assistance in IK-3 and the prison hospital
50. The applicant complained under Article 3 of the Convention that he had contracted tuberculosis in detention and had not been provided with adequate medical assistance in IK-3 and the prison hospital.
51. The Government provided a detailed account of the applicant's medical examinations and prescriptions for tuberculosis throughout his detention in the above institutions and supplemented it with copies of relevant records from his medical file (see paragraph 23 above). They asserted that all the necessary check-ups had been thoroughly carried out and all medication had been timely provided. They also submitted a certificate confirming that the budget of the medical unit of IK-3 was RUB 64,000 <*> in 2003 and RUB 117,000 <**> in 2004.
--------------------------------
<*> Around 1,882 euros (EUR).
<**> Around EUR 3,343.
52. The applicant, on the contrary, maintained that the treatment had been unsatisfactory. In particular, he alleged that the wording in his medical record "positive dynamic of the tuberculosis process" (see paragraph 23 above) meant that his tuberculosis had developed, which corroborated his allegations of inadequate treatment. Further, relying on the figures presented by the Government with respect to the budget of the medical unit of IK-3, he underlined that the resources allocated had been obviously insufficient, given the number of detainees in that penitentiary institution.
53. The Court notes that even if the applicant had contracted tuberculosis while in detention, this fact in itself would not imply a violation of Article 3, provided that he received treatment for it (see Babushkin v. Russia, No. 67253/01, § 56, 18 October 2007, and Alver v. Estonia, No. 64812/01, § 54, 8 November 2005). However, a lack of adequate medical assistance for serious diseases which one did not suffer from prior to detention may amount to a violation of Article 3 (see Hummatov v. Azerbaijan, Nos. 9852/03 and 13413/04, § 108 et seq., 29 November 2007).
54. The Court accepts that the medical assistance available in prison hospitals may not always be of the same standard as in the best medical institutions for the general public. Nevertheless, the State must ensure that the health and well-being of detainees are adequately secured by, among other things, providing them with the requisite medical assistance (see {Kudla} v. Poland [GC], No. 30210/96, § 94, ECHR 2000-XI, and Hurtado v. Switzerland, 28 January 1994, Series A No. 280-A). The authorities must also ensure that the diagnoses and care are prompt and accurate (see Hummatov, cited above, § 115; Melnik v. Ukraine, No. 72286/01, §§ 104 - 106, 28 March 2006; and, mutatis mutandis, Holomiov v. Moldova, No. 30649/05, § 121, 7 November 2006), and that where necessitated by the nature of a medical condition, supervision is regular and systematic and involves a comprehensive therapeutic strategy aimed at curing the detainee's diseases or preventing their aggravation (see Hummatov, cited above, §§ 109, 114; Sarban v. Moldova, No. 3456/05, § 79, 4 October 2005; and Popov v. Russia, No. 26853/04, § 211, 13 July 2006).
55. In the present case the Court observes that the Government produced an ample medical record for the applicant, according to which the latter was under constant medical supervision and had received adequate medical assistance when the tuberculosis was detected. The medical records showed a "positive dynamic and the dispersion of niduses of tuberculosis", which, contrary to the applicant's interpretation, meant that he was recovering. The Court further notes that, whilst the applicant disputed the adequacy of his treatment as a whole, he did not provide any medical opinion confirming his point of view. Nothing in the case file can lead the Court to the conclusion that the applicant did not receive
> 1 2 3 ... 20 21 22 23
Zaki.ru законы и право
поиск по сайту
каталог документов
добавить сайт Zaki.ru в избранное
Правовые акты международные
Правовые акты Российской Федерации
