Communicated on 16 November 2015

THIRD SECTION

Application no 52289/14 Rezvan Talabiyevich ELBIYEV against Russia lodged on 24 July 2014

STATEMENT OF FACTS

The applicant, Mr Rezvan Talabiyevich Elbiyev , is a Russian national who was born in 1959. He is currently detained in a correctional colony in Vyazniki , a town in the Vladimir Region. He is represented before the Court by Ms N. Radnayeva , 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.

The applicant has been serving a fourteen-year prison sentence since 2006. He is disabled and confined to a wheelchair. He was diagnosed with ischaemic heart disease, exertional angina pectoris, ventricular fibrillation, motor conversion disorder, hemiparesis on the right side, a psychiatric disorder in the form of dissociative impairment, posttraumatic encephalopathy, ischaemic myelopathy in the lumbar region with moderate lower paraparesis (frail legs), osteochondrosis and poor eyesight.

The applicant provided the Court with medical certificates issued no later than January 2009 during his inpatient treatment in prison hospitals. A more recent document, a letter from the colony administration sent in 2012, described his condition as satisfactory and indicated that he was registered as Category 3 disabled in 2011.

The applicant also provided a detailed description of the conditions of his detention. He argued that he is unable to use a wheelchair for long periods as it becomes painful for him. He is not provided with any assistance for his everyday needs even though his movements are significantly impaired. He cannot take a shower, go for a walk or use the lavatory without assistance. He suffers from constant pain in the spine, heart, eyes, and liver. He gasps for breath. He cannot lie on his back or side for long periods. He occasionally loses the ability to speak and cannot ask for help.

The applicant insists that he is in his colony dormitory the entire time. He spends the major part of the day in bed. From 2011 to 2013 he was assisted by an inmate with his daily needs. As soon as the colony administration learnt about the assistance he was getting, the inmate concerned was transferred to another division of the colony. For almost four months he did not leave the dormitory to get fresh air. The entrance to the dormitory building is not equipped with a ramp, so he cannot leave the building unaided. The colony recreation yard is also unsuitable for wheelchair-bound inmates. When the applicant wants to use the lavatory he asks inmates to lift him and take him to the actual lavatory pan. He pays for this assistance with tea, cigarettes and food. He cannot access the shower block and when he cannot find an inmate willing to assist him, he might spend more than a month without taking a shower. Furthermore, the bath and shower rooms are not equipped for wheelchair-bound people, as they do not have ramps or railings and the equipment is too high to reach. The applicant does not eat food provided by the colony as it is “poor quality”. His relatives bring food to him. At the same time, he argues that he did not see his relatives for three years as they do not have the resources to travel to a colony in another region of the Russian Federation. In 2013 the colony administration regularly provided him with food so that whoever was assisting him could cook for him. However, it stopped that practice in 2014. The applicant cannot cook for himself so often has to “live on dry rations”.

COMPLAINTS

The applicant complains under Articles 3 and 13 of the Convention that for years he has been forced to endure extremely poor conditions of detention unfit for a wheelchair-bound detainee in his state of health, and that he did not have an effective domestic remedy to complain about this violation of his rights.

QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES

1. Regard being had to the applicant ’ s disability and, in particular, his being a wheelchair-bound inmate, were the conditions of his detention in the correctional colony compatible with Article 3 of the Convention (see Semikhvostov v. Russia , no. 2689/12 , 6 February 2014) ? In particular:

(a) was it established practice to keep detainees suffering from a disability and/or a number of serious illnesses in ordinary correctional colonies?

(b) what were the rules governing the detention of disabled detainees serving sentences?

(c) were any specific measures taken by the colony administration to accommodate the applicant? If so, what steps were taken, when and by whom?

(d) was the applicant given assistance in exiting/entering buildings within the facility, moving within the grounds of the colony, using the canteen, lavatory, shower/washing rooms and other places? If so, when and by whom was assistance provided? What form did the assistance take, and was anyone else present other than those assisting the applicant?

2. The Government are requested to comment on all aspects of the conditions of detention in the correctional colony about which the applicant complains. They are also asked to produce documentary evidence including population registers, plans of the colony and relevant dormitory, floor plans, the daily timetable, colour photographs of the dormitory, lavatory, washing room, canteen and other facilities frequently used by the inmates in everyday life and, in particular, photographs showing access to those facilities and passageways in them, as well as reports from supervising prosecutors concerning the conditions of detention in the colony.

3. Did the applicant have at his disposal an effective domestic remedy for the complaints under Article 3, as required by Article 13 of the Convention (see Semikhvostov v. Russia , no. 2689/12, 6 February 2014)?