Information Note on the Court’s case-law No. 161March 2013Salakhov and Islyamova v. Ukraine - 28005/08Judgment 14.3.2013 [Section V]Article 3Inhuman treatmentMother's mental suffering faced with the prospect of her son dying in prison from AIDS without adequate medical care: violation Facts – The second applicant is the mother of the first applicant, who died in August 2008. The first applicant was arrested in November 2007 on suspicion of theft of a mobile phone and placed in pre-trial detention. He had been HIV positive since 2005 and his health sharply deteriorated in March 2008 with constant fever and serious digestive problems. An ambulance was called on several occasions. According to the Government, the authorities only learned of the HIV infection in early June 2008 after a hospital examination. A specialist diagnosed the first applicant with pneumonia and candidosis and concluded that the HIV infection was at the fourth clinical stage, but that there was no urgent need for hospitalisation. On 17 June 2008 the European Court issued an interim measure under Rule 39 of its Rules requiring the first applicant’s immediate transfer to hospital for treatment. He was only transferred three days later and was kept under constant guard by police officers and, according to his mother, was continuously handcuffed to his bed. On 4 July 2008 he was found guilty of acquiring the mobile phone by fraud and sentenced to a fine. He remained in detention for two weeks after the verdict as a preventive measure, despite his critical condition. Following his release on 18 July 2008 his health deteriorated and he died on 2 August 2008.The second applicant subsequently complained to the prosecution authorities that her son had not received timely and adequate medical care in detention and that this had led to his death. In March 2009 a commission set up by the Ministry of Public Health concluded that the hospital bore no responsibility for the first applicant’s death. The investigation was subsequently closed and reopened several times. In 2010 a forensic investigation ordered by the prosecutor found, in particular, that at the time of his examination in June 2008 the first applicant had required urgent hospitalisation and in-patient medical treatment. A criminal investigation into the hospital’s liability was opened in December 2010.Law – Article 3 (the second applicant’s complaint): The second applicant had made every effort to save her son’s life by appealing to the hospitals, prosecution authorities and courts. He had, however, remained in detention after the prosecution had agreed to his release on account of the gravity of his condition and even after he received a non-custodial sentence. The second applicant had been reduced to a passive witness of these events in a state of complete helplessness and had seen her justified concerns that the authorities were underestimating the seriousness of her son’s condition disregarded. Her efforts to have her son’s handcuffs removed during his stay in hospital had also been fruitless. Lastly, even after his death, the authorities had manifested an equally unacceptable attitude towards the second applicant, in particular, by ignoring her requests for access to her son’s medical file.In sum, a number of factors taken together indicated that the second applicant’s rights under Article 3 had been violated: the parent-child bond between her and the first applicant; her active efforts to save his life or at least alleviate his suffering; the cynical, indifferent and cruel attitude demonstrated by the authorities both before the death and during the subsequent investigation; the fact that the second applicant had had to witness her son’s slow death without being able to help him in any way; and, lastly, the duration of her suffering (about three months). The second applicant had therefore been a victim of inhuman treatment.Conclusion: violation (unanimously).The Court further concluded unanimously that there had been violations of Article 3 in respect of the inadequate medical assistance that had been provided to the first applicant in the detention facilities and the hospital and of his handcuffing in the hospital. It unanimously found violations of Article 2 in respect of the authorities’ failure to protect the first applicant’s life and to conduct an effective investigation into the circumstances of his death.Article 34: Despite becoming aware at the latest on the evening of 17 June 2008 of the interim measure issued by the Court, the authorities had waited for one day and decided on 18 June 2008 that no urgent hospitalisation of the first applicant was required. In other words, instead of complying with the indicated interim measure, they had decided to re-evaluate its soundness. And, as they had later acknowledged themselves, that re-evaluation had been erroneous. It was only on 20 June 2008 that the domestic authorities had transferred the first applicant to hospital. The interim measure had thus not been complied with for a period of three days, without any acceptable explanation. The State had therefore failed to meet its obligations under Article 34.Conclusion: violation (unanimously).Article 41: EUR 50,000 in respect of the non-pecuniary damage suffered by the first applicant, to be paid to the second applicant in her capacity as his successor in the proceedings before the Court after his death; and EUR 10,000 in respect of the non-pecuniary damage suffered by the second applicant herself. © 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