Communicated on 7 January 2014

FIRST SECTION

Application no. 50166/13 Andrey Ivanovich SUCHKOV against Russia lodged on 22 July 2013

STATEMENT OF FACTS

The applicant, Mr Andrey Ivanovich Suchkov , is a Russian national, who was born in 1972 and is currently being kept in a hospital for convicts in Bashkortostan Republic, Russia .

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

The applicant was first sentenced to a prison term in 1999. In 2003 he was released on health grounds because he had a progressing HIV (stage 4A at the time). In 2007 the applicant was sentenced to a prison term of eight years for another criminal offence. In September 2008 he started a highly active retroviral treatment (HAART). In 2009 he became defendant in a third criminal case against him. In December 2011 he was kept in a hospital. HIV reached stage 4B. The HAART regimen was amended in April 2012. The applicant was sentenced to a new prison term in May 2012 (see more below).

In January 2013 a district court in Kemerovo examined his application for early release on health grounds. The application was related to the 2007 conviction (no mention being made of the conviction in 2012). Having examined two medical reports from two prison hospitals and one report from a civil hospital dealing with HIV issues, the court granted early release. The State appealed.

In the meantime, for unspecified reasons, the prison authorities ordered the applicant ’ s transfer to Omsk region. It is unclear whether and when the applicant or his representative was given a copy of the transfer order. This transfer ( apparently, some 900 km distance) lasted f rom 21 or 26 February to unspecified date in March 2013. Allegedly, during the journey the applicant had a three-day supply of HIV-related medication.

In Omsk region he was kept for two days in a remand centre, allegedly, w ithout medical care; then in a cell in hospital for convicts OB-11 (26 February to 18 March 2013; 21 March to 23 May 2013, and 29 May to 19 August 2013) and, for the remaining periods of time - in prison no. 7. According to the applicant, between May and August 201 3 prison no. 7 had insufficient supply of Fuzeon , one of the HIV drugs in his HAART regimen .

In the meantime, in March 2013 the Kemerovo regional court quashed the favourable decision and ordered re-examination of the application for release. In April 2013 the case followed the applicant to Omsk region where the case was then submitted to a district court . At least three hearings were held; medical reports were commissioned. The applicant was assisted by a lawyer in these proceedings. In July 2013 the court dismissed his application for release. In September 2013 his appeal was dismissed, too.

For unspecified reasons, Omsk prison authorities ordered the applicant ’ s transfer to Bashkortostan Republic. It is unclear whether and when the applicant or his representative was given a copy of the transfer order. This transfer lasted from 9 September 2013 to 3 October 2013, when the applicant arrived in prison no. 4 in Bashkortostan Republic . Allegedly, he had an insufficient supply of HIV medication during his transfer and no such medication during his stay in prison no. 4 from 3 to 12 October 2013.

Since 12 October 2013 he has been kept in a hospital for convicts. It appears that he was e xamined by an infectious diseases specialist there. Due to the absence of Fuzeon , the specialist amended the applicant ’ s HAART regimen and prescribed another similar medication. Apparently, the applicant refused the amended regimen. On 29 October 2013 a new expert panel within the hospital concluded that his condition has not yet aggravated to the extent requiring release.

COMPLAINTS

The applicant alleges that his state of health was and remains incompatible with detention in a detention facility (such as a prison or a remand centre); that the refusal to release him and the length of the related proceedings amounted to a violation of Article 3 of the Convention. He also argues that the facts of his lengthy transfers and the lack of proper medication and medical supervision during these periods and in various facilities in 2013 also offended Article 3 of the Convention.

QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES

Was there a violation of Article 3 of the Convention in the present case (cf. Gülay Çetin v. Turkey , no. 44084/10 , §§ 100-125 , 5 March 2013 ) ? Reference is being made to the following circumstances:

- the applicant ’ s specific allegations relating to the absence or inadequacy of medical care (including medication and supervision) during his transfer to Omsk region in February 2013, subsequently in various detention facilities, during his transfer to Bashkortostan Republic and during his detention there since October 2013;

- the applicant ’ s transfers in 2013 from Kemerovo Region to Omsk Region and then to Bashkortostan Republic, in particular as regards the necessity for and the length of these transfers;

- the applicant ’ s detention in facilities other than a hospital or a HIV-specialised medical facility; and

- the refusal of release on health grounds and the length of the related proceedings.

Having regard to Article 38 of the Convention, the respondent Government are requested to submit copies of the transfer orders and related documents.