CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 6 septembre 2016

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .sA6BC7FA7 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:right } .s9793A85B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s8229ABDD { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s68C46B95 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s3F59B822 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-transform:uppercase } .sA8776625 { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:29.2pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17.6pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s72C8F48C { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:36.6pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-15.05pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sD3B63DAD { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .s9296A950 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid }   Communicated on 6 September 2016   THIRD SECTION Application no. 11788/16 Oksana Vyacheslavovna SEMENOVA against Russia lodged on 2 March 2016 STATEMENT OF FACTS The applicant, Ms Oksana Vyacheslavovna Semenova, was a Russian national who was born in 1980 and lived in St Petersburg. She was represented before the Court by Mr S. Petryakov, a lawyer practising in Kazan. Following the applicant’s death on 9 April 2016, Mr S. Petryakov informed the Court that the applicant’s mother, Ms Valentina Fedorovna Sorokina, wished to pursue the application. The circumstances of the case The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows. 1.     Conviction On 28 March 2013 the Krasnogvardeiyskiy District Court of St   Petersburg convicted the applicant of drug trafficking and sentenced her to imprisonment of four years and one month. The applicant was sent to serve her sentence at correctional colony no.   IZ-20/2 in the Leningrad Region. 2.     Medical treatment in detention In May 2015 the applicant, who at the time suffered from HIV and hepatitis C, complained to a prison doctor of pain in the lower abdomen. The doctor suspected that she had cervical cancer and ordered that she be taken to a prison hospital. On 21 July 2015 the applicant was sent to Gaaza prison hospital in St   Petersburg. A biopsy performed on 3 August 2015 confirmed that the applicant had cervical cancer that was at an advanced stage, III B. On 22 September 2015 two cancer specialists examined her. She was prescribed inpatient treatment with radiation therapy to kill the cancer cells. The treatment was to be performed in a cancer hospital. According to the applicant, the detention authorities did not comply with that prescription. She stayed in the prison hospital where she only received medication for her symptoms. A magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) scan on 9 October 2015 revealed that the cancer had spread to the bladder and neighbouring organs. An oncologist who examined the applicant on 13 October 2015 established that her cancer had progressed to the end stage. The doctor noted that active treatment was no longer recommended and that the applicant should only be given treatment to ease her symptoms. On 21 October 2015 a prison hospital medical panel concluded that the applicant’s state of heath warranted her early release on medical grounds. 3.     Application for early release on medical grounds In November 2015 the head of the prison hospital applied for the applicant’s early release on medical grounds. At a hearing on 25 November 2015 before the Smolninskiy District Court of St Petersburg the applicant’s doctor supported the application, stating that the applicant was very ill, that she was in constant, severe pain, and that the prison hospital had no drugs to treat her. The drugs accessible in detention were unable to relieve the pain. He argued that if she was released the applicant would benefit from the wider range of painkillers available in civilian hospitals. A representative of the detention authorities left the issue to the court’s discretion, only making positive comments about the applicant’s work while in detention and about her character. The prosecutor objected to the applicant’s release, stating that the detention facility could ensure the required treatment for her symptoms. Having regard to the parties’ submissions, the court dismissed the application. It found that there was no need to release the applicant as she would only receive the same kind of treatment as in the prison hospital. On 1 March 2016 the St Petersburg City Court quashed the decision of 25 November 2015 on appeal and remitted the case for fresh examination. 4.     Rule 39 request In the meantime, on 24 February 2016 the applicant asked the Court to apply interim measures under Rule 39 of the Rules of Court. She cited the lack of medical care and effective painkillers in detention. On 2 March 2016 the Court decided, in the interests of the parties and the proper conduct of the proceedings before it, to indicate to the Government, under Rule 39, that the applicant should immediately be given access to the entire range of medication available for cancer patients in accordance with Russian legislation, including appropriate pain relief drugs. Furthermore, the Court noted that the applicant should be transferred to a medical institution where such medication was available. According to the applicant, the Government did not comply with the interim measure. She remained in the prison hospital without adequate medical treatment. On 9 April 2016 the applicant died in detention. Her mother expressed a wish to pursue the application. COMPLAINT Relying on Article 3 of the Convention, the applicant complained about the quality of her medical treatment in detention.     QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Have the Government met their obligation to ensure that the applicant’s health and well-being were adequately secured by providing her with the requisite medical assistance, as required by Article 3 of the Convention?   2.     Given the Government’s response to the Court’s decision to impose an interim measure under Rule 39 of the Rules of Court on 2   March 2016, has there been a violation of Article 34 of the Convention?   3.     The Government are invited to submit a typed copy of the applicant’s entire medical file drawn up between May 2015 and April 2016, and other relevant reports which describe the state of her health.