Source: https://www.prisonlitigation.org/?wysija-page=1&controller=email&action=view&email_id=27&wysijap=subscriptions&user_id=42&lang=en
Timestamp: 2019-03-24 19:27:37
Document Index: 544026297

Matched Legal Cases: ['§77', '§77', '§150', '§75', '§87', '§ 2', '§88', '§89', '§138']

Newsletter no.12 (17 April 2016) - Round-up of the ECtHR case-law (March 2016)
Andrey Lavrov v. Russia (no. 66252/14) – health / access to care / interim measures / effective remedy. The applicant alleged that the had been unable to obtain effective medical care while in detention (violation of Article 3). He also submitted that the Russian authorities had failed to comply with the interim measure ordering an independent medical examination of his situation (violation of Article 34).
Ciorap v. The Republic of Moldova, no.5 (no. 7232/07) – ill-treatment / health / effective investigation. The applicant, a mentally-ill prisoner, complained that he had been ill-treated in detention and that the investigation into his allegation of ill-treatment had been ineffective (violation of Article 3).
Regarding the applicant’s handcuffing the Court first noted that Ukrainian law appears to “allow the authorities to use the impugned measure of restraint on all male life prisoners, without giving consideration to their personal situation and the individual risk they might or might represent” (§77), which “could give rise to problems pursuant to Article 3 of the Convention” (§77, see also Kaverzin v. Ukraine, §§150-163). However, the Court considered that “neither in his initial submission nor in his observations in response to those of the Government did the applicant provide any details concerning the contested measure” and therefore he “did not demonstrate the nature and extent of the suffering and humiliation caused to him by the restriction complained of and failed to substantiate whether that suffering went beyond that inevitably connected with his lawful detention” (§75). Given the generality of the applicant’s complaint, the Court considered that this part of the applicant had to be rejected as manifestly ill-founded.
On the violation of Article 2 alleged by 4 applicants, the Court noted that the investigation and the criminal proceedings have still not established the circumstances of the occurrence of the applicants’ injuries while they were under the State's responsibility. Thus, the Government is not able to sufficiently explain the origin of injuries and to ascertain that they have been victims of the use of legitimate force, as defined in Article 2 of the Convention (§87). The Court concluded that the use of force was not “absolutely necessary” within the meaning of Article 2 § 2 of the Convention (§88). Accordingly, there has been a violation of Article 2 of the Convention in respect of 4 applicants (§89).
The Court recalled that it had held on many occasions that there was no effective remedies in Moldova against inhuman and degrading conditions of detention (see Shishanov v. The Republic of Moldova, §138), and declared it saw no reason in the present case to depart from such conclusions. Accordingly, there had been a violation of Article 13.