THIRD SECTION
DECISION
Applications nos. 7859/18 and 12181/18
Ildar Iskhakovich GILFANOV against Russia
and Said Dzhaparovich AMIROV against Russia
The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting on 9 September 2021 as a Committee composed of:
Darian Pavli, President,
Dmitry Dedov,
Peeter Roosma, judges,
and Viktoriya Maradudina, Acting Deputy Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above applications lodged on the various dates indicated in the appended table,
Having regard to the observations submitted by the respondent Government in application no. 12181/18 and the observations in reply submitted by the applicant,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
FACTS AND PROCEDURE
The list of applicants is set out in the appended table.
The applicants’ complaints under Articles 3 and 13 of the Convention concerning the conditions of detention of disabled inmates and the lack of any effective remedy in domestic law were communicated to the Russian Government (“the Government”).
THE LAWJoinder of the applications
Having regard to the similar subject matter of the applications, the Court finds it appropriate to examine them jointly in a single decision.Complaints under Articles 3 and 13 of the Convention
The applicants complain that the conditions of their detention have been inhuman and degrading in view of their health condition and that they did not have an effective domestic remedy in that respect. They relied on Articles 3 and 13 of the Convention, which read as follows:
Article 3
“No one shall be subjected to torture or to inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.”
Article 13
“Everyone whose rights and freedoms as set forth in [the] Convention are violated shall have an effective remedy before a national authority notwithstanding that the violation has been committed by persons acting in an official capacity.”
The Court refers to the principles established in its case-law regarding conditions of detention of disabled inmates (see, for instance, Topekhin v. Russia, no. 78774/13, §§ 78-81, 10 May 2016) and reiterates that, where the authorities decide to place and keep a disabled person in detention, they should demonstrate special care in guaranteeing such conditions as correspond to the special needs resulting from his disability (ibid., § 79).
The Court further reiterates that it adopts conclusions after evaluating all the evidence, including such inferences as may flow from the facts and the parties’ submissions. According to its established case-law, proof may follow from the coexistence of sufficiently strong, clear and concordant inferences or of similar unrebutted presumptions of fact (see, for example, Ananyev and Others v. Russia, nos. 42525/07 and 60800/08, § 121, 10 January 2012). Even though, the burden of proof may, under certain circumstances, be shifted to the authorities (see Salman v. Turkey [GC], no. 21986/93, § 100, ECHR 2000-VII, and Mathew v. the Netherlands, no. 24919/03, § 156, ECHR 2005 IX), an applicant must, nevertheless, provide an elaborate and consistent account of the State’s alleged failure to provide him with the appropriate conditions of detention and required medical assistance, mentioning the specific elements which would enable the Court to determine that the complaint is not manifestly ill-founded or inadmissible on any other grounds (see Ananyev and Others, cited above, § 122).
Having examined the materials submitted by the parties, the Court is unable to accept the applicants’ allegations as credible. On the contrary, those materials convincingly demonstrate that the State has complied with its obligation under Article 3 of the Convention to ensure that the conditions of the applicants’ detention correspond to their special needs resulting from disability. There is nothing in the documents submitted for the Court to conclude that the applicants were left without proper assistance or care (see, by contrast, Topekhin, cited above, §§ 82-88).
In view of the above, the Court finds that the present complaints are manifestly ill-founded and must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 §§ 3 and 4 of the Convention.
In so far as the applicants refer to Article 13 of the Convention, the Court, having regard to its conclusion under Article 3, considers that no separate issue arises under this provision. It finds that this complaint is manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 §§ 3 and 4 of the Convention.
For these reasons, the Court, unanimously,
Decides to join the applications;
Declares the applications inadmissible.
Done in English and notified in writing on 30 September 2021.
{signature_p_2}
Viktoriya Maradudina Darian Pavli
Acting Deputy Registrar President
APPENDIX
List of applications raising complaints under Article 3 and Article 13 of the Convention
(conditions of detention of disabled inmates)
No.
Application no.
Date of introduction
Applicant’s name
Year of birth
Representative’s name and location
Type of disability
Detention with disability: facility and periods
The applicants’ allegations
7859/18
15/01/2018
Ildar Iskhakovich GILFANOV
1969
Alla Igorevna Dunayeva
Chelyabinsk
Bechterev’s disease and other conditions related to musculoskeletal system
IK-2 Chelyabinsk Region
15/09/2014
pending
More than 5 year(s) and 6 month(s) and 23 day(s)
Lack of professional nursing assistance; lack of a wheelchair or a walking frame or crutches; inability to access a dining room, toilet, shower, or a medical unit without an inmate’s assistance; inmates’ reluctance to provide him with the required assistance.
12181/18
15/02/2018
Said Dzhaparovich AMIROV
1954
Dmitriy Sergeyevich Khoroshilov
Moscow
Paraplegia
IK-6 Orenburg Region,
Medical Sanitary unit no.56
18/10/2017
pending
More than 2 year(s) and 6 month(s) and 3 day(s)
Lack of necessary conditions and medical personnel for sterile catheterisation and bowel cleansing.
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy