5.  The applicant was born in 1973 and lives in Orenburg. She is the widow of Mr Sergey Viktorovich Grabarchuk, who was arrested on 3 April 2003 on suspicion of robbery and sentenced on 24 November 2003 by the Orenburg Regional Court to eleven years’ imprisonment. The applicant’s husband died in 2010 while serving his prison sentence.
6.  After his arrest Mr Grabarchuk was taken to a remand prison in Orenburg, where doctors carried out a general health check and noted that he had HIV and hepatitis C. A month later HIV antibody testing confirmed the diagnosis.
7.  In May 2003 Mr Grabarchuk was seen by an infectious diseases doctor, who found no HIV symptoms except for enlarged lymph nodes.
8.  Until late April 2009 Mr Grabarchuk’s health was stable. He had regular complete blood count tests, a basic metabolic panel, simple urine tests and a chest X-ray.
9.  On 30 April 2009 he complained of fever and a cough. Shortly thereafter Mr Grabarchuk was diagnosed with focal right-side tuberculosis and on 6 May 2009 transferred to a prison hospital for inpatient treatment.
10.  In the hospital Mr Grabarchuk received tuberculosis treatment. On 7 July 2009 he was seen by an infectious diseases doctor, who noted the progress of the HIV infection to the next stage because of a lack of antiretroviral therapy (“ART”). The doctor recommended an immunological assessment. On 27 November 2009 Mr Grabarchuk was discharged from the hospital on account of a “clinical recovery” from tuberculosis.
11.  On 12 February 2010, on the basis of a routine complete blood count, doctors at the prison medical unit diagnosed Mr Grabarchuk with acute pyelonephritis, or inflammation of the kidney.
12.  Three days later an infectious diseases doctor repeated the recommendation for an immunological assessment. It was performed on 1 March 2010 and revealed that the patient’s immune system had been seriously damaged by the HIV. Five days later he started receiving ART.
13.  According to the applicant, her husband suffered various side effects from the HIV treatment and tried unsuccessfully to have it changed.
14.  One week later the following entry was made in his medical file:
“We, the undersigned, have made the present record to state that Mr S. Grabarchuk has refused ART.”
(The document was signed by the head of the medical unit, an infectious diseases doctor and a general practitioner).
15.  On 22 March 2010 a medical board recorded that the tuberculosis, which had been wrongly diagnosed by the doctors at the medical unit as pyelonephritis, had developed further. The board recommended treatment against the relapse. On the same day doctors at the medical unit made the following entry in the medical file:
“We, the undersigned, have made the present record to state that Mr S. Grabarchuk has refused anti-tuberculosis treatment.”
(The signatures are illegible).
16.  The applicant submitted that after the medical unit doctors had erred in the diagnosis of pyelonephritis, her husband had lost faith in them and had therefore refused to follow their recommendations, including those pertaining to the antiretroviral therapy.
17.  A week later, after new chest X-rays, the doctors confirmed that Mr Grabarchuk had tuberculosis and not pyelonephritis. His transfer to a prison hospital was ordered.
18.  On 13 April 2010 Mr Grabarchuk was admitted to the regional prison hospital for tuberculosis in Orenburg, where he received the standard tuberculosis drug regimen, which, as shown by the medical record, did not lead to an improvement in his condition.
19.  On 16 and 30 April and 11 May 2010 Mr Grabarchuk was seen by an infectious diseases doctor, who noted that because of the lack of antiretroviral treatment the HIV had progressed to its advanced stage, Aids. The doctor prescribed a complete blood count and ordered him to continue the tuberculosis treatment.
20.  Mr Grabarchuk lost weight and the ability to walk. His overall condition became critical. Given the seriousness of his condition, the detention authorities applied for his early release on health grounds, but on 13 May 2010 their request was refused.
21.  Mr Grabarchuk complained to the head of the medical authorities about inadequate medical treatment, requesting, among other things, an in-depth examination.
22.  On 14 May 2010, owing to a drastic deterioration in his health, an ambulance was called. An emergency doctor recommended Mr Grabarchuk’s transfer to a civilian hospital. The applicant was ready to cover transport expenses but a prison hospital medical board insisted on treating him in the prison hospital.
23.  Two days later Mr Grabarchuk died. An autopsy showed that he had died from HIV and tuberculosis which had led to pulmonary and cardiac failure.
24.  Shortly after the death of her husband the applicant complained to the Orenburg regional office of the Federal Service for the Execution of Sentences about the refusal on 14 May 2010 to transfer him to a civilian hospital.
25.  By a letter of 7 June 2010 the authorities informed the applicant that the prosecutor’s office was carrying out a preliminary investigation into the circumstances of her husband’s death.
26.  The applicant complained further, alleging that the head of the medical unit had shown deliberate indifference to Mr Grabarchuk’s condition.
27.  On 9 September 2010 the prosecutor’s office referred the case to the Investigative Committee of Orenburg Region.
28.  The Government did not submit the investigation file, stating that it had been destroyed in July 2014.
29.  Documents submitted by the applicant show that on 1 July and 27 October 2011 the investigating authorities obtained the autopsy report and questioned two doctors who had attended to Mr Grabarchuk in the prison hospital. The doctors stated that the patient had died of HIV and tuberculosis, despite their attempts to save his life. The investigator refused to open a criminal case.
30.  On 17 January 2011 the Novotroitsk Town Court, upon an application by the applicant, overruled the decision of 27 October 2011 on account of the failure of the investigating authorities to address the applicant’s allegation of deliberate indifference to the patient’s medical condition on the part of the head of the medical unit. A fresh investigation of the issue was ordered by the court. A month later the Orenburg Regional Court upheld that decision on appeal.
31.  According to the applicant, no further investigation followed.