The Court has already found a violation in respect of issues similar to those in the present case (see Nevmerzhitsky v. Ukraine, no. 54825/00, §§ 103-05, ECHR 2005-II (extracts); Wenner v. Germany, no. 62303/13, §§ 54-81, 1 September 2016; and, mutatis mutandis, Barilo v. Ukraine, no. 9607/06, §§ 66-73, 16 May 2013).

Considering her medical condition, have the Government met their obligation to ensure that that applicant's health and well-being are being adequately secured by providing her with the requisite medical assistance and adequate food in prison (see Barilo v. Ukraine, no. 9607/06, 16 May 2013), as required by Article 3 of the Convention?.

Was the applicant's detention between 21 June and 17 August 2006 and his subsequent detention ordered by the courts on 17 August 2006, 30 June and 24 September 2010, and 28 January 2011 free from arbitrariness and based on sufficient reasons for the purposes of Article 5 §§ 1 and 3 of the Convention (see, for example, Khayredinov v. Ukraine, no. 38717/04, §§ 27-31, 14 October 2010, Korneykova v. Ukraine, no. 39884/05, §§ 38, 43 and 47-48, 19 January 2012, Barilo v. Ukraine, no. 9607/06, § 93, 16 May 2013, and Kondratyev v. Ukraine, no. 5203/09, §§ 109-112, 15 December 2011)?.

As regards other elements of the applicant's complaint, the case-file materials do not indicate that his state of health deteriorated during his detention in the Slavyanoserbsk Colony, or that on account of unavailability of particular medication, treatment or medical supervision he had suffered pain or hardship of an intensity attracting applicability of Article 3 (see, by contrast, for instance, Logvinenko v. Ukraine, no. 13448/07, §§ 68-69, 14 October 2010, and Barilo v. Ukraine, no. 9607/06, §§ 69-71, 16 May 2013).