n as a priority, alleging that Russian prison authorities, although fully aware that he was suffering from tuberculosis, did not provide him with adequate medical treatment. In his observations, lodged with the Court in April 2010, the applicant, while maintaining his health-related complaint, adduced an alternative complaint. In particular, he complained that on his admission to facility No. IZ-25/1 he had been a healthy person as tuberculosis had been "completely cured" and that the Russian authorities had failed to safeguard his health as a relapse of the illness had been caused by appalling conditions of his detention in that facility.
52. In this connection the Court reiterates that it has jurisdiction to review, in the light of the entirety of the Convention's requirements, the circumstances complained of by an applicant. In the performance of its task, the Court is free to attribute to the facts of the case, as established on the evidence before it, a characterisation in law different from that given by the applicant or, if need be, to view the facts in a different manner. Furthermore, it has to take into account not only the original application but also the additional documents intended to complete the latter by eliminating initial omissions or obscurities (see Ringeisen v. Austria, 16 July 1971, § 98, Series A No. 13, as compared with § 79 and §§ 96 - 97 of that judgment).
53. Turning to the present case, the Court observes that the new complaint pertaining to the conditions of the applicant's detention from 28 April 2007, when he was placed in detention facility No. IZ-25/1, to 17 July 2007, when he was transferred to the pulmonary tuberculosis ward of the medical department, was submitted after notice of the initial application had been given to the Government on 23 September 2009. In the Court's view, the new complaint raised under Article 3 of the Convention is not an elaboration of his original complaints lodged with the Court almost two years earlier, on which the parties have already commented. The Court therefore decides not to examine the new complaint within the framework of the present proceedings (see Nuray {Sen} v. Turkey (No. 2) judgment of 30 March 2004, No. 25354/94, § 200; Melnik v. Ukraine, No. 72286/01, §§ 61 - 63, 28 March 2006; Kravchenko v. Russia, No. 34615/02, §§ 26 - 28, 2 April 2009; and Isayev v. Russia, No. 20756/04, §§ 81 - 83, 22 October 2009).
II. Alleged violation of Article 3 of the Convention
54. The applicant complained under Article 3 of the Convention that the detention authorities had failed to take steps to safeguard his health and well-being, having failed to provide him with adequate medical assistance in respect of his tuberculosis. Article 3 reads as follows:
"No one shall be subjected to torture or to inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment."
A. Submissions by the parties
55. The Government submitted that the Russian authorities had taken all appropriate measures to safeguard the applicant's health. On admission to detention facility No. IZ-25/1 the applicant was examined by a prison doctor. Having studied the applicant's medical history and having learnt that he had had tuberculosis since 2003, the doctor placed the applicant under proactive medical supervision which included regular medical check-ups, X-ray examinations, clinical analysis and so on. When a relapse of the illness was recorded, the applicant was immediately moved to the pulmonary tuberculosis ward of the facility medical department. The treatment administered to the applicant by the prison doctors corresponded to that laid down by the Anti-Tuberculosis Decree (see paragraphs 38 and 39 above) which in its turn conformed to recommendations given by the World Health Organisation for treatment of tuberculosis (see paragraph 49 above). Positive elements in the progress o
> 1 2 3 ... 14 15 16 ... 19 20 21
Zaki.ru законы и право
поиск по сайту
каталог документов
добавить сайт Zaki.ru в избранное
Правовые акты международные
Правовые акты Российской Федерации
