Communicated on 10 November 2016
FIFTH SECTION
Application no. 57240/14
Vladimir Valeryevich SERZHANTOV against Ukraine
lodged on 15 August 2014
STATEMENT OF FACTS
The applicant, Mr Vladimir Valeryevich Serzhantov, is a Ukrainian national who was born in 1973. He is represented before the Court by Ms A.N. Skalko, a lawyer practising in Mykolayiv.
The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows.
The applicant is a former drug addict suffering from HIV, hepatitis C and strong drug withdrawal symptoms. From 2009 he received methadone substitution treatment at the Mykolayiv Central District Hospital (“the hospital”). At the time of his arrest (see below) his daily dose of methadone was 280 mg.
On 4 August 2014 the applicant was arrested on suspicion of extortion.
On the same date he was placed in a temporary detention centre (ITT).
On 7 August 2014 the Tsentralny District Court of Mykolayiv ordered the applicant’s pre-trial detention for two months. As regards the applicant’s argument that he might die in detention as no methadone could be provided to him by the SIZO, the court held that he would be taken to the hospital on a daily basis to receive his treatment. He appealed.
On 8 August 2014 the Mykolayiv pre-trial detention centre (“the SIZO”), having conducted a medical examination, refused to admit the applicant as he required specialist medical treatment which could not be provided at the SIZO. The relevant report stated that he needed urgent medical treatment at the hospital. He was returned to the ITT.
Later that day the applicant was again taken to the SIZO and admitted.
From 4 August 2014 he was taken to the hospital on a daily basis to receive his methadone substitution treatment.
On 9 August 2014 the applicant’s neurologist started his detoxification, allegedly under the duress of the SIZO authorities. In five days the dose of methadone given to him was reduced to 55 mg, which led to a considerable deterioration in his health.
By 12 August 2014 the applicant’s health had deteriorated to the extent that he was physically unable to get out of the prison van and had to receive his methadone inside the vehicle.
On the same date the applicant’s lawyer asked the prosecutor, SIZO governor and investigator dealing with the criminal case to allow the applicant to undergo inpatient treatment at the Mykolayiv Drug Rehabilitation Clinic (“the clinic”) in view of his critical state of health. She also asked for the preventive measure applied in respect of him to be changed to a non-custodial one.
On 13 August 2014 the applicant was examined by the SIZO medical practitioner.
On the same date, given the continuing worsening of the applicant’s state of health, his addiction specialist (нарколог) prescribed him some supportive psychotropic drugs and recommended his urgent hospitalisation.
On 14 August 2014 the applicant was examined at the SIZO medical unit and advised to undergo a daily medical examination
That day the applicant received his methadone lying on the floor of the prison van. The head of the hospital informed the investigator that he was in a critical condition, insisting on his urgent hospitalisation and his detoxification to be gradually performed under medical supervision.
On the same date the prosecutor’s office rejected the applicant’s lawyer’s request of 12 August 2014, finding no grounds for his inpatient treatment or release.
On 14 August 2014 the head of the hospital informed the applicant’s lawyer that, contrary to the relevant medical regulations, the police had forced the hospital addiction specialist to sharply reduce the dose of methadone given to the applicant, informing her that they would bring him in for twenty days only. He further observed that the statutory maximum reduction in methadone was 20 mg per week.
On 15 August 2014 the Court of Appeal for the Mykolayiv Region rejected the applicant’s request to have the preventive measure applied in respect of him changed.
On 18 August 2014 the applicant was examined at the SIZO medical unit and advised to undergo a medical examination at the clinic.
On 19 August 2014, in view of the deterioration in his health, the applicant was examined by the medical board of the clinic. He was prescribed a gradual reduction in his methadone dose in accordance with the relevant medical regulations and, in the event of any further deterioration in his health, his immediate hospitalisation was advised.
On the same date, following the applicant’s request, the Court indicated under Rule 39 of its Rules that the Government secure by appropriate means inpatient treatment for the applicant appropriate for his condition and inform the Court of the measures undertaken and his state of health.
On 20 August 2014 the applicant was examined by the SIZO medical practitioner, who recommended his hospitalisation.
On 21 August 2014 the applicant was urgently admitted to the clinic, where he received the necessary medical treatment.
There is no information in the case file on any further developments.
COMPLAINT
The applicant complains under Article 3 of the Convention that there was a lack of prompt and adequate medical care available to him at the SIZO. He submits, in particular, that despite his critical condition and the repeated recommendations of the hospital physicians, he was not hospitalised until 21 August 2014.
QUESTION TO THE PARTIES
Has the applicant received prompt and adequate medical care while in detention, in particular between 8 and 21 August 2014, in compliance with Article 3 of the Convention?
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy