Communicated on 19 July 2017

FOURTH SECTION

Application no. 31283/17 Aleksandr Mikhaylovich OSIPENKOV against Ukraine lodged on 27 April 2017

SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE

The application concerns alleged lack of medical assistance and treatment of a detainee ’ s heart diseases. The applicant has been held in the Chernigiv pre-trial detention centre (the SIZO) since 22 July 2016. He was diagnosed , among other conditions, with myocardial infarction, hepatitis C, HIV positive (IV stage), and pyelonephritis. During his detention he had two heart attacks (in September 2016 and in June 2017). An ambulance was called more than 20 times in connection with deterioration of his health. The applicant receives certain treatment at the SIZO with occasional examinations in civil hospitals. In February 2017 the Chernigiv city hospital informed the prosecution authorities about the existence of a high risk for the applicant ’ s life in connection with his diseases. The applicant requested the trial court to change the preventive measure in connection with his state of health. On 27 April 2017 the Chernigiv District Court of Chernigiv Region refused that request considering that the applicant would be provided with necessary medical treatment while in the SIZO.

On 23 May 2017, the Court applied an interim measure in the case in accordance with Rule 39 of the Rules of Court, indicating to the respondent Government that “they should immediately secure that the recommended treatment is currently available and provided to the applicant and place the applicant into a specialised medical institution for medical treatment, including surgery, if appropriate”. According to the applicant, he remains at the SIZO without access to adequate medical treatment and assistance.

Referring to Article 3 of the Convention the applicant complains that he was not given access to appropriate medical assistance while detained. He also complains under Article 13 of the Convention that he did not have an effective domestic remedy for his complaint under Article 3. Invoking Article 34 of the Convention the applicant complains that the respondent Government failed to fulfil their obligation to comply with the interim measure indicated by the Court.

QUESTIONS tO THE PARTIES

1. Was the medical assistance and treatment provided to the applicant while in detention in compliance with the requirements of Article 3 of the Convention?

2. Did the applicant have at his disposal an effective domestic remedy for his complaint under Article 3, as required by Article 13 of the Convention?

3. Having regard to the measures taken in response to the Court ’ s decision of 23 May 2017 to indicate an interim measure under Rule 39 of the Rules of Court, was there a hindrance by the State in the present case with the effective exercise of the applicant ’ s right of application, ensured by Article 34 of the Convention?