Постановление Европейского суда по правам человека от 30.07.2009 «Дело Алехин (Alekhin) против России» [англ.]

r /> b. Equivalence of care
38. A prison health care service should be able to provide medical treatment and nursing care, as well as appropriate diets, physiotherapy, rehabilitation or any other necessary special facility, in conditions comparable to those enjoyed by patients in the outside community. Provision in terms of medical, nursing and technical staff, as well as premises, installations and equipment, should be geared accordingly.
There should be appropriate supervision of the pharmacy and of the distribution of medicines. Further, the preparation of medicines should always be entrusted to qualified staff (pharmacist/nurse, etc.).
39. A medical file should be compiled for each patient, containing diagnostic information as well as an ongoing record of the patient's evolution and of any special examinations he has undergone. In the event of a transfer, the file should be forwarded to the doctors in the receiving establishment.
Further, daily registers should be kept by health care teams, in which particular incidents relating to the patients should be mentioned. Such registers are useful in that they provide an overall view of the health care situation in the prison, at the same time as highlighting specific problems which may arise.
40. The smooth operation of a health care service presupposes that doctors and nursing staff are able to meet regularly and to form a working team under the authority of a senior doctor in charge of the service."

THE LAW

I. Alleged violation of Article 3 of the Convention

93. The applicant complained of the allegedly inadequate medical assistance he had received in detention, the authorities' refusal to release him on health grounds or transfer him to a civil hospital with a higher standard of care and the allegedly inhuman conditions of his transport on 21 December 2007. He relied on Article 3 of the Convention, which reads as follows:
Article 3
"No one shall be subjected to torture or to inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment."

A. Medical assistance

94. The Government submitted that the applicant had not exhausted the domestic remedies available to him. He had never complained of inadequate medical assistance to a prosecutor, such complaint being, in the Government's opinion, an effective remedy. They referred to improvements in the conditions of detention which had been made in response to complaints lodged with the prosecutor's office by Mr N., Mr D. and Mr Sh. (a medical unit had been set up, medicines purchased and maintenance work carried out). They stated that 13% of complaints about allegedly inadequate conditions of detention had been considered well-founded in 2007, while in the first half of 2006 the prosecutors had recognised 18% of such complaints as well-founded. It was also open to the applicant to seek compensation for non-pecuniary damage before a court. To prove the effectiveness of that remedy, the Government referred to two judgments by the domestic courts awarding Mr S. and Mr D. compensation for their detention in appalling conditions.
95. In the alternative, the Government argued that the complaint was manifestly ill-founded. The applicant had received medical assistance appropriate to his condition. He had been under constant medical supervision by the remand centre doctor. Whenever an emergency occurred an ambulance had been immediately called for him and he had been taken to hospital for examination and treatment. He had been regularly examined by medical specialists, had been subjected to a number of medical tests and had received adequate and timely treatment.
96. The applicant maintained his claims.
97. The Court considers that it is not necessary to examine the Government's objection as to non-exhaustion of domestic remedies



> 1 2 3 ... 9 10 11 ... 20 21 22

	Поделиться:	Tweet