Information Note on the Court’s case-law No. 179
November 2014
Amirov v. Russia - 51857/13
Judgment 27.11.2014 [Section I]
Article 34
Hinder the exercise of the right of petition
Failure to comply with interim measure indicated by the Court: violation
Article 3
Degrading treatment
Inhuman treatment
Lack of adequate medical care of seriously ill detainee: violation
Article 46
Article 46-2
Execution of judgment
Individual measures
Respondent State required to transfer disabled applicant to specialised medical facility and provide him with adequate medical care
Facts – The applicant was a former deputy Prime Minister of the Dagestan Republic and Mayor of the Republic’s capital city. In 1993 he became paralysed following an assassination attempt and he also suffered from other serious health problems. In 2013 he was charged with a number of serious offences. He was subsequently arrested and placed in detention. Under Rule 39 of the Rules of Court, on 16 August 2013 the Court indicated to the Government that the applicant should be immediately examined by independent medical experts to determine whether the medical treatment he was receiving in the detention facility was adequate and whether his condition was compatible with detention or required his admission to hospital. The domestic authorities did not, however, comply with the measure. In 2014 the applicant was found guilty of conspiring to organise a terrorist attack and sentenced to ten years’ imprisonment. The criminal proceedings on the remaining charges against him were still pending at the time of the Court’s judgment.  
Law – Article 34: In reply to the interim measure indicated by the Court, the Government had submitted two reports by civilian doctors, but these had not provided any answers to the Court’s questions. Instead, the Government had answered the questions themselves and had refused to allow the applicant’s defence team to organise a medical expert examination. By replacing expert medical opinion with their own assessment of the applicant’s situation, the Government had frustrated the purpose of the interim measure, which had sought to enable the Court, on the basis of relevant independent medical opinion, to effectively respond to and prevent the possible continuous exposure of the applicant to physical and mental suffering in violation of Article 3 of the Convention.  
Conclusion: violation (unanimously).
Article 3: The applicant was a paraplegic wheelchair-bound inmate suffering from a long list of illnesses. The parties disagreed as to the seriousness and gravity of his condition and its compatibility with detention. It was true that the expert evidence produced by the applicant had been drawn by experts who had not examined him in person. However, this argument could not be considered valid as the Government had failed to organise an expert medical examination in disregard of the interim measure indicated by the Court and the authorities had denied the applicant access to medical experts of his choice. The Government had failed to demonstrate that the applicant had been receiving effective medical treatment for his illnesses while in detention. As a result of the lack of comprehensive and adequate medical treatment, the applicant was exposed to prolonged mental and physical suffering diminishing his human dignity. The authorities’ failure to provide him with the medical care he needed had thus amounted to inhuman and degrading treatment within the meaning of Article 3.
Conclusion: violation (unanimously).
Article 5 § 3: The applicant had been kept in detention on remand for more than a year. The Court accepted the existence of a reasonable suspicion that he had committed the offences with which he was charged, as well as the particularly serious nature of those offences. As regards the danger of the applicant’s absconding, the domestic courts had taken into consideration the sentence the applicant would face if found guilty as charged, his personality, his connections and his powers stemming from his position as mayor and his political and social stance, as well as the likelihood that he would influence witnesses. Considering these factors cumulatively, the domestic courts could have validly presumed that a risk existed that, if released, the applicant could abscond, reoffend or interfere with the proceedings. Moreover, the risk of absconding or perverting the course of justice had persisted throughout the entire period of the applicant’s detention. Although his state of health considerably reduced the risk of his absconding, it nevertheless could not entirely mitigate that risk. Considering also the considerable complexity of the proceedings, the Court found that the national authorities had put forward relevant and sufficient reasons to justify the applicant’s detention and had not displayed a lack of special diligence in handling his case.
Conclusion: no violation (unanimously).
Article 46: The authorities were required to admit the applicant to a specialised medical facility where he would remain under constant medical supervision and be provided with adequate medical services. They were also required to regularly re-examine the applicant’s situation, including with the assistance of independent medical experts.
Article 41: EUR 15,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage.
(See also Mamedova v. Russia, 7064/05, 1 June 2006, Information Note 87; Khudobin v. Russia, 59696/00, 26 October 2006, Information Note 90; Belevitskiy v. Russia, 72967/01, 1 March 2007; Gurenko v. Russia, 41828/10, 5 February 2013; Bubnov v. Russia, 76317/11, 5 February 2013; Budanov v. Russia, 66583/11, 9 January 2014, and Gorelov v. Russia, 49072/11, 9 January 2014; and see, more generally, the Factsheet on Prisoners’ health-related rights)

© Council of Europe/European Court of Human Rights
This summary by the Registry does not bind the Court.
Click here for the Case-Law Information Notes