The case of Rakhilkhan Bizurukov v. Kyrgyzstan. The views of the UN Human Rights Committee dated July 12, 2023. Communication No. 3001/2017.
In 2017, the authors of the communication were assisted in preparing a complaint. Subsequently, the complaint was communicated to Kyrgyzstan.
The author claimed that the State party violated her husband's rights due to the fact that the medical staff at her husband's place of detention did not provide him with proper medical care, which led to his death. The Committee found that the information provided to it indicated a violation by the State party of the author's husband's rights under articles 6, paragraph 1, and 10, paragraph 1, of the Covenant.
The Committee's legal position is that the obligation to ensure detainees' right to life rests with States and that detainees themselves are not obliged to ask for protection. States Parties have an increased obligation to take care of taking any necessary measures to protect the lives of persons deprived of their liberty by the State, since by subjecting persons to arrest, detention, imprisonment or otherwise depriving them of their liberty, States Parties assume responsibility for taking care of their lives and physical integrity, while reducing such responsibility they They cannot cite a lack of financial resources or other logistical problems. The State party should be aware of the state of health of prisoners in State detention facilities to the extent that it can reasonably be assumed (paragraph 7.3 of the Considerations).
The Committee recalls that the humane treatment of all persons deprived of their liberty, with respect for their dignity, is a fundamental rule of universal application. They should not experience other hardships and hardships than those that are an inevitable consequence of deprivation of liberty; they should be treated humanely in accordance with the United Nations Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners. In accordance with the Principles of Medical Ethics relating to the role of health workers, especially doctors, in protecting prisoners or detainees from torture and other Cruel, inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, medical personnel, especially doctors providing medical care to prisoners or detainees, are obliged to protect their physical and mental health and ensure the treatment of diseases of the same quality and level as is provided to persons who are not prisoners or detainees (paragraph 7.4 of the Considerations).
The Committee's assessment of the factual circumstances of the case: it was necessary to determine whether the State party had violated its obligations under articles 6, paragraph 1, and 10, paragraph 1, of the Covenant in connection with the death of Mr. Bizurukov as a result of inadequate medical treatment. The Committee took note of the author's claim that on 9 July 2011 her husband was transferred from the temporary detention facility to SIZO No. 5 in Osh, where he was detained until his death on 1 September 2011. She noted that from the moment of admission to pre-trial detention center No. 5 until the day before his death, Mr. Bizurukov complained to the medical staff about his health, namely pain in the kidneys and urinary tract, as well as difficulty urinating. The Committee stated that between July 9 and September 1, 2011, Mr. Bizurukov visited a urologist only once, who diagnosed him with benign prostatic hyperplasia and recommended that he undergo surgery to remove prostate adenoma. The Committee pointed out that, despite his condition, Mr. Bizurukov remained virtually ignored by the medical staff at SIZO No. 5, and was cared for mainly by his son (who was also held there), including when he had to use a urinary catheter to empty Mr. Bizurukov's bladder after as the latter could not urinate for several days. The Committee took note of the State party's statement that the State Penitentiary Service had conducted a criminal investigation into the death of Mr. Bizurukov and that the head of the medical unit had been acquitted of all charges by the Supreme Court (paragraph 7.2 of the Views).
Based on the documents submitted to it by the author, the Committee noted that the forensic medical examination had established that Mr. Bizurukov suffered from chronic coronary heart disease. The Committee drew attention to the fact that this was not known to the medical staff of SIZO No. 5, since he had never complained of heart problems and, as the State Penitentiary Service established during its investigation, since he had not been examined for heart diseases, despite his age and other health complaints. The Committee considered that, given Mr. Bizurukov's general state of health and age, as well as the seriousness of his complaints, a properly functioning medical service in SIZO No. 5 could and should have provided him with regular monitoring and the necessary medical care to prevent a sudden deterioration in his health. Accordingly, the Committee concluded that the State party had failed to take appropriate measures to protect the life of Mr. Bizurukov during his stay in SIZO No. 5 (paragraph 7.3 of the Views).
With regard to the author's complaint under article 10, paragraph 1, of the Covenant, the Committee noted that the State party had not disputed the information provided by the author on the conditions of Mr. Bizurukov's detention and had not provided any information on his treatment during detention. The Committee found a violation of Mr. Bizurukov's rights under article 10, paragraph 1, of the Covenant (paragraph 7.4 of the Views).
The Committee's conclusions: The information provided indicated a violation by the State party of the rights provided for in articles 6, paragraph 1, and 10, paragraph 1, of the Covenant (paragraph 8 of the Views).