CASE OF KAIMOVA AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
Violation of Article 2 - Right to life (Article 2 - Positive obligations;Article 2-1 - Life) (Substantive aspect);Violation of Article 2 - Right to life (Article 2-1 - Effective investigation) (Procedural aspect)
Branko Lubarda;Georgios A. Serghides;Pere Pastor Vilanova
6. Ms Damani Kaimova, Ms Maryam Moldyyevna Kaimova, and Ms Zarina Tamiyevna Maskhurova were born on 16 February 1953, 13 January 2005, and 18 September 1981, respectively. They live in the Chechen Republic. The first applicant is the mother, the second applicant is a daughter, and the third applicant is the widow of the late Mr Kaimov. 7. On 23 September 2006 Mr Kaimov was arrested for being a member of an illegal military organisation in the Chechen Republic. He remained in detention throughout the investigation and trial. On 1 November 2006 the Achkhoiy-Martan District Court of the Chechen Republic found him guilty of charges related to the military organisation and illegal acquisition of weapons. He was sentenced to two and a half years’ imprisonment. 8. In the meantime, he was charged with attempted murder of lawenforcement officials, with making a homemade explosive, and other offences. He was convicted as charged by the Supreme Court of the Chechen Republic on 28 October 2008 and sentenced to six and a half years’ imprisonment. 9. Prior to his detention Mr Kaimov had been diagnosed with tuberculosis for which he had been receiving outpatient treatment in a local hospital. 10. On admission to a remand prison Mr Kaimov informed the custodial authorities of his history of tuberculosis. A chest X-ray in January 2007 examination revealed the signs of that disease. A standard treatment with first-line medication was prescribed. 11. In early 2009 Mr Kaimov was sent to serve his sentence to the Republic of Tatarstan. In March 2009 he was admitted to prison medical institution no. 1 in Nizhnekamsk, where his tuberculosis was cured as confirmed by a medical board on 7 June 2009. 12. On 2 October 2009 Mr Kaimov was discharged from the prison medical institution to remand prison no. IZ-16/2 in Kazan. Shortly thereafter his health worsened. 13. On 28 October 2009 the prison authorities ordered his admission to prison medical institution no. 2 in Kazan (“the prison hospital”) where Mr Kaimov was diagnosed with tuberculosis of the right lung at the stage of tissue destruction. Treatment with second-line drugs was prescribed. 14. In February and March 2010 doctors noted progression of the disease. At that time Mr Kaimov started coughing up blood. An amended intense treatment brought his condition under control. 15. On 14 April 2010, in response to Mr Kaimov’s “negligent attitude towards his treatment”, a doctor talked to him about the importance of taking his drugs regularly. On 22 April and 1 May 2010 the doctor had repeated talks with him on the issue. 16. In late May 2010, the first applicant visited her son. Mr Kaimov was in a poor health. He claimed that no treatment had been given to him and that “the medical staff [had] paid absolutely no attention to his condition”. 17. On 22 April, 31 May and 8 June 2010 the doctor responsible for Mr Kaimov’s treatment again noted in the medical file that the patient was not taking his drugs as prescribed and insisted that he should follow medical instructions properly. The medical records were not signed by Mr Kaimov. 18. By mid-June 2010 Mr Kaimov’s condition became serious. He was no longer able to leave his bed. 19. On 24 June 2010 an inmate of the remand prison allegedly informed the first applicant that her son’s condition had become very serious and that no medical care was being given to him. 20. Four days later Mr K., a lawyer working with the Russian Justice Initiative, interviewed Mr Kaimov in the prison hospital. He said that he had not received the medicines, as the prison hospital did not have them. The prison hospital’s management refused to accept parcels with drugs for detainees. 21. Mr Kaimov died of heart failure caused by tuberculosis on 1 July 2010. The first applicant did not allow an autopsy to take place. 22. According to the Government, the investigating authorities carried out a criminal inquiry into the circumstances of Mr Kaimov’s death, which ended with a decision of 21 July 2010 not to open a criminal case. 23. On 22 November 2010 Mr K. asked the head of the Investigative Committee of the Republic of Tatarstan to investigate the circumstances of Mr Kaimov’s death. He pointed out that the detainee had complained of the lack of treatment in detention. A copy of the interview record of 28 June 2010 was attached to the request. 24. The investigating authorities interviewed Mr K., who confirmed his statements, and Ms I., the head of the tuberculosis unit responsible for Mr Kaimov’s treatment in 2009 and 2010. The doctor stated that the patient had received tuberculosis treatment until late May 2010, when he had refused to take any drugs. 25. On 6 December 2010, citing statements by Ms I., the investigating authorities concluded that there had been no appearance of negligence on the part of the medical authorities. They decided not to open a criminal case. 26. Three weeks later a higher-ranking investigator overruled that decision, noting that the investigation had not been thorough, in particular, because no medical documents had been collected. 27. The investigator again refused to open a criminal case on 5 January 2011. That decision was annulled by the higher-ranking authority on 15 March 2011 for want of necessary investigative measures, in view of the investigator’s failure to rectify the shortcomings already identified in the previous review decisions. 28. Twelve days after the annulment of his previous decision, the investigator again refused to open a criminal case, having based his new decision on the same evidence and arguments as before. 29. In the meantime, Mr K. submitted a new criminal complaint to the Central Inter-district Department of the Investigative Committee in the Republic of Tatarstan. The authorities were called on to verify whether the alleged inaction of the medical authorities had amounted to the deprivation of medical care, an offence under the Russian Criminal Code. On 10 May 2011 the case was forwarded to the Promyshlennyiy district police station in Kazan. 30. A police investigator interviewed a tuberculosis specialist, who had treated Mr Kaimov, and a prison nurse. They unanimously stated that the patient had refused treatment. 31. On 29 May 2011 the investigator refused to open a criminal case. Relying on the above statements and Mr Kaimov’s medical history, he found that the latter’s death had resulted from his own careless decision in not taking the prescribed drugs, and that the medical authorities had taken all reasonable steps to convince him to re-initiate the treatment. 32. The first applicant appealed against the decision of 29 May 2011. Her appeal was rejected, in the final instance, by the Supreme Court of the Tatarstan Republic on 11 October 2011. The courts concluded that the investigation into Mr Kaimov’s death had been thorough and comprehensive. The decision refusing the institution of criminal proceedings had been based on the examination of the medical file and statements by a number of witnesses, including the medical personnel of the prison hospital. The courts endorsed the investigator’s conclusion that Mr Kaimov had refused treatment and had not followed the recommendations of the medical personnel. The courts also noted that the first applicant had been aware of Mr Kaimov’s behaviour and had not made any complaints about the quality of the treatment at that time. 33. Following the communication of the application to the Russian Government, they submitted that on 13 and 26 February 2015 the decisions of 27 March and 29 May 2011, respectively, had been overruled by higherranking officials and additional investigative measures had been ordered. In particular, a medical expert examination was to be performed. 34. According to the applicants’ correspondence of 3 July 2015, the criminal investigation was pending. There is no further information about the outcome.