The deterioration of the prisoner’s health was not due to the negligence of the authorities. No degrading treatment was found!
JUDGMENT
Mayrapetyan v. Armenia 31.03.2022 ( app. no. 43/19)
SUMMARY
Deterioration of prisoner health. Medical care and assistance from the authorities. The applicant is a well-known businessman and owner and CEO of a television channel in Armenia.
In 2018 and while he already had many health problems, the applicant was detained on charges of corruption. He was initially treated in Germany under the care of doctors and then transferred to a second detention center, where his doctor prescribed medication and a diet with frequent intake of small amounts of hot food. However, some time later, stones were found in his gallbladder and kidneys. Several groups of medical professionals have recommended that he be allowed to receive treatment in Germany to avoid future complications.
Following an application for interim measures, on 17 January 2019 the European Court of Justice asked the Government of Armenia to ensure that the applicant would receive emergency medical treatment, in accordance with his state of health and the relevant instructions of the doctors.
In January 2019 the applicant was allowed to travel to Germany on bail. However, this guarantee was annulled a year later (after the applicant had received treatment) due to his alleged failure to appear before the investigator.
Relying on Articles 2 (right to life) and 3 (prohibition of degrading and inhuman treatment), the applicant complained of his deteriorating health and the refusal of the authorities to allow him to travel abroad for emergency medical care. which he also received for the alimony provided to him during his detention while he was ill.
The Strasbourg Court held that the applicant’s state of health was not endangered while in detention. In addition, he underwent regular medical examinations and was eventually released on bail when his condition deteriorated rapidly.
The Court found that the applicant could no longer be considered a victim under Article 2 and dismissed that part of the action as inadmissible.
The ECtHR also noted that the applicant had free access to doctors of his choice, including visits to public hospitals when deemed necessary. Although his condition worsened, the Court was satisfied that this was not the result of any negligence on the part of the authorities.
As for his diet according to the ECtHR, no specific diet was prescribed by a doctor and he was given a microwave oven to heat his food.
The Court also dismissed this part of the action as manifestly unfounded.
PROVISIONS
Article 2
Article 3
PRINCIPAL FACTS
The applicant, Samvel Mayrapetyan, is an Armenian national who was born in 1959 and lives in
Yerevan. He is a well-known businessman and the owner and chief executive of a television channel
in Armenia.
In 2018 Mr Mayrapetyan was placed in pre-trial detention following corruption charges against him.
He had already had several health issues at that stage, including pancreatitis and toxic shock, and
later respiratory failure. He had been treated in Germany and remained under the care of doctors
there.
Following a transfer to a second detention facility, his treating doctor prescribed him medication and
a diet with a frequent intake of small amounts of warm food. However, gallbladder and kidney
stones were later found. Several panels of medical professionals recommended that he be allowed
to leave for treatment in the same clinic in Germany so as to avoid repeat complications.
Following an application, on 17 January 2019 the European Court asked the Government of Armenia
to ensure that the applicant received adequate medical care urgently, in accordance with his state of
health and the relevant instructions of medical professionals.
In January 2019 the applicant was allowed to travel to Germany for treatment under a personal
surety. However, that surety was cancelled year later (after the applicant had been treated) owing to
his alleged failure to appear before the investigator.
As of March 2021 the applicant had not returned to Armenia.
THE DECISION OF THE COURT…
Concerning Article 2, the Court stated that there was nothing to indicate that the applicant had been
suffering from a life-threatening condition when placed in detention. Furthermore, he had had
regular medical check-ups and had ultimately been released on bail when his health had sharply
deteriorated. Given these facts, the Court found that the applicant could no longer be considered a
victim under Article 2 and it rejected that part of the application as inadmissible.
As for Article 3, the Court noted that the applicant had had free access to doctors of his choosing,
including being seen at civilian hospitals when necessary. Although his condition worsened, the
Court was satisfied that that had not been as a result of any negligence on the part of the
authorities. Regarding the applicant’s diet, no specific food had been prescribed, and he had been
given a food heater in his cell promptly when requested. Given this, this part of the application was
rejected as manifestly ill-founded.
