CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 11 octobre 2005

.s3ABFC313 { font-size:10pt } .sEB86A30B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; page-break-after:avoid } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .sA241FE93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-align:justify; page-break-after:avoid; border-bottom:0.75pt solid #000000; padding-bottom:1pt } .s2EF62ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s8F2B0B1B { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:12pt } .s9FF10068 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s5F48796F { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s5CB9E8AB { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; border-bottom:1pt solid #000000; padding-bottom:1pt } .sDF790F1E { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s3DC36BA9 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } Information Note on the Court’s case-law No. 79 October 2005 Tarariyeva v. Russia (dec.) - 4353/03 Decision 11.10.2005 [Section IV] Article 2 Article 2-1 Life Negligent and inadequate medical assistance whilst in custody allegedly resulting in death: admissible   The applicant’s son, who suffered from an acute ulcer condition, was sentenced to six years imprisonment in a correctional colony for having caused grievous bodily injury. In the initial stages of his imprisonment he received outpatient treatment for his condition, and then in the correctional colony, although allegedly without appropriate medical supervision. On 20 August 2002, the applicant’s son complained to the medical department of the colony about acute pain. In view of the seriousness of his condition, he was transferred to a hospital, and surgery was performed the same day. The applicant maintained she had visited her son at the hospital and seen him shackled with handcuffs to the bed. Moreover, despite having been diagnosed with a sutures breakdown in the duodenum and thus unfit for transportation, two days after the operation the applicant’s son was discharged and transported - allegedly in a standard issue prison van and not by a “special car” as claimed by the Government - to Institution no. 5 which was 120   km away. Further surgery was performed on him shortly after arrival at this Institution. The applicant’s son died on 4 September 2002 from acute anaemia (blood loss) provoked by massive gastrointestinal haemorrhage. An investigation into the death was carried out but the applicant maintained it had been neither complete nor adequate. Medical experts established that defects in medical assistance administered to the applicant’s son had cumulatively resulted in his death, and charges were brought against the doctors involved for negligent manslaughter and incompetent performance of professional duties. The case against the head of the surgery unit of the hospital went to trial, but he was acquitted for lack of evidence. Proceedings against the doctors of Institution no. 5 were abandoned for lack of evidence of a criminal offence. Admissible under Articles 2, 3 and 13.   © Council of Europe/European Court of Human Rights This summary by the Registry does not bind the Court. Click here for the Case-Law Information Notes