No violation of Art. 6-2;No violation of Art. 6-1;No violation of Art. 6-3-c+6-1;Violation of Art. 6-3-d+6-1;Violations of Art. 3;Failure to comply with obligations under Art. 34;Not necessary to examine other complaint under Art. 34;Remainder inadmissible;Pecuniary damage - claim dismissed;Non-pecuniary damage - financial award;Costs and expenses partial award - domestic and Convention proceedings

The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE . He is currently serving his sentence in the YaCh-CARDINAL/CARDINAL prison in GPE .

On DATE at TIME teenagers attending a school for children with impaired hearing , while walking in ORG park towards a tram stop , saw CARDINAL young men fighting . CARDINAL of the youths was later found dead . It was established that his death had occurred on the aforementioned date . The schoolboys described the event to their teacher . They noted that the alleged offender had been wearing a ponytail and a leather jacket .

On DATE , at TIME , police officers came to the applicant 's flat and asked him to accompany them to the police station . The applicant complied with the request . In the police station he was searched and placed in a cell . At TIME he was interviewed as a witness . The applicant stated , inter alia , that he did not know the victim and had never heard his name . At TIME the applicant took part in an identification parade before CARDINAL of the CARDINAL schoolboys , PERSON who identified him as a person they had seen fighting on DATE . At TIME the investigator ordered the applicant 's detention . According to the applicant , the detention order was not given to him for his signature . In the order it was indicated that the applicant 's mother had been notified about his detention .

At TIME the investigator started the search in the applicant 's flat . The applicant 's desktop PC , mobile phone , photo album , notebook , a bag with diskettes , a leather jacket , CARDINAL pairs of boots and CARDINAL pairs of jeans were seized in the course of the search .

TIME the applicant was interviewed as a suspect in connection with the murder committed on DATE .

On CARDINAL DATE the applicant was transferred to the temporary detention centre ORG .

On DATE the investigator ordered the applicant to be taken into custody as a preventive measure .

On DATE the applicant took part in another identification parade before the other CARDINAL schoolboys who had also witnessed the fight on DATE . CARDINAL of the boys , PERSON , stated he was not sure he had seen the applicant . The other boy , PERSON . , submitted that he had never seen him before .

On DATE the applicant was charged with murder . On the same date he was interviewed as the accused . He was assisted by an advocate PERSON , appointed by the investigator .

On DATE the applicant was transferred to remand prison GPE CARDINAL/CARDINAL in GPE .

On DATE the advocate PERSON filed a complaint with the prosecutor concerning the conduct of the investigation . He alleged , inter alia , that the identification parades had been in breach of procedural requirements . In particular , the persons lined up with the applicant had been much older and the applicant had been the only one wearing a ponytail , which significantly decreased the evidential credibility of the identification . He further complained that the investigator had taken no steps to verify the applicant 's alibi . In particular , PERSON , the applicant 's neighbour , who claimed to have seen him during DATE on DATE , PERSON . , the carpenter , who was performing work at the applicant 's flat on that date , and PERSON , the applicant 's girlfriend 's mother , had not been questioned .

On DATE the ORG allowed the advocate PERSON 's motion to have PERSON , PERSON . and PERSON examined as witnesses . However , neither PERSON nor PERSON . were examined in the course of the investigation .

On DATE the ORG of GPE extended the term of the applicant 's pre - trial detention until DATE on the grounds that , being accused of a grave offence , he might abscond during the investigation and interfere with the establishment of the truth in the case .

It appears that DATE the applicant appointed as his representative advocate PERSON instead of advocate PERSON , previously appointed by the investigator . Advocate A. assisted him throughout the rest of the proceedings .

On DATE the Preobrazhenskiy District Court extended the term of the applicant 's pre - trial detention until DATE on the same grounds as those indicated in its ruling of DATE .

On DATE the Preobrazhenskiy District Court extended the term of his pre - trial detention until DATE on the same grounds as those indicated in its ruling of DATE . At the same hearing the court granted the applicant leave for his uncle 's participation in the proceedings as his representative .

On DATE the applicant appealed against the extension of the term of his detention .

It appears that on DATE the order of CARDINAL DATE was upheld on appeal .

On DATE the applicant was notified about the termination of the preliminary investigation . The applicant was again notified about the termination of the preliminary investigation on DATE .

On DATE the ORG drew up a bill of indictment and referred the case to court . The bill of indictment stated that , on DATE at TIME , near the entrance to the ORG park , the applicant had quarrelled with the victim for unidentified reasons . The quarrel had turned into a fight . Due to “ sudden personal hostility ” the applicant had struck the victim at the nape with an unidentified blunt , hard object and had then cut his throat with an unidentified sharp object . The bill of indictment enumerated the items of evidence with reference to the pages of the case file . It contained no clarification as to their relevance .

On DATE the ORG scheduled the hearing for DATE and ordered the preventive measure of restraint applied to the applicant to remain unchanged . The applicant appealed against the ruling .

On DATE the Preobrazhenskiy ORG allowed the advocate ORG 's motion to call PERSON as a witness at the hearing . The court refused leave for the applicant 's uncle to participate in the proceedings as his representative since he was represented by a lawyer . PERSON . appeared at the hearing among other witnesses . However , none of them was examined because the court adjourned the hearing on the merits owing to the appeal lodged against the ruling of DATE .

On DATE the ORG quashed the ruling of DATE and remitted the matter for a fresh examination .

On DATE the ORG ruled that it would hold a preliminary hearing of the case on DATE and ordered the preventive measure applied to the applicant to remain unchanged .

On DATE the ORG ruled that it would hold a hearing on the merits on DATE . On DATE the applicant filed a motion for the record of his interview on DATE and the records of the identification parades to be excluded from the body of evidence as inadmissible . The prosecutor stated that he would leave it for the court to decide . The court held as follows :

“ [ Mr ] PERSON 's motion ... should be dismissed because the case has not yet been considered on the merits , the judicial investigation has not been conducted , therefore the assessment of all the evidence in the case , including the documents that [ Mr ] PERSON seeks to have excluded , shall be made when the case is considered on the merits . ”

The court scheduled the next hearing for DATE .

The hearings of CARDINAL and DATE were adjourned . On DATE the Preobrazhenskiy District Court extended the term of the applicant 's detention until DATE and refused leave for his uncle to participate in the proceedings as his representative on the ground that he was represented by a lawyer . The applicant appealed against the ruling .

On DATE ORG held a hearing on the merits . TIME hearing stated that witnesses had appeared and had been removed from the courtroom . The names of the witnesses were not specified . The applicant 's counsel filed a motion to call PERSON , the applicant 's neighbour , at the hearing in order to confirm his alibi and provide information about his personality . The prosecutor objected on the grounds that the information about the applicant 's personality would be obtained from his relatives . The court dismissed the motion without giving any reasons .

At the hearing of CARDINAL DATE the court heard evidence from CARDINAL of the CARDINAL schoolboys who had witnessed the events of DATE . PERSON confirmed that he had seen the applicant DATE . PERSON stated that although he had identified him at the identification parade , he could not at present remember exactly what the offender had looked like . F. submitted that he did not recognise the applicant . Their teacher , examined at the hearing , submitted that the schoolboys had good eyesight , although owing to the particularities of their mental state suffered from certain lapses of memory or forgetfulness , because of which they could not adequately recollect a situation after DATE . The court also heard evidence from the victim 's parents . His father stated that he had received an anonymous call and had been told that the applicant had murdered their son . At TIME the judge adjourned the hearing until DATE .

On DATE the hearing continued . The record of the hearing did not contain information as to whether particular witnesses had attended . It appears that PERSON was present at the hearing because she placed her signature on a document dated DATE to confirm that she had been notified of criminal responsibility for giving false evidence . The document was also signed by the trial judge . However , PERSON had not been examined at the hearing .

At the hearing the Preobrazhenskiy District Court heard evidence from PERSON , the applicant 's mother , who submitted that on DATE the applicant had stayed at home until TIME and had also been seen by their neighbour PERSON NORP and the carpenter PERSON . PERSON , the applicant 's girlfriend , submitted that on DATE between TIME she and the applicant had walked her dog . PERSON , her mother , submitted that TIME on DATE she had spoken to the applicant on the telephone a number of times and he had been at home . The court also heard evidence from a computer expert , Mr PERSON , and from the applicant 's friend , Mr B.

The applicant 's counsel filed a motion to supplement the pleadings by summoning and examining PERSON . The court dismissed the motion on the grounds that PERSON . had been notified of the hearing but had failed to appear .

On DATE the ORG convicted the applicant of murder and sentenced him to DATE imprisonment . The court held that on DATE at TIME near the entrance to ORG park the applicant had quarrelled with the victim for unidentified reasons . The quarrel had turned into a fight . Due to “ sudden personal hostility ” the applicant had struck the victim at the nape with an unidentified blunt , hard object and then cut his throat with an unidentified sharp object .

The court found that the applicant 's guilt was confirmed by the statements of PERSON and PERSON , who had identified him as the person they had seen fighting with the victim , and by a similar statement from PERSON , who , however , noted that he was MONEY sure that it was the applicant he had seen . The court noted the schoolboys ' teacher 's statement to the effect that they had no mental abnormalities . The court further stated that the applicant 's guilt was also confirmed by PERSON , who submitted that a password and log - in identification for each user were personal and allowed the location of the user and his correspondence with other users to be determined ; by PERSON , who submitted that he was aware that the applicant had used the nickname “ PERSON ” on the Internet and that he had a black leather jacket ; by the victim 's post - mortem ; by the crime scene reports ; by the inspection reports concerning the victim 's computer and diskettes and a computer and diskettes belonging to a certain Mr X. , it was not specified who he was ; by inspection reports in respect of the applicant 's personal items ; by references from CARDINAL Internet providers ; by a reference from the Internet provider ORG , stating that on DATE at CARDINAL p.m. a user accessed the Internet from the applicant 's mother 's telephone .

The court dismissed the applicant 's motion to exclude the reports of identification parades as inadmissible evidence . Having regard to the witness statements made at the hearing and to the case file , the court found that the identification parades had been conducted in accordance with procedural rules . The court further found that no credence could be given to the submissions of PERSON , Miss PERSON and PERSON because , being the applicant 's relatives , they had sought to help him .

The applicant appealed against the judgment on the grounds , inter alia , that the trial court had relied on inadmissible evidence , had dismissed his motion to call PERSON at the hearing and had refused to adjourn the hearing in order to call Mr Kh .

On DATE ORG examined the applicant 's appeal against the ruling of DATE concerning the extension of his pre - trial detention . The court upheld the ruling . The applicant and his counsel were present at the hearing .

On DATE ORG addressed ORG in a letter stating that the appeal against the ruling of DATE lodged by the applicant on DATE had not been transmitted for examination in due course and that the case - file had been received by ORG only on DATE . ORG further noted that appeals against rulings concerning the application of a preventive measure should be transmitted immediately to the appeal court and failure to do so entailed a limitation of the right of access to a court .

On DATE ORG upheld on appeal the judgment of DATE . The court , inter alia , stated :

“ The crime was committed in GPE in the circumstances set out in the [ trial ] court 's judgment .

The [ trial ] court was right to base its conclusions concerning the guilt of [ the applicant ] on the statements of [ the witnesses ] . The [ appeal court ] finds that such assessment ... corresponds to the body of evidence in the case : ... the computer databases , where the correspondence between the [ applicant ] using the nickname “ PERSON and the victim is recorded , and the relevant statement of [ Mr B ] .

The argument [ put forward in the applicant 's appeal ] that his version about his being at home on the date of the crime was not duly examined is unsubstantiated .

The lawfulness of the procedural actions taken in the present case was checked , and the court 's findings were not based on any evidence [ the lawfulness ] of which would give rise to doubts . ... ”

On an unspecified date the applicant challenged the constitutionality of LAW in ORG . The applicant claimed that the trial court had based on that provision its refusal to allow his uncle 's participation in the proceedings as his defence counsel . The trial court had thus infringed his rights enshrined in Article CARDINAL § CARDINAL of the LAW , which provided that everyone was entitled to defend his or her rights by any lawful means .

On DATE ORG dismissed the complaint as inadmissible . It held that LAW did not provide any limitations as regards participation of the accused 's relatives in the proceedings . Therefore , it did not violate the applicant 's rights protected by LAW . Inasmuch as the applicant 's rights could have been infringed by the court 's arbitrary refusal to admit his relative to participate in the proceedings , he should have had recourse to remedies available under the laws on criminal procedure .

DATE and DATE the applicant was detained in remand prison GPE CARDINAL/CARDINAL in GPE .

DATE and DATE the applicant had been held in cell no . CARDINAL . CARDINAL inmates were held in a cell measuring QUANTITY m with CARDINAL beds . The lavatory pan was placed QUANTITY away from the dining table and was not separated by a partition . Food was provided twice a day . There was a very small window which did not let the daylight in and the artificial light was never turned off . The inmates were allowed to take a walk of TIME per day .

DATE and DATE the applicant had been held in cell no . CARDINAL . CARDINAL inmates were held in a cell measuring CARDINAL sq . m with CARDINAL beds in CARDINAL tiers . The inmates had to sleep in CARDINAL shifts . There was a very small window with no glass and the artificial light was never turned off . The temperature in the cell was + CARDINAL - CARDINALº C. in DATE and –CARDINAL - CARDINALº C. in DATE . The cell was always very damp . The lavatory pan , placed QUANTITY from the dining table , always stank and there was no partition to separate it from the living area and the table . Food was provided twice a day . The cell was overrun by cockroaches , lice and bugs . Sometimes the applicant had had to share the cell with inmates infected with tuberculosis and HIV . He had had to sleep without appropriate bedding . All his personal belongings and food sent to him by his mother had been taken away from him by other inmates allegedly with the consent of the prison authorities .

DATE and DATE the applicant had been held in cell no . CARDINAL . He submitted that the conditions of detention had been similar to those in cell no . CARDINAL . There were CARDINAL beds for CARDINAL inmates .

DATE the applicant had been held in cell no . CARDINAL . The conditions of detention were similar to those in cell no . CARDINAL . There were CARDINAL beds for CARDINAL inmates .

DATE and DATE the applicant had been held in cell no . CARDINAL , which belonged to the medical unit . In the cell measuring approximately QUANTITY . m there were CARDINAL beds for CARDINAL inmates . Walks were not allowed . Food was provided twice a day . There was no dining table . The lavatory pan was not separated from the living area . There was no hot water in the cell . No medical treatment was offered .

DATE and DATE the applicant had been held in cell no . CARDINAL . The conditions of detention were similar to those in cell no . CARDINAL . CARDINAL inmates were held in a cell measuring QUANTITY . m with CARDINAL beds .

DATE and DATE the applicant had been held in cell no . CARDINAL . The conditions of detention were similar to those in the cell no . CARDINAL . CARDINAL inmates were held in a cell measuring QUANTITY . m with CARDINAL beds .

DATE and approximately DATE the applicant had been held in another cell , possibly no . CARDINAL . CARDINAL inmates were held in a cell measuring QUANTITY . m with CARDINAL beds . The inmates had to sleep in CARDINAL shifts . The cell was in a basement with no window and no ventilation . The walls of the cell were wet with condensation , the cell was always very damp and there was water on the floor . The temperature in the cell was always very low . The lavatory pan was placed QUANTITY from the dining table and there was no partition to separate it from the living area .

The applicant submitted that DATE and DATE he had filed a number of complaints concerning various aspects of his detention in remand prison GPE CARDINAL/CARDINAL , inter alia , with ORG of GPE and ORG . However , he had received no reply .

DATE and DATE the applicant had been in cell no . CARDINAL , which measured QUANTITY m and held CARDINAL inmates simultaneously . Between CARDINAL May and DATE the applicant had been in cell no . CARDINAL , which measured QUANTITY m and held CARDINAL inmates . DATE and DATE he had been in cell no . CARDINAL , which measured QUANTITY m and held CARDINAL inmates . DATE and DATE the applicant had been in cell no . CARDINAL , which measured QUANTITY m and held CARDINAL inmates . CARDINAL and DATE he had been in cell no . CARDINAL , which measured CARDINAL sq . m and held CARDINAL inmates . CARDINAL he had been in cell no . CARDINAL , which measured QUANTITY m and held CARDINAL inmates . DATE he had been in cell no . CARDINAL , which measured QUANTITY . m and held CARDINAL inmates . DATE and DATE the applicant had been in cell no . CARDINAL , which measured QUANTITY m and held CARDINAL inmates . DATE he had been in cell no . CARDINAL , which measured QUANTITY . m and held CARDINAL inmates . CARDINAL DATE the applicant had been in cell no . CARDINAL , which measured QUANTITY m and held CARDINAL inmates . DATE and DATE he had been in cell no . CARDINAL , which measured QUANTITY . m and held CARDINAL inmate . DATE and DATE , when the applicant was transferred to the YaCh-CARDINAL/CARDINAL prison in GPE , he had been in cell no . CARDINAL , which measured QUANTITY . m and held CARDINAL inmates .

During the applicant 's detention in remand prison GPE CARDINAL/CARDINAL he had been provided with a bed and bedding in accordance with prison standards . He had been provided with clothing appropriate to the season . He had received hot meals CARDINAL times a day ( breakfast , dinner , supper ) in accordance with prison standards . He had undergone hygienic procedures ( санитарная обработка ) once DATE . The applicant had never been placed in the same cell as inmates infected with tuberculosis or HIV .

The applicant asserted that in the remand prison he had been regularly beaten by his cellmates and threatened with murder , allegedly with the consent or even under the instructions of the prison and investigative authorities , with a view to forcing him into self - incrimination . In DATE he had been hit with a heavy metal rod against his head . He had fainted , had sustained concussion of the brain and his right ear had been badly cut . In DATE , DATE and DATE the applicant had sustained multiple fractures in his nose and haematomas on his face . He submitted that his face and ears had been black and blue and he could hardly open his eyes . His nasal bones did not knit properly and the nasal partition had collapsed leading to disfiguration of his face . The applicant could not breath through CARDINAL of his nostrils , always had a runny nose and almost lost his sense of smell . His ears often ached and his hearing was impaired . His sight had also worsened . The applicant also alleged that he had been regularly kicked , which had caused internal bruising and blood in his urine .

On DATE the applicant 's mother wrote to the Director of remand prison GPE CARDINAL/CARDINAL concerning the applicant 's correspondence from the remand prison . She stated that in DATE the applicant had sent complaints about various aspects of the conditions of detention in the remand prison to ORG and to an ORG . However , he had not received notification that the complaints had been sent or any replies . The applicant 's mother asked to be informed whether the complaints had been sent and why the applicant had not received notification . The letter was received by the remand prison on DATE . It appears that there was no reply .

The applicant submitted that he had applied a number of times to the medical unit of the remand prison , but had never been duly examined by a doctor . At the same time , the entry of DATE in his medical file stated that he had “ fading haematomas ” .

On DATE the applicant sent a letter to his representative describing , inter alia , his beating by his cellmates . He wrote that he had not made any complaints in this regard because he had been threatened with murder .

The Government submitted that during his detention in remand prison GPE CARDINAL/CARDINAL the applicant had not been subjected to any forms of ill - treatment and sustained no injuries .

Since DATE the applicant had been suffering from cancer of the urinary bladder . In DATE he underwent a resection of the cancerous tumour and subsequent chemotherapy . Despite the operation , his condition requires permanent medical supervision and specialised treatment .

According to the applicant , during his detention in remand prison GPE CARDINAL/CARDINAL in GPE , he had been subject to paroxysms of pain in his kidneys and stomach , together with a high temperature of CARDINAL.CARDINALº C. He had applied for medical assistance DATE . However , either he was provided with no medical assistance at all or it was offered to him DATE after the paroxysm . The only medicine the applicant had received was an analgesic . He had not been given the specialised medicine prescribed by his uro - oncologist and bought for him by his mother at the request of the remand prison medical unit . On a number of occasions the applicant had undergone blood and urine tests and ultrasound scans . In DATE he had been placed in the medical unit several times . However , the medical unit did not have facilities to perform specialised tests , e.g. , a cystoscopy . The applicant had refused to undergo certain tests because the personnel of the medical unit was not qualified to perform them . The unit did not have a uro - oncologist and the applicant had never been examined by a qualified specialist . The ultrasound scan performed in DATE had revealed a new tumour in his prostate measuring QUANTITY . The diagnosis had been confirmed by the ultrasound scan performed in DATE . A scan performed in DATE showed that the tumour had grown QUANTITY . The doctors of the medical unit had consulted by telephone the uro - oncologist , PERSON , who used to supervise the applicant . However , the medical unit had never provided PERSON with the information about the new tumour , as confirmed by his report of DATE .

DATE . According to the Government , upon the applicant 's admission to remand prison GPE CARDINAL/CARDINAL on DATE he had informed the medical unit about the operated cancer of his urinary bladder .

On DATE he had been placed in the surgical department of the remand prison medical unit , where he was examined by a urologist , a surgeon and a physician and underwent a blood test , an electrocardiogram and CARDINAL ultrasound scans . The applicant had been subjected to antibacterial , antiphlogistic and tonic treatment . He had been released from the medical unit on DATE in a satisfactory state of health . CARDINAL the applicant had again been placed in the surgical department of the medical unit where he underwent a similar course of treatment . On DATE he had been examined by a urologist . DATE and DATE the applicant had been placed in a therapeutic department of the medical unit . The results of the tests and examinations showed no signs of recurrent cancer .

In DATE and DATE the applicant 's mother filed a number of complaints concerning the allegedly inadequate medical assistance available to the applicant in the remand prison .

On DATE the Head of the medical unit of remand prison GPE CARDINAL/CARDINAL , PERSON , wrote to the applicant 's mother that her son had been examined on DATE and DATE and that his condition had been found to be satisfactory . He was under the constant supervision of the medical unit 's personnel and would be provided with medical aid if required .

On DATE the Head of the surgical department of the medical unit informed the applicant 's mother that the applicant had been placed there for a regular check - up on DATE . He had been diagnosed with chronic pyelonephritis and urine acid diathesis and his condition was satisfactory .

On DATE the Head of the medical unit informed the applicant 's mother that the applicant had undergone a medical examination . The results of the examination were communicated to the uro - oncologist PERSON , who recommended another examination within DATE .

On DATE the Head of the medical unit sent the applicant 's mother a letter , the contents of which were similar to the letter of CARDINAL DATE .

On DATE the Head of the medical unit again wrote to the applicant 's mother . PERSON informed her that the applicant 's medical records had been transmitted to the uro - oncologist PERSON , and that the recommended examination as well as treatment with medication containing iron would be conducted in the near future . For this purpose PERSON asked the applicant 's mother to supply the medication containing iron and vitamins . She noted that the applicant 's condition was satisfactory .

DATE . On DATE the applicant 's mother sent a letter to the Head of ORG asking him to transmit the results of the applicant 's medical examination in the remand prison 's medical unit to oncological dispensary no . CARDINAL .

On DATE the applicant 's mother wrote to the Director of remand prison GPE CARDINAL/CARDINAL . She asked him to explain why the applicant had not received treatment with the medication containing iron that she had obtained upon the request of the medical unit .

On DATE the Head of the therapeutic department of the medical unit informed the applicant 's mother , inter alia , that the blood tests performed DATE had shown no signs of anaemia . Therefore , treatment with medication containing iron was not required . Check - ups by a uro - oncologist and ultrasound scans were recommended once a year .

On DATE the applicant 's mother again wrote to the Director of remand prison GPE CARDINAL/CARDINAL . The content of the letter was similar to that of DATE .

On DATE the Head of the therapeutic department of the medical unit re - sent its reply of DATE .

On DATE the Head of ORG , PERSON , replied to the applicant 's mother . He stated , inter alia , that the applicant was under the constant medical supervision of the medical unit and did not require specialised in - patient treatment in an oncological hospital . He further noted that the administration of the detention facility could invite external medical specialists only when it was necessary , that is when specialised supervision or treatment was not possible in the detention facility .

On DATE the Deputy Head of the medical unit of remand prison GPE CARDINAL/CARDINAL informed the applicant 's mother that the applicant 's examination DATE and DATE and DATE had revealed no signs of anaemia . The treatment with medication containing iron was not required . The medication supplied by the applicant 's mother had been stored at the medical unit and would be returned upon her first request .

DATE and DATE the applicant was transferred to the YaCh-CARDINAL/CARDINAL prison in GPE .

On DATE the applicant was admitted to the prison . He informed the prison medical unit about the cancer of the urinary bladder operated in DATE . According to the applicant , no relevant tests had been performed for lack of required facilities and he had not been provided with any medical assistance . According to the ORG , the applicant had refused to undergo any tests , which was confirmed by the statement of the medical personnel .

According to the applicant , owing to the constant pain in his loins and stomach he had had to refuse to perform certain compulsory work in the prison .

On DATE the applicant was examined by a doctor with regard to his refusal to perform prison work . He complained of pain in his loins and strangury . The prison doctor diagnosed pyelonephritis and concluded that his state of health permitted him to perform prison work excluding hard labour .

On DATE , because of his refusal to perform prison work , the applicant was placed in disciplinary cell no . CARDINAL , where he remained for DATE . According to the applicant , the cell measuring QUANTITY m held CARDINAL inmates . There were bunk beds in the cell that were unfolded only for TIME , the rest of the time being folded up against the walls . The lavatory pan was placed within QUANTITY of the dining table and there was no partition between them . There was no ventilation and very faint artificial light . The average temperature in the cell was + QUANTITY It was forbidden to boil water and to have food other than that provided by the prison administration CARDINAL times a day . The inmates were also forbidden to wear clothes other than those provided by the prison , which were not warm enough . They were forbidden to wear wristwatches and glasses , although the applicant 's sight was -CARDINAL . The inmates were taken for a walk once a day . The applicant 's state of health worsened and the paroxysms of pain became more frequent . He had blood pressure boosts and drops , difficulties with movement ; his hands and his head started to shake .

According to the Government , disciplinary cell no . CARDINAL measured QUANTITY m and held CARDINAL inmates simultaneously . It was equipped with CARDINAL collapsible metal bunk beds with wooden cladding , a table , CARDINAL benches , a lavatory pan , a wash - basin , a metal shelf for keeping items of personal hygiene and a radio .

On DATE the applicant was placed in disciplinary cell no . CARDINAL , where he remained for DATE . According to the applicant , the conditions of detention were similar to those in disciplinary cell no . CARDINAL . According to the Government , disciplinary cell no . CARDINAL measured QUANTITY m and held CARDINAL inmates simultaneously . It was equipped in the same manner as disciplinary cell no . CARDINAL .

On DATE the applicant was examined with regard to his refusal to perform morning exercises . The prison doctor found him able to perform them .

On DATE he was placed in disciplinary cell no . CARDINAL , where he remained for DATE . According to the applicant , in the cell measuring QUANTITY . m there were CARDINAL inmates . Otherwise the conditions of detention were similar to those in cells no . CARDINAL and no . CARDINAL . According to the Government , disciplinary cell no . CARDINAL measured QUANTITY . m and held CARDINAL inmates simultaneously . It was equipped with CARDINAL collapsible metal bunk beds with wooden cladding , a table , CARDINAL benches , a lavatory pan , a wash - basin , a metal shelf for keeping items of personal hygiene , a wooden cupboard and a radio .

On DATE the applicant was again examined with regard to his refusal to perform TIME exercises and found able to perform them .

On DATE the applicant sent a letter to his mother . He described his poor state of health which included pains in his kidneys , unstable blood pressure , shaking hands and head , difficulties with movement . He wrote that he was not being properly treated in the prison and asked her to send him some medication .

On DATE the applicant sent a complaint to ORG for the Execution of Sentences concerning the lack of adequate medical treatment in the PERSON prison and his placement in a disciplinary cell for refusing to perform prison work because of his poor state of health .

On DATE the applicant sent a similar complaint to ORG for the Execution of Sentences .

On DATE the Head of the prison medical unit stated that it was impossible to examine the applicant in the prison because of the absence of qualified specialists , e.g. , urologists and oncologists , and that all required tests could be performed only in the hospital at the YaCh-CARDINAL/CARDINAL prison .

DATE the applicant was placed in the hospital of ORG at the YaCh-CARDINAL/CARDINAL prison for examination . An ultrasound scan revealed numerous concretions in his kidneys and diffuse changes and cysts in the prostate . In the applicant 's medical file it was stated that he had refused operative treatment .

On DATE the applicant 's mother wrote to a medical officer of GPE . She sought the applicant 's placement for examination in a hospital within the jurisdiction of the Department for the Execution of Sentences , because he had not been receiving adequate medical supervision and treatment since his detention in the remand prison .

On DATE the applicant 's representative wrote to ORG regarding the possibility of examining the applicant in institutions within its jurisdiction .

On DATE the applicant wrote to his representative that he had had paroxysms of pain after having performed prison work and TIME exercises . He also stated that medical assistance in the prison was inefficient and that the entries in his medical file did not reflect his actual condition .

On DATE Dr L. , the Director of ORG of ORG , gave a written opinion concerning the possibility of recurrent cancer of the applicant 's urinary bladder , in response to a request by the applicant 's representative dated DATE . PERSON noted that a lack of regular medical supervision of the patient by a uro - oncologist had led to belated diagnosis and had increased the risk of recurrent tumours spreading to adjacent organs , when radical surgery would no longer be possible . He concluded that the possibility of recurrent cancer of the urinary bladder could not be excluded . However , an exact diagnosis could only be made upon the applicant 's physical examination in a specialised uro - oncological hospital . A cystoscopy and a biopsy were indispensable for this purpose .

On DATE the Head of ORG replied to the applicant 's mother 's letter of DATE . He noted that in DATE the applicant had been examined in the hospital at the YaCh-CARDINAL/CARDINAL prison . The examination had shown no sign of disease of the uro - genital system , and the applicant had refused further treatment . He concluded that the applicant 's condition was satisfactory and that no further examination in the medical institution within the jurisdiction of ORG was required .

On DATE ORG forwarded the applicant 's representative 's letter of DATE to ORG . The letter stated that in the present case the prison administration should either refer the applicant to a medical institution within the jurisdiction of ORG or place him in a correctional institution which had the necessary facilities for medical examination and treatment .

On DATE a medical officer from ORG informed the applicant 's representative , inter alia , that convicts who required medical aid , including in - patient treatment , were referred to medical institutions attached to the system of execution of sentences or , if required , to institutions within the healthcare system . It was further stated that cystoscopy and biopsy might be carried out by any surgeon . Should any oncological symptoms be revealed , the detention facility where the patient was held should provide the required consultations .

On DATE Dr D. , a urologist of ORG , arrived at the medical unit of the YaCh-CARDINAL/CARDINAL prison . The applicant refused physical examination on the grounds that the medical unit was not licensed to practise urology . It appears that PERSON made certain conclusions on the basis of the applicant 's medical records .

On DATE the applicant received a postal packet from his representative . According to the Government , a prison official opened it in the applicant 's presence in order to check whether it contained forbidden items . As the postal packet only contained documents , they were handed over to the applicant without having been read by any prison official .

According to the applicant , on CARDINAL and DATE certain prison officials tried to force him to withdraw the complaints made before the ORG inasmuch as they concerned the PERSON prison . They threatened him with placement in worse conditions of detention . Furthermore , on DATE the applicant was visited by an official of ORG , who refused to identify himself . He had asked the applicant about the medical assistance available to him in the prison and had said that should the applicant continue to complain about his health the required tests would be performed by non - specialists .

On DATE the applicant sent a letter to his representative . He wrote that all correspondence from the representative was opened and censored by the prison administration . He also described the events of CARDINAL and DATE .

On DATE the applicant was contacted by certain ORG officials . According to the applicant , on DATE he was first visited by an official of ORG , who questioned him about his application before the ORG . The applicant confirmed his complaints about the conditions of detention and medical assistance in the YaCh-CARDINAL/CARDINAL prison . He was later called by an official of the prison 's operational department , who demanded that he state in writing that he had not been subjected to any pressure on the part of the prison administration . The applicant refused . According to the ORG , the applicant had been contacted by officials of the PERSON prison , who had questioned him in relation to the questions concerning the conditions of detention in the YaCh-CARDINAL/CARDINAL prison put by ORG . The applicant had stated that the administration had been treating him on an equal basis with everybody else and that no restrictions had been applied to his correspondence .

On DATE the applicant sent a letter to his representative , which contained his account of the events .

On DATE the applicant was again contacted by ORG officials . According to the applicant , the same official of ORG who had approached him DATE before talked to him again in the presence of an official from the prison 's operational department . The applicant had been asked whether the prison administration or any other ORG officials had put any pressure on him in connection with his complaints before the ORG . He had refused to answer without first consulting his counsel . He had then been asked whether his correspondence with his counsel had been subjected to censorship , which he confirmed . He had also been asked about his relations with the prison administration and other inmates . He had stated that as regards general conditions of detention , leaving aside the issue of the pressure put on him in connection with his application before the ORG , he had been treated in the same way as other inmates . As for his relations with other inmates , there had been no conflicts . According to the ORG , the applicant had been contacted by officials of the PERSON prison , who had questioned him in relation to the ORG 's request for factual information . The applicant had refused to answer questions concerning alleged threats on the part of the prison officials without first consulting his lawyer .

On DATE the applicant sent a letter to his representative describing his meeting with the authorities DATE .

According to the applicant , during his detention in the YaCh-CARDINAL/CARDINAL prison several letters sent to his representative had not reached their addressee and a number of letters from his representative had been opened and read by prison officials . According to the Government , there had been no interference with the applicant 's correspondence by the prison authorities . All the letters from the applicant 's representative had been handed over to him unopened .

On DATE the ORG , under LAW , indicated to the ORG not to require the applicant to perform any physical activity in the YaCh-CARDINAL/CARDINAL prison in GPE , including physical labour and physical exercises , until further notice . Furthermore , the Government were invited to take the initiative of securing an independent medical examination of the applicant in a specialised uro - oncological institution within DATE after receipt of the notice in question and further to secure such medical treatment that might be required according to the results of the examination . The Government were requested to inform ORG measures thus taken .

On DATE the Government informed the ORG that on DATE the applicant had been examined at the oncological dispensary in GPE . They submitted that according to the results of the examination there had been no development of the oncological disease and the applicant did not require special medical treatment .

On DATE the applicant 's representative sent a report of the examination to the ORG .

On DATE the ORG decided to lift the interim measure previously indicated on DATE under Rule CARDINAL of ORG in the part related to the medical examination , and to prolong until further notice the interim measure in the part related to the exempting of the applicant from any physical activity in the YaCh-CARDINAL/CARDINAL prison in GPE .

On DATE , upon a request from the applicant 's representative , PERSON , Deputy Chief Medical Officer of ORG gave a written opinion concerning the possibility of recurrent cancer of the applicant 's urinary bladder . The opinion was approved by PERSON , Director of ORG of ORG . PERSON studied the results of the applicant 's examination on DATE and concluded that the results of the cystoscopy and the cytological research were inconclusive and could not exclude the possibility of recurrent cancer of the urinary bladder or continued tumour growth . He also stated that regular outpatient examination of patients with musculo - invasive cancer included a cystoscopy and a biopsy at least once a year , computer tomography of the abdominal cavity and the small pelvis , ultrasound scanning of the kidneys , urinary bladder , prostate and liver , and radiography of the thorax .

The Government submitted a collection of the applicant 's medical records . In so far as the copies are legible , they contain the following relevant entries .

DATE and DATE the applicant was placed in the resuscitation unit of hospital no . DATE in GPE where he underwent a resection of the cancerous tumour of the urinary bladder and was recommended supervision by a uro - oncologist .

On DATE ( the date is not clearly legible ) the applicant was examined by his uro - oncologist , Dr M. , who recommended a cystoscopy .

During the applicant ' detention in remand prison GPE DATE following entries were recorded .

On DATE :

“ Following a request , a urine test was recommended . [ Mr PERSON ] refused to undergo the test . ”

On DATE :

“ Examination by a medical attendant . At the time of the examination [ Mr PERSON ] has no active complaints . Satisfactory condition ... ”

On DATE :

“ The physical examination revealed healing paraorbital haematomas . ”

DATE :

“ Examination by a medical attendant . Complaints about periodical pains in the stomach ... Satisfactory condition ... ”

DATE ( several entries , in CARDINAL of them the date is misrecorded DATE ) :

“ [ Examination by a ] physician . Complaints about pain in the kidneys . [ Mr PERSON ] stated that he had had an operation for cancer of the urinary bladder in DATE . [ He ] had undergone chemotherapy in DATE . There is an extract from [ a medical file kept at ] the oncological dispensary obtained from his relatives ... Stable condition . Diagnosis : tumour of the urinary bladder ... [ The patient is to be ] placed in the surgical department . ”

“ [ Department of ] surgery . Complaints about pain in the loins ... Satisfactory condition ... Diagnosis : ... , chronic pyelonephritis , ... ”

“ [ The applicant is recommended ] urine and blood tests , cystoscopy , ultrasound scanning of kidneys and urinary bladder ... furazolidon , analgin , butadion ... biochemical blood test ... papaverin ... ”

DATE :

“ Routine report by the Head of the surgical department . Satisfactory condition . No complaints . The patient has chronic pyelonephritis , in remission ... He received analgesics , antiphlogistics , uroantiseptics . ”

DATE :

“ Satisfactory condition . No complaints ... ”

DATE , results of the ultrasound scan of the abdominal cavity :

“ ... Conclusion : altered shape of the gall - bladder . ”

DATE ( CARDINAL entries ) :

“ Routine report by the Head of the surgical department . Satisfactory condition . Complaints about the feeling of weight in the loins . The patient has chronic pyelonephritis in remission . He is undergoing regular examination . ”

“ [ The applicant is recommended ] a urine test . ”

DATE :

“ Satisfactory condition . The same complaints ... ”

DATE :

DATE :

“ [ The applicant is recommended ] ... papaverin , furazolidon , analgin , blood biochemistry test . ”

DATE :

DATE ( CARDINAL entries ) :

DATE :

“ Routine report by the Head of the surgical department . Satisfactory condition . No complaints . As a result of the conducted examination no signs of the recurrent cancer of the urinary bladder have been revealed . ”

DATE ( CARDINAL entries ) :

“ [ The applicant is recommended ] papaverin , analgin , furazolidon . ”

DATE :

“ [ The applicant is recommended ] ultrasound scanning of kidneys and ureters . ”

DATE ( CARDINAL entries ) :

“ Routine report by the Head of the surgical department . Satisfactory condition . Complaints about the feeling of weight in the loins . The patient still has microhaematuria and pain syndrome . It is planned to conduct ultrasound scanning of kidneys and ureters . ”

“ Satisfactory condition . Complaints about the feeling of weight in the loins ... ”

DATE ( CARDINAL entries ) :

“ [ The applicant is recommended ] papaverin , furazolidon , analgin . ”

DATE :

DATE :

DATE :

“ Routine report by the Head of the surgical department . Satisfactory condition . Complaints about the feeling of weight in the loins . A cystoscopy and an examination by a uro - oncologist are planned for DATE . ”

CARDINAL DATE :

“ Satisfactory condition . The same complaints ... The examination by a uro - oncologist did not take place for objective reasons ... ( impossibility of arranging transport ... ) . ”

CARDINAL DATE :

“ Routine report by the Head of the surgical department . Satisfactory condition . No complaints ... Cystoscopy and examination by a uro - oncologist were not conducted for objective reasons ... ”

DATE :

“ Satisfactory condition . No complaints ... The patient left in order to attend a court hearing . Transport for cystoscopy and examination by a uro - oncologist is impossible . ”

DATE :

“ Taking into account the absence of the patient [ who has to attend a court hearing ] and the impossibility of arranging transport for the examination since DATE it is decided to release him ... and recommend the examination in DATE . ”

DATE , results of the ultrasound scan of kidneys :

“ ... Conclusion : liquid mass in prostate . PERSON on left . ”

DATE , it appears that the entry relates to a telephone consultation with a uro - oncologist :

“ Consultation with the uro - oncologist . Recommended : ciprofloxacin , urine test , ultrasound scan of the urinary bladder . ”

DATE :

“ Urine test performed . ”

DATE , results of the ultrasound scan of the urinary bladder :

“ ... in the left CARDINAL of the [ prostate ] there is a round ... echo - producing mass ... of CARDINAL mm . Conclusion : a mass in the prostate . ”

The next entry is dated DATE , although in the records it follows the entry of DATE :

“ Placed under supervision on account of the oncological illness . ”

The next entry is again dated DATE although in the records it immediately follows the entry of DATE :

“ At the time of the examination there are no complaints . The patient refuses to be examined by a uro - oncologist . Satisfactory condition ... Diagnosis : cancer of the urinary bladder . Condition after the resection of the urinary bladder in DATE . [ Recommended : ] Cystoscopy in oncological dispensary no . CARDINAL . ”

DATE :

“ Conclusion : a mass in the prostate . [ Recommended : ] consultation of an oncologist . ”

CARDINAL DATE :

“ Telephone consultation with the uro - oncologist [ Dr M. ] . Taking into account the clinical information , results of the urine test and ultrasound scan , there are no signs of oncological processes . Recommended : ultrasound scan within DATE . ”

DATE :

“ Urine and blood tests are performed . ”

DATE :

“ Medical documents are submitted for a consultation with the uro - oncologist . ”

DATE , entry by the uro - oncologist PERSON following the examination of the medical documents :

“ ... Recommended : ultrasound scan of the urinary bladder and the small pelvis , medication containing iron . ”

DATE :

“ Ultrasound scan not conducted for technical reasons . A course of injections of ferum lex to be started on DATE . ”

DATE :

“ [ The patient is ] hospitalised for a course of treatment for anaemia ... ”

DATE , examination by a urologist :

“ At present treatment by medication containing iron is not required since there are no symptoms of ... anaemia . Recommended : medical supervision ... , ultrasound scan of the urogenital system within DATE . ”

CARDINAL DATE :

“ As agreed with [ Dr M. ] , [ the patient ] is repeatedly placed in the therapeutic department ... for antiphlogistic treatment and ultrasound scanning . To be hospitalised on DATE . ”

DATE , examination before transfer to prison :

“ Complaints about weakness , tickling in the throat , aching in the whole body , pain in the loins , strangury ... , temperature CARDINAL C .... Diagnosis : acute respiratory disease , condition after the resection of the tumour of the urinary bladder in DATE . Transfer postponed , [ the patient is to be placed in the ] contagious - diseases ward . ”

DATE ( CARDINAL entries ) :

“ [ Mr ] PERSON was placed in the contagious - diseases ward DATE ... He received treatment with aspirin . He is released in a satisfactory condition ... ”

“ No complaints . Satisfactory condition ... ”

DATE , results of the ultrasound scan of kidneys :

“ Urinary bladder : symmetrical shape , ... irregular internal contour , homogeneous contents . Prostate : ... heterogeneous structure , increased echogenicity , echo - free mass of QUANTITY . Conclusion : symptoms of chronic cystitis , a mass in the prostate . ”

Unspecified date , results of the ultrasound scan of the abdominal cavity :

“ ... Conclusion : symptoms of chronic cholecystitis . ”

During the applicant ' detention in the YaCh-CARDINAL/CARDINAL prison in GPE the following entries were recorded .

DATE , entry upon the applicant 's arrival at the YaCh-CARDINAL/CARDINAL prison :

“ [ Mr PERSON ] underwent sanitary treatment ...

DATE , examination concerning the refusal to perform prison work :

“ At present [ Mr PERSON ] can perform prison work excluding hard labour . ”

DATE , examination by a physician :

“ Complaints about pain in the loins , strangury ... In DATE [ Mr PERSON ] underwent surgery for cancer of the urinary bladder ... Diagnosis : chronic pyelonephritis ? Incomplete remission . Disease of the urinary bladder ? Operated urinary bladder . ”

DATE , examination concerning the refusal to perform prison work and morning exercises :

“ Chronic cystitis . [ Mr PERSON ] is able to perform TIME exercises . ”

DATE , a document signed by the staff of the prison medical unit to the effect that the applicant refused to undergo a urine test .

DATE , examination concerning the refusal to perform TIME exercises :

“ Chronic cystitis ... [ Mr PERSON ] is able to perform TIME exercises . ”

DATE :

“ [ Mr PERSON ] is placed in the therapeutic department of [ the hospital of ORG at the YaCh-CARDINAL/CARDINAL prison ] for examination ( ultrasound scan and ... ) . Diagnosis : a neoplasm in the prostate . ”

DATE , CARDINAL documents signed by the prison surgeons to the effect that the applicant refused to undergo treatment on the grounds that at the moment he had no complaints .

DATE :

“ Chronic prostatitis ... Diagnosis : a cyst of the prostate ( diameter QUANTITY ) , urine acid diathesis ... According to the ultrasound scan conducted on DATE : symptoms of numerous concretions in both kidneys ; symptoms of chronic cholecystitis , diffuse changes in the prostate , cysts of the prostate . [ Mr PERSON ] refused operative treatment ... Satisfactory condition at the moment of release [ from the medical unit ] . Recommended : diuretic tea , uroseptics ... ”

Unspecified date , examination by a physician :

“ Complaints about frequent urination ... Diagnosis : chronic pyelonephritis , ... , chronic prostatitis , cyst of the prostate . Recommended : prophylactic treatment in case of exacerbation . ”

DATE :

“ [ Mr PERSON ] submitted a written opinion of Dr L. , the Director of ORG of ORG . He made no complaints about the state of his health and did not apply to the medical unit [ for treatment ] . ”

DATE , a document signed by an attendant of the prison medical unit to the effect that the applicant had refused to be transported for an examination at the hospital of ORG in the YaCh-CARDINAL/CARDINAL prison .

The Government submitted the following medical - practice licences and certificates pertaining to the medical institutions that provided the applicant with medical assistance and their personnel .

Licence for the medical unit of remand prison GPE CARDINAL/CARDINAL , valid from DATE to DATE , with its appendix . The medical unit is licensed to provide the following types of medical care : pre - doctor care , including medical practice , roentgenology , paramedical practice ; outpatient care , including neurology , therapeutics , stomatology ; inpatient care , including anaesthesiology , resuscitation , dermatovenereology , infectious diseases , clinical laboratory diagnostics , roentgenology , therapeutics , ultrasound diagnostics , phthisiology , surgery , endoscopy .

Certificates confirming the qualification of the physician and specialist of the medical unit of remand prison GPE CARDINAL/CARDINAL , valid from DATE to DATE , and from DATE to CARDINAL DATE , respectively .

Appendix of DATE to the licence of the medical unit of the YaCh-CARDINAL/CARDINAL prison in GPE . The medical unit is licensed to provide the following types of medical care : pre - doctor care , including medical business ; outpatient care , including psychiatry , roentgenology , therapeutics , stomatology ; inpatient care ; other types of work and services , including public healthcare , temporary disability examination , medical examination of drivers .

List of staff of the medical unit of the YaCh-CARDINAL/CARDINAL prison in GPE dated DATE . The staff includes the Deputy Head of the prison responsible for medical treatment and prophylactics , who previously worked in resuscitation and therapy , a psychiatrist , a physician , a dentist and CARDINAL medical attendants .

Licence of the medical unit and the hospital of the YaCh-CARDINAL/CARDINAL prison in the village of GPE , GPE , valid from DATE to DATE , and a certificate dated DATE pertaining to the same institution . The medical unit and the hospital are licensed to provide the following types of medical care : pre - doctor care , including laboratory diagnostics , medical practice , paramedical practice , examination of drivers ; diagnostics , including laboratory diagnostics , non - invasive tests , haematological tests , biochemical tests , immunological tests , radiodiagnostics , roentgenology ; outpatient care , including psychiatry , stomatology , therapeutics , surgery , therapy ; inpatient care , including anaesthesiology , resuscitation , clinical transfusiology , therapy , surgery .

Licence of the oncological dispensary in GPE , valid from DATE to DATE . The dispensary is licensed to provide the following types of medical care : pre - doctor care , including laboratory diagnostics , operating treatment , roentgenology , nursing , anaesthesiology and resuscitation , histology , dietology ; outpatient care , including clinical laboratory diagnostics , roentgenology , oncology , ultrasound diagnostics , endoscopy ; inpatient care , including anaesthesiology and resuscitation , clinical laboratory diagnostics , pathological anatomy , radiology , roentgenology , ultrasound diagnostics , oncology , endoscopy ; other types of work and services , including temporary disability examination , control of the quality of medical aid , epidemiology .

Documents confirming the qualification of PERSON , the uro - oncologist of the oncological dispensary in GPE who examined the applicant on DATE , including a diploma in medicine issued on DATE , a qualification certificate in oncology valid for DATE from DATE , employment record .

DATE , a certificate issued by the Deputy Head of the medical unit of remand prison GPE CARDINAL/CARDINAL :

“ During his detention in [ remand prison ] GPE CARDINAL [ Mr PERSON ] was examined and treated in the medical unit a number of times : DATE with the diagnosis of cancer of the urinary bladder , condition after the resection ; DATE with the diagnosis of chronic cystitis in remission , condition after the resection of the urinary bladder because of the tumour in DATE , chronic prostatitis in remission ; between CARDINAL DATE and DATE with the diagnosis of chronic cystitis in remission , condition after the resection of the urinary bladder because of the tumour in DATE , chronic prostatitis in remission . Satisfactory condition at the time of the examination . [ Mr PERSON ] can participate in investigative and judicial proceedings . ”

DATE , a certificate issued by a physician of the YaCh-CARDINAL/CARDINAL prison in GPE :

“ [ Mr PERSON ] is examined as regards his refusal to perform [ prison ] work ( because of personal convictions ) . Complaints : about pain in the loins , strangury . Conclusion : chronic pyelonephritis ( operated urinary bladder in DATE ) . His state of health allows his detention in the disciplinary cell . ”

ORG DATE , a letter of the Head of the medical unit of the YaCh-CARDINAL/CARDINAL prison :

“ There is no possibility to examine [ Mr PERSON ] in the medical unit of the YaCh-CARDINAL/CARDINAL prison ( there are no urologists , oncologists or other specialists except for a physician ) . All types of examination , including ultrasound scanning , cystoscopy and biochemical blood tests can only be carried out at the hospital of the prison [ YaCh-CARDINAL/CARDINAL ] . ”

DATE , a written opinion of the uro - oncologist PERSON :

“ ... Chronic pyelonephritis and anaemia may be a consequence of the treatment conducted . Conclusive answer as to the presence ( absence ) of recurrent cancer may only be given by cystoscopy . ”

DATE , a statement of the uro - oncologist PERSON :

“ ... The information concerning neoplasm in the urinary bladder [ ultrasound scan ] was not provided by the [ remand prison GPE CARDINAL/CARDINAL ] . The [ applicant 's ] medical file was provided by the medical unit , the information was incomplete . ”

DATE , a written opinion of the uro - oncologist PERSON , Director of ORG of ORG , obtained upon the request of the applicant 's representative :

“ As regards your request of DATE concerning the possibility of suspecting that at present the patient [ Mr ] PERSON may have recurrent cancer of the urinary bladder at stage TCARDINAL or TCARDINAL , I have studied the following materials provided by you :

Epicrisis ... according to which in DATE the patient ... underwent resection of the urinary bladder ... ;

Certificate of CARDINAL DATE ... about the results of the histological study ... Cancer of the urinary bladder PERSON was diagnosed , adjunctive chemotherapy was recommended .

Extract from the patient 's ... medical file of CARDINAL DATE , from which it follows that the patient is supervised by [ oncological dispensary no . CARDINAL ] since DATE , he underwent regular medical examinations once DATE , but has not been examined since DATE .

Extract from the patient 's ... medical file kept in [ remand prison ] GPE CARDINAL/CARDINAL , from which it appears that in [ the remand prison ] DATE the patient was examined only by physicians and surgeons , who at different times diagnosed him with anaemia , signs of chronic cystitis , pyelonephritis and prostatitis . This extract unequivocally shows that over DATE the patient [ Mr ] PERSON has not been physically examined by a uro - oncologist . Doctors of [ remand prison ] GPE CARDINAL/CARDINAL consulted the uro - oncologist [ PERSON by telephone . At the same time in DATE the ultrasound scan of the abdominal cavity showed an altered shape of the urinary bladder , pyelectasis on the left , and liquid masses in the prostate of CARDINAL - CARDINAL mm . The patient also complained about blood in his urine . Another ultrasound scan conducted in DATE showed thickening of the walls of the urinary bladder up to QUANTITY .

Written opinion of the uro - oncologist [ Dr M. ] of DATE to the effect that the signs of chronic pyelonephritis and anaemia might be a consequence of the treatment conducted . Conclusive answer as to the presence ( absence ) of recurrent cancer might only be given by cystoscopy . In the opinion of DATE [ Dr M. ] clarified that the doctors of the medical unit of [ remand prison ] GPE CARDINAL/CARDINAL did not inform him about the suspicion of a neoplasm in the urinary bladder according to the results of the ultrasound scan .

Certificate of the Head of the medical unit of [ the YaCh-CARDINAL/CARDINAL prison ] of DATE concerning [ Mr ] PERSON 's complaints about the pain in his loins and strangury , and [ a certificate ] of CARDINAL DATE concerning the impossibility of examining [ Mr ] PERSON in [ the prison ] conditions because of the absence in the medical unit of a urologist , an oncologist and other specialists .

Before coming to a conclusion , it should be noted that at the current stage of development of medical science no treatment of cancer of the urinary bladder at the TCARDINALNCARDINALMCARDINAL stage can guarantee ... [ absence of ] recurrent cancer of the urinary bladder or of ... remote metastasis . In case of a lack of regular medical supervision of the patient by an ... uro - oncologist after the special treatment of cancer of the urinary bladder , belated diagnosis increases the chances of finding recurrent cancer spreading to adjacent organs , i.e. , when radical surgery would no longer be possible .

In the present case , on the basis of the [ above ] documents , taking into account that [ the patient ] had haematuria , secondary anaemia , thickening and deformation of the walls of the urinary bladder according to ultrasound scanning and pyelectasis on the same side , the recurrent cancer of the urinary bladder can not be excluded . More accurate conclusions concerning the state of health of the patient [ Mr ] PERSON may only be made upon his physical examination in a specialised uro - oncological institution with compulsory cystoscopy and biopsy . ”

DATE , consultation of Dr D. , a urologist of ORG , at the medical unit of the YaCh-CARDINAL/CARDINAL prison .

“ At the time of the examination of DATE – no complaints . On DATE there was frequent urination with strangury ( from [ the applicant 's ] words – with concretion ) . [ The applicant ] refused physical examination . Taking into account the anamnesis and the entries in the medical file the patient might have urolithiasis , secondary chronic pyelonephritis , chronic prostatitis , cyst of the prostate .

According to the latest urine tests ... there is an exacerbation probably related to the discharge of the concretion .

Recommended : antibacterial therapy ; uroseptics ; control urine tests ; ultrasound scanning of kidneys , urinary bladder , prostate ; consultation of a uro - oncologist . Recommended treatment : notroxolin ... , furadonin ...

As regards the refusal of a physical examination [ the patient ] wrote a statement in the presence of [ the prison officials ] .

DATE , consultation of PERSON , a uro - oncologist of the oncological dispensary in Izhevsk :

“ ... PERSON : The urinary bladder stretches satisfactorily . On the left wall there is a postoperative scar – no special characteristics . GPE around the neck of urinary bladder is moderately hyperaemic . The orifices of the ureters have no special characteristics . No areas of tumour growth can be determined visually . The urethra has no special characteristics . Conclusion : no indication of recurrent tumour of the urinary bladder . Sign of chronic cystitis outside exacerbation ( lavage fluids are sent for oncocytological research ) .

Results of the oncocytological research : quantity QUANTITY , yellow colour , neo elements ( neoplasm ) not found , insignificant quantity of epithelial cells with no special characteristics . Recommended : dispensary supervision with control cystoscopy once DATE .

Ultrasound scan ... conclusion : no sonographic signs of a tumour of the urinary bladder . Echo - producing dredge of the urinary bladder . ORG signs of the chronic prostatitis . Cyst of the prostate ...

Conclusion : Cancer of the urinary bladder . Condition after the combined therapy . No signs of progressing oncological disease . At present [ the patient ] does not require treatment in a specialised institution . ”

DATE , written opinion of PERSON , Deputy Chief Medical Officer of ORG approved by PERSON , the Director of ORG of ORG , obtained upon the request of the applicant 's representative :

“ Further to your request of DATE I have studied the following documents :

A copy of a protocol of the fibrocystoscopy of DATE .

A copy of the research of the lavage fluids ... of DATE .

A copy of the protocol of the ultrasound scan of the urinary bladder and prostate of DATE .

A copy of the opinion of [ the uro - oncologist of the oncological dispensary in Izhevsk ] of DATE .

A copy of the certificate ... of DATE signed by [ the uro - oncologist of the oncological dispensary in Izhevsk ] .

Having regard to the information contained in your request and on the basis of the submitted documents I can inform you of the following :

It is not possible to make a judgment concerning the possibility of transformation of the internal contour of the urinary bladder and changes to the thickness of the walls of the urinary bladder only on the basis of the ultrasound scan since there is no data on the ultrasound scan dynamics . The protocol does not contain information about the size of the pelvis of the left kidney . The most objective information about the condition of the wall of the urinary bladder and surrounding tissues may only be obtained from computer or magnetoresonance tomography .

The submitted results of the cystoscopy and the cytological research ... may not constitute a sufficient basis to exclude recurrent cancer of the urinary bladder or continued tumour growth .

Regular outpatient examination of patients with musculo - invasive cancer ( stage PERSON ) includes mandatory performance of the following examinations : cystoscopy and biopsy at least once DATE , computer tomography of the abdominal cavity and the small pelvis , ultrasound scanning of the kidneys , urinary bladder , prostate and liver , and radiography of the thorax . ”

Article CARDINAL § CARDINAL of the LAW provides that an advocate is admitted to participate in the proceedings as defence counsel . At the same time a court may admit the accused 's close relative or other person indicated by him to act as his counsel along with the advocate .

Article CARDINAL provides that a bill of indictment should contain information about , inter alia , the place and time of the offence , the manner in which it was committed , the motives , the aims and consequences of the offence and other relevant circumstances . It should also list prosecution and defence evidence .

Article CARDINAL concerns preliminary hearings . Paragraph CARDINAL provides that when a party moves to exclude certain evidence and the other party has no objections , the judge should grant the motion .

Under LAW , detainees held in a disciplinary cell should be allowed a TIME DATE walk outside the cell .

Under LAW , medical activity is licensed . Under the Regulations on Licensing of Medical Activity adopted by Government Decree no . CARDINAL of CARDINAL DATE , a licence is required for each type of medical activity listed in the nomenclature . The nomenclature of medical work and services was adopted by ORG no . CARDINAL of DATE . According to the nomenclature , urology and oncology are separate types of medical activity requiring a licence .

Article CARDINAL of ORG on ORG no . CARDINAL of DATE , provides that information about a person 's state of health and other information obtained as a result of his examination and treatment constitute medical secrets . Such information may be disclosed without the person 's consent , inter alia , upon a request of the investigating authorities , a prosecutor or a court in connection with an investigation or judicial proceedings .

NORP The relevant extracts from the General Reports by ORG for the prevention of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment ( “ the CPT ” ) read as follows :

“ CARDINAL . ... The following criterion ( seen as a desirable level rather than a minimum standard ) is currently being used when assessing police cells intended for single occupancy for stays in excess of TIME : in the order of QUANTITY , QUANTITY or more between walls , QUANTITY between floor and ceiling . ...

Overcrowding is an issue of direct relevance to the ORG 's mandate . All the services and activities within a prison will be adversely affected if it is required to cater for more prisoners than it was designed to accommodate ; the overall quality of life in the establishment will be lowered , perhaps significantly . Moreover , the level of overcrowding in a prison , or in a particular part of it , might be such as to be in itself inhuman or degrading from a physical standpoint . ”

“ a. Access to a doctor

... CARDINAL . A prison 's health care service should at least be able to provide regular out - patient consultations and emergency treatment ( of course , in addition there may often be a hospital - type unit with beds ) . ... Further , prison doctors should be able to call upon the services of specialists . ...

Out - patient treatment should be supervised , as appropriate , by health care staff ; in many cases it is not sufficient for the provision of follow - up care to depend upon the initiative being taken by the prisoner .

The direct support of a fully - equipped hospital service should be available , in either a civil or prison hospital . ...

Whenever prisoners need to be hospitalised or examined by a specialist in a hospital , they should be transported with the promptness and in the manner required by their state of health . ”

“ CARDINAL . As the ORG pointed out in DATE ORG , prison overcrowding is an issue of direct relevance to the ORG 's mandate ( cf . ORG ( CARDINAL ) CARDINAL , paragraph CARDINAL ) . An overcrowded prison entails cramped and unhygienic accommodation ; a constant lack of privacy ( even when performing such basic tasks as using a sanitary facility ) ; reduced out - of - cell activities , due to demand outstripping the staff and facilities available ; overburdened health - care services ; increased tension and hence more violence between prisoners and between prisoners and staff . This list is far from exhaustive .

The ORG has been led to conclude on CARDINAL occasion that the adverse effects of overcrowding have resulted in inhuman and degrading conditions of detention ... ”

“ CARDINAL . The phenomenon of prison overcrowding continues to blight penitentiary systems across LOC and seriously undermines attempts to improve conditions of detention . The negative effects of prison overcrowding have already been highlighted in previous ORG ... ”

“ CARDINAL . ... cell occupancy rates [ in the investigative isolators ] should be reduced , with the objective of offering CARDINAL m² of living space per prisoner . ”


The applicant , PERSON , is a NORP national who was born in DATE and lives in PERSON . She was represented before the ORG by Mr PERSON , a lawyer practising in Perm .

On DATE the applicant ’s son was drafted into the army .

On DATE the applicant ’s son was sent to perform his military service in GPE . On DATE he was killed in action .

The applicant sued the military unit for damages in respect of non - pecuniary loss , alleging that it had sent her son to GPE and had been thereby responsible for his death .

On DATE the ORG of GPE dismissed her claims . It found that the applicant ’s son had been killed in a military operation . However , there was no appearance that his death had occurred through any fault of the military unit . In the absence of fault , the military unit could not be held liable for any non - pecuniary damage sustained by the applicant . The court continued as follows :

“ The court sympathises with the mother ’s grief at the untimely death of her son . However , it has not established any grounds for imposing on the respondent an obligation to pay monetary compensation for non - pecuniary damage . ”

On DATE ORG upheld the judgment on appeal . It endorsed the reasoning of ORG and added that in accordance with domestic law , family members of a person who died while performing military service were entitled to compensation and social benefits . However , domestic law did not impose on the military unit an obligation to pay damages for the non - pecuniary loss sustained by the family members .

The Code of Criminal Procedure ( in force until DATE ) established that a criminal investigation could be initiated by an investigator or a prosecutor upon a complaint by an individual . Upon receipt of a complaint , the investigator or prosecutor was to conduct an inquiry . Depending on the findings of the inquiry , the investigator or prosecutor could either initiate or refuse to initiate criminal proceedings . The complainant had to be notified of the decision and informed about the appeal procedure ( Articles CARDINAL , CARDINAL , and CARDINAL ) .

If certain actions impairing an individual ’s personal non - property rights or encroaching on other incorporeal assets have caused him or her non - pecuniary damage ( physical or mental suffering ) the court may impose on the perpetrator an obligation to pay pecuniary compensation for such damage . The amount of compensation depends on the degree of the perpetrator ’s fault and other pertinent circumstances ( LAW ) .