Communicated on 7 September 2016
FIFTH SECTION
Application no. 876/16
Pavlo Volodymyrovych CHUPRYNA
against Ukraine
lodged on 30 December 2015
STATEMENT OF FACTS
The applicant, Mr Pavlo Volodymyrovych Chupryna, is a Ukrainian national, who was born in 1978 and is currently serving a prison sentence. He is represented before the Court by Mr A.V. Leshchenko, a lawyer practising in Odesa.
The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows.
In January 2013 the applicant started serving a sentence of ten years’ imprisonment for murder. In February 2013 he was placed in Kirovograd prison no. 6.
In April 2014 the applicant’s health deteriorated. He complained about having fever, suffering from abdominal pain and vomiting. Following his examination in the Kirovograd Regional Hospital, the applicant was diagnosed with a chronic calculous cholecystitis (calculi within the gallbladder) and a chronic gastroduodenitis in an aggravation stage. Furthermore, residual post-tuberculosis changes were noted in his lungs (he had a history of tuberculosis, with no further details being available).
The applicant applied to the prison’s doctors for medical assistance in respect of the above-mentioned problems on many occasions. Some medications and a special diet were prescribed for him every time.
Following another such complaint, on 16 April 2015 the prison’s doctor recommended that the applicant be examined in a specialised hospital with a view to deciding whether he required a surgery.
From 2 to 29 May and from 3 to 11 June 2015 the applicant underwent inpatient treatment in the prison’s medical unit.
On 10 July 2015 he was examined by a generalist of the Kirovograd City Hospital, who confirmed the earlier diagnoses and recommended inpatient hospital treatment and a special diet.
From 28 July to 10 September 2015 the applicant was undergoing inpatient treatment in the hospital in Bucha prison no. 85. The conservative treatment, which he was receiving there, was allegedly not sufficient and led to an aggravation of his state of health.
On 21 September 2015 he was transferred back to Kirovograd prison no. 6. In the meantime he had been detained in the Kyiv Pre-Trial Detention Centre (SIZO) and the Odesa SIZO, allegedly without any medical treatment.
On 8 October 2015 the applicant was placed in a disciplinary cell for three months as a penalty for the consumption of alcohol (which he denied). The conditions of his detention there were allegedly very poor. According to the applicant, he was suffering from lack of fresh air, low temperatures, unsanitary conditions and high humidity. Furthermore, he allegedly had no mattress to sleep on.
On 12 October 2015 the applicant’s lawyer complained to the Kirovograd Regional Prosecutor’s Office that the applicant was not receiving the requisite medical care in detention. He submitted, in particular, that the surgery which the applicant required was being postponed due to the lack of funds. The lawyer also alleged that, following his complaints in that regard, on 8 October 2015 the applicant had been beaten up and had been placed in a disciplinary cell.
On 23 October 2015 the prison’s doctor examined the applicant once again and diagnosed him with a chronic calculous cholecystitis in an unstable remission. He prescribed the applicant with some medications and recommended a surgery to be carried out on a scheduled basis.
On 27 January 2016 the Dnipropetrovsk and Kirovograd Regional Departments of the State Penitentiary Service issued a decision on the applicant’s transfer to the hospital within the Dnipropetrovsk SIZO, where he could be provided with the required surgery.
The case file as it presently stands does not contain any information on the further developments.
COMPLAINTS
The applicant complains under Article 3 of the Convention that he has not been provided with adequate medical care in detention starting from April 2014. He also complains under Article 13 that he had no effective domestic remedy in respect of the above complaint. Lastly, the applicant complains under Article 3 of the Convention about the conditions of his detention in a disciplinary cell from 8 October 2015 to 8 January 2016.
QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES
1. Has the applicant received prompt and adequate medical care while in detention, in compliance with Article 3 of the Convention?
2. Did the material conditions of the applicant’s detention in a disciplinary cell from 8 October 2015 to 8 January 2016 amount to inhuman or degrading treatment?
3. Did the applicant have at his disposal an effective domestic remedy for his above complaints, as required by Article 13 of the Convention?
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy