DYBEKU v. ALBANIA
Inadmissible
Ineta Ziemele;Krzysztof Wojtyczek;Ledi Bianku;Nona Tsotsoria;Päivi Hirvelä;Paul Mahoney
1. The applicant, Mr Ilir Dybeku, is an Albanian national, who was born in 1971 and is serving a prison sentence in the Kruja prison, a special establishment for mentally ill prisoners. He is represented before the Court by his father, Mr Shyqyri Dybeku. summarised as follows. 3. On 25 September 2006 the applicant lodged an application with this Court (no. 41153/06). The applicant, who suffered from chronic paranoid schizophrenia, was convicted of voluntary homicide and sentenced to life imprisonment by a final decision of the Supreme Court of 2 March 2004. The domestic courts relied on a medical report to conclude that the applicant could stand trial. The applicant was serving his sentence in the Peqin high security prison, when he complained before this Court about the inappropriate conditions of detention, the inadequacy of the medical treatment and the unfairness of domestic proceedings. 4. On 18 December 2007 the Court delivered its judgment in that case (Dybeku v. Albania, no. 41153/06, 18 December 2007). It found a breach of Article 3 of the Convention: the applicant’s state of health was such that he had been subjected to inhuman and degrading treatment on account of the inappropriate conditions of detention and the inadequacy of the medical treatment he had received since 2002. No other violation having been found, the Court further made general indications under Article 46 of the Convention to the effect that the Government should “secure appropriate conditions of detention and adequate medical treatment, in particular, for prisoners, like the applicant, who need special care owing to their state of health” (paragraph 64 of the judgment). 5. On 13 June 2008 the applicant was transferred to the Kruja prison, a special establishment for mentally ill prisoners. 6. On 6 February 2009 the Kruja special establishment informed the applicant’s family that the applicant was under continuous supervision by doctors, nurses as well as by a psychiatrist. He was given medical treatment every day. This was supported by extracts of medical records for a defined period of time. 7. On 1 February 2010 the Ministry of Justice informed the applicant’s father that the applicant received psychiatric treatment in addition to medical treatment. Biochemical tests and imaging examination had also been carried out. The Ministry invited the father to appoint a psychiatrist of his choosing in accordance with the law. 8. On 29 October 2010 the Ministry of Justice informed the applicant’s father that the applicant was undergoing necessary treatment at the Prisons’ Hospital Centre in Tirana. X-ray computed tomography scan (CT scan) of the head as well as magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) had been carried out. 9. On 24 November 2010 the Kruja special establishment provided an update of the applicant’s health, stating that the applicant was quiet, not showing any psychiatric disorders, had regularly received medicines (risperidone 2mg 2x1 tablet, parkopan 5 mg 2x1 tablet and diazepam 5 mg 2 tablets) and psychiatric treatment and had been taken to the Prisons’ Hospital Centre in Tirana, as necessary. 10. On 20 February 2013 the Kruja special establishment confirmed to the applicant’s father that the applicant received risperidone 2mg 2x1 tablet and parkopan 5 mg 2x1. 11. On 12 September 2009, relying on the Dybeku judgment (cited above), the applicant sought to review his conviction. 12. On 30 April 2010 the Supreme Court rejected the request as raising no grounds of appeal. 13. On an unspecified date, most likely in 2011, the applicant appealed against the prosecutor’s decision not to institute criminal proceedings against the doctors, whose medical report had been relied upon by the Supreme Court in 2004 for his conviction. 14. On 20 April 2011 the Durrës Court of Appeal upheld a lower court’s decision not to institute criminal proceedings against the doctors. 15. On 9 May 2011 the applicant appealed against that decision to the Supreme Court. 16. On 22 February 2013 the Supreme Court informed the applicant that his appeal was still pending. 17. In its 1092nd meeting (14 and 15 September 2010), the Ministers’ Deputies noted, as regards individual measures for the execution of the Dybeku judgment (cited above), that: (i) in June 2008 the applicant had been transferred to the Kruja special establishment which offered specialised treatment for prisoners suffering from mental disorders; (ii) the People’s Advocate (Ombudsperson), an independent institution which also monitors the conditions of detention of prisoners, reported that the applicant had been provided with the necessary medicines and his state of health was improving; (iii) no other individual measure seemed necessary in those circumstances. 18. In its 1164th meeting (5 and 7 March 2013), the Minister’s Deputies noted, as regards individual measures for the execution of the Dybeku judgment (cited above), that: (i) the applicant had been placed in appropriate conditions of detention with medical treatment adapted to his state of health; (ii) the People’s Advocate’s report of 19 October 2012 confirmed the above assessment; and (iii) the individual measures were thereafter connected to the implementation of general measures required to guarantee appropriate medical treatment to the applicant and to all detainees in a similar situation. The Ministers’ Deputies’ decision of 7 March 2013 noted, in so far as relevant, that: “1. according to the information available, the applicant ...ha[s] currently access to the medical treatment required by [his] state of health;” 19. According to the decision, as regards the adoption of general measures, the Ministers’ Deputies: “2. deplored nevertheless, having regard to the age of the case[s] and the seriousness of the violations in issue, that the authorities have not yet submitted detailed information to the Committee regarding the measures taken to ensure that the applicant[s], as well as all other detainees, would in the future be able to access medical treatment necessary for their state of health; ... 5. urged the Albanian authorities to submit to the Committee, without any further delay, an updated action plan containing all the missing information including, in particular, detailed information on the legal regime and practice governing the availability of medical treatment for detainees, so as to enable the Committee to assess the status of execution of these two judgments as soon as possible.”