I correctly predicted that there was a violation of human rights in D v. RUSSIA.
- Judgment date: 2010-11-18
- Communication date: 2015-12-17
- Application number(s): 11235/13
- Country: RUS
- Relevant ECHR article(s): 3, 6, 6-1, 8, 8-1
Violation of Art. 6-1
Pecuniary damage - claim dismissed
Non-pecuniary damage - award
- Result: Violation SEE FINAL JUDGMENT
- Probability: 0.58533
- Prediction: Violation
Communication text used for prediction
The applicant is a Russian national who is currently serving his sentence in a high-security correctional facility.
The circumstances of the case 2.
The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows.
The applicant was convicted of the sexual abuse of a minor and sentenced to twelve years’ imprisonment.
The courts also ordered regular monitoring of the applicant’s mental health by prison medical staff.
From October 2011 to May 2012 a photograph of the applicant was put on the prison notice board with a caption which read “inclined to paedophilia”.
The notice board was located in the telephone room.
As soon as the applicant’s fellow inmates learned about the nature of his conviction and that he was “inclined to paedophilia” the applicant was immediately classed as one of a group known as the “untouchables” in the prison underworld.
He was assigned to do menial chores, like cleaning bathrooms and toilets, and was subjected to regular insults and violence.
He was allocated a specific table in the canteen and a particular washstand.
He was also forbidden to eat or sit anywhere else or to touch other inmates’ clothing or property.
He was not allowed to put his food in communal fridges or enter the cooking area where “normal men” heated their food.
On 13 February 2012 the prosecutor’s office of the Komi Republic inspected the correctional facility and ordered the prison authorities to change the caption under the applicant’s photograph as it breached his right to the confidentiality of his medical records.
On 29 March 2012 the prison authorities informed the prosecutor that the wording had been changed to “has committed a crime against sexual integrity” and that the access of prisoners to the notice board had been restricted.
The applicant brought a civil claim against the prison authorities seeking compensation in respect of non-pecuniary damage.
He pleaded in particular that disclosure of his mental health record had caused him distress and suffering.
On 2 August 2012 the Syktyvkar Town Court dismissed his claim, considering that the measure had not been unlawful.
It found that as the photograph had had the caption “inclined to paedophilia” rather than “suffering from a mental condition”, it had not amounted to a disclosure of the applicant’s medical record, but had merely referred to the nature of his conviction.
The Town Court held the hearings in the applicant’s absence, finding that the Code of Civil Procedure did not require detainees to be present before the courts hearing their civil claims.
On 18 October 2012 the Supreme Court of the Komi Republic dismissed an appeal by the applicant in his absence and endorsed the findings of the Town Court.
In September 2012 the applicant brought another civil claim, seeking compensation in respect of poor conditions of detention and transport in April 2010.
On 17 September 2012 the Syktyvkar Town Court dismissed the claim and refused him leave to appear, finding that the Code of Civil Procedure did not provide for the presence in person of detainees before the courts hearing their civil claims.
On 17 December 2012 the Supreme Court of the Komi Republic dismissed an appeal by the applicant in his absence and upheld the Town Court’s judgment.
Relevant domestic law 12.
Section 9 of the Psychiatric Assistance Act (Law no.
3185-1 of 2 July 1992) provides that a psychiatric diagnosis constitutes confidential medical information.
Section 13 of the Health Protection Act (Law no.
323 of 21 November 2011) prohibits the disclosure of confidential medical information.
The applicant complains under Article 8 of the Convention of the unlawful disclosure of his medical records.
He further complains under Article 3 that the way he was treated by his fellow inmates on account of his status in the informal hierarchy of prisoners constituted inhuman or degrading punishment.
The applicant finally complains under Article 6 § 1 that the domestic courts have repeatedly failed to ensure his presence at hearings before the Supreme Court of the Komi Republic.