Communicated on 31 March 2016

THIRD SECTION

Application no. 35105/10 Vasiliy Aleksandrovich KOLESNIKOV against Russia lodged on 21 June 2010

STATEMENT OF FACTS

The applicant, Mr Vasiliy Aleksandrovich Kolesnikov , is a Russian national who was born in 1966 and previously lived in Rostov-on-Don. He is represented before the Court by Ms Frolova , a lawyer practising in Rostov-on-Don.

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

A. Criminal proceedings against the applicant

On 20 April 2008 the applicant was arrested on suspicion of a criminal offence and placed in remand prison no. IZ-61/3 in Novocherkassk, Rostov Region. On 24 March 2010 he was convicted and sentenced to twelve years ’ imprisonment. The judgment became final o n 9 June 2010 and on 30 September 2010 the applicant was transferred to correctional colony no. 18 in Novosibirsk.

B. Applicant ’ s state of health

Before his arrest the applicant had been diagnosed with chronic post ‑ traumatic osteomyelitis of the left foot with suppuration in the tarsus, and paresis of the left foot and shin. On 29 April 2009, and on at least other three occasions, he was taken to inter-regional specialist anti-tuberculosis prison hospital no. 398/19. According to the applicant, he only received painkillers. No further assistance was provided.

In letters dated 6 May and 12 August 2009, the prison hospital administration stated that the applicant needed urgent bone surgery or an allotransplantation in order to keep the foot functioning. The prison hospital could not perform the surgery as it had no surgeon trained for that procedure, no equipment and no transplant material. Lastly, the prison administration confirmed that the applicant was suffering from a category 3 disability .

On 15 July 2009 a medical commission examined the applicant and confirmed the diagnosis. Its report, no. 198- пк , also stated that the applicant was not able to walk without crutches and that his condition required urgent (surgical) treatment in a hospital. The commission experts also noted that the applicant was nevertheless fit to take part in trial hearings.

On 3 September 2009 the Zernograd District Court of the Rostov Region examined an application by the applicant for a change of his measure of restraint on health grounds, but rejected it. It relied, in particular, on the findings of the medical commission in report no. 198- пк .

After the applicant had been transferred to the correctional colony in Novosibirsk, the applicant ’ s brother lodged several complaints with the Federal Service for the Execution of Sentences. In particular, he argued that the applicant was not receiving adequate medical care in detention. The replies he received were similar in their wording: the authorities noted that the applicant had undergone the necessary surgical treatment, was receiving antibiotics and that there was no need for urgent surgery on the bones . The letter also stated that on 22 April 2011 the applicant ’ s disability had progressed to category 2.

On 2 August 2011 a medical commission examined the applicant ’ s medical file and concluded that he was in need of constant medical supervision and a series of operations on the foot bones in order to stop the pain and save the foot. It also established that the continuous use of antibiotics and painkillers by the applicant had had a negative impact on his liver, gastrointestinal tract and kidneys.

On 30 December 2011 the applicant died . His widow, son and daughter expressed their intention to pursue the application in the applicant ’ s name.

COMPLAINT

The applicant complained under Article 3 of the Convention of the lack of proper medical care during his detention.

QUESTION TO THE PARTIES

Taking into account the applicant ’ s medical history, did the Government meet their obligation to ensure that the applicant ’ s health and wellbeing were adequately taken care of by, among other things, providing him with the requisite medical assistance (see McGlinchey and Others v. the United Kingdom , no. 50390/99, § 46, ECHR 2003 ‑ V), as required by Article 3 of the Convention?