Communicated on 21 June 2017

FIRST SECTION

Application no. 54547/16 Vahan SHIRKHANYAN against Armenia lodged on 16 September 2016

STATEMENT OF FACTS

The applicant, Mr Vahan Shirkhanyan, is an Armenian national who was born in 1947 and lives in Yerevan. He is represented before the Court by Ms A. Maralyan and Ms K.A. Moskalenko, lawyers based in Strasbourg.

A. The circumstances of the case

The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows.

1. Background to the case

1. The applicant was the Deputy Minister of Defence for Armenia from 1995 to 1999. He formerly held other high-ranking positions in the Armenian Government.

2. On 24 November 2015 the National Security Service (“the NSS”) arrested an armed group in Yerevan. On the same date the NSS instituted criminal proceedings against A.V., the alleged creator and head of the discovered criminal group.

3. On 25 November 2015 the NSS published the following statement:

“As a result of operative investigative measures undertaken by [the NSS] an organised crime group, which had intended to commit a number of grave offences in the territory of the Republic of Armenia, was discovered.

In 2015 an Armenian citizen, former resident of Yerevan, A.V., who currently resides abroad, arrived in Armenia, created and headed a criminal group. The organised crime group, with prior agreement, illegally acquired a large amount of arms and munitions which were then hidden in Nork district in Yerevan in a house rented specially for that purpose.

...

The Investigative department of [the NSS] has instituted criminal proceedings under Article 223 §§ 1 and 2 and Article 234 § 3 of the Criminal Code; the investigation is underway ...”

2. The applicant ’ s arrest and detention

4. On 19 December 2015 the applicant was arrested by NSS officers on suspicion of his participation in the organised crime group discovered on 24 November 2015. The record of the applicant ’ s arrest stated, in particular, the following:

“... an eyewitness has directly indicated [the applicant] as the person who committed an act prohibited by the criminal law, clear evidence substantiating his involvement in an act prohibited by criminal law has been discovered and [the applicant] is suspected of committing such a crime which is punishable by imprisonment ...”

5. On the same date the applicant was questioned as a suspect and stated, inter alia , that he had become acquiainted with A.V. when, at some point, the latter was introduced to him by a mutual acquaintance. He categorically denied having known anything about A.V. ’ s alleged criminal activity.

6. On 21 December 2015 the applicant was charged under Article 223 § 2 of the Criminal Code (participation in a criminal association).

7. On the same date the investigator decided to lodge 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:

“Taking into account the nature and social danger of the act committed by [the applicant], its gravity, the fact that, if he remains at large, he may hide from the investigating authority, obstruct the investigation by exerting unlawful influence on the participants to the proceedings or may be subject to such influence; besides, there are grounds to believe that other persons who were criminally associated with [the applicant] and others who have possibly not yet been discovered and disarmed, whereas if he remains at liberty the discovery of such persons will become much more difficult and will raise the probability of their evading criminal responsibility ...”

8. Later on the same date, at the hearing before the Kentron and Nork-Marash District Court of Yerevan (“the District Court”), the applicant argued that no evidence had been produced to substantiate that there were grounds to believe that if at large he would hide from the investigating authority. He had been at liberty for about a month after the discovery of the criminal group and had had the possibility to go into hiding. Moreover, he had described the circumstances in which he had got to know the other accused in the case and he also had health problems and a permanent place of residence. He asked for the investigator ’ s request to be rejected or, if it were granted, for an alternative preventive measure to be applied.

9. By a decision of the same date the District Court ordered the applicant ’ s pre-trial detention for a period of two months and refused to release him on bail. It stated, in particular, the following:

“Having examined the [investigator ’ s] request, the materials of the criminal case and taking into account that the submitted materials ... affirm the reasonable suspicion that [the applicant] has been involved in the crime imputed to him; also the nature and the degree of social danger[ousness] of the offence ..., the fact that, if remains at liberty, he may obstruct the investigation by exerting unlawful influence on the participants to the proceedings; besides, Article 223 § 2 of the Criminal Code is regarded as a grave crime which is punishable by six to ten years ’ imprisonment with or without confiscation of property, the court finds that the request is well-founded and should be granted.”

10. On 25 December 2015 the applicant lodged an appeal.

11. By a decision of 22 January 2016 the Criminal Court of Appeal (“the Court of Appeal”) upheld the decision of 21 December 2015 considering that the findings of the District Court were in compliance with the requirements of the law and substantiated by the facts of the case.

12. On 9 February the investigator decided to lodge a request with the District Court, seeking the extension of the applicant ’ s pre-trial detention by two months on the ground that it was necessary to continue the investigation, to conduct interviews, confrontations and examinations, and because the grounds for holding the applicant in custody still persisted.

13. On 14 February 2016 the District Court decided to extend the applicant ’ s pre-trial detention by two months on the same grounds as those stated in its decision of 21 December 2015 and with reference to the reasons stated in the investigator ’ s request.

14. The applicant lodged an appeal, which was rejected by the Court of Appeal on 12 March 2016.

15. On 6 April 2016 the applicant lodged an appeal on points of law against the decision of the Court of Appeal of 12 March 2016.

16. On 8 April 2016 the investigator applied for an extension of the applicant ’ s pre-trial detention by further two months on the ground that it was necessary to carry out additional investigative measures, to wait for the results of the forensic medical examination of the applicant ’ s state of health that had been ordered earlier, and because the grounds for holding him in custody still persisted.

17. By a decision of 13 April 2016 the District Court extended the applicant ’ s pre-trial detention by two months, stating that the reasonable suspicion that he had committed the crime with which he had been charged still persisted and that there were grounds to believe that he could obstruct the investigation, hide from the investigating authority and evade criminal liability.

18. On 18 April 2016 the applicant lodged an appeal against this decision.

19. By a decision of 28 April 2016 the Court of Appeal upheld the decision of 13 April 2016.

20. On 11 May 2016 the applicant lodged an appeal on points of law against the decision of the Court of Appeal of 28 April 2016.

21. On 16 May 2016 the Court of Cassation decided to leave the applicant ’ s appeal on points of law against the decision of the Court of Appeal of 12 March 2016 unexamined for failure to respect the time-limits for lodging an appeal.

22. On 10 June 2016 the Court of Cassation refused to accept the applicant ’ s appeal on points of law against the decision of the Court of Appeal of 28 April 2016 for failure to meet a formal requirement concerning submission of supporting documents. The Court of Cassation allowed the applicant two days to resubmit his appeal on points of law.

23. On 17 June 2016 the applicant resubmitted his appeal against the decision of the Court of Appeal of 12 March 2016, together with documentary proof that the decision of the Court of Cassation of 10 June 2016 had been received on 15 June 2016.

24. On 8 June 2016 the investigator requested an extension of the applicant ’ s pre-trial detention for a further two-month period on the ground that it was necessary to continue the investigation in order to establish whether other persons had been involved in the commission of the crime and because the grounds for holding him in custody still persisted.

25. On 14 June 2016 the District Court ordered the extension of the applicant ’ s pre-trial detention by another two months on the same grounds as before.

26. On 18 June 2016 the applicant lodged an appeal against this decision.

27. On 13 July 2016 the Court of Appeal upheld the District Court ’ s decision of 14 June 2016.

28. On 29 July 2016 the applicant lodged an appeal on points of law against the decision of 13 July 2016.

29. On 8 August 2016 the investigator requested a further extension of the applicant ’ s detention for a period of two months. The relevant request relied on the same grounds as those referred to in the request of 8 June 2016.

30. By a decision of 11 August 2016 the District Court granted the investigator ’ s request by extending the applicant ’ s pre-trial detention for another two-month period on similar grounds to those relied on in its previous decisions.

31. On 16 August 2016 the applicant appealed against this decision.

32. On 14 September 2016 the Court of Appeal upheld the District Court ’ s decision of 11 August 2016.

33. On 29 September 2016 the applicant lodged an appeal on points of law.

34. On 7 October 2016 the investigator requested a further two ‑ month extension of the applicant ’ s pre-trial detention on the same grounds as before. The relevant decision stated that on 20 September 2016 the investigation was completed. The materials of the criminal case (35 volumes) were made available to the applicant and his lawyer on 4 October 2016.

35. On 12 October 2016 the District Court extended the applicant ’ s pre-trial detention for two months. It referred to the grounds relied on in its previous decisions.

36. On 15 October 2016 the applicant appealed against this decision.

37. It appears that on 21 October 2016 Judge A. of the District Court took over the case.

38. On 28 October 2016 the Court of Cassation declared the applicant ’ s appeal on points of law against the decision of the Court of Appeal of 13 July 2016 inadmissible for lack of merit.

39. On 2 November 2016 the Court of Appeal upheld the decision of the District Court of 12 October 2016.

40. On 15 November 2016 the applicant lodged an appeal on points of law against this decision.

41. It appears that on 24 November 2016 the Prosecutor made an application to the District Court seeking to prohibit visits and telephone calls to the accused in the case, including the applicant.

42. On the same date Judge A. made a decision to set the case down for trial. The relevant parts of the decision read as follows:

“... having examined the materials of the criminal case and the [prosecutor ’ s] request... I find that it should be granted ... the visits of ... , [the applicant] ... should be prohibited.

...

Having examined the preventive measure chosen in respect of [the applicant] ... I find that it should remain unchanged since its necessity persists.”

43. On 5 December 2016 the applicant lodged an appeal against this decision. He argued, in particular, that the District Court had referred to the reasons for the necessity of his detention previously relied upon, and in particular the risk of him obstructing the investigation, whereas it had failed to provide any reasons for considering that such a ground for his detention could be regarded as relevant at the given stage of the proceedings.

44. On 26 December 2016 the Court of Cassation declared the applicant ’ s appeal on points of law against the decision of the Court of Appeal of 2 November 2016 inadmissible for lack of merit.

3. The applicant ’ s state of health and conditions of his detention

45. Prior to being remanded in custody the applicant had had two operations. In May 2013 two veins had been removed from his right leg in V. Avagyan Medical Centre and in spring 2015 he had undergone surgery on his kidney. It appears that the applicant had arterial problems also in his left leg.

46. On 30 January 2016 the applicant ’ s lawyer applied to the investigator, seeking permission to transfer the applicant to V. Avagyan Medical Centre to undergo examination and urgent surgical intervention in view of the deterioration of his health due to the presence of thrombosis in his left leg.

47. By a decision of 3 February 2016 the investigator rejected the application of 30 January 2016 and referred the arguments concerning the applicant ’ s state of health to the administration of the detention facility.

48. On 8 February 2016 the applicant ’ s lawyer applied to the Head of the Penitentiary Service of the Ministry of Justice (“the Penitentiary Service”) seeking the applicant ’ s urgent transfer to V. Avagyan Medical Centre due to drastic deterioration in his health as a result of the progress of thrombosis in the left leg.

49. In reply, on 12 February 2016 the applicant ’ s lawyer was informed that on 2 February 2016 the applicant had been examined by a surgeon who had recommended a duplex scan of the lower extremities. On 5 February 2016 the Head of the Penitentiary Service had applied to the Minister of Health in order to organise the recommended medical examination within the framework of free medical assistance provided by the State.

50. On 15 February 2016 the applicant underwent a duplex scan of the lower extremities. It appears that on the same date the applicant ’ s lawyer requested the results of the examination, including a copy of the scan image.

51. On 16 February 2016 the applicant was examined by a vascular surgeon from the Armenia Medical Centre who visited him in the detention facility. According to the relevant record, the applicant did not need surgery. Conservative treatment with medication was prescribed.

52. On 19 February 2016 the applicant ’ s lawyer informed the Head of the Penitentiary Service that, contrary to his request, he had not been provided with the scan image. The medical personnel who had carried out the examination had stated that the applicant ’ s examination had not been recorded on film and the data had not been saved, due to a technical problem with the equipment. The lawyer requested that the applicant undergo another examination whereby it would be possible to have the results recorded.

53. On 24 February 2016 the Penitentiary Service refused the request to arrange another duplex scan.

54. On 10 March 2016 the applicant asked to be examined by his doctor.

55. On 17 March 2016 the applicant ’ s doctor was allowed to visit him. The doctor recorded that the applicant complained of pain, fatigue and numbness in the lower extremities. He recommended that the applicant undergo arterial duplex scanning of the lower extremities in order to obtain accurate data concerning his state of health.

56. On 18 March 2016 the applicant ’ s doctor visited him again and ordered his urgent transfer to hospital by ambulance. On the same day the applicant underwent surgery in V. Avagyan Medical Centre. A vascular filter was implanted to prevent the progress of thrombosis in his left leg.

57. On 21 March 2016 the applicant was taken back to the detention facility. The applicant ’ s discharge record stated the following:

“... the patient is being transferred to the Yerevan Kentron detention facility with continued further treatment... Surveillance by an angiologist; duplex scan in 3 months; chest radiography examination in 2 weeks. Medication: Detralex ... twice a day for 2 months; Xarelto ... twice a day for 3 weeks; Azitrox ... once a day for 7 days ...; Nebilet ... once a day ...; Amprilan ... once a day; Persen cardio ... once a day...; Trittico before going to sleep; elastic bandaging.”

58. The applicant alleges that he did not receive adequate post-operative care after his return to the detention facility.

59. On 25 March 2016 the investigator ordered a forensic medical examination of the applicant. The experts were requested to determine, inter alia , whether the applicant ’ s treatment could be organised in the detention facility, and whether his treatment, including the implantation of the vascular filter, had been necessary.

60. On 2 April 2016 the applicant underwent radiography and X-ray examinations at V. Avagyan Medical Centre.

61. On 8 April 2016 the forensic medical examination was completed. According to the experts ’ report, the implantation of the vascular filter had been absolutely necessary to prevent life-threatening pulmonary thromboembolism. Upon discharge from V. Avagyan Medical Centre the applicant had received appropriate recommendations for his treatment which could be organised in the detention facility.

62. According to the record made by the doctor of V. Avagyan Medical Centre on 18 April 2016, the applicant ’ s state of health was satisfactory in the light of the results of his examinations of 4 April 2016.

63. On 20 May 2016 the applicant underwent arterial duplex scanning and a chest X-ray examination at V. Avagyan Medical Centre.

64. On 7 July 2016 the applicant was examined by his neurologist who advised MRI (magnetic resonance imaging) and MRT (magnetic resonance tomography) examinations, a transcranial Doppler ultrasound test and dynamic supervision.

65. On 20 July 2016 the Centre de la Protection Internationale , an international human rights association based in Strasbourg, made an application to the Human Rights Defender requesting that he examine the situation regarding the applicant ’ s health and the authorities ’ reluctance to provide him with adequate medical assistance.

66. On 3 August 2016 the applicant underwent an MRT examination.

67. On 4 August 2016 he underwent a transcranial Doppler examination which concluded that he had moderate reduction of blood flow in the brain.

68. On 11 August 2016 the applicant was examined by his neurologist who diagnosed multifocal brain damage, vascular encephalopathy and gross impairment of coordination. In view of the deterioration of the applicant ’ s condition, the doctor prescribed several medical examinations and recommended in-patient treatment in a specialist hospital.

69. On 26 September 2016 the applicant was examined by an angiologist at V. Avagyan Medical Centre, who recommended duplex scanning, a d ‑ dimer blood test and a radiography examination, taking into account that six months had passed since the surgery.

70. On the same date the applicant ’ s lawyer made a request to the administration of the detention facility, asking them to organise the examinations indicated by the doctor. Having received no reply, the applicant ’ s lawyer sent a similar request on 30 September 2016. At the same time, he complained to the Human Rights Defender of the inactivity of the administration of the detention facility.

71. On 5 October 2016 a medical panel consisting of six doctors examined the applicant and the documents relating to his medical examinations. They recorded that the applicant complained of pain in the chest area, a burning sensation in the lower extremities and vertigo. The panel suggested continuing the applicant ’ s medical examinations.

72. In October 2016 the applicant underwent another set of duplex scan, ultrasound and radiography examinations in different medical centres.

73. By a decision of 10 November 2016 the Human Rights Defender found a violation of the applicant ’ s rights guaranteed by the Constitution and international treaties. The relevant parts of the decision read as follows:

“... Neither Yerevan Kentron detention facility nor the Central Prison Hospital have an angiology unit or department... therefore the Human Rights Defender finds that [the applicant ’ s] medical treatment in the detention facility is inadequate. In such cases persons deprived of liberty should be transferred to a specialist medical centre...

Besides, according to the Ministry of Justice ... neurologist ... invited by [the applicant ’ s] relatives had indicated a number of medical examinations to be carried out in his respect, in particular “brain MRT”, “1,5 Tesla MRI scan”, “doppler ultrasound test” which were done on 3 and 4 August 2016.

However, during their visit to the ... Yerevan Kentron detention facility on 11 October 2016 the members of the staff of the [Human Rights Defender ’ s Office] did not find any document attesting the fact that the “1 ,5 Tesla MRI scan” advised by neurologist ... had been carried out ...

The applicant ’ s care during the entire period of his stay at the detention facility has been ensured by cell-mates ... In these circumstances it is evident that [the applicant] has not been provided with proper specialist care.

The Human Rights Defender considers that [the applicant ’ s] care by his cell-mates would not be problematic if the Ministry of Justice had submitted arguments which would establish that such care had been provided by a person deprived of liberty who had the relevant training.

Furthermore, the Ministry of Justice had failed to provide evidence, including relevant medical reports, substantiating the absence of the necessity to transfer the applicant to civilian medical institutions.

In view of the foregoing... I decide

1. To find it established that a violation of [the applicant ’ s] rights has taken place.

2. To propose to the Minister of Justice to:

1) transfer the applicant immediately to a civilian hospital for him to receive adequate care

2) rule out the applicant ’ s assistance by another person deprived of liberty ...”

74 . On 18 November 2016 a medical panel consisting of four doctors examined the applicant and the results of his medical examinations. In its conclusion the panel stated, in particular, the following:

“It is recommended to conduct a Holter monitor test and echocardiography ... lumbar spine CT scan ...

At present [the applicant] does not need inpatient treatment. It is proposed to return to this issue upon receipt of the results of the recommended examinations.”

75. In November 2016 the applicant underwent several other medical examinations, including computer tomography, a Holter monitor test, and electroneuromyography. Conservative treatment with medication was recommended. Prescriptions for two types of medication were made for a period of ten days.

76. On 25 November 2016 the applicant ’ s lawyer sent a written query to the Head of the Yerevan Kentron detention facility asking to be informed of when the applicant had last bathed.

77. By letter of 29 November 2016 the Head of the Yerevan Kentron detention facility stated the following:

“[The applicant] has refused to bathe since 12.08.2016. He has been offered the possibility to bathe regularly, according to the time schedule of the detention facility, but he has refused. He has stated that he would take a bath only in a bath tub and moreover with the help of his wife.”

78. In December 2016 the Public Observers Group to Monitor Penal Institutions and Entities under the Ministry of Justice (“the Public Observers Group”) visited the applicant and stated in its report to the Minister of Justice that, although according to the medical data the applicant ’ s medical treatment could be organised in the detention facility, his state of health had obviously deteriorated. The Public Observers Group proposed the applicant ’ s transfer to a civilian hospital, taking into account that his treatment in the detention facility had not produced any results.

79. It appears that on 9 January 2017 the applicant asked to be provided with a wheelchair in view of his mobility problems, which was refused.

80. On 9 February 2017 the Court requested information from the Government concerning the applicant ’ s state of health and medical and other care provided in detention.

81. On 22 February 2017 the Government replied to the questions put by the Court and stated that the Head of the Penitentiary Service had granted permission to transfer the applicant to a civilian hospital for examination and treatment the next day.

82. On 23 February 2017 the applicant was taken to Erebouni Medical Centre. According to the applicant, for the first time in seven months he was able to meet his hygienic needs (that is, to take a shower) and he received treatment which provided some relief from the constant pain he suffers.

83. On 3 March 2017 the applicant was discharged from hospital and transferred back to the Yerevan Kentron detention facility. According to the applicant ’ s discharge record, he suffers from lumbar degenerative disc disease, lumbago (low back pain), radiculopathy, heart problems, pulmonary artery thromboembolism, enlarged prostate, kidney cysts and post-thrombotic syndrome affecting the lower extremities. The doctors recorded that the applicant could not stand independently to undergo certain neurological examinations. They prescribed medication and advised supervision by a vascular surgeon, neurosurgeon, cardiologist and urologist. Also, several additional medical examinations were prescribed.

84. On 5 March 2017 the applicant ’ s lawyer issued a media report concerning the conditions of the applicant ’ s detention following his return from treatment in hospital. According to the report, he was placed in the worst cell of the detention facility: it is extremely damp, the walls are covered with mould, and it is very narrow, with the beds so close to each other that even a healthy person would have difficulty moving around. The applicant was placed in a cell measuring 15 sq. m. with four other detainees and a fifth detainee was brought in after he complained to the administration about the conditions in the new cell.

85. The Public Observers Group tried to visit the applicant on 6 March 2017 in order to check the conditions of his detention. The administration of the detention facility refused the observers access to the applicant ’ s cell. In their report to the media in this respect the Public Observers Group stated that such a ban made it appear likely that the disseminated information on the applicant ’ s detention conditions was accurate.

86. According to the applicant ’ s submission, he currently receives some but not all of the medication prescribed, that is he receives blood pressure medication but does not receive the medication which is vital for his back problems and problems with the lower extremities. As at 22 March 2016 the additional examinations indicated in the discharge note of 3 March 2016 had not been carried out and he was not being supervised by a vascular surgeon, neurosurgeon, cardiologist and urologist.

4. The alleged hindrance to the exercise of the applicant ’ s right of individual petition

87. By an authority form signed on 19 May 2016 the applicant authorised Ms A. Maralyan, legal expert at the Centre de la Protection Internationale based in Strasbourg, to represent him in the proceedings before the Court.

88. On 17 June 2016 Ms Maralyan applied to the administration of the Yerevan Kentron detention facility, seeking a private meeting with the applicant. Her request was refused on the same date.

89. On 30 June 2016 Ms Maralyan asked the investigator to grant her permission to have a private meeting with the applicant as his representative before the Court.

90. On 4 July 2016 the investigator informed her that the investigating authority had no power to grant her the permission sought, while she had the right to have a non-private meeting with the applicant, taking into account that there was no restriction on the latter ’ s visits and telephone calls.

91. On 1 August 2016 the applicant lodged a complaint with the District Court seeking permission to have a private meeting with his representative before the Court, stating that the prohibition of such a meeting was in breach of Article 34 of the Convention. It appears that no decision has yet been taken in this regard.

92. On 24 August 2016 Ms Maralyan once again applied to the administration of the Yerevan Kentron detention facility seeking a private meeting with the applicant. Her request was refused on the same date.

93. On 31 August 2016 Ms Maralyan had a non-private meeting with the applicant in the presence of prison guards.

94. On 16 September 2016 the applicant lodged a completed application form with the Court whereby he authorised Ms Maralyan and Ms K. Moskalenko, a lawyer practising in Moscow, both from the Centre de la Protection Internationale , to represent him in the proceedings before the Court.

95. According to the applicant, on 27 October 2016 Ms Maralyan requested a meeting with him. Having waited for hours for permission to meet him, she was eventually informed at 5 p.m. that no meetings were allowed past this hour.

96. On 20 January 2017 Ms Moskalenko requested permission to have a private meeting with the applicant in order to discuss certain issues with regard to the latter ’ s application before the Court. It appears that the administration of the detention facility refused this request.

B. Relevant domestic law

97. 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 (« Ձերբակալված և կալանավորված անձանց պահելու մասին » ՀՀ օրենք )

98. 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.

99. According to Article 15, an arrested or detained person has the right to meet in private with his defence lawyer or a lawyer who has asked to visit him with the purpose of assuming his defence, without limitation as to the number and duration of visits, irrespective of working days or hours.

Upon a detained person ’ s request the investigating authority may grant him permission to have private meetings with a lawyer who is not his defence lawyer in the criminal case, if that is required for the provision of legal assistance which is not related to the examination of the criminal case.

100. 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 his state of health is incompatible with the conditions of his detention and that the authorities continually fail to provide him with adequate treatment and care. According to the applicant, he currently cannot move independently or sit for more than 15-20 minutes, suffers dizziness when standing, noise in his head and severe pain in the spine and legs, including sudden leg cramps. He cannot take care of himself, and the authorities do not ensure assistance in meeting his daily needs. Furthermore, he has to stay in a damp and smoky cell day and night, without having the possibility at least to move within the cell.

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. He also complains under Article 13 of the Convention that he has not had an effective remedy at his disposal for his complaints under Article 3 of the Convention.

4. Lastly, the applicant complains under Article 34 of the Convention about the authorities ’ refusal to allow private meetings with his representatives before the 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, in accordance with his state of health? In particular, has the applicant received and does he continue to receive the treatment, including medication, prescribed to him?

- Is the applicant ’ s current state of health compatible with the conditions of his detention?

The Government are requested to inform the Court in a detailed manner and with reference to a recent, independent medical opinion, about the current state of the applicant ’ s health and its compatibility with the conditions of his detention.

- Having regard to the applicant ’ s current condition, i s he adequately assisted by the medical or other personnel of the detention facility?

The Government are requested to inform the Court of the manner in which the applicant is assisted in meeting his daily needs (for instance, going to the toilet, bathing, getting dressed, moving within the cell, going for a walk, etc.) and provide relevant documents.

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

4. Has there been any hindrance by the State in the present case to the effective exercise of the applicant ’ s right of application, ensured by Article 34 of the Convention? In that context, the Government are asked to refer, in particular, to the fact that the applicant was refused private meetings with the lawyers representing him before the Court.

The Government are requested to provide the Court with a full and legible copy of the applicant ’ s medical file.