CASE OF BATALINY v. RUSSIA
Remainder inadmissible;Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-1 - Lawful arrest or detention;Article 5-1-e - Persons of unsound mind);Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-4 - Review of lawfulness of detention;Take proceedings);Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading treatment;Inhuman treatment) (Substantive aspect);Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Effective investigation) (Procedural aspect);Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading treatment;Inhuman treatment) (Substantive aspect);Pecuniary damage - claim dismissed (Article 41 - Pecuniary damage;Just satisfaction);Non-pecuniary damage - award (Article 41 - Non-pecuniary damage;Just satisfaction)
Dmitry Dedov;Elisabeth Steiner;Khanlar Hajiyev;Mirjana Lazarova Trajkovska;Paulo Pinto De Albuquerque;Ksenija Turković
5. The applicants were born in 1977, 1937 and 1938 respectively and live in Moscow. The second and third applicants are the parents of the first applicant. 6. In 2004 the first applicant, who was suffering from tachycardia and severe headaches, was diagnosed with neurocirculatory dystonia. In 200405 he underwent treatment in various hospitals in Moscow, without any tangible result. 7. In April 2005 his illness worsened. 8. On 25 May 2005 he called an ambulance and was taken to the neurology unit of Moscow City Clinical Hospital no. 6 (Московская городская клиническая больница № 6). The doctor in the admissions unit, however, refused to admit him, finding no pathology, and recommended outpatient treatment in a district polyclinic. 9. Desperate for relief, on the same day the first applicant cut the veins on his forearm. Another ambulance was called for him by the second and third applicants, and he was taken to N.V. Sklifosovsky Research Institute of Emergency Medicine (НИИ скорой помощи им. Н.В. Склифосовского). After the first applicant was provided with emergency medical aid at the surgical unit, he was taken to somatopsychiatric unit no. 2 (ПСО-2, “the psychiatric hospital”) of the Institute with a diagnosis of “chronic somatoform pain disorder, personality disorder, continuous sluggish schizophrenia, cutting of left forearm, attempted suicide”. 10. On 26 May 2005 the first applicant contacted his parents, asking them to take him home. When the parents arrived, they were not allowed to take him home and were asked to leave. 11. During the night of 26 to 27 May 2005 the first applicant alleged that he was beaten up. According to him, three nurses held his arms and two recovering patients hit him on the face and body. He was taken to his ward, and one of the nurses allegedly threw him on the bed with such force that his head hit the bedside table, following which he lost consciousness. When the first applicant recovered he found himself bleeding and strapped to the bed with a gag in his mouth. He was given no medical assistance. 12. The first applicant was subsequently allegedly warned by a doctor, L., that his parents would not be allowed to see him and that it would be put on record that he had himself initiated a brawl. Furthermore, he was allegedly warned that any complaints to the authorities, including the police, would be futile as he would be given a diagnosis which would show that his allegations could not be taken seriously. 13. The first applicant remained hospitalised until 9 June 2005. He alleged that he was subjected to scientific research by being treated with Seroquel (a then new antipsychotic medication) and forbidden all contact with the outside world. He had blood tests every other day. 14. Some hours after the first applicant’s discharge from the psychiatric hospital on 9 June 2005, an ambulance was called for him at home due to his state of health. The ambulance doctor saw a haematoma under the first applicant’s right eye, and bruises and contusions around his chest and waist. The first applicant was further diagnosed with hypertensive crisis and severe tachycardia. He was immediately hospitalised in Moscow City Clinical Hospital no. 67 (Московская городская клиническая больница № 67), where he remained until 5 August 2005 and was diagnosed with “depressive hypochondriasis against the background of traumatic encephalopathy”. The diagnosis of personality disorder was not confirmed. 15. In October 2005 the applicants complained to the Russian Federation Ombudsman that the first applicant had been unlawfully committed and treated in the psychiatric hospital, and that he had been beaten by the hospital nurses with the assistance of two hospital patients. The applicants’ complaint was referred to the Meshchanskiy District Prosecutor’s Office, Moscow, from where it was referred on to the Meshchanskiy District Department of the Interior. 16. After two refusals to institute criminal proceedings, on 2 November 2006 criminal proceedings were instituted (criminal case no. 82906) under Article 116 of the Russian Criminal Code (Beatings). 17. On 15 November 2006 the first applicant was granted victim status in the proceedings. 18. On 16 March and 25 June 2007 an investigator from the Meshchanskiy District Department of the Interior investigation department suspended the proceedings on the grounds of an impossibility of identifying the alleged perpetrators. 19. On 19 March and 1 July 2007 respectively the Meshchanskiy InterDistrict Prosecutor’s Office quashed the above decisions and remitted the case for additional investigation. 20. On 11 August 2007 the investigator discontinued the proceedings on the grounds of expiry of the procedural time-limit for prosecution. 21. On 30 August 2007, however, the above decision was set aside and the proceedings were reopened. 22. The proceedings were subsequently suspended on 14 January 2008 and 16 March 2009 and resumed again on unspecified dates. 23. In 2012 the applicants were informed that the proceedings had been discontinued on 25 November 2010 on the grounds of expiry of the procedural time-limit for prosecution. 24. On an unspecified date the decision of 25 November 2010 was set aside and the proceedings were reopened. 25. On 22 December 2012 the proceedings were again discontinued. 26. On 9 January 2013 the above decision was set aside and the case file material referred to the investigation department for additional investigation, which appears still to be pending. 27. On 5 March 2007 the complaints concerning the first applicant’s placement in the psychiatric hospital were removed from criminal case no. 82906 for separate examination. 28. On 24 March 2007 an investigator from the Meshchanskiy InterDistrict Prosecutor’s Office refused to institute criminal proceedings. 29. On 3 May 2007 the Moscow Preobrazhenskiy District Court found the above decision unlawful and groundless. 30. On 6 July 2007 the acting prosecutor of the Meshchanskiy InterDistrict Prosecutor’s Office quashed the decision of 24 March 2007 and ordered an additional inquiry. 31. On 12 October 2007 criminal proceedings were instituted (criminal case no. 401966) under Article 128 § 2 of the Russian Criminal Code (Unlawful Placement in a Psychiatric Hospital). 32. On 12 January, 5 March and 27 April 2008 the proceedings were suspended on the grounds of an impossibility of identifying those responsible. 33. However, on 5 February, 27 March and 27 April 2008 respectively the above decisions were quashed and additional investigations ordered. 34. In the meantime, on 18 April 2008 a forensic psychiatric examination was conducted which established that the first applicant’s involuntary psychiatric hospitalisation on 25 May 2005 had been justified (psychiatric pathology of an acute character accompanied by expressed depression with attempted suicide). It was further established, however, that his subsequent stay in the psychiatric ward had been unlawful. In particular, contrary to the provisions of the relevant domestic law (the Psychiatric Treatment Law of 2 July 1992), no report had been drawn up by a panel of psychiatrists in the forty-eight hours following the first applicant’s involuntary hospitalisation on the need for a further stay in the psychiatric hospital, and no application had been made to the court by the head of the psychiatric hospital on the need for the first applicant’s continued involuntary stay in the psychiatric hospital. It was further noted that the first applicant’s mental health episodes between 27 May and 9 June 2005 did not fall under the definition of a “severe” mental disorder or any other acute mental condition, and did not require involuntary psychiatric treatment. 35. In the absence of any meaningful investigation since the institution of the criminal proceedings, the applicants challenged the investigator before the court for failure to take action. 36. On 7 May 2008 Preobrazhenskiy District Court found the investigator’s failure to take action unlawful (failure to identify and question witnesses and carry out other relevant investigative actions). 37. On 28 October 2008 the head of the psychiatric hospital, D., was involved in the proceedings as a defendant. 38. On the same day D. was questioned, and made the following statement: “... [Somatopsychiatric] unit no. 2 was staffed [at the material time] by only two attending doctors: a scientific associate, L., and an attending doctor whose last name I cannot remember. The question of assigning patients to a specific attending doctor was decided by E. E., who assigned [the first applicant] to L. as a scientific thematic patient (научный тематический больной) for research on the effects of the Seroquel medication ... Scientific associates monitor only scientific research patients to study scientific subjects which involve research into new methods of treatment and the use of new drugs approved by the Ministry of Health, with a view to later disseminating these throughout the territory of the Russian Federation. Following the results of their research, a scientific associate writes an article about the work done and defends a dissertation based on their research material.” 39. On 31 October 2008 the preliminary investigation was completed, and on 28 November 2008 a bill of indictment was submitted for approval to the Meshchanskiy Inter-District Prosecutor’s Office. 40. On 9 December 2008, however, the case was returned for an additional investigation, as the prosecutor considered the charges brought against D. unsubstantiated. 41. On 5 February 2009 the qualification of the crime with which D. was charged was changed to Article 127 § 1 of the Criminal Code (Unlawful Deprivation of Liberty). The case-file material was sent to the Meshchanskiy District Department of the Interior for further investigation. 42. On 19 July 2009 an investigator from the Meshchanskiy District Department of the Interior discontinued the proceedings on the grounds of expiry of the procedural time-limit for prosecution. 43. It appears that subsequently the proceedings were reopened. 44. In 2012 the applicants were informed that on 26 November 2010 the proceedings had again been discontinued as time-barred.