Communicated on 17 April 2014
THIRD SECTION
Application no. 20005/12
Oleg STRUC
against the Republic of Moldova
lodged on 6 October 2010
STATEMENT OF FACTS
1. The applicant, Mr Oleg Struc, is a Moldovan national who was born in 1980 and is detained in Bălți. He is represented before the Court by Mr A. Briceac, a lawyer practising in Chişinău.
A. The circumstances of the case
2. The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows.
3. The applicant was serving a sentence in prison no. 11 in Bălți. He claims that while in detention he became ill with chronic cholecystitis, chronic hepatitis, bronchitis and tuberculosis.
4. Since 2010 the applicant and his mother have been asking for his transfer to the hospital in prison no. 16 in Pruncul so that he can receive the medical treatment required by his condition. Also in 2010 he was allegedly threatened with death owing to his numerous allegations of ill-treatment against the prison administration and police officers.
5. On 15 March 2010 the applicant was transferred to prison no. 3 in Leova. On 22 March 2010 he asked once again to be transferred to prison no. 16.
6. On 24 March 2010 the head of prison no. 3 informed the applicant that the next day the prison administration would ask the Medical Department of the Penitentiaries Department to transfer him to the hospital in prison no. 16 as of 28 March 2010. However, the applicant was not transferred there, since it appears that the prison administration’s request for his transfer was rejected.
7. On 1 April 2010 the applicant was informed of the prison administration’s decision to reject his request to be transferred to prison no. 16. He was also not to be given extra rations of food. In addition, he was informed that the prison administration intended to request his transfer to the prison hospital in prison no. 16 “in accordance with the need established by doctors”. The applicant did not submit a copy of the relevant doctors’ report.
8. On 19 April 2010 the applicant complained to the head of prison no. 11 that he had not yet been transferred to prison no. 16 and that he was receiving pills to relieve his pain but no treatment for his illnesses. On 23 April 2010 he was informed that he was being detained in transit in prison no. 11 pending his transfer to prison no. 6. The prison head added that the medical unit in prison no. 11 had examined the applicant on 20 April 2010 and recommended that he receive prophylactic treatment. At that time there was no information concerning his transfer to prison no. 16.
9. Also on 23 April 2010 the applicant was transferred to prison no. 6 in Soroca. On 3 May 2010 the applicant complained to the head of prison no. 6 about serious security breaches. In particular, he was being detained in a secure cell so as to protect him from possible violence on the part of other detainees, but had been taken out and brought to the administrative offices sixteen times. No record was held of who took the applicant out of his cell and for what purpose, which allowed prison staff to arrange for various criminal elements to come into contact with the applicant in order to threaten him. In reply he was informed that the law did not provide for a record to be made of such movements.
10. On 6 May 2010 the applicant complained to the Prosecutor General’s Office about death threats he had received from the prison administration and co-detainees. He received no reply.
COMPLAINTS
11. The applicant complains under Article 3 of the Convention that he was not given the medical assistance required by his condition, referring in particular to the refusal to treat him in the specialised prison hospital in prison no. 16. He also complains that despite his solitary detention to ensure his safety, he was frequently taken out of his cell and threatened with violence by other detainees and that the authorities did not investigate his complaints in that respect.
12. He also complains under Article 13 of the Convention that he did not have an effective remedy in respect of his complaint under Article 3.
QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES
1. Has there been a violation of Article 3 of the Convention? In particular:
(a) was the applicant given medical assistance required by his medical condition?
(b) was the applicant exposed to an increased risk of violence from other detainees, given his frequent transfers from the safety of his cell to other prison areas, and was there an efficient investigation into his complaints in this respect?
2. Has there been a violation of Article 13 of the Convention taken in conjunction with Article 3?
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy