SECOND SECTION
Application no. 41252/12
Valdas BAGDONAVIČIUS
against Lithuania
lodged on 3 July 2012
STATEMENT OF FACTS
The applicant, Mr Valdas Bagdonavičius, is a Lithuanian national, who was born in 1964 and lives in Kaunas. He is represented before the Court by Mr Stanislovas Tomas, a lawyer practising in Paris.
A. The circumstances of the case
The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows.
1. The applicant’s detention
On 25 March 2009 the applicant was arrested and put in detention on suspicion of several episodes of drug-trafficking in large amounts committed by an organised group.
During the period from 25 March 2009 to 14 June 2010 the applicant was held in the Lukiškės Remand Prison in cells that measured approximately 8 square meters and housed from two to four detainees.
As of 14 June 2010 the applicant has been held in detention in the Kaunas Remand Prison. According to a document issued by the prison administration, the average space per prisoner for that period was from 14.16 to 2.36 square metres.
As regards the cells’ measurements and the number of inmates detained therein during the period from September 2011 to June 2012, the prison administration submitted as follows:
(a) cell no. 341 where the applicant had been held from 2 to 15 September 2011 measured 18.56 square metres and housed from 3 to 4 detainees;
(b) cell no. 140 where the applicant had been held from 15 to 28 September 2011 and from 3 November to 6 December 2011 measured 14.16 square metres and housed from 1 to 6 detainees;
(c) cell no. 231 where the applicant had been held from 15 to 27 March 2012 measured 15.16 square metres and housed from 3 to 4 detainees;
(d) cell no. 170 where the applicant had been held from 29 March to 19 June 2012 measured 15.10 square metres and housed from 3 to 6 detainees.
On 2 September 2011 the applicant complained to the Prisons Department about the detention conditions. In its reply of 15 September 2011, the department partially admitted the applicant’s allegations that he had been held in overcrowded cells.
After having visited the premises of Kaunas Remand Prison on 28 November 2011, the Public Health Centre established that the prison complied with general health care and hygiene requirements.
2. The applicant’s medical treatment
On 22 September 2011 the applicant had a first myocardial infarction. After a surgical intervention and six days in a public hospital, the applicant was transferred to the Remand Prison Hospital (Laisvės atėmimo vietų ligoninė) where he stayed until 3 November 2011. Subsequently he was sent back to the detention facility in the Kaunas Remand Prison.
From 6 to 14 December 2011 the applicant was hospitalised again in the Remand Prison Hospital due to worsened health. Several diagnostic tests were performed and pharmaceutical treatment ordered.
On 14 December 2011, while in the Remand Prison Hospital he had a second myocardial infarction and was immediately hospitalised in a public hospital for two days. After several tests and medical treatment the applicant was transferred back to the Remand Prison Hospital. The doctors described his state of health as stable and ordered the necessary pharmaceutical treatment and his hospitalisation in the Remand Prison Hospital (reanimation unit). Additionally, the applicant was prescribed a diet and physical activity (swimming) for rehabilitation.
On 15 December 2011 the applicant was issued with a certificate that he had lost 60 % of his capacity for work.
He was hospitalised in the Remand Prison Hospital from 16 December 2011 to 15 March 2012, from 27 to 29 March 2012 and from 21 to 28 June 2012. Every time he was released from the hospital his state of health was described as satisfactory by the doctors.
After having visited the Remand Prison Hospital on 7 and 22 May 2012, the Public Health Centre of Vilnius concluded that the hospital complied with general health care and hygiene requirements.
On 11 June 2012 the report of forensic medical examination of the applicant’s state of health was delivered. It was established that he had an ischaemic heart disease, a state after myocardial infarction and other disorders which belong to the category of severe and incurable deceases. However, it was concluded that the applicant’s present state of health did not satisfy the criteria allowing the convicted person to be exempted from serving the sentence according to the order of the Ministry of Health and the Ministry of the Interior No. 969/576 of 1995.
3. Proceedings concerning the lawfulness of detention
On 28 November 2011 the Kaunas Regional Court extended the applicant’s pre-trial detention for three months. The applicant’s attorney appealed against this decision, but on 29 December 2012 the Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal. The extension of the detention was based on the reasonable suspicion that the applicant had committed the crimes, the seriousness of the offences (some of them are punishable by up to 15 years of imprisonment), the risk of impeding the investigation and committing new crimes (the data that the applicant had attempted to influence the other co-accused), and the risk of fleeing as the applicant had connections abroad and no job.
The applicant’s lawyer submitted several requests asking to replace his detention with a less severe remand measure due to the deterioration of his health while in detention, impossibility of rehabilitation and unsatisfactory medical care in the Remand Prison Hospital.
On 23 March 2012 the court of first instance and on 20 April 2012 the appellate court extended the applicant’s detention for three more months. The courts observed that although the applicant had serious health problems, every time he had been provided with the adequate treatment in the Remand Prison Hospital or, when there was a need, in a public hospital.
COMPLAINTS
The applicant complains under Article 3 of the Convention about inhuman and degrading treatment due to poor conditions of detention. He refers, in particular, to overcrowded cells and lack of proper medical care in the Remand Prison Hospital. He further submits that the continuous pre-trial detention, taking into account his serious health problems, is incompatible with the requirements of Article 3 of the Convention.
He also complains under Article 5 § 1 (c) of the Convention and contests the lawfulness of his pre-trial detention, alleging that the arguments of the courts had been unfounded.
QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES
1. Has the applicant exhausted all effective domestic remedies in respect of the alleged violation of Article 3, as required by Article 35 § 1 of the Convention?
2. Does the applicant’s detention amount to inhuman or degrading treatment in breach of Article 3 of the Convention, taking into account the following elements:
- the nature and the course of the applicant’s illness;
- the quality of the medical care in the Remand Prison Hospital;
- the overall conditions of the applicant’s detention, in particular, overcrowded cells?
3. What measures have been taken by the Kaunas Remand Prison in view of the applicant’s detention conditions and to provide medical care after his health deteriorated?
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy