Communicated on 3 September 2014
FIRST SECTION
Application no. 16179/14
Sergey Georgiyevich BUTRIN against Russia
lodged on 28 January 2014
STATEMENT OF FACTS
The applicant, Mr Sergey Georgiyevich Butrin, is a Russian national, who was born in 1949 and serves his sentence of imprisonment in the correctional colony in the village of Kochubeyevskoye, Stavropol Region.
The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows.
A. Criminal proceedings
In March 2006 the applicant was arrested on suspicion of aggravated murder, robbery and firearms possession. In July 2006 he was found guilty as charged and sentenced to nineteen years of imprisonment. In February 2010 he was transferred to serve his sentence in correctional colony no. 1 in the village of Kochubeyevskoye.
B. Applicant’s state of health and conditions of detention in correctional colony no. 1
According to a medical certificate, the applicant is blind. He was diagnosed with mature complicated cataract of both eyes. In 2008 he was declared permanently disabled, as suffering from 1st degree disability. In November 2012 the social service authorities developed a rehabilitation programme for the applicant, entirely prohibiting him any labour, stating that he constantly required assistance even with his basic needs, and noting that he should be provided with a walking cane and a tactile cane.
The applicant also suffers from ischaemic disease, exertional angina (pectoris), hypertonia of 3rd degree, dyscirculatory encephalopathy of the complex genesis, kidney stones, chronic pancreatitis, chronic pyelonephritis in the latent stage, 2nd degree hydronephrosis of the both kidneys, osteochondrosis, fatty hepatosis, chronic cervicalgia, chronic tonsillitis, endarteritis, lumbar ischialgia.
In April 2013 the applicant underwent a complex expert medical examination to determine whether his state of health warranted his early release. Having concluded that the applicant’s condition was moderately grave, that he was “completely blind” and that he also suffered from a number of other serious illnesses, including ischemic disease, exertional angina (pectoris), hypertonia of 3rd degree, and dyscirculatory encephalopathy of the complex genesis, the expert commission concluded, in their report of 5 April 2013, that the applicant could be released on health grounds.
Relying on the conclusions of the medical expert commission and supported by the colony administration, the applicant petitioned the Kochybeyevskiy District Court for his early release. On 16 April 2013 the District Court dismissed the request, having found that the applicant had been convicted of particularly grave criminal offences and had more than ten years of imprisonment yet to serve. The District Court noted that the need for the applicant to continue serving the sentence was not outweighed by the state of his health, the fact that he properly behaved in the colony and that his relatives were ready to take care of him after his release.
The applicant argues that he spends the major part of his day in bed, unable to move around the colony premises unaided. The applicant cannot see anything around him and each time he attempts to walk, he stumbles on some object and either injuries himself, falls down or is simply forced to return to his bed. He finds it difficult even to visit the colony medical unit or a colony shop. The colony administration appointed inmate L. to assist the applicant with his everyday needs. However, inmate L. is also a sick person who suffers from a serious heart illness. He does not receive any remuneration for assisting the applicant and is frequently unable to help the latter due to his poor health. Moreover, inmate L.’s term of imprisonment is to come to an end in September 2014. The applicant also states that his blindness, as well as his encephalopathy, affects his coordination and movements. The applicant’s hands shake and he has to eat his food by placing his face into a plate as an animal. The applicant experiences difficulties while using a lavatory. Toilet pans are not separated from the remaining area (they are only separated from each other by small partitions) and do not afford any privacy.
COMPLAINTS
The applicant complained, among other matters, under Articles 3 and 13 of the Convention about the conditions of his detention in correctional colony no. 1 after February 2010 and the lack of an effective remedy to complain about the alleged violation.
QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES
1. Regard being had to the applicant’s disability and, in particular, his being blind, were the conditions of his detention in correctional colony no. 1 since February 2010 compatible with Article 3 of the Convention (see Semikhvostov v. Russia, no. 2689/12, 6 February 2014)? In particular,
(a) was it an established practice to keep detainees, suffering from a disability and/or a number of serious illness, in ordinary correctional colonies?
(b) what were rules governing detention of disabled detainees during their serving sentences of imprisonment?
(c) were any specific measures taken by the colony administration to accommodate the applicant, a disabled detainee, and if so, what steps were taken, when and by whom?
(d) was the applicant given assistance in exiting/entering buildings within the facility, moving within the colony territory, using canteen, lavatory and washing rooms, etc.; and if so, when and by whom was assistance given, what form did the assistance take, and were any persons, other than those assisting the applicant, present?
2. The Government are requested to comment on all aspects of the conditions of detention which the applicant complained of in respect of correctional colony no. 1. The Government are also asked to produce documentary evidence, including population registers, the colony and dormitory plans, floor plans, day planning, colour photographs of the dormitory, its lavatory room, the colony washing room, the canteen, and other facilities frequently used by inmates in their everyday life and, in particular, photographs showing access to those facilities and passage ways in them, as well as reports from supervising prosecutors concerning the conditions of detention in the colony.
3. Did the applicant have at his disposal an effective domestic remedy for the complaints under Article 3, as required by Article 13 of the Convention (see Semikhvostov v. Russia, no. 2689/12, 6 February 2014)?
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy