5.  The applicant was born in 1970 and lives in the town of Yevpatoriya, Ukraine. 6.  Since 1994 the applicant has had diabetes mellitus and other chronic illnesses. She has been hospitalised on several occasions. 7.  At the material time the applicant was working in tax inspection and raising her nine-year-old daughter alone. 8.  On 3 February 2006 the Saky Prosecutor’s Office (Сакська міжрайонна прокуратура) instituted criminal proceedings against the applicant for abuse of a position of power, allegedly committed between June 2004 and July 2005. 9.  On 6 February 2006 the investigating officer of the Saky Prosecutor’s Office, referring to Articles 106 and 115 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of Ukraine, decided that the applicant should be arrested and placed in the Saky Temporary Detention Centre (ізолятор тимчасового тримання) (hereinafter “the ITT”) because “witnesses in the criminal case had identified the applicant as a person who had committed a crime for which the penalty of imprisonment could be imposed”. 10.  On the same day the applicant was arrested – allegedly at her workplace – and taken to a hospital in order to check whether her state of health was compatible with detention (see paragraph 19 below). The applicant was then placed in the ITT. 11.  On 7 February 2006 the investigating officer of the Saky Prosecutor’s Office rejected a request by the applicant that S. and D. represent her in the criminal case, since they had failed to present any documents certifying their law degrees. 12.  On 9 February 2006 the applicant was brought before a court. The investigating officer asked the court to authorise the applicant’s pre-trial detention since she had committed a serious crime and could abscond and hinder the investigation. The applicant and her lawyer, M., requested the applicant’s release in view of her state of health and the fact that she would not abscond because she was taking care of her daughter, who was a minor. The Saky Local Court extended the applicant’s detention to ten days in order to collect additional information necessary for taking a decision on her pre-trial detention. This included information from her place of residence about her character, a certificate about the composition of her family and information about any previous criminal record. The court noted that this decision was not subject to appeal. 13.   Following complaints lodged by D., the Ukrainian Parliamentary Commissioner for Human Rights wrote to the Saky Prosecutor’s Office on 14 February 2006 saying that the applicant’s further detention could be considered as torture in view of her state of health. This letter was received by the prosecutor’s office on 16 February 2006 and redirected to the investigating officer in charge of the applicant’s case. 14.  On 16 February 2006 the Saky Prosecutor’s Office ordered the applicant’s release. It was noted that the applicant had a disability of the third degree (the mildest) and was suffering from diabetes and other illnesses. She required insulin injections, a special diet and permanent medical supervision, which were impossible to provide in the Saky ITT. Moreover, the applicant had a child who was a minor. She also had a permanent place of residence and no possibility to hinder the investigation since, inter alia, she had already been dismissed from the office she had allegedly abused. The applicant wrote on the decision:
“[I] have no complaints against the ITT personnel. [I] was not subjected to physical pressure in the ITT.” 15.  The criminal proceedings against the applicant were stayed “because of the applicant’s serious illness”. 16.  On 7 April 2006 the Saky Local Court rejected a complaint lodged by S. against the decision of 7 February 2006 not to allow him to represent the applicant because the complaint had not been lodged within the criminal proceedings against the applicant. On 21 April 2006 the same court rejected appeals lodged by the applicant and S. against this decision, as it was not subject to appeal. 17.  The criminal proceedings against the applicant were resumed and on 3 October 2006 the Saky Local Court sentenced the applicant to three years’ imprisonment with one year’s probation for embezzlement of property through abuse of a position of power. The applicant was represented by an advocate, M. 18.  On 12 December 2006 the Court of Appeal of the Autonomous Republic of Crimea (hereinafter – “the ARC”) rejected an appeal lodged by the applicant and upheld the sentence of 3 October 2006. On 4 December 2007 the Supreme Court of Ukraine rejected an appeal in cassation lodged by the applicant. 19.  On 6 February 2006 at around 2 to 3 p.m. the applicant was taken by the police to the Saky Central District Hospital (Сакська центральна районна лікарня), where she was examined by doctors including I., an endocrinologist. It was concluded that the applicant “did not need hospitalisation”. I. issued instructions for the applicant’s treatment, which included four insulin injections per day. The applicant was diagnosed with a severe form of diabetes. She received an insulin injection. 20.  Between 6 and 11 February 2006 an ambulance was called to the ITT twice or three times per day to give the applicant insulin injections. An ambulance was called on 6 February 2006 at 5.05 p.m. and 8.40 p.m.; on 7 February 2006 at 8 a.m., 12.58 p.m. and 5.50 p.m.; on 8 February 2006 at 0.48 a.m., 9.11 a.m. and 6.20 p.m.; on 9 February 2006 at 7.10 a.m., 12.52 p.m. and 9.20 p.m.; on 10 February 2006 at 8.07 a.m. and 515 p.m., and on 11 February 2006 at 855 a.m. On each ambulance visit between 6 and 9 February 2006 the applicant was diagnosed with a severe form of diabetes. 21.  On 7 February 2006 D. and the applicant’s mother complained to a number of State authorities, including the Saky Prosecutor’s Office that the applicant had not been provided with adequate medical assistance and was being detained in the ITT without a bed, bed linen or personal hygiene products. In reply, the Ministry of Internal Affairs informed D. that the conditions of the applicant’s detention were adequate and that she was being detained in a cell “equipped with individual sleeping places”. 22.  On the same day the investigating officer rejected a request by K. (one of the applicant’s lawyers) to have the applicant admitted to a hospital. He referred to a letter of 7 February 2006 from the Saky Central District Hospital, which stated that the applicant could be detained if the diet and recommendations given by the doctor on 6 February 2006 were complied with. It was also noted that where necessary the applicant had been provided with medical assistance by ambulance doctors and by the ITT paramedic. 23.  On 10 February 2006 the applicant was examined by an endocrinologist and diagnosed with diabetes of medium severity (сахарный диабет средней тяжести). 24.  On 11 February 2006 the applicant was examined by a doctor from Saky Central District Hospital. 25.  According to the applicant, between 12 and 16 February 2006 she had administered insulin injections herself because the ITT paramedic had been on holiday and the ambulance had refused to come to the detention centre. 26.  On 16 February 2006, immediately after her release (see paragraph 14 above), the applicant was hospitalised in Yevpatoriya Town Hospital –and was diagnosed with severe type-one diabetes mellitus (сахарный диабет, тяжелое течение) and suspected diabetic precoma. 27.  On 29 March 2006 the applicant’s lawyer, M., was informed by the Head of the ITT that while the ITT paramedic had been on holiday the ITT had had to call an ambulance for the applicant. 28.  The applicant stated that between 6 and 16 February 2006 she had been detained in cell no. 12 measuring 10 to 12 square metres with five other detainees, namely, L., R., K., G. (who allegedly stayed in the cell only for one day) and B. (who allegedly stayed in the cell for only two days). This was partially confirmed by a letter of 15 November 2006 from the Saky Prosecutor’s Office, which stated that the applicant had been detained with K., L. and R. 29.   There had been no bed, table or chairs in the cell, so the applicant had had to sleep and eat on a mattress. There had been cotton padding around the window, which had been covered with packing cloth. There had been no daylight and the artificial light had been very poor. The applicant had been unable to go for walks and had not had the opportunity to take showers. She had not been provided with a pillow, sheets or a blanket. She had not received the special diet she needed for her illnesses. According to the applicant, between 6 and 16 February 2006 the detainees in the ITT had been fed pasta with fat and water. The applicant had eaten only food provided by her relatives. 30.  On 3 May 2006 the Head of the ITT informed the applicant’s lawyer that between 6 and 16 February 2006 the applicant had been detained in cell no. 12. 31.  The Government submitted an inspection certificate of cells nos. 6 and 12 dated 15 March 2011. The inspection had been carried out by officials of the Ministry of Internal Affairs and by the ITT deputy head. The inspected cells measured 13.98 and 14.96 square metres respectively, and each cell had a window, a toilet, a sink, “individual sleeping places”, a table, artificial lighting and ventilation. 32.  In a letter of 18 March 2011 the Ministry of Internal Affairs informed the then Government’s Agent, Mrs Lutkovska, that the applicant had been detained in cells nos. 6 and 12. It had been impossible to establish the number of persons detained together with the applicant because the relevant documents had been destroyed in December 2010. The applicant had received a special diet in accordance with the decision of the Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine no. 336 of 16 June 1992 on food standards for detainees in temporary detention centres. She had also received food packages from relatives and friends. Between 12 and 16 February 2006 she had been provided with medical assistance by the ITT paramedic. 33.  On 14 June 2006 the applicant’s lawyer lodged a complaint with a prosecutor’s office about the failure to provide his client with adequate medical assistance while she was detained in the ITT. 34.  On 13 July 2006 the Saky Prosecutor’s Office refused to institute criminal proceedings because there was no evidence of crime. It was concluded that the applicant had regularly received medical assistance and that an ambulance had been called for her three to four times a day. The applicant had been released in a satisfactory condition. 35.  On 21 July 2006 the Prosecutor’s Office of the ARC quashed that decision and remitted the case for additional investigation. It was concluded that the decision was premature since the applicant’s allegations had not been fully verified. In particular, the ITT paramedic had not been questioned, nor had it been checked who had administered the applicant’s insulin injections between 12 and 16 February 2006. 36.  On 18 August 2006 the Saky Prosecutor’s Office again refused to institute criminal proceedings because there was no evidence of crime. O., the head of the ambulance service, was questioned. She testified that an ambulance had been called for the applicant three to four times a day. Ya., an ambulance paramedic, stated that on 6 and 10 February 2006 an ambulance had been called for the applicant about eight times. She had given the applicant insulin injections and taken blood samples. 37.  On 12 October 2006, following a request from the applicant’s lawyer, an expert from the Kyiv City Bureau of Forensic Medical Examination (Київське міське бюро судово-медичної експертизи), Z., studied photocopies of the following documents:
-  the applicant’s hospital discharge summary of 21 May to 4 June 2003;
-  the endocrinologist’s diagnosis of 6 February 2006;
-  the record of insulin injections between 8 and 10 February 2006;
-  the endocrinologist’s diagnosis of 10 February 2006;
-  the endocrinologist’s diagnosis of 12 February 2006 (the visit allegedly took place together with an ambulance doctor);
-  the results of blood and urine analyses of 6 and 11 February 2006;
-  the applicant’s hospital discharge summary for 16 February to 7 March 2006. 38.  The expert considered that the applicant had needed hospitalisation as early as 6 February 2006. The insulin injections had been prescribed correctly but had not been adjusted to take account of the caloric effect of meals and the dynamics had not undergone a laboratory check. The expert concluded that the applicant had not received adequate treatment for her illness between 6 and 16 February 2006. 39.  On 19 October 2006 the decision of 18 August 2006 was quashed by the Prosecutor’s Office of the ARC, since the investigation had been perfunctory and the instructions of 21 July 2006 had not been complied with. It had not been checked whether ambulances had been called between 12 and 16 February 2006, the endocrinologist, I., and the applicant had not been questioned etc. Moreover, specialists should have checked the adequacy and completeness of the applicant’s treatment between 6 and 16 February 2006. The case was transferred to the Saky Prosecutor’s Office for further investigation. 40.  On 17 November 2006 the Saky Prosecutor’s Office again refused to institute criminal proceedings because there was no evidence of crime. For additional evidence, I., the endocrinologist, was questioned. She had known the applicant since 1994 when the latter had been diagnosed with diabetes. She had examined the applicant on 6 February 2006 and had concluded that her state of health was satisfactory but that she was under psychological stress. It had been decided that insulin injections should be administered to the applicant by ambulance doctors in accordance with the applicant’s previous treatment instructions. I. had visited the applicant on 10 February 2006. The applicant’s state of health had been satisfactory. She had been prescribed various medications. 41.  On 27 March 2007 the decision of 17 November 2006 was quashed by the General Prosecutor’s Office (hereinafter “the GPO”) and the case was transferred to the Prosecutor’s Office of the ARC for further investigation. It was noted that the applicant had not been questioned, and it had not been established whether she had needed medical assistance between 12 and 16 February 2006 and, if so, whether she had been provided with it. The instructions of 21 July 2006 issued by the Prosecutor’s Office of the ARC had not been complied with, the expert conclusion of 12 October 2006 had not been taken into account etc. 42.  In April 2008 experts of the Crimea Bureau of Forensic Medical Examination (Кримська республіканська установа Бюро судово-медичної експертизи) studied the documents in the applicant’s medical file. They had before them the ambulance records of 6 to 11 February 2006, the applicant’s hospital files from 2003 to 2006, photocopies of the endocrinologist’s conclusions of 6 and 10 February 2006 and other documents. They concluded that since 1993 the applicant had been suffering from severe type-one diabetes mellitus and a chronic kidney infection. On 6 February 2006 the applicant had not needed hospitalisation. I. had correctly prescribed the applicant’s treatment. According to the medical documents provided, between 6 and 16 February 2006 the applicant had received adequate medical treatment. It was further stated that “the psychological stress, together with other factors such as excessive physical activity and a change in diet, could have led to a deterioration of the applicant’s disease. However, there had been no indication of such a deterioration in the medical documents presented to the experts.” It was concluded that there was no causal link between the applicant’s medical assistance in detention and the deterioration of her state of health upon release. 43.  On 18 April 2008 the Saky Prosecutor’s Office again refused to institute criminal proceedings for alleged failure to provide the applicant with adequate medical assistance while in detention. 44.  On 20 November 2008 the GPO again quashed this decision and the case was transferred back to the Prosecutor’s Office of the ARC for further investigation. It was noted that the expert conclusions of 12 October 2006 and April 2008 were contradictory. Unless these opinions could be reconciled, a further forensic examination would have to take place. 45.  On 12 December 2008 the Saky Prosecutor’s Office again refused to institute criminal proceedings. For additional evidence, the experts of the Crimea Bureau of Forensic Medical Examination were questioned. They submitted that the conclusion of 12 October 2006 should be considered as an “evaluation” and “personal”, since it had been given following a request by the applicant’s lawyer. Moreover, it had been based on photocopies of medical documents which were not trustworthy. One of the experts submitted that she was not competent to evaluate the contradictions in expert conclusions. 46.  On 5 January 2010 the Saky Local Court rejected a claim for damages lodged by the applicant against the State of Ukraine. On 14 April 2010 the Court of Appeal of the ARC upheld this decision. 47.  The applicant also submitted copies of numerous court decisions in cases that she had brought against her former employer, various courts, judges and other State authorities. The applicant also tried to institute criminal proceedings against various State authorities, but was unsuccessful.