had repeatedly asked for his placement in a civilian hospital at their own expense, his illness had become irreversible and the surgery was no longer possible.
A. Admissibility
72. The Court notes that the application is not manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 of the Convention. It further notes that it is not inadmissible on any other grounds. It must therefore be declared admissible.
B. Merits
1. General principles
73. The Court reiterates that Article 3 of the Convention enshrines one of the most fundamental values of democratic society. It prohibits in absolute terms torture or inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, irrespective of the circumstances and the victim's behaviour (see, among other authorities, Labita v. Italy [GC], No. 26772/95, § 119, ECHR 2000-IV). However, to fall under Article 3 of the Convention, ill-treatment must attain a minimum level of severity. The assessment of this minimum level of severity is relative; it depends on all the circumstances of the case, such as the duration of the treatment, its physical and mental effects and, in some cases, the sex, age and state of health of the victim (see {Valasinas} v. Lithuania, No. 44558/98, §§ 100 - 101, ECHR 2001-VIII).
74. The Court has consistently stressed that the suffering and humiliation involved must in any event go beyond that inevitable element of suffering or humiliation connected with a given form of legitimate treatment or punishment (see, as a recent authority, Labzov v. Russia, No. 62208/00, § 42, 16 June 2005). Measures depriving a person of his liberty may often involve such an element. Nevertheless, under this provision the State must ensure that a person is detained in conditions which are compatible with respect for his human dignity, that the manner and method of execution of the measure do not subject him to distress or hardship of an intensity exceeding the unavoidable level of suffering inherent in detention and that, given the practical demands of imprisonment, his health and well-being are adequately secured by, among other things, providing him with the requisite medical assistance (see {Kudla} v. Poland [GC], No. 30210/96, §§ 92 - 94, ECHR 2000-XI).
2. Application in the present case
75. The Court observes that since 1993 the applicant has been suffering from cavernous haemangioma of the head and the right auricle, a vascular tumour which is a relatively rare medical condition. It requires constant supervision and specialised medical treatment. In 1995 the applicant underwent examination of the tumour and carotid ligation. He was placed in detention in 1996, three years after having developed the condition.
76. The Court notes that it is not alleged by the applicant that the conservative treatment available to him in detention was insufficient. It observes that while in custody he regularly not only underwent examinations and treatment in penitentiary medical facilities, but was also examined by a number of civilian doctors. This included examination by surgeons, oncologists, a microsurgeon, an angiosurgeon, an otolaryngologist, an otolaryngologist-oncologist, a maxillofacial surgeon, a plastic surgeon, a vascular surgeon, a stomatologist, a neuropathologist and a radiologist. Furthermore, he was also placed in civilian hospitals for such specialised tests as tomography and angiography. The subsequent treatment, which included haemostatic therapy and antiseptic dressings, was provided in accordance with the results of the tests and the doctors' recommendations. The Court is therefore satisfied that adequate conservative treatment was made available to the applicant in custody.
77. The Court further observes that the main allegations raised by the applicant concern the fact that in detention he was not provided with
> 1 2 3 ... 8 9 10 11 ... 12 13
Zaki.ru законы и право
поиск по сайту
каталог документов
добавить сайт Zaki.ru в избранное
Правовые акты международные
Правовые акты Российской Федерации
