FIRST SECTION

Application no. 26586/08 by Mamat IBRAGIMOV against Russia lodged on 23 May 2008

STATEMENT OF FACTS

THE FACTS

The applicant, Mr Mamat Minkailovich Ibragimov , is a Russian national who was born in 1953 and lives in the village of Katyr -Yurt, Chechen Republic . He is represented before the Court by Mr D. Itslayev , a lawyer practising in Grozny .

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

In 2000 Mr R., the applicant ’ s son, was arrested on suspicion of various criminal offences. In April 2002 R. was convicted as charged and was sentenced to twelve years ’ imprisonment. He served his sentence in prison no. 42/22 in the Arkhangelsk Region. It does not appear that between 2000 and 2005 he had any lung problem.

In March 2005 R. “contracted” tuberculosis in unspecified circumstances . O n 21 March 2005 he sought medical assistance from the prison authorities. Allegedly, he was not submitted to any tests or further diagnosis, which could be appropriate in the circumstances.

In the meantime, R. was admitted to the medical unit of the prison in relation to a pneumonia diagnosis and received treatment. On 6 April 2005 he was transferred to a tuberculosis hospital in another detention facility. He was diagnosed with tuberculosis.

Despite treatment, R. ’ s condition worsened and on 23 April 2005 he was transferred to the regional medical facility. As can be seen from a letter dated 9 January 2007 by a public prosecutor, on the day of his admission to hospital R. ’ s medical condition was “satisfactory”.

Having received R. ’ s complaints about inadequate treatment, in May and June 2005 the applicant vainly sought his transfer to a medical facility in another region.

R. died on 10 September 2005. The advanced state of tuberculosis was cited as the cause of death in his death certificate.

In September 2006 the applicant sought institution of criminal proceedings on account of negligence on the part of the staff of penitentiary facilities.

By a decision of 21 October 2006, an investigator in the Primorskiy inter-district prosecutor ’ s office refused to open a criminal case against the director of the regional medical facility.

On 9 January 2007 a prosecutor refused to carry out an additional inquiry.

Thereafter, the applicant brought several sets of court proceedings challenging inactivity on the part of the investigative authorities and the refusal of 21 October 2006.

It appears that the applicant sought that a medical expert report be commissioned since investigative authorities and courts did not have all requisite specialist knowledge.

On 24 August 2007 the Isakogorsky District Court of Arkhangelsk upheld the criminal inquiry carried out by the investigative authorities. The court referred to a testimony given by a medical professional working for the regional medical facility. On 23 November 2007 the Arkhangelsk Regional Court upheld the judgment.

COMPLAINTS

The applicant complains under Articles 2 and 13 of the Convention that the Russian authorities failed to discharge their obligation to protect his son ’ s life, especially during his detention between April and August 2005. In the applicant ’ s submission, it was incumbent on the national authorities to obtain an appropriate and timely diagnosis of tuberculosis and to provide timely and adequate medication. Also, the national authorities did not carry out any meaningful investigation into the circumstances of R. ’ s death.

QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES

1. Was there a violation of Article s 2 and 3 of the Convention in the present case, in particular on account of the absence of timely tuberculosis-related tests and diagnosis and lack of appropriate and timely treatment (compare Vasyukov v. Russia , no. 2974/05 , § 65, 5 April 2011 ; Rotaru v. Moldova , no. 51216/06 , § 37, 15 February 2011 ; Dobri v. Romania , no. 25153/04 , § 45 et seq., 14 December 2010 , and Gavriliţă v. Romania , no. 10921/03 , § 33, 22 June 2010)?

2. Did the circumstances of the case give rise to the State ’ s obligation concerning the procedural p rotection of the right to life or to the State ’ s obligation to investigate ill-treatment ? If yes, was the investigation in the present case by the domestic authorities in breach of Article s 2 and 3 of the Convention?