I correctly predicted that there was a violation of human rights in X v. RUSSIA.

Information

• Judgment date: 2018-02-20
• Communication date: 2015-05-13
• Application number(s): 3150/15
• Country:   RUS
• Relevant ECHR article(s): 5, 5-1-e
• Conclusion:
  Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-1 - Lawful arrest or detention
  Article 5-1-e - Persons of unsound mind)
• Result: Violation
SEE FINAL JUDGMENT

JURI Prediction

• Probability: 0.577302
• Prediction: Violation

• Consistent

Communication text used for prediction

1.
The applicant, X, is a Russian national, who was born in 1995 and lives in Moscow Region.
A.
The circumstances of the case 2.
The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows.
3.
On unspecified date the applicant was diagnosed with schizotypal personality disorder and was undergoing voluntary treatment for his condition.
4.
On 24 April 2014 he was apprehended by the police on the street in Bibirevo district of Moscow.
He was then taken to the local police precinct and later transferred by the psychiatric ambulance service to the Central Clinical Psychiatric Hospital of the Moscow Region (the Hospital).
According to the medical records kept by the Hospital, the applicant during the initial examination considered in-patient treatment necessary for himself in order to ‘improve [his] mood, reduce irritability and perplexity of thoughts’.
5.
On 25 April 2014 the applicant after talking with his father demanded his discharge from the Hospital, however his request was denied.
6.
On the same day a medical counselling panel composed of the resident psychiatrists of the Hospital examined the applicant and diagnosed him with the organic delusional disorder.
The panel also found that the applicant was a danger to himself and others and that there was a risk of significant damage to his health due to the deterioration or aggravation of the psychiatric condition in the absence of psychiatric assistance.
The full text of the panel’s report and conclusion read as follows: “25.04.2014 12.00 Panel examination due to refusal of treatment.
Lethargic, obtuse.
Low mood.
Explains his low mood by inability to meet a boy he has sympathy to.
Unsure whether that boy also has sympathy to him.
Goes across the city to see that ‘boy’.
He wants to be ‘treated gently, to be caressed, fondled’.
Admitted that he goes to women’s clothing stores [because he likes the clothing] which is ‘soft and bright’.
For a long time visits the neighbourhood where he had met the boy; before he was going to other neighbourhoods and was watching boys.
Diagnosis: Organic delusional disorder.
Conclusion: needs involuntary placement and treatment in accordance with section 29 (a) and (c) of the Psychiatric Assistance Act of 1992.” 7.
On the same day the Hospital applied for judicial authorisation of the applicant’s involuntary hospitalisation under section 29 (a) and (c) of the Psychiatric Assistance Act 1992, since the applicant was a danger to himself or others and that there was a risk of significant damage to his health due to the deterioration or aggravation of the psychiatric condition in the absence of psychiatric assistance.
The relevant parts of the request read as follows: “According to the patient, about three years ago [in 2011] he started having desire to be in contact with boys, to look like a girl.
He dyed his hair to attract attention.
He started watching TV shows, where he could observe how a woman moves, uses make-up, dresses up.
Since the beginning of the last year he became fixed on these thoughts, started contemplating possibility of gender reassignment.
During this period he had mood swings, was anxious, irritable, having difficulties in focusing his attention.
Under these circumstances he was hospitalised to [a psychiatric facility].
After the discharge his condition improved.
He continued his studies.
In the last year he started paying more attention to his appearance, using lipstick, wearing women’s jewellery, sometimes tried women’s clothing at home.
He got acquainted with a boy, a ninth grade student, during one of the walks in the city.
He started meeting him, talking to him, tried to ‘have physical contact’, touched his hand, fondled it.
Had a desire to be ‘caressed’.
According to the supporting documents [report to the head of police precinct, psychiatric ambulance order] he was apprehended by police officers on the street, where he was sexually harassing an underage teenager, stalked him for four months, repeatedly would not allow him to go.
Transferred to [police precinct] where he was examined by a psychiatrist on duty, subsequently involuntarily interred... During examination in the reception ward signed the consent to treatment.
On 25 April 2014 was examined by the panel of resident psychiatrists of [the Hospital] and diagnosed with organic delusional disorder.
The patient needs to be involuntarily hospitalised and treated under section 29 (a) and (c) of the Psychiatric Assistance Act of 1992.
Examination and treatment of the patient can take place only under in-patient regime ... [It is requested] 1.
[To grant authorisation of involuntary placement to a psychiatric facility]; 2.
To consider the request for authorisation on the premises of the Hospital, since due to his mental state [the applicant] cannot be produced in court ...” 8.
The applicant’s father, acting as his representative, objected to involuntary hospitalisation stating that he presents no danger either to himself or the others.
He further stated that the police report referred to by the Hospital contains no information on the alleged sexual harassment or other unlawful acts.
9.
On 5 May 2014 the applicant’s involuntary hospitalisation was authorised by the Savyolovskiy District Court of Moscow.
The hearing, which was held on the premises of the psychiatric facility, was attended by the applicant, his parents, the representative of the Hospital, and the prosecutor.
The authorisation issued by the court in a remarkably succinct manner stated that, while the applicant and his father objected to hospitalisation, the evidence presented by the medical panel of the Hospital demonstrated that the applicant was a danger to himself and the others and that his mental state might deteriorate in absence of treatment.
10.
May 2014 respectively the applicant’s father and the applicant were provided with copies of the judicial authorisation.
11.
The applicant’s father appealed.
The statement of appeal indicated that the District Court exclusively relied on the evaluation of the resident psychiatrists, did not address inconsistencies of evidence, failed to substantiate that the applicant’s condition was severe and that he presented any danger to himself or the others, and, lastly, to reason the absence of any alternative treatment options.
12.
On 18 July 2014 the appeal was dismissed by the Moscow City Court.
The relevant parts of the decision read as follows: “...
The case-file demonstrates that on 24 April 2014 [a policeman apprehended the applicant].
The police report indicates that [he] harassed underage persons...
Since behaviour of [the applicant] exhibited symptoms of a mental disorder [he was taken to the Hospital] where he initially agreed to hospitalisation, stated that since 2013 his mood was changing, he had anxiety, irritability and difficulties with focusing his attention.
Previously he was hospitalised to [a psychiatric facility], following his discharge from [that facility] his mental state improved, he continued his studies.
However during the last year the condition re-appeared.
[According to the medical evidence] on 25 April 2014 [the applicant] was lethargic, obtuse, had low mood, which he explained by inability to meet a boy he has sympathy to.
During the hearing the representative of [the Hospital] stated that [the applicant] was brought in a delusional state, talked about ‘a boy’ who did not exist.
Under this condition he was travelling long distances presenting danger to himself and the others...
The evidence [presented to the first instance court and] substantiating the need for involuntary hospitalisation, including information on previous treatment for delusional disorder, somatic condition (second degree of handicap), gave legal grounds for involuntary hospitalisation.
Since the conclusions regarding mental health of a person are within the exclusive competence of the psychiatrists, the [district] court reasonably gave due regard to the report on the need to provide an in-patient treatment to [the applicant] ...
The appeal does not refer to any factual information demonstrating that the relatives of [the applicant] or other persons are capable of ensuring his and other persons safety without in-patient regime of treatment ...” B.
Relevant domestic law 13.
The relevant provisions of the Russian legislation are reproduced in the judgment Zagidulina v. Russia, no.
11737/06, §§ 21-30, 2 May 2013.
COMPLAINTS 14.
The applicant complains under Article 5 §§ 1 and 4 of the Convention that his involuntary placement to a psychiatric facility was unlawful due to the failure of the national authorities to meet the substantive requirements for involuntary hospitalisation and the procedural defects in the judicial authorisation of his hospitalisation.