Published on 18 December 2023
FIRST SECTION
Application no. 15049/23
Walter DI LONARDO
against Italy
lodged on 30 March 2023
communicated on 27 November 2023
SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE
The application concerns the medical care provided to the applicant’s brother, L.D.L., during his imprisonment from 27 December 2016 until the date of his death on 13 February 2017.
L.D.L. suffered from a number of diseases including HIV, liver cirrhosis, hepatitis C and chronic renal failure and had been implanted with prosthetic heart valves. Following a criminal conviction, he had been imprisoned from 26 July 2014 until 9 August 2016, when he was granted house detention on health grounds.
On 27 December 2016, the house detention was revoked and L.D.L. entered the Verbania Prison. He filed a new request for house detention, which the Novara judge responsible for the execution of sentences (magistrato di sorveglianza) rejected. On 11 February 2017 L.D.L. was transferred to the Turin Prison, where he died two days later from a cardiogenic shock associated with endocarditis.
On 6 July 2017 the applicant filed a criminal complaint, asking for an investigation into the circumstances of his brother’s death. The public prosecutor at the Verbania District Court, who initially conducted the investigation, appointed a medical expert. Since the expert excluded any negligent conduct on the part of the prison doctors, on 19 November 2018 the prosecutor asked for the discontinuance of the proceedings; this request was communicated to the applicant on 20 May 2020.
However, considering that the investigation had not been sufficiently thorough, the public prosecutor at the Turin Court of Appeal took charge of the investigation and appointed a new expert. According to the expert report of 6 October 2021, the prison doctors had underestimated L.D.L.’s conditions and had not ordered the necessary examinations and treatment; nevertheless, due to the severity of L.D.L.’s conditions, even with a correct treatment he would most likely have died. Based on these considerations, on 11 March 2022 the Turin preliminary investigation judge ordered the discontinuance of the proceedings.
The applicant filed an appeal against this decision pursuant to Article 410 bis of the criminal code, which was rejected on 2 December 2022.
The applicant complains, under Articles 2 and 3 of the Convention, that his brother did not receive adequate medical care for his diseases and that there was no effective investigation into his treatment and death. He further complains under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention of the excessive duration of the criminal investigation.
QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES
1. Did the respondent State comply with its obligation to protect the applicant’s brother’s right to life under Article 2 of the Convention? In particular, was his health and physical well-being duly protected during his imprisonment, by providing him with prompt and adequate medical care (see Centre for Legal Resources on behalf of Valentin Câmpeanu v. Romania [GC], no. 47848/08, §§ 130-31, ECHR 2014, and Karpylenko v. Ukraine, no. 15509/12, § 81, 11 February 2016)?
2. Having regard to the procedural protection of the right to life, did the domestic authorities conduct an effective investigation into the death of the applicant’s brother, as required by Article 2 of the Convention (see Prizreni v. Albania, no. 29309/16, §§ 39-43, 11 June 2019, and Ceesay v. Austria, no. 72126/14, §§ 82-95, 16 November 2017)?
3. Has there been a breach of the applicant’s brother’s rights under Article 3 of the Convention? In particular, did he receive adequate medical treatment during his detention in prison (see Rooman v. Belgium [GC], no. 18052/11, §§ 141-48, 31 January 2019, and Blokhin v. Russia [GC], no. 47152/06, §§ 136-37, 23 March 2016)?
4. Having regard to the procedural protection from inhuman or degrading treatment, did the domestic authorities conduct an effective investigation into the applicant’s claim that his brother was subject to ill-treatment as a result of the lack of medical treatment, as required by Article 3 of the Convention (see Mammadov and Others v. Azerbaijan, no. 35432/07, §§ 123-29, 21 February 2019, Prizreni, cited above, §§ 56-58, and, mutatis mutandis, L.R. v. North Macedonia, no. 38067/15, §§ 92-94, 23 January 2020)?
5. Was the length of the proceedings in the present case in breach of the “reasonable time” requirement of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention (see Petrella v. Italy, no. 24340/07, §§ 39-43, 18 March 2021, and Arnoldi v. Italy, no. 35637/04, §§ 48-52, 7 December 2017)?
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy