40th conviction of Moldova at ECHR

Moldova lost again at the European Court for Human Rights (ECHR), on November 7, 2006. The Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of three articles of the European Convention on Human Rights in the case of Holomiov vs. Moldova and awarded the applicant EUR 25,000 for non-pecuniary damage and EUR 800 for costs and expenses. ECHR decided that Moldova violated Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment) of the European Convention on Human Rights on account of the authorities’ failure to provide Holomiov with medical care appropriate to his conditions. As well, Moldovan authorities violated the right of Holomiov to liberty and security included in the Article 5 and the right to a fair trial within a reasonable time stipulated by the 6th article of the Convention. Holomiov, assisted by his lawyer Sergiu Gogu, from “Promo-Lex” Association, lodged his application with the European Court of Human Rights on August 10, 2005. The applicant alleged that he was detained in inhuman and degrading conditions and that he was not provided with proper medical care. He further complained that he was detained unlawfully after his detention warrant expired. Finally, he complained about the length of the criminal proceedings. Holomiov was arrested on January 24, 2002 on suspicion of having aided and abetted bribery. Two days later, he was remanded in custody by Centru District Court. His detention was prolonged several times until May 23 2002. After that date, the applicant remained in detention without having his detention warrant prolonged. He submitted numerous requests for release relying, in particular, on his medical condition and on the impossibility of receiving appropriate medical care in prison due to a lack of specialized doctors and medication, but they were all rejected. He suffered from a number of serious illnesses including: chronic hepatitis, chronic renal failure, and generalized anxiety disorder. In 2002 and 2003 an urologist from the Central Republican Hospital recommended urgent surgery. The doctor advised that a delay might result in the serious degradation of his kidney. A similar recommendation was made by the head doctor of the prison hospital. The recommendation was however never followed up. In November 2004, the applicant started a hunger strike to protest against his being treated in the prison, and in December 2005 the District Court accepted the applicant’s argument that his detention was incompatible with his medical condition and decided to replace his remand in custody with house arrest. The applicant is still under house arrest and the criminal proceedings are still pending. The condemnation of Moldova at ECHR in the case of Holomiov is the 40th to date. As a result of these decisions, Moldova paid or has to pay further about EUR 400 thousand from the state budget.