Published on 3 January 2022

FOURTH SECTION

Application no. 55943/16 Ruzanna NIAZYAN against Armenia lodged on 15 September 2016 communicated on 9 December 2021

SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE

The application concerns the death of the applicant’s husband, J.B., allegedly due to the absence of adequate medical care while in detention.

On 29 October 2012 J.B. was placed in pre-trial detention in Nubarashen Detention Facility. At that point he already suffered from post-infarction cardiosclerosis, type 2 diabetes mellitus and arterial hypertension.

Owing to his poor state of health (speech disorder, vision and memory deterioration), J.B. was soon transferred to the medical unit of the detention facility.

On 25 April 2013 J.B. died in the detention facility. According to the autopsy report, his death had resulted from acute disturbance of blood circulation of the coronary arteries and acute myocardial infarction due to atherosclerosis and cardiosclerosis.

The applicant submits that J.B.’s state of health was deteriorating daily. However, despite the fact that he was in need of specialist medical care, including relevant medical equipment and medication necessary for the treatment of cardiovascular problems, which was unavailable in the medical unit of the detention facility, the authorities failed to transfer him to the Central Prison Hospital. In addition, J.B. had been deprived of emergency medical assistance, particularly the night when he died.

The applicant’s request to institute criminal proceedings on account of her husband’s death was initially rejected following which she sought judicial review. Following a round of judicial proceedings, on 17 July 2014 a criminal case was instituted on account of J.B.’s death. In particular, in its decision of 31 May 2014 the Court of Cassation stated that it was necessary to establish whether J.B. had received comprehensive medical examinations and treatment, as required by his state of health and the reason for not having him transferred to a hospital despite the sharp deterioration of his state of health in the detention facility. Also, a reasonable explanation as to the cause of his death and the treatment administered to him prior to his death was required.

By decision of 23 March 2015 the investigator terminated the proceedings for lack of corpus delicti in the actions of the detention facility’s officials and medical staff finding that no direct causal link was established between their actions and J.B.’s death. The investigator’s conclusion was based, inter alia , on a medical expert opinion. The applicant’s subsequent appeals against that decision were dismissed in the final instance by the Court of Cassation on 11 March 2016. A copy of that decision was served on her on 15 March 2016.

Relying on Articles 2 and 3 of the Convention, the applicant complains that the State failed to protect her husband’s life during detention, including by failing to provide him with prompt and adequate medical assistance, as required by his state of health, which resulted in his death. She alleges that the detention facility’s medical unit was not fit to address her husband’s health problems whereas the authorities failed to transfer him to a relevant medical institution. She further complains that the authorities failed to duly account for her husband’s death.

QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES

1. Was the applicant’s husband’s right to life, guaranteed by Article 2 of the Convention, violated in the present case (see Taïs v. France, no. 39922/03, § 98, 1 June 2006 ; Huylu v. Turkey, no. 52955/99, §§ 58 and 72 ‑ 73, 16 November 2006 ; and Makharadze and Sikharulidze v. Georgia , no. 35254/07, §§ 71-74 and 87, 22 November 2011)? In particular:

(a) Considering J.B.’s medical condition while in detention, have the domestic authorities complied with their positive obligation to take appropriate steps to safeguard his life, as required by Article 2 of the Convention?

(b) Having regard to the procedural protection of the right to life, have the domestic authorities complied with their obligation under Article 2 of the Convention to duly account for J.B.’s death while in detention?

3. Has there been a violation of Article 3 of the Convention in the present case? In particular, was J.B. provided with adequate medical assistance, as required by his state of health (see Blokhin v. Russia [GC], no. 47152/06, §§ 136-37, 23 March 2016)?