CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;DECCOMMISSION;ENG — 4 mars 1986

.sDD6737AE { font-size:11pt } .s211D6B00 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; line-height:normal; widows:0; orphans:0; font-size:8.5pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial }  The European Commission of Human Rights sitting in private on 4 March 1986, the following members being present:                 MM. C. A. NØRGAARD, President                   G. SPERDUTI                   J. A. FROWEIN                   G. JÖRUNDSSON                   S. TRECHSEL                   B. KIERNAN                   A. S. GÖZÜBÜYÜK                   A. WEITZEL                   J. C. SOYER                   H. G. SCHERMERS                   G. BATLINER                   H. VANDENBERGHE              Mrs.   G. H. THUNE              Sir   Basil HALL   Mr. H. C. KRÜGER Secretary to the Commission   Having regard to Art. 25 of the Convention (Art. 25) for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms;   Having regard to the application introduced on 9 October 1984 by W.M and Others against the United Kingdom and registered on 23 October 1984 under file N° 11208/84;   Having regard to the report provided for in Rule 40 of the Rules of Procedure of the Commission;   Having deliberated;   Decides as follows:   THE FACTS   The applicants were, at the time of the lodging of their application, serving prison sentences at HM Prison Magilligan, Northern Ireland. They had all taken part in an abortive hunger strike begun by a group of loyalist prisoners to achieve segregation from republican prisoners which lasted from 19 August 1984 until 18 September 1984.   The facts of the application, some of which are in dispute between the parties, may be summarised as follows:   The applicants are:   - William McQuiston, a citizen of the United Kingdom, born in 1956, who was sentenced to eight years' imprisonment on 4 October 1976 for inter alia firearms offences.   - William Ritchie, a citizen of the United Kingdom, born in 1961, who was sentenced to six years' imprisonment on 10 February 1983 for armed robbery.   - Thomas Harris, a citizen of the United Kingdom, born in 1953, who was sentenced to ten years' imprisonment for armed robbery on 4 March 1980.   - Elmer Stevenson, a citizen of the United Kingdom, born in 1953.   On 9 June 1983 he was sentenced to four years' imprisonment for possession of firearms and ammunition within intent.   - Alan McKenzie, a citizen of the United Kingdom, born in 1961. On 15 May 1981 he was sentenced to seven years' imprisonment for possession of firearms.   The applicants are represented by Mr. Richard Monteith, solicitor, Portadown, Northern Ireland who has submitted powers of attorney to this effect.   The applicants McQuiston, Harris and Stevenson were released from prison early in 1985.   The applicants complain of the system of integrating republican and loyalist prisoners at HM Prison Magilligan.   They claim that they are forced to remain in their cells for 23 hours per day since they fear for their own safety if they leave their cells to go for meals, to wash or to enjoy association with other prisoners.   The applicant McQuiston alleges that on 27 July 1984 he was ordered to attend a canteen on C Wing H Block 3 (i.e. H3) after he had collected his meal.   He alleges that a republican prisoner threw a cup of hot tea around him.   The same prisoner pulled the applicant to the ground and kicked him.   The applicant received bruising to the head and scalding to the right shoulder neck and right ear.   A sedative was prescribed to calm his nerves.   The applicant Ritchie alleges that he was attacked by two republican prisoners while he was having a shower.   The prisoners threw a bucket at him and struck him around the head and body with a mop.   He received bruising to the left shoulder and head and received medical treatment.   He states that he was also present on 27 July 1984 when the assault took place on the applicant McQuiston.   As a result he received scalding to his left wrist and hand.   The applicant Harris alleges that he was in the shower unit attached to C Wing H3, when an explosive device which had been planted by republican prisoners exploded.   He sustained shock and alleges that he is still affected by periods of nervous shaking.   In May or June 1984 he claims to have been punched severely below the left ear by a republican prisoner while he was carrying out a painting duty.   He states that there were three prison officers near the applicant when he was attacked.   The applicant Stevenson alleges that he had to leave the exercise yard in B Wing H3 after receiving death threats from 20 republican prisoners who were present.   He also alleges to have been threatened with death if he should go to the workshop.   He further claims that he was attacked by four republican prisoners in the exercise yard.   Two days after this the same republican prisoner who had been involved in this attack attacked the applicant again, causing him severe injury to his left knee and leg.   On 27 August 1984 the applicant was told that he would be stabbed if he went to the wood yard.   He subsequently discovered that a knife had been found in the wood yard on 23 August 1984.   The applicant McKenzie alleges that in May 1984 after drinking a cup of tea he noticed some capsules in the bottom of his cup.   He believes that this was an attempt by republican prisoners to poison him.   The cup and its contents were taken away for analysis but he claims that he was never informed of the result.   On 10 January 1985 the applicants McQuiston, Ritchie, Harris and Stevenson initiated civil proceedings in the Londonderry County Court, claiming damages for personal injuries, loss and damage sustained by reason of the negligence of the prison authorities.   Their actions relate to the above-mentioned incidents.   COMPLAINTS   Article 2, para. 1 (Art. 2-1)   The applicants have all endured physical assaults and intimidation from republican prisoners housed in the same prison wings.   They all claim that they fear for their personal safety and that the respondent Government have failed to maintain adequate security and to provide sufficient protection in breach of Art. 2, para. 1 of the Convention (Art. 2-1).   Article 3 (Art. 3)   They complain that the policy of integrating the applicants with republican prisoners and the relentless physical attacks which they are subjected to amount to inhuman treatment.   In addition, they claim to be the victims of inhuman and degrading treatment in that they have been compelled by the situation to remain in their cells for 23 hours each day and to go on hunger strike.   Article 5, para. 1 (Art. 5-1)   They complain that their right to security of person has been inadequately protected by the respondent Government, as shown by the attacks they have endured.   Article 14 (Art. 14)   The applicants point out that in March 1984 a de facto separation of loyalist and republican prisoners was permitted at HM Prison Maze. They claim that at least 21 wings out of 30 in the eight H Blocks of HM Prison Maze have been segregated.   They maintain that they are thus the victims of discrimination.   SUBMISSIONS OF THE PARTIES   The Respondent Government   Relevant domestic law   It is well established in the law of the United Kingdom that prison authorities owe a common law duty of care to prisoners to take reasonable care for their safety, and that this duty covers cases where a prisoner's safety may be endangered by the risk of attack from another prisoner (see Ellis v. Home Office <1953> 2 All ER 149).   On 18 May 1984 a judge at Limavady Court awarded damages for personal injuries to three prisoners in respect of an incident which had occurred at Magilligan Prison on 31 October 1982.   The plaintiffs, loyalist prisoners, had been assaulted in the dining hall and the judge found the Northern Ireland office negligent in failing to provide adequate protection for them.   Any prisoner, therefore, who claims to have been assaulted by another prisoner and claims that the assault arose out of a failure to take proper care on the part of the prison authorities has a civil action in domestic law and, if successful, is entitled to damages.   Legal aid is available in such proceedings.   Northern Ireland Prisons: background   Before the beginning of civil disturbance in 1968 the total prison population in Northern Ireland was just over 600.   By June 1973 it stood at over 2,000.   Magilligan Prison was opened in May 1972 and at first consisted of compound accommodation.   Four compounds were replaced by three H Blocks similar to those at Maze Prison.   A fifth compound was demolished and the remaining three are now used for training purposes. The prison houses some 320 low and medium risk prisoners, many of whom are in the final stages of their sentences.   In June 1972, in the face of a hunger strike involving a number of prisoners, the Government introduced special category status for prisoners involved with both republican and loyalist paramilitary organisations.   These prisoners were not required to work, could wear their own clothes and were allowed additional privileges, including extra visits and food parcels.   It was subsequently found that the use of compound accommodation gave rise to serious problems of security, control and administration.   The Gardiner Committee Report examined the question of special category status and noted that in practice discipline was exercised by compound leaders and for this reason rehabilitation was impossible.   It was also emphasized that, by according special category status to criminals convicted of serious crimes, support was being lent to their view that political motivation justified their crimes.   In November 1975 the Secretary of State announced the Government's intention to phase out special category status with effect from 1 March 1976.   This decision was staunchly resisted by republican prisoners in the Maze Prison, leading to the "dirty" campaign and the hunger strikes during 1980 and 1981.   Following the end of the republican hunger strikes after the death of ten prisoners in 1981, republican prisoners who conformed with the prison rules were housed with loyalist prisoners in the Maze Prison. The loyalist prisoners claimed that they were subject to threats on their lives as a result of the increasing number of republicans in the block and began their own campaign for segregation. This campaign reached its peak in the Maze Prison in October 1982 when they wrecked the contents of over 1,200 cells and embarked on a "dirty" protest which, for reasons of health and hygiene, resulted in their segregation.   In February 1984 the loyalist prisoners ended their protest and declared themsleves to conform fully with all aspects of the prison rules.   The prison authorities then mixed a small number of republican and loyalist prisoners in one wing of the Maze Cellular Prison.   This action resulted in almost immediate violence.   As a consequence, integration of these groups was not forced and many prisoners in the Maze Cellular Prison remain in practice segregated.   Situation in Magilligan Prison   Following the end of the protest in the Maze Prison, the focus of attention switched to Magilligan Prison, where loyalist prisoners, seeing that segregation on a de facto basis had been achieved by many prisoners in the Maze, embarked on a hunger strike on 21 May 1984. This ended on 2 June 1984.   A second hunger strike, involving ten prisoners (including the applicants) began on 19 August 1984.   The prisoners claimed that they were forced to go on hunger strike because they feared for their safety.   They resumed eating on 18 September 1984 when it was made clear that the Government were not prepared to grant segregation, but would take steps to achieve a better balance between loyalists and republican factions in prison.   This was done at the beginning of October by moving prisoners between Magilligan and the Maze.   Throughout the protest action substantial numbers of Catholic and Protestant prisoners lived together and shared common facilities without difficulty.   All the prisoners in H1 and H2 including the ten former hunger strikers, are now taking full advantage of the facilities offered and are integrating fully for meals, work, exercise and association.   In H3 from 28 October 1984 the prisoners have operated a system agreed between themselves of self-imposed segregation with association being taken by loyalists and republicans on alternate days.   The two factions, however, work together.   As at 1 May 1985 two wings are fully conforming and mixing for meals, work, exercise and association. Only the prisoners in the remaining two wings of the prison, H3B and H3C, have continued to organise themselves not to share exercise and association facilities.   Since that date there has not been a single sectarian incident.   Government policy on segregation in Northern Ireland Prisons   The Government have repeatedly made clear that they do not accept that there are political prisoners or prisoners of war in Northern Ireland. The attraction of segregation for those prisoners who see themselves as "loyalist" or "republican" is that it gives support to their contention that they are not ordinary criminals but political prisoners.   The Government regard segregation as being divisive and contrary to the overall aim of securing good order in prisons. Segregation is sought after because it increases the power of the paramilitary organisations.   In segregated conditions, the paramilitary command structure can operate more effectively because the organisation is better able to enforce its wishes over prisoners living in segregated conditions.   Experience has shown that in segregated conditions great pressure is exerted on staff and on individual prisoners whose allegiance to the organisations may be waning.   The power the organisations hold over prisoners gives them some control of their families outside, and thereby strenghtens the hand of the terrorist organisations in the community.   Moreover, the authority of the Governor is undermined since all links between prison administration and prisoners must be conducted through the paramilitary command structure.   Facts relating to all applicants   The Government deny that loyalists are outnumbered by republicans by a ratio of 2:1 in H3 Magilligan.   In May 1984 A and B Wings each housed 17 Catholic prisoners and 13 Protestants (1), C Wing housed 16 Catholics and 12 Protestants and D Wing had 16 Catholics and 14 Protestants.   As at 1 May 1985 H3 is composed as follows:   A Wing - 11 Catholics and 13 Protestants, B Wing 15 Catholics and 15 Protestants, C Wing 14 Catholics and 15 Protestants and D Wing 12 Catholics and 16 Protestants.   ----------- (1) The prison authorities keep a record of the religious denomination of each prisoner.   The Government point out that only a rough equivalence exists between the terms "republican" and "Catholic", on the one hand, and "loyalist" and "Protestant" on the other. -----------   On reception of each of the applicants into prison, the balance was as follows:   - the applicant McQuiston was committed to H3 Wing C in May 1984.   The balance of Catholics to other prisoners was 16:12;   - the applicant Ritchie was committed to H3 Wing C in June 1983. The balance of Catholics to other prisoners was 20:16;   - the applicant Harris was committed to H3 Wing B in July 1983. The balance of Catholics to other prisoners was 20:18;   - the applicant Stevenson was committed to H1 Wing A in January 1984.   The balance of Catholics to other prisoners was 20:14;   - the applicant McKenzie was committed to H1 Wing B in December 1981.   The balance of Catholics to other prisoners was 19:17.   The applicants, in their description of the daily routine, have not made any reference to work.   All five applicants worked from approximately 09.00 hours to 12.00 hours and 14.15 hours to 16.00 hours on weekdays.   In H Blocks 1 and 2, both Protestant and Catholic prisoners exercise in the normal way but in H3 Wings B and C loyalist prisoners take exercise during one period and republican prisoners during another. Similarly, in H1 and 2, and in H3 Wings A and D, from 17.30 hours until 20.30 hours loyalist and republican prisoners mix together, play games, watch television or attend evening education classes.   This occurred also in H3 until December 1982 when loyalist and republican factions agreed to alternate their association period between them. This arrangement continued until September 1983 when loyalist prisoners in H3 refused any association.   Since October 1984 prisoners have reverted to alternating association for each group.   The Government refer to a letter found during a cell search from a republican leader to his loyalist opposite number.   The letter shows that the loyalists' alleged fear for their lives is contrived in order to further the claim for segregation.   Moreover the letter shows that both sides collude to stage violent incidents if and when they consider this useful to their campaign.   During the association periods there are four members of staff in every Wing.   There is also a permanent "immediate reaction force" of 12 staff and a principal officer to render assistance in the event of an incident.   Prisoners are permitted on the Wing landing only in controlled numbers which never exceed four at any one time.   If prisoners remain in their cells, the cell doors are locked so that no-one can enter.   When prisoners are in the dining hall they are locked in so that there is no more movement than necessary.   Since the end of the loyalist hunger strikes all the applicants mixed freely with Catholic prisoners at work, on their Wings, at football, at education classes and in association in the dining halls at night. They work in the company of prisoners from H1 and H2 and all prisoners take visits in the common visits area.   There is no indication of any tension in these areas.   Moreover, those hunger strikers housed in H1 or H2 Blocks have been able to associate and work with other prisoners without apparent fear.   Applicant McQuiston   The Government confirm that on 27 July 1984 a mug of tea was thrown over the applicant.   There were two members of staff in the immediate area of the incident and one of them removed the first applicant for medical help.   The prisoner responsible was later punished for the offence with inter alia loss of 21 days of remission and three days' cellular confinement.   The staff involved in this incident deny that the first applicant was assaulted by any other prisoner.   The incident occurred when the applicant and three other prisoners were collecting their meals from the dining hall.   There were five members of staff present on the landing to supervise the total number of four prisoners who would be released from their cells at any one time to collect their meals.   Following the incident on 27 July the first applicant was seen by the hospital officer and his injuries were dressed.   On 30 July he was seen by the prison doctor who noted blistering on his shoulder and on the back of his neck.   On 3 August the doctor noted that the area of scalding had settled down; that there was no sign of infection; and that there was no need for further dressings.   The first applicant did not mention to the doctor any additional injuries to his head as a result of kicking.   In August 1984, after complaining of loss of memory and difficulties of concentration, he was referred by the prison doctor to a psychiatrist.   He was subsequently seen by a psychiatrist on 3 September 1984 after he had begun a hunger strike.   The psychiatrist reported that he had no symptoms of any psychiatric illness. Following the end of his hunger strike he was again seen by a psychiatrist and medication was prescribed for a period of three to four weeks.   Applicant Ritchie   The Government state that on 12 May 1984 while the applicant Ritchie was taking a shower a republican prisoner threw an empty mop bucket at him.   The prisoner was subsequently awarded 28 days' loss of remission for the offence.   Following the incident the hospital officer who examined the applicant noted a small mark on his left upper arm.   He had no other complaints. There was no injury to his head and no medical treatment was required. On 4 May 1984 he complained of loss of sleep and nervousness. Sedatives were subsequently prescribed.   On 27 July 1984 the applicant, who had been beside the applicant McQuiston when he was scalded by hot tea, was reported to have received a scald to his right wrist.   It was found to be healed by the prison doctor on 2 August 1984.   On 11 September 1984 when he had gone on hunger strike, he was seen by the consultant psychiatrist who considered that there were no obvious symptoms of psychiatric illness.   Applicant Harris   On 1 February 1984, in the washing area, a detonator exploded under a device containing two ounces of commercial explosive.   Six loyalist prisoners, including the applicant, were in the vicinity. None of them was physically injured, although they all appeared shocked and distressed.   The applicant was examined soon afterwards by the duty doctor and again the next day.   He was found to be well and not suffering from shock.   At no stage did he make any complaint to the doctor about suffering from anxiety or nervousness.   During the course of his hunger strike he was examined by the consultant psychiatrist who stated that he noted no symptoms of psychiatric illness.   On 6 June 1984, while the applicant was on painting duty, he was punched from behind by a republican prisoner.   The prisoner was subsequently awarded 28 days' loss of remission and 90 days' confinement to cell during the evening for this offence.   There were four officers on the wing at the time of the incident.   The third applicant was examined after the incident and a red mark was detected below his left ear.   He did not require any treatment.   Applicant Stevenson   In early January 1984 the applicant was seen talking to two republican prisoners in the exercise yard.   He did not make any complaint to the prison authorities about their threats and in subsequent interviews when he alleged that he had been threatened, he refused to name the person who was threatening him.   Nor did he mention any threat of stabbing on 27 August 1984 and he went to the wood yard as usual on that day.   On 23 August 1984 a steel knife was found in a search at the wood yard area.   It is believed that it could have been used against staff as handicraft tools had been used to murder a prison officer less than a year before.   However, it is unlikely that it was intended for use to attack prisoners, since chisels, axes, hatchets and saws were already available in the wood yard area.   On 24 April 1984 the applicant attacked and assaulted a republican prisoner.   He was subsequently awarded 28 days' loss of remission with 90 days' loss of evening association.   On 25 April 1984 he attacked and kicked the same republican prisoner.   He was subsequently charged with assault and again awarded 28 days' loss of remission and 90 days' loss of evening association.   After he had ended his hunger strike in October 1984 he was moved to the B Wing of H Block 1 where there were 14 Catholics and 10 Protestants.   He mixed freely with Catholic prisoners until his release on 15 February 1985.   In addition, he continued working in the wood yard with no apparent distress and no complaints about his safety.   Applicant McKenzie   On 3 May 1984 the applicant complained that an attempt had been made to poison him.   He showed the hospital officer his mug in the bottom of which were two partially dissolved tablets.   He stated that the tablets had come from the tea urn.   The Government state that the spout of the tea urn is so constructed that it is physically impossible for two tablets to have passed through it.   It is the practice that prisoners fill their own mugs and return with them to their cells so that a prisoner's mug never leaves his possession.   The Government state that it is difficult to see how the tablets could have found their way into his mug unless he put them there himself.   The tablets were sent for forensic analysis and were found to be based on theophylline - drug used in the treatment of asthmatics. It has been established that only a large dose of this drug would cause ill effects in a non-asthmatic.   Two tablets would present no danger to health.   At the end of the applicant's hunger strike he was eventually moved to B Wing of H Block 1 where he is now detained.   He mixes freely with Catholic prisoners on the Wing and works alongside them in the prison wood yard.   Following the report of the incident conerning the tablets, he was put on special observation which involved his being observed every fifteen minutes in his cell.   No abnormal behaviour was noted.   Admissibility and merits   Article 26 (Art. 26) - exhaustion of domestic remedies   The applicants complain that they have suffered either mental or physical injury as a result of the failure of the prison authorities to take sufficient care for their safety in protecting them from attacks from republican prisoners.   Four of the five applicants have issued civil bills claiming damages against the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland in respect of the incidents invoked in the application.   In these circumstances the applicants cannot be said to have exhausted their domestic remedies.   Civil Bills were issued on 10 January 1985 and are still pending before the courts.   The delay can be attributed to inaction on the part of the applicants' solicitor.   For a civil bill to be listed for hearing, it is essential that the plaintiff's solicitor lodge the original Civil Bill with the County Court Office fourteen days before the date on which the County Court sittings commence.   The applicants' solicitor failed to lodge the original Civil Bills for the most recent sitting of the court at Limavady which began on 11 October 1985.   Abuse of the right of petition   It is submitted that none of the applicants was ever at risk of serious injury in any of the incidents complained of.   Moreover, it is clear from the letter discovered in a cell search that loyalist and republican prisoners are able to co-operate with each other; that self-imposed segregation does not derive from fear and is not necessary on grounds of safety.   The present application is part of an orchestrated campaign for segregation and political status.   It is claimed that none of the applicants is genuinely concerned about breaches of the Convention and that the application is intended to achieve segregation.   As such, it should be dismissed as an abuse of the right of petition in accordance with Art. 27, para. 2 (Art. 27-2).   Article 2 (Art. 2)   The applicants have not adduced any evidence to show that the authorities are failing in their duty to protect their right to life and personal safety.   During an association period there are four members of staff in every Wing, one of whom is in the dining hall, the other three on the landing.   There is also an "immediate reaction force" of 12 staff and a principal officer to render assistance in the event of an incident.   The incidents cited by the applicants show that in every case staff reaction has been immediate and that assailants have been dealt with promptly according to the prison rules.   While the authorities cannot eliminate every chance of prisoners assaulting one another, every reasonable precaution was taken to protect the applicants from harm.   Finally, it is submitted that none of the incidents or injuries referred to by the applicants reveal a real threat to their lives. Moreover the complaints of psychiatric illness are not borne out by the medical records.   Article 3 (Art. 3)   The applicants complain that they are forced to alternate exercise and association periods with republican prisoners because of fears for their safety.   The Government regard these fears as exaggerated, not least because association takes place between republican and loyalist prisoners at work without incident.   At any event this regime is self-imposed.   Accordingly, the applicants have not been subjected to any treatment which could be characterised as inhuman or degrading.   Article 5 (Art. 5)   It is submitted that the phrase "security of person" is to be read in the context of the right to liberty.   It provides a guarantee against arbitrary interference with personal liberty.   As such, in the present case, no issue arises.   Article 14 (Art. 14)   It is the policy of the prison administration that all prisoners should be treated equally.   Insofar as the applicants suffer from any discrimination, it is a result of the segregation which is self-imposed.   In fact, the applicants are seeking to institutionalise a form of discrimination on religious and political grounds which they wish the Government to impose.   The de facto segregation which continues in the Maze Prison came about as a result of the hunger strikes and "dirty" protest between 1976 and 1982.   It represents an exception to the general basis on which prisons are administered in Northern Ireland and progress has been made in phasing it out.   Thus in October 1984, nine wings were mixed, 15 were wholly republican and 5 wholly loyalist.   It is the stated intention of the Government to phase out segregation.   It is submitted that, in applying to prisoners in Magilligan the standards which obtained throughout the rest of the United Kingdom, they cannot be guilty of discrimination and that no issue arises under this provision.   The applicants   As to Fact   The applicants state that they do not seek to be treated as political prisoners or prisoners of war.   Nor do they seek separation on sectarian grounds.   They do, however, seek separation from republican prisoners who have sworn to kill and maim them.   They point out that the letter, referred to by the Government as evidence of collusion between republican and loyalist groups, post-dates the release from prison of applicants McQuiston, Harris and Stevenson.   Moreover, the letter was found in the cell of a prisoner with known psychiatric history.   They deny that there is any collusion and suggest that it is highly improbable that prisoners would collude to cause serious bodily injuries or provoke incidents resulting in loss of remission.   They point out that after the hunger strike they were placed on Wings where they did not regard the other prisoners as being republicans or where the republican prisoners were in such small numbers as not to pose a danger to the applicants.   Moreover, they believe that the prisoners housed in H Blocks 1 and 2 include few republicans who have been sentenced for terrorist crimes, whereas prior to the hunger strike they had been required to work with leading republican prisoners who threatened them with attack.   The applicant McQuiston contends that the republican prisoner also physically assaulted him as well as scalding him.   He notes also that the prison doctor considered it necessary to prescribe a sedative to calm his nerves as a result of the injuries received.   The applicant Ritchie points out that he was at McQuiston's side when he was scalded and that his injuries are consistent with a scald.   The applicant Harris maintains that the presence of commercial explosives in HM Prison Magilligan shows that the respondent Government is incapable of guaranteeing the applicants' safety.   This incident alone substantiates their allegations that they are at serious physical risk.   The applicant Stevenson maintains his allegations that his life was threatened.   This claim is substantiated by the finding of the steel knife.   He points out that the tools in the wood yard are subject to close supervision and could not be transferred to other parts of the prison.   In addition, he notes the doctor's report dated 25 April 1984 which records a left thigh injury "due to someone kicking him".   The applicant McKenzie concedes that the tablets could not have come out of the tea urn but believes that they were introduced by a republican orderly in the canteen area.   He states that he had passed the mug through the outer grill to the kitchen area staffed by republican orderlies.   Admissibility and merits   Exhaustion of domestic remedies   The applicants contend that the remedies available to them before the Northern Ireland courts are not sufficient and are not capable of providing redress for their complaints.   The courts cannot bring about a change in Government policy concerning the integration of loyalist and republican prisoners.   Nor could the courts end the discrimination that exists between the treatment of loyalist prisoners at HM Prison Maze and at HM Prison Magilligan.   Finally, they point out that although the civil bills were issued on 10 January 1985 they have not yet come to trial.   They contend that such a lengthy delay renders this remedy ineffective.   The Government's assertions that the cases have to be re-listed are incorrect.   There is no need to further re-enter bills once they have been listed for hearing.   All four applicants who issued civil bills had their case listed for "reserve day C".   Abuse of the right of petition   The applicants are genuinely concerned about the breaches of the Convention and have taken all necessary steps to complain to the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, the prison Governor and the courts.   They have been at risk of serious injury and the respondent Government have admitted the presence of an explosive device, a knife and the various attacks alleged by the applicants.   Article 2 (Art. 2)   Article 2 (Art. 2) cannot be interpreted as excluding "any possible violence".   The applicants contend that the repeated assaults, the scaldings, the attempted murder and the explosive device are totally unacceptable levels of violence against the life of prisoners.   They claim that their right to life was inadequately proected by the prison authorities.   The respondent Government have a duty under Art. 2 (Art. 2) to protect the life of the applicants against attacks by other prisoners.   The Commission must consider the appropriateness and efficiency of the measures taken by the prison authorities at HM Prison Magilligan (see X. v. the United Kingdom, Dec. No. 9348/81).   Article 3 (Art. 3)   The applicants contend that they were exposed to "degrading treatment".   The culmination of physical and mental abuse from republican prisoners aroused in each of them such feelings of fear and anguish that they were driven to act against their will or conscience by going on hunger strike as a last resort.   The fact that four of them had only a few months of their sentence to serve but still went on hunger strike shows how desperate they were.   In this respect they refer to the decision of the European Court of Human Rights in the case of Ireland v. the United Kingdom where degrading treatment was stated to arouse in "their victims feelings of fear, anguish and inferiority capable of humiliating and debasing them and possibly breaking their phsyical and moral resistance" (Judgment of 18.1.78, para. 167).   Article 5, para. 1 (Art. 5-1) (Right to security of person)   The applicants contend that their transfer from HM Prison Maze to HM Prison Magilligan did not protect their right to security of person since it is based on an arbitrary policy as regards which prisoners will be moved, why they are moved and when they are moved.   Article 14 (Art. 14)   The applicants submit that there can be no objective justification for the difference of treatment of prisoners serving their sentences in HM Prison Maze and those serving their sentences at HM Prison Magilligan. The prisoners at HM Prison Maze can enjoy their rights to security of person and freedom from degrading treatment because the respondent Government permits de facto separation of loyalist and republican prisoners.   At HM Prison Magilligan, however, there exists a policy of integrating loyalist and republican prisoners which has resulted in the applicants being exposed to assaults threatening their lives and to degrading treatment.   THE LAW   1.   The applicants who, at the time of the lodging of their application were all detained in HM Prison Magilligan, Northern Ireland, complain that the prison authorities failed to take sufficient measures to protect them against violent attacks by republican prisoners.   They invoke Arts. 2 (Art. 2), 3 (Art. 3), 5 (Art. 5) and 14 (Art. 14) of the Convention.   2.   The respondent Government submit firstly that the application should be dismissed as an abuse of the right of petition and, in the alternative, for failure to exhaust domestic remedies.   As regards abuse of the right of petition   3.   The Government submit that the present application is part of an orchestrated campaign for segregation and political status and that none of the applicants is genuinely concerned about breaches of the Convention.   4.   The applicants, however, submit that they have all been at risk of serious injury and have attempted, with no success, to seek redress from the Northern Ireland courts and from the Secretary of State.   5.   The Commission has previously observed that a finding of abuse might be made in such circumstances if it appeared that an application was clearly unsupported by evidence or outside the scope of the Convention (Dec. No. 8317/78, 15.5.80, D.R. 20, p. 44).   However, in the present case, the allegations made by the applicants that they had been attacked by republican prisoners in Magilligan have been substantiated to a certain extent by the observations of the respondent Government.   In such circumstances the Commission does not consider the application to be an abuse of the right of petition.   As regards exhaustion of domestic remedies   6.   The Government note that four of the applicants have brought actions for damages before the Northern Ireland courts concerning the attacks against them.   Since these actions are still pending it is submitted that the applicants have not exhausted the remedies at their disposal.   7.   The Commission recalls that under Art. 26 of the Convention (Art. 26) an applicant is required to make "normal use" of remedies likely to be effective and adequate to remedy the matters of which he complains (see, for example, Decs. Nos. 5577-5583/72, 15.12.72, D.R. 4, p. 64). It is furthermore settled that the burden of proving the existence of adequate and effective remedies lies upon the State (see Eur. Court H.R., Deweer case, judgment of 27.2.80, para. 26).   8.   In the present case the applicants allege that the remedies available under Northern Ireland law are insufficient in respect of their complaints.   They point out that a court could only award damages for negligence whereas they seek segregation from republican prisoners.   9.   The Commission notes that the applicants complain firstly under Art. 2 of the Convention (Art. 2) that the prison authorities did not take sufficient measures in HM Prison Magilligan to protect their lives against attack by republican prisoners.   They contend that the only effective protection would have been to segregate loyalist and republican prisoners.   The applicants also allege as part of their complaint under Art. 3 (Art. 3) that the attacks on them amounted to inhuman treatment.   10.   However four of the applicants have initiated civil proceedings for negligence before the Londonderry County Court claiming that the authorities have failed in their duty to take proper care to protect them against attack.   In the Commission's view such a claim raises in substance the same issues as the applicants' complaint under Art. 2 (Art. 2) and that aspect of their complaint under Art. 3 (Art. 3) concerning the attacks against them.   11.   The applicants further challenge the effectiveness of the remedy pointing out that the civil bills were issued on 10 January 1985 and have not yet come to trial.   12.   The respondent Government reply that the applicants themselves are responsible for the delay since they have not complied with the appropriate procedure to have the case listed for a hearing.   The applicants contest this point.   13.   The Commission finds that it is not necessary to decide whether or not the applicants have taken the necessary steps to have their cases heard since, in its opinion, the delay in question is not sufficient to render the remedy of a civil action ineffective. Accordingly an examination of the case as it has been submitted does not disclose the existence of any special circumstances which might have absolved the applicants according to the generally recognised rules of international law from exhausting the domestic remedies at their disposal.   This part of the application must therefore be dismissed under Art. 27, para. 3 of the Convention (Art. 27-3) for failure to exhaust domestic remedies.   14.   The applicants further complain under Art. 3 of the Convention (Art. 3) that they have been subjected to inhuman and degrading treatment; that the prison authorities have failed to protect their security of person as guaranteed by Art. 5, para. 1 (Art. 5-1), and that they are victims of discrimination contrary to Art. 14 (Art. 14).   15.   The Commission considers, however, that the respondent Government have not shown that the law of Northern Ireland affords a remedy in respect of these complaints.   In this respect the provisions of the Convention do not form part of the law of Northern Ireland and thus it would not have been open to the applicants to have these complaints considered by a Northern Ireland court.   Accordingly these complaints cannot be rejected for failure to exhaust domestic remedies.   As regards Article 3 (Art. 3)   16.   The applicants make the following complaints under this provision:   - that the policy of integrating them with republican prisoners and the attacks they have been subjected to, constitute inhuman treatment;   - that the situation in Magilligan was so grave that they were compelled to remain in their cells for 23 hours each day and to embark on a hunger strike.   They submit that their action derives from the policy of integration and is thus the responsibility of the Government.   17.   Art. 3 (Art. 3) states:   "No one shall be subjected to torture or to inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment."   18.   The Commission has held that the notion of inhuman treatment includes at least such treatment as deliberately causes severe suffering, whether mental or physical, and that an individual's treatment may be said to be degrading if it grossly humiliates him before others or drives him to act against his own will or conscience (see Ireland v the United Kingdom, Comm. Rep. 25.1.76, Yearbook 19, pp. 745 and 752).   19.   However the Court has stressed that "ill-treatment must attain a minimum level of severity if it is to fall within the scope of Article 3" (Art. 3).   The assesment of this minimum is, in the nature of things, relative, it depends on all the circumstances of the case, such as the duration of the treatment, its physical or mental effects and, in some cases, the sex, age and state of health of the victim (Eur. Court H.R., Ireland v the United Kingdom, 18.1.78, para. 162).   20.   With respect to the applicants' first complaint under this head the Commission notes that the policy of integration of prisoners in Northern Ireland was introduced following the withdrawal of special category status pursuant to a recommendation from the Gardiner Committee.   This Committee had noted, in particular, that the housing of prisoners in compounds gave rise to substantial problems of security and discipline within the prison and favoured the organisation and activities of both loyalist and republican paramilitary groups (see above p. 6; see also, in this regard, the Commission's comments in Dec. No. 8317/78, 15.5.80, D.R. 20, pp. 81 and 100).   21.   Against this background the Commission cannot consider that the policy of integration of loyalist and republican prisoners in Northern Ireland is inherently inhuman or degrading.   Nor does it consider that the Convention guarantees, in principle, a right for prisoners of different political persuasions to be detained in segregated conditions (see mutatis mutandis, Dec. No. 8317/78, loc. cit., pp. 77 and 80).   22.   The applicants' second complaint under this head, however, puts at issue the implementation of this policy in HM Prison Magilligan.   They allege that they were, in effect, compelled as a measure of self-protection, to remain in their cells and to embark on a hunger strike.   23.   The Commission notes that, in fact, the applicants were not confined to their cells for 23 hours each day as alleged.   The Government point out in their observations, and it has not been contested by the applicants in their reply, that all the applicants worked during week days in the mornings and afternoons.   It appears, however, that they chose to alternate exercise and association periods with republican prisoners and that from September 1983 until October 1984 they refused all association opportunities.   24.   In the Commission's view the applicants freely adopted the above prison routine and chose to embark on a hunger strike by way of protest against the policy of integration.   The facts do not support their contention that the situation was so dangerous that they were compelled to protest in this way.   Thus, contrary to their allegations, the figures provided by the respondent Government concerning the members of republican and loyalist prisoners in the H blocks do not reveal a gross imbalance (see above p. 7).   Nor is there any indication that the H blocks were inadequately staffed.   On the contrary special precautions were taken both in terms of staff and prison routine to guard against the outbreak of interfactional violence (see above loc. cit.).   25.   Moreover an examination of the facts does not reveal such a general atmosphere of violence that the applicants could legitimately fear for their lives.   In this respect the Commission must have regard to the common interest that both loyalist and republican prisoners have, as evidenced by the campaigns for segregation and political status waged in both the Maze and Magilligan prisons, in achieving segregation.   Indeed it appears that in most parts of the prison a modus vivendi has been worked out between loyalist and republican prisoners who apparently work and associate together in safety (see above pp. 6 - 7).   Seen against this background the attacks referr