Information Note on the Court’s case-law No. 101
October 2007
Yakovenko v. Ukraine - 15825/06
Judgment 25.10.2007 [Section V]
Article 3
Degrading treatment
Inhuman treatment
Conditions in which a prisoner suffering from serious illness was held and lack of adequate medical care: violation
Facts: The applicant, who had been in custody both on remand and as a convicted prisoner since 2003, complained of his conditions of detention and, in particular, of a lack of access to appropriate medical care. His allegations were contested by the Government. According to the applicant he had been held in the Simferopol SIZO pending his trial, but had had to be transferred at regular intervals to Sevastopol, where the investigative authorities were based. The 80-kilometre journey took some 36 to 48 hours in prison vans and trains that were severely overcrowded, dimly lit and poorly ventilated. Prisoners were not provided with food or drink. Between June 2003 and April 2006 he had spent about a year in all in the Sevastopol ITT, a facility that was severely overcrowded, poorly ventilated and had no medical facilities. While there, his health had started to deteriorate. He suffered from tuberculosis and in February 2006 was diagnosed as HIV-positive (although he claimed that he was only informed of the diagnosis three months later). By April 2006 the applicant was running a high temperature and could hardly move or eat without assistance. An ambulance had been called out on two occasions, but the prison authorities had only agreed to his hospitalisation after the applicant’s mother lodged a complaint with the prosecutor general. The applicant was finally transferred to hospital on 28 April 2006 following an indication by the Court under Rule 39. He died a year later.
Law: Article 3 – (a) Conditions of detention in Sevastopol ITT: In the light of recent internal and international reports, including a report by the Committee for the Prevention of Torture (“CPT”) and a letter from the head of the city police department, the Court found that the facility suffered from continuous and severe overcrowding (the detainees’ personal space being no larger than 1.5 square metres). This would have resulted in sleep deprivation. The CPT report of 2000 had also noted a lack of natural light and inadequate ventilation. These conditions amounted to degrading treatment.
Conclusion: violation (unanimously).
(b) Lack of medical care: The Court accepted that, despite having been aware of the applicant’s condition since February 2006, the prison authorities had not taken the urgent medical measures stipulated in the regulations for the treatment of detainees with HIV/AIDS. He had not been given antiretroviral treatment or monitored for infections and had only been registered as an HIV patient at the local anti-AIDS centre in May 2006. Instead, they had continued to send him to the Sevastopol ITT, which had no medical staff. Although the Government had argued that an ambulance could have been called whenever a deterioration in the applicant’s health warranted medical intervention, permission was nevertheless required from the administration, which in turn was faced with a difficult decision in view of the absence of professional medical advice. Indeed, the authorities had refused to authorise the applicant’s transfer to a specialised hospital for further examination and there was no indication that they had made sure he had been provided with prescribed anti-tuberculosis treatment. In sum, the failure to provide timely and appropriate medical care to the applicant in respect of his HIV and tuberculosis infections had amounted to inhuman and degrading treatment.
Conclusion: violation (unanimously).
(c) Repeated transport between detention centres: The size of the individual compartments (0.3 sq. m. for vans and 0.4 sq. m. for trains) failed to meet CPT standards for transport, irrespective of the journey time. The applicant’s allegations of poor lighting and ventilation and a lack of food and water were corroborated by the CPT delegation’s findings in 2000. The applicant had thus had to endure cramped conditions for some 64 trips to and from Sevastopol over a period of two years and eight months.
Conclusion: violation (unanimously).
Article 13 – The applicant had not had any effective and accessible remedy available to complain about his conditions of detention.
Conclusion: violation (unanimously).
Article 41 – EUR 434 euros in respect of pecuniary damage and EUR 10,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage.
© 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