4.  The applicant was born in 1972 and lives in the city of Kharkiv, Ukraine. 5.  On 18 October 1995 the applicant was arrested and detained on remand. He was subsequently charged with illegal possession of arms. 6.  On 21 October 1995 the applicant was charged with theft. 7.  On 30 May 1997 the Leninskyy District Court separated the two sets of criminal proceedings against the applicant and remitted the case of theft for further investigation. 8.  On 2 June 1997 the court sentenced the applicant to three and a half years’ imprisonment for illegal possession of arms. On 6 August 1997 the Balakleyskyy District Court amnestied the applicant and he was subsequently released. According to the applicant, the release was subject to an undertaking not to abscond. 9.  On 6 November 1997 the applicant was arrested again, apparently in the context of the criminal proceedings in the case of theft mentioned above, and charged with embezzlement; subsequently this charge was reclassified to theft and robbery. The gravity of the crimes with which he was charged and the danger of his absconding were mentioned in the investigator’s arrest order as reasons for the applicant’s detention on remand. 10.  Alongside the applicant, other persons were charged within these proceedings (by the end of the trial there were fourteen persons), although on different dates and with different crimes. 11.  On 25 December 1997 the Prosecutor of the Kharkiv Region extended the applicant’s pre-trial detention until 14 April 1998. In doing so he referred to the gravity of the crimes with which the accused were charged and the danger of their absconding. 12.  Between 1998 and 2001 the applicant’s criminal case was transferred several times for examination to the Kharkiv Regional Court. However, the latter remitted it for additional investigation. The last time this happened was on 8 February 2001. In doing so the court, inter alia, ordered the applicant’s further detention on remand; it did not specify any reasons for this detention. On 15 May 2001 the Supreme Court of Ukraine quashed this decision and remitted the case back to the court. 13.  On 6 September 2001 the Kharkiv Regional Court of Appeal (formerly Kharkiv Regional Court) remitted the case to the Kharkivskyy District Court of the Kharkiv Region for examination because of the changes introduced in the Criminal Procedure Code on 12 July 2001, which provided that such cases had to be considered by the district courts. 14.  The applicant and his lawyer asked the court to release the applicant on several occasions referring, inter alia, to the applicant’s state of health, but to no avail. In particular, on 27 March, 8 July and 18 August 2003 the Kharkivskyy District Court refused the applicant’s and his lawyer’s requests to replace the applicant’s detention on remand with an undertaking not to abscond. On the latter date the court rejected the applicant’s reference to his poor state of health, arguing that he was taking an active part in the criminal proceedings against him and, therefore, his argument of poor health was ill-founded. Apparently, the remainder of the applicant’s and his lawyer’s requests for release were either not taken into account by the court or the copies of relevant court decisions were not provided to the Court.
The applicant was finally released on 1 October 2003 for health reasons, on an undertaking not to abscond. 15.  The other accused and their lawyers also made several requests to the court for their detention to be replaced with an undertaking not to abscond. 16.  In the course of the criminal proceedings the court also considered numerous motions filed by the accused and their lawyers, among which there were motions to order forensic examinations (in total, more than twenty different forensic examinations, for example, medical, fingerprints, and so on, were held at the pre-trial and trial stages), to extend the time-limit for familiarisation with the case-file, to replace one lawyer with another (at least three lawyers were replaced at the applicant’s request). The accused also challenged the judge who was dealing with their case on a number of occasions. 17.  By the end of the trial, sixteen persons had lodged civil claims against the accused. 18.  On 29 July 2004 the Kharkivskyy District Court sentenced the applicant to five years, eleven months and 25 days’ imprisonment for numerous robberies and burglaries. The court also found all the other accused guilty and imposed on them various sentences. The court further examined the civil claims and allowed them in part. 19.  The applicant and prosecutor appealed against this judgment. 20.  On 20 December 2006 the Kharkiv Regional Court of Appeal upheld the impugned judgment in regard to the applicant and changed it in regard to other accused. 21.  The applicant appealed in cassation and, according to him, on 12 March 2007 the Supreme Court of Ukraine rejected his appeal. 22.  According to the applicant, in November 1997 he was beaten by the police. By a letter of 27 January 1998 the prosecutor informed the applicant that on 3 December 1997 a medical expert had established that he had minor bodily injuries. The parties did not provide the Court with a copy of this medical report. 23.  On 10 April 1998, apparently having examined the applicant’s complaints, the prosecutor found no prima facie case of ill-treatment. Accordingly, he refused to institute criminal proceedings against the policemen concerned. 24.  The applicant further raised his complaints of ill-treatment before the Kharkivskyy District Court during the trial against him. However, the court dismissed these complaints as ill-founded, referring to the prosecutor’s decision. 25.  According to the applicant, between October and November 1995 he was beaten by the police and that caused him, inter alia, a spinal trauma. 26.  The Government produced a collection of documents which appear to be extracts from the applicant’s medical records, a substantial part of which is illegible. The legible pages list the applicant’s diagnoses but contain no information about the nature of treatment administered to the applicant in the Pre-Trial Detention Centre No. 27 (слідчий ізолятор № 27 - hereinafter “the SIZO No. 27”), where he was detained at the material time. They can be summarised as follows. 27.  In the period between 24 December 1996 and 10 January 1997 a medical expert report, prepared in the course of the applicant’s detention, established that the applicant was suffering from a peroneal nerve neuropathy and partial paralysis of the right foot (нейропатія малогомілкового нерва з парезом правої стопи). The experts further concluded that these disorders could have been caused by an osteochondrosis, and that the applicant could be treated in the pre-trial detention centre, where he was detained at the time. He warned that “in the absence of appropriate medical treatment the disease [would] progress”. 28.  Following his arrest in November 1997 (see paragraph 9 above), the applicant was examined by the doctors of the SIZO No. 27, where the applicant was placed. He was also examined by a psychoneurologist on 10 December 1997. The doctors’ report does not contain any information about his alleged neurological problems. 29.  On 14 July 1998 the head of the medical department of the SIZO No. 27 reported to the prosecutor that, having examined the applicant on the same date, it had been concluded that his state of health was satisfactory and he did not need medical treatment. He further stated that the applicant could be detained in the SIZO No. 27. 30.  On 12 October 1999 the applicant was examined by a neurologist and diagnosed with partial paralysis of the right peroneal nerve (парез правого малогомілкового нерва). In this regard the doctor ordered an X‑ ray examination, which revealed sacral assimilation (сакралізація п’ятого поперекового хребця). 31.  Later, on 6 November 1999, the head of the medical department of the SIZO No. 27 reported that the applicant had applied for medical aid on account, inter alia, of partial paralysis of the right peroneal nerve and left peroneal nerve disorder syndrome (синдром порушення лівого малогомілкового нерва). He had received out-patient treatment. Finally, the head of the department stated that the applicant needed additional examinations. 32.  On 31 May 2000 the applicant was examined by a neurologist and diagnosed with partial paralysis of both feet. 33.  Following the applicant’s medical check-up on 17 October 2000, it was reported, inter alia, that his above-mentioned neurological problems were a result of the spinal trauma suffered in 1995. It was further stated that the applicant needed routine surgical treatment. No further information as to whether the applicant underwent this treatment is available. 34.  On an unknown date in October 2001 and on 25 January 2002 the doctors came to the conclusion that the applicant, given his state of health, could be detained in the SIZO No. 27. Furthermore, on 15 March 2003 they concluded that the applicant could be placed in a disciplinary cell (карцер). 35.  On 19 December 2002 the doctors of the SIZO No. 27, following the applicant’s complaints of pain and weakness in the right hand and foot, examined the applicant and concluded that he was suffering from partial paralysis of the right hand and foot. They noted that the disease was progressing and that there was a suspicion of syringomyelia (сирингомієлія)[1]. In their view, to make a diagnosis and to plan a therapeutic approach the applicant needed to undergo additional medical examinations and treatment at a specialised hospital. 36.  According to the Government, on 10 June 2003, following the applicant’s complaints of, inter alia, pain in his right hand, he was examined by a neurologist who reaffirmed his above-mentioned neurological problems. He noted, among other matters, the progressive nature of the disease and the suspected syringomyelia. 37.  On 11 June 2003 the doctors of the SIZO No. 27, having examined the applicant, again diagnosed him as suffering from the progressive neurological problems mentioned in the preceding paragraph. They further noted that in the SIZO No. 27 there was no neurologist, no neurosurgeon, no appropriate medication (in particular, painkillers) and no possibility to provide specialised treatment for the applicant. 38.  On 8 July 2003 the Kharkivskyy District Court of Kharkiv Region, rejecting one of the applicant’s lawyer’s requests to release the applicant, held that the applicant’s detention was lawful and that the court was not competent to consider the issues of detainees’ medical treatment. However, the court noted that it “took into account” the information mentioned in the preceding paragraph. 39.  The applicant again requested his release, referring to his aggravated state of health and lack of necessary medicine; these in his view made it difficult for him to participate effectively in the court proceedings. On 18 August 2003 the Kharkivskyy District Court noted that the SIZO doctors had not requested it to release the applicant in order to participate in the proceedings, and held that the applicant himself and with the assistance of his counsel actively participated in the court proceedings. Accordingly, it rejected the applicant’s request. 40.  On 1 October 2003 the Kharkivskyy District Court noted, referring to the medical data, that “[the applicant] was suffering from the after-effects of a spinal injury and a fracture of the right foot, median and radial nerve neuritis [неврит серединного та радіяльного нерва] and partial paralysis of the right hand” and released him. 41.  The next day the applicant applied to a local hospital for medical assistance and was sent to City Hospital No. 7 where he underwent specialised diagnostic procedures and treatment (including as an in-patient).