CASE OF KORNEYKOVA AND KORNEYKOV v. UKRAINE
Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading treatment;Inhuman treatment) (Substantive aspect);Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading treatment;Inhuman treatment) (Substantive aspect);Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading treatment) (Substantive aspect);Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading treatment) (Substantive aspect);Non-pecuniary damage - award (Article 41 - Non-pecuniary damage;Just satisfaction)
André Potocki;Angelika Nußberger;Carlo Ranzoni;Ganna Yudkivska;Mārtiņš Mits;Síofra O’Leary
7. The applicants are a mother and child born in 1990 and 2012 respectively. 8. On 16 January 2012 the first applicant, who was in the fifth month of pregnancy, was detained by the police on suspicion of robbery. 9. On 26 January 2012 the Dzerzhynskyy District Court of Kharkiv (“the Dzerzhynskyy Court”) ordered her pre-trial detention as a preventive measure pending trial. 10. On the same date she was placed in the Kharkiv SIZO. 11. On 22 May 2012 the first applicant was taken to Kharkiv Maternity Hospital no. 7 (“the maternity hospital”). 12. On the same date she gave birth to the second applicant. He measured 49 cm and weighed 2.9 kg. 13. Three female security officers guarded the first applicant in the hospital. According to her, they stayed on the ward at all times. The Government submitted that they had left the ward during the delivery. 14. The first applicant alleged she had been continuously shackled to her hospital bed or to a gynaecological examination chair, the only exception being during the delivery when the shackles had been removed. It is not clear from her submissions exactly how she had been shackled; on one occasion, she submitted that after the delivery she had had her foot shackled to the bed. At the same time, she submitted that the guards had only removed the shackles from her wrists for breastfeeding. 15. According to the Government, the first applicant was never handcuffed or shackled in the maternity hospital. 16. On 25 May 2012 the applicants were discharged. 17. On 12 November 2012 the first applicant wrote in a statement for the SIZO administration (see paragraphs 41 and 76) that the maternity hospital staff had treated her well, that she had not been handcuffed or shackled, and that the two female security officers who had been on her ward had been helping her take care of the baby. 18. In December 2012 and January 2013 the prosecution authorities questioned some maternity hospital staff and the security officers who had guarded the first applicant with a view to verifying her allegations, particularly as regards her shackling (see also paragraphs 76-82 below). 19. On 21 December 2012 the chief doctor of the maternity hospital wrote to the governor of the Kharkiv SIZO, in reply to an enquiry by the latter, to say that during her stay in the maternity hospital the first applicant had been guarded by SIZO officers at all times, that the officers in question had not been on the delivery ward, and that the first applicant had not been handcuffed or shackled during the delivery. 20. On 24 December 2012 the chief obstetrician, Ms Ti., gave a written statement to the prosecution authorities. She submitted that the first applicant had been shackled by the wrists to the gynaecological examination chair during her examinations both in the admissions unit and later in the obstetric unit, and that it was usual practice for detainees to be shackled and guarded by three guards. 21. Two other obstetricians, Ms F. and Ms S., and a nurse, Ms To., made similar statements. Ms F. submitted that she could not remember any details regarding the second applicant’s delivery. Ms To. specified that the first applicant had not been shackled during the delivery or subsequently during breastfeeding. 22. The chief doctor of the neonatal unit Ms Vl. also submitted that the first applicant had been shackled to a gynaecological examination chair. Furthermore, she indicated that two guards had been staying on the ward near the applicants, with a third near the door. 23. The security officers who had guarded the first applicant denied that she had been handcuffed or shackled in hospital. 24. The applicant’s lawyer enquired with a former nurse, Ms P., about the conditions faced by women in detention during delivery, with reference to her related work experience. On 7 February 2013 Ms P. wrote to him indicating that she had indeed worked as a nurse at Donetsk Regional Childcare and Maternal Health Centre from 1996 to 2005, and that in 2004 or 2005 a detained woman had been shackled to her bed during her baby’s delivery there. 25. While the first applicant was held in several different cells in the SIZO, her application form referred only to the conditions of her detention with her baby in cell no. 408, in which she had been held from 14 March to 8 November 2012. The summary of facts below therefore only concerns that cell. 26. The cell, situated in a semi-basement, was cold and damp. There was no hot water and only an irregular supply of cold water. The first applicant therefore rarely had the opportunity to take a shower and bath her new-born son. She also had to store cold water in plastic bottles for her own use. She boiled water on a defective electric cooker in a kettle, which she had to borrow from the administration and which was provided to her for no longer than fifteen minutes each time. The toilet and shower were in a niche not separated from the living area. The toilet was often blocked. There was no baby changing table or cot in the cell. 27. The first applicant was not provided with any baby hygiene products. Nor did she receive nutrition suitable to her needs. On the days of court hearings her only meal was breakfast, which consisted of bread and tea. No packed lunches were provided to her. 28. The applicants were able to have outdoor walks of about ten minutes per day, but not every day, in a communal walking area. 29. Lastly, one of the inmates she shared with was HIV positive. 30. Cell no. 408 was a high-comfort cell designed for pregnant women and women with children. It was located on the ground floor, measured fifty-two square metres and could accommodate up to six people. The first applicant shared it with two or sometimes three inmates. 31. The cell had three windows measuring over eight square metres in total. There was hot and cold water, as well as a drinking water cooler with a capacity of ten litres. 32. Furthermore, there were all the necessary furniture and facilities such as air conditioning, a refrigerator, an electric stove, a baby cot and a pram. There was also a supply of nappies and hygiene products. The toilet and shower were separated from the living area. 33. The first applicant was provided with adequate nutrition in accordance with the applicable standards (the total energy value of her daily meals being 3,284 kilocalories). She received three hot meals per day with the exception of hearing days, when she missed lunch. She breastfed her son and refused the baby food provided by the SIZO. There were no restrictions on food or other parcels she received from her relatives. 34. The applicants had a daily two-hour walk in a specially designated area. 35. They never shared a cell with inmates with HIV. 36. The Government provided four colour photographs of cell no. 408, showing a spacious and light room in a visually good state of repair. There were three large windows with sheer curtains. The cell had a washbasin. There was also a lavatory with a bidet and a shower cubicle, both separated from the living area by opaque glass doors. Also on the photographs were a wardrobe, two beds with bedside cabinets, a cot, a table with two stools, a baby stool, a shelf with some tableware, a microwave, a television and a baby changing table. 37. Another photograph showed a walking area for detained mothers with babies, with a flowerbed and a wall with a nature mural. The first applicant and her baby were on the photograph, as well as another woman with a pram. 38. On 1 and 2 February 2012 the local sanitary and epidemiological service inspected the SIZO in the context of an unspecified investigation. It observed that there was a special cell for women with babies, with all the essential amenities. It was noted in the report that there had been no pregnant inmates or inmates with babies in the SIZO at the time of the inspection. 39. On 24 May 2012 the sanitary and epidemiological service also inspected the drinking water in the SIZO to check that it complied with the relevant standards. No irregularities were found. 40. On 22 October 2012 the Kharkiv Regional Prosecutor’s Office informed the Agent of the Government that there had been no complaints from the first applicant regarding the conditions of detention or the second applicant’s medical care in the SIZO. 41. On 12 November 2012 the first applicant wrote a statement giving a detailed description of her cell in the SIZO similar to that submitted by the Government (see paragraphs 30-37 above). The last paragraph also concerned her stay in the maternity hospital (see paragraph 17 above). 42. On 13 November 2012 one of the SIZO staff wrote to the State Prisons Service to say that the first applicant’s statement had been made freely. 43. During her detention in the Kharkiv SIZO the first applicant received about thirty food parcels from her mother, often with basic foodstuffs such as bread, butter, tea, sugar and milk. 44. The first applicant lodged numerous requests for release with the trial court dealing with her criminal case, subject to an undertaking not to abscond (dated 6 July, 6, 26 and 31 August, 3 September and 9 October 2012). She alleged, in particular, that the conditions in the SIZO were not adequate for her baby. The court rejected those requests. 45. The applicants’ case received some media coverage. For example, in November 2012 the article “Baby as a victim of inhuman treatment” was published online by the Kharkiv Human Rights Group. In December 2012 a television programme was broadcast, in which the first applicant and the State authorities gave accounts, particularly as regards the conditions of the applicants’ detention in the SIZO. The parties did not submit to the Court a copy of the relevant article or video footage or a transcript of the television programme. 46. On 12 December 2012 one of the detainees, Ms B., wrote a statement addressed to the head of the local department of the State Prisons Service. She submitted that in November 2012 she had been held in the same cell as the first applicant and had been satisfied with the conditions of detention there. It was noted in the statement that there had been large windows in the cell, a shower cubicle with hot and cold water and all the necessary furniture and appliances, including a refrigerator and a television. 47. On 19 December 2012 the Kharkiv Regional Department of the State Prisons Service issued a memorandum stating that the first applicant had not submitted any complaints during her detention in the Kharkiv SIZO. 48. The case file contains three statements by detainee Ms M. concerning the conditions of detention in the SIZO. She wrote two of them while detained there (on an unspecified date and on 25 December 2012), and a third on 30 January 2013 when she had already begun serving her prison sentence elsewhere. In the first two statements Ms M. described the conditions of her detention in cell no. 408 as quite satisfactory and comfortable. Her account was similar to that given by the Government (see paragraphs 30-32 above). The first two statements also contained critical remarks regarding the first applicant claiming, in particular, that she had displayed a careless attitude towards her baby and had acted in bad faith in applying to the Court. In her third statement, Ms M. stated that the food in the SIZO had been poor. More specifically, the bread had been stale and the meat had been tinged blue. She also submitted that there had been no hot water in cell no. 408. Lastly, she submitted that on two occasions she had witnessed the first applicant requesting medical care for her baby when he had had stomachache, but her requests had been ignored. 49. On 28 December 2012 a former detainee, Ms Sa., wrote a statement for the first applicant’s lawyer and had it certified by a notary. She stated that she had shared cell no. 408 with the first applicant from an unspecified date in March to 19 April 2012. Ms Sa. had been pregnant at the time. She described the conditions of their detention as follows. The cell was located in a semi-basement and inmates saw practically no daylight. The windows were so high that they could not be opened without the assistance of a guard. There were about seven inmates in the cell, some of them with HIV and some suffering from other illnesses. The toilet was separated from the living area by a waist-high wall and leaked. As a result, there was always a bad smell. The shower also leaked and the cubicle door was broken. It was so humid in the cell that the plaster had fallen off the ceiling and the walls were covered in mould. The cell was infested with mice and lice. There were no household appliances like a kettle or microwave. Nor were there any beds or bedside cabinets as shown by the State Prisons Service on television (see paragraph 45 above). Ms Sa. specified that in fact none of the detainees had ever been held in the cell presented by the authorities on television. There was no hot water and the pressure in the cold water taps was so low that inmates had to store water for their own use. Furthermore, the SIZO administration did not provide them with any tableware. Their daily walk lasted only twenty minutes and took place in a small walking area covered with bars. Furthermore, according to Ms Sa., the food in the SIZO was neither fresh nor tasty. Lastly, she stated that she had been shackled to her bed when undergoing some treatment in the maternity hospital in Kharkiv while pregnant. 50. On an unspecified date Ms Ve., who had also shared cell no. 408 with the first applicant (the exact period is unknown), wrote a statement about the conditions of detention there. Her description was similar to that given by Ms Sa. as regards the leaking toilet, high humidity levels, lack of hot water and irregular supply of cold water, as well as the duration and conditions of the daily outdoor walks and poor nutrition. 51. On 25 May 2012 the applicants were discharged from the maternity hospital. The second applicant was found to be in good health. 52. According to a letter from its chief doctor to the first applicant’s lawyer dated 12 December 2012, on 25 May 2012 the second applicant was transferred to Children’s Hospital no. 19 (“the children’s hospital”). All the other relevant documents in the case file indicate that on 25 May 2012 both applicants were taken to the Kharkiv SIZO. 53. As submitted by the first applicant and noted in a letter by the chief doctor of the children’s hospital to the first applicant’s lawyer dated 6 September 2012, a paediatrician from that hospital had examined the second applicant on 28 May 2012. The baby was found to be in good health but to have phimosis (a condition of the penis where the foreskin cannot be fully retracted). 54. However, according to the second applicant’s medical file kept by the SIZO, the first time a paediatrician of the children’s hospital examined him was on 31 May 2012. He was found to be in an adaptation period and the first applicant received advice regarding childcare. 55. According to the second applicant’s medical file, on 12 June 2012 he was examined again by a paediatrician, who diagnosed him with intestinal colic and recommended Espumisan, massage, feeding on demand and outdoor walks. The doctor also suspected that the boy had a patent (open) foramen ovale (PFO; the foramen ovale allows blood circulation in the fetal heart and closes in most individuals at birth). 56. The second applicant’s next medical examination appears to have taken place on 20 July 2012. It was noted in his medical file that the paediatrician had given advice to the first applicant regarding feeding and care. 57. The first applicant denied that any of the examinations following that on 28 May 2012 had taken place. She alleged that her baby had not been examined by a paediatrician until 10 September 2012. She submitted that the records of her son’s earlier examinations in the medical file had been forged. According to her, the first page of that book referred to an examination on 10 September 2012, whereas the records of his earlier examinations had been written on separate pages and subsequently glued into the file. The case file as it stands before the Court contains a separate copy of each page of the file, which makes it impossible to verify the first applicant’s allegation. 58. On 28 August 2012 the first applicant’s lawyer asked the Kharkiv SIZO administration to provide him with details of when the second applicant had been examined by a paediatrician and whether the conditions of detention had been appropriate for such a small baby. He also requested copies of the relevant documents. 59. On 4 September 2012 the SIZO administration replied that it would be able to provide comprehensive information on the second applicant’s health after a complete medical examination in the children’s hospital, which was due to take place. 60. On 31 August 2012 the first applicant asked the judge dealing with her case to order a medical examination of her son “given that the SIZO administration [was] ignoring her requests to that effect”. It appears that her request was rejected. 61. On 6 September 2012 the chief doctor of the children’s hospital wrote to the first applicant’s lawyer in reply to an enquiry by him dated 5 September 2012. He said that with no paediatrician at the Kharkiv SIZO, a paediatrician from that hospital monitored babies born there. He also indicated that the second applicant had been examined by the hospital paediatrician on 28 May 2012 (see also paragraph 53 above). In so far as the lawyer enquired about the baby’s medical condition at the material time, the chief doctor stated that it was impossible to provide him with such information because the first applicant had not requested any medical care for him until then. 62. On 10 September 2012 a dermatologist, cardiologist, ear, nose and throat specialist, neurologist and paediatrician all examined the second applicant. He was found to have allergic dermatitis, dysplastic cardiomyopathy and phimosis. Furthermore, the patent foramen ovale diagnosis had been called into question (see paragraph 55 above). The doctors concluded that the second applicant did not require any medical treatment, but recommended that the mother follow a hypoallergenic diet. 63. According to the first applicant, the examination was carried out in the context of custody proceedings initiated by the second applicant’s stepfather. She specified that it had been done with her consent so that the second applicant could be taken from the SIZO, where he was not receiving adequate care. 64. On 14 September 2012 the SIZO sent a copy of the second applicant’s medical file to the applicants’ representative, further to a request made by him on 28 August 2012 (see paragraph 58 above). 65. On 18 October 2012 the chief doctor of the children’s hospital wrote to the first applicant’s lawyer, in reply to an enquiry made on 10 October 2012, to say that hospital was in charge of the medical supervision of children in the Kharkiv SIZO where needed, subject to the SIZO administration making the relevant application. It was also noted that the second applicant required an additional examination in the regional cardiology centre, and that the children’s hospital had already requested the SIZO administration’s cooperation in that regard. 66. On 19 October 2012 a paediatrician and a cardiologist examined the second applicant again. He was diagnosed with a patent foramen ovale (a heart condition, see paragraph 55 above for further details) and an additional examination was recommended. 67. On the same date the second applicant underwent an echocardiogram and was found to be healthy. 68. On 14 November 2012 the first applicant refused to allow her son to undergo a paediatrician examination, which she had been offered. 69. The following day the first applicant was released (see also paragraph 75 below). 70. On 30 November 2012 the first applicant’s lawyer enquired with the children’s hospital whether it had kept a medical file in respect of the second applicant and whether he had been vaccinated during his stay with the first applicant in the SIZO. 71. On 4 December 2012 the chief doctor replied that the children’s hospital provided medical care to children residing permanently in its catchment area. As regards children residing there temporarily, a written application by one of the parents was required. The first applicant had never submitted such an application. Accordingly, the hospital had not opened a medical file in respect of the second applicant. At the same time, its doctors had examined him when requested by the SIZO administration. The results of each examination had been reflected in the medical file provided by the SIZO. In so far as the second applicant’s vaccinations were concerned, it was noted that he had always been brought for examinations without his mother, and without her consent no vaccinations had been given. 72. On 12 April, 17 May, 15 June, 2 and 31 August and 15 November 2012 the first applicant participated in court hearings, during which she was held in a metal cage. Her requests not to be placed in a cage were rejected. 73. On 14 March 2013 the judge of the Dzerzhynskyy Court, who had been in charge of the first applicant’s case, wrote to the Agent of the Government, in reply to the latter’s request, to say that the first applicant had indeed been held in a metal cage in the courtroom during hearings. The judge emphasised that it was a legal requirement to place criminal defendants in a metal cage and there were no exceptions to this rule. Furthermore, he considered that allowing the first applicant to remain outside the cage in the courtroom would have been equal to her temporary release, contrary to the custodial preventive measure applied. 74. On 15 March 2013 the Ministry of the Interior confirmed once again to the Agent of the Government that the first applicant had been held in a metal cage in the courtroom during hearings. It further specified that the second applicant had remained with the SIZO medical specialist outside the cage and had been passed to her for breastfeeding when requested. 75. On 15 November 2012 the first applicant was released on an undertaking not to abscond. 76. On 25 December 2012 she complained to the Kharkiv Regional Prosecutor’s Office that she had been shackled to her bed in the maternity hospital at all times, including during the delivery. She also complained that the conditions of detention and nutrition in the SIZO had been inadequate. Lastly, the first applicant alleged that the statement she had written on 12 November 2012 expressing her satisfaction with the conditions of detention had been made under psychological pressure (see paragraphs 17 and 41 above). 77. On 27 December 2012 the State Prisons Service completed the internal investigation it had undertaken following the media coverage of the applicants’ case (see paragraph 45 above). The first applicant’s allegations were dismissed as unsubstantiated. 78. On 2 January 2013 the first applicant complained to the Kharkiv Zhovtnevyy District Prosecutor’s Office (“the Zhovtnevyy Prosecutor’s Office”) that she had not been provided with adequate medical care during her pregnancy and the delivery; that she had been shackled by her wrists and feet to a gynaecological examination chair or her bed in the maternity hospital at all times, including during the delivery; that the conditions of her detention in the Kharkiv SIZO had been poor; and that neither she nor her baby had received adequate medical care there. On the same date her complaint was registered in the Integrated Register of Pre-trial Investigations and the investigation was started. 79. On 18 January 2013 the Zhovtnevyy Prosecutor’s Office ordered a forensic medical examination of the case material with a view to establishing: (i) whether the first applicant had any injuries and, if so, how they had been caused; (ii) whether there was any forensic medical evidence that the first applicant had been handcuffed or shackled between 26 January and 15 November 2012; (iii) whether there was any forensic medical evidence that the applicants had not been provided with adequate or sufficient medical care in the Kharkiv SIZO; (iv) whether there was any forensic medical evidence that the applicants had not been provided with adequate or sufficient medical care in the maternity hospital; and (v) if the applicants had not received adequate or sufficient medical care, whether this had had any negative impact on their health. 80. The aforementioned examination continued from 18 January to 26 March 2013. The answers in the report to all five questions were negative. 81. On 1 April 2013 the Zhovtnevyy Prosecutor’s Office discontinued the criminal investigation for lack of evidence of a criminal offence. 82. Also in April 2013 the State Prisons Service, following an enquiry by the Government’s Agent, undertook an internal investigation as regards the lawfulness of the second applicant’s detention in the SIZO. On 22 April 2013 it was completed, with the conclusion that there had been no violation. It was noted in the report that, although in August 2012 the first applicant had verbally expressed her intention to transfer the custody of her baby to her mother, she had later changed her mind as she had been breastfeeding.