Communicated on 14 October 2015
FIFTH SECTION
Application no. 29070/15
Yuriy Stepanovich PIVOVARNIK
against Ukraine
lodged on 16 June 2015
STATEMENT OF FACTS
The applicant, Mr Yuriy Stepanovich Pivovarnik, is a Ukrainian national, who was born in 1977 and lives in Kirovograd. He is represented before the Court by Ms I.A. Monina, a lawyer practising in Kyiv.
A. The circumstances of the case
The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows.
The applicant claims that prior to his arrest he was tentatively diagnosed with hepatitis C (“HCV”).
On 26 June 2014 the applicant was arrested on suspicion of having committed a drug trafficking offence and placed in Kirovorgad Pre-Trial Detention Centre no. 14 (“SIZO”).
On 27 June 2014 the Svitlovodsk Court remanded the applicant in custody. His pre-trial detention was subsequently extended until his conviction.
On 8 July 2014 the SIZO sent a letter to the Svitlovodsk Central Hospital. According to the letter, the applicant had informed the SIZO authorities that he had been diagnosed with HCV in 2013 in Svitlovodsk but that he had not provided the SIZO with any more detailed information in this respect. The SIZO asked the hospital to confirm whether the applicant had indeed been examined concerning HCV and what the results of the examination had been. According to the Government, the SIZO received no reply.
According to two reports submitted by the Government and each signed by three SIZO employees, on 6 August, 27 November 2014 and 4 June 2015 the applicant was repeatedly offered an opportunity to undergo a blood test to verify whether he had HCV but he refused without explaining the reasons. The applicant denied these allegations and maintained that the statements produced by the Government were forged, in particular because they were phrased identically despite having been drafted on different days and because one of the persons who signed the report of 6 August 2014, K., was not at that time employed by the SIZO.
On 13 August 2014 the medical unit of the SIZO issued a certificate stating that the applicant, according to his own statement, suffered from HCV and that during his stay in the SIZO he had consulted SIZO doctors on several occasions and received symptomatic treatment.
On 3 December 2014 the SIZO director informed the applicant’s lawyer that on 6 August and 27 November 2014 the applicant consulted the SIZO doctors concerning his HCV and was prescribed symptomatic treatment. The SIZO director went on to state that it was planned to arrange for a consultation with an infectious diseases specialist to prescribe the necessary examinations and treatment for the applicant.
On 3 March 2015 a blood test confirmed that the applicant had HCV and an ultrasound examination showed that he had diffuse changes in his liver.
On 24 March 2015 the Svitlovodsk Court convicted the applicant of unlawful purchase, possession and transportation of drugs and sentenced him to three years’ imprisonment. According to the applicant, he appealed against this decision.
On an unspecified date the applicant was transferred to the Kirovograd Penitentiary no. 14 (“the penitentiary”) to serve his sentence.
According to a medical certificate issued on 8 June 2015 by the head of the penitentiary’s medical unit, the state of the applicant’s health had worsened in the past two months, he suffered from fatigue, nausea, and weight loss. The certificate also stated that in order to ascertain the state of his health the applicant needed to be examined by an infectious diseases specialist of the Kirovograd Central City Hospital (“the City Hospital”).
On 19 June 2015 the Court, upon the applicant’s request under Rule 39 of the Rules of Court, decided to indicate to the Government that they should present the applicant urgently for medical examination by a specialised doctor of the City Hospital and to secure immediately, by appropriate means, treatment of the applicant, relevant to his health condition. The Government were requested to inform the Court by 17 July 2015 about the state of health of the applicant and the measures undertaken concerning his medical examination and treatment.
On 14 July 2015 the Government informed the Court that from 6 to 9 July 2015 the applicant underwent an in-patient examination at the City Hospital. He was diagnosed with chronic HCV in non-active phase and hepatic insufficiency. He was prescribed Carsil and Ursohol as medications and a diet. It was recommended that he undergo additional blood tests, an ultrasound examination and remain under the supervision of a gastroenterologist and of an infectious diseases specialist.
On 19 August 2015 the applicant informed the Court that he was still not receiving the medications and the diet prescribed for him.
In reply, the Government informed the Court on 15 September 2015 that as from 1 September 2015 the applicant started receiving a Carsil analogue. On 3 September 2015 the applicant underwent biochemical blood tests which, according to the Government, revealed no abnormality and an ultrasound examination which recorded diffuse changes in his liver. On 15 September 2015 the director of the penitentiary ordered that the applicant be put on a special diet.
B. Relevant international materials
The relevant part of the Report to the Ukrainian Government on the visit to Ukraine carried out by the European Committee for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment from 9 to 21 October 2013 reads as follows:
“161.The CPT is concerned by the lack of systematic screening and treatment for blood-borne viral hepatitis in the Ukrainian prison system. The delegation was informed that, currently, there was no National Programme for detecting and treating hepatitis in Ukraine (and no national standard for treatment), and that penitentiary establishments were not provided with any specific hepatitis medication. The Committee recommends that measures be taken to remedy this regrettable state of affairs.”
COMPLAINTS
The applicant complains under Article 3 of the Convention that he was not provided with adequate medical assistance in detention. The applicant further complains that the Government unjustifiably delayed complying with the interim measure indicated by the Court in his case.
QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES
1. Was medical treatment and assistance provided to the applicant in detention in compliance with the requirements of Article 3 of the Convention?
2. Having regard to the measures taken in response to the Court’s decision to indicate, on 18 June 2015, an interim measure under Rule 39 of the Rules of Court, has there been a hindrance by the State in the present case with the effective exercise of the applicant’s right of application, ensured by Article 34 of the Convention?
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy