I.T. v. Romania (dec.)

Information Note on the Court’s case-law No. 80

November 2005

I.T. v. Romania (dec.) - 40155/02

Decision 24.11.2005 [Section I]

Article 3

Positive obligations

Alleged lack of adequate medical treatment for an HIV-positive detainee during imprisonment: inadmissible

The applicant, who has been sentenced to a term of imprisonment, has HIV/Aids. Doctors prescribed daily medical treatment consisting of medication and a high-calorie, protein‑rich diet. The applicant’s daily Aids treatment is dispensed free of charge. He was admitted to hospital on several occasions and his state of health was found to be compatible with detention. The medicines were usually supplied to him by the prison hospital but, owing to delays in delivery as a result of administrative problems or lack of funds, the applicant was several times left without medication for short periods. He was then given permission to continue his treatment by taking medication which he paid for himself. His general state of health was judged to be relatively good. In early 2005 the doctors concluded that the HIV infection had not developed into full-blown Aids, and that the applicant was responding very well to the prescribed course of medication.

Article 3 – Alleged lack of appropriate medical treatment in prison: The evidence contained in the case file did not enable the Court to find that the applicant’s infection with HIV had occurred after his being placed in pre-trial detention, or to find that the authorities were responsible for it. There had been shortcomings in the authorities’ compliance with their positive obligation to provide the sick prisoner with the necessary medical treatment in terms of the special enriched diet prescribed by the doctors and the course of medication. However, these had related only to short periods, and the authorities’ response to the applicant’s health problems had, by and large, been appropriate. Moreover, the development of the applicant’s HIV infection had been controlled by the medical treatment prescribed and his health had not deteriorated in prison. In that connection, the Court could not speculate as to how the infection might have developed had the applicant not had the means to continue with his treatment during the periods when there had been delays in supplying his medication. The shortcomings noted above might have caused the applicant a degree of distress, for which the authorities were responsible, but the applicant had not been deprived of medication for long periods, and had not, for the most part, had to bear the cost of treatment. The shortcomings noted in the case did not in themselves provide sufficient basis for finding that the authorities had failed in their duty to protect the applicant’s health: manifestly ill-founded.

Detention of the applicant while ill: While mindful of the fragile psychological state of the applicant owing to his illness, the Court found that he had not exhausted domestic remedies: objection by the respondent Government allowed.

© Council of Europe/European Court of Human Rights
This summary by the Registry does not bind the Court.

Click here for the Case-Law Information Notes

 

Full & Egal Universal Law Academy