Last Updated on November 2, 2019 by LawEuro
Communicated on 6 March 2018
FIRST SECTION
Application no. 24425/17
AramHAKOBYAN
against Armenia
lodged on 29 March 2017
STATEMENT OF FACTS
The applicant, Mr Aram Hakobyan, is an Armenian national who was born in 1958 and is detained in Yerevan. He is represented before the Court by Mr T. Yegoryan and Mr D. Gyurjyan, lawyers practising in Yerevan.
A. The circumstances of the case
The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows.
1. The applicant’s arrest and detention
1. On 17 July 2016 a group of armed men, including the applicant, stormed Erebuni police station in Yerevan. One policeman was killed and another died later in hospital as a result of injuries sustained during the attack. The armed group took nine people hostage, putting forward political demands to the government.
2. On the same date the National Security Service (“the NSS”) instituted criminal proceedings under Articles 219 § 3 (1) and Article 235 § 3 of the Criminal Code (seizure of a building by an organised group and illegal acquisition, possession and transportation of weapons, ammunition and explosive substances).
3. On 27 July 2016 the applicant surrendered to the police and was arrested.
4. By a decision of 29 July 2016 the applicant was charged with seizure of a building in an organised group and illegal acquisition, possession, transportation and carrying of weapons and ammunition under Articles 219 § 3 (1) and Article 235 § 3 of the Criminal Code.
5. By another decision of the same date, the NSS investigator in charge of the case lodged a request seeking the applicant’s placement in pre-trial detention for a period of two months. The relevant parts of the decision read as follows:
“… it is still necessary to find out the circumstances of the group’s formation and organisation, the sources of acquisition of weapons and ammunition, the details of the seizure of the buildings, conduct witness interviews, investigative and procedural activities with that purpose which, however, may be hindered by [the applicant] if the latter remains at large, by means of exerting unlawful influence on the participants to the proceedings, falsification or hiding of materials that are important for the case, besides, [the applicant], being at large, could commit a new offence…”
6. By a decision of the same date the Kentron and Nork-Marash District Court of Yerevan ordered the applicant’s pre-trial detention for a period of two months and refused to release him on bail upon his request. It stated, in particular, the following:
“Taking into account the nature and the degree of danger[ousness] of the offences imputed to [the applicant] and the existence of a reasonable suspicion with regard to his involvement in them, which is confirmed by the documents submitted together with the request [seeking the applicant’s detention], the court finds that there is a high probability that [the applicant] could hide from the investigating authority or commit a new offence, obstruct the investigation by means of falsification or hiding materials that are important for the case, therefore the investigator’s request is well-founded and should be granted.”
7. On 1 August 2016 the investigator made a decision to prohibit the applicant’s visits and telephone calls.
8. On 10 August 2016 the applicant was additionally charged with acquisition and possession of a grenade under Article 235 § 1 of the Criminal Code. These charges were brought against the applicant within the framework of another set of criminal proceedings that were joined to the proceedings against the applicant and the rest of the members of the armed group. It appears that the grenade in question had been found during a search of the applicant’s house on 7 April 2015.
9. By a decision of 24 August 2016 the Criminal Court of Appeal (“the Court of Appeal”) rejected the applicant’s appeal against the decision of 29 July 2016.
10. The applicant’s appeal on points of law against the above decision was declared inadmissible for lack of merit by a decision of the Court of Cassation of 21 December 2016.
11. On 16 September 2016 the Special Investigative Service investigator, who had taken over the investigation of the case by that time, lodged a request with the Arabkir and Kanaker-Zeytun District Court of Yerevan (“the District Court”) seeking an extension of the applicant’s pre‑trial detention for two months. The investigator’s request was based on the following grounds: the existence of a reasonable suspicion that the applicant had committed the offences imputed to him, the gravity of the offences in question, the high probability, justified by the materials of the case, that the applicant could hide from the investigating authority and obstruct the investigation by communicating with other offenders and hiding materials that were important for the case.
12. On 23 September 2016 the District Court granted the investigator’s above-mentioned request. In doing so, it referred to the reasonable suspicion concerning the applicant’s involvement in the offences in question, the risk of hiding from the investigative authority, obstructing the investigation, as well as the nature and social dangerousness and the gravity of the offences imputed to him. At the same time, the District Court refused to release the applicant on bail.
13. It appears that no appeal was lodged against the District Court’s decision of 23 September 2016.
14. On 17 November 2016 the investigator sought a further two-month extension of the applicant’s detention, which was granted by the District Court’s decision of 23 November 2016 on similar grounds as previously.
15. The applicant’s appeal against the decision was rejected by the Court of Appeal on 20 December 2016. The applicant lodged an appeal on points of law against this decision. His appeal on points of law was declared inadmissible for lack of merit on 3 May 2017.
16. The applicant’s pre-trial detention was then extended by the District Court three more times – on 23 January, 23 March and 23 May 2017 – on similar grounds as previously.
17. On 7 February 2017 the applicant lodged an appeal against the District Court’s decision of 23 January 2017. His appeal was rejected by the Court of Appeal on 27 February 2017. The applicant’s appeal on points of law against the Court of Appeal’s decision of 27 February 2017 was pending at the time when he lodged the present application.
18. On 14 March 2017 the applicant was additionally charged with taking and holding hostage under Article 218 § 3 (1)of the Criminal Code, while the charges under Article 235 § 1 were dropped.
19. By the decision of 28 April 2017 the Court of Appeal rejected the applicant’s appeals against the District Court’s decision of 23 March 2017. The applicant’s appeal on points of law against this decision was still pending before the Court of Cassation when he lodged his application with the Court.
20. It appears that on 7 April 2017 the investigation was completed and the applicant, together with his lawyers, was given an opportunity to study the case file.
21. At the time when the applicant lodged the present application with the Court, his appeal against the District Court’s decision of 23 May 2017, whereby his pre-trial detention had been extended for a further two-month period, was pending before the Court of Appeal.
2. The applicant’s medical conditions
22. Prior to being remanded in custody, the applicant had undergone bladder surgery after having been diagnosed with bladder cancer in May 2012. Several months later the applicant was diagnosed with white-matter pathology of the brain.
23. In February 2014 the applicant was hospitalised, complaining of headache, dizziness, asphyxia, weakness in the extremities and convulsions. Medical examinations revealed further pathologies in his brain, as well as a meningioma in the area of the frontal lobe. Eventually the applicant underwent brain surgery for the removal of a brain tumour.
24. It appears that in October 2016 the applicant was subjected to a forensic medical examination which had been ordered by the investigating authority. According to the applicant, he was informed during his conversation with the forensic medical expert that he was suffering from localised death of brain cells.
25. On 14 October 2016 the applicant asked to be provided with copies of the results of his medical examinations carried out during his detention. This request was rejected by the investigator on the ground that the documents in question were not considered to be of a procedural nature and the Code of Criminal Procedure did not prescribe any procedure for providing such documents.
26. The applicant lodged a complaint with the General Prosecutor’s Office, seeking to oblige the investigator to provide him with copies of his medical documents. By a decision of 13 January 2017 the applicant’s complaint was rejected. On 27 February 2017 the applicant sought judicial review of the decision of 13 January 2017.
27. In the meantime, on 6 December 2016 the applicant’s lawyer filed a written request with the head of the detention facility seeking to ensure the applicant’s adequate medical care and assistance in the facility. It was submitted that the applicant had haematuria (blood in the urine) and memory loss which could be linked to the applicant’s previously diagnosed pathologies. He therefore needed to undergo the necessary medical examinations.
28. On 14 December 2016 the head of the detention facility replied that the chief of the medical unit of the facility considered that the applicant’s health was satisfactory and at the given moment there was no need to carry out any further examinations.
29. On 4 February 2017 the applicant felt numbness in his right leg and arm. According to the applicant, he did not inform the administration of the detention facility at once, thinking that his condition would get better by itself.
30. However, in the morning on 5 February 2017 the applicant realised that he was unable to move his right limbs at all and, in addition, had significant speech impairment. The detention facility administration called an ambulance and the applicant was taken to the Central Prison Hospital. However, as the applicant was in a critical condition, the Central Prison Hospital refused to admit him and sent him immediately to a civilian hospital, suspecting that he had suffered a stroke. The applicant was transferred to a specialist hospital where he was placed in the intensive care unit. He underwent various examinations, including blood tests and computer tomography, and impairment of cerebral blood flow was diagnosed.
31. On 6 February 2017 the applicant was transferred to the Central Prison Hospital. On 7 February he underwent several examinations and tests – sonography and echocardiography, blood and urine tests, the results of which were not communicated to him. On the same day his ability to move his extremities improved slightly.
32. According to the applicant, during his stay at the Prison Hospital he did not receive any specialist treatment or medication.
33. On 10 February 2017 his temperature was taken and blood pressure measured only, and already on 11 February he was transferred back to the detention facility.
34. The applicant claims that after his return to the detention facility, he continued to be deprived of specialist medical care for his cerebral blood circulation issues. Every day his blood pressure was taken. Also, on 11 February 2017 he was given medication for reducing blood pressure and the next day he was given different medication for regulating blood pressure and blood circulation. Furthermore, on the same day the detention facility medical officer prescribed him three more medicines. However, he was informed that he had to obtain the prescribed medication himself, which he was unable to do. In addition, he had no possibility to inform his relatives or his lawyer about the need to obtain the prescribed medication, due to the prohibition of his communication with the outside world.
35. The applicant continued to experience difficulty in moving his right leg and arm, and his speech function remained impaired.
36. On 15 February 2017 the applicant was examined by the neurologist of the Central Prison Hospital. However, he was not informed of the results of this examination. It appears that, starting from this date, the applicant received a week’s course of intravenous injections. It further appears that he received another such course in mid-March.
37. According to the applicant, his condition improved after the courses of injections received at the detention facility. However, his condition deteriorated shortly after the administration of the injections was terminated. He started losing control of his right extremities again and his speech function became impaired.
38. The applicant claims that from 10 February until around the end of March his blood pressure varied between 180 and 200, but the detention facility did not always provide him with the prescribed medication. There was a period when he remained without the prescribed medication for days and was unable to request it from his relatives due to the prohibition of his visits and telephone calls. As a result, on one occasion the medication he needed was purchased for him by the head of the detention facility with the latter’s own means, while on other occasions he had to use the pills that were available at the detention facility which, however, had not been prescribed.
39. Between 10 and 14 March 2017 the applicant was visited by his lawyers, who noticed that he had more difficulty moving and speaking than before.
40. At the hearing before the District Court of 21 March 2017 in relation to the request seeking an extension of the applicant’s detention, his lawyers observed that his condition had further deteriorated: he had difficulty moving (he needed assistance to walk into and out of the court room), was pale, his extremities were cold and he had significant speech impairment.
41. On 24 March 2017 the applicant’s lawyers requested the administration of the detention facility to order an MRI (magnetic resonance imaging) examination in order to establish the reason for such a sharp deterioration in the applicant’s health.
42. On 28 March 2017 the applicant’s lawyer visited him at the detention facility. During their conversation with the head of the detention facility, the applicant and his lawyer were informed that their above‑mentioned request had been rejected, since the medical officers of the detention facility did not consider it necessary to perform the medical examination in question.
3. The applicant’s request under Rule 39 of the Rules of Court and subsequent developments
43. On 29 March 2017 the applicant requested the Court, under Rule 39 of the Rules of Court, to indicate to the Government to provide him with adequate medical assistance, if necessary in a specialist civilian hospital.
44. On 30 March 2017 the applicant was examined in the detention facility by a cardiologist who prescribed additional medication.
45. On 6 April 2017 the Court (the duty judge) decided to suspend the examination of Rule 39 of the Rules of Court until receipt of the following information from the Government:
“What is the current state of the applicant’s health, in particular, as regards his brain condition? Has the applicant received and does he currently receive any treatment required by his state of health? In particular, did the applicant receive and does he continuously receive from the authorities the medication prescribed by the doctors to control his blood pressure and improve blood circulation in the brain? The Government are requested to submit information and documents related to the applicant’s medical supervision and treatment during his detention, including any medical examinations which he has undergone (a full and legible copy of the applicant’s medical file, copies of any medical examinations and their results, copies of documents related to his treatment, supply of medication etc.).”
The Government was requested to submit the above information by 18 April 2017.
46. On 10 April 2017 the applicant was examined by the medical commission of the Penitentiary Service of the Ministry of Justice. The commission made the following diagnosis: ischaemic heart disease, atherosclerosis, hypertonic disease, chronic disorder of cerebral blood circulation, discirculatory encephalopathy. The applicant was advised to continue with his medication and was prescribed additional medication.
47. On 12 April 2017 the applicant was transferred to the Central Prison Hospital.
48. On the same date the applicant underwent several medical examinations, including examinations of his blood and urine samples and a sonography which revealed a sub-cupsular cyst in the right kidney. The applicant was examined by a general practitioner who recorded his complaints: overall weakness, headache, vertigo, weakness on the right side, pain in lower extremities especially on the right side, dyspnea (shortness of breath) and intense pain in the chest area. The applicant was prescribed medication.
49. On 13 April 2017 the applicant was examined by his own doctor, who concluded that the applicant was suffering from chronic cerebral ischaemia and advised a computed tomography examination in order further to clarify the diagnosis. The doctor also prescribed additional medication.
50. According to the Central Prison Hospital’s records, from 13 to 17 April 2017 the applicant was under medical supervision and received the medication prescribed.
51. On 18 April 2017 the Government submitted factual information concerning the applicant’s state of health. They submitted that the applicant had been and was under proper medical supervision and received adequate medical treatment, including the necessary medication.
52. On 5 May 2017 the applicant submitted in reply that none of the medication prescribed by the doctors, either his own specialists or the penitentiary medical staff, had been provided to him by the authorities and that he had received all the medication from his relatives, including the saline solution (NaCl) and vitamin C necessary for administering the prescribed injections. Furthermore, due to the prohibition of his contact with the outside world, he risked being deprived of the possibility to inform his relatives each time of the need to provide him with medication, as had already happened before.
53. On 17 May 2017 the Court (the duty judge) decided to indicate to the Government, under Rule 39 of the Rules of Court, to ensure that the applicant is provided with adequate medical assistance and the necessary medication, without interruption, in detention.
54. By his letter of 19 June 2017 the applicant submitted to the Court that, as of that date, he had not received any specialist treatment for regulation of cerebral blood circulation. In his submission, up to that date the majority of his prescribed medication was being provided by his relatives.
55. On 22 June 2017 the applicant’s lawyers lodged a written request with the Erebuni and Nubarashen District Court of Yerevan seeking a forensic medical examination to determine the gravity of the applicant’s diseases, namely whether or not he suffered from one or more illnesses that could exempt him from detention.
56. By decision of 23 June 2017 the Erebuni and Nubarashen District Court set the case down for trial. On the same date, the court considered various applications but not the applicant’s request concerning the appointment of a forensic medical expert to evaluate his state of health.
57. On 31 July 2017 the applicant was transferred back to the detention facility. He still had all the symptoms previously noted.
58. On 11 August 2017 the applicant sent a letter to the Court in which he expressed his dissatisfaction with his treatment at the Central Prison Hospital. He submitted, inter alia, that he had complained of intense stomach ache for about a week until he was finally given some medication without any further treatment. Furthermore, his previous condition had not improved, that is, he still felt numbness on the right side, pain and a burning sensation, weakness and lack of control over his right extremities. According to the applicant, from mid-July until 31 July 2017 he received no treatment other than the blood pressure medication.
59. Several days later the applicant was transferred to the Central Prison Hospital. He was not informed of the reason for his transfer.
60. On 17 January 2018 the applicant was transferred back to the detention facility. According to the applicant, he received no explanation of the decision to transfer him, in a situation where his state of health had not improved in any respect. Furthermore, the head of the detention facility, seeing the applicant’s condition and noting that it had not improved during his stay at the Central Prison Hospital, had expressed doubts concerning the transfer. According to the head of the detention facility, the applicant had been transferred back on the ground that he had recovered completely.
61. During the night of 18 January 2018 the applicant started suffocating while asleep. He was helped by a cellmate. The applicant was unable to ask for a doctor immediately, since no doctor was available during the night in the detention facility.
62. In the morning the doctor visited the applicant. The doctor, having stated his inability to do anything about the applicant’s complaints, once again prescribed the medication the applicant was already taking, and left.
63. On 19 January 2018 it was decided to transfer the applicant back to the Central Prison Hospital.
64. According to the applicant, he was placed alone in a unit where no doctor was on duty during the night. Therefore, taking into account what had happened during the night of 18 January 2018, he would have had no way of requesting emergency medical aid if he had found himself in a similar situation.
4. The current state of the applicant’s health
65. On 6 January the applicant’s lawyers informed the Registry that, earlier that day, the applicant’s health had sharply deteriorated during the trial court hearing. The hearing had been interrupted and an ambulance had been called. During the recess the trial court judge had invited the applicant’s lawyer to the courtroom and informed him that the emergency doctors had examined the applicant, recorded certain cardiovascular issues and given him an injection. The lawyer was provided with a medical certificate issued by the emergency doctors according to which the applicant had been diagnosed with ischaemic heart disease and acute coronary syndrome.
66. According to the applicant’s lawyer, the court reporter had then told him that the emergency doctors had stated that, in view of the applicant’s serious condition, he should be admitted to a civilian hospital and might need a coronary stent. Nevertheless, the presiding judge made a decision to have the applicant transferred to the Central Prison Hospital where he was kept in detention.
67. When the court session was resumed, the applicant’s lawyer requested the presiding judge to instruct the detention facility to organise the applicant’s medical assistance, including the necessary medical examinations, in a civilian hospital. The prosecution did not object to the request and the presiding judge decided to send a request to the detention facility.
68. On the same date, the applicant’s lawyer sent urgent requests to the Penitentiary Service of the Ministry of Justice and the Human Rights Defender seeking the applicant’s urgent medical assistance either from public funds or, if this were not possible due to the urgency of the matter, from the applicant’s own means.
B. Relevant domestic law
69. The relevant provisions of the domestic law concerning the imposition of pre-trial detention, and the grounds and procedure for its extension, are set out in the Court’s judgment in the case of Ara Harutyunyan v. Armenia, no. 629/11, §§ 30-36, 20 October 2016.
The Law on Conditions for Holding Arrested and Detained Persons («Ձերբակալվածևկալանավորվածանձանցպահելումասին» ՀՀ օրենք)
70. According to Article 13, a detainee has the right, inter alia, to healthcare, including sufficient food and urgent medical assistance. A detainee, personally or via his lawyer or legal representative, has the right to lodge complaints concerning a violation of his rights with the administration of the detention facility, its superiors, the court, the Prosecutor’s office, the Human Rights Defender, State and local self‑governance bodies, non‑governmental entities and political parties, the mass media, as well as international human rights protection bodies or organisations.
71. Article 21 provides that the administration of a detention facility shall ensure the sanitary, hygienic and anti-epidemic conditions necessary for the preservation of health of detained persons. At least one general practitioner shall work at the detention facility. A detainee in need of specialised medical assistance must be transferred to a specialised or civilian medical institution.
COMPLAINTS
1. The applicant complains under Article 3 of the Convention that the authorities have continually failed to provide him with adequate treatment and care in detention. Because of the indifference of the authorities towards his poor state of health he has found himself twice in a critical condition where his life was in danger. More than once the applicant, with blood pressure of 180/200, has been left without medication and deprived of the possibility of contacting his relatives, while the administration of the detention facility has been reluctant to inform his lawyers at least. The applicant has not received adequate medical assistance at the Central Prison Hospital either: this penitentiary institution neither has the necessary specialist personnel and facilities, nor the required medication to provide him with the treatment necessary for his health problems.
2. The applicant further complains under Article 5 §3 of the Convention that the authorities have failed to provide “relevant” and “sufficient” reasons for his pre-trial detention.
3. The applicant also complains that the Government failed to comply with the interim measure applied by the Court on 17 May 2017 under Rule 39 of the Rules of Court.
QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES
1. Has the applicant been subjected to treatment contrary to Article 3 of the Convention? In particular, during the entire period of his detention, has he been provided with prompt and adequate medical assistance, including specialist medical care, in accordance with his state of health? Moreover, has the applicant received and does he continue to receive the treatment, including medication, prescribed to him?
2. Did the courts provide “relevant and sufficient” reasons for the applicant’s detention, as required by Article 5 § 3 of the Convention (see Buzadji v. the Republic of Moldova [GC], no. 23755/07, §§ 84 et seq., 5 July 2016, and Ara Harutyunyan v. Armenia, no. 629/11, §§ 48 et seq., 20 October 2016)?
3. Has there been any hindrance by the State in the present case of the effective exercise of the applicant’s right of application, ensured by Article 34 of the Convention? In particular, did the Government fully comply with the interim measure indicated by the Court on 17 May 2017?
In so far as questions 1 and 3 are concerned, the Parties are requested to provide legible typewritten copies of those medical documents on which they rely in their submissions. The Government are requested to provide a copy of the relevant conclusion of the forensic medical examination conducted in respect of the applicant in October 2016.
Leave a Reply