g berths was insufficient and the inmates had to take turns to sleep. The applicant spent approximately a year and a half in such conditions.
61. The Court reiterates that irrespective of the reasons for the overcrowding, it is incumbent on the respondent Government to organise their custodial system in such a way as to ensure respect for the dignity of detainees, regardless of financial or logistical difficulties (see Mamedova v. Russia, No. 7064/05, § 63, 1 June 2006, and Benediktov v. Russia, No. 106/02, § 37, 10 May 2007).
62. The Court has frequently found a violation of Article 3 of the Convention on account of the lack of personal space afforded to detainees (see, among other authorities, Kalashnikov v. Russia, No. 47095/99, §§ 97 et seq., ECHR 2002-VI; Khudoyorov v. Russia, No. 6847/02, §§ 104 et seq., ECHR 2005-X; Labzov v. Russia, No. 62208/00, §§ 44 et seq., 16 June 2005; Mayzit v. Russia, No. 63378/00, §§ 39 et seq., 20 January 2005; and Novoselov v. Russia, No. 66460/01, §§ 41 et seq., 2 June 2005).
63. 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.
64. 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-61/1 in Rostov-on-Don between 14 September 2001 and 2 July 2003 which it considers were inhuman and degrading within the meaning of this provision.
B. Medical treatment
1. Submissions by the parties
65. The applicant alleged that the medical treatment he had received had not been effective. In particular, he referred to the following examples. He suffered from mild hypertension, which had reached a severe level during his detention. In July 2002 he had a heart attack. He received no prompt medical assistance and was taken to hospital after a two-day delay. On several occasions the court refused to authorise his placement in hospital despite the doctors' recommendations. From 14 November to 24 December 2002 he received no medical treatment, in contradiction with the recommendations of the hospital. On 5 March 2003 he had a stroke as a result of hypertension but was left unattended. On 10 March 2003 his blood pressure was 295/150 and he should have been taken to hospital. Instead, he was treated in the remand prison. He further alleged that some of the entries in his medical file were inaccurate. As regards the medicine prescribed by the medical unit of the remand prison, most of the pills he was given had passed their expiry date.
66. The Government disputed the applicant's allegations. Relying on the applicant's medical file, they submitted that he had received prompt and adequate medical assistance. The Government denied that the applicant had had a heart attack in July 2002, referring to the lack of any information to that effect in the file.
2. The Court's assessment
67. The Court reiterates that Article 3 of the Convention imposes an obligation on the State to ensure, given the practical demands of imprisonment, that the health and well-being of a prisoner are adequately secured by, among, other things, providing him with the requisite medical assistance (see {Kudla} v. Poland [GC], No. 30210/96, §§ 93 - 94, ECHR 2000-XI).
68. The Court notes at the outset that the parties did not contest that the applicant suffered from hypertension.
69. The Court further observes that the medical evidence which the Government produced shows that during his detention the applicant regularly sought, and obtained, medical assistance. He was examined by doctors and received treatment in connection with his condition (see paragraphs 43 - 47). Twice h
> 1 2 3 ... 7 8 9 ... 12 13 14
Zaki.ru законы и право
поиск по сайту
каталог документов
добавить сайт Zaki.ru в избранное
Правовые акты международные
Правовые акты Российской Федерации
