CASE OF DUMIKYAN v. RUSSIA
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);Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-1 - Lawful arrest or detention)
Alena Poláčková;Branko Lubarda;Dmitry Dedov;Georgios A. Serghides;Helena Jäderblom;Luis López Guerra;Pere Pastor Vilanova
5. The applicant was born in 1970 in Armenia. Until his arrest in 2008 he lived in Kurgan, Russia. On 20 September 2012 the Sverdlovsk Region office of the Federal Migration Service ordered his deportation to Armenia. It seems that the deportation order was executed on 11 October 2012. 6. On 3 August 2008 the applicant, while under the influence of alcohol, took a car without the owner’s consent and crashed into a tree. As a result of this accident he sustained multiple injuries, including a thighbone fracture, a dislocated hip and facial wounds. 7. The applicant was taken by ambulance to Kurgan Town Hospital where he was admitted to an intensive care unit. He was connected to a medical ventilator and subjected to emergency anti-shock treatment. The doctors sutured his wounds. A metal pin for skeletal traction was inserted through the heel bone of his broken leg and the applicant was placed in a special metal frame with weights attached to his injured leg. 8. Several days later his condition improved and he was transferred to a trauma department, where he remained bedridden in a skeletal traction frame. Osteosynthesis surgery was to be performed in due course. 9. On 6 August 2008 the police opened a criminal case into car theft. 10. It appears that during the investigation the authorities learned that the applicant was wanted by the authorities of the Republic of Belarus for a murder allegedly committed in 2003 in Minsk. 11. A police investigator asked the attending doctor whether the applicant could be discharged from hospital and transferred to a detention facility. 12. On an unspecified date the doctor informed the investigator that the applicant was in need of inpatient treatment on account of multiple injuries, including facial injuries, a dislocated hip and a thighbone fracture. Citing the seriousness of his condition the doctor noted that the applicant could not be transported to a court or police station. The doctor stated that police detention centres and remand prisons in Kurgan were unable to ensure the appropriate medical care to the applicant. 13. On 8 August 2008 the investigator reported the content of the above letter to his superior. 14. Four days later, upon a request from an investigator, a medical expert commenced an examination of the applicant to assess the seriousness of his injuries. Without informing the hospital administration and without having received the results of the expert examination, the police arrested the applicant and took him to remand prison no. IZ-45/1 in Kurgan. It does not seem that any special arrangements for the applicant’s transport were made. 15. It was noted in the expert report completed on 3 September 2008 that the applicant’s injuries were of “medium” seriousness. 16. On 13 August 2008 the Kurgan Town Court, at the request of the Kurgan prosecutor and in the absence of the applicant, ordered his detention pending the receipt of an extradition request from the Belarusian authorities. That ruling was based on Article 466 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of Russia (“the CCrP”) and Article 61 of the Convention on Legal Assistance and Legal Relations in Civil, Family and Criminal Matters (“the Minsk Convention”). 17. On 21 August 2008 the Kurgan Regional Court quashed the order of 13 August 2008 in view of the applicant’s absence from the hearing before the Town Court. The Regional Court remitted the issue for fresh consideration. 18. A week later, this time after hearing evidence from the applicant, the Town Court, on the basis of the same legal provisions, ordered his detention until receipt of the extradition request from the Republic of Belarus. 19. On 4 September 2008 the Regional Court upheld the applicant’s detention on appeal. 20. According to the applicant, only on 14 October 2008 did the Prosecutor General’s Office inform the competent Belarusian authorities of the applicant’s arrest. 21. The General Prosecutor of the Republic of Belarus requested the applicant’s extradition. 22. On 25 August 2009 the Russian Prosecutor General’s Office ordered the applicant’s extradition to stand trial in Belarus. 23. According to the applicant, in March 2010 he was extradited to the Republic of Belarus. 24. On 23 March 2010 the Belarusian authorities closed the criminal case due to the absence of corpus delicti in the applicant’s actions. He was then returned to Russia. 25. In the meantime, on 29 August 2008, in the context of the criminal investigation into car theft, the Kurgan Town Court ordered the applicant not to leave Kurgan. 26. On 23 September 2008 the Town Court changed the measure of restraint to detention pending investigation. The decision was based on the seriousness of the charges, the fact that the applicant had been on the run and had no permanent residence in Russia. The Regional Court upheld that detention order on appeal. 27. On 22 November 2008 the Town Court extended the applicant’s detention until 5 December 2008, citing the seriousness of the charges and the lack of a permanent residence in Russia. 28. On 4 December 2008 and 4 January 2009 the Town Court again extended the applicant’s detention until 5 and 30 January 2009, respectively. In addition to the previously employed arguments, the detention orders were held to be justified by the necessity to complete the investigation. The latest detention order was upheld on appeal by the Regional Court on 15 January 2009. 29. On 27 March 2009 the Kurgan Town Court convicted the applicant of car theft and sentenced him to four years’ imprisonment in a correctional colony. 30. On 26 May 2009 the Regional Court upheld the conviction and sentence, but amended the type of the detention facility where the applicant was to serve his sentence to a settlement colony. 31. It is clear from entries made by civilian doctors in the applicant’s medical history on 12 August 2008, the day of his arrest, that he was in satisfactory health; his body temperature, which had fluctuated for several days, was 37.7˚C; the pain syndrome was decreasing; his stitches were dry; and no signs of inflammation were present. The metal pin remained in his leg. In the discharge summary drafted on account of the applicant’s arrest, “continued medical treatment” and crutches were prescribed. The attending doctor explicitly noted that the patient had been taken from the hospital without the consent of the chief doctor. 32. On admission to the remand prison the applicant was examined by a feldsher (medical assistant), who recorded the visible bodily injuries. No medical tests were performed and no treatment was prescribed. The applicant was not provided with any mobility aid devices, such as a wheelchair, crutches or a walking stick. 33. It was not disputed by the parties that the next day the applicant had been placed in a cell designed to accommodate a maximum of four inmates. The cell measured 15.4 sq. m. On 13 August and between 15 and 19 August 2008 the applicant had to share that cell with seven other inmates, with each inmate thus having no more than 1.9 sq. m of floor space. Several inmates, including the applicant, had no places to sleep. 34. According to the applicant, in the remand prison he experienced a leg pain, nausea and loss of consciousness. 35. Medical entries show that the applicant was seen by a prison doctor for the first time on 18 August 2008, in response to his complaints of pain, nausea and vertigo. After a visual examination, the doctor ordered the transfer of the applicant to Regional Anti-Tuberculosis Prison Hospital no. OF-73/1 in Kurgan (“the prison hospital”) “for treatment and skeletal traction”. The transfer was performed the next day. 36. In the prison hospital several medical tests were performed. Owing to technical problems the applicant could not undergo an X-ray examination of his legs ordered by a doctor. He was seen by a surgeon and a neurologist. 37. The surgeon, having considered the time that had passed from the termination of the skeletal traction, removed the metal pin from the applicant’s leg. A walking stick was prescribed. 38. The neurologist diagnosed the applicant with vegetative-vascular dystonia and prescribed a month-long drug regimen. 39. The applicant was discharged from hospital on 27 August 2008 in a “satisfactory condition”. 40. The medical documents in the Court’s possession cover the period up to 21 May 2009. They show that at that time the applicant was seen by the prison doctor on account of his chronic peptic and liver conditions. It does not appear that he underwent any medical examination or treatment related to the leg condition. 41. As to the conditions of the applicant’s detention during that period, the Government submitted that the applicant had been transferred between several cells of the remand prison, some of which were overcrowded. In particular, between 30 September and 8 October 2008, between 26 January and 19 March, 24 March and 10 April, 11 April and 2 June 2009 the applicant was afforded less than 2.7 sq. m of floor space, and occasionally less than 2 sq. m. According to the applicant, the cells were poorly ventilated, had non-partitioned toilets and were infested with bugs, mice and lice. 42. On 2 June 2009, the applicant was sent to serve his sentence in a settlement colony. He was released on 22 September 2012, after having served his sentence in full. 43. According to him, he continued to walk with a limp after the release, because the broken leg had knitted in a wrong position.