Communicated on 8 January 2018
THIRD SECTION
Application no. 69591/17
Aleksey Nikolayevich YERUSLANOV
against Russia
lodged on 25 September 2017
SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE
The application concerns the quality of the medical care received by the applicant in custody and the alleged unlawfulness of his detention between 13 July and 4 October 2017, a delay in his release from detention, and the compliance of the respondent State with the interim measure indicated by the Court under Rule 39 of the Rules of Court.
QUESTIONS tO THE PARTIES
1. Taking into account the applicant’s medical condition, have the Government met their obligation to ensure that his health and well-being are being adequately assured by providing him with the requisite medical assistance, as required by Article 3 of the Convention?
In particular, the parties are invited to answer the following questions:
a) What kind of medical examinations and treatment did the applicant receive in respect of his condition whilst in custody?
b) When the detention authorities became aware of the necessity to perform urgent biopsy of his tumour? What steps did they make to arrange that examination? Did they act with the promptness required?
c) Does the applicant have access to the required examinations and treatment during his house arrest? Is he allowed to undergo the required medical examination outside the town of his residence?
2. The Government are asked to provide a copy of the original and the typed versions of the applicant’s medical records, including the doctors’ prescriptions and notes on their execution.
3. Was the applicant deprived of his liberty in breach of Article 5 § 1 of the Convention?
In particular, the parties are invited to answer the following questions:
a) Was his detention between 13 July and 4 October 2017 compatible with Article 110 § 1.1 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, regard being had to the medical conclusions dated 13 and 21 July 2017 which established that he had an illness preventing detention on remand?
b) Was his detention between 4 and 5 October 2017 pending the execution of the release order compatible with the requirements of Article 5 § 1 of the Convention? What factors contributed to the delay in implementing the release order?
4. Given the Government’s response to the Court’s decision to impose, on 26 September 2017, an interim measure under Rule 39 of the Rules of Court, has there been a hindrance by the State with the effective exercise of the applicant’s right of application, ensured by Article 34 of the Convention?
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy