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

y after his arrest and was offered treatment, which he however refused (see paragraph 44 above). It appears that as a consequence of that refusal he did not receive any treatment during the first months of his detention. However, as soon as his condition became alarming he was taken to Haass prison hospital without delay (see paragraph 47 above).
104. During the entire subsequent period of his detention the applicant regularly sought, and obtained, medical attention. His medical record shows that each time he was unwell an ambulance was called and he was taken to Haass prison hospital for examination and treatment. In total, he spent about a year in hospital. There is no reason to believe that the treatment administered to him was inadequate. He was regularly examined by specialists, including twice by Dr S., a prominent neurologist and a member of the Russian Academy of Medical Science. He received timely and regular treatment which apparently improved his condition. Admittedly, the treatment did not prevent the applicant's having two ischaemic strokes and several hypertensive attacks. However, the Court does not consider on the basis of the material before it that the authorities can be held responsible for those incidents. It appears that they were the intrinsic consequence of the applicant's chronic cardiac diseases rather than the result of any discernible shortcoming in the treatment (see, for similar reasoning, {Kudla}, cited above, §§ 96 and 97, and Sakkopoulos, cited above, § 40).
105. The Court notes with concern that the brain scans recommended by Dr S. in December 2007 were never performed, apparently because the Haass prison hospital did not possess the requisite equipment (see paragraphs 68 and 70 above). However, there is nothing to suggest that the failure to perform those examinations prevented the establishment of a correct diagnosis or the prescription of adequate treatment. Indeed, the applicant's condition since December 2007 has been stable. He has not had any recurrences of his illness and his blood pressure appears to have returned to normal. His condition has been monitored by a doctor and he has received regular treatment. Therefore, the Court considers that during the entire period of his detention the applicant was provided with the requisite medical assistance.
106. It remains to be ascertained whether it was advisable to maintain the detention measure in view of the applicant's state of health. The Court has already found that detention of a hemiplegic person was compatible with Article 3, provided that he enjoyed sufficient autonomy to take care of his basic daily needs (see Matencio v. France, No. 58749/00, §§ 82, 83 and 89, 15 January 2004). In another case it considered that detention of a person who suffered from cardiac insufficiency and was recovering from a heart attack and who received medical assistance appropriate to his condition did not constitute inhuman or degrading treatment (see Sakkopoulos, cited above, §§ 40 - 45). The applicant in the present case did not allege that his state of health prevented him from taking care of his personal needs. Nor did he describe the physical conditions of his detention in remand centres SIZO-3 and SIZO-4 in any detail. Therefore, his complaint about the alleged incompatibility of his state of health with detention is generic and unsubstantiated. Moreover, it transpires from the materials in the case file that the domestic authorities were mindful of the applicant's situation and tried to improve the conditions of his detention. Hence, they transferred him from SIZO-3 to SIZO-4 precisely in order to ensure better conditions of detention and higher quality of medical supervision and care (see paragraphs 38 and 74 above).
107. The Court accepts that the applicant's condition made him more vulnerable than the average detainee and that his detention may have exacerbated to a certain

> 1 2 3 ... 11 12 13 ... 20 21 22

0.1111 с