FIFTH SECTION
Application no. 19206/12
Svitlana Volodymyrivna VISHCHYK
against Ukraine
lodged on 2 April 2012
STATEMENT OF FACTS
The applicant, Ms Svitlana Volodymyrivna Vishchyk, is a Ukrainian national, who was born in 1971 and lives in Kyiv. She is represented before the Court by Mr V.V. Ryzun, 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.
On 15 November 2011 the applicant was arrested on suspicion of having taken a bribe in the context of her work as a customs officer.
On 18 November 2011 the Pecherskyy District Court of Kyiv (“the District Court”) ordered the applicant’s pre-trial detention for two months.
On 29 December 2011 the District Court extended the applicant’s pre-trial detention to three months and twenty-four days noting that a number of procedural measures had still to be taken. The court noted that the applicant’s age, state of health, family status had been taken into account in that decision.
By letter of 19 January 2012 the Kyiv pre-trial detention centre no. 13 (“the SIZO”) informed the applicant’s lawyer that the applicant had been examined by an endocrinologist and a surgeon; she had been also supervised by a therapeutist of the medical unit of the SIZO.
On 20 January 2012 the Kyiv Court of Appeal upheld the decision of 29 December 2011 noting that it was lawful and substantiated.
Further to the applicant’s lawyers’ request, on 27 February 2012 a medical expert, having examined medical records in respect of the applicant, concluded that she showed the signs of a chronic thyroid illness, cranial arachnoid inflammation, cerebral angiodystonia and chronic illnesses of the spine.
On 28 February 2012 the District Court considered the investigator’s request for a further extension of the applicant’s pre-trial detention. The applicant’s lawyer objected to the request arguing, inter alia, that the applicant’s state of health was inappropriate. The District Court decided to extend the applicant’s pre-trial detention to four months, noting that the applicant’s state of health did not preclude her from being detained in custody. It further noted that the applicant was charged with a serious crime and the pre-trial investigation had not been completed.
On 12 March 2012 the Kyiv Court of Appeal dismissed the applicant’s appeal against that decision as unsubstantiated.
On the same date the medical expert issued a report concluding, inter alia, that the applicant’s illnesses could cause her disability, if not properly treated.
On 14 March 2012 the Kyiv Court of Appeal extended the applicant’s pre-trial detention to five months. It noted that the investigation had not been completed, that there had been no grounds to change the preventive measure for the applicant, and that she was charged with a serious crime. It also noted that the character of the applicant and her state of health had been taken into account in that decision.
In the letter of 19 March 2012 the SIZO informed the applicant’s lawyer that the applicant was undergoing in-patient treatment in the medical unit of the SIZO.
On 6 April 2012 the Kyiv Court of Appeal extended the applicant’s pre-trial detention to six months.
On 28 April 2012 to medical experts concluded, inter alia, that as of 9 April 2012 the applicant had been diagnosed with two new illnesses: ischemic heart illness and hypertonic vegetovascular dystonia.
B. Relevant domestic law
The relevant provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure of Ukraine of 1960 can be found in the judgment in the case of Molodorych v. Ukraine, (no. 2161/02, §§56-59, 28 October 2010).
COMPLAINTS
1. The applicant complains under Article 3 of the Convention that she has not been provided with adequate medical treatment during her detention.
2. The applicant complains under Article 5 §§ 1 (c), 3 and 4 of the Convention that her detention in custody was not based on the reasoned court decisions and amounted to an arbitrary deprivation of liberty.
QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES
1. Has there been a breach of Article 3 of the Convention on account of the allegedly insufficient medical treatment of the applicant during her detention?
The Government are invited to provide medical material in support of their submissions.
2. Was the applicant’s detention in custody compatible with requirements of Article 5 §§ 1 (с) and 3 of the Convention?
The Government are invited to provide copies of all the court decisions dealing with the issue of the applicant’s detention.
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy