Communicated on 19 September 2019
THIRD SECTION
Application no. 22234/18
Tamara Nikolayevna KRIVOSHEYEVA
against Russia
lodged on 20 April 2018
STATEMENT OF FACTS
The applicant, Ms Tamara Nikolayevna Krivosheyeva, is a Russian national, who was born in 1953 and lives in Orsk.
The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows.
On 30 September 2012 the applicant’s son, Mr Nikolay Yevgenyevich Krivosheyev, who at the time was serving a sentence of imprisonment, died in the town hospital of Novotroitsk, the Orenburg Region.
The applicant requested the authorities to investigate the death and, in particular, to assess whether there were any signs of ill-treatment prior to her son’s death and whether he had received adequate medical assistance. She also complained that during her son’s stay in hospital earlier in September 2012 he had been tied to the bed with handcuffs.
The investigation resulted in a decision of 18 June 2017 not to bring criminal proceedings in connection with the applicant’s son’s death. The investigator conducted a forensic examination of the body and, having examined various experts and witnesses, determined that the death had resulted from complications of AIDS. Alleged ill-treatment before death was ruled out for the lack of any evidence. As to the question of quality of the medical assistance, the investigator did not examine in detail the quality of the treatment, stating that “a modern treatment would have prolonged [his] life ... but [given his condition and the stage of the disease] the death had been in any event inevitable”. The issue of the use of handcuffs during the applicant’s son’s stay in hospital was ignored.
The decision was upheld at first instance by the Novotroitsk Town Court on 5 September 2017 and later on appeal by the Orenburg Regional Court on 1 November 2017.
COMPLAINTS
The applicant complains under Articles 3 and 13 of the Convention that the authorities had been responsible for the use of handcuffs during her son’s stay in hospital. She also complained about the death of her son in prison and the poor quality of examination of her grievances about the medical assistance provided to her son and the lack of proper investigation of her son’s alleged ill-treatment.
QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES
1. Did the applicant’s son have adequate medical assistance in detention facilities, in particular in respect of his HIV infection and concomitant illnesses? What medical specialists examined them? Did the specialists have the required competence to assess his condition? What medical tests was the applicant’s son subjected to? Were those tests sufficient to assess his condition? What medical treatment was available to the applicant’s son?
2. The Government are requested to produce a typed copy of the applicant’s son’s complete medical record and, if available, copies of expert reports and secondary opinions from civilian medical specialists assessing his health, the quality of the treatment afforded to him during the detention and laying down medical procedures which should have been performed to maintain his health.
3. Taking into account the applicant’s son’s medical history, have the Government met their obligation to ensure that his life was adequately secured by, among other things, providing him with the requisite medical assistance, as required by Articles 2 and 3 of the Convention?
4. Having regard to the procedural protection of the right to life (see paragraph 104 of Salman v. Turkey [GC], no. 21986/93, ECHR 2000-VII), was the investigation by the domestic authorities into the death of the applicant’s son in breach of Articles 2, 3 and 13 of the Convention?
5. Was the alleged use of handcuffs during the applicant’s son’s stay in hospital in September 2012 compatible with Article 3 of the Convention?
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy