Постановление Европейского суда по правам человека от 01.04.2010 «Дело Ахметов (Akhmetov) против России» [англ.]

plications which would be life-threatening for the patient."
67. On 28 March 2008 the head of prison No. T-2 of the Vladimir Region informed the applicant's wife of the applicant's placement in the penitentiary hospital and the examination by an oncologist on 1 February 2008. The letter also stated that the haemangioma only posed a threat to the applicant's life in the event of haemorrhages from its vessels. However, during the period under supervision there had been no such haemorrhages. At the same time the haemangioma increased by 1 - 1.5 centimetres.

II. Relevant Council of Europe documents

68. The relevant extracts from the General Reports by the European Committee for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment ("the CPT") read as follows:
Extracts from the 3rd General Report [CPT/Inf (93) 12]
"a. Access to a doctor
...35. A prison's health care service should at least be able to provide regular out-patient consultations and emergency treatment (of course, in addition there may often be a hospital-type unit with beds).... Further, prison doctors should be able to call upon the services of specialists....
Out-patient treatment should be supervised, as appropriate, by health care staff; in many cases it is not sufficient for the provision of follow-up care to depend upon the initiative being taken by the prisoner.
36. The direct support of a fully-equipped hospital service should be available, in either a civil or prison hospital...."

THE LAW

I. Alleged violation of Article 3 of the Convention

69. The applicant complained under Article 3 of the Convention about the alleged lack of adequate medical treatment in prison YaV-48/T-1. Article 3 of the Convention provides:
"No one shall be subjected to torture or to inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment."
70. The Government contested that argument. They submitted that during his detention the applicant had regularly undergone examinations and treatment in penitentiary and civilian medical institutions. In particular, he had undergone tomography and angiography in civilian hospitals. He had been examined by the medical-social commission and the SMK with a view to deciding on his early release on the basis of his state of health. Furthermore, he had been examined by a number of civilian doctors, including surgeons, oncologists, stomatologists and a radiologist. Furthermore, the penitentiary authorities had taken steps to arrange surgical treatment of the applicant's condition. However, none of the medical institutions to which the authorities had applied had agreed to perform the surgery, due to its complexity and the risk to the applicant's life. The doctors who had examined the applicant had not been prepared to conduct the surgery, nor had they advised where such surgery could be performed. The doctors' and hospitals' refusals to conduct the surgery was based on the anatomic-physiological particularities of the blood supply to the vascular tumour which had formed at the time of the tumour onset. Given these particularities, radical treatment would be extremely dangerous for the applicant's life. Accordingly, the authorities had taken every measure to ensure adequate medical assistance for the applicant; however, radical treatment had appeared impossible for medical reasons.
71. The applicant disagreed with the Government's arguments. He stated that it had been acknowledged on numerous occasions by the penitentiary medical authorities themselves that adequate treatment of his condition was impossible within the penitentiary system. In the applicant's view, because of the authorities' failure to take prompt measures to arrange radical treatment in a civilian hospital, although he and his wife



> 1 2 3 ... 7 8 9 ... 11 12 13

	Поделиться:	Tweet