7.  The applicant was born in 1946 in Kazakhstan. He had Kazakh nationality until 1997, when he was granted Russian nationality and renounced his Kazakh nationality. In 2001 he moved to Moscow, where he has been living ever since.
8.  On 12 April 2002 the applicant was accused of abuse of office while he had been deputy head of the government of the Pavlodar Region of Kazakhstan. Eleven days later the Interior Department of the Pavlodar Region of Kazakhstan placed the applicant on the international list of wanted persons. On the same day a deputy prosecutor of the Pavlodarskiy Region ordered his arrest.
9.  On 23 September 2010 the applicant was arrested in Moscow. The next day the inter-district prosecutor’s office of the Presnenskiy District of Moscow (“the Prosecutor’s Office”) – relying on Article 61 of the Minsk Convention, Article 16 of the European Convention on Extradition and Articles 97-101, and 108 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of Russia (“the CCrP”) – applied to the Presnenskiy District Court of Moscow (“the District Court”) for the authorisation of his detention pending extradition.
10.  On 25 September 2010 the District Court granted the application, having found that the applicant was a national of Kazakhstan and that his Russian nationality had been annulled in 2006 by a court. The District Court took into account the fact that the applicant had been charged with a serious criminal offence in Kazakhstan and that he was a fugitive from justice. It considered that there were no reasons to release him on bail, and that he was health was sufficiently good for him to be held in custody. The court cited Articles 97, 99, 100, 108 and 466 of the CCrP as the legal basis for the applicant’s detention. After an appeal by the applicant, the Moscow City Court (“the City Court”) upheld the decision on 29 October 2010.
11.  According to the applicant, it was only at the hearing on 25 September 2010 that he learned about the annulment of his Russian nationality. Shortly afterwards he lodged an appeal with the Altay Regional Court, challenging the court decision annulling his Russian nationality and the administrative decision on which that court decision had been based. On 15 December 2010 the Altay Regional Court dismissed his appeal against the court decision annulling his Russian nationality.
12.  In the meantime, on 19 November 2010 the District Court extended the applicant’s detention until 23 March 2011. It repeated the reasons put forward in the original detention order and noted that the Russian authorities had received a request on 25 October 2010 for the applicant’s extradition. It furthermore considered that the applicant’s state of health did not prevent his further detention, regard being had to the constant medical supervision and the appropriate quality of care ensured by the custodial authorities. The court refused to release him on bail, stating that if the applicant were released, it might not be possible to detain him again in the future.
13.  After an appeal by the applicant, on 22 December 2010 the City Court examined the detention order. It noted that the delivery of a decision on the extradition request by the General Prosecutor’s Office was the only procedural step that had to be taken and that it could not thus justify such a lengthy detention of the applicant. The court then reduced the term of his detention by a month, to 23 February 2011.
14.  In February 2011 the applicant asked the Kazakh investigative authorities to authorise his release from detention in return for a written undertaking not to leave the place of his residence. The request was granted on 18 February 2011.
15.  On 18 February 2011, the District Court, unaware of the decision of the Kazakh investigators, extended the applicant’s detention until 23 March 2011. The applicant appealed.
16.  On 3 March 2011 the District Court noted the fact that the Kazakh authorities had ordered that the applicant be released from detention; accordingly it ordered his release from detention.
17.  On 14 March 2011 the City Court discontinued the appeal proceedings against the detention order of 18 February 2011.
18.  At the time of his arrest the applicant was suffering from advanced hypertension, which posed a high risk of cardiovascular complications, advanced atherosclerosis of the carotid arteries, ischaemic heart disease, and other illnesses.
19.  On 24 September 2010, the day following his arrest, the applicant suffered a hypertensive crisis and was taken to a civilian hospital in Moscow. Four days later, when his condition became stable, he was discharged from the hospital.
20.  The detention authorities sent him to the medical unit in prison no. IZ-77/1 in Moscow. The next day he was transferred to remand prison no. IZ-77/4 in Moscow.
21.  On admission to the detention facility he was examined by a resident prison doctor, who recorded his chronic ailments but noted the absence of any acute complaints. No prescriptions were issued.
22.  Several weeks later, on 15 November 2010, an ambulance was called after the applicant began to suffer from acute heart pain. Ambulance doctors performed an electrocardiogram examination, recommended that he undergo outpatient treatment, and prescribed medication.
23.  The next day the applicant’s lawyer interviewed an anaesthetist who had treated the applicant several years previously and since then had been in contact with him and his family (apparently on an informal basis). According to the lawyer, the hypertensive crisis and the heart pain were signs of a serious deterioration in the applicant’s health. His medical condition called for an in-depth medical examination, and possibly cardiovascular surgery.
24.  On 10 December 2010 the Court decided to indicate to the Government, under Rule 39 of the Rules of Court, that the applicant should be provided with immediate access to an independent medical practitioner for an examination of his current state of health and, if considered necessary, should be admitted to an appropriate civilian or prison hospital.
25.  Four days later the applicant was taken to the medical unit in prison no. IZ-77/1. In the hospital he was subjected to a number of tests and examinations, including an electrocardiography examination, an ultrasound heart examination, ultrasound imaging of blood vessels in the applicant’s neck and legs, X-ray examinations of the chest, hip and bowels, a gastroscopy, and a colonoscopy. He was also seen by several medical specialists, including a general practitioner, a traumatologist, an ophthalmologist and an urologist. The diagnosis of cardiovascular, advanced hypertension and atherosclerosis (see paragraph 18 above) was confirmed. In addition, the applicant was diagnosed as suffering from prostate adenoma, inflammation of the urinary bladder, and an early-stage cataract on one eye. Several drugs were prescribed. In addition, the authorities allowed the applicant to receive certain medication from his relatives.
26.  On 20 January 2011 the applicant was examined by a medical board. Having approved the treatment administered by the detention authorities, the board noted that the applicant should be seen by a vascular surgeon, neurologist, urologist and a cardiologist.
27.  On 11 February 2011 the applicant was admitted to a civilian hospital in Moscow. A special medical board, comprising a surgeon, neurologist, urologist, cardiologist and an ophthalmologist, examined the applicant and his medical file. They found that his chronic illnesses were not in acute phases and that the treatment afforded to him in detention fully corresponded to his condition. Accordingly, there was no need for his hospitalisation. Regard being had to the applicant’s continuous cardiovascular problems, it was recommended that appointments be made for a coronary catheterisation procedure and a consultation with a heart surgeon.
28.  On 14 February 2011 the applicant’s lawyer, citing the seriousness of the applicant’s medical condition, asked that the applicant be medically examined by a general practitioner. She also asked the custodial authorities for a copy of the applicant’s medical file. Both requests were refused.
29.  On 15, 17 and 25 February 2011 the applicant was seen by the doctor responsible for the applicant’s treatment, who gave him drugs. No deterioration in his condition was recorded. The applicant was released on 3 March 2011.
30.  On 6 April 2011 the interim measure was lifted by the Court.
31.  Several weeks later the applicant underwent successful vascular surgery in a civilian hospital.
32.  In April 2011 the applicant lodged a claim with the District Court against the detention authorities, seeking that the following be declared unlawful: their refusal to submit him to medical examinations (including those ordered by the Court) (see paragraphs 24 and 28 above); and the refusal of 14 February 2011 to allow him to receive medical attention and to grant his lawyer access to the applicant’s medical file.
33.  On 4 October 2011 the District Court declared that the authorities had unlawfully restricted the lawyer’s access to the medical file and dismissed the remainder of the claim. It in particular found that by admitting the applicant to the prison hospital in Moscow the authorities had complied with the interim measure indicated by the Court. The applicant had been provided with the required medical assistance in detention. It appears that the decision was not appealed against and became final.