CAT/C/67/D/780/2016
until 9 September 2015. According to the complainant, the conditions in the ward were
unbearable, including the lack of space (16.9 m2 for 16 persons) and ventilation, no light
bulb or drinking water container, improper bunks, security bars on the windows, poor
hygiene and blood stains on the bedding. The inmates were taken to the toilet twice a day
and only in the presence of a warden.
2.3
During his stay in the hospital, the complainant was treated with inappropriate
medication, some of which had been proscribed in the Russian Federation since 1993,
including Galloperedol (twice a day) and Amenosin (weekly). The medication caused
shivering, temporary memory loss and headaches. According to the doctor treating the
complainant, such medication is administered to persons with incurable mental diseases
who are under intensive care. The complainant refers to his sentence and related expert
evidence whereby he was considered mentally fit for trial and not in need of forced medical
treatment. However, when he objected to the treatment, the medication dosage was
increased. As a result, he became bed-bound and could not eat or go to toilet without help.
He experienced shivering, blurred vision, loss of consciousness, dizziness and frequent
headaches. At the time of the communication, he was still suffering from the after-effects of
the treatment, such as constant headaches.
2.4
On 13 January 2016, the complainant reported his ill-treatment and inappropriate
placement in the medical ward at KTB-1 to the Investigation Committee at the Office of the
Prosecutor of the Krasnoyarsk region, requesting that it open criminal proceedings in his
case. On 28 January 2016, the Regional Investigation Committee transferred his request to
the Zheleznodorozhnyi District Investigation Committee. In the absence of a response, on
18 February 2016, the complainant requested the Regional Investigation Committee to
inform him of the progress that had been made in the investigation. On 11 March 2016, the
Regional Investigation Committee again forwarded his request to the District Investigation
Committee. At the moment of submission of the present communication to the Committee
the complainant received no response.
2.5
The complainant claims that he could not file a complaint to court without a
substantive response to his requests from the Investigation Committees. Since the
Investigation Committees had unduly prolonged the consideration of his claims, he was
unable to exhaust domestic remedies.
2.6
On 9 February 2017, the complainant informed the Committee of two letters he had
received from the District Investigation Committee (dated 17 March 2016, received by the
complainant on 26 July 2016) and the Regional Investigation Committee (dated 14 October
2016, received by the complainant on 1 November 2016). According to these letters, the
complainant’s request to initiate a criminal investigation into the conduct of the staff of the
prison hospital was denied owing to the lack of evidence of a crime. The letters indicated
that if he disagreed with the decision of the Investigation Committees, the complainant
could appeal the decision to the head of investigation authority, to the prosecutor of the
Zheleznodorozhnyi district or to the Zheleznodorozhnyi district court in Krasnoyarsk.
The complaint
3.
The complainant claims to have been a victim of ill-treatment by the medical staff of
KTB-1 between 11 June and 9 September 2015. He claims a violation of articles 1, 2, 4, 6,
11, 12 and 13 of the Convention in that regard, without providing further details.
State party’s observations on admissibility and the merits
4.1
On 6 October 2016, the State party submitted its observations on the admissibility
and merits of the complaint, stating that the complainant’s claims were inadmissible owing
to non-exhaustion of domestic remedies and that there was no violation of his rights.
4.2
The State party submits that the complainant has not exhausted domestic remedies
under article 22 (5) (b) of the Convention. He claims that he was deprived of the possibility
to initiate proceedings in court in the absence of a reply to his complaint from the
Investigation Committees. The State party explains that the complainant had the possibility
of requesting compensation for damage caused by the actions/inaction of public servants,
including the conditions of detention and matters related to medical assistance, within civil
2