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

, as the applicant's complaint concerning the allegedly inadequate medical assistance must in any event be declared inadmissible for the reasons stated below.
98. According to the Court's established case-law 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 (see {Valasinas} v. Lithuania, No. 44558/98, §§ 100 - 101, ECHR 2001-VIII). Whether the severity of the ill-treatment or neglect reaches the threshold prohibited by Article 3 will depend on the particular circumstances of the case, including the age and state of health of the person concerned as well as the duration and nature of the treatment and its physical or mental effects (see Sawoniuk v. the United Kingdom (dec.), No. 63716/00, 29 May 2001).
99. The Court has consistently stressed that Article 3 of the Convention cannot be interpreted as laying down a general obligation to release a detainee on health grounds or to transfer him to a civil hospital, even if he is suffering from an illness that is particularly difficult to treat (see Gelfmann v. France, No. 25875/03, § 50, 14 December 2004, and Mouisel v. France, No. 67263/01, § 40, ECHR 2002-IX). However, this provision does require the State to ensure that prisoners are detained in conditions which are compatible with respect for human dignity, that the manner and method of the execution of the measure do not subject them to distress or hardship of an intensity exceeding the unavoidable level of suffering inherent in detention and that, given the practical demands of imprisonment, their health and well-being are adequately secured by, among other things, providing them with the requisite medical assistance (see {Kudla} v. Poland [GC], No. 30210/96, §§ 92 - 94, ECHR 2000-XI).
100. The Court has already had occasion to note that, under certain circumstances, the detention of an elderly or severely disabled person over a lengthy period and in conditions inappropriate to his or her state of health might raise an issue under Article 3 (see Papon v. France (dec.), No. 64666/01, 7 June 2001; Price v. the United Kingdom, No. 33394/96, §§ 21 to 30, ECHR 2001-VII; and Farbtuhs v. Latvia, No. 4672/02, § 53, 2 December 2004). Nonetheless, regard is to be had to the particular circumstances of each specific case, such as (a) the medical condition of the prisoner, (b) the adequacy of the medical assistance and care provided in detention and (c) the advisability of maintaining the detention measure in view of the state of health of the applicant (see Mouisel v. France, cited above, §§ 40 - 42, and Sakkopoulos v. Greece, No. 61828/00, § 39, 15 January 2004).
101. The Court will apply this test to the particular circumstances of the present case.
102. As regards the applicant's condition, the Court notes that it was not contested that both before his arrest and during his detention in remand centres SIZO-3 and SIZO-4 the applicant had suffered from hypertension and ischaemic heart disease. His state of health was precarious, he required constant medical supervision and treatment and ran a high risk of stroke. While in detention he had two ischaemic strokes and several hypertensive attacks. As a result of the hypertensive attack of June 2007 he became hemiplegic, with his right arm paralysed and the motor functions of his right leg impaired.
103. The Court will next examine whether the applicant was provided with medical assistance appropriate to his condition. It transpires from the documents produced by the Government that the applicant was examined by a doctor immediatel



> 1 2 3 ... 10 11 12 ... 20 21 22

	Поделиться:	Tweet