Постановление Европейского суда по правам человека от 07.10.2010 «Дело Скачков (Skachkov) против России» [англ.]

2 June 2005).
57. Furthermore, the Court has on previous occasions examined the issue of conditions of detention in remand prison No. IZ-77/2 in Moscow and found them in contravention of the standards set forth in Article 3 of the Convention (see Benediktov, cited above, §§ 31 - 41, conditions of detention in 1999 - 2000; Bychkov v. Russia, No. 39420/03, §§ 33 - 43, 5 March 2009, conditions of detention in 2000 - 02; Lind v. Russia, No. 25664/05, §§ 58 - 63, 6 December 2007, conditions of detention in 2004 - 05; and Sudarkov v. Russia, No. 3130/03, §§ 40 - 51, 10 July 2008, conditions of detention in 2000 - 02).
58. Having regard to its case-law on the subject and the materials in its possession, the Court notes that the Government have not put forward any fact or argument capable of persuading it to reach a different conclusion in the present case.
59. There has therefore been a violation of Article 3 of the Convention on account of the conditions of the applicant's detention in remand prison No. IZ-77/2 in Moscow between 25 March 2002 and 25 February 2005, which it considers were inhuman and degrading within the meaning of this provision.
60. In view of the above finding, the Court does not consider it necessary to examine the remainder of the parties' submissions concerning other aspects of the conditions of the applicant's detention in remand prison No. 77/2 in Moscow.

II. Alleged violation of Article 3 of the Convention
on account of alleged lack of medical assistance

61. The applicant complained that he had not had access to medical assistance while in detention in remand prison No. IZ-77/2 in Moscow. He relied on Article 3 of the Convention.

A. Submissions by the parties

62. The Government contested that argument. They submitted that the applicant had been examined by medical professionals on a regular basis. He had never complained about loss of eyesight or hearing ability while in detention. When he consulted the dentist on 14 April 2004, he received proper treatment. The Government submitted a copy of the applicant's medical file.
63. The applicant maintained his complaint. He submitted that the prison administration had been aware of his condition, including eyesight and hearing problems. However, the medical unit of the remand prison had been unable to provide the required medical aid for lack of resources. As regards dental treatment, he had received it only in respect of one tooth while he had problems with fourteen of them. In any event, "application of arsenic paste, temporary filling and advice" could not be regarded as adequate medical aid.

B. The Court's assessment

64. The Court reiterates that Article 3 always requires that the health and well-being of detainees are adequately secured by, among other things, providing them with the requisite medical assistance (see {Kudla}, cited above, § 94; see also Hurtado v. Switzerland, 28 January 1994, § 79, Series A No. 280-A, opinion of the Commission; Kalashnikov, cited above, §§ 95 and 100; and Khudobin v. Russia (No. 59696/00, § 96, ECHR 2006-XII)).
65. The Court further reiterates that in assessing evidence it has generally applied the standard of proof "beyond reasonable doubt" (see Ireland v. the United Kingdom, judgment of 18 January 1978, Series A No. 25, pp. 64 - 65, § 161).
66. Turning to the facts of the present case, the Court notes, and it is not disputed by the parties, that while in detention in the remand prison the applicant had been unable to consult an ophthalmologist or otolaryngologist. Nor had he received dental treatment, except for a temporary filling in one tooth. The Court finds this standard of medical care at the remand prison regrettable. Nevertheless, having regard to the materials in its possession, the Court



> 1 2 3 ... 8 9 10 11

	Поделиться:	Tweet