Last Updated on April 24, 2019 by LawEuro
Communicated on 9 January 2019
THIRD SECTION
Application no.46080/18
KurbonaliRadzhabaliyevichSATTOROV
against Russia
lodged on 11 September 2018
STATEMENT OF FACTS
The applicant, Mr KurbonaliRadzhabaliyevichSattorov, is a national of Tajikistan, who was born in 1981 and is currently serving a prison sentence in the Kirov Region.
A. The circumstances of the case
The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows.
On 29 July 2011 the Naro-Fominsk Town Court of the Moscow Region convicted the applicant of attempted large-scale sale of drugs and sentenced him to ten years six months’ imprisonment.
On 11 November 2011 the applicant was transferred to correctional colony IK-29 in the village of Sovda in the Kirov Region (ИК-29 ФКУОИК-5 УФСИНРоссиипоКировскойобласти) for serving his sentence. The applicant had no medical conditions, aside from 2001 surgery for stomach ulcer.
In March 2013 the applicant was employed at IK-29 woodworking production, where he alleges to have developed hemorrhoid.
In August 2013, due to aggravation of acute hemorrhoid symptoms, the applicant refused to work. He applied for medical assistance, however his request was rejected with reference to his refusal to work and his not holding the Russian nationality.
Suffering from severe pains, on 20 December 2014 the applicant applied to the administration of IK-29 for employment, hoping to be granted access to medical assistance.
After he was employed at the IK-29 sewing workshop, the applicant again applied for medical assistance, complaining of acute pains, poor appetite and sleep, in vain.
On 14 September 2015 the applicant received hemorrhoid medicines from his relatives.
On 6 October 2015 the applicant was examined by a surgeon of a visiting medical commission and diagnosed with a chronic hemorrhoid.
On 24 December 2015 the applicant again received hemorrhoid medicines from his relatives.
In January-February 2018 the applicant requested to be sent for a surgery at the prison hospital.
On 7 March 2018 the applicant received further medicines from his relatives, which were handed to him on 14 March 2018.
On 6 July 2018, no longer coping with his seated job at the sewing workshop, the applicant refused to work.
On the same date the IK-29 administration sent a request for surgery at the prison hospital.
On 24 July 2018 the applicant complained about the lack of medical assistance to the supervising prosecutor. His complaint was referred to the Federal Service for the Execution of Sentences.
On 1 August 2018 the applicant was informed that he will be sent for surgery not later than 22 August 2018.
However, on 24 August 2018 Medical Department-43 of the Federal Service for the Execution of Sentences informed the applicant that his health condition was known and assessed as satisfactory. It further informed the applicant, with reference to Articles 19 § 4 and 84 § 5 (3) of the Federal Law no. 323-FZ of 21 November 2011 on Basics of Health Protection of the Citizens in the Russian Federation and Government Decree no. 186 of 6 March 2013 approving healthcare rules for foreigners, that since the applicant was not a Russian national, medical assistance could only be provided to him at his own expense.
To the present moment the applicant has not been able to undergo the surgery.
B. Relevant domestic and international law
The relevant provisions of domestic and international law on the general health care of detainees are set out in Ivko v. Russia (no. 30575/08, §§ 55‑62, 15 December 2015).
Federal Law no. 323-FZ of 21 November 2011 on Basics of Health Protection of the Citizens in the Russian Federation provides that the procedure for securing medical assistance to foreigners is determined by the Government of the Russian Federation (Article 19 § 4).
It further provides that medical structures participating in the implementation of the State program on provision of free medical assistance to citizens are entitled to provide remunerated medical services to foreign nationals (Article 84 § 5 (3)).
Government Decree no. 186 of 6 March 2013 approved healthcare regulations for foreigners which provide that medical assistance to foreigners is delivered on remunerated basis, except for medical emergency situations in which case the medical assistance is provided free of charge.
COMPLAINTS
The applicant complains under Articles 3 and 8 of the Convention about the failure of the domestic authorities to provide him with medical assistance for his health condition, which subjected him to severe physical and mental suffering.
He further complains that he did not have at his disposal an effective remedy for the violation of the guarantee against ill-treatment, which is required under Article 13 of the Convention.
Lastly, the applicant complains under Article 14 of the Convention, taken in conjunction with Article 3 of the Convention, that he was refused medical assistance on the ground of his nationality.
QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES
1. Taking into account the applicant’s medical history, have the Government met their obligation to ensure that his health and well-being are being adequately assured by providing him with the requisite medical assistance, as required by Article 3 of the Convention? In particular, the parties are invited to answer the following questions:
a) When did the authorities become aware of the applicant’s health condition?
b) When was the diagnosis made?
c) Was the applicant prescribed with any treatment?
d) Was the applicant provided with the prescribed medication? If not, for how long has he been unable to receive it?
e) Has a surgery been prescribed to the applicant? If yes, has it been performed?
The Government are requested to produce a copy of the applicant’s medical record for the entire period of his detention.
2. Did the applicant have at his disposal an effective domestic remedy for his complaint about lack of adequate medical assistance, as required by Article 13 of the Convention?
3. Has the applicant suffered discrimination in the enjoyment of his Convention rights on the ground of his nationality, contrary to Article 14 of the Convention read in conjunction with Article 3 of the Convention?
Leave a Reply