FIFTH SECTIONCASE OF STRYUKOV v. UKRAINE(Application no. 78484/11)      JUDGMENT STRASBOURG23 January 2020 This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.In the case of Stryukov v. Ukraine,The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting as a Committee composed of: Síofra O’Leary, President, Ganna Yudkivska, Lado Chanturia, judges,and Milan Blaško, Deputy Section Registrar,Having deliberated in private on 17 December 2019,Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:PROCEDURE1. The case originated in an application (no. 78484/11) against Ukraine lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) by a Ukrainian national, Mr Andriy Vasylyovych Stryukov (“the applicant”), on 21 December 2011.2. The applicant was represented by Ms O. Sapozhnikova, a lawyer practising in Kyiv. The Ukrainian Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, most recently Mr I. Lishchyna of the Ministry of Justice.3. The applicant alleged, under Articles 3 and 13 of the Convention, that he had not been provided with adequate medical treatment and assistance while in detention, that the conditions of his transportation between the detention facility and the court had been poor, and that he had not had an effective domestic remedy for the above complaints.4. On 30 March 2014 the applicant died. On 15 February 2018 his mother, Ms Ludmyla Stryukova, expressed the wish to pursue the proceedings before the Court.5. On 14 November 2018 the Government were given notice of the above complaints and the remainder of the application was declared inadmissible pursuant to Rule 54 § 3 of the Rules of Court.THE FACTSTHE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE6. The applicant was born in 1970.Medical care provided to the applicant7. On 4 January 2011 the applicant was arrested on suspicion of drug offences and was placed in a cell at the Genichesk temporary detention centre. The applicant allegedly felt unwell but was refused any medical treatment at that time.8. On 13 January 2011 Genichesk Hospital issued a certificate stating that the applicant had been suffering from tuberculosis since 2009. His disease was active and therefore dangerous to others and thus required medical treatment.9. On 14 January 2011 the Genichesk District Court ordered the applicant’s pre-trial detention.10. According to the applicant, he had remained in the Genichesk temporary detention centre without receiving any treatment for his tuberculosis until he had been transferred to the Zaporizhzhya pre-trial detention centre (“the SIZO”) on 12 February 2011.11. On 11 March 2011 the SIZO authorities informed the applicant’s defence lawyer that the applicant had been provided with the necessary inpatient treatment for tuberculosis at the SIZO with “positive progress [towards recovery]”. The nature of the treatment was not indicated.12. On 4 August 2011 the SIZO authorities informed the applicant’s defence lawyer that he had been provided with inpatient treatment for tuberculosis at the SIZO. They specified that “the applicant [had] received anti-tuberculosis medicines of the 1st group”. The nature of the treatment was not described more specifically.13. On 28 September 2011, as a result of a serious deterioration in his health, the applicant lost consciousness. He experienced strong chest pain. He was given some urgent treatment by an ambulance team and remained at the SIZO.14. In the course of his pre-trial detention the applicant’s health deteriorated further. He was transported to various medical facilities for examination, notably on 15, 18, 20 and 21 October and 1 December 2011. In the course of one such examination on 18 October 2011 the applicant was diagnosed with a pancreatic tumour. It was recommended that he undergo special inpatient treatment for his tuberculosis. Allegedly, he did not then receive any treatment in respect of his diseases.15. By letters dated 15 and 26 December 2011 the SIZO governor informed the Genichesk District Court (“the trial court”) of the applicant’s state of health and noted that the applicant could not be treated at the SIZO as it was not properly equipped for that purpose.16. On 1 February 2012 the trial court remitted the criminal case against the applicant for further pre-trial investigation and released the applicant, owing, inter alia, to his state of health.17. Once he was at liberty the applicant’s state of health continued to deteriorate. He received both inpatient and outpatient treatment, notably on 7 February and from 2 to 9 March 2012. In a medical certificate, which is undated (but allegedly issued on 7 May 2012), the applicant was diagnosed with HIV, stage IV. According to a medical certificate of 14 May 2012, a deterioration in the applicant’s lungs was identified.18. According to a medical certificate issued on 21 September 2012, the applicant’s treatment had become complicated as the disease had developed resistance to anti-tuberculosis medicines.19. On 20 September 2013 the trial court found the applicant guilty of drug offences and sentenced him to six years’ imprisonment. Owing to his state of health, the trial court excused him from serving the sentence.20. On 30 March 2014 the applicant died of tuberculosis.The applicant’s transportation from the SIZO to court hearings and back and between detention facilities21. The applicant stated that during his pre-trial detention he had been transported between the Zaporizhzhya SIZO and the premises of the Genichesk District Court on ten occasions, and twice between the Zaporizhzhya and Vilnaynsk SIZOs. He submitted that the transportation procedure usually started at 11 p.m. on the day before the journey was required. First, the applicant and the other inmates were transported in police vans to the railway station; then at around midnight he was placed in a train compartment, and travelled for three to four hours on the train; then he continued his journey in a police van. According to the applicant, the transportation process lasted the whole night. There was no food and water provided during the transportation procedure, nor was there a doctor present. He felt unwell during court hearings, which resulted in ambulances being called or the adjournment of court sessions.22. The applicant submitted a copy of the trial court’s letter addressed to the head of the Genichesk police authority allegedly responsible for the applicant’s transportation (received by the latter on 26 January 2012), in which the trial court asked that the applicant be provided with appropriate transportation, in view of his state of health, to the court hearing scheduled for 31 January 2012. It was mentioned in the trial court’s letter that the transportation expenses would be borne by the applicant’s relatives. The applicant also submitted a copy of a letter from the above-mentioned police authority, dated 26 January 2012, informing his mother that owing to the absence of any special transport arrangements the applicant would be transported on 29 January 2012 by railway, as usual.23. According to the information submitted by the Government, the applicant was transported from the SIZO to the court and back on the following dates:(i)  3 April 2011, returning on 19 April 2011;(ii)  27 April 2011, returning on 12 May 2011;(iii)  18 May 2011, returning on 19 May 2011;(iv)  22 June 2011, returning on 29 June 2011;(v)  22 September 2011, returning on 29 September 2011;(vi)  14 October 2011, returning on 21 October 2011;(vii)  29 January 2012.24. The Government further submitted that transportation of the applicant was carried out by overnight trains in conditions which had been in accordance with the requirements of domestic legislation, including in relation to the provision of food during the trip.RELEVANT DOMESTIC AND INTERNATIONAL MATERIALS25. The relevant domestic and international material in respect of treatment of tuberculosis can be found in Logvinenko v. Ukraine (no. 13448/07, §§ 38, 41 and 49-50, 14 October 2010).26. The relevant extracts from the World Health Organization (WHO) Guidelines on Treatment of Tuberculosis (1997) can be found in Vasyukov v. Russia (no. 2974/05, § 50, 5 April 2011).27. International and domestic materials concerning conditions of detention and transportation of detainees can be found in Koktysh v. Ukraine (no. 43707/07, §§ 39-42, 10 December 2009).THE LAWLOCUS STANDI OF THE APPLICANT’S mother28.

Outcome for Article 13: violation