Advance unedited version CCPR/C/132/D/2361/2014
the Committee, acting through its Special Rapporteur on new communications and interim
measures, decided to examine the admissibility of the communication together with its merits.
Factual background1
2.1
The author submits that he is a medical doctor who used to work at Vitebsk regional
clinic of psychiatry and drug abuse treatment (hereinafter “the Vitebsk clinic”). He submits
that he started facing problems from the authorities after he published several articles and
videos. In his newspaper articles and videos published online, he complained about the state
of medical health and asked the prosecutor’s office to investigate crimes committed by the
management of the Vitebsk clinic, the chief medical doctor Mr. M.E.V. and his deputy, Ms.
P.I.V2. In these articles, he also complained about low salaries and poor education of doctors
working at the Vitebsk clinic. The author further complained about the Governor and Deputy
Governor of the Vitebsk region. Instead of dealing with issues that the author raised, the
representatives of several government agencies conspired to subject him to involuntary
medical confinement. These officials included the chief prosecutor of the Vitebsk region,
Y.R., chair of the Vitebsk Regional Court, N.H, and others.
2.2
The author submits that, upon prosecutor’s request, he was detained in psychiatric
ward from 15 August 2013. Although the author claims to be in good health, the prosecutor
cited the author’s behaviour to be “inadequate, with signs of long-lasting psychiatric
disorder”, and argued that the author refused to undergo treatment and take medicines. This
initial detention was done only to medically evaluate him, but the author submits that his
rights were immediately restricted since he could not correspondent with anyone, use phone,
make any purchases, etc. The numerous complaints that he sent to the prosecutor’s office,
and other authorities, were not mailed, but instead, were simply added to his medical file.
The law allows such restrictions only upon finding that the author is a danger to himself
and/or other persons, but the author states that he was not. The author considers that the order
from the prosecutor’s office to medically evaluate him was arbitrary. The author submits that
this was done to silence him, as he openly criticized the state of health care in the region in
newspaper articles. The author further claims that he could not have been sick because he
worked as a doctor of psychiatry in this same Vitebsk clinic for many years.
2.3
The author submits that by the order of the Vitebsk District Court 3 dated 21 August
2013, he was committed to an involuntary hospitalization in the Vitebsk clinic for
compulsory psychiatric treatment for an indefinite period of time 4. This decision was adopted
in a “closed” hearing, and the procedure of committing the author was initiated by the chief
medical doctor of the Vitebsk clinic where the author used to work himself. The chief medical
doctor, Mr. M.E.V., informed the court, through a report he submitted, that the author was
ordered to undergo psychiatric treatment but did not follow. According to the report of the
chief medical doctor, the author, due to his current condition, “poses risk to himself”,5 and
without proper medical treatment, his “health would suffer”. The chief medical doctor asked
the court to subject the author to involuntary confinement and medical treatment.
2.4
The representative of the chief medical doctor was present at the hearing on 21 August
2013, and testified that the author, if not confined, could pose danger to himself, and he
suffers from “delirium”.6 The prosecutor who was present as well, also requested to confine
the author. The court stated in its decision that the “interested person” – the author – was not
present at the hearing, despite being informed about time, date and location of the hearings.
The author submits that he asked the Vitebsk clinic, and the court, to inform him about the
hearing, but the authorities failed to provide this information. Since the author was confined
1
2
3
4
5
6
2
Due to absence of some information from the author, and complete absence of information on merits
from the State party, the factual background was compiled based on copies of court decisions
provided by the author.
The author submits that these two persons are husband and wife.
Civil court.
It is not clear from the author’s submission whether he has been released from the psychiatric ward, at
the time of submission.
No further information is provided in the court decision dated 21 August 2013, which consist of 1.5
pages.
Idem.