RUDYAK v. UKRAINE JUDGMENT – SEPARATE OPINION 15 assistance.’1 In Kudla v. Poland the Court summarised the obligations incumbent upon the State:‘Article 3 compels the State to ensure that a person is detained in conditions that are compatible with respect for his human dignity, that is the manner and method of the execution of the measure do not subject him to distress or hardship of an intensity exceeding an unavoidable level of suffering inherent in detention and that, given the practical demands of imprisonment, his health and well being are adequately secured, by among other things, providing him with the requisite medical assistance.’2 Thus, whilst the applicant in the instant case was not entitled to ‘state of the art’ medical assistance he was entitled to and ought to have received requisite medical assistance for the serious eye condition from which he suffered in order to have his health (and particularly his vision) and well being secured. Visits by or consultations with a prison doctor are not, in themselves, sufficient to discharge the State’s obligations under Article 3. In our view, in dismissing the applicant’s claim in respect of the inadequacy of the medical care he received, the majority fails to address, sufficiently and convincingly, the question of the adequacy of the medical treatment which the applicant actually received whilst detained. The judgment refers, in very general terms, to the fact that the applicant was prescribed ‘treatment’ for his condition. However, such a general statement is made without any attempt to identify the actual treatment prescribed thus making it impossible to determine whether such treatment, if administered, was either requisite or adequate. In addition, no inquiries appear to have been made by the authorities as to whether the eye surgery was, in fact, scheduled for the applicant or, indeed, whether it could proceed. The authorities must ensure that there is a comprehensive therapeutic strategy aimed at curing the detainee’s diseases or preventing their aggravation rather than merely treating them on a symptomatic basis (see Hummatov, §§ 109, 114; Popov v. Russia, § 211). Furthermore, they must also show that the necessary conditions were created for the prescribed treatment to be actually followed through (See Hummatov, §§ 116; and Holomiov v. Moldova). The above considerations from our point of view are sufficient to conclude that the applicant was not provided with adequate medical assistance while in detention. 1 McGlinchey and Others v. the United Kingdom, no. 50390/99, § 46, ECHR 2003-V; Mouisel v. France, no. 67263/01, § 40, ECHR 2002-IX; Aerts v. Belgium, 30 July 1998, § 64, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1998-V 2 Kudła v. Poland [GC], no. 30210/96, § 94, ECHR 2000-XI