Communicated on 16 June 2016

THIRD SECTION

Application no. 1647/16 Ruslan Eliyevich KHUSEYNOV against Russia lodged on 25 January 2016

STATEMENT OF FACTS

The applicant, Mr Ruslan Eliyevich Khuseynov , is a Russian national who was born in 1975 and is currently detained in correctional colony no. IK-68/1 in Vladikavkaz, Republic of Northern Ossetia ‑ Alaniya . He is represented before the Court by Mr V. Shukhardin , a lawyer practising in Moscow.

The circumstances of the case

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

1. Conviction

On 21 January 2013 t he applicant was arrested on suspicion of drug trafficking and taken to remand prison no. 20/1 in Grozny, Chechen Republic (“the remand prison”).

On 17 July 2014 the Gudermes Town Court of the Chechen Republic convicted the applicant as charged and sentenced him to thirteen years ’ imprisonment.

2. Medical treatment

During a medical check-up upon his admission to the remand prison, a doctor noted an area of pigmentation on the applicant ’ s face and ordered a biopsy. The test, performed on 27 February 2013 in the Regional Cancer Hospital in Grozny, revealed melanoma, a type of skin cancer. Radiation therapy and surgery were prescribed.

In October and November 2013 the applicant was transferred to the Regional Cancer Hospital in Rostov, where he was examined and offered excision of the cancerous tumor, but the applicant refused the treatment.

On 20 June and 5 September 2014 a council of physicians from the Regional Cancer Hospital in Rostov repeatedly recommended the surgical removal of the melanoma. The applicant agreed to the treatment, but several days later withdrew his consent, citing lack of confidence in the doctors.

On 2 April 2015, a further biopsy showed that the applicant ’ s tumor was caused by a second-stage basal cell carcinoma, another type of the skin cancer. Given the extent to which the tumor had spread, reconstructive facial surgery was recommended.

Several days later, having realised that the tumor had grown, the applicant gave his written consent to the prescribed surgery.

The detention authorities contacted the Regional Cancer Hospital in Rostov with a view to arranging the treatment.

On 9 July 2015 the Deputy Head of the Regional Cancer Hospital informed the detention authorities that the medical institution was unable to perform such a complex surgery.

According to extracts from the applicant ’ s medical file dated 2 November 2015, the patient visited the prison doctor on daily basis, complaining of headaches and insomnia.

3. Application for an early release on health grounds

On 27 October 2015 the applicant applied for early release from detention on health grounds. On 23 November 2015 the Promishlenniy District Court of Vladikavkaz refused to examine the application on the merits, because his disease was not listed in Government Decree no. 54 of 6 February 2004 that lists illnesses warranting early release. According to the Decree, only patients with end-stage cancer could apply for early release on health grounds.

4. Rule 39 request

On 11 January 2016 the applicant lodged with the Court a request for interim measures under Rule 39 of the Rules of Court citing lack of medical care for a life-threatening disease.

On 25 January 2016 the Acting President of the Section decided to indicate to the Russian Government, under Rule 39 of the Rules of Court, that it was desirable in the interests of the proper conduct of the proceedings that the applicant should be immediately examined by medical experts independent from the penitentiary system with a view to determining: (1) whether he has been receiving adequate medical treatment; (2) whether his current state of health was compatible with detention in the correctional colony; and (3) whether his state of health called for an urgent surgery and/or for the transfer to an appropriate civil or prison hospital. Furthermore, the Government were also to ensure his transfer to such a hospital for the surgery, should the medical experts conclude that the applicant required an urgent surgery in a hospital.

On 4 March 2016 the Government responded to the Court ’ s letter of 25 January 2016 , having submitted: a certificate about the periods of the applicant ’ s detention in custody, certificates about conditions of his detention, a report about the applicant ’ s current state of health issued by the detention authorities, an original and typed copies of the applicant ’ s medical case file, copies of the correspondence between medical and detention authorities on account of the availability of surgery for the applicant and a copy of the applicant ’ s written consent to a surgery.

In March 2016 the applicant was transferred to a clinic in the Rostov Region, apparently, awaiting the prescribed surgery.

According to the applicant ’ s submissions dated 25 April 2016, no medical treatment has been offered to him in the clinic.

COMPLAINTS

Relying on Articles 3 and 13 of the Convention, the applicant complains about the quality of his medical treatment in detention and the absence of effective domestic remedies for his complaints in this regard.

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 assured by providing him with the requisite medical assistance, as required by Article 3 of the Convention? In particular, the parties are invited to answer the following questions:

a) When did the applicant give his final consent to the prescribed surgery?

b) Was the prescribed surgery performed in a timely fashion? If not, what was the reason for the delay in performing such surgery?

2. Did the applicant have at his disposal effective domestic remedies as required by Article 13 of the Convention for his complaint about the lack of the medical care in detention?

3. Given the Government ’ s response to the Court ’ s decision to impose, on 25 January 2016, an interim measure under Rule 39 of the Rules of Court, has there been a hindrance on a part of the State to the effective exercise of the applicant ’ s right of application, ensured by Article 34 of the Convention?