JOINT DISSENTING OPINION OF JUDGES LORENZEN AND MØSE

In our view, the Court should attach particular importance to the existence of domestic inquiries and judicial proceedings, which ended with the judgment of 3 August 2009, as upheld on appeal (see paragraphs 43 to 53 of the judgment). The national authorities assessed the applicant ’ s medical records and obtained testimonies and medical opinions. The applicant, who was represented , was afforded an adequate opportunity to present his arguments and evidence, as well as to contest the other party ’ s submissions, in adversarial proceedings. It appears that the applicant and his counsel had access to the relevant documents, including the applicant ’ s medical records, necessary for substantiating their allegations. The applicant ’ s grievances relating to the effectiveness of the domestic inquiries are not convincing.

Although it is regrettable that the inquiry took nearly two years, we find no sufficient reason to depart from the factual findings made by the domestic authorities, as confirmed on judicial review, concerning the various aspects of the applicant ’ s complaints about his health care.

In particular, it has not been convincingly established that any alleged failure to carry out specific treatment or make arrangements for consulting specialist medical professionals, including between late December 2008 and the applicant ’ s transfer to another detention facility, was contrary to any previous medical prescriptions or – more generally – led to treatment below an adequate standard. In this context, it should be taken into account that the applicant had a variety of different health problems, including tuberculosis and a chronic and progressing neurological disease which inevitably affected other aspects of his health; that the authorities provided medical care on numerous occasions; and that he on occasions refused to take the necessary medication (see paragraphs 18, 28-30 and 57-58).

It is true that two medical reports indicated that no cervical spine MRI scan had been carried out, despite a recommendation that one should be conducted after computer X-ray imaging ; no consultation by a neurosurgeon had been arranged; and no thioctic acid based medicine had been prescribed. But we are not convinced that the fact that these recommendations were not followed up affected the adequacy of the health care provided to the applicant to such an extent that it amounted to ill-treatment within the meaning of Article 3 of the Convention.

We therefore conclude that there has been no violation of Article 3 in relation to the health care provided to the applicant from July 2006 to June 2009.

Turning to the material conditions in the hospital, we note that also these submissions by the applicant were duly assessed at the domestic level. The applicant, who was assisted by a lawyer at the domestic level and before the Court, has not put forward convincing arguments which lead us to disagree with the domestic courts ’ assessment. Consequently, there was also no breach of Article 3 with respect to the material conditions in the hospital.

[1] Rectified on 11 September 2012: previously the text was “Zurabovich”

[2] Names of medical substances are given hereafter in accordance with the classification of drugs adopted in Russia .