CASE OF VASILYADI v. RUSSIA
Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading treatment;Inhuman treatment) (Substantive aspect);Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-3 - Reasonableness of pre-trial detention)
Branko Lubarda;Dmitry Dedov;Helena Jäderblom
6. The applicant was born in 1977, and lived until his arrest in the town of Krasnyy Sulin, Rostov Region. He died in a prison tuberculosis hospital in Rostov-on-Don. 7. On 27 March 2007 the applicant was arrested on suspicion of having been involved in drug trafficking. He was remanded in custody. 8. Two days later the Krasnyy Sulin Town Court of the Rostov Region authorised the applicant’s detention, having noted the gravity of the charges against him and the possibility of his absconding and reoffending in the light of the fact that he had not been living at his registered address in Krasnyy Sulin at the time of his arrest. The court also noted that the fact that the applicant was suffering from tuberculosis did not negate the indicated risks. 9. The applicant’s case was joined to the case of Ms P., his alleged accomplice. The two defendants were to stand trial together before the Town Court. 10. On several occasions the Town Court extended the detention of the two defendants, each time using similar wording, citing the gravity of the charges and the lack of any change in the circumstances and risks which had initially warranted their detention. 11. On 6 September 2007 the medical authorities informed the Town Court that the applicant’s state of health did not allow him to attend court hearings. On the same day the proceedings were stayed until his recovery. 12. On 29 October 2007, after receiving notice of the applicant’s expected discharge from a prison hospital, the Town Court resumed the proceedings and scheduled a hearing for 26 November 2007. 13. Two days later the head of the prison hospital informed the Town Court that the applicant’s medical condition warranted further treatment in the hospital. The date of his discharge was unclear. 14. On 26 November 2007 the Town Court again stayed the proceedings until the applicant’s recovery and collectively extended his and Ms P.’s detention for three months, until 29 February 2008, employing the same reasoning as on the previous occasions. The detention order contained no detailed assessment of the accuseds’ individual circumstances. 15. In January 2008 the prison hospital informed the Town Court that the applicant was receiving treatment and that it was impossible to predict the date of his discharge. 16. It appears that at some point the proceedings against Ms P. were disjoined from those of the applicant. 17. The Town Court continued regularly extending the applicant’s detention, citing the gravity of the charges and the risks of his absconding or reoffending. 18. In April and May 2008 the Town Court and the prison hospital exchanged correspondence concerning the applicant’s state of health. The medical authorities stated that the patient was unable to attend owing to a risk of his spreading tuberculosis. 19. Towards the end of August 2008 the Town Court asked the medical authorities to allow a hearing on the hospital premises. The head of the prison hospital agreed and on 12 September 2008 the proceedings resumed. 20. On 25 September 2008 the Town Court found the applicant guilty of two counts of the production and attempted sale of opium and sentenced him to six years’ imprisonment. 21. On 27 January 2009 the Rostov Regional Court quashed the judgment on appeal and remitted the case for fresh consideration, ordering that the applicant remain in custody. 22. In the course of the new round of proceedings the Town Court, on a number of occasions, authorised the applicant’s continued detention. Each time the gravity of the charges and the risks of his re-offending and absconding served as the reason for the extension. The extension orders were formulated in the same standard manner. The applicant did not attend the hearings as his tuberculosis remained contagious. The orders were upheld on appeal. 23. On 14 May 2009 the Town Court decided to stay the proceedings until the applicant’s recovery. The applicant appealed. 24. The proceedings were resumed less than a month later at the request of the applicant. The hearings were to be held on the hospital premises. 25. On 23 June 2009 the Town Court found the applicant guilty of drug trafficking and sentenced him to four years’ imprisonment. 26. On 14 July 2009 the Regional Court upheld the most recent detention order, stating as follows: “The [case-file] materials ... show that the preventive measure was imposed [on the applicant] in conformity with the [the applicant’s] personality. [The Town Court] came to the correct conclusion that the circumstances that had [indicated the necessity for] the applicant’s detention had not changed. Its conclusion that no other preventive measure might be applied to [the applicant] could not be disputed.” 27. On 25 August 2009 the Rostov Regional Court upheld the applicant’s conviction. 28. In 2006, prior to his arrest, the applicant was diagnosed with advanced tuberculosis, pleurisy, and inflammation of the tissue layers lining the lungs and inner chest wall. He was treated in the Rostov Regional State Tuberculosis Hospital. 29. Following his arrest on 27 March 2007, the applicant was admitted to remand prison no. IZ-61/3 in Novocherkassk. During the admission procedure the applicant informed the prison authorities that he was suffering from tuberculosis. A chest X-ray examination on 9 April 2007 revealed that both his lungs were damaged by an active, advanced form of tuberculosis and that the right lung was partially collapsed on account of the presence of air in the thorax. The condition was further complicated by pleurisy. A course of drugs, dietary nutrition and the drainage of fluid from the pleural cavity were prescribed. 30. The parties disagreed on whether the applicant had received the prescribed treatment. While a report by the detention authorities in April 2010 stated that he had been given the treatment in full, the applicant’s medical file did not contain any information confirming that he had complied with the course of drug treatment. 31. On 8 August 2007 the applicant’s health deteriorated and he was taken by ambulance to the prison tuberculosis hospital in Rostov-on-Don. The applicant was regularly examined by doctors, underwent various medical tests and received treatment for tuberculosis. His right lung was drained after the insertion of a chest tube. 32. On 9 January 2008 a drug susceptibility test was performed. It revealed that the applicant’s tuberculosis was resistant to five drugs, including those which had been given to him in the hospital. Several days later his drug treatment was amended and the illness was brought under control. 33. On 3 June 2008 pulmonary surgery was prescribed by the head of the hospital’s surgical unit. 34. According to a medical report of 28 April 2010 submitted by the Government, three days later the applicant’s health worsened and it was no longer possible to perform the prescribed operation. The applicant’s medical file does not contain any records regarding the deterioration of his health during that three-day period. 35. Regular chest X-ray examinations carried out in the subsequent period revealed the development of complications and showed no improvement in the course of the disease. The applicant was recommended a non-surgical course of treatment. 36. The applicant’s medical file shows that at the beginning of January 2009 he several times refused to follow a round of drug therapy. On 30 January 2009 he consulted a psychologist and a psychiatrist on this matter. 37. On 5 June 2009 a tuberculosis specialist established that the applicant’s infection was spreading and that his overall condition had worsened to the extent that surgical intervention was no longer possible. The applicant started undergoing new, multi-drug therapy under the close supervision of doctors. On 3 December 2009 and 12 February 2010 the doctors confirmed that the applicant could not undergo the prescribed pulmonary surgery due to the continuing deterioration in his health. 38. On 29 October 2010 a medical panel concluded that the applicant’s condition warranted his early release from detention. 39. On 10 November 2010 the Town Court ordered the applicant’s release on health grounds. 40. Four days later he died in detention of tuberculosis.