FIFTH SECTION
Application no. 40512/13
Sergey Vasilyevich ANTONOV
against Ukraine
lodged on 21 June 2013
STATEMENT OF FACTS
The applicant is charged with theft. Since 27 September 2012 he is detained in the Kyiv Pre-Trial Detention Centre (the SIZO). The applicant suffers from HIV (IV clinical stage), tuberculosis, hepatitis C, and other diseases.
Since 14 February 2013 the applicant is in the medical facility of the SIZO.
On 14 June 2013 the SIZO officials informed the police that the applicant’s state of health was aggravating and might lead to his death. They confirmed that, apart from the said diagnoses, the applicant suffers from inflammation of lymph nodes, dermatitis, intestinal dysbacteriosis etc. They also stated that the applicant needed a long-term medical treatment in the conditions of a specialized medical facility. Consequently, they asked to quicken the investigation, and to consider the possibility to release the applicant. The document was signed by the head of the SIZO and the head of the SIZO’s medical department.
On 24 June 2013 the European Court of Human Rights, following the applicant’s request under Rule 39 of the Rules of the Court, decided to indicate to the Government to ensure that the applicant has access to and is provided with the appropriate specialised care needed, including transfer to a specialised medical facility if necessary.
The applicant submitted that, after his application to this Court, he had been subjected to a psychological pressure on behalf of the Kyiv Pre-Trial Detention Centre administration and its medical staff, and was requested to sign a paper that he refused treatment and had no complaints. On 4 July 2013 the applicant complained about it to the prosecutor’s office.
On 11 July 2013 the SIZO administration informed the applicant’s lawyer that the applicant was in the SIZO medical ward. His state of health has improved and he needed no hospitalization.
On the same date the Kagarlytskyy District Court of the Kyiv Region prolonged the applicant’s pre-trial detention for two months. The applicant’s lawyer’s request for release on medical grounds was rejected by the court as unsubstantiated.
QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES
1. What kind of medical treatment and assistance is provided to the applicant in the SIZO, and is such treatment sufficient with regards to the requirements of Article 3 of the Convention?
2. Did the applicant have at his disposal an effective domestic remedy for his complaint under Article 3, as required by Article 13 of the Convention?
3. Has there been any hindrance by the State in the present case with the effective exercise of the applicant’s right of application, ensured by Article 34 of the Convention?
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy