Information Note on the Court’s case-law 194March 2016Korneykova and Korneykov v. Ukraine - 56660/12Judgment 24.3.2016 [Section V]Article 3Degrading treatmentInhuman treatmentShackling of pregnant woman before and after delivery; poor conditions of detention of mother and newborn; insufficient medical care to newborn in detention facility; placement of pregnant woman in metal cage during court hearings: violationsFacts – In 2012 the first applicant, who was in her fifth month of pregnancy, was taken into police custody on suspicion of robbery and subsequently detained pending trial. She gave birth to her son, the second applicant, while in detention.In her application to the European Court she complained under Article 3 of the Convention that she had been shackled to her bed during her stay in the maternity hospital and placed in a metal cage during court hearings before and after she gave birth, and that the material conditions of her and her child’s detention and the medical care provided to the child in pre-trial detention had been inadequate.Law – Article 3(a)  Alleged shackling in the maternity hospital – The Court considered it sufficiently established that the first applicant had been subjected to continuous shackling in the maternity hospital. It recalled that the handcuffing or shackling of an ill or otherwise weak person was disproportionate to the requirements of security and implied an unjustifiable humiliation, whether or not intentional. In the present case, the first applicant had been shackled to a gynaecological examination chair in the hospital she had been taken to on the day she gave birth. Any risk of her behaving violently or attempting to escape would have been hardly imaginable given her condition. In fact, it was never alleged that she had behaved aggressively towards the hospital staff or the police, or that she had attempted to escape or posed a threat to her own safety. Moreover, her unjustified shackling had continued after the birth, when she was particularly sensitive. The Court also attached weight to the fact that she was guarded by three guards at all times, which was sufficient to respond to any potential risks. Accordingly, the impugned measure had amounted to inhuman and degrading treatment.Conclusion: violation (unanimously).(b)  Physical conditions of the applicants’ detention – The cumulative effect of malnutrition of the first applicant, inadequate sanitary and hygiene arrangements for her and her newborn son, as well as insufficient outdoor walks, had amounted to inhuman and degrading treatment.Conclusion: violation (unanimously).(c)  Medical care provided to the second applicant in the detention facility – The authorities were under an obligation to provide adequate medical supervision and care for the second applicant as a newborn child staying with his mother in a detention facility. He was particularly vulnerable and required close medical monitoring by a specialist. The material in the case file provided a sufficient basis for the Court to establish that the second applicant had remained without any monitoring by a paediatrician for almost three months. Having particular regard to his young age, this circumstance alone was sufficient to conclude that adequate health-care standards had not been met in the present case.Conclusion: violation (unanimously).(d)  The first applicant’s placement in a metal cage during court hearings – According to the Court’s case-law, holding a person in a metal cage during a trial constituted in itself an affront to human dignity in breach of Article 3 (Svinarenko and Slyadnev v. Russia [GC], 32541/08 and 43441/08, 17 July 2014, Information Note 176). In the present case, the first applicant had been held in a metal cage during all six hearings in her case. During the first two hearings she had been at a very advanced stage of pregnancy, whereas during the remaining four hearings she had been a nursing mother separated from her baby in the courtroom by metal bars. No justification for such a restraint measure was even considered given the domestic judge’s position that the mere placement of the first applicant outside the cage would have been equal to her release, contrary to the custodial preventive measure applied.Conclusion: violation (unanimously).Article 41: EUR 12,000 to the first applicant and EUR 7,000 to the second applicant in respect of non-pecuniary damage.(See the Factsheets on Detention conditions and treatment of prisoners, Protection of minors and Prisoners’ health-related rights) © Council of Europe/European Court of Human RightsThis summary by the Registry does not bind the Court.Click here for the Case-Law Information Notes