Legal summary
January 2023
Machina v. the Republic of Moldova - 69086/14
Judgment 17.1.2023 [Section II]
Article 3
Effective investigation
Positive obligations
Authorities’ unreasonable delay in screening prisoner for hepatitis C and failure to investigate her complaints concerning infection while in prison; inadequate medical supervision: violation
Facts – The applicant suffers from severe motor disabilities and was imprisoned between February 2011 and July 2016 serving a custodial sentence. The applicant was not screened for any transmissible diseases upon her arrival in prison but in February 2012, at her request, a blood test was conducted revealing she was infected with hepatitis C (HCV) and had chronic HCV with “[zero] activity”. She claimed she contracted the disease while undergoing a dental procedure in prison in May 2011. The applicant complained to various authorities on several occasions in this respect.
Law – Article 3 (substantive and procedural):
(a) Alleged infection with HCV in prison
The primary responsibility of prison officials in charge of a detention facility was that of ensuring appropriate conditions of detention, including adequate healthcare for prisoners. The requirements imposed on a State with regard to detainees’ health may differ depending on whether the disease contracted was transmissible or non‑transmissible. The spread of transmissible diseases and, in particular, tuberculosis, hepatitis and HIV/Aids, should be a public health concern, especially in the prison environment. The Court considered it desirable that, with their consent, detainees undergo, free screening tests for hepatitis and HIV/Aids within a reasonable time after their admission to prison. An unreasonable delay in screening for HCV was incompatible with the respondent State’s general obligation to take effective measures aimed at preventing the transmission of HCV and other contagious diseases in prisons.
The national authorities had found that the applicant’s allegations were unsubstantiated because there had been no information that the applicant had ever been tested for HCV prior to her detention. Although the applicant’s complaints had referred to concrete facts which could have been investigated, the national authorities had not carried out any investigation – internal, disciplinary or criminal – to assess the risk of infection in prison through dental services. The prison administration had not kept a record of HCV-infected inmates or carried out a simple check to investigate if any other inmates who had had dental services in the same period of time had been positive for HCV. While the material in the case file had not enabled the Court to conclude beyond all reasonable doubt that the applicant had contracted HCV after her incarceration, the difficulty in determining whether there had been any substance to her allegations had resulted from the lack of screening tests on arrival at the prison and the authorities’ subsequent failure to investigate her complaints effectively.
Those failures had been incompatible with the respondent State’s general obligation to take effective measures aimed at preventing the transmission of HCV and other contagious diseases in prisons.
Conclusion: violation (unanimously).
(b) Alleged inadequacy of medical care in prison
The applicant had been diagnosed with chronic HCV, therefore, it was essential for the applicant’s state of health to be assessed with a view to providing her with adequate treatment. The diagnosis had been of HCV in an inactive phase, but it was unclear how this was established considering that no assessment of viral load had been carried out throughout the entire duration of her detention. In this connection, it was irrelevant that the applicant had been receiving treatment, since, as a consequence of the lack of adequate medical examinations, the exact effect of HCV on her health had not been established and therefore she could not have been provided with adequate medical care. There had been no evidence that the applicant had ever been examined by a specialist doctor or that the prescribed HCV medication had ever actually been administered. Therefore, the Government had failed in discharging their burden of proof concerning the availability of adequate medical supervision and treatment of the applicant while she was in prison.
Conclusion: violation (unanimously).
Article 13:
On account of the lack of adequate medical care for the applicant whilst she was in prison it had not be shown that there had been effective remedies available in respect of this complaint.
Conclusion: violation (unanimously).
Article 41: EUR 9,800 awarded to the applicant in respect of non-pecuniary damage.
(See also Cătălin Eugen Micu v. Romania, 55104/13, 5 January 2016, Legal Summary; Blokhin v. Russia [GC], 47152/06, 23 March 2016, Legal Summary)
© Council of Europe/European Court of Human Rights
This summary by the Registry does not bind the Court.
To access legal summaries in English or French click here.
For non-official translations into other languages click here.