{"id":1067,"date":"2019-04-17T15:11:15","date_gmt":"2019-04-17T15:11:15","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/laweuro.com\/?p=1067"},"modified":"2019-04-24T15:17:43","modified_gmt":"2019-04-24T15:17:43","slug":"case-of-medyanikov-v-ukraine","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/laweuro.com\/?p=1067","title":{"rendered":"CASE OF MEDYANIKOV v. UKRAINE (European Court of Human Rights)"},"content":{"rendered":"

FOURTH SECTION
\nCASE OF MEDYANIKOV v. UKRAINE
\n(Application no. 31694\/06)<\/em><\/p>\n

JUDGMENT
\nSTRASBOURG
\n19 February 2019<\/p>\n

This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.<\/p>\n

In the case of Medyanikov v. Ukraine,<\/strong><\/p>\n

The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:<\/p>\n

Georges Ravarani, President,
\nMarko Bo\u0161njak,
\nP\u00e9ter Paczolay, judges,
\nand Andrea Tamietti, Deputy Section Registrar,<\/p>\n

Having deliberated in private on 29 January 2019,<\/p>\n

Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:<\/p>\n

PROCEDURE<\/strong><\/p>\n

1.\u00a0\u00a0The case originated in an application (no. 31694\/06) against Ukraine lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (\u201cthe Convention\u201d) by a Ukrainian national, Mr Eduard Valeryevich Medyanikov (\u201cthe applicant\u201d), on 19September 2006.<\/p>\n

2.\u00a0\u00a0The applicant was represented by Mr T.O. Kalmykov, a lawyer practising in Kharkiv. The Ukrainian Government (\u201cthe Government\u201d) were represented by their Agent, Mr\u00a0I.\u00a0Lishchyna of the Ministry of Justice.<\/p>\n

3.\u00a0\u00a0On 11 January 2011 notice of the application was given to the Government. On 30 November 2017notice of the complaints under Articles\u00a03 and 34 of the Convention, concerning the alleged lack of access to adequate medical treatment in detention and the alleged hindrance of the right of individual petition,was given to the Government. The remainder of the application, including the complaints concerning the fairness of the criminal proceedings against the applicant, was declared inadmissible pursuant to Rule 54 \u00a7 3 of the Rules of Court.<\/p>\n

4.\u00a0\u00a0The Government objected to the examination of the application by a Committee. Having considered the Government\u2019s objection, the Court rejects it.<\/p>\n

THE FACTS<\/strong><\/p>\n

I.\u00a0\u00a0THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE<\/p>\n

5.\u00a0\u00a0The applicant was born in 1972 and is currently serving a life sentence in Ladyzhynska colony no. 39 (\u201cthe colony\u201d).<\/p>\n

A.\u00a0\u00a0Background to the case<\/strong><\/p>\n

6.\u00a0\u00a0On 25 November 2004 the Donetsk Regional Court of Appeal convicted the applicant of several crimes and sentenced him to life imprisonment and orderedconfiscation of all his property. On 23 February 2006 the Supreme Court upheld that judgment with certain changes.<\/p>\n

7.\u00a0\u00a0Since 26 August 2003 the applicant has been detained in various detention facilities, initially pending the criminal investigation against him and his trial, and subsequently after sentencing.<\/p>\n

B.\u00a0\u00a0Medical treatment of the applicant\u2019s tuberculosis<\/strong><\/p>\n

8.\u00a0\u00a0On 26 August 2003 the applicant was placed in a temporary detention facility in Donetsk (SIZO No. 5) for the duration of the criminal proceedings against him.On 25 January 2007 he was diagnosed with tuberculosis. The case file contains other evidence to indicate that 1\u00a0February 2007 was the date of the tuberculosis diagnosis.<\/p>\n

9.\u00a0\u00a0Upon completion of the criminal proceedings, on 16 March 2007 the applicant was transferred to the Ladyzhynskacolony.<\/p>\n

10.\u00a0\u00a0On 20 March 2007 a preliminary examination of the applicant was conducted, together with laboratory tests and an X-ray. He was put under medical supervision owing to the residual effects of his tuberculosis.<\/p>\n

11.\u00a0\u00a0According to the Government, the applicant was under medical supervision and received the appropriate medical care for his tuberculosis. In particular, he had been examined on a regular basis by the colony doctors between 20 March 2007 and 26 February 2018 and prescribed treatment. As a result of each course of treatment his health had improved. The Government did not specify the frequency of the applicant\u2019s regular examination and treatment during that time.<\/p>\n

C.\u00a0\u00a0Medical treatment of the applicant\u2019s hepatitis C<\/strong><\/p>\n

12.\u00a0\u00a0In December 2011 a blood test revealed that the applicant had contracted hepatitis C. According to the applicant, he was denied access to copies of the test results.<\/p>\n

13.\u00a0\u00a0According to the Government, on 28 February 2012 the applicant was examined by a colony doctor who diagnosed him with chronic persistent hepatitis in remission. The applicant was prescribed treatment.<\/p>\n

14.\u00a0\u00a0On 16 May 2012 doctors from the Vinnytsya Regional Centre of Control and Prevention of HIV-Aids diagnosed the applicant with hepatitis\u00a0C in remission without hepatic impairment. According to the Government, the applicant was prescribed with symptomatic treatment and as a result of the treatment his health improved. The Government did not specify the nature of that treatment.<\/p>\n

15.\u00a0\u00a0According to the Government, the applicant was supervised by the colony doctors and was prescribed with all necessary medicine and a special diet. The Government did not specify the frequency of the treatment or the nature of the diet provided to the applicant.<\/p>\n

16.\u00a0\u00a0The Government further submitted that from 23 February to 20\u00a0March 2015 the applicant had been under medical treatment in a multi-disciplinary hospital in Stryzhavska correctional colony no. 81. As a result of the treatment his health had improved.The nature of that treatment was not specified.<\/p>\n

17.\u00a0\u00a0They also added that as of 26 February 2018 the applicant remained under the ongoing supervision of thecolony doctors, and his state of health was satisfactory.<\/p>\n

D.\u00a0\u00a0The application to the Court<\/strong><\/p>\n

18.\u00a0\u00a0According to the applicant, during his detention he submitted numerous applications to the domestic authorities, including the Donetsk Regional Court of Appeal (\u201cthe Court of Appeal\u201d), seeking to obtain copies of various documents to be submitted to the Court in substantiation of his application.<\/p>\n

19.\u00a0\u00a0He added thatbetween August and November 2006 he requested that the Court of Appeal provide him with a copy of his indictment. His requests were refused on 8 August and 6 September 2006 on the grounds that hehad already been provided with a copy of that document in the course of the criminal proceedings against him and that there was no legal requirement to meet his requests. Eventually, on 21 July 2008 a copy of that document was sent to the applicant.<\/p>\n

20.\u00a0\u00a0Between April and August 2009 the applicantrequested that the Court of Appeal send him copies of several court records from his criminal case file as well as from that of his accomplice. Those requests were initially refused as not having a basis in law.According to the Government, on 10\u00a0September 2009 the applicant lodged another application with the Court of Appeal in which he requested copies of court hearing records, the cassation appeal and other documents from his criminal proceedings casefile. On 2 October 2009 the Court of Appeal sent the requested copies to the applicant, but excluded copies of the court hearing records, on the ground that their transmission was not covered by the legislation that was applicable at that time. On 21 April 2011 the Office of the Government Agent before the European Court of Human Rights sent copies of the court hearing records to the applicant.<\/p>\n

21.\u00a0\u00a0By letters dated 12 and 17 January 2017, the Court of Appeal refused the applicant\u2019s applications for a copy of his request for an extension of the time-limit for lodging a cassation appeal against his conviction of 25\u00a0November 2004 and a copy of a court ruling of 26\u00a0October\u00a02016 dismissing that request. The Court of Appeal specified that the applicant\u2019s criminal case file had been sent to the Higher Specialised Court of Ukraine for Civil and Criminal Matters upon the latter court\u2019s request. The applicant has not been provided with a copy of the requested documents.<\/p>\n

II.\u00a0\u00a0RELEVANT DOMESTIC LAW AND DOMESTIC AND INTERNATIONAL MATERIALS<\/p>\n

22.\u00a0\u00a0The relevant domestic law and domestic and international materials in respect of treatment of hepatitis can be found in Sergey Antonovv.\u00a0Ukraine(no.\u00a040512\/13, \u00a7\u00a7 40\u201156, 22 October 2015).<\/p>\n

23.\u00a0\u00a0The relevant domestic and international materials in respect of treatment of tuberculosis can be found in Logvinenko v. Ukraine(no.\u00a013448\/07, \u00a7\u00a7 38, 41, 49\u201150, 14 October 2010).<\/p>\n

24.\u00a0\u00a0The relevant extracts from the World Health Organization (WHO) Guidelines on Treatment of Tuberculosis (1997) can be found in the judgment in the case of Vasyukov v. Russia(no. 2974\/05, \u00a7\u00a050, 5\u00a0April2011).<\/p>\n

25.\u00a0\u00a0The relevant provisions of domestic legislation and the relevant provisions of the Recommendation Rec(2006)2 of the Committee of Ministers to member States on the European Prison Rules were summarised and quoted in the judgment in the case of Naydyon v. Ukraine (no.\u00a016474\/03, \u00a7\u00a7 35\u201138 and 41-42, 14 October 2010), which mainly concerned the failure of the authorities to provide the applicant with the opportunity to obtain copies of documents needed for his application before the Court.<\/p>\n

THE LAW<\/strong><\/p>\n

I.\u00a0\u00a0ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 3 OF THE CONVENTION<\/p>\n

26.\u00a0\u00a0The applicant complained that he had been infected with tuberculosis and hepatitis C while in detention and that he had not received adequate medical treatment in respect of those diseases.He relied on Article\u00a03 of the Convention, which reads as follows:<\/p>\n

\u201cNo one shall be subjected to torture or to inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.\u201d<\/p>\n

A.\u00a0\u00a0Admissibility<\/strong><\/p>\n

27.\u00a0\u00a0The Court considers that the complaint is not manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 \u00a7 3 (a) of the Convention and is not inadmissible on any other ground. The complaint should therefore be declared admissible.<\/p>\n

B.\u00a0\u00a0Merits<\/strong><\/p>\n

1.\u00a0\u00a0The parties\u2019 submissions<\/em><\/p>\n

28.\u00a0\u00a0The applicant submitted that he had not received the necessary medical treatment and assistance for tuberculosis and hepatitis C while serving his sentence. He furtherdisputed the veracity of the Government\u2019s submissions in respect of the treatment provided to him.He stressed that all the Government\u2019s statements concerning his health complaints had been followed by the conclusions\u201cimprovement\u201d or \u201crecovery\u201d. As regards his treatment for hepatitis in Stryzhavska correctional colony no.\u00a081 (see\u00a0paragraph 16 above), the applicant submitted that in fact the treatment had consisted of supportive therapy, and that some of the medicines that he had been able to take had been provided by his relatives. Lastly, he emphasised that in 2007-2008 he had not received any treatment for tuberculosis.<\/p>\n

29.\u00a0\u00a0The Government submitted that throughout his detention, the applicant had been under constant medical supervision and had been provided with medical care and treatment. They further stressed that the treatment had been adequate since the applicant felt relief at the end of each course.<\/p>\n

2.\u00a0\u00a0The Court\u2019s assessment<\/em><\/p>\n

30.\u00a0\u00a0The Court has emphasised on a number of occasions that a lack of appropriate medical care in detention may amount to treatment contrary to Article 3 of the Convention (see, among many authorities, Hummatov v.\u00a0Azerbaijan, nos. 9852\/03 and 13413\/04, \u00a7\u00a7\u00a0112\u201122, 29 November 2007; Ukhan v.\u00a0Ukraine, no. 30628\/02, \u00a7\u00a7\u00a077\u201183, 18 December 2008; and Petukhov v. Ukraine, no.\u00a043374\/02, \u00a7\u00a7\u00a091\u201198, 21 October 2010).<\/p>\n

31.\u00a0\u00a0Other relevant principles determined by the Court in its case-law as regards Article 3 of the Convention and in respect of medical treatment in detention are summarised in the case of Sergey Antonovv.\u00a0Ukraine (no.\u00a040512\/13, \u00a7\u00a7 70-75, 22 October 2015).<\/p>\n

32.\u00a0\u00a0The Court also observes that it has addressed the issue of inadequate medical assistance and protection against tuberculosis and hepatitis in Ukrainian detention facilities in a number of cases (see, for instance,Melnik v. Ukraine, no. 72286\/01, \u00a7\u00a7 104\u201106, 28 March 2006;Yakovenko v.Ukraine, no.\u00a015825\/06, \u00a7\u00a7 97\u2011102, 25 October 2007; Pokhlebin v.\u00a0Ukraine, no.\u00a035581\/06, \u00a7\u00a7 63\u201168, 20 May 2010; Kondratyev v.\u00a0Ukraine, no.\u00a05203\/09, \u00a7\u00a072, 15 December 2011; Kushnir v.\u00a0Ukraine, no.\u00a042184\/09, \u00a7\u00a7\u00a0142\u201149, 11\u00a0December 2014; and Pivovarnik v. Ukraine, no.\u00a029070\/15, \u00a7\u00a7\u00a037\u201146, 6\u00a0October 2016).<\/p>\n

33.\u00a0\u00a0The main reasons for the Court to conclude in those cases that the applicants had not been provided with adequate medical care were the lack of promptness or unjustified delays in arranging medical examination, diagnosis or commencement of medical treatment (see Melnik, \u00a7\u00a7 104\u201105; Yakovenko, \u00a7\u00a7 92-93 and 98\u2011100; Kushnir, \u00a7\u00a7\u00a0144\u201145; Kondratyev, \u00a7\u00a087; andPivovarnik, \u00a7\u00a7 37\u201146, all cited above) andthe lack of qualified staff or equipment (see Yakovenko, cited above, \u00a7\u00a7 96\u201197, and Temchenko v.\u00a0Ukraine, no.\u00a030579\/10, \u00a7 89, 16 July 2015).<\/p>\n

34.\u00a0\u00a0Turning to the circumstances of the present case, the Court notes at the outset that the medical conditions the applicant suffered from (see\u00a0paragraphs 8 and 13 above) were serious enough to affect his everyday functioning. Therefore he could have experienced considerable anxiety as to whether the medical care provided to him was adequate.<\/p>\n

35.\u00a0\u00a0The Court has not been provided with the applicant\u2019scomplete medical file. However, the applicant, in support of his complaint under Article 3 of the Convention, provided information as to the medical assistance he had received in detention, and supported this with, inter alia, extracts from his medical file. The Governmentprovided no medical evidence in support of their allegations that the medical assistance provided to him was adequate.<\/p>\n

36.\u00a0\u00a0Moreover, the information about the applicant\u2019s medical treatment provided by the Government is of a very general nature, making it impossible for the Court to assess its relevance and effectiveness.<\/p>\n

37.\u00a0\u00a0The Court reiterates in this respect that it is for the Government to provide credible and convincing evidence that an applicant received comprehensive and adequate medical care in detention (see, among others, Savinov v. Ukraine, no. 5212\/13, \u00a7 50, 22 October 2015).<\/p>\n

38.\u00a0\u00a0It then notes that the applicant\u2019s treatmentappears to be ongoing, and that he has been treated for tuberculosisand hepatitis C for eleven years (see paragraph 11 above) and six years (see paragraphs 13 and 17 above) respectively. In the Court\u2019s opinion, the fact that the applicant\u2019s medical treatment has been ongoing for such a long time tends to showthat it was not accompanied by a comprehensive therapeutic strategy in compliance with the requirements of Article 3 of the Convention.<\/p>\n

39.\u00a0\u00a0Accordingly, the information available in the file does not allow the Court to consider that the applicant has received adequate treatment for his tuberculosis and hepatitis C.<\/p>\n

40.\u00a0\u00a0In the light of the foregoing, the Court finds that the medical care provided to the applicanthas beeninadequate. As a result of the inadequacy of the medical care provided to him, the applicant has endured distress or hardship exceeding the unavoidable level of suffering inherent in detention, and his dignity was undermined.<\/p>\n

41.\u00a0\u00a0There has therefore been a violation of Article 3 of the Convention.<\/p>\n

II.\u00a0\u00a0ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 34 OF THE CONVENTION<\/p>\n

42.\u00a0\u00a0The applicant complained that the national authorities had hindered his access to his criminal case file which was necessaryto substantiate his application before the Court.He relied on Article 34 of the Convention, which provides as follows:<\/p>\n

\u201cThe Court may receive applications from any person, non-governmental organisation or group of individuals claiming to be the victim of a violation by one of the High Contracting Parties of the rights set forth in the Convention or the Protocols thereto. The High Contracting Parties undertake not to hinder in any way the effective exercise of this right.\u201d<\/p>\n

43.\u00a0\u00a0The Government disagreed.<\/p>\n

44.\u00a0\u00a0The Court notes at the outset that it did not ask the applicant for the documents he referred to (seeChaykovskiy v. Ukraine, no. 2295\/06, \u00a7 94, 15\u00a0October 2009, and contrast Naydyon v. Ukraine, no. 16474\/03, \u00a7\u00a7 24-26, 14\u00a0October 2010).<\/p>\n

45.\u00a0\u00a0In so far as the applicant complained that he had not been provided with copies of documents from his domestic criminal case file, the Court did not need any additional documents to reach the conclusion that his complaints relating to those proceedings were inadmissible (see paragraph\u00a03 above) as his complaints in that regard: (a) had in part clearly been lodged outside of the six-month period (contrast, for example, Naydyon, cited above, \u00a7\u00a7 17 and 18); and (b)had in part been incompatible ratione materiaewith the provisions of Article 6 of the Convention. Therefore, any difficulties in obtaining documents from that file, even if they were to be proven, were of no consequence for the applicant\u2019s application before the Court (see Chaykovskiy, cited above, \u00a7 95).<\/p>\n

46.\u00a0\u00a0In view of the foregoing, the Court does not discern any appearance of hindrance of the applicant\u2019s effective exercise of the right of individual petition.<\/p>\n

47.\u00a0\u00a0Accordingly, the Court finds that the respondent State has not failed to comply with its obligations under Article 34 of the Convention.<\/p>\n

III.\u00a0\u00a0APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION<\/p>\n

48.\u00a0\u00a0Article 41 of the Convention provides:<\/p>\n

\u201cIf the Court finds that there has been a violation of the Convention or the Protocols thereto, and if the internal law of the High Contracting Party concerned allows only partial reparation to be made, the Court shall, if necessary, afford just satisfaction to the injured party.\u201d<\/p>\n

A.\u00a0\u00a0Damage<\/strong><\/p>\n

49.\u00a0\u00a0The applicant claimed 3,000 euros (EUR) in respect of pecuniary damage which he had incurred to purchase medicines. He furthermore claimed EUR 10,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage.<\/p>\n

50.\u00a0\u00a0The Government considered these claims unsubstantiated and excessive.<\/p>\n

51.\u00a0\u00a0The Court finds that the applicant\u2019s claim in respect of pecuniary damage is not substantiated and is not supported with any documents; it therefore rejects this claim. On the other hand, it awards the applicant EUR\u00a03,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage, plus any tax that may be chargeable.<\/p>\n

B.\u00a0\u00a0Costs and expenses<\/strong><\/p>\n

52.\u00a0\u00a0The applicant also claimed EUR 1,500 for legal costs incurred before the Court, EUR 50 for administrative expenses and EUR 250 for postal expenses.<\/p>\n

53.\u00a0\u00a0The Government considered the claims for legal costs unsubstantiated and unsupported with documents.<\/p>\n

54.\u00a0\u00a0According to the Court\u2019s case-law, an applicant is entitled to the reimbursement of costs and expenses only in so far as it has been shown that these have been actually and necessarily incurred and are reasonable as to quantum. In the present case, regard being had to the documents in its possession and the above criteria, the Court awards EUR 300 for the proceedings before the Court and EUR 50 for postal expenses, plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicant.<\/p>\n

C.\u00a0\u00a0Default interest<\/strong><\/p>\n

55.\u00a0\u00a0The Court considers it appropriate that the default interest rate should be based on the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank, to which should be added three percentage points.<\/p>\n

FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT, UNANIMOUSLY,<\/strong><\/p>\n

1.\u00a0\u00a0Declaresthe application admissible;<\/p>\n

2.\u00a0\u00a0Holdsthat there has been a violation of Article 3 of the Convention;<\/p>\n

3.\u00a0\u00a0Holdsthat Ukraine has not failed to comply with its obligations under Article 34 of the Convention with respect to the refusal of the authorities to provide the applicant with copies of documents for his application to the Court;<\/p>\n

4.\u00a0\u00a0Holds<\/p>\n

(a)\u00a0\u00a0that the respondent State is to pay the applicant, within three months, the following amounts,to be converted into the currency of the respondent State at the rate applicable at the date of settlement:<\/p>\n

(i)\u00a0\u00a0EUR 3,000 (three thousand euros), plus any tax that may be chargeable,in respect of non-pecuniary damage;<\/p>\n

(ii)\u00a0\u00a0EUR 350 (three hundred and fifty euros), plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicant, in respect of costs and expenses;<\/p>\n

(b)\u00a0\u00a0that from the expiry of the above-mentioned three months until settlement simple interest shall be payable on the above amounts at a rate equal to the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank during the default period plus three percentage points;<\/p>\n

5.\u00a0\u00a0Dismissesthe remainder of the applicant\u2019s claim for just satisfaction.<\/p>\n

Done in English, and notified in writing on 19 February 2019, pursuant to Rule\u00a077\u00a0\u00a7\u00a7\u00a02 and 3 of the Rules of Court.<\/p>\n

Andrea Tamietti\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Georges Ravarani
\nDeputy Registrar\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 President<\/p>\n

Facebook<\/a>Twitter<\/a>LinkedIn<\/a>Pinterest<\/a><\/div>","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

FOURTH SECTION CASE OF MEDYANIKOV v. UKRAINE (Application no. 31694\/06) JUDGMENT STRASBOURG 19 February 2019 This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision. In the case of Medyanikov v. Ukraine, The European Court of Human Rights…<\/p>\n

Read more →<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[1],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-1067","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-available-in-english"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/laweuro.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1067","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/laweuro.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/laweuro.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/laweuro.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/laweuro.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=1067"}],"version-history":[{"count":2,"href":"https:\/\/laweuro.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1067\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":1718,"href":"https:\/\/laweuro.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1067\/revisions\/1718"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/laweuro.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=1067"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/laweuro.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=1067"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/laweuro.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=1067"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}