Communicated on 14 November 2018
FOURTH SECTION
Application no. 78484/11
Andriy Vasylyovych STRYUKOV
against Ukraine
lodged on 21 December 2011
STATEMENT OF FACTS
The applicant, Mr Andriy Vasylyovych Stryukov, was a Ukrainian national, who was born in 1970 and died in 2014. He is represented before the Court by Ms O.Y. Sapozhnikova, a lawyer practising in Kyiv. In a letter which the Court received on 21 February 2018, the lawyer informed the Court that the applicant’s mother, Ms Liudmyla Arladiyivna Stryukova, wished to pursue the proceedings on the applicant’s behalf. The lawyer also provided a letter of authority to that effect, signed by her.
The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows.
A. Medical care provided to the applicant
On 4 January 2011 the applicant was arrested on suspicion of drug offences and was placed in a cell at the Genichesk temporary detention centre. The applicant allegedly felt unwell but he was refused any medical treatment at that time.
On 13 January 2011 Genichesk Hospital issued a certificate stating that the applicant had been suffering from tuberculosis since 2009. His disease was active and therefore dangerous to others and thus required medical treatment.
On 14 January 2011 the Genichesk District Court ordered the applicant’s pre-trial detention.
According to the applicant, he had remained in the Genichesk temporary detention centre without receiving any treatment for his tuberculosis until he had been transferred to the Zaporizhzhya pre-trial detention centre (“the SIZO”) on 12 February 2011.
On 11 March 2011 the SIZO authorities informed the applicant’s defence lawyer that the applicant had been provided with necessary inpatient treatment of tuberculosis at the SIZO with “positive progress [towards recovery]”. The nature of the treatment was not indicated.
On 4 August 2011 the SIZO authorities informed the applicant’s defence lawyer that he had been provided with inpatient treatment for tuberculosis at the SIZO. They specified that “the applicant [had] received anti-tuberculosis medicines of the 1st group”. The nature of the treatment was not described more specifically.
On 28 September 2011, as a result of a serious deterioration in his health, the applicant lost consciousness. He experienced strong chest pain. He was given some urgent treatment by an ambulance team and remained at the SIZO.
In the course of the pre-trial detention the applicant’s health deteriorated further. He was transported to various medical facilities for examination, notably on 15, 18, 20 and 21 October and 1 December 2011. In the course of one such examination on 18 October 2011 the applicant was diagnosed with a pancreatic tumour. It was recommended that he undergo special inpatient treatment for his tuberculosis. Allegedly, he did not then receive any treatment in respect of his diseases.
By letters dated 15 and 26 December 2011 the SIZO governor informed the Genichesk District court (“the trial court”) of the applicant’s state of health and noted that the applicant could not be treated at the SIZO as it was not properly equipped for that purpose.
On 1 February 2012 the trial court remitted the criminal case against the applicant for further pre-trial investigation and released the applicant, owing, inter alia, to his state of health.
Once he was at liberty the applicant’s state of health continued to deteriorate. He received both inpatient and outpatient treatment, notably on 7 February and from 2 to 9 March 2012. In a medical certificate, which is undated (but allegedly issued on 7 May 2012), the applicant was diagnosed with HIV, stage IV. According to the medical certificate of 14 May 2012, a deterioration in the applicant’s lungs was identified.
According to a medical certificate issued on 21 September 2012, the applicant’s treatment had become complicated as the disease had developed resistance to anti-tuberculosis medicines.
On 20 September 2013 the trial court found the applicant guilty of drug offences and convicted him to six years’ imprisonment. Owing to his state of health, the trial court excused him from serving the sentence.
On 30 March 2014 the applicant died of tuberculosis.
B. Transportation from the SIZO to court hearings and back and between the detention facilities
The applicant stated that during his pre-trial detention he had been transported between the Zaporizhzhya SIZO and the premises of the Genichesk District Court on ten occasions, and twice between the Zaporizhzhya and Vilnaynsk SIZOs. He submitted that the transportation procedure usually started at 11 p.m. on the day before the journey was required. First, the applicant and the other inmates were transported in police vans to the railway station; then at around midnight he was placed in a train compartment, and travelled three to four hours in the train; then he continued his journey in a police van. According to the applicant, the transportation process lasted the whole night. There was no food and water provided during the transportation procedure, nor was there a doctor present. He felt unwell during court hearings, which resulted in ambulances being called or the adjournment of court sessions.
The applicant submitted a copy of the trial court’s letter addressed to the head of the Genichesk police authority allegedly responsible for the applicant’s transportation (received by the latter on 26 January 2012), in which the trial court asked that the applicant be provided with appropriate transportation, in view of his state of health, to the court hearing scheduled for 31 January 2012. It was mentioned in the trial court’s letter that the transportation expenses would be borne by the applicant’s relatives. The applicant also submitted a copy of a letter from the above-mentioned police authority, dated 26 January 2012, informing his mother that owing to the absence of any special transport arrangements the applicant would be transported on 29 January 2012 by railway, as usual.
C. Relevant law and practice
The relevant domestic and international material in respect of treatment of tuberculosis can be found in Logvinenko v. Ukraine (no. 13448/07, §§ 38, 41 and 49-50, 14 October 2010).
The relevant extracts from the World Health Organization (WHO) Guidelines on Treatment of Tuberculosis (1997) can be found in Vasyukov v. Russia (no. 2974/05, § 50, 5 April 2011).
International and domestic materials concerning conditions of detention and transportation of detainees can be found in Koktysh v. Ukraine (no. 43707/07, §§ 39-42, 10 December 2009).
COMPLAINTS
The applicant complains under Article 3 of the Convention that he was not provided with adequate medical treatment and assistance while in detention. He also complains about the conditions of his transportation from the SIZO to court hearings and back and between detention facilities. Finally, he complains under Article 13 of the Convention that he did not have an effective domestic remedy for his complaints under Article 3 of the Convention.
QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES
1. Was the medical treatment and assistance provided to the applicant in detention in compliance with the requirements of Article 3 of the Convention?
2. Were the conditions of the applicant’s transport to and from court hearings and between detention facilities during his pre-trial detention compatible with Article 3 of the Convention?
3. Did the applicant have at his disposal an effective domestic remedy for his complaints under Article 3, as required by Article 13 of the Convention?
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy