The European Court of Human Rights has found violations of Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights arising from the treatment of a Ukrainian man with schizophrenia during his transfer from a State-run boarding house to a psychiatric hospital and the authorities’ subsequent failure to properly investigate his injuries.
The applicant, Oleksandr Strashunskyy, was a Ukrainian national who had been diagnosed with paranoid schizophrenia in 2001. He had been living in a State-run boarding house before being transferred to a psychiatric hospital in 2016. During the transfer, he sustained multiple injuries, including concussion and bruising.
Following the incident, the director of the boarding house imposed disciplinary sanctions on certain employees for negligence and rough handling. Several complaints were subsequently made by Mr Strashunskyy’s mother, prompting the local police to open criminal investigations. Those investigations were ultimately discontinued on the basis that there was insufficient evidence of a criminal offence.
Before the Court, Mr Strashunskyy complained under Article 3 that he had been subjected to ill-treatment during his forced hospitalisation and that the authorities had failed to adequately protect him and investigate the circumstances in which he had been injured.
The Court emphasised that Mr Strashunskyy had been particularly vulnerable and had been under the full control of the State when he sustained his injuries. The police investigation had concluded that the injuries had resulted from his falling while attempting to break free and that the force used by staff had been justified by his behaviour.
The Court identified significant deficiencies in that investigation. In particular, no medical expert examination had been conducted, despite the conflicting accounts of how the injuries had occurred. The Court considered such an examination indispensable for establishing their cause, and noted that no explanation had been provided for its absence.
The investigation had also failed to establish the qualifications and functions of the staff members who had restrained Mr Strashunskyy. This meant that it had not been determined whether those involved had received appropriate training to deal with vulnerable people or whether they had taken all reasonable steps to avoid the use of force.
The Court further noted that disciplinary sanctions had been imposed on certain members of staff for rough handling. That finding undermined the suggestion that Mr Strashunskyy’s injuries had been entirely attributable to his own actions, yet the investigation had not meaningfully examined the significance of those disciplinary findings.
The Court concluded that the investigation had therefore failed to determine whether the force used had been justified and strictly necessary in the circumstances, resulting in a violation of Article 3 in its procedural aspect.
The Court also examined whether the State had complied with its substantive obligations under Article 3. It reiterated that the provision imposed both a negative obligation on States to refrain from inflicting serious harm and positive obligations to take appropriate measures to protect individuals within their jurisdiction from treatment contrary to Article 3.
The injuries sustained by Mr Strashunskyy had been objectively documented shortly after his transfer to hospital. The burden therefore fell on the Government to provide a satisfactory and convincing explanation for their origin and, where force had been used, to demonstrate that it had been justified, strictly necessary and proportionate.
In light of the deficiencies in the investigation, the Government had failed to establish that the use of force had been necessary. The Court therefore found that it had failed to comply with its negative obligation under Article 3.
The Court also considered the State’s positive obligation to protect Mr Strashunskyy’s physical integrity and dignity. Although his hospitalisation had been ordered by a psychiatrist, it did not appear to have been an urgent measure. The authorities had failed to establish whether the personnel involved in his transfer had been trained to restrain a person with a mental health condition or whether the force used had been reasonable and justified.
Given Mr Strashunskyy’s vulnerability and his complete dependence on those exercising authority over him, the Court stressed that particular care had been required when planning and carrying out coercive measures.
The Court concluded that those responsible for Mr Strashunskyy’s welfare had failed to sufficiently protect him. He had sustained multiple injuries in circumstances which had not been shown to be unavoidable or to have been managed consistently with the State’s obligation to protect his physical integrity and dignity.
The Court therefore found that Ukraine had fallen short of both its negative and positive obligations under Article 3 of the Convention.