CEDH · CASELAW;REPORTS;ENG — 14 mai 1987

.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 }  EUROPEAN COMMISSION OF HUMAN RIGHTS   Application No. 10448/83   Sylvain DHOEST against BELGIUM   REPORT OF THE COMMISSION   (adopted on 14 May 1987)   TABLE OF CONTENTS                                                                    Page   I.       INTRODUCTION         (paras. 1 - 24) ....................................      1           A.   The application (paras. 2 - 6) .................      1           B.   The proceedings (paras. 7 - 19) ................      2           C.   The present Report (paras. 20 - 24) ............      3     II.      ESTABLISHMENT OF THE FACTS         (paras. 25 - 68) ...................................      5           A.   Relevant domestic law (paras. 26 - 36) .........      5           B.   Particulars of the present application              (paras. 37 - 60) ..............................      7           C.   Visit by the Delegation of the Commission to the              Institution at Tournai (paras. 61 - 68) .......     11       III.     SUBMISSIONS OF THE PARTIES         (paras. 69 - 111) ..................................     15             A.   The applicant             (paras. 69 - 89) ...............................     15               i.   Article 3 (paras. 69 - 76) .................     15              ii.   Article 5 para. 1 (paras. 77 - 86) .........     16             iii.   Article 5 para. 4 (paras. 87 - 88) .........     17              iv.   Article 7 (para. 89) .......................     18             B.   The Government             (paras. 90 - 111) ..............................     18               i.   Article 3 (paras. 90 - 96) .................     18              ii.   Article 5 para. 1 (paras. 97 - 106) ........     19             iii.   Article 5 para. 4 (paras. 107 - 109) .......     21              iv.   Article 7 (paras. 110 - 111) ...............     21     IV.      OPINION OF THE COMMISSION         (paras. 112 - 164) .................................     22           A.   Points at issue (para. 112) ....................     22           B.   As regards Article 3 of the Convention              (paras. 113 - 130) ............................     22           C.   As regards Article 5 para. 1 of the Convention              (paras. 131 - 147) ............................     25           D.   As regards Article 5 para. 4 of the Convention              (paras. 148 - 156) ............................     28           E.   As regards Article 7 of the Convention              (paras. 157 - 164) ............................     29           F.   Recapitulation of the Commission's conclusions .     31     APPENDIX I -   History of the Proceedings before the               Commission ...................................     32     APPENDIX II - Decision on the admissibility of the               application ..................................     34     I.       INTRODUCTION   1.       The following is an outline of the case as submitted to the European Commission of Human Rights and of the procedure before the Commission.   A.       The application   2.       The applicant, a Belgian citizen, was born in 1938.   In the proceedings before the Commission he is represented by Mr.   P.R.W. Schaink, a lawyer practising in Amsterdam.   The Government is represented by its Agent, Mr.   J. Niset, of the Ministry of Justice.   3.       On 28 March 1961 the Indictment Chamber of the Ghent Court of Appeal directed that the applicant be confined for a period of 15 years to a special institution on the basis of the Act of Social Protection in respect of Mental Defectives and Habitual Offenders 1930 ("Loi de défense sociale à l'égard des anormaux et des délinquants d'habitude"), it having been established that the applicant had committed double homicide, murder and attempted murder and a series of qualified thefts.   4.       He was initially detained in the custodial mental institution ("Etablissement de défense sociale") at Tournai where he spent most of his detention until 19 May 1982 when he was transferred to Ghent.   On a number of occasions he was moved to other institutions following decisions by the competent Mental Health Review Board ("Commission de défense sociale") or by the Minister of Justice by virtue of the above Act, as amended in 1964.   5.       At no stage did the Mental Health Review Board consider that the applicant fulfilled all conditions for his release.           The applicant finally escaped on 7 July 1982 and fled to the Netherlands, where he went into hiding in July 1983 after the failure of his efforts to have the decision allowing his extradition revoked by the Dutch authorities (1).   6.       The case concerns the legal and material conditions under which the applicant was detained and presumably will be detained if he is returned to Belgium.       _______ (1)   The events which have occurred in the Netherlands following      his flight from Belgium are the object of a separate      application directed against the Netherlands (No. 10447/83).   B.       The proceedings   7.       The application was introduced on 24 June 1983 and registered on 27 June 1983.           On 28 June 1983 the applicant was informed by the Secretary to the Commission that the President of the Commission had decided that the application was not of such a nature as to warrant the application of Rule 36 of the Commission's Rules of Procedure.   8.       On 9 July 1983 the Commission decided, in accordance with Rule 42 para. 2 (b) of its Rules of Procedure to give notice of the application to the respondent Government and to invite them to present before 17 September 1983 their observations in writing on the admissibility and merits of the application.   9.       At the request of the Government the time-limit for the submission of the observations was extended until 1 December 1983 and, following a further request, until 1 January 1984.   On 27 December 1983 the Government presented their observations on the admissibility and merits of the application.   The applicant, having been granted an extension for the submission of his observations in reply, submitted these on 13 April 1984.   10.      The Commission re-examined the application in the light of the above observations on 12 July 1984 and declared the application admissible, considering that the applicant's allegations raised substantial issues of fact and law, in particular as regards Articles 3 and 5 of the Convention.   11.      The Commission further examined the application on 11 October 1984 and decided to invite the Parties to present further observations as regards the conditions of the applicant's detention in Tournai.   On the same day it decided not to take any further action in relation to a new request made on behalf of the applicant under Rule 36 of the Rules of Procedure.   12.      At the request of the Government the time-limit for the submission of the supplementary observations was extended until 7 January 1985 and, following a further request, until 8 February 1985. On 4 February 1985 the Government presented their supplementary observations.   The applicant replied on 18 March 1985.   13.      The Commission resumed consideration of the application on 11 May 1985.   It decided that a delegation of the Commission, designated in conformity with Article 28 para. 2 of its Rules of Procedure, should visit the Institution at Tournai where the applicant had been detained.   14.      The delegates' visit took place on 21 June 1985.   The Commission's delegation was composed of Mr.   H.G. Schermers, Mr.   H. Danelius and Mr.   H. Vandenberghe.   The applicant was represented by his lawyer, Mr.   P.R.W. Schaink; the Government were represented by Mr.   J. Niset, Agent of the Government, Mrs.   Lauwers, Direction Générale de l'Administration Pénitentiaire, Ministry of Justice, and Mr.   Lefebvre, Inspector General of Prisoners, Ministry of Justice.   15.      The Commission resumed consideration of the application on 6 July 1985 in the light of the report by the Delegates on their visit and decided to invite the Parties to submit additional supplementary observations on the merits in particular on Articles 3 and 5 of the Convention.           The applicant submitted these observations on 19 September 1985; the Government submitted their observatons on 12 December 1985.   16.      On 14 March 1986 the Commission granted the applicant legal aid.   17.      After declaring the case admissible, the Commission, acting in accordance with Article 28 (b) of the Convention, also placed itself at the disposal of the Parties with a view to securing a friendly settlement.   18.      Active consultations with the Parties took place between July 1984 and July 1986.   On 2 July 1986 the applicant's counsel informed the Commission that his client had been arrested on 23 June 1986 in the Netherlands on several charges and requested the Commission to suspend examination of the case pending further developments.   19.      In the light of the communication received from the applicant on 3 October 1986, from which it appeared that the applicant had been convicted and sentenced to 9 years' imprisonment for robberies in the Netherlands, the Commission now finds that there is no basis upon which such a settlement can be effected.   C.       The present Report   20.       The present Report has been drawn up by the Commission in pursuance of Article 31 of the Convention and after deliberations and votes, the following members being present:                   MM.   C.A. NØRGAARD, President                      J.A. FROWEIN                      E. BUSUTTIL                      G. JÖRUNDSSON                      S. TRECHSEL                      B. KIERNAN                      A.S. GÖZÜBÜYÜK                      A. WEITZEL                      J.-C. SOYER                      H.G. SCHERMERS                      H. DANELIUS                      G. BATLINER                      H. VANDENBERGHE                 Mrs.   G. THUNE                 Sir   Basil HALL                 Mr.   F. MARTINEZ     21.      The text of this Report was adopted on 14 May 1987 and is now transmitted to the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe in accordance with Article 31 para. 2 of the Convention.   22.      The purpose of the Report, pursuant to Article 31 of the Convention, is:           i.       to establish the facts; and          ii.       to state an opinion as to whether the facts found                 disclose a breach by the State concerned of                 its obligations under the Convention.   23.      A schedule setting out the history of the proceedings before the Commission is attached hereto as Appendix I and the Commission's decisions on the admissibility of the application forms Appendix II.   24.      The full text of the parties' submissions, together with the documents lodged as exhibits, are held in the archives of the Commission.     II.      ESTABLISHMENT OF THE FACTS   25.      This section of the Report contains a description of the undisputed facts found by the Commission on the basis of the information submitted by the Parties and the visit carried out by the Commission's Delegation.   A.       Relevant domestic law   26.      The conditions for the confinement and detention of persons of unsound mind involved in criminal proceedings in Belgium were originally laid down in the Act of Social Protection in respect of Mental Defectives and Habitual Offenders ("Loi de défense sociale à l'égard des anormaux et des délinquants d'habitude") of 9 April 1930 ("the 1930 Act").   27.      Confinement on the basis of that Act could be ordered by the trial court if it was satisfied that the person concerned had committed an act defined as a criminal offence or crime and that he was mentally insane or seriously suffering from mental disorder which rendered him incapable of controlling his acts (Article 7).   Depending on the nature of the offence, the confinement could last for 5, 10 or 15 years (Article 19).   28.      A discharge could be ordered if the mental condition of the patient had improved to such a degree that he no longer constituted a danger to the public (Article 20).   The decision as regards the patient's discharge lay with a board, composed of a magistrate, a barrister and a doctor attached to the psychiatric ward of the penitentiary (Article 13).           If discharge had not been ordered by the competent board, the trial court could, at the request of the public prosecutor, renew the confinement order for another 5, 10 or 15 years (Article 22).   29.      The provisions of this Act were replaced by new legislation enacted on 1 July 1964 (the "1964 Act").   The major relevant features of the 1964 Act can be described as follows:   30.      Confinement on the basis of the Act may be ordered by the trial court in respect of persons who have committed a crime or a criminal offence and who, at the time of the trial, are mentally insane or in a serious state of mental disorder rendering them incapable of controlling their acts (Article 7).   This decision is subject to appeal (Article 8).   31.      Detention is ordered for an indefinite period.   The execution of the detention order falls within the competence of a Mental Health Review Board ("Commission de défense sociale"), set up under Article 12 of the Act, consisting of three members: an actual or honorary magistrate, who presides, a barrister and a doctor, each of them having several substitutes (Article 12).            The president and his substitutes are designated by the first president of the Court of Appeal.   The barrister and his substitutes are chosen by the Minister of Justice from two lists of three names, one submitted by the public prosecutor's office, the other by the president of the bar.   The doctor and his substitutes are designated by the Minister of Justice.   32.      The Mental Health Review Board determines the place of confinement (Article 14).   It may also order the transfer of the patient to another institution, either ex officio or at the request of the public prosecutor or the detainee or his counsel, or order a limited release scheme, subject to conditions fixed by the Minister of Justice (Article 15).           In case of emergency, transfer to another institution may be ordered provisionally by the President of the Mental Health Review Board, subject to approval by the Board at its next meeting (Article 17 para. 1).   The Minister of Justice may also order the transfer of the detainee to another institution for reasons of security (Article 17 para. 2).   33.      Before determining the place of confinement the Mental Health Review Board may seek the advice from an independent doctor.   The detainee may submit a medical counter-expertise by a doctor of his own choice.   The detainee or his counsel must be heard by the Mental Health Review Board.   The file is made available to the detainee's counsel for four days.   Hearings by the Mental Health Review Board are held in camera.   If the presence of the detainee is not possible for medical reasons, the detainee is represented by counsel.   The deliberations of the Mental Health Review Board are held in private (Article 16).   34.      The competent Mental Health Review Board keeps itself regularly informed of the state of mental health of the detainee.   It examines the question of discharge ex officio, or at the request of the public prosecutor, or upon application by the detainee himself or his counsel.   Discharge may be ordered unconditionally or conditionally if the patient's state of mental health has improved sufficiently and if conditions for social rehabilitation are met (Article 18 para. 1).           If the discharge which is decided is conditional, the patient is subject to medico-social supervision, details of which are specified in the discharge order (Article 20 para. 1).           Unsuccessful applications for discharge by the detainee may only be renewed six months after the decision concerned (Article 18 para. 2).   35.      The decision to discharge a detainee, which may not be executed until after two days, is notified to the public prosecutor, who may appeal.   Appeals are examined by the Mental Health Review Appeals Board ("Commission Supérieure de défense sociale").   The Mental Health Review Appeals Board consists of an actual or honorary judge at the Court of Cassation or at a Court of Appeal, a barrister and a medical doctor with special qualifications (Article 13).   The detainee and his counsel are heard and Article 16 applies accordingly. The Mental Health Review Appeals Board must decide within one month (Article 19).   36.      A person who is confined on the basis of this Act does not automatically lose the capacity to administer his property.   However, in the interest of the detainee, a provisional administrator may be appointed (Article 29 para. 1) either by judicial decision or by decision of the competent Mental Health Review Board.   B.       Particulars of the present application   37.      On 28 March 1961 the Indictment Chamber of the Ghent Court of Appeal directed that the applicant be confined for a period of 15 years to a special institution on the basis of the 1930 Act, it having been established that the applicant had committed double homicide, murder and attempted murder and a series of qualified thefts.   38.      On the same day the Mental Health Review Board of Ghent ordered that the applicant be placed in the custodial mental institution ("Etablissement de défense sociale") at Tournai.           Since then he has been kept most of the time at that institution and most of his complaints concern his treatment there. It should, however, be mentioned that he stayed elsewhere for certain periods.   39.      In the course of December 1961 it was decided that the applicant should be transferred to Turnhout.   In June 1962 the applicant was returned to Tournai.   40.      In July 1963, following a decision by the Mental Health Review Board, the applicant was again returned to Turnhout.   He escaped from that institution on 6 January 1964 and was re-arrested on 11 January 1964.           Following his escape, the Mental Health Review Board on 3 February 1964 ordered that he should be returned to Tournai as it considered that this institution was the only one which was sufficiently secure for dangerously insane persons such as the applicant.   41.      In the course of December 1966 the Mental Health Review Board acceded to the applicant's request for transfer to the psychiatric ward of the Ghent prison in order to be examined by the psychiatrist of his own choice, Dr.   Geirnaert.   42.      On 1 March 1967 the applicant was again returned to Tournai. On 10 March 1967 the applicant made an unsuccessful attempt to escape from the courtyard.   As from September 1967 the applicant was placed under special surveillance.   43.      In December 1967 he was transferred back to the psychiatric ward of Ghent prison, from where he attempted to escape on 21 February 1968.           Following this incident the Minister of Justice ordered in conformity with Article 17 para. 2 of the Act that, for reasons of security, he should be transferred to Tournai.   44.      In December 1969 the Mental Health Review Board ordered the applicant's transfer to the psychiatric unit of Ghent prison.           On 23 February 1970, the applicant was again transferred to Turnhout.   For security reasons he was placed for a long period under close surveillance.           The applicant was returned to Tournai on 16 August 1971.           On 27 April 1972 the applicant was transferred at his request to Ghent for a period of 15 days in order to facilitate visits by his mother.   The Mental Health Review Board authorised his stay in Ghent until October 1973.   It instructed a team of three medical experts to report on the applicant's state of mental health.   45.      On 9 October 1973 the Mental Health Review Board rejected a request for release introduced by the applicant considering that no substantial improvement in the mental condition of the applicant had occurred and decided to return the applicant to Turnhout.           The director of the prison of Turnhout informed the Minister of Justice by letter of 16 October 1973 of his doubts as regards the propriety of the applicant's return to that institution, in view of the difficulties he had caused in the past for his fellow detainees and the prison staff.   The Minister then decided on 20 October 1973, in accordance with Article 17 para. 2 of the 1964 Act, to return the applicant to Tournai for security reasons.   46.      On 4 July 1975 it was decided, after consultations between the President of the Mental Health Review Board and the prison administration, to transfer the applicant to the prison of St.   Gilles for a thorough personality examination.   This prison comprises a Penitentiary Orientation Centre (Centre d'Orientation Pénitentiaire ("C.O.P.")), run by a multidisciplinary team, directed by a psychiatrist, Prof.   De Waele, assisted by other psychiatrists, psychologists, sociologists and criminologists as well as social workers.           On the advice of the above team laid down in a report of 1 October 1976, the Board ordered on 5 February 1977 the applicant's release on probation for a period of 10 years.   This decision was to become effective as soon as the Board found that a number of conditions regarding lodging, employment and monitoring of the applicant were fulfilled.   47.      The Public Prosecutor of Ghent appealed against this decision in accordance with Article 19 of the Act.   The appeal was examined by the Mental Health Review Appeals Board which, on 3 March 1977, allowed the appeal and decided that the applicant's confinement should be maintained.    The Mental Health Review Appeals Board considered that it was insufficient for the Mental Health Review Board to find an improvement in the mental state of the prisoner.   It required conditions for social rehabilitation to be fulfilled simultaneously and cumulatively.   48.      On 9 May 1977 the applicant again tried to escape.           Having re-examined the applicant's case on 20 September 1977 the Mental Health Review Board decided on 5 October 1977 to maintain the applicant's confinement but to place him under semi-custodial care in the specialised institution at Merksplas, designed for male criminals not suffering from mental illness.           The Minister of Justice, in conformity with Article 17 para. 2 of the Act, decided to suspend provisionally the execution of this decision and to request the C.O.P. to fix, together with the prison authorities concerned, details of the applicant's detention scheme.   49.      In a report drawn up on 18 November 1977, the C.O.P. informed the Mental Health Review Board and the administration of Ghent prison that the transfer of the applicant to Merksplas was not an appropriate way of treating the applicant.   It was suggested that he be released on probation with a view to his gradual reintegration into society. Pending the decision of the Board the applicant remained in Ghent.   50.      On 25 May 1978 the Mental Health Review Board decided to grant a leave permit of one day for the months of June, July and August and to allow the applicant to work as a gardener in a convent under the surveillance of a staff member of the C.O.P.   The first leave took place on 15 June 1978.           The C.O.P. then recommended the transfer of the applicant to the psychiatric ward of the Louvain prison in order to continue from there in close contact with the prison authorities the rehabilitation scheme.   51.      In a report drawn up on 13 July 1978 Prof.   De Waele concluded that the applicant's conduct augured a very unfavourable future for him in the long run.   The fact that at this advanced stage of the rehabilitation scheme he was not willing to comply with any of the conditions imposed made it almost certain, in his view, that if he were free, he would try to avoid any form of control and supervision and would behave as a "lone wolf".   52.      On 14 July 1978 the Minister of Justice, in accordance with Article 17 para. 2 of the 1964 Act, decided to transfer the applicant provisionally to Tournai.           On 18 August 1978, the applicant escaped after having attacked a staff member of the institution.   He was rearrested on 20 August 1978.   53.      In the course of October 1978 he was transferred for a period of 15 days to the psychiatric ward of Ghent prison in order to facilitate visits by his mother.           He was returned to Tournai on 25 October 1978.   54.      On 16 April 1980 the Mental Health Review Board ordered the applicant's transfer to the prison of Turnhout for a psychiatric examination to be carried out by Dr.   Landuyt, head of the psychiatric ward of the Stuyveberg hospital in Antwerp.   The applicant was admitted there on 8 May 1980.           On 9 December 1980 the Mental Health Review Board re-examined his case on the basis of the medical report established by Dr.   Landuyt on 20 October 1980.   The latter had concluded that the applicant did not suffer from insanity or serious mental disorder and that he disposed of the mental faculties to assert himself in society "provided he could benefit from a sufficiently guided and lengthy transitory phase in an adequate environment" ("mits een voldoende begeleide en langdurige overgangsfase in een geschikt milieu").   55.      The Mental Health Review Board decided however to continue the applicant's detention.   The applicant introduced a plea of nullity against this decision which was rejected by the Court of Cassation on 10 February 1981.   The Court of Cassation considered that insofar as the plea of nullity was directed against the decision not to release the applicant, the plea was unfounded since the decision had been taken in accordance with the law.   Insofar as it was directed against the modalities of the execution of the detention order the Court of Cassation declared itself incompetent.   56.      On 12 March 1981 the applicant made a new attempt to escape from Turnhout, after which he was returned to Tournai on 25 March 1981 by decision of the Minister of Justice in accordance with Article 17 para. 2 of the 1964 Act.           On 16 August 1981 the applicant escaped and was rearrested on 18 August 1981.   57.      In September 1981 and March 1982 the applicant was provisionally transferred to the psychiatric ward of Ghent prison for a period of three weeks, each time in order to allow him to be visited by his mother.   58.      A medical report of 12 February 1982 drawn up by the doctors of Tournai for the attention of the Mental Health Review Board qualified the applicant as a "cold psychopath, particularly dangerous, although not in an overt manner, whose continued detention was necessary but whose transfer to a prison in a Flemish establishment was highly desirable for obvious cultural reasons".   59.      On 13 May 1982 the Mental Health Review Board decided to transfer the applicant provisionally to Ghent prison for a period of 3 months and to grant him a gradual leave scheme under the supervision of the Ghent social rehabilitation office.           Leave was first granted on 27 May 1982.   The applicant devoted most of his time to gardening in a home.   Leave was again granted on 9 June 1982.     60.      On 29 June 1982 the Mental Health Review Board re-examined the applicant's case and decided to continue the one-day leave permits.           During the third leave, which took place on 7 July 1982, the applicant escaped and left Belgian territory.   Two days later he was arrested in the Netherlands.   In December 1982, in the framework of extradition proceedings which followed, the applicant underwent a psychiatric examination.   The psychiatrist, Dr.   Leloup, concluded that the applicant was not mentally ill.   C.       Visit by the Delegation of the Commission to the         Institution at Tournai   61.      The Delegation of the Commission, designated in conformity with Article 28 para. 2 of the Convention (cf. para. 14), visited the custodial mental institution ("Etablissement de défense sociale") at Tournai in order to enquire about the conditions under which the applicant had been detained in this institution, in particular having regard to the applicant's complaints under Article 3 of the Convention.   The Delegation established the following:   62.      The institution was built at the end of the 19th century (1883) and has partly been renewed since.   The building was composed of two wings, separated by an administrative unit in the centre.   The west wing was designed for the treatment of psychiatric (civil) patients on a voluntary basis or compulsorily (following a "mesure de collocation") and the east wing for the treatment of mentally abnormal offenders confined on the basis of the Act of Social Protection.   The two wings were strictly separated.   The "offenders" unit had accommodation for 240 patients.   At the time of the visit it housed 219 patients.   It comprised 280 warders and nurses and 8 doctors while at the time of the applicant's confinement there had been only 6 doctors.   The unit was composed of a number of pavilions, three of which (Nos. 8, 9 and 10) had been closed down for lack of means. Three other pavilions (Nos. 14, 15 and 16) were operative.           The applicant spent most of his confinement in pavilion 15, the special security unit, and only short periods in pavilion 16.   63.      Pavilion 15 is composed of two stories, the ground floor for patients representing a special security risk and the first floor for the more chronic patients.   The pavilion is surrounded by a courtyard and a wall.           The admittance/observation ward, which has a capacity of 30 patients, is located on the ground floor.   It consists of a large dormitory (approx. 80m2) which contains 8 beds.   The dormitory gives direct access to a toilet, separated from it by a door with a small window.   Wash basins are inside the dormitory.   Water supply is regulated externally.   The dormitory has large barred windows looking onto a courtyard and pavilion 16.            Adjacent to this dormitory is a dining room and lounge of approximately the same size, furnished with two bare tables and four long benches.            On the other side of the corridor there is a bathroom with 5 showers and 1 bathtub.   Each patient is entitled to two showers a week.   The bathtub is used only for special cases such as for patients who cannot stand up.   The ground floor further comprises the psychologist's and the psychiatrist's offices, a chaplain's office and a visitors' room.   Visits are allowed every second Sunday and non-alcoholic beverages may be served (against payment).   64.      The ground floor also comprises single rooms, one of which the applicant had occupied a number of times.   All single rooms are identical.   They are approximately 10-12m2 and are furnished with a bed, cemented to the floor, an inbuilt flush lavatory, a table and a wash-basin.   The external windows, although fairly large (1-1.5m2), are situated above eye level and cannot be looked through unless by climbing on the bed or table which is prohibited.   The rooms can be inspected from the corridor through observation windows which are screened by small curtains.   No television or radio is allowed in these rooms.            The first floor comprises a large dormitory, a kitchen, a recreation/TV room and a dining room.   There are further single rooms of the same size and containing the same furniture as those on the ground floor.   The applicant had occupied a room on the first floor in the ward referred to as "the small corridor" ("le petit couloir") which accommodates 5 to 7 inmates.   He had been allowed to use a separate room adjacent to his to stock the material for his work (folding cardboard boxes).   The applicant performed his work in his room and not in a common workshop.           The detention conditions in pavilion 16 were quite different: Patients in these wards had the possibility to give a personal character to their rooms by decorating them.   A number of the patients had a transistor and/or TV in their room.   The time spent by the applicant in this ward was, however, short.   65.      The Delegation also interviewed various members of the staff of the institution.           The principal doctor of the institution pointed out that no linguistic problem had ever arisen for the applicant during his stays at the institution.   His knowledge of French was adequate and he even spoke French when he was under emotional stress.   On the other hand he could always address the doctors and staff in Flemish, and had had access to the Flemish library.   The allegation that he had been subject to sneers by the staff on linguistic grounds was totally unfounded.   Even if some misunderstandings might have occurred for linguistic reasons, it had not affected the therapeutic relationship.           Although the transfer of the applicant to a unilingual Flemish institution might have been desirable, it had not been indispensable for the effectiveness of his treatment.   Since 1948 the institution in Tournai hosted the most difficult patients and dangerous offenders, being the most secure institution that existed within the country.   66.      At the time of the visit 30 patients were housed on the ground floor and 40 on the first floor of pavilion 15.   At the time of the applicant's confinement, the pavilion housed a total of 80 inmates.           Night accommodation in pavilion 15 was of two types: dormitory and single room (chambrette).           Day accommodation on the first floor consisted of a dining room and a recreation/TV room.           Upon admission each patient was first kept in the observation ward on the ground floor, where he was accommodated in a dormitory and an adjacent lounge/dining room.           Subsequently patients were placed by the psychiatrist in charge of their case in other wards, either on the ground floor or on the first floor, according to their degree of dangerousness.           The ordinary daily time schedule in pavilion 15 was the following:                    6.30   -   7.30   - rise                  7.30   -   8.30   - breakfast                  8.30   - 11.30   - courtyard (préaux)                 12.00   - 13.00   - lunch                 13.00   - 14.00   - rest                 14.00   - 17.00   - therapy work                 17.00   - 20.00   - dinner followed by recreation                 20.00   - 20.30   - preparation for the night           With the exception of the special admittance ward, meals on the ground floor were served in the rooms.   On the first floor meals were served either in the rooms or in the joint dining room.   During daytime the doors of the rooms in the "small corridor section" were normally open and inmates were free to move around.   At the time of the applicant's confinement, therapy work consisted in the folding of cardboard boxes.           A doctor passed by every day in each ward and could be called upon by each patient.   The medical visit upon admittance served to diagnose the nature of the abnormality and subsequently to cure the patient.   67.      The doctor who had treated the applicant in 1962 and between November 1970 and 1974, described the applicant as a psychopath with a psychotic propensity and as dangerous, the danger being mainly caused by his determination to escape.   Prognostics for his future were not favourable.   The main treatment had consisted in efforts to dialogue with the applicant.   Discussions with the applicant were however difficult, the applicant being mainly obsessed with the idea of leaving the institution.   As far as this doctor could remember tranquillisers had sometimes been administered to the applicant.     68.      The doctor who had been the director between 1967 and 1972 and had also treated the applicant described him as follows: the applicant had been confined as a serious case of mental illness.   He was a psychopath with deeply rooted character disorder.   He was a simple-minded person of limited intelligence, sly and cunning.   He had a very closed character, was touchy, had a tendency towards persecution mania and was distrustful.   His dangerous character could be inferred from his total lack of self-criticism or remorse.   He had a tendency to minimise his crimes and lacked any degree of human warmth or emotions.           The treatment by psychotherapy had been much hampered by the applicant's uncooperative attitude.   He was always very tense and sometimes recourse had to be taken to neuroleptics in order to ease the tension and facilitate the dialogue.   The institutional therapy (prison work) was hampered by the necessity to be constantly on one's guard, since the applicant had a permanent desire to evade.   Although one could not state categorically that the applicant was incurable the applicant's chances of recovery seemed small.   Frequent incidents had occurred in which the applicant had not hesitated to make use of violence.   The staff feared to expose itself to this risk of violence.     III.     SUBMISSIONS OF THE PARTIES   A.       The applicant   (i)      Article 3   69.      The applicant complains that the conditions of his detention, taken as a whole, including the extreme isolation to which he was subjected during some 14 years, constitutes inhuman and degrading treatment contrary to Article 3 of the Convention.           The applicant's grievances in this respect focus on the conditions of detention at the custodial mental institution at Tournai.   70.      If, as the authorities seemed to believe, the applicant was mentally ill, some form of medical treatment would have been appropriate.   The only "medical" treatment he received was the administration of tranquillisers.   On some occasions these drugs were administered to him against his will and the applicant was tied down with a leather belt.   The same leather belt was used to tie him to his bed overnight to prevent him from escaping via the window.   Even if physical force was not used, tranquillisers were often mixed into his coffee or soup.   The purpose of the administration of these drugs was to reduce the applicant's will-power and hence his attempts to escape.   71.      The applicant had not received any proper psycho-therapeutic treatment while in detention.   In any event, patients were only medically examined upon request and not systematically.   Moreover, the only psychiatrist in Tournai was French-speaking, which reduced the interest of the already scarce interviews he had had.   72.      The conditions of his detention were also inhuman on account of the fact that he had been segregated from other detainees almost throughout his confinement in Tournai.   The cell in which he was detained contained only a bed and a flush toilet and no table or chair.   It had only one small window which was situated above eye-level.   He had his daily exercise in a courtyard separate from other inmates.   His meals were served in his cell and work, if provided at all, had to be carried out in his cell.   The only "distraction" offered was a weekly interview with the prison priest. There were no facilities in the form of a common workshop or any recreation in the form of listening to the radio or watching television.   73.      Whereas it is true that, as the Commission had held in the past, the segregation of a prisoner does not in itself constitute inhu