THIRD SECTION

Application no. 7291/09 Ion OANCEA and Doina-Ligia OANCEA against Romania lodged on 27 January 2009

STATEMENT OF FACTS

The applicants, Mr Ion Oancea and Ms Doina-Ligia Oancea , are Romanian nationals, who were born in 1952 and 1955 respectively and live in Ciulniţa , Argeş County .

The circumstances of the case

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

M.C., the applicants ’ thirty-year-old son, was suffering of H.I.V. infection and was registered as such by Matei Balş Hospital from where he received monthly treatment.

On 14 August 2007 M.C. was arrested together with his two brothers and his brother-in-law and placed in ArgeÅŸ Police detention facilities.

M.C., who was in good shape at that time, was not immediately registered, upon his arrest, as H.I.V. positive. He had to inform repeatedly the prison authorities of his illness before being recorded as such.

From the police station, M.C. was transferred to Jilava Prison Hospital where he remained for the first two-three months of the pre-trial detention and then to ColbaÅŸi Prison, first in the hospital wing and then in the pre-trial detention win g where he joined his brothers.

During his stay in pre-trial detention he received on and off treatment for his illness and his requests to have his medication provided by his family were rejected by the prison authorities.

His health deteriorated constantly and in June 2008 he started accusing severe back and leg pains. He was taken to a civilian hospital where he was diagnosed with two broken vertebras. The doctor recommended treatment with ointments and if the pain did not subside recommended surgery. According to the statements made by his cell-mates, including his brothers, the patient ’ s treatment was delayed by few days, and did not alleviate his pains. The inmates were taking turns in applying the ointments and hot water on the painful areas. As the treatment proved to be ineffective, M.C. requested to be operated on.

Given the lack of adequate treatment in Colibaşi Prison, M.C and his brothers went on hunger strike. The same day the patient was transferred to the hospital wing and four days later to Rahova Prison Hospital . The surgical intervention was postponed by few months, the patient being transferred several times between prison hospitals and the Bagdazar Arsenie civilian Hospital where he was fin ally operated on, on 21 October 2008. Due to post-surgical complications M.C. ’ s c ondition deteriorated severely.

On an unspecified date he was released from prison .

On 11 November 2008 he was admitted to Matei BalÅŸ Hospital with similar symptoms as before (severe back pains and generally deteriorating health). He underwent several investigations and was given treatment, partly provided by his family, as the hospital could not afford it.

He remained in the hospital until 22 December when he was declared incurable and released at the family ’ s request. His diagnosis was: pancytopenia , sepsis, mixed aetiology lumbar diskitis , H.I.V. infection (with treatment suspended because of the pancytopenia and of liver and kidney failure), hypoanabolic syndrome. He died on 23 December 2008.

On 3 August 2009 the applicants lodged a criminal complaint with the Prosecutor ’ s Office attached to the High Court of Cassation and Justice, against the administration and the medical personnel of Colibaşi Prison, accusing them of having intentionally postponed the surgical intervention, which lead to their son ’ s death. They argued that the intervention was delayed intentionally by the authorities who received significant financial benefits as additional bonuses to their salaries while dealing with an H.I.V. positive: a 75% increase of their salaries for the prison administrators and a 100% increase of their salaries for the medical personnel.

It appears that the authorities have never started criminal investigations into the facts .

COMPLAINTS

1. The applicants complain under Article 2 of the Convention that their son M.C. was left to die by the authorities, as they failed to place him in a prison where he could have continued to receive adequate treatment for his condition.

2. Under Article 6 of the Convention they complain that the authorities have not started criminal investigati on into the death of their son.

QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES

1. Has the applicants ’ son ’ s right to life, ensured by Article 2 of the Convention, been violated in the present case?

2. Having regard to the procedural protection of t he right to life (see paragraph 104 of Salman v. Turkey [GC], no. 21986/93, ECHR 2000-VII), was the investigation in the present case by the domestic authorities in breach of Article 2 of the Convention?

The Government are requested to provide copies of M.C. ’ s prison medical records and information or documents concerning the criminal investigation launched at the applicants ’ request.