Information Note on the Court’s case-law No. 125
December 2009
Denis Vasilyev v. Russia - 32704/04
Judgment 17.12.2009 [Section I]
Article 3
Inhuman treatment
Effective investigation
Positive obligations
Failure by police officers and hospital to provide adequate assistance to the unconscious victim of an assault and lack of effective investigation: violations
Facts – The applicant and a school friend were robbed late at night after receiving heavy blows to the head from behind that left them unconscious. The police were called and two officers attended the scene. They stated in their report that they had dragged the applicant and his friend from the road and had instructed the police station to call an ambulance or a sobering-up centre. They had then been called away by a private security coordinator to check a property where an alarm had gone off. Several hours later the applicant and his friend were found, still unconscious, by janitors, who called an ambulance. On arriving at the hospital, the applicant was diagnosed with alcohol intoxication. Two hours later he was seen by a neurosurgeon, but was then left, undressed and still unconscious, on a trolley in a hospital corridor for almost thirty-two hours before being admitted for emergency surgery to the skull. A week later a private doctor who had been retained by the applicant’s mother diagnosed the applicant’s condition as life-threatening and the applicant was transferred in a coma to a military hospital, where he underwent various other surgical procedures. He was later recognised as suffering from second-degree disability. A criminal investigation into the initial assault had not, by the date of the European Court’s judgment, succeeded in identifying the applicant’s assailant. In separate proceedings, the two police officers who had attended the scene were acquitted of any wrongdoing, notably on the grounds that they could not have been aware that the applicant’s condition was life-threatening. Criminal proceedings for alleged negligence on the part of the hospital to which the applicant was first admitted were repeatedly discontinued and restarted in the face of conflicting evidence from two panels of forensic experts appointed to examine the case.
Law – Article 3: (a) Investigation into the attack on the applicant – Very serious shortcomings in the investigation of the initial incident, with significant delays and a failure to take important steps, meant that it had not been effective.
Conclusion: violation (unanimously).
(b) Alleged failure to render assistance – The matter had been within the control of the authorities from the moment the police officers arrived at the scene and found the applicant lying on the ground. He was clearly in a vulnerable and life-threatening position and the officers could not have “erred in good faith” as to the gravity of his condition. The authorities had thus been under an obligation to protect him from further harm. However, owing to a vicious circle of shifted responsibility and multiple failings the applicant had remained unconscious on the ground for another six or seven hours before being discovered by janitors. The officers who attended the scene had manifestly disregarded domestic regulations in that they had failed to examine the applicant with a view to determining the gravity of his condition or the nature of the assistance he required, had not called an ambulance or medical help, and had moved the applicant despite suspected head injuries. It was also incongruous that they should have left the applicant on the instructions of a private-security coordinator, whose orders had taken precedence over those of the duty officer at the police station. The arrangements in place had effectively meant that the protection of private property had taken precedence over the protection of the applicant’s life. There had also been manifest procedural breaches at the police station, with the duty officer not being informed about the incident because he had allowed himself to be replaced by an unauthorised officer who had not followed the established procedure for processing patrol reports. In sum, the authorities’ failure to take requisite measures to prevent harm to the applicant had amounted to inhuman treatment.
Conclusion: violation (unanimously).
(c) Investigation into the failure to render assistance – The investigation into the applicant’s allegations that he had been abandoned by the police could not be considered effective, as it was not started until six months after the incident and failed to examine the conduct of the duty officer at the police station; moreover, the applicant’s procedural rights had not been secured and the proceedings had lacked a solid evidential and factual basis.
Conclusion: violation (unanimously).
(d) Alleged medical negligence – Faced with the contradictory findings of the two panels of forensic experts who had examined the adequacy of the applicant’s medical care at the hospital, the Court decided to accept those of the first panel, which, in contrast to the second, had prepared its report on the basis of the original medical records and was wholly independent of both the hospital and the investigative authority. According to the first panel’s report, the applicant had been admitted to hospital in a particularly serious condition which called for heightened medical attention and immediate examination by a neurosurgeon, toxicologist and other specialist doctors. However, the hospital personnel had failed to implement even the most basic procedures. The description of the applicant’s condition and of the nature and extent of his injuries was cursory and incomplete; the diagnosis of alcohol intoxication was not based on blood or urine tests and, despite the potentially lethal alcohol concentration, no disintoxication treatment was prescribed or administered. The applicant was not seen by a neurosurgeon until two hours after his admission and was essentially left unattended for thirty-two hours. The procrastination in administering appropriate treatment and the failure to examine the applicant properly upon his admission had caused serious deterioration in his condition, including irreversible brain changes so severe as to require emergency surgery to save his life. Subsequent failings had led to multiple inflammations of the post-operative wounds and osteomyelitis of the skull. Although the experts considered it impossible to determine whether the applicant’s health problems were due to a decisive extent to the defective medical care or to the original trauma, they concurred that the grave failings on the part of the hospital personnel had “contributed to an unfavourable outcome”. In the light of those findings, which had not been refuted by the Government, the Court found that the medical care administered to the applicant at the hospital was inadequate.
Conclusion: violation (unanimously).
(e) Investigation into the alleged medical negligence – There had been very serious shortcomings in this investigation too. The authorities had been responsible for the delays in instituting the criminal proceedings and had failed to act promptly and of their own motion, essentially leaving the matter to be dealt with by the applicant’s relatives. The manner in which the investigation had been conducted indicated a desire to dispose of the matter, with the case being shuttled between authorities and investigators who had routinely attempted to stall the proceedings on ostensibly procedural grounds. A crucial piece of evidence, namely the applicant’s original medical record from the hospital, had been lost and the applicant had only been recognised as having victim status some two and a half years after the institution of the criminal proceedings. Accordingly, this investigation had been ineffective also.
Conclusion: violation (unanimously).
Article 41: EUR 75,000 in respect of pecuniary damage and EUR 78,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage.
© Council of Europe/European Court of Human Rights
This summary by the Registry does not bind the Court.
Click here for the Case-Law Information Notes
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy