FIFTH SECTION
Application no. 38721/10
Ruslan Petrovych DRYGIN
against Ukraine
lodged on 2 July 2010
STATEMENT OF FACTS
The applicant, Mr Ruslan Petrovych Drygin, is a Ukrainian national, who was born in 1981 and lives in the town of Yuzhnoukrayinsk, Ukraine. He is represented before the Court by Mrs Tatyana Drygina, his mother.
Following request of the judge-rapporteur of 27 September 2010 under Rule 54 § 2 (a) of the Rules of Court, the Government submitted information about the applicant’s health condition.
The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.
1. Criminal proceedings against the applicant
On 24 November 2008 and 18 January 2009 two sets of criminal proceedings were instituted in respect of forgery and large scale bank fraud.
According to the applicant, at 7 a.m. on 27 January 2009 police officers arrived at the applicant’s apartment and conducted a search.
On 29 January 2009 the applicant was arrested upon suspicion of being involved in the above crimes.
On 30 January 2009 the Tsentralnyy District Court of Mykolayiv (“Tsentralnyy Court”) ordered the applicant’s pre-trial detention as he was accused of committing serious crimes, could escape and hinder the investigation if at large.
The applicant submitted that during the four first days of his detention his parents did not know about his whereabouts, he did not have warm clothes and was not given any food.
The applicant’s detention was further prolonged by the courts on 27 March, 25 May and 27 July 2009.
On 2 June 2009 the Tsentralnyy Court rejected the applicant’s complaint about his arrest referring to the same reasons as invoked in its decision of 30 January 2009.
On 19 October 2009 the criminal case was transferred for consideration on the merits to a court.
On 14 May 2010 the Yuzhnoukrayinskiy Local Court (“Yuzhnoukrayinskiy Court”) rejected the applicant’s request for release without indicating any reasons.
On 17 January 2011 the applicant was released subject to an undertaking not to abscond.
On 28 April 2012 the Yuzhnoukrayinskiy Court sentenced the applicant to five years’ imprisonment for forgery and fraud.
On 16 August 2012 the Mykolayiv Regional Court of Appeal upheld this decision. It appears that the proceedings are pending before the court of cassation.
2. Medical assistance and conditions of detention
On 10 February 2009 the applicant was placed in the Mykolayiv Pre-Trial Detention Centre (“the SIZO”). According to the Government, upon admission the applicant was examined by the SIZO doctors. The following health problems were noted: chronic gastroduodenitis, chronic pancreatitis, myopia in both eyes, after effects of a head injury received in 1999, consolidated fracture of the right ankle joint from December 2006.
According to the information and documents submitted by the Government, the applicant was examined by doctors (both from the SIZO and from civil hospitals) in February and 4 July 2009, as well as on 14 April, 5 May, 12 July, 11 August, 15 and 19 October 2010. He was prescribed medicines in respect of his chronic gastroduodenitis and conjunctivitis and received the required treatment in full. He never made any complaints about his past head injury. As to his tibia osteosynthesis, surgery was recommended for the future, but was not urgent.
According to a note issued by Yuzhnoukrayinsk Polyclinic on 18 June 2009, the applicant suffers from high-degree myopia (nearsightedness) of both eyes, chronic gastroduodenitis (stomach and duodenum inflammation) in remission and chronic pancreatitis. Furthermore, in 1999 he had a head injury, and in 2006 he underwent surgery to the fibular bone.
On 15 March 2010 the administration of the Mykolayiv SIZO informed the applicant’s lawyer that his client was being monitored by the SIZO medical unit in respect of the right tibia osteosynthesis (fixation of a bone fracture with implantable devices). The above-mentioned letter contained the following note: “For [the applicant’s] examination and removal of the metal construction, you need to pay for the services of an orthopedist and a gastroenterologist and to inform the SIZO administration in advance of the consultation date”.
On 23 June 2010 the SIZO administration wrote another letter to the applicant’s lawyer as follows: “... Please be informed that [the applicant] will be taken to a hospital once the medical services have been paid and the precise date, time and place have been established.”
The applicant submitted that in the SIZO he had been detained in inadequate conditions. In particular, there was not enough lighting and no hot water.
COMPLAINTS
The applicant complains under Articles 2 and 3 of the Convention about a lack of adequate medical assistance in detention. In particular, he needed the bone implant to be removed from his ankle which was not done in due time. The applicant also complains that an investigation officer placed him in detention in breach of Article 5 of the Convention and that his pre-trial detention was lengthy. He also invokes Articles 6 (unfair criminal proceedings), 13, 14 and 18 of the Convention, and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1.
QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES
1. Did the applicant’s conditions of detention amount to a breach of Article 3 of the Convention? In particular, was adequate medical treatment and assistance provided to the applicant in the SIZO and was such treatment compatible with the requirements of Article 3 of the Convention?
2. Did the applicant have at his disposal an effective domestic remedy for his complaint under Article 3, as required by Article 13 of the Convention?
3. Was the length of the applicant’s pre-trial detention in breach of the “reasonable time” requirement of Article 5 § 3 of the Convention?
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy