Here’s a breakdown of the Dzhachvliani and Others v. Ukraine decision by the European Court of Human Rights:
1. **Essence of the Decision:**
The European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) found Ukraine in violation of Article 3 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms due to inadequate medical care provided to three applicants during their detention. The Court also identified violations related to the excessive length of pre-trial detention and criminal proceedings in two of the cases, as well as the lack of effective remedies for these issues. The applicants suffered from serious medical conditions that were not properly addressed by the Ukrainian authorities while in detention. As a result, the Court awarded the applicants sums for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage, as well as for costs and expenses. The Court joined the three applications due to their similar subject matter.
2. **Structure and Main Provisions:**
* **Procedure:** The judgment begins by outlining the case’s origin, noting that the applications were lodged against Ukraine under Article 34 of the Convention. It mentions that the Ukrainian Government was notified of the applications.
* **Facts:** This section identifies the applicants and provides relevant details about their applications. The core complaint is that the applicants did not receive adequate medical care while in detention.
* **Law:**
* **Joinder of the Applications:** The Court decided to examine the applications jointly due to their similar subject matter.
* **Alleged Violation of Article 3:** This is the central legal analysis, focusing on the applicants’ complaints of inadequate medical treatment in detention, referencing Article 3 of the Convention. The Court refers to its established case-law, emphasizing that medical treatment in prison must be adequate and comparable to the quality of treatment available to the general population.
* **Other Alleged Violations Under Well-Established Case-Law:** In two of the applications, the Court found additional violations related to the length of pre-trial detention, criminal proceedings, and the lack of effective remedies.
* **Remaining Complaints:** The Court rejected some additional complaints raised under Article 5 of the Convention, finding that they did not meet the admissibility criteria.
* **Application of Article 41:** The Court considered the issue of just satisfaction, awarding sums to the applicants for damages and costs, based on its case-law and the documents in its possession.
* **For These Reasons, The Court, Unanimously:** This section outlines the Court’s decisions, including the joinder of applications, admissibility of certain complaints, findings of violations, and the order for the respondent State to pay the applicants specified amounts.
* **Appendix:** The appendix provides a detailed list of the applications, including the applicants’ names, dates of introduction, medical conditions, shortcomings in medical treatment, other complaints, and the amounts awarded.
3. **Main Provisions for Use:**
* **Inadequate Medical Care (Article 3 Violation):** The decision reinforces the principle that States must provide adequate medical care to detainees, comparable to the care available to the general population. Shortcomings such as delays in medical examinations, lack of specialized consultations, and inadequate drug therapy can constitute a violation of Article 3.
* **Excessive Length of Detention/Proceedings:** The decision highlights that excessively long pre-trial detention and criminal proceedings, along with a lack of effective remedies, can lead to violations of the Convention.
* **Just Satisfaction (Article 41):** The Court awarded monetary compensation to the applicants for the violations found, covering both pecuniary and non-pecuniary damages, as well as costs and expenses.
**** This decision is particularly relevant for Ukraine, as it addresses systemic issues related to medical care in detention facilities and the administration of justice. It serves as a reminder of the State’s obligations to ensure the health and rights of individuals deprived of their liberty and to provide timely and effective judicial proceedings.
