JOINT CONCURRING OPINION OF JUDGE S KOVLER AND STEINER

We concluded, after serious hesitation, that there had been a violation of Article 3 of the Convention on account of a failure to provide the applicant with effective medical assistance during his detention. It is very difficult for a judge to substitute his or her own view for that of a professional doctor and to assess the effectiveness of medical assistance, especially in this case, because Mr Koryak suffered from tuberculosis long before his incarceration and also became an injecting heroin user (see paragraph 8). In some similar cases the Court has concluded that the domestic authorities afforded the applicants comprehensive, effective and transparent medical assistance (see, among recent cases, Schebetov v. Russia , no. 21731/02, 10 April 2012, §§ 76-77, and Valeriy Samoylov v. Russia , no. 57541/09 , 24 January 2012 , §§ 92-93). What convinced us to find a violation of Article 3 in this case was the fact that regular medical supervision, including frequent medical check-ups and clinical testing, had led to the conclusion that the applicant ’ s condition had been stabilised, and that was just weeks before his death ...

At the same time we regret that the Court did not consider it necessary “additionally” to examine another complaint raised by the applicant under Article 3 pertaining to the authorities ’ refusals to release him on parole in view of his state of health (see paragraph 109). We do not find the national courts ’ reasoning (see paragraphs 39 and 41) persuasive and are of the view that the applicant ’ s situation was similar to that of Mr Aleksanyan (see Aleksanyan v. Russia , no. 46468/06, 22 December 2008). We are mindful of the conclusions of some national courts that the deterioration of prisoners ’ health does not justify their release (see, for example, Sizov v. Russia , no. 33123/08, 15 March 2011). The problem would therefore seem to be a systemic one.