TrustHLT/LaCour huggingface dataset:
GR1 (Government): The applicant alleged that such a situation developed as a result of continuous ineffective treatment during the first months of her detention.
GR1 (Government): In this regard, we would like to draw the Court's attention to the fact that the applicant refused from any examination from the first day of her detention.
GR1 (Government): Hence, it was not the treatment provided to the applicant that caused aforementioned mistrust, but the applicant's position from the very beginning of her detention.
GR1 (Government): Besides, the applicant was permanently consulted by her person, nurse, and doctor, who could monitor the process of providing the applicant with medical treatment.
GR1 (Government): We therefore consider that the aforementioned mistrust was artificial and groundless.
GR1 (Government): With reference to the applicant's refusal from medical treatment, the Government also would like to comment on each and every complaint.
GR1 (Government): Thus, on 16 August 2011, the applicant complained for the first time about appearance of red spots on her body.
GR1 (Government): In this regard, the Government noted that such hemorrhages clearly indicated that the possible disease was connected with blood and required conduction of biochemical blood analysis.
GR1 (Government): Such was the decision of doctors who examined the applicant.
GR1 (Government): Due to this, she was afforded to undergo such blood analysis, but she refused.
GR1 (Government): She refused from conducting this examination in an independent civil hospital as well.
GR1 (Government): Instead of this, she just allowed to determine the time of blood clotting on condition for further destruction of biological material.
GR1 (Government): At the same time, it should be emphasized that without a preliminary analysis, it was also impossible for a physician to put the right diagnosis or, if necessary, to forward the applicant to another specialist.
GR1 (Government): The same applies as to the applicant's initial complaints about low back pain.
GR1 (Government): Those complaints appeared for the first time on 5 October 2011.
GR1 (Government): From the very beginning, the applicant was examined by a neurologist.
GR1 (Government): Necessary medicine was prescribed, and until the end of October 2011, her state of health improved.
GR1 (Government): Subsequently, the applicant refused from prescribed medicine and recommended examination.
GR1 (Government): As a result, low back pain intensified, and the applicant was prescribed additional medicine and recommended to undergo necessary instrumental examination.
GR1 (Government): The applicant had been refusing from most of them until the second part of November, when she finally gave her consent.
GR1 (Government): As a result, the diagnosis was specified, and several new drugs corresponding to her state of health were prescribed.
GR1 (Government): We would also like to remind that the diagnosis put to the applicant at that time was subsequently confirmed by German doctors.
GR1 (Government): This fact was among other things mentioned in government's letter of 20 March 2012, and documents attached there, too.
GR1 (Government): Therefore, we would like to emphasize one more time that in spite of the applicant's continuous refusal from some examination and prescribed medicine, she received medical treatment to which she gave consent, and which could be prescribed on account of conducted examination.
GR1 (Government): Further, we would like to address course questions concerning condition of the applicant's detention.
GR1 (Government): First of all, we consider that the applicant's complaints concerning electric light being permanently switched on in cell 242, as well as all applicant's complaints concerning material condition in cell 300, should not be considered by the court, as they were submitted out of six time limits prescribed by the court.
GR1 (Government): Those complaints clearly concerned applicant's detention before 29 November 2011.
GR1 (Government): That is the date when the applicant was transferred to the cell number 260 in the medical unit.
GR1 (Government): The condition of detention was totally different.
GR1 (Government): Such transfer to the different type of detention regime, according to the court's well-established case law, put an end to alleged continuous violation of the above applicant's rights.
GR1 (Government): Therefore, the applicant should have lodged the aforementioned complaint not later than on 29 May 2012.
GR1 (Government): Instead of this, she laid down the aforementioned complaints in her letter of 31 May 2012.
GR1 (Government): Hence, we insist that those complaints are inadmissible.
GR1 (Government): As to alleged lack of bedding, we would like to note that according to certificate submitted by the government, the remaining stock of new bedding in the CISO included several thousand items of bed lining above the number necessary to provide all detainees.
GR1 (Government): Instead of this, applicant used just her own bedding, which included 278 items of bed lining.
GR1 (Government): For this reason, the government cannot be responsible for the quality of bed lining and regularity of its changes.
GR1 (Government): As to alleged impossibility to open the window in cell number 242, given its location, we would like to note that it was already indicated by the government in their observation of 20 March 2012 that the location of the window had in no way prevented the applicant from opening it.
GR1 (Government): The above fact is supported by photos of the cell number 242 made after and before refurbishment and submitted by the government in their annex to observation.
GR1 (Government): All those photos clearly indicate that the window was located in standard position right in front of upstanding person.
GR1 (Government): As to alleged lack of hot and cold water supply, as well as drinking water supply, we would like to note that according to certificate previously submitted by the government, the applicant was provided with all aforementioned issues.
GR1 (Government): Besides, the water supply in cell 242 is a part of centralized city water supply system, and drinking water during the period under consideration, there were no interruption in its functioning.
GR1 (Government): The same applies to condition of the applicant's detention in cell number 300, which was also linked to the city water supply and heating system.
GR1 (Government): We also know that cold water from the city water supply system is a drinking water consumed to all habitants in Kiev city.
GR1 (Government): Additionally, it should be mentioned that during the period of detention in CISO, the applicant received 316 liters of drinking water.
GR1 (Government): That is, the applicant had approximately two liters of water for each day, which is, in our opinion, is completely sufficient.
GR1 (Government): As to refurbishment of the cell 242, we would like to note that according to certificate of inspection of the above cell, which was conducted when the applicant was held there, the walls and ceiling were in satisfactory condition, and every week the cell was cleaned with special washing means.
GR1 (Government): Further, the government, while upholding their position as to admissibility of the applicant's complaints concerning the electric light being permanently switched on, also would like to note that in cell 242, there were two regimes of electric lighting.
GR1 (Government): The first one, designed for normal lighting, was provided by two lamps, each including eight 40-watt electric bulbs.
GR1 (Government): And second one, designed for nighttime, was provided by single 60-watt lamp.
GR1 (Government): In this connection, the government considered that one bulb for 16.4 square meters could
GR1 (Government): not create any inconvenience to the applicant.
GR1 (Government): As to the alleged violation of the applicant's rights set forth in Article V of the Convention, we would like to reiterate that in our opinion, detention of the applicant was conducted in accordance with Article V, Paragraph 1c of the Convention.
GR1 (Government): Thus, as reason for the detention and extension of term of detention, National Courts noted that the applicant might attempt to abscond from trial, avoid the execution of procedural decision, and obstruct the establishment of truth in criminal case.
GR1 (Government): Those reasons listed by the National Courts correspond to court's case law.
GR1 (Government): As to relevancy and sufficiency of those reasons, we would like to note that they were supported by a set of facts and documents which were in detail addressed in government's observations.
GR1 (Government): We also reiterate that those reasons were used by National Courts to justify the applicant's detention for a period of 67 days.
GR1 (Government): At the same time, the lawfulness of the applicant's detention within the abovementioned period was repeatedly reviewed by the court on the basis of the applicant's and her lawyer's request.
GR1 (Government): Every time aforementioned request and arguments given therein were scrutinized by the court in separate procedural decision.
GR1 (Government): In those decisions, the court continuously reached the conclusion that the reason for the applicant's detention persisted.
GR1 (Government): Besides, the fact that the court scrutinized the lawfulness of the applicant's detention upon her request attests that the applicant had at her disposal a factual procedure by which she could challenge the lawfulness of her detention.
GR1 (Government): The government also upheld the position according to which, in case National Court found violation of one of the applicant's rights set forth in Article V of the Convention, she could have lodged a civil claim with the court to receive a compensation.
GR1 (Government): Therefore, there was no violation of her rights stipulated by Article V, Paragraph V of the Convention.
GR1 (Government): As to applicant's complaints under Article XVIII of the Convention, we would like to reiterate that the applicant alleged that the interference with her rights prescribed by Article V of the Convention bore political character and was determined by the purpose of the exclusion her from political life of Ukraine and from participation in forthcoming parliamentary election.
GR1 (Government): As to these complaints, we would like to remind that according to the court's case law, an applicant alleging that his rights and freedoms were limited for improper reason most conveniently shows that the real aim of the State authority was not the same as proclaimed, or, as can be reasonably inferred from the context.
GR1 (Government): In this regard, the government note that analysis of the court's case law upon this issue attests that only separate concrete facts which unambiguously indicate bias towards the person may support the fact that there has been a restriction of her rights for the purposes not established by the Convention.
GR1 (Government): Such position was taken by the court in its previous judgments in cases Khodorkovsky and Gusinsky v. Russia and also Tsibutari v. Moldova.
GR1 (Government): In the instant case, the applicant, in corroboration of her allegation under Article XVIII of Convention, gives description of her political activities, political situation in Ukraine, and also refers to statement of different political institutions and politicians.
GR1 (Government): The government considers those evidences to be of a very general nature and political character, which substantially decreases the evidential value as it was established in the case of Khodorkovsky.
GR1 (Government): Besides, in her comments of 31 May 2012, applicant refers to certain statements of higher-ranking State official concerning different proceedings against her and several procedural violations which were allegedly committed by national authority in the course of those proceedings.
GR1 (Government): Those facts, in the applicant's opinion, corroborate that those proceedings were politically motivated.
GR1 (Government): In this connection, we would like to uphold the government's position mentioned in Letter of 11 July 2012 and insist that all these facts took place after the applicant had been detained and cannot be anyhow connected with her detention.
GR1 (Government): We would also like to note that the aforementioned arguments concern the alleged unfairness of criminal proceedings instituted against the applicant, while in the instant case, the applicant's allegations under Article 18 of the Convention are considered by the Court in conjunction with Article 5 of the Convention.
GR1 (Government): Therefore, we consider that the applicant has not submitted any evidences which would support the allegation that her liberty was restricted for the purposes of the exclusion her from political life of Ukraine and from participation in forthcoming parliamentary elections.
GR1 (Government): Further, we would like to turn to the question about condition of the applicant's detention and medical care in Kachanivskaya Colony.
GR1 (Government): In this part, we completely uphold the government's position laid down in the observation of 20 March 2012.
GR1 (Government): As to the medical care provided to the applicant in Kachanivskaya Colony, we would like to reiterate that Kachanivskaya Colony was provided with all necessary medical equipment, medical specialists, medical treatments was provided by the applicant by medical specialists who concluded her when she was held in CISO, as well as a few new local specialists.
GR1 (Government): In case of medical necessity, the applicant could undergo some of the prescribed examination in civil hospitals.
GR1 (Government): Due to this, applicant could have received a full-scale medical treatment in Kachanivskaya Colony.
GR1 (Government): Nevertheless, the applicant refused from being treated in the colony and demanded inpatient treatment in one of civil hospitals.
GR1 (Government): In this connection, it should be mentioned that there were no reason for transfer of the applicant from the colony.
GR1 (Government): In spite of this, after her state of health could have worsened due to her own behavior, the government gave consent to her transfer which was performed in May.
GR1 (Government): At the same time, we continue to emphasize that such a measure bore extraordinary character and was not preconcerned by lack of resources in the colony or urgent medical necessity.
GR1 (Government): Hence we consider that all delays in providing the applicant with medical treatment rest completely with the applicant.
GR1 (Government): We also would like to reiterate that according to court's case law, the standard of medical treatment for a person who is in jail could be lower than in civil hospitals.
GR1 (Government): In the incident case, medical treatment was provided to the applicant by leading experts from the best Ukrainian institution.
GR1 (Government): Therefore, in case the court finds violation of this part of the applicant's complaints, it will attest that any detainee or convicted person may demand treatment under conditions and in a manner he or she considers necessary, and every member state will have a corresponding obligation to comply with those demands.
GR1 (Government): As to the next question of the court, we would like to indicate that we uphold the government's position set forth in the observation of 22 June 2012.
GR1 (Government): In part of the applicant's complaint under Article 3 of the Convention.
GR1 (Government): Further, we would like to draw attention to the fact that upon the result of the inquiry into the applicant's complaint, the domestic investigative bodies established for sure that the applicant's allegation about inflicting bodily injuries to her on 20 April 2012 do not correspond to the facts.
GR1 (Government): The aforementioned is confirmed by all evidences in case file.
GR1 (Government): In particular, it was supported by testimonies of other detainees, ambulance team, patient penitentiary officers, medical commission members, Ukrzaliznitsa staff, and other persons who had contact with the applicant from 20 till 23 April 2012, as well as by the report of forensic medical experts.
GR1 (Government): Now it should be stressed that the purpose of the prosecutor's office inquiry was not only to refute the applicant's version of events, but also to establish when and under what circumstances the applicant's injuries could have appeared.
GR1 (Government): Under the result of the inquiry into the applicant's complaints, two possible versions of origin of her bodily injuries were forwarded.
GR1 (Government): According to the first one, localization of the applicant's bodily injuries indicate that they could be self-inflicted.
GR1 (Government): According to the second version, bruises found on the applicant's body could have been nothing less than hypodermic hematomas, which had been appearing from time to time on the applicant's body earlier.
GR1 (Government): In order to confirm one of the above versions, it was necessary to conduct direct examination of the applicant by forensic expert and to conduct biochemical blood analysis.
GR1 (Government): Consenting to the aforementioned proceedings, the applicant would have shown interest in establishing of circumstances under which she sustained her injuries.
GR1 (Government): Instead of this, she continuously insisted on her version as to how the injuries appeared on her body, and flatly refused from her direct examination by a forensic expert, as well as from blood analysis.
GR1 (Government): Such position of the applicant deprived, in our opinion, the investigative bodies from opportunity to establish additional information which could subsequently narrow the scope of investigation.
GR1 (Government): Therefore, we consider that under the circumstances of the present case, the domestic bodies took all possible measures to establish reason of appearance of the applicant's bodily injuries.
GR1 (Government): However, these attempts were neutralized by the applicant's behavior.
GR1 (Government): And finally, as to the last question of the applicant, we would like to uphold the government's position set forth in the observation of 22 June 2012 in part of the applicant's complaint under Article 8 of the Convention.
GR1 (Government): Here we reiterate that according to the court's judgment in the case Golder v. United Kingdom,
GR1 (Government): the ordinary and reasonable requirements of imprisonment may justify a wider measure of interference in case of any prisoner that is in that of person at liberty.
GR1 (Government): Due to such court's practice, the government admits that in the present case, the surveillance upon the applicant at the hospital ward continues interference in her private life in context of Article 8 of Convention.
GR1 (Government): However, we contend that such interference was not excessive.
GR1 (Government): Thus, in our observation, we noted that three cameras of video surveillance are placed in the applicant's ward.
GR1 (Government): Video surveillance is not being carried out in toilet room.
GR1 (Government): In addition, while the applicant was examined by the doctor in the ward, video surveillance was not carried out.
GR1 (Government): The video cameras at that time were contained by black stiff material.
GR1 (Government): Therefore, mention is confirmed not only by the explanation taken from the medical personnel who examined the applicant and convicted person treated in the same ward, but also by the report of doctor from Hospital Charita.
GR1 (Government): As to the treatment of the applicant in Ukrzaliznytskyi Hospital from 21 to 22 May 2012, in particular, he noted that during the medical examination of the applicant in the ward, the video cameras were contained.
GR1 (Government): Every time a person forgot to do it, he drew attention to this, and cameras were contained.
GR1 (Government): Therefore, video surveillance in the applicant's ward has been carried out exclusively within the framework of necessary surveillance required by the regime and was proportional in meaning of Article 8 of Convention.
GR1 (Government): Consequently, we insist that in present case, there was no violation of the applicant's rights guaranteed by Article 8 of Convention on account of permanent surveillance in her ward.
Dean Spielmann (JudgeP): Thank you Mr Kulchytskyy. I call now Ms Telychenko please.
AP1 (Applicant): I represent the applicant, the leader of the United Opposition of Ukraine, the former prime minister of Ukraine, Ms. Yulia Tymoshenko.
AP1 (Applicant): She was detained on August 5, 2011.
AP1 (Applicant): Since November, the applicant has experienced acute pain in her back and practically stopped moving on her own.
AP1 (Applicant): Despite her numerous requests for medical assistance, the applicant has not received any treatment.
AP1 (Applicant): She trusted neither prison nor civilian doctors.
AP1 (Applicant): Since both of them made numerous official statements that the applicant had no serious health problem and did not need any hospitalization or medical treatment, the applicant could not invite doctors per her choosing to examine her, though this right is guaranteed by the national law of Ukraine.
AP1 (Applicant): CISO has a medical unit which provides emergency care but does not provide any primary care.
AP1 (Applicant): CISO has no neurologist in its staff but only therapist general practicing.
AP1 (Applicant): Despite the applicant's health condition, she was forced by penitentiary authorities to participate in court hearings and to read her case file.
AP1 (Applicant): The court hearing on the applicant's detention in the United Energy System case took place when the applicant was in the medical unit in December, 2011.
AP1 (Applicant): During the hearing on detention, the applicant had to undergo emergency treatment with painkillers three times.
AP1 (Applicant): According to the court's decisions, the state must ensure that the health and well-being of detainees are adequately secured by.
AP1 (Applicant): In the applicant's case, however, the constant manipulation with the information on the applicant's state of health, providing her with painkillers on conditions of her cooperation with law enforcement bodies while knowing that she is seriously ill, manifest the lack of complaints of the government with the obligations under the European Convention on Human Rights to provide appropriate medical assistance to people in prison.
AP1 (Applicant): With regards to the material and sanitary conditions of the applicant's detention, she was placed in cell 242 on the Kiev CISO on August 5.
AP1 (Applicant): The size of the cell was approximately 16 square meters.
AP1 (Applicant): And there were two other detainees in that cell.
AP1 (Applicant): The cell was without hot water and sometimes without even cold water.
AP1 (Applicant): The cell had no shower and had a strong smell of mildew.
AP1 (Applicant): The light in the cell could not have been switched off as government confirmed and had been kept on 24 hours.
AP1 (Applicant): The only window in the cell was located too high to be reached by the inmates and therefore had never been opened.
AP1 (Applicant): The ventilation was provided through the cracked glass in the window.
AP1 (Applicant): The toilet was in the cell, only separated from the rest of the room by one-meter-high partition.
AP1 (Applicant): The applicant was allowed to shower only twice per week.
AP1 (Applicant): The applicant felt humiliated to ask for the permission to take an additional shower or to get hot water.
AP1 (Applicant): There was no supply of drinking water provided to the applicant.
AP1 (Applicant): The applicant received no bedding and requested it from her relatives.
AP1 (Applicant): She also asked her relatives for food.
AP1 (Applicant): The quality of food served in Kiev CISO is unacceptably poor.
AP1 (Applicant): And it is a common practice for inmates to receive food in person from their relatives and friends.
AP1 (Applicant): Government did not provide pictures from the cell number 242 that were made before the renovation in that cell.
AP1 (Applicant): On November 24, 2011, the applicant was transferred to another cell, cell 300.