CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 26 mars 2020

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s379BC09C { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s339D85E6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s665E407E { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } Communicated on 26 March 2020 Published on 18 May 2020   FIFTH SECTION Application no. 46298/19 Merabi Otarovich SUSLOV against Ukraine lodged on 10 August 2019 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the applicant’s allegations under Articles 2, 3 and 13 of the Convention of being poisoned by mercury while serving a life sentence for murder, and the lack of an effective investigation in that respect. On 22 October 2018 the authorities instituted criminal proceedings into the above event; according to the applicant, the investigation is pending without any tangible result. The application also concerns the applicant’s allegations under Articles 3 and 34 of the Convention that he has not been provided with adequate medical treatment of mercury poisoning and Hepatitis C. On 14 November 2019, the Court applied an interim measure in accordance with Rule 39 of the Rules of Court, indicating to the respondent Government “to immediately transfer the applicant to a specialist civil hospital in order to complete the medical examinations of the applicant with respect to his Hepatitis C according to the doctor’s recommendations and to conduct the medical examinations with respect to mercury poisoning in compliance with the doctor’s recommendations, and to provide the applicant with the necessary medical treatment of his Hepatitis C and mercury poisoning in accordance with the doctor’s recommendations given on the basis of the aforementioned examinations”. According to the information provided by the parties, the applicant had not been transferred to the hospital in view of the authorities’ fears that, when outside the prison, he could be revenged for murder he was convicted for. The authorities were also of opinion that the applicant could escape. Lastly, the application concerns the allegations under Articles 6 § 1 and 13 of the Convention of unreasonable length of the proceedings challenging the conditions of the applicant’s detention, the lack of medical treatment, the lack of access to a lawyer and the prohibition to wear beard in detention. According to the applicant, those proceedings are still pending before the first instance court since February 2014, and he has no effective domestic remedy in that respect. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Is Article 2 of the Convention applicable to the present case? If so, was the investigation in the present case by the domestic authorities in breach of Article 2 of the Convention?   2.     Has the State complied with its positive obligations under Article 3 of the Convention in the present case?   3.     Did the applicant have at his disposal effective domestic remedies for his complaints under Articles 2 and 3, as required by Article 13 of the Convention?   4.     Was the medical assistance and treatment provided to the applicant while in detention in compliance with the requirements of Article 3 of the Convention?   5.     Was the length of the proceedings instituted by the applicant in February 2014 in breach of the “reasonable time” requirement of Article 6 §   1 of the Convention?   6.     Did the applicant have at his disposal effective domestic remedies for his complaint under Article 6 § 1, as required by Article 13 of the Convention?   7.     Having regard to the measures taken in response to the Court’s decision of 14 November 2019 to indicate an interim measure under Rule 39 of the Rules of Court, was there a hindrance by the State in the present case with the effective exercise of the applicant’s right of application, ensured by Article 34 of the Convention?