribed , inter alia , motilium ( domperidone , used to suppress nausea and vomiting ) and told to eat CARDINAL times per day .

From DATE to DATE the applicant was examined on a DATE basis by specialists from the GPE medical unit , who established that her state of health had gradually improved and that her catarrhal symptoms had disappeared .

On DATE and DATE she was examined by the head of the ORG medical unit , who confirmed that her state of health was satisfactory . The applicant complained of asthenia , headache , vertigo , the periodic appearance of haematomas , dehydration and broken sleep . She refused to undergo a detailed examination . She was prescribed detralex ( diosmin , a flavonoid used to treat venous insufficiency ) , motilium , ascorutin and multivitamins .

DATE and DATE the applicant was examined by the head of the GPE medical unit on a DATE basis . She complained of pain in the lumbar region of the spine that , according to her , had first occurred when walking after she had jumped from a horizontal bar . She was diagnosed with lumbago and prescribed a medicine ( pariet ) and an intramuscular injection of movalis ( a non - steroidal anti - inflammatory drug ) was administered . She was also given CARDINAL tablet of movalis to take after eating .

On DATE the applicant was prescribed additional treatments of movalis , pariet , donormyl ( a sleeping tablet ) , tetramycin ( an antibiotic ) and multivitamins .

On DATE she again complained of pain in lumbar region of the spine . She was prescribed treatment with xefocam ( lornoxicam , a painkiller ) , pariet and multivitamins .

On DATE the applicant was examined by the medical panel . She complained of pain in the lumbar region of her spine , but refused to be examined in detail . Manual therapy was carried out .

From DATE to CARDINAL DATE the applicant continued to be examined by the head of the GPE medical unit on a DATE basis . The medical treatment continued in accordance with the previous recommendations , with some additional treatment being provided .

On DATE she was examined by the medical panel . She complained of pain in the lumbar region of her spine . CARDINAL DATE she was provided with massage and medicinal treatment .

In the meantime , on DATE , the applicant had been examined again by the medical panel . She confirmed that the pain in the lumbar region of the spine had decreased . The doctors noted an improvement in her general state of health and advised her to continue the prescribed treatment ( xefokam and dolobene , a gel containing ibuprofen ) . The applicant , however , refused to take the prescribed medicines .

The medical panel also examined the applicant on DATE . She stated that the pain in the lumbar region of the spine had decreased . The doctors confirmed an improvement in her state of health and advised her to continue the prescribed treatment ( xefokam , dolobene ) .

On DATE the applicant was examined by the medical panel . She complained of pain in the lumbar region of the spine . She was given an intramuscular injection of xefokam and dolobene .

On a DATE basis from CARDINAL to CARDINAL DATE the applicant continued to be under the supervision of the medical panel , which found that her state of health had improved . She continued to refuse to undergo further detailed examination .

On DATE she refused to undergo an x - ray examination .

On DATE the applicant was examined by the medical panel , which recommended an additional examination and continuance of the prescribed treatment .

She was examined again by the medical panel DATE . In addition , she underwent ultrasonic duplex scanning of her lower limbs . She had been previously diagnosed with lumbar osteochondrosis , sciatica on the right side , tonic muscle spasms , serious disturbances of the functions of the spine and right lower limbs and , possibly , spondyloarthrosis and spondyloarthralgia . The panel concluded that the verification of the diagnosis and a determination of the treatment strategy were necessary and an additional examination and additional consultations between experts were therefore needed . However , the applicant refused to undergo the suggested x - ray examination .

On DATE the applicant was given another prescription of ascorutin and tetramycin .

On DATE she was examined by the medical panel , but refused to undergo a detailed examination and a blood test .

On DATE the applicant refused to take tetramycin , which had been prescribed on DATE .

On DATE the applicant was examined by the medical panel in the presence of PERSON and her nurse . In order to adjust the treatment previously prescribed , the applicant was advised to undergo a blood test but she refused to do so . The applicant also refused to undergo a detailed examination and receive injections of betamethasone ( a steroid with anti - inflammatory and immunosuppressive properties ) . The medical panel recommended continuing the previous treatment .

On DATE the applicant underwent an examination ( including an MRI scan ) of the abdomen . She was advised to provide blood , urine and stool samples for laboratory examination but she refused to do so . The medical panel established no signs of any medical condition affecting her pancreas but detected chronic cholecystitis which had developed after an acute cholecystitis episode , and prescribed chofitol ( an indigestion remedy ) . The applicant was told to continue taking ascorbic acid and rutin , to exclude fatty , fried and spicy foods from her diet and to increase the dosage of the pills she was taking that were intended to remove toxic compounds from her system . The panel noted that the applicant had not fully complied with the previous recommendations .

In the course of an examination of CARDINAL DATE the applicant complained that after receiving vitamin B injections ( milgamma ) , she had had an allergic reaction . After taking CARDINAL tablet of telfast ( fexofenadine , an antihistamine ) , the allergic reaction had stopped . According to her , there were no new haematomas on her body . She was prescribed furosemide ( a diuretic ) .

From CARDINAL tо CARDINAL DATE the applicant was seen DATE by the doctors of the GPE medical unit . She complained of headache , dehydration , discomfort in the epigastric and right subcostal regions and broken sleep , but refused to undergo a thorough examination and stated that she would follow the prescribed treatment at her discretion . During this period , she noted that the pain in the lumbar region of the spine had decreased .

On DATE , at her request , she was transferred to the GPE medical unit . After an initial examination , she was prescribed treatment with diclofenac ( an anti - inflammatory drug ) , furosemide , sirdalud ( a muscle relaxant ) , diprospan ( a corticosteroid ) , milgamma , pariet , chofitol , ascorbic acid , rutin , and PERSON ( a pain - relieving ointment ) . She was also advised to undergo a general and biochemical blood test , coagulogram analysis , to provide urine and stool samples for testing , and was also prescribed a special diet .

On DATE the applicant was examined by the head of the GPE medical unit , who diagnosed widespread lumbar osteochondrosis in the form of sciatica on the right side with temporary severe pain but without signs of compressive radiculopathy , and a hemangioma .

On DATE she was examined by the medical panel in the presence of PERSON and her nurse . She was advised to undergo a blood test but she refused to do so , continuing to insist on a confidential blood examination outside GPE with the involvement of her personal doctor and without the involvement of ORG representatives .

The applicant stated that on DATE her lawyer had been in the GPE medical unit in order to prepare for the appeal hearing . The applicant and her lawyer had not been able to have their meeting in private because she had been unable to move , walk on her own or be seated .

On DATE the applicant refused to undergo a medical examination by the medical panel which , having examined the available medical documentation , noted that among other illnesses the applicant was suffering from chronic cholecystitis which had developed after an acute cholecystitis episode and that she had not fully complied with the previous medical recommendations .

On DATE the applicant was again examined by the medical panel . The applicant was advised , inter alia , to continue using ORG and Traumeel S. ( homeopathic ointments designed to reduce joint pain and inflammation ) , to undergo general and biochemical blood tests , coagulogram analysis and to provide a urine sample for testing . The applicant was repeatedly offered the opportunity to undergo a laboratory blood test , but she refused to do so . The panel again noted that the applicant had not fully complied with the previous recommendations . It was also noted that there was no need for surgery .

On CARDINAL and DATE the applicant was advised to submit to an examination by a specialist from ORG and ORG , but she refused to do so .

On DATE the applicant was examined by medical specialists from ORG . Based on the results of the report of CARDINAL DATE and the information obtained during the medical examination on DATE , the panel found that there were no medical reasons that would render the applicant ’s attendance at the court hearings inappropriate .

On DATE the applicant underwent an electrocardiogram and an echocardiogram . No heart condition was discovered .

On DATE the applicant was moved to ORG in GPE to serve her prison sentence . She was held in a cell measuring QUANTITY , sharing it with another inmate . The cell was equipped with CARDINAL PVC windows each measuring QUANTITY , providing natural light and aeration of the cell . Artificial lighting was provided by energy - efficient bright tube lamps . The cell was also ventilated mechanically .

The cell had a separate shower room measuring QUANTITY and QUANTITY . The shower room was equipped , among other things , with a water heater and a washing machine . The applicant therefore had round - the - clock access to hot and cold water and could take a shower at any time . The inventory of the cell included CARDINAL single wooden beds with orthopaedic mattresses , CARDINAL sets of bed linen , a sliding - door wardrobe , a kitchen table , a coffee table , CARDINAL chairs , a coat rack , a bedside table for shoes , and a suite of kitchen furniture with a dishwasher and cabinets . There were also a TV set , an ironing board , a hairdryer , a refrigerator , a microwave oven , an electric kettle and all necessary kitchen utensils .

Food was provided in accordance with national regulations . The food was prepared in the dining room of the colony and delivered to inmates in special containers . In addition , the applicant had the right to receive an unrestricted number of parcels containing foodstuffs . By DATE , the applicant had received CARDINAL such parcels .

According to the Government , from the date of her arrival at the colony , the applicant had refused to take DATE walks on account of her state of health . As a rule , she had been entitled to DATE walks at any time during DATE . The exercise yard measured QUANTITY .

The applicant stated that due to her state of health , she had requested a crutch and , on DATE , a walker to assist her in moving on her own , but the administration of the colony had refused to provide her with any walking aids . As a result , the applicant had been unable to walk on her own in her cell , let alone be able to enjoy DATE outdoor walks . The colony had not taken any measures such as providing her with a walker or a wheelchair to assist her moving around or to allow her to enjoy being outdoors .

According to the Government , on DATE the applicant was examined in the regional clinical hospital . She underwent a helical computed tomography scan of her brain , an MRI scan of her jugular spine , lumbosacral spine and neck , and a blood test . On the same date she was examined by medical specialists from ORG and ORG . Upon those examinations , the previous diagnoses were confirmed as follows : widespread lumbar osteochondrosis in the form of sciatica on the right side , with temporary severe pain but without signs of compression radiculopathy ; and hemangiomas of the lumbar spine vertebrae . However , the protrusion of the intervertebral discs in comparison with the previous MRI scan had decreased . It was recommended that the applicant be kept under active observation by the colony doctors , that she have blood pressure checks CARDINAL or CARDINAL times per day and her temperature taken twice per day , and an examination by a neurologist and otolaryngologist was scheduled for DATE . She was also prescribed betahistine ( an anti - vertigo drug ) , detralex and diacarb ( acetazolamide , an inhibitor used to treat a variety of illnesses including glaucoma , epileptic seizures and altitude sickness and which also functions as a diuretic ) ; and , in case of necessity , symptomatic treatment , therapeutic exercise and medical massage .

On DATE the applicant was examined by NORP doctors from ORG in GPE who recommended , on DATE , her transfer to a specialised hospital for additional examination and treatment .

On DATE the applicant underwent additional examinations .

On DATE a joint meeting of NORP and NORP doctors took place in order to reach a common approach to the applicant ’s treatment . According to the Government , upon the recommendations of the NORP doctors being received a common plan of comprehensive medical treatment of the applicant was developed . According to the applicant , however , the NORP doctors were not involved in the discussion and did not sign the recommendations in question .

According to Government , on CARDINAL , DATE , DATE , DATE and DATE the applicant was offered the opportunity to start the treatment recommended by the NORP doctors in accordance with the developed plan . However , the applicant refused to undergo that treatment , insisting on her hospitalisation in a civilian hospital , not excluding a NORP medical institution . She agreed , however , to be hospitalised in a medical institution inspected and recommended by the NORP doctors .

On DATE the applicant requested ORG under Rule CARDINAL of ORG to indicate to the Government that she should be provided with appropriate medical treatment by independent doctors in a specialised institution .

On DATE the ORG applied the interim measure under Rule DATE and requested the Government “ to ensure that the applicant receives treatment appropriate to her complaints in an appropriate institutionalized setting ” .

On DATE the Government brought medical equipment from nearby hospitals to the prison . On the same date , the applicant was offered a lumbar puncture in the medical ward . She refused to undergo this procedure on the grounds that it was a surgical procedure which ought to be performed in a surgical operating room and the ward did not offer proper , sterile conditions and lacked appropriate medical equipment .

On DATE , DATE and DATE the applicant submitted written requests for medical treatment and complained about the lack of that treatment to the colony administration . On CARDINAL and DATE the head of the administration offered the applicant the opportunity to undergo treatment in the medical unit of the colony and also allowed her to choose between CARDINAL medical institutions in which to undergo a paravertebral block procedure . The applicant asked to consult the neurologist , PERSON , who had been her doctor in GPE no . CARDINAL and whose diagnoses had been fully confirmed by the NORP doctors . The head of the administration refused to allow her to consult PERSON , referring to the conclusions of DATE which had allegedly reflected the common position of the NORP and NORP doctors .

On DATE the applicant refused to be treated either in ORG at the regional clinical hospital or in ORG , in order to undergo a paravertebral block procedure .

The Government noted that on DATE the applicant was examined by the medical panel , including the First Deputy Minister of Health and specialists from ORG and ORG . The applicant was prescribed treatment in ORG ( “ the Central Clinical Hospital ” ) . At the same time , it was explained to her that this institution ’s facilities complied with the requirements set out by the medical specialists from GPE . The applicant agreed to undergo this treatment .

NORP However , on DATE she changed her mind and explained that ORG was not a specialized medical institution meeting the requirements contained in the interim measure ordered by ORG on DATE . She also noted that she would undergo treatment in the above institution only after the NORP doctors had confirmed that it was able to provide the treatment recommended by them .

On DATE the applicant was offered a transfer to ORG . She was examined by the medical panel . She was told that the panel had visited ORG , had found its LOC and equipment satisfactory and had concluded that the hospital provided the best conditions for the applicant ’s treatment . The applicant agreed to be treated there provided that the hospital was assessed by the NORP doctors , who were expected to arrive on DATE .

DATE the NORP doctors examined the applicant and checked the quality of the hospital proposed by the Government . They accepted the cleanliness of the hospital and the sincere attempts of the doctors there to be open , friendly and respectful , emphasising at the same time that in the short time available to them , they had not been able to assess whether the doctors were able to offer the complex underlying treatment needed .

On DATE the NORP doctors delivered their report as regards the appropriateness of ORG for the applicant ’s needs . The report indicated a number of problems with the applicant undergoing the treatment in ORG .

In a letter of DATE sent to the Government at TIME the Court invited the Government to inform it , by DATE , what steps had been taken by them to comply with the terms of the interim measure ordered on DATE .

At an unspecified time on DATE a medical panel composed of CARDINAL doctors visited the applicant . A statement issued on DATE reads as follows :

“ Members of ORG ... arrived at ORG on DATE . Accompanied by the staff of ORG , they entered the room where PERSON . PERSON was being kept proposing to carry out a medical check - up .

While communicating with PERSON . PERSON , the board members again , with the use of arguments , convincingly and persistently suggested to her that she finally start inpatient treatment , which had been recommended by ORG and confirmed again by NORP health professionals on DATE , at the Central [ Clinical ] Hospital , where all necessary conditions had been created to make it possible to administer [ the necessary ] drugs and physical therapy , [ and ] to adjust , complement and extend [ that treatment ] if necessary .

While communicating with the board , the prisoner was sitting at the table . She was in the right mood to talk with the health professionals . She read the report regarding the assessment of the hospital by health professionals which had been handed over by the penal colony management .

Members of the medical board , [ having ] consulted [ the relevant report ] , thoroughly analysed the conclusions of the NORP doctors regarding their visit to the Central [ Clinical ] Hospital and PERSON . PERSON on DATE ( letter from ORG of GPE dated CARDINAL no . CARDINAL - CARDINAL - CARDINAL ) , received and discussed information from members of medical staff of ORG regarding the state of health of PERSON . PERSON , took into account objective evidence provided by the medical staff of ORG regarding the lack of deterioration of the prisoner ’s state of health ; the board also took into account the fact that no additional complaints were received from the prisoner during their communication with her .

The board repeatedly advised hospitalisation [ in order for ] comprehensive treatment to be carried out . In response , the patient repeatedly stated that she wished to be treated in an inpatient facility . However , she did not specify the date on which such treatment should begin .

Based on all the available medical information , the board jointly arrived at the conclusion that , as of DATE , the prisoner can be transferred , both to the place of treatment and in other cases provided for by law . ”

On DATE , the head of the medical unit of ORG ordered the applicant ’s hospitalisation in ORG of ORG . Again on DATE , at TIME , the applicant was transferred to this hospital . According to her , she objected to the transfer to that hospital as not suitable for her needs , and force was used against her . The applicant claims that , as a result , she was bruised and sustained haematomas on her stomach and a number of haematomas on her arms .

More specifically , the applicant ’s account of the events of TIME DATE is as follows : at TIME her cellmate was removed from the cell . CARDINAL prison guards came and , after the applicant refused to follow them , they forced her to leave the cell . They wrapped her in a sheet and hit her in the abdomen . Feeling acute pain in her abdomen and spine , the applicant lost consciousness and only woke up in the hospital . She remembered having been carried out to the ambulance by CARDINAL of the prison guards . Despite the permanent surveillance of her cell , the prison administration claimed that no recording of the incident had been made .

According to the applicant , upon her admission to the hospital , she refused to be treated by the hospital staff and asked to contact her lawyer . Moreover , in response to being physically abused by the prison guards , she announced and began a hunger strike . Despite her request , the applicant ’s lawyer was not allowed to visit her on DATE .

On DATE at TIME she was returned to the colony .

The applicant stated that on DATE she had asked to be examined by the prison doctors who , however , had ignored her request . On the same date she had filed a complaint with ORG about her forced transfer to the hospital and her alleged ill - treatment . She claimed that she had not been allowed to meet with her lawyer under the pretext that a “ cleaning day ” was taking place in the colony . The lawyer complained to ORG .

Again on DATE the applicant asked for a forensic examination to be carried out by an independent expert but , according to her , her request was dismissed by ORG office .

On DATE the applicant was allowed to see her lawyer for the first time since her return to the colony .

On DATE she showed her bruises to the colony medical staff . According to their examination report , minor bodily injuries ( a bruise on the left forearm and CARDINAL bruises on the right iliac area ) were found on the applicant ’s body as a result of a compressive blow by , or contact with , blunt solid objects DATE prior to the applicant ’s examination . The report also established that the apparent age of the bruises did not coincide with the time indicated by the applicant . Taking into account the locality and number of the applicant ’s injuries , the report indicated that CARDINAL blow had been inflicted in the area of the left forearm , and CARDINAL , in the area of the abdominal cavity . The report pointed out that the localisation of these bodily injuries was such as for it to have been possible for the applicant to have inflicted them herself .

According to the Government , on DATE a forensic medical expert was invited to examine the applicant . She , however , refused to allow the suggested examination .

Later on the same date the head of investigative department of ORG refused to institute criminal proceedings against colony staff in the absence of corpus delicti in their actions . According to the applicant , the prosecutor admitted , at a press conference , the application of force against her , but considered it to have been justified .

On DATE the above refusal was quashed due to the widespread dissemination in the media of information about the bodily injuries which had allegedly been inflicted on the applicant by colony staff . The prosecutor had also received the results of the applicant ’s examination by the colony medical staff on DATE confirming the existence of the bruises . Accordingly , additional investigation was deemed necessary .

On DATE a representative of the ORG visited the applicant , and on DATE the ORG , PERSON , made a public statement regarding the applicant ’s state of health and the fact that she had been physically abused during her forced transfer to the hospital . She stated as follows :

“ PERSON . PERSON gave her consent to an examination of her injuries by the ORG ’s representative in the presence of the governor of ORG . The examination established the presence of bruises on the upper part and near the elbow of the right arm , and a sizable bruise on the right lower part of the stomach .

PERSON . PERSON confirmed her statement of DATE made to ORG ... and expressed resentment over the absence of any reaction to that statement . She also stated that the ORG had not been informed of her application and [ that she had ] asked for [ the ORG ] to immediately visit the colony . In order to verify all the circumstances of the application of physical force to PERSON . PERSON , the ORG ’s representative met with ORG ... and the Head of ORG of ORG of GPE .

The ORG is obliged to state that , by DATE on DATE , the prosecution authorities had not duly responded to PERSON . PERSON ’s application .

The ORG declares that the transfer of ORG PERSON in such a manner amounts to ill - treatment of a detainee and could be classified as torture in breach of LAW ...

In this connection , the ORG demands :

From ORG GPE – to open a criminal case and to suspend from their professional duties all those involved in PERSON . PERSON ’s ill - treatment during her transfer from the colony .

From the Head of ORG to immediately ensure [ the provision of ] all necessary medical assistance [ to PERSON . PERSON ] in compliance with the decision of ORG and the conclusions of the NORP and independent foreign doctors . ”

On DATE the applicant submitted a new request for an interim measure under LAW , asking that the ORG be ordered to immediately use all available means at their disposal to ensure her treatment in ORG in GPE .

On DATE a further offer of a forensic medical examination was made but , according to the Government , the applicant refused to be examined . As a result , the head of ORG department of forensic medicine , a doctor of medicine , was assigned to evaluate her injuries on the basis of the medical examination report of DATE . He confirmed that the report had been drawn up in accordance with the relevant requirements . He fully agreed with the ORG conclusions and noted that , due to the state of the haematomas on DATE and their appearance DATE before the applicant ’s examination , the injuries could not have been inflicted on DATE . In addition , having familiarised himself with the medical file , which recorded the applicant ’s state of health during her detention in GPE no . CARDINAL , he noted that recurrent “ haematomas ” under the skin had appeared from time to time on the applicant ’s body since DATE , and had not been a result of external blows and could have resulted from a condition linked to the state of the applicant ’s vascular and circular systems . The expert also expressed his opinion on the photographic materials published in the media , noting , in particular , that the photos on which the opinions expressed in the media were based could not be the subject of any standalone assessment , and that , in general , any opinions based on the photos would be ill - founded .

According to the applicant , the forensic expert wrote a report in which he summarized that her bodily injuries were “ self - inflicted ” . She refused to sign the report , as she felt it had wrongly presumed that her injuries could have been “ self - inflicted ” . She asked for a forensic examination to be carried out by an independent doctor , but her request was rejected by ORG .

On DATE the ORG published pictures of the applicant ’s bruises . On DATE , ORG allegedly searched the ORG ’s office and served writs on a number of her staff members who had been involved in reporting on the applicant ’s physical injuries in the colony . According to the applicant , the Government declared that PERSON had forced her staff to make a false statement about the bruises on the applicant ’s body , without mentioning any names or sources for that statement .

On DATE the investigator at the prosecutor ’s office again refused to institute criminal proceedings against colony staff due to the absence of any indication of a crime in their actions . He noted in his decision , inter alia , the following :

“ On CARDINAL , upon referral by the Oblast prosecutor ’s office , in a residential area of the colony , expert in forensic medicine LOC . offered PERSON . ORG to have a forensic medical examination . She flatly refused ...

On CARDINAL , at CARDINAL , PERSON . PERSON , again , flatly refused having a forensic medical examination with participation of GPE , head of the forensic medicine department at ORG ...

Copies of written requests by PERSON . PERSON , dated CARDINAL , in which she asks to carry out her examination aimed at registration of her injuries by the staff of the colony , with presence of the prosecutor and indicates her unwillingness to be examined by the expert in forensic medicine PERSON . , were added to the materials of the investigation . In the same documents , PERSON . PERSON , with her own hand , indicated that staff of ORG no . DATE ( doctor on duty PERSON V.A. , nurse on duty PERSON , head of the medical unit PERSON , senior police operative at the operation branch Makarenko TIME ) examined her , and all her injures , as of CARDINAL were documented , and all the relevant data were entered into her medical records . ... ”

According to the Government , in order to establish the circumstances of the applicant ’s transfer to the hospital on DATE , her return to the colony on DATE and her bodily injuries , the investigator had collected evidence from the head of the colony and CARDINAL other colony employees , CARDINAL medical workers and CARDINAL ambulance drivers who had been on duty , CARDINAL members of the medical panel , CARDINAL employees of the hospital and other individuals .

NORP The head of the colony stated that on DATE he had granted permission for the applicant ’s transfer to the hospital . He had then given instructions to the deputy head of the colony ( also head of the security department ) and another deputy head of the colony to ensure the applicant ’s transfer . He had been informed that the applicant had not objected to her transfer and had not complained of the infliction of any injuries . On DATE the applicant had been visited by the colony medical staff on duty , who had observed no injuries on her body , while the applicant herself had made no statement about having suffered any injuries . The head of the colony had not given any instructions to his subordinates to use physical force on the applicant .

NORP The deputy head of the colony stated that on DATE he had been helping the applicant to come down the stairs to the ambulance and had accompanied her to the hospital . As she slowly descended the stairs from the second floor to the first , the applicant had told him that she was tired and had allowed him to carry her . He had carried the applicant to the ambulance , had placed her on a stretcher and had helped the driver to put the stretcher into the ambulance . He made it clear that no bodily injuries had been inflicted on the applicant in his presence . Similar statements were also given by the other deputy head of the colony and by a senior inspector .

NORP The head of the colony medical department stated that on DATE at TIME , he and CARDINAL deputy heads of the colony had gone to the applicant ’s cell and had informed her that she was to undergo an examination and to be hospitalised . He had asked her to gather together her personal belongings . At TIME the applicant had been put into the ambulance . During her transfer to the hospital , she had not expressed any complaints that bodily injuries had been inflicted on her . The head of the colony medical department stated that the applicant had not lost consciousness . Once the ambulance had arrived at the hospital , the applicant had been advised to undergo an initial medical examination , but she had refused to do so . On DATE at TIME colony medical staff had gone to see the applicant , who had refused to undergo a medical examination . She had not made any complaints and the staff had not found any injuries on her body . At TIME on DATE , in the course of their visit , changes had appeared on the applicant ’s skin and she had allowed the medical officers to examine them . The head of the colony medical department noted , however , that she had categorically refused to allow a forensic examination of her injuries . Evidence to the same effect was also given by the colony ’s doctor , by the colony ’s duty doctor and by the nurse .

Guards from the colony ’s surveillance and security department stated that on DATE they had been on day duty in department no . CARDINAL of the colony , where the applicant ’s cell was situated . The department was equipped with video cameras working in real - time mode but without a recording function . While viewing the applicant ’s cell on the monitor , CARDINAL of the inspectors said that he had seen no use of physical violence on the applicant by the members of colony staff who had visited her ; nor had he heard any noises . Once the staff members had left the cell , the inspector had seen on the screen that the applicant had taken a shower , had gathered her belongings together and had got into bed . In the course of the video surveillance , the guards had not noticed that the applicant had sustained any bodily injuries .

A cardiologist and paramedic working as part of the emergency team and the ambulance driver submitted that on DATE they had arrived at the colony in the evening . They had seen a young man carrying the applicant in his arms from the doors of the exercise yard and placing her on the stretcher . They had not noticed any injuries on the applicant ’s body .

NORP The colony staff involved explained that at TIME on DATE they had entered the ambulance to take the applicant to the hospital and had later accompanied her to a ward on the ninth floor . The applicant had not made any complaints in their presence . According to them , CARDINAL had inflicted any bodily injuries on her .

The doctor and ambulance driver stated that they had been on duty on DATE . After their arrival at the hospital at TIME the applicant had been carried out on a stretcher and placed on the gurney .

The Deputy Minister of ORG stated that the applicant had been driven to the colony accompanied by police vehicles . She had not made any complaints to the persons involved and they had not noticed that she had any bodily injuries . She stated that on DATE the medical panel had advised the applicant to start the treatment at the hospital . The applicant had not refused the treatment but had wanted to consult her lawyer . At TIME she had been brought to the hospital , but the witness did not know the specific details of her transfer . She knew that from DATE the applicant had been refusing to allow any kind of medical examination or treatment . During her visit to the applicant , the latter had not made any complaints and there had been no bodily injuries on any visible part of her body . Evidence to the same effect was given by other members of the medical panel .

The hospital doctors stated during their questioning that after the applicant ’s arrival at the hospital at TIME , she had immediately been hospitalised . During her admission there she had refused to allow any medical examination of her . On DATE she had only complained of pain in her back and a headache ; she had not made any other complaints .

The applicant ’s cellmate stated that in TIME DATE colony staff had come into the cell and had notified the applicant that permission had been granted to hospitalise her . The applicant had refused to be transferred to the hospital , but the head of the colony medical department had asked her to be prepared to be transferred . The cellmate was asked by the applicant to prepare what was necessary in case it would be needed . The applicant ’s cellmate went on to explain that at TIME staff had taken her out of the cell and had accompanied her to the medical unit .

In the course of the inquiry , prisoners who were serving sentences in the colony and who had occupied cells next to the applicant ’s cell were questioned . They stated that in TIME of DATE they had not heard any cries or other noise .

On CARDINAL DATE the applicant informed the ORG that NORP legislation did not provide for the possibility of outside doctors ( either NORP or foreigners ) to take part in treatment in a particular hospital if they were not employed by it .

On DATE the Government informed the ORG that they would grant an exemption to the aforesaid rule and allow the NORP doctors to join the NORP medical team from ORG and be involved in the applicant ’s medical treatment , which was to start on DATE .

On CARDINAL DATE the applicant was transferred to ORG , where she started her medical treatment under the supervision of a NORP neurologist . On the same date she ended her DATE hunger strike .

In a letter of CARDINAL DATE the applicant ’s lawyer stated that the applicant had been under round - the - clock video surveillance , even while undergoing medical procedures . The prison authorities had also allegedly published a full report of the applicant ’s medical history in the NORP media and released video recordings which the lawyer claimed had been taken in her prison cell .

According to a report made by the NORP doctor regarding the treatment of the applicant DATE , the termination of her hunger strike had been slow but successful and had allowed the commencement of some physiotherapeutic measures . However , the disclosure on the television of her diet and treatment on DATE had triggered her strong indignation . As a result , the applicant had interrupted her treatment and had even contemplated completely refusing to follow it and returning to the prison . She had been convinced to continue the treatment under the condition that no doctors not directly involved in it would be present at the regular LOC consultations conducted in the hospital .

On DATE the applicant filed a criminal complaint concerning her permanent surveillance in the hospital and publication of the confidential information concerning her state of health . On DATE the prosecutor notified the applicant that there were no grounds to take any prosecution measure in this respect .

On DATE the NORP doctor issued another report covering the applicant ’s treatment DATE . He noted the cooperative attitude of ORG doctors , who had been taking due note of his recommendations . As also noted in the report , the applicant had confidence in the competence and good faith of the hospital ’s medical staff . The doctor further indicated the progress of the therapy and an increase in the applicant ’s free time to CARDINAL - and - a - half hours DATE . At the same time , he pointed out that the applicant was under stress owing to the permanent video surveillance and presence of a security guard in her ward . He specified that the applicant had only been screened off from the video cameras using a curtain during his visits . This had often only taken place following his reminders . The guard had stayed in the ward during all medical procedures . Lastly , the doctor noted that the applicant had continued to refuse to allow any laboratory blood analysis to be conducted in GPE and therefore considered the possibility of that analysis being conducted in GPE .

NORP On DATE the interim measure applied on DATE was lifted , following the ORG ’s request of CARDINAL DATE . On DATE , the applicant ’s second request for an interim measure , made on DATE , was rejected .

On DATE the NORP doctor issued another report on the applicant ’s treatment , in which he summarised the impediments to its success as follows :

the applicant had accumulated , over DATE , profound mistrust towards NORP doctors because they were civil servants , and was refusing to receive any treatment from them or to allow any blood samples to be taken for analysis ;

it was impossible to have confidential doctor - patient conversations with the applicant – an essential part of the requisite therapy DATE because of the permanent video surveillance and the presence of a security guard and another inmate whose connection with the ORG authorities remained unclear ;

there had been breaches of confidentiality relating to examination results , diagnoses and medical prescriptions ( for example , the reports made by the NORP doctors had been disclosed on the Internet without the agreement of the applicant or the doctors ) ;

the applicant was refusing to allow any medical measures requiring physical intimacy for fear of being discredited in the eyes of the public by the disclosure of the video records ; and

interdisciplinary therapy was difficult to organise given ORG inability to send a full team of doctors .

According to a letter sent by the ORG dated DATE , the information which had been disclosed in the media had concerned the applicant ’s diet and the scheduling of her medical procedures and had not been , contrary to her allegations , confidential . They also denied that it had contained any information concerning the applicant ’s state of health and the nature of the medical procedures she had been undergoing .

On DATE the applicant brought an administrative action before ORG , which she further complemented on DATE , DATE , DATE and DATE . The applicant requested the court ( i ) to recognise as illegal the actions by officials of ORG and of ORG on the failure to fulfil her right to make telephone calls in accordance with LAW ; ( ii ) to oblige ORG and ORG to meet the requirements of LAW by providing her a right to telephone calls including on the territory of ORG of ORG ; ( iii ) to recognise as illegal the actions of the officials of ORG and ORG on the dissemination of confidential information regarding her and the state of her health ; ( iv ) to prohibit ORG and ORG from disclosing confidential information regarding her and the state of her health in the future ; ( v ) to recognise as illegal the actions of the officials of ORG and ORG of ORG in the ORG region of installing video cameras including hidden ones on the ninth floor of ORG of ORG and the video surveillance of the applicant ; ( vi ) to recognise as illegal the actions of the officials of ORG of filming the applicant in ORG of LOC ; ( vii ) to bind by a commitment ORG and ORG of ORG in the ORG region at the entry into force of the decision to cease surveillance and remove surveillance equipment that is located on the ninth floor of ORG of FAC where she was accommodated ; ( viii ) to recognise as illegal the actions of the officials of ORG of ORG in the ORG region in the implementation of public order , establishing barriers that impede the access of citizens to the ninth floor of ORG of ORG ; and ( ix ) to recognise as illegal the actions of the officials of ORG in providing male security officers at ORG of FAC .

NORP In a judgment of CARDINAL DATE ORG dismissed the applicant ’s administrative application . In respect of the applicant ’s complaint concerning the dissemination of the confidential information of her health condition the court stated as follows :

“ ORG denied the claim in this part on the grounds that the information about the plaintiff ’s health condition is public , due to social publicity the information was given precisely in order to inform the public about important facts concerning the life and activities of a public person . The defendant states the press - release given on CARDINAL contains information about the activities of an established commission and the results of its work . ORG further argues that the statement of the Minister is a comment on information which had been previously published in mass media .

ORG of GPE denies the illegality of the disclosures of the above information , referring to the fact that this information was published to refute a statement released in the media and in the Internet . Specifically , the defendant states that information disseminated in the Internet on GPE , GPE , GPE , GPE , CARDINAL , CARDINAL , DATE , DATE , reported the health status of the plaintiff , appeals of citizens , deputies and foreign diplomats to the defendant about the plaintiff ’s health .

Having reviewed the materials submitted by the parties , the ORG concludes that the information about the health condition and the fact of the plaintiff ’s appeal for medical treatment was first disseminated by persons authorized by the plaintiff .

In particular , the case file contains a copy of the power of attorney dated CARDINAL , registered under number CARDINAL and issued by the plaintiff to Mr FAC . By this power of attorney the plaintiff authorizes the mentioned person to provide judicial actions on her behalf .

Also , the case file contains a copy of the document signed on CARDINAL and addressed ‘ To whom it may PERSON , by the meaning of which ORG and ORG were entitled to communicate with foreign and NORP doctors , to make decisions on behalf of the plaintiff on full or partial withdrawal of the confidentiality of any data and results of medical examinations , including public disclosure and any other action with this information and data . This copy of the document contains the signature and decryption of the signature " Tymoshenko " .

The mentioned copy of the document was added to the case file in the court hearing of CARDINAL by a motion of the plaintiff ’s representative PERSON .

The case file confirmed that information regarding the plaintiff ’s health condition was disseminated by the above persons who had been authorized to do so by the plaintiff , since DATE .

Given that information was distributed by the plaintiff ’s authorized representatives , with whom the plaintiff continues to work and not withdrawing the power of attorney dated CARDINAL , registered with number CARDINAL and without notification about the cancellation of the right to disseminate information , the court finds that the dissemination of information on PERSON health condition and the fact of request for medical help was agreed with her and did not violate the legitimate rights and interests , including rights under LAW .

The ORG ascertains that the dissemination of information by PERSON authorized representatives about the health condition of the plaintiff draw a wide public response and heightened public interest in the country and abroad , PERSON is one of the prominent politicians and public figures of GPE during DATE .

Accordingly , the aggregate of these facts gives a reason to believe that PERSON Tymoshenko is a public figure of the socio - political activities of GPE , whose life and activity causes heightened public interest of the public and media , both in GPE and in other countries .

The ORG considers that the defendants had disseminated information about the refusals of the medical examination and conditions of detention in accordance with LAW , which establishes that the information with restricted access might be disseminated , if it is socially necessary , that is a subject of public interest and the right of the public to know this information prevails on the potential harm from its dissemination .

Instead , the defendants did not disseminate information on plaintiff ’s diagnosis , the results of her examination or prescribed medical procedures , all disseminated information did not contain any names or other indications , which can identify the plaintiff ’s disease .

Having considered the publications , which were added to the defendant ’s objections , the panel of judges concluded that disseminated information by the defendants did not go beyond the previously directly defined boundaries by authorized representatives of the plaintiff and journalists who publicly provide adequate announcements and comments on various aspects of the health of PERSON Tymoshenko and the circumstances of her residence in the hospital . The ORG considers that the information referred to by the plaintiff in proving her claims was given by the defendants in response to the initial comments of the plaintiff ’s representatives in order to inform the public about the objective state of affairs , including responses to comments by PERSON Tymoshenko ’s representatives .

Considering the injury of the plaintiff ’s interests by dissemination of information about her , the ORG concludes that the dissemination of information about health can not be considered as an invasion of privacy or a disclosure of information .

According to the court , the dissemination of information about the circumstances regarding the plaintiff , including measures that were not conducted on the plaintiff , including because of the refusal , does not violate the rights of the plaintiff .

NORP In response to the applicant ’s complaint on the unlawfulness of the video surveillance at the hospital , the court gave the following reasoning :

“ According to LAW , the administration of the colony may use audiovisual , electronic and other technical equipment to prevent escapes and other crimes , violations of established by law procedures of detention , to obtain necessary information about the behaviour of inmates . The administration of the colony shall inform prisoners about the use of equipment for surveillance and control . A list of surveillance and control equipment and the protocol of their application is determined by regulations of the central executive body of penitentiaries .

The panel of judges considers that this legal provision permits video surveillance of convicts , which is CARDINAL of the measures in detention and control of convict ’s behaviour . Such restrictions on the rights of the sentenced persons are directly stipulated by LAW of GPE .

The plaintiff ’s references in the court proceedings to surveillance by male security officers during the medical procedures and to surveillance with recorded camera images have not been proved . In this regard , the panel of judges has taken into account the expert opinion dated CARDINAL , No . CARDINAL , according to which the file ‘ PERSON , provided for research by ORG of GPE , was not recorded on video - tape .

Given that the panel of judges reaches the conclusion that the actions of the defendants in video surveillance were legal .

With regard to the video surveillance provided by ORG of ORG of GPE in the ORG region , the court assumes that , given the location of cameras which were set by the mentioned defendant , the plaintiff is not under video surveillance of the ORG of GPE in the ORG region . Conducting video surveillance by this defendant with the purpose to protect public order does not violate the rights of the plaintiff and meets the requirements of the current legislation .

The panel of judges considers that surveillance over the movement of an unlimited number of persons , including the plaintiff , in the corridors of the hospital , is conducted legally and does not violate the rights of the plaintiff .

The ORG concludes that the actions of ORG of GPE in the ORG region on establishing barriers that impede the access of citizens to the ninth Floor of the STPI ORG does not violate the plaintiff ’s rights , since the plaintiff is limited in movement because of the status of a sentenced person . Herewith , the restriction of the plaintiff to move freely in her hospital room , which is not disputed by the parties , denied the violation of the plaintiff ’s limited access to the floor . ”

Criminal Code CARDINAL

“ CARDINAL . Abuse of power or office , namely the intentional use , for financial gain or with another personal interest or in the interest of third parties , by an official of his / her power or office against the interests of the service , if it has caused serious damage to the ORG or the public interest or to the lawful interests , rights and freedoms of natural or legal persons , –

shall be punishable by ...

NORP The same acts , if they caused grave consequences , –

shall be punishable by ... ”

“ CARDINAL . Exceeding authority or official powers , namely the intentional commission of acts by an official which go manifestly beyond the scope of the rights and powers vested in him or her and which cause serious damage to the ORG or the public interest or to the lawful interests , rights and freedoms of natural or legal persons –

shall be punishable by ...

Exceeding authority or official powers combined with violence or use of a weapon , or combined with humiliating acts or acts causing pain to the victim , provided that such acts do not fall within the scope of torture , –

shall be punishable by ...

Acts as described in DATE or DATE , if they have caused grave consequences , –

shall be punished by imprisonment for DATE with a prohibition of DATE on occupying certain posts or carrying out certain activities . ”

Code of Criminal Procedure DATE

“ Preventive measures shall be imposed on a suspect , accused , defendant , or convicted person in order to prevent him from attempting to abscond from an inquiry , investigation or the court , from obstructing the establishment of the truth in a criminal case or pursuing criminal activities , and in order to ensure the execution of procedural decisions .

Preventive measures shall be imposed where there are sufficient grounds to believe that the suspect , accused , defendant or convicted person will attempt to abscond from the investigation and the court , or if he fails to comply with procedural decisions , or obstructs the establishment of the truth in the case or pursues criminal activities . ... ”

“ At the pre - trial investigation stage a non - custodial preventive measure shall be selected by a body of inquiry , investigator [ or ] prosecutor .

If a body of inquiry [ or ] investigator considers that there are grounds for remand in custody [ it or ] he shall , with the prosecutor ’s consent , submit an application to the court . A prosecutor is entitled to submit a similar request . When considering the matter the prosecutor shall familiarise himself with all the material containing grounds for remand in custody , check whether the evidence was lawfully obtained and whether it is sufficient to bring charges [ against the suspect ] .

The application shall be considered within TIME of the arrest of the suspect or accused .

If the application concerns the remand in custody of a person who is at liberty , the judge shall have the power to issue a warrant for the arrest of the suspect or accused and his escort to the court . In such a case , the detention shall not exceed TIME , or , if the person concerned is outside the locality in which the court operates , [ the detention ] shall not exceed TIME from the time the arrested person was brought to the locality .

Upon receipt of an application , the judge who is assigned [ to the case ] in accordance with LAW shall study the materials of the criminal case file submitted by the body of inquiry , investigator [ or ] prosecutor , question the suspect or accused , and , if necessary , obtain explanations from the person dealing with the case , hear the prosecutor , [ and ] the defence lawyer if [ the latter ] has appeared before the court , and deliver an order :

( CARDINAL ) refusing the preventive measure , if there are no grounds for its application ;

( CARDINAL ) ordering the remand in custody of the suspect or accused .

The court shall only decide on the remand in custody of a person in his absence if that person is on the international wanted list . In such cases , after the arrest of the person and no later than TIME from the time of his transfer to the place where the proceedings are pending , the court , with the participation of the person [ concerned ] , shall consider [ whether to ] apply a preventive measure in the form of remand in custody or [ whether to ] change [ such a measure ] and shall issue an order accordingly .

If the court has refused to remand the suspect [ or ] accused in custody , it shall have the power to apply a non - custodial preventive measure to him or her .

The court ’s order may be appealed against to the court of appeal by the prosecutor , suspect / accused , his defence or representative within DATE of its delivery . The introduction of an appeal shall not suspend the execution of the court ’s order .

If remand in custody requires reviewing additional information concerning the character of the arrested person or ascertaining other circumstances of importance in order for a decision to be taken on this issue , the judge may extend the period of detention for DATE , or , upon the request of the suspect / accused for DATE , and shall issue an order accordingly . Whenever it is necessary to decide this issue in respect of a person who has not been arrested , the judge may defer consideration of the matter for DATE and take measures to ensure his / her good behaviour during this time or may order the arrest of the suspect or accused for this period . ”

“ In the course of the consideration of a case the court may issue a ruling changing , discontinuing or selecting a preventive measure in respect of a defendant , if there are grounds for this .

The procedure for selecting detention as a preventive measure shall be governed by the relevant provisions of LAW of the LAW . ”

Code on the Enforcement of Sentences DATE

“ CARDINAL . The administration of a colony has the right to use audio , visual , electronic and other technical means in order to prevent escape and other crimes by inmates , breaches of the prison rules , or in order to obtain necessary information about the behaviour of inmates .

NORP The administration of a colony shall inform inmates about the use of technical means of surveillance and control .

NORP The list of technical means of surveillance and control and the procedure for their use shall be established by regulations of the [ ORG of GPE ] . ... ”

“ CARDINAL . Physical force ... may be used against inmates with a view to putting an end to physical resistance , violence , rowdiness ( буйство ) and opposition to lawful orders of the colony administration , or with a view to preventing prisoners from inflicting harm on themselves or on those around them .

The use of force should be preceded by a warning if the circumstances so allow . ...

NORP If the use of force can not be avoided , it should not exceed the level necessary for fulfilment by the officers of their duties , should be carried out so as to inflict as little injury as possible and should be followed by immediate medical assistance if necessary .

Any use of force must be immediately reported to the prison governor . ... ”

“ CARDINAL . Prisoners have the right to ... receive medical assistance and treatment , including medical services paid for at their own or their relatives’ expense . ... ”

Prisoners may seek , at their own or at their relatives’ expense , medical assistance , including treatment , from civilian medical institutions . In such cases , medical assistance is to be provided at the medical unit of the colony in which the prisoner is serving his / her sentence , under the supervision of the colony ’s medical staff . ”

Health Care Act DATE

“ Every citizen of GPE has a right to health care , which includes :

( a ) NORP living standards , including food , clothing , accommodation , medical services and care which are necessary for maintaining a person ’s health ;

( b ) qualified medical and/or welfare assistance , [ which ] includes the free choice of a doctor [ and ] methods of treatment in accordance with a physician ’s recommendations ...

( e ) correct and timely information about his / her state of health and the state of health of the population , including potential risk factors and the scale of their severity ;

( f ) compensation for injuries to health ;

( g ) the possibility of an independent medical examination if a person disagrees with the conclusions of state medical experts , a prohibition on enforced treatment or any [ other ] activities which might violate a person ’s rights and freedoms ... ”

Pre - Trial Detention Act DATE

“ Persons remanded in custody shall be provided with living conditions which comply with sanitary and hygiene requirements .

The standard size of a cell can not be QUANTITY per person ...

Persons under arrest under the regulations of the Cabinet of Ministers are entitled to free food , a personal sleeping space , bedding , and other necessities . Where appropriate they shall be provided with clothing and shoes ....

Health care and rehabilitation services , ... are organized and provided in accordance with LAW .

The order of granting health services to persons under arrest , using hospitals , and examinations by physicians shall be determined by the [ ORG ] of ORG and ORG . ”

NORP ORG of ORG no . CARDINAL of DATE “ On ORG Detained in ORG and ORG or in Temporary Police Detention Facilities , ORG and ORG of ORG ” establishes detailed nutrition standards for detainees and prisoners , according to which the DATE nutrition value should be QUANTITY .

Code of Administrative Justice of DATE ( in force from DATE ) :

“ CARDINAL . The role of the administrative justice system shall be the protection of the rights , freedoms and interests of physical persons and the rights and interests of legal entities in the field of public - law relations from violations by public authorities ...

Any decisions , actions or inaction on the part of public authorities may be appealed against to the administrative courts , except for cases in which the LAW and laws of GPE provide for a different procedure of judicial appeal against such decisions , actions or inactivity ...

NORP In cases where the decisions , acts or inactivity of a public authority are being challenged , the courts shall review whether [ the impugned decisions and acts ] have been adopted or taken :

( CARDINAL ) NORP reasonably ;

( CARDINAL) proportionately , in particular , by ensuring a necessary balance between any possible unfavourable outcome for an individual ’s rights , freedoms and interests and the aims the impugned decision or action seeks to achieve ;

“ CARDINAL . Everyone has a right to apply to the administrative courts , in accordance with the procedure envisaged by this Code , if he or she considers that his / her rights or interests are breached by a decision of a public authority , or its actions or inactivity . ... ”

“ CARDINAL . When considering a case , a court shall be governed by the principle of the rule of law , which provides , in particular , that a human being and his or her rights and freedoms shall be the highest social value and shall determine the essence and orientation of the activity of the ORG .

A court shall apply the principle of the rule of law by taking into account the case - law of ORG . ... ”

“ CARDINAL . The jurisdiction of the administrative courts shall cover legal relationships arising in the course of the exercise of public administrative powers by ... public authorities and [ legal relationships arising ] in the course of the public formation of a ... public authority by way of an election or referendum .

The jurisdiction of the administrative courts shall cover public - law disputes , in particular :

( CARDINAL ) disputes between physical persons or legal entities and ... public authorities concerning the decisions of the latter ( normative legal acts or legal acts of individual effect ) , or their actions or inactivity ;

Pursuant to LAW , an administrative court may suspend a disputed decision by way of application of an interim measure , on an initiative of the party to procedure . A measure may be applied if there exists a real danger of harm to the plaintiff ’s rights , freedoms and interests , or if there are grounds to believe that a failure to apply the measure would render impossible the protection of such rights , freedoms and interests or would require considerable efforts and expense for their restoration . An interim measure can also be applied if it is evident that the contested decision is unlawful .

According to LAW , the administrative court , should it find an administrative claim substantiated , may ( amongst other things ) declare the impugned action , omission or decision unlawful , invalidate the decision in question and/or oblige the defendant to undertake , or abstain from taking , certain actions . It may also order the defendant to pay compensation for the damage caused by the unlawful action , omission or decision .

NORP The issue of compensation for unlawful detention in GPE is regulated by the LAW “ On the procedure for compensation for damage caused to citizens by the unlawful acts of bodies of enquiry , pre - trial investigation authorities , prosecutor ’s offices and courts ” of DATE ( “ LAW ” ) . The relevant provisions of LAW ( as worded at the relevant time ) can be found in the judgments in the cases of GPE v. GPE ( no . CARDINAL , § DATE , DATE ) and ORG v. GPE ( no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL , § § DATE , DATE ) .

Recommendation Rec(CARDINAL ) CARDINAL of ORG to member GPE on ORG reads , insofar as relevant , as follows :

Prison conditions that infringe ORG human rights are not justified by lack of resources .

CARDINAL ORG apply to persons who have been remanded in custody by a judicial authority or who have been deprived of their liberty following conviction .

CARDINAL The accommodation provided for prisoners , and in particular all sleeping accommodation , shall respect human dignity and , as far as possible , privacy , and meet the requirements of health and hygiene , due regard being paid to climatic conditions and especially to floor space , cubic content of air , lighting , heating and ventilation .

CARDINAL NORP In all buildings where prisoners are required to live , work or congregate :

a. the windows shall be large enough to enable the prisoners to read or work by natural light in normal conditions and shall allow the entrance of fresh air except where there is an adequate air conditioning system ;

b. artificial light shall satisfy recognised technical standards ;

CARDINAL Specific minimum requirements in respect of the matters referred to in CARDINAL and CARDINAL shall be set in national law .

CARDINAL ORG law shall provide mechanisms for ensuring that these minimum requirements are not breached by the overcrowding of prisons .

CARDINAL Prisoners shall have ready access to sanitary facilities that are hygienic and respect privacy .

CARDINAL ORG facilities shall be provided so that every prisoner may have a bath or shower , at a temperature suitable to the climate , if possible DATE but at least twice DATE ( or more frequently if necessary ) in the interests of general hygiene .

Every prisoner shall be provided with a separate bed and separate and appropriate bedding , which shall be kept in good order and changed often enough to ensure its cleanliness .

CARDINAL Prisoners shall be provided with a nutritious diet that takes into account their age , health , physical condition , religion , culture and the nature of their work .

CARDINAL The requirements of a nutritious diet , including its minimum energy and protein content , shall be prescribed in national law .

CARDINAL ORG shall be prepared and served hygienically .

CARDINAL There shall be CARDINAL meals a day with reasonable intervals between them .

CARDINAL Every prisoner shall be provided with the opportunity of TIME of exercise every day in the open air , if the weather permits .

The relevant extracts from the ORG to ORG on the visit to GPE carried out by ORG for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment ( ORG ) from DATE ( published on DATE ) read as follows :

“ CARDINAL . Conditions of detention of the general prison population

a. pre - trial establishments ( SIZOs )

i ) the GPE in GPE

The GPE in GPE occupies a complex of buildings in CARDINAL of the central areas of GPE . Some of the detention buildings had been constructed DATE previously . CARDINAL smaller , more recent blocks provided accommodation for sentenced working prisoners , women and juveniles . A new block for women was in the process of construction , but that process had virtually been halted due to lack of resources .

With an official capacity of CARDINAL places , on DATE the establishment was holding CARDINAL inmates , including CARDINAL women and CARDINAL juveniles . The vast majority of the inmate population was on remand . The establishment was also holding CARDINAL inmates awaiting the outcome of their appeal ( including CARDINAL life - sentenced prisoners ) , CARDINAL prisoners in transit and CARDINAL sentenced inmates assigned to work in the prison ’s general services and maintenance . Further , there were CARDINAL inmates who had been subject to forensic psychiatric assessment and who were awaiting a final decision concerning their criminal responsibility . The prisoner population comprised CARDINAL foreign national prisoners ( of whom CARDINAL were from countries of ORG ) .

Since DATE , following amendments to the ORG , a section referred to as an “ arrest house ” had been set up for first - time offenders serving sentences of DATE .

Material conditions prevailing in the section for women were somewhat better [ than those in the section for men ] . In particular , the cells were less overcrowded ( e.g. CARDINAL inmates in a cell measuring QUANTITY prisoners in a cell measuring CARDINAL m² ) . The cells had good access to natural light , but ventilation was inadequate and prisoners complained that in DATE the cells became very hot . The in - cell sanitary annexes were fully partitioned and had both cold and hot water taps . Some of the cells had been decorated by the inmates themselves and gave a homely impression .

ORG . The section for sentenced working prisoners provided the best conditions of detention in comparison with the other sections . The dormitories were adequately lit , well ventilated and clean . They were suitably furnished ( beds , tables and chairs or stools , some shelves and lockers ) and inmates could have their own radio or television . Further , the section comprised a sports hall , a spacious “ club ” where prisoners could watch films and play table tennis , and a chapel .

NORP The prison did not provide inmates with personal hygiene products other than soap . As mentioned in paragraph CARDINAL , access to the shower was limited to once DATE .

As regards food , prisoners were provided with CARDINAL meals a day . The quantity of the food appeared to be sufficient , but many prisoners complained about its poor quality and lack of variety . In particular , there was no fresh fruit , eggs or milk ( not even for juvenile prisoners ) . To supplement their diet , prisoners relied to a great extent on food parcels from their families and purchases from the prison shop .

The ORG had a library with a collection of CARDINAL books . The delegation was surprised to learn that remand prisoners were not allowed to receive books ( other than the Bible ) or newspapers from outside . The ORG would like to receive the NORP authorities’ comments concerning this prohibition .

The only regular out - of - cell activity was outdoor exercise of TIME per day , which took place in a series of exercise yards located on the top of the accommodation blocks . By virtue of their size and configuration , these high - walled , bare areas ( measuring CARDINAL m² ) did not allow prisoners to exercise themselves physically .

The ORG recommends that the NORP authorities make strenuous efforts to offer organised out - of - cell activities ( work , recreation / association , education , sport ) to prisoners at the GPE . Further , the ORG recommends that steps be taken to construct more appropriate exercise yards which allow prisoners to exert themselves physically , as well as indoor and outdoor sports facilities .

Health care

a. introduction

In the course of the DATE visit , the delegation was informed of a proposal to set up a working group to study the transfer of ORG health care to ORG . The ORG can only encourage this initiative , which is consistent with the remarks made in paragraph CARDINAL of the report on its DATE visit , namely that a greater involvement of ORG in the provision of health - care services in prison will help to ensure optimal health care for prisoners , as well as implementation of the general principle of the equivalence of health care with that in the outside community . The ORG wishes to be informed of the action taken on the abovementioned proposal .

In this context , the ORG also wishes to stress the need for continued professional training for prison health - care staff , with a view to enabling them to perform their duties satisfactorily . The ORG would like to be informed of the national policy in this respect .

The reports on previous visits by the ORG to GPE contain a number of recommendations , comments and requests for information in the area of provision of health care to prisoners . Despite efforts made by the NORP authorities in DATE and the goodwill and commitment of health - care staff at the penitentiary establishments visited , the provision of health care to inmates remains problematic , due to the shortage of staff , facilities and resources . During the visit , the delegation heard a number of complaints from prisoners at the establishments visited concerning delays in access to a doctor , lack of medication , and the inadequate quality of care . ”

The relevant extracts from the ORG to ORG on the visit to GPE carried out by ORG for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment ( ORG ) from DATE to DATE [ ORG ( DATE ) CARDINAL ] read as follows :

“ ... DATE . On the occasion of this visit and in the light of reports recently received by the ORG , the delegation also examined in detail the health care being provided to certain persons who were being held at the GPE and , in particular , PERSON IVASHENKO , PERSON and PERSON TYMOSHENKO .

In this connection , the ORG would like to stress that the role of medical members of a visiting delegation is not that of a treating doctor ; their task is to assess the quality of health care and , more specifically , the access to medical treatment of detained persons . ORG also wishes to recall that the prison authorities are responsible for the health care of all prisoners ; all efforts possible must be made to ensure that a precise diagnosis is promptly established and that adequate treatment required by the state of health of the person concerned is provided to all prisoners .

The ORG must express its concern that in respect of each of the CARDINAL above - mentioned persons , considerable delays occurred – for various reasons – in arranging specialised medical examinations outside the GPE . Problems of this kind have repeatedly been observed by the ORG during all previous visits to the GPE SIZO as well as to other penitentiary establishments in GPE . ORG urges the NORP authorities to take all the necessary measures to ensure that in future , all prisoners who are in need of specialist treatment / examinations are transferred to an outside hospital without undue delay . ”

NORP The relevant extracts from the Government ’s response to the above ORG [ ORG ( DATE ) CARDINAL ] read as follows :

“ Regarding paragraph CARDINAL

In accordance with the abovementioned Joint Order of the Ministry of Justice of GPE and ORG of GPE of GPE No . CARDINAL/CARDINAL/CARDINAL all persons put under custody enjoy the possibility to receive specialized medical assistance in healthcare institutions of ORG of GPE without delays .

Regarding paragraph CARDINAL

In respect of the convict Ms. PERSON

During the time Ms. PERSON spent in GPE penal colony ( No . DATE ) until DATE , inclusively , CARDINAL medical boards were set up comprising CARDINAL academicians , NORP of medical sciences and ORG ; she refused to undergo medical examinations in CARDINAL cases .

In addition , pursuant to ORG of the ORG of GPE , ORG of GPE and ORG of GPE of GPE No . CARDINAL/CARDINAL/CARDINAL ‘ On establishment of ORG for ORG of Ms. PERSON and Support of Operation of ORG on the Territory of ORG the international medical board comprising foreign specialists was established , which performed medical examinations of convict PERSON on DATE , and gave relevant recommendations .

It must also be noted that medical workers of GPE penal colony ( No . DATE ) proposed on a DATE basis convict PERSON to undergo medical examinations , which were turned down by her in most cases . Out of CARDINAL proposed medical examinations , CARDINAL were turned down .

All board medical examinations with respect to convict PERSON were performed exclusively based on her written consent . Medical examinations of convict PERSON performed by medical personnel of GPE penal colony ( No . CARDINAL ) were compliant with legal regulatory acts regulating procedures for provision of medical assistance to detained and convict persons .

On DATE the board of ORG and ORG specialists proposed Ms. PERSON to continue her treatment in the facilities of ORG of ORG general health institution , in which , according to the opinion of NORP specialists , most favourable conditions were created for rehabilitation of Ms. PERSON .

Upon her arrival to the hospital on DATE [ CARDINAL ] , DATE convict PERSON refused to undergo initial medical screening and examination and to start the course of rehabilitation measures .

On [ sic ] DATE in view of implicit refusal of convict PERSON to sign informed consent for initial medical screening and medical intervention , she was signed out from the hospital and transferred back to GPE penal colony ( No . CARDINAL ) .

On DATE after the course of rehabilitation measures was suggested to Ms. PERSON by NORP and NORP doctors , she agreed in the oral form to undergo this course in the facilities of ORG of ORG general health institution under supervision of specialists from ORG ‘ [ S]harite’ .

On DATE Mrs. PERSON was hospitalized in the said healthcare institution with the purpose to undergo the course of rehabilitation measures under supervision of specialists from ORG ‘ [ S]harite’ , where she stays until present . ... ”

The relevant extract of ORG on Human Rights and Practices of the US ORG released by ORG in respect of GPE reads as follows :

“ There was a sharp increase in charges brought against opposition politicians after the appointment of a new prosecutor general on DATE , giving rise to the appearance of selective and politically motivated prosecutions by the Yanukovych government . DATE , prosecutors brought charges against former prime minister PERSON and CARDINAL high - level members of her government for abuse of office and/or misuse of state funds during their tenure . The questioning of accused individuals by government prosecutors , which often lasted for TIME at a time over a period of several days , and the denial of bail in certain cases further exacerbated the perception of politically motivated prosecution ( see section CARDINAL ) . The government contended that the prosecutions were not targeting the opposition , and that there were many ongoing investigations of members of the governing party ; however , with only a few exceptions these were low - level , career officials . ”

On DATE ORG adopted a resolution on GPE : the cases of PERSON and other members of the former Government . The resolution reads in so far as relevant as follows :

“ ORG ,

... PERSON whereas CARDINAL former high - ranking officials from the Tymoshenko government are in pre - trial detention , including ... the former First Deputy Minister of ORG , PERSON , who was arrested on DATE on charges of breaking the law in connection with public procurement procedures for legal services , ...

I. whereas a preliminary report of ORG PERSON and PERSON trials has listed massive violations of LAW , ...

Stresses the importance of ensuring the utmost transparency in investigations , prosecutions and trials , and warns against any use of criminal law as a tool to achieve political ends ;

NORP Is concerned about the increase in selective prosecution of figures from the political opposition in GPE as well as the disproportionality of measures applied ...

Reminds the NORP authorities that the principle of collective responsibility for the decisions of the government does not permit the prosecution of individual members of the government for decisions that were taken collegially ; ... ”