Communicated on 3 September 2015
FIRST SECTION
Applications nos 66231/14 and 8741/15
Aleksandr Anatolyevich DMITRIYEV against Russia
and Vladimir Ivanovich PASHKEVICH against Russia
lodged on 12 September 2014 and 18 March 2015 respectively
STATEMENT OF FACTS
The applicants are Russian nationals.
The facts of the cases, as submitted by the applicants, may be summarised as follows.
1. Application no. 66231/14 lodged on 12 September 2014 by Aleksandr Anatolyevich DMITRIYEV who was born on 1 January 1974. He is detained in correctional colony no. 2 in the town of Asino, Tomsk Region.
A. Facts
On 2 December 2007 the applicant was arrested on suspicion of several counts of criminal offences and placed in remand prison no. IZ-70/1 in Tomsk. On 13 November 2008 he was convicted and sentenced to eleven years’ imprisonment. Three months later he was transferred to correctional colony no. 4 in Tomsk. On 24 December 2010 he was sent to correctional colony no. 2 in Asino.
During his pre-trial detention the applicant complained of severe toothache to the prison administration, asking to be seen by a dentist. He was informed that the detention facility did not have dental equipment and did not employ a dentist. He was offered the only choice of tooth extraction by a doctor who visited the facility once or twice a month.
Having been transferred to colony no. 4, the applicant again asked for the dental treatment but was denied it. According to the applicant, no assistance was provided to him from February 2009 to the end of December 2010 since the colony dentist was either absent or extremely busy. By the time of the applicant’s transfer to colony no. 2 some of his teeth had been irreparably destroyed and three of them had been extracted.
On 30 December 2010 a dentist from colony no. 2 recommended the applicant urgent dental treatment of five teeth. However, the dental works could not be carried out as a dental drill had been broken.
The applicant complained to a prosecutor’s office of the lack of dental treatment, including inability to replace the extracted teeth with implants. A reply which the applicant received, with a significant delay, only mentioned that he could receive orthodontics treatment if he was ready to cover the costs of such treatment.
In March 2011 the dental drill was repaired but a visiting dentist refused to treat the applicant since the colony did not have a dental X-ray scan. The doctor only extracted another tooth. Yet another tooth was extracted by July 2011 since the in-house dentist considered it incurable.
In July 2011 the applicant unsuccessfully asked the colony administration for orthodontics treatment, having agreed to cover the costs of the treatment. Another inmate made two metal makeshift dental prostheses for him to substitute eight teeth in total.
In August 2012 a dentist diagnosed the applicant with periodontal disease that affected three of his teeth. The applicant was prescribed and given treatment. In November 2013 the dentist confirmed the relapse of the illness and amended the treatment. By April 2014 the applicant lost another three teeth.
In April 2014 the applicant asked for dental treatment of the remaining teeth. No treatment was given as the dental drill was broken and the colony dentist was on holiday.
On 14 June 2014 the applicant was temporarily transferred to remand prison to take part in court hearings. No dental treatment was carried out in that facility and he was not afforded painkillers. Unable to bear the pain, the applicant agreed to for the aching tooth to be removed.
No later than in November 2014, upon the colony dentist’s advice, a fellow inmate made another five dental prostheses for the applicant to replace his sixteen missing teeth. The applicant submitted they did not fit well.
In December 2014 the applicant complained to a prosecutor of inadequate dental treatment in the colony and asked that the colony administration should commission services of a civil dentist in order to assess his state of health and prescribe necessary treatment.
On 23 December 2014 the applicant was examined by a visiting dentist of another correctional colony who recommended that his examination by a specialised dentist once released.
B. Complaints
The applicant complained under Article 3 of the Convention about a lack of proper medical assistance in detention. He further complained under Article 13 of the Convention about the absence of an effective remedy to complain about the inability to obtain proper medical care in detention.
2. Application no 8741/15 lodged on 18 March 2015 by Vladimir Ivanovich PASHKEVICH who was born on 16 September 1952 and is detained in correctional colony no. 7 in the village of Olovyannaya, Zabaykalskiy Region.
A. Facts
On 29 January 2014 the applicant was convicted of murder and sentenced to six years and six months of imprisonment. He did not appeal and on an unspecified date in April 2014 he was transferred to correctional colony no. 7 in the village of Olovyannaya.
Before his arrest the applicant was diagnosed with deforming osteoarthrosis and scoliosis. There was also a provisional diagnosis of spinal tuberculosis. In addition, the applicant submitted that he suffered from pelvis fracture he had sustained in a brawl and was wheelchair-bound.
Between 3 August and 27 September 2014 the applicant was kept in prison hospital no. 1 (МСЧ-75) where he underwent medical examination and treatment.
The applicant lodged several complaints with the administration of the prison hospital and the Federal Service for the Execution of Sentences referring to the lack of adequate medical care in detention. Replies received were similar in wording. Authorities noted that the applicant had undergone all necessary medical examinations, received consultations in the prison hospital and was provided with the medical care relevant to his condition and in compliance with the federal standards. There was no need for urgent special treatment. They also stressed that the prison was adequately equipped to address the applicant’s health problems.
On 28 August 2014 a medical commission examined the applicant and diagnosed him with numerous diseases, including: an old fracture dislocation of the hip with a complete detachment of the head of femur; chronic heart failure; ischaemic heart disease; atherosclerosis of aorta and cerebral arteries; chronic obstructive pulmonary disease of moderate stage; respiratory failure; aftereffects of spinal injury; compression fracture of two vertebrae with deformation; osteochondrosis affecting the whole vertebral column; deforming osteoarthritis of hip joints, knee joints and ankle; inguinal hernia on the right side, chronic mixed haemorrhoids, and his right leg being 3 cm shorter than the left leg.
On 2 October 2014 the Olovyanninskiy District Court of the Zabaykalskiy Region examined the applicant’s request for early release on health grounds and rejected it. It relied, in particular, on the findings of the medical commission of 28 August 2014 and concluded that the diseases the applicant suffered from were not included in the list of diseases deemed incompatible with serving a prison sentence, as adopted by the Government on 6 February 2004. The court decision was upheld on appeal by the Regional Court on 16 December 2014.
The applicant also lodged a complaint with the Ministry of Health. In response of 29 December 2014 health officials stated that the prison hospital had breached the rules governing provision of the healthcare to prisoners. In particular, the applicant had not been examined by a trauma surgeon‑orthopedist with regard to his main disease since the prison hospital did not have a possibility to render this service. Hence, he did not receive correspondent treatment.
On 6 February 2015 the applicant asked the head of the prison hospital for an urgent treatment for his fracture of the hip, spinal tuberculosis and other traumas of the vertebral column in a specialised hospital. The doctor explained that the applicant could undergo treatment in civil hospitals in the town of Chita and suggested that he should be examined by a trauma surgeon in the district hospital of Olovyannaya.
B. Complaint
The applicant complained under Article 3 of the Convention about a lack of proper medical assistance in detention.
QUESTIONS
1. Taking into account the applicants’ medical history, have the Government met their obligation to ensure that the applicants’ health and well-being are being adequately secured by, among other things, providing them with the requisite medical assistance (see McGlinchey and Others v. the United Kingdom, no. 50390/99, § 46, ECHR 2003‑V), as required by Article 3 of the Convention, in the present case?
2. Did the applicants dispose of effective domestic remedies – as required by Article 13 of the Convention – for their complaint about the lack of effective medical care?
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy