Case 53-O09-81

O. was released from criminal responsibility for violating Article 105 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation (relating to a contract killing) because the Supreme Court of the Republic of Bashkortostan determined that O. had committed the act in a state of insanity. O. was sentenced to compulsory outpatient observance and treatment by a psychiatrist. This was affirmed by the cassation judgment of the Supreme Court of Russian Federation on December 13, 2005 but a later judgment of the Krasnoyarsk territorial court on April 3, 2007, changed O’s sentence to compulsory treatment at a psychiatric hospital.

During the Krasnoyarsk territorial court proceedings, expert psychiatrists from the medical institution claimed that O had refused the required medical rehabilitation measures, which did not “exclude the recurrence of a socially dangerous act.” O. claimed, however, that he was he was not prescribed any treatment and did not refuse any medical rehabilitation measures. In light of this, O. requested that the Krasnoyarsk territorial court’s judgment be annulled as it violated criminal procedural law and was based on the unverified conclusion of the expert’s commission.

The Supreme Court of the Russian Federation annulled the judgment of the Krasnoyarsk territorial court.

The Court held that requirements of criminal procedure had been violated because the Krasnoyarsk territorial court had not substantiated that the conclusions of the psychiatrists’ commission or determined what had changed regarding O’s mental state that made it necessary to place him to the psychiatric hospital, despite being obligated under the relevant provisions of the Criminal Code to do so.

The Court noted that, under Article 102 of the Criminal Code and related provisions, a court could change compulsory outpatient treatment by a psychiatrist to a more severe treatment only where the patient’s mental state had changed and that such court must have adequate information to conclude that the patient required such conditions of treatment, care, maintenance and observance only available at a psychiatric hospital. The Court concluded that the record below did not support this finding because the Krasnoyarsk territorial court had not verified O’s claims that he had not been prescribed treatment, did not refuse rehabilitation measures, and had only requested information from the doctors.

Thus, the Court determined that the Krasnoyarsk territorial court had not properly considered O’s claims, which directly related to the merits of the case, nor had it reviewed an objective medical examination of O. Furthermore, the Court stressed that the fact that compulsory medical treatment did not exclude that patient’s right under Article 5 of the Law of Russian Federation to receive information about his mental condition and treatment.

“The fact that person who committed a socially dangerous act is appointed compulsory measures of medical nature does not exclude the right of person to receive such information taking into account his mental condition.” Page 3.

 “Само по себе применение к лицу, совершившему общественно опасное деяние, принудительных мер медицинского характера не исключает права лица получать такие сведения с учетом его психического состояния.”

 “[P]ersons who suffer from mental disorders have all rights and freedoms of citizens, envisioned by the Constitution of the Russian Federation and federal laws; restrictions of rights and freedoms of citizens related to mental disorder are allowed only in cases envisioned by laws of the Russian Federation as it follows from Article 55 (paragraph 3) of the Constitution of the Russian Federation.” Page 3.

“страдающие психическими расстройствами, обладают всеми правами и свободами граждан, предусмотренными Конституцией Российской Федерации и федеральными законами; ограничение же прав и свобод граждан, связанное с психическим расстройством, допустимо лишь в случаях, предусмотренных законами Российской Федерации, как это следует из ст. 55 (ч. 3) Конституции Российской Федерации.”