CASE OF PISKUNOV v. RUSSIA
Violation of Article 13 - Right to an effective remedy (Article 13 - Effective remedy);Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading treatment) (Substantive aspect)
Alena Poláčková;Branko Lubarda;Dmitry Dedov;Georgios A. Serghides;Helen Keller;Helena Jäderblom;Luis López Guerra
7. The applicant was born in 1955. He is currently being detained in Krasnoyarsk. 8. On 10 December 2010 the applicant was arrested on suspicion of incitement to murder. On the same day the Tsentralniy District Court of Krasnoyarsk authorised his pre-trial detention. 9. Subsequently the applicant’s detention was extended on a number of occasions in the course of the investigation and trial in view of the gravity of the charges against him and the risks of his absconding, seeking to influence witnesses and reoffending. 10. On 5 May 2012 the District Court found the applicant guilty of the charges and sentenced him to five years’ imprisonment in a correctional colony. On 4 September 2012 the Krasnoyarsk Regional Court upheld the conviction, but decreased the sentence by two months. 11. During the admission process at remand prison no. IZ-24/1 in Krasnoyarsk the applicant told the medical staff that he had hypertension. The diagnosis was confirmed by a prison doctor, who prescribed him hypotensive medication and regular monitoring of his blood pressure. 12. In April 2011 the applicant was admitted to Prison Tuberculosis Hospital no. 1 in Krasnoyarsk (“the prison hospital”) for two weeks of inpatient treatment for his hypertension. A chest X-ray showed that he had a mild case of pneumonia and he was also diagnosed with another chronic condition. In the hospital the applicant received the full range of treatments for his conditions. 13. In June 2011 the applicant had a hypertensive crisis. Several weeks later his lawyer complained to the prison authorities of inadequate medical care. 14. A medical examination in August 2012 showed that the applicant had recovered from pneumonia and that there were positive developments with his hypertension. 15. In 2012 and 2013 the applicant was moved between various detention facilities and had routine medical checkups. 16. In April 2013 he was sent to a minimum security settlement colony. The applicant and other inmates performed repairs to a nearby children’s health camp. The applicant complained only of fatigue and headache to medical staff during that period. 17. According to the applicant, in May 2013 he started experiencing pain in the chest, pelvic area and testicles. His ability to walk was hindered by severe pain. He took painkillers sent by his relatives. The detention authorities ignored his complaints and on several occasions confiscated the painkillers. 18. In written submissions, Mr Kh., Ms K. and Ms B., detainees who worked with the applicant in the children’s camp from May 2013, confirmed the above statements. They submitted that the applicant had been seriously ill, had been barely able to walk and had often complained about severe pain. No proper medical examination or treatment had been arranged despite the applicant’s requests for inpatient treatment. Inmates had injected the applicant with painkillers supplied by his relatives. 19. On 2 September 2013 the applicant asked the head of the detention facility to authorise a medical examination and treatment outside the facility owing to a serious spine and leg condition that had worried him since May 2013. He stated that over the previous three months he had received pain relief medication provided by his relatives, but that his condition had not got better. 20. Following the applicant’s complaint, he was sent to a civilian clinic in Krasnoyarsk for a magnetic resonance imaging scan (MRI). An examination carried out on 22 January 2014, two days after his admission, revealed a prostate tumour and affection of the bone. A consultation by an oncologist was prescribed. 21. On the next day the applicant complained about the quality of his treatment to the Federal Service for the Execution of Services in Krasnoyarsk. The complaint was forwarded to the applicant’s ward but was dismissed as ill-founded on 10 February 2014. 22. On 14 February 2014 the applicant was taken to the Regional Cancer Hospital in Krasnoyarsk, where he was diagnosed with prostate cancer with metastasis to the pelvic bone. According to his medical records, he suffered mild to intense pain. 23. Six days later a medical panel certified the applicant as having a second-degree disability. 24. Between 21 March and 3 April 2014 the applicant was examined and treated in the prison hospital. While tests performed in the hospital did not disclose any cancer, hospital officials acted on the diagnosis of 22 January 2014 and prescribed drug treatment for prostate cancer. 25. On 15 May 2014 the applicant was examined by an oncologist, who recorded his cancer treatment and ordered tests. 26. In August 2014 the applicant spent two weeks in the prison hospital. 27. The following month he was seen by doctors and was prescribed further treatment for cancer. The medical staff apparently complied fully with that prescription. 28. On 19 September 2014 a medical panel concluded that the applicant’s state of health warranted his early release on medical grounds. Ten days later the Sosnovborsk Town Court of the Krasnoyarsk Region dismissed an application for early release, finding that the applicant was receiving the required treatment in detention. On 23 December 2014 the Regional Court quashed the decision on procedural grounds and remitted the case for fresh consideration. The parties did not inform the Court of the outcome of those proceedings. However, given the further developments, it appears that the applicant remained in detention. 29. On 9 April 2015 the applicant was certified as having a first-degree disability. 30. In May 2015 he was admitted to the prison hospital for a medical examination and treatment. There are no details regarding his subsequent treatment. 31. The applicant was detained in the remand prison between 10 December 2010 and 25 May 2015, save for short periods in the prison hospital. The applicant complained of the poor conditions of his detention, including overcrowding. The Government disagreed.