Communicated on 16 September 2016

THIRD SECTION

Application no. 47061/15 Amur Abubovich KHAKULOV against Russia lodged on 25 September 2015

STATEMENT OF FACTS

The applicant, Mr Amur Abubovich Khakulov , is a Russian national who was born in 1972 and is currently detained in the Kirov Region. He is represented before the Court by Ms V. Kogan and Mr E. Wesselink , lawyers practising in Moscow, Russia and Utrecht, the Netherlands.

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

A. Criminal proceedings

On 26 October 2005 the applicant was arrested on suspicion of participating in a raid by a large group of militants on a number of buildings associated with the Russian security forces in Nalchik.

On 23 December 2015 the Supreme Court of the Kabardino-Balkariya Republic convicted him of banditry, mutiny, attempts on the life of law ‑ enforcement officers and other offences. He was sentenced to twenty years ’ imprisonment in a high-security correctional colony.

On 28 January 2016 the Supreme Court of Russia reduced the sentence to nineteen years.

On 15 March 2016 the applicant was sent to serve his sentence in a correctional colony in the Kirov Region.

B. Medical treatment in detention

During the first years of his detention the applicant did not complain about any health problems. In October 2014, while in remand prison no. IZ ‑ 7/1 in Nalchik, he started experiencing serious back pain.

A medical examination showed that he suffered from type 2 diabetes, diabetic kidney disease, stage II chronic renal failure, azotemia and stage III chronic kidney disease.

According to the applicant, on 21 November 2014 a senior nephrologist prescribed him Ketosteril , medication for preventing and treating kidney damage. However, he did not receive either Ketosteril or the special diet absolutely necessary for his medical condition.

For the first two weeks of April 2015 the applicant underwent medical treatment in a prison medical facility in Vladikavkaz in the Republic of Northern Ossetia- Alaniya .

On 8 May 2015 he was classified as Category 3 disabled.

On 16 July 2015 the governor of the applicant ’ s remand prison acknowledged the unavailability of Ketosteril and asked the Ministry of Health of the Kabardino-Balkariya Republic to ensure its supply.

The applicant continued complaining of vertigo and oedema . Creatinine tests indicated that his medical condition had rapidly deteriorated.

On 25 September 2015 the applicant ’ s representative asked the Court to indicate to the Government, under Rule 39 of the Rules of Court, that the applicant ’ s health should be maintained by the appropriate medical examinations and care. The Court asked the Government to submit factual information describing the applicant ’ s state of health and the quality of the medical treatment required for and provided to him, including the need for or possibility of haemodialysis .

The information submitted by the Government suggests that since 19 October 2015 the applicant has been receiving the prescribed drugs without any interruption. The applicant confirmed that there was a signed agreement ensuring the supply of Ketosteril .

On 6 November 2015, having carried out a thorough medical examination of the applicant, the Russian authorities established that his chronic kidney disease had progressed to the terminal stage. It seems that haemodialysis had not yet been prescribed to him at that time.

On 14 January 2016, having studied the information provided by the parties in connection with the Rule 39 request, the Court decided not to indicate to the Government the interim measures sought.

On 21 January 2016 a medical panel, without referring to any specific medical condition in their conclusion, reported that the applicant ’ s state of health could warrant his release from detention on health grounds.

On 2 February 2016 the applicant ’ s lawyer asked the regional hospital in Nalchik to inform him whether the applicant was in need of any specific medical treatment. According to its reply sent on 3 February 2016, the applicant needed haemodialysis . The urgency of the procedure had to be determined by a doctor.

On 16 March 2016, after the detention authorities started the applicant ’ s transfer to the correctional colony, his lawyer again asked the Court, under Rule 39 of the Rules of Court, to ensure that he immediately underwent a full medical examination and treatment.

The next day the Court indicated to the Russian Government that the applicant should be provided with haemodialysis during his transfer to the correctional colony in line with the prescriptions made by his attending doctor. The Court also asked the Government to submit information regarding his itinerary to the colony and his medical condition.

Medical certificates prepared by prison doctors on 23, 28 and 31 March 2016 and submitted by the Government to the Court show that the applicant was in satisfactory health and did not need haemodialysis . By 1 April 2016, his transfer to the correctional colony was almost complete, the final stop having been made in Kazan in the Republic of Tatarstan . On 5 April 2016 he was sent to the destination, the colony located in the Kirov Region.

On 19 April 2016, having considered the information concerning the applicant ’ s well-being and conditions of his transfer, the Court lifted the interim measure applied on 17 March 2016.

C. Application for release on health grounds

In the meantime, in January 2016 the applicant ’ s lawyer applied to the Supreme Court of Russia seeking his client ’ s release on health grounds. He relied on the medical report of 21 January 2016.

By a letter of 25 January 2016 the Supreme Court of Russia dismissed the request. According to its findings, the medical report of 21 January 2016 was vague and contradictory, and did not mention any specific diagnosis warranting the applicant ’ s release.

D. Complaints about the quality of the medical treatment

1. Complaints to the remand prison authorities

On 22 and 23 September 2015 the applicant ’ s lawyer made enquiries with the remand prison authorities about his client ’ s state of health and asked them to ensure his transfer to a specialist hospital for inpatient treatment, including haemodialysis .

In letters of 5 and 8 October 2015 the remand prison authorities noted that the applicant was being afforded adequate medical treatment and given all the necessary drugs.

2. Complaints to the prosecutor ’ s office

On 24 April 2015 the applicant ’ s wife complained to the prosecutor ’ s office of the Kabardino-Balkariya Republic (“the prosecutor ’ s office”) and the head of the Federal Service for the Execution of Sentences of the Kabardino-Balkariya Republic about the applicant ’ s treatment and inability to receive the prescribed medication.

On an unspecified date, apparently in August 2015, she lodged complaints regarding the applicant ’ s treatment with the Prosecutor General ’ s Office, the prosecutor ’ s office and the regional ombudsman.

By a letter of 17 October 2015 the prosecutor ’ s office informed the applicant ’ s wife that its investigation had shown that the applicant was under close medical supervision and was receiving the required medical treatment. Accordingly, there were no grounds for the prosecutor ’ s measures.

3. Court claims

On 22 September and 9 October 2015 the applicant ’ s wife and lawyer lodged two claims with the Nalchik Town Court of the Kabardino-Balkariya Republic: one under the Code of Administrative Procedure and another under the Code of Civil Procedure. They challenged the idle attitude of the detention authorities towards the applicant ’ s health problems. In particular, they argued that the applicant was not being provided with the prescribed medication and had no access to haemodialysis .

On 26 January 2016 the two claims were returned without examination on the merits, as the court found that the people who had signed them had no authority to do so.

There is nothing to suggest that the dismissal was appealed against by the applicant or his representatives.

COMPLAINTS

1. Relying on Article 3 of the Convention, the applicant complains that the authorities failed to provide him with adequate medical treatment in connection with his kidney disease. In particular, the authorities failed to provide him with certain prescribed medication and haemodialysis .

2. The applicant also claims that he does not have an effective remedy to complain about those violations of the guarantees against ill-treatment, as required under Article 13 of the Convention.

QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES

1. Taking into account the applicant ’ s medical history, have the Government met their obligation to ensure that his health and well-being are being adequately secured by providing him with the requisite medical assistance in respect of his kidney condition, as required by Article 3 of the Convention?

The parties are invited to answer the following questions:

a) When did the authorities become aware of the applicant ’ s kidney condition?

b) When did the diagnosis and treatment of this condition begin?

c) What is the standard treatment for chronic kidney disease?

d) Has the applicant been provided with all the prescribed medication? If not, for how long has he been unable to receive it?

e) Has a special diet been prescribed to the applicant? If yes, has it been given to him?

f) Has haemodialysis been prescribed and provided in a timely manner to the applicant?

The Government are asked to provide a copy of the original and typed versions of the applicant ’ s medical records since 2005 relating to the diagnosis and treatment of his kidney condition, including doctors ’ prescriptions and notes indicating their implementation.

2. Does the applicant have at his disposal effective domestic remedies – as required by Article 13 of the Convention – for his complaint of a lack of effective medical treatment in detention? In particular, do the provisions of the Code of Administrative Procedure constitute an effective domestic remedy capable of providing a detainee with redress for absent or inadequate medical treatment? If yes, the Government are invited to illustrate the practical effectiveness of that remedy with examples of case ‑ law of the domestic courts.