CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;DECCOMMISSION;ENG — 10 mars 1988

.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 }                              AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF                         Application No. 13047/87                       by B.                       against the Federal Republic of Germany             The European Commission of Human Rights sitting in private on 10 March 1988, the following members being present:                 MM. C.A. NØRGAARD, President                   J.A. FROWEIN                   S. TRECHSEL                   G. SPERDUTI                   E. BUSUTTIL                   G. JÖRUNDSSON                   A.S. GÖZÜBÜYÜK                   A. WEITZEL                   J.-C. SOYER                   H.G. SCHERMERS                   H. DANELIUS                   G. BATLINER                   J. CAMPINOS                   H. VANDENBERGHE              Mrs.   G.H. THUNE              Sir   Basil HALL              MM.   F. MARTINEZ                   C.L. ROZAKIS              Mrs.   J. LIDDY                Mr.   J. RAYMOND, Deputy Secretary to the Commission           Having regard to Article 25 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms;           Having regard to the application introduced on 10 June 1987 by B. against the Federal Republic of Germany and registered on 2 July 1987 under file N° 13047/87;           Having regard to:   -        the information provided by the respondent Government on         21 September 1987 and the comments submitted thereto by the         applicant on 26 October 1987;   _        the report of February 1988 provided for in Rule 40 of the         Rules of Procedure of the Commission;           Having deliberated;           Decides as follows:   THE FACTS           The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows:           The applicant, an American citizen born in Poland in 1927, resides in Zürich/Switzerland.   Before the Commission he is represented by Messrs.   Heinemann and Meulenbergh, lawyers practising in Munich and Frankfurt, respectively.   The applicant was detained on remand in a prison in Munich-Stadelheim until 9 December 1987 when he was released on bail.   I.           The applicant is of Polish-Jewish descent.   From 1940 until 1945, i.e. still as a boy in his teens, he was detained under the Nazi régime in concentration camps.   He was first in an out-station of the Majdanek camp until 1944, when he was transferred to the Flössenburg concentration camp.   In the last days of the war he was ordered to march to Neunburg in Germany where he was to be shot.   At the last moment, the applicant was saved by soldiers of the United States Army. The applicant submits that these experiences constitute tragic and cruel memories for him, and that since 1948 he requires antidepressive medicaments and tranquillisers.   II.           On 4 September 1986 the Munich District Court (Amtsgericht) issued a warrant of arrest against the applicant as suspected of tax avoidance in an amount of over 2 million DM.           The applicant was arrested in Hamburg on 8 September 1986 and thereupon detained on remand by the Munich Regional Court (Landgericht) on the grounds of a danger of absconding, in particular in view of the anticipated heavy penalty, and the fact that he lived abroad.           The Government submit that the applicant was first thoroughly examined on 25 September 1986 by the prison doctor for neurology and psychiatry, the medical director Dr.   W.   As the result of this examination indicated a suspected abuse of medication, rather than an organic psychosyndrome, psychiatric drugs were given only on condition that extreme caution was exercised.   The suspicion that the applicant was a drug addict thus not only resulted from the note "drug abuse?" in the applicant's medical record.           The applicant explains the allegation of drug abuse as follows.   The applicant has been receiving constant medical treatment since 1948 and also takes tranquillisers on a regular basis.   He flew on business from France, where he was on holiday, to Hamburg.   From there, he intended to go directly to Hong Kong.   Since the necessary drugs are not available in Hong Kong, he took with him on his journey a certain supply.   This was discovered in his luggage which led the doctor at the Hamburg prison, where the applicant was originally remanded in custody, to make the following entry into his medical record:   "drug abuse?"           Subsequently, upon the applicant's instruction, a certain Professor S prepared an expert opinion of 54 pages which he submitted on 20 October 1986.   Therein he concluded that the accusations of tax avoidance laid against the applicant were unfounded.           In 2 December 1986 a certain Dr.   L, a doctor practising in Zürich, stated in writing, upon the applicant's request, that the applicant complained of insomnia and constantly required tranquillisers.   On 20 December 1986 Dr.   C, who also practised in Zürich, confirmed that he had treated the applicant's depressions from 1968 to 1975.   On 7 January 1987 Dr.   B, a doctor practising in Juan-les-Pins in the South of France, confirmed that whenever the applicant was there he required various tranquillisers on account of insomnia and phobic anxieties.   Dr.   B stated that these medicaments were essential for the applicant.           Meanwhile, on 16 December 1986 the applicant requested the Munich Public Prosecutor's Office (Staatsanwaltschaft) to terminate the investigations against the applicant since the suspicions raised against him were not conclusive.   On 13 February 1987 the applicant filed a complaint against the warrant of arrest of 4 September 1986.           By bill of indictment of 25 February 1987 the applicant was charged with the offence of tax avoidance in an amount of over 2 million DM.           On 27 February 1987 the Munich Regional Court ordered the continuation of the applicant's detention on remand.           On 19 March 1987 the Munich Court of Appeal (Oberlandes- gericht) also ordered the continuation of the applicant's detention on remand.   The Court found in particular that the conditions for detention were met;   that the principle of proportionality had been complied with;   and that there had been no violation of the obligation speedily to conduct the proceedings (Beschleunigungsgebot).   The Court found that, in the light of the evidence listed and correctly assessed in the bill of indictment of 25 February 1987, there was a strong suspicion that the applicant had committed the offences at issue.           The Court of Appeal disagreed with the applicant's own assessment of his acts.   It considered that the applicant had enabled profits formally to accrue in a watch company in Switzerland although these profits had actually been made by a watch company in the Federal Republic of Germany and that this could constitute an offence of tax avoidance.   The Court also found that there was a danger of the applicant absconding in view of the severity of the prospective sentence, particularly since he was an American citizen and not domiciled in Germany.   In view also of the length of detention so far, the principle of proportionality was not yet called in question.   The authorities were continuing to conduct the voluminous investigations speedily.           On 14 May 1987, Professor S submitted a supplementary expert opinion of 56 pages on various questions concerning the charges laid against the applicant.   The opinion concluded that the applicant could not be suspected of having committed the offences at issue.           Against the decisions of the Regional Court of 27 February 1987 and the Court of Appeal of 19 March 1987, the applicant filed a constitutional complaint (Verfassungsbeschwerde) with the Federal Constitutional Court (Bundesverfassungsgericht).   He complained, inter alia, that the Regional Court had erroneously assumed his culpability since he had not violated any criminal laws.   He also pointed out that during the Nazi régime he had been groundlessly detained in a concentration camp.   As a result of these terrible experiences his present detention on remand violated his right to inviolability of his person and, in view of the unfounded accusations, it also amounted to an unbearable psychological torture. This right was also called in question by the fact that he did not receive the medication which was essential for him, and that a medical examination outside the prison had only been possible after six months.           The applicant's constitutional complaint included a medical opinion, dated 23 April 1987, of a certain Professor WM, a neurologist and psychiatrist of the applicant's choice, who had examined him between 16 and 26 March 1987.   In his opinion, Professor WM referred to depressive developments in the applicant standing in close connection with the pressures of his detention.   During his depressive phases he apparently reactivated experiences which he had undergone in the concentration camp.   Against this biographical background Professor WM found that the applicant's detention constituted a considerable strain for the applicant and that he should be given antidepressive medication.   Nevertheless, Professor WM concluded that in view of the applicant's apparent addiction to medicaments, such medication should be administered together with psychotherapy.           On 24 April 1987 a further supplementary medical expert opinion was prepared by Dr.   MM, upon instruction of Professor WM, this opinion being the result ofan examination of the applicant on 24 March 1987.   The opinion concluded that the applicant's short term memory as well as aspects of his coordination, and his ability to three-dimensional imagination were reduced.   His neurotic depressive personality suffered from feelings of fear and uncertainty.           On 11 May 1987 the Federal Constitutional Court dismissed the applicant's constitutional complaint as not offering sufficient prospects of success.   The Court found that it could only examine the conditions for the continuation of the applicant's detention on remand from the point of view of constitutional law.   There was no indication, however, of arbitrariness in the various decisions taken by the authorities, or that the principle of proportionality had been overlooked.           The medical director (Medizinaldirektor) at the Munich- Stadelheim Prison, Dr.   W, a neurologist and psychiatrist, commented on 20 May 1987, in a statement directed to the Munich Regional Court, on Professor WM's opinion of 23 April 1987.   Dr.W stated that the depressions resulting from detention, as described by Professor WM, could be found in nearly all patients.   Dr.W considered that as long as there was a suspicion that the aplicant was addicted to medicaments (Medikamentenmissbrauch), it was not advisable to adminiser to him antidepressive medication.   This was all the more so since the applicant's activities showed that his depressive state had not reached a degree which was so extreme that he required medical treatment.   Moreover, the psychotherapeutic treatment proposed by Professor WM was for administrative reasons not feasible in Munich-Stadelheim prison.   If the applicant's state of health deteriorated he could be transferred to the psychiatric ward of the prison in Munich-Straubing, where he could be treated with medicaments and, possibly, by means of therapeutic talks.           On 11 June 1987 the Munich Court of Appeal ordered the continuation of the applicant's detention on remand.   There was in the Court's view a suspicion that the applicant had committed the offences at issue.   This was so even if the company concerned in Germany had failed to request damages against the company in Switzerland.   The Court also found that the amount of taxes due continued to fall within the framework of the bill of indictment of 25 February 1987.   There was, in particular, a net profit of the German company to be estimated at 1.8 million DM.   There were also no indications that the German company had had, on 31 December 1980, its own capital of 1 million DM which could be taken into account (verwendbares Eigenkapital).           Also on 11 June 1987 the applicant wrote to the Munich Regional Court claiming that it was not clear on the basis of which conclusions Dr.W had prepared his statement of 20 May 1987.   According to the relevant documents Dr.W had examined the applicant only on 29 September and 10 December 1986.   Even then, this examination consisted, according to the applicant, of feeling his pulse and looking into his eyes.   It was also known to Dr.   W that the applicant had been treated with antidepressive medicaments and tranquillisers since 1948.   Finally, the applicant pointed out that on the grounds of his ill-health he was for the time being not able to examine the files of the case which amounted to 325 volumes.           Finally, also on 11 June 1987 the Munich Regional Court dismissed for security reasons the applicant's request to be transferred to the psychiatric clinic at Munich university.   The Court found in particular that a psychotherapeutic treatment was not possible at the Stadelheim prison, where the applicant was currently detained, as that prison lacked the required staff, and that he declined the transfer to Straubing prison where a treatment was possible.   The Court concluded that the warrant of arrest issued against the applicant need not be suspended.           Upon the request of the applicant's lawyer, Professor WM submitted on 25 June 1987 a further neurological expert opinion on the applicant.   He pointed out, inter alia, that the experiences in the psychiatry of persecuted persons (Verfolgtenpsychiatrie) disclosed that even 40 years later problems of survival and guilt would constantly surface in the persons concerned, and also in the applicant.   The opinion suggested that the applicant should be treated with antidepressive medicaments.   Professor WM also found that according to the clinical results the applicant's ability to participate at, and carry through, the hearing (Verhandlungsfähigkeit und Durchhaltevermögen) was reduced to a maximum of four hours a day. The opinion continues:   <German>           "Die hier erhobenen klinischen Befunde sind nicht von         einem solchen Ausprägungsgrad, dass Verhandlungsunfähigkeit         und Haftunfähigkeit auf Dauer angenommen werden könnte."   <Translation>           "The clinical observations presented here do not attain         such a degree that it could be assumed that the ability is         impaired to participate in the trial or to be detained         on remand."           In a further supplementary opinion of 2 July 1987 Professor WM referred to the statement of Dr.W of 20 May 1987.   Professor WM pointed out that since April 1987 a depressive syndrome was developing and that it was very doubtful whether this development resulted merely from the applicant's detention.   Rather, the applicant's background played an important role here, in particular his detention in a concentration camp which had not at all been considered by Dr.W.           Meanwhile, the Munich Court of Appeal ordered on 30 June 1987 the continuation of the applicant's detention on remand.   The various expert opinions did not in the Court's opinion suffice to call in question the danger of suspicion, and there was no violation of the principle of proportionality or of the obligation to conduct the proceedings speedily.           On 8 July 1987 the applicant requested the postponement of the opening of the trial which was planned to take place in August 1987. The request was eventually granted and the trial began on 14 October 1987.   A medical expert has apparently been present at the trial.           On 21 July 1987 the Munich Regional Court decided, upon the applicant's request, that he could be examined by a psychiatrist, Dr.   AB, in order to enable the preparation of a private expert opinion.   Dr.   AB is a specialist in the field of psychiatry concerned with persons who have had to live in Nazi concentration camps.   The Court refused the applicant's further request to be treated by a neurologist of his choice, namely a certain Dr.   L, since adequate specialist treatment was available in the prison.           On 6, 7 and 8 August 1987 Dr.   AB examined the applicant. Dr.   AB was also permitted to look into the medical records at the prison.           On 24 August 1987 Dr.   AB submitted his opinion numbering 45 pages.   The opinion referred, on the one hand, in detail to the applicant's detention in a concentration camp.   On the other hand, there were different views among scientists on the consequences of such experiences, though a psychiatrist such as Dr.   W had apparently not integrated the necessary medical knowledge and historical truth, and was therefore incompetent.   In Dr.   AB's view, Dr.   W had only conducted a symptomatic psychodiagnosis.   Dr.   AB concluded inter alia that the applicant's condition was a regressive one which could be qualified as a "Borderline Condition" of a patient who had prematurely aged.   Moreover, in view of the damage to the applicant's health while   13047/87   being detained in a concentration camp he was now unfit to be detained on remand (haftunfähig), and continuation of his detention would aggravate his bad health.   Even his transfer into a psychiatric clinic would not be of any help.           On 26 August 1987 the applicant requested the Regional Court, apparently unsuccessfully, to terminate the proceedings instituted against himself, and to cancel the warrant of arrest or, subsidiarily, to order the preparation of a medical opinion by Professor WM on the applicant's ability to be detained on remand.           On 14 October 1987 the Regional Court decided that the applicant could be treated by a specialist doctor, trained in conversational therapy, of his choice, and that medicaments could be given to the applicant only after consultation of the prison doctors.           In respect of the period of detention on remand until 14 October 1987, the Government submit that the applicant consulted the prison doctors or other private doctors (Konziliarärzte) on 10, 14, 17 and 18 October 1986; 4 and 25 November 1986; 2, 15 and 29 December 1986; and 16 and 22 January 1987.   On 10 December 1986 he was given a follow-up examination by Dr.   W.   In the Government's view, it is not the fault of the prison doctor that since 24 February 1987 the applicant has no longer consulted him during the consultation periods. Occasionally the applicant was even asked to come.   A hospital director, Ministerialdirektorin Dr.   L, had also asked Dr.   AB to convey to the applicant that he was welcome to consult her.   Dr.   L also spoke twice with Dr.   AB who recommended administration of a light psychopharmacon to the applicant, even if there was no strict medical indication.           In the Government's view, the psychiatrist Dr.   AB also concluded that there was no indication that the desirability of treatment by medication was desirable.   His recommendation that the prisoner should be prescribed a mild psychiatric drug was, however, followed.           The Government also submit that psychotherapeutic treatment as part of regular therapeutic sessions would only have been possible at Straubing prison which takes male prisoners remanded in custody from the whole of Bavaria.   However, the applicant rejects the idea of a transfer to that prison.           The applicant submits that until 14 October 1987 he received no medical treatment or care at Stadelheim Prison.   A drug which he had repeatedly requested, was administered for the first time on 20 October 1987.   However, even then he was only given one week's supply. At present, the applicant is again receiving no medical care, except such treatment as he managed to obtain as a result of the decision of the Regional Court of 14 October 1987.           The applicant points out that the entries in the medical record also refer to his many visits to the prison doctors and consultants in Stadelheim prison.   It appears from these entries, inter alia, that several visits were required for a scalp condition, rather than on account of his mental problems.   However, on all his visits to the infirmary he repeatedly requested painkillers and tranquillisers, which were given to him only on rare occasions.   13047/87   For instance, according to the entry in the medical record of 21 January 1987, the applicant again complained to the prison doctor of depression and insomnia.   On that occasion he was given no drugs, but was told that he would be examined by Dr.   WM in the following week. However, this did not happen until the end of March 1987.           The applicant alleges that on his many medical visits he repeatedly drew attention to his mental problems.   However, the prison doctors did not understand him, so he discontinued the visits.           The applicant points out that Dr.AB first took the view that he, the applicant, was not fit to stand trial.   However, subsequently, Dr.   AB reached the same conclusion as Dr.   WM, namely that the applicant's fitness to stand trial, although slight, could be preserved if he was treated by a doctor from outside the prison.   Accordingly, the Regional Court passed its decision of 14 October 1987 according to which it approved of the medical treatment by a doctor of the applicant's choice. This will be a doctor from the psychiatric clinic at the Munich University.   The treatment commenced on 31 October 1987.           In the light of the expert opinion of Dr.AB, the applicant regards it as erroneous to assert that Dr.   AB considered medication unnecessary or to claim that the authorities complied with his recommendation according to which the applicant should receive limited psychopharmacological treatment.   The applicant considers that he could not reasonably have been expected to accept a transfer to Straubing prison.   In particular, while still being presumed innocent, he would have been placed together with convicted offenders, serving long and indeed life prison sentences for serious offences.   This might also have had an adverse effect on his defence.           On 9 December 1987 the Munich Regional Court convicted the applicant of the offence of tax avoidance and sentenced him to imprisonment of two years and three months.   At the same time the warrant of arrest was suspended against bail of 100,000 DM provided by the applicant.   The applicant was released from detention on 9 December 1987.   COMPLAINTS           The applicant submits that his experiences in a concentration camp have permanently damaged his health, and that for this reason he has required since 1948 neurological treatment and the corresponding medication.   He complains that since his detention in a prison in Munich he has been deprived of the necessary treatment, and that his psychological state has seriously deteriorated.   The applicant also complains that on account of his detention in a concentration camp he is now unfit for detention on remand.   The applicant invokes Article 3 of the Convention.     THE LAW   1.       The applicant complains that during his detention on remand at Munich-Stadelheim Prison, he was subjected to treatment contrary to Article 3 of the Convention.   He submits that he was deprived of medical treatment essential to his health which has been substantially affected by his experiences in concentration camps during the Nazi régime.   The applicant also submits that on account of the suffering endured during his previous detention in concentration camps he is today unfit for detention.   2.       The Commission has first examined the manner in which the applicant underwent detention on remand, in particular his complaint that contrary to Article 3 (Art. 3) he is not receiving essential medical treatment.           According to the constant case-law of the Convention organs, ill-treatment within the meaning of Article 3 (Art. 3) of the Convention must attain a certain minimum level of severity, if it is to fall within the scope of this provision.   The assessment of this minimum is in the nature of things relative and will depend on all the circumstances of the case (see Eur.   Court H.R., Ireland v. the United Kingdom judgment of 18 January 1978, Series A no. 25, para. 162).           With regard to the nature of the present complaints the Commission recalls further that such inhuman treatment may be found to exist in certain circumstances, when a person's detention as such causes his ill-health.   In such cases, however, the Commission will examine in particular the medical treatment at that person's disposal as well as his or her willingness to make use of any available services.           Moreover, there remains the State's obligation to maintain a continuous review of the detention arrangements employed with a view to ensuring the health and well-being of all prisoners, having due respect to the ordinary and reasonable requirements of imprisonment (see Bonnechaux v.   Switzerland, Comm.   Report 5.12.79, DR 18 p. 126 ff at p. 148; No. 8317/78, McFeeley and others v. the United Kingdom, Dec. 15.5.80, DR 20 p. 44 ff at p. 81).           In the present case the Commission must therefore turn first to the applicant's state of health and the treatment he required, and then examine whether the treatment provided was adequate.           The Commission notes that according to various expert opinions prepared by specialists the applicant suffers from depressions resulting from his detention in a concentration camp.   His personal doctors have confirmed that he needs antidepressive medicaments and tranquillisers.   However, the prison doctor Dr.   W, a neurologist and psychiatrist, stated on 20 May 1987 that the applicant was suspected of being addicted to medicaments.   Similarly, after examining the applicant, Professor WM, an expert chosen by the applicant, wrote in his expert opinion of 23 April 1987 that the applicant was apparently addicted to medicaments and that the required medication should therefore be administered together with psychotherapy.           In the light of the above opinion the Commission considers that the applicant is suffering from a mental condition that requires treatment, though two specialists point out his possible addiction to medicaments.           Against this background the Commission has examined the actual treatment afforded to the applicant by the prison authorities.   In particular, a problem could arise under Article 3 (Art. 3) if no, or only insufficient, treatment was available to the applicant.   In this respect there is disagreement between the parties.           The Government submit that the applicant was thoroughly examined by Dr.W on 25 September and 10 December 1986.   Between October 1986 and February 1987 he was further examined on 11 occasions by prison doctors or doctors of his own choice.   Since 24 February 1987 he has no longer consulted the prison doctors.   He has meanwhile been examined by specialists of his own choice, and since 14 October 1987 he was treated by a specialist doctor trained in conversational therapy.   Finally, Dr.   W stated on 20 May 1987 that if the applicant's health deteriorated he could be transferred to the psychiatric ward at the prison at Munich-Straubing.   As the Courts concerned pointed out, a treatment in Stadelheim prison was not feasible, and a treatment at the psychiatric clinic of Munich university, as requested by the applicant, was not possible for security reasons.           The applicant contends that only since 14 October 1987 was he treated by a doctor of his choice.   When Dr.W examined the applicant, he only took his pulse and looked into his eyes.   His several visits to the prison infirmary concerned a scalp condition.   The applicant submits that, although he constantly requested medicaments, only on rare occasions was he given tranquillisers.   He discontinued the visits as the doctors did not understand him.   Nevertheless, the various expert opinions confirmed the necessity for medication and specialist treatment.   In the applicant's view a transfer to the psychiatric ward at Straubing prison was not possible since he had to be presumed innocent as a prisoner on remand, whereas in that prison convicted offenders are serving long term sentences.   His defence rights might also have been impaired there.           The Commission notes that the applicant was examined by Dr.W, a specialist, on two occasions.   Moreover, he had the possibility constantly to visit the prison infirmary and to consult the prison doctors.   By 20 May 1987 Dr.W stated that the applicant's depressive state had not reached a degree which required special medical treatment.   Nor did the applicant on his visits to the prison doctors inform them that his depressions were getting worse and thus required different treatment.   In fact, after February 1987 the applicant discontinued altogether his consultations of the prison doctors, though he was later examined on various occasions by doctors of his own choice, who pointed out the need for further treatment.           In this respect the Commission notes that the applicant was offered the possibility of being treated in a psychiatric ward at Straubing prison.   At this stage the Commission recalls that due regard must be had to the requirements of detention on remand and it notes that the German authorities regarded Stadelheim prison as unsuitable as it lacked the required staff, or refused for security reasons a treatment at the psychiatric clinic of Munich University.           It is true that the applicant has argued that a transfer to Straubing prison would run counter to the presumption of innocence and, possibly, to his rights of defence.           However, it is not clear in what way the applicant's defence might have suffered from the mere fact that he would have been treated for a serious psychological condition in a prison which apparently had the facilities for such treatment and which facilities were not called in question by the applicant.           As a result, the Commission considers that the manner in which the applicant has been undergoing his detention does not constitute treatment attaining the minimum level of severity to fall within the scope of Article 3 (Art. 3) of the Convention.   3.       The Commission has next examined the applicant's other complaint that on account of the suffering endured during his detention in concentration camps he was generally unfit for detention today.   In this context the applicant has alleged, that his detention from 1940 to 1945 has permanently damaged his health.   Thus, he is now no longer able to endure any deprivation of liberty as it forces him to relive in his mind the terrible years of his incarceration in a Nazi concentration camp.           The Commission has carefully assessed the evidence which the applicant has adduced in support of his claims.   It has had regard in particular to the psychiatric opinions prepared by Professor WM and by Dr.   AB.   The latter is a specialist in the field of psychiatry concerned with persons who were interned in Nazi concentration camps.   The Commission finds that in principle the detention today of a person who, like the applicant, has spent five years of his life as a boy in such camps, might well raise serious issues under Article 3 of the Convention, if, as a direct consequence of his detention, he is allegedly forced to relive and suffer again the terrible experiences of the years 1940 to 1945.           However, the Commission finds that even the medical opinions submitted by the applicant's own doctors do not sufficiently substantiate his allegations in this respect.   Professor WM stated on 25 June 1987 that the applicant was not unfit for detention.   Dr.   AB stated that the applicant was now unfit for detention and he described the application as a borderline case, but he did not allege that there was an acute danger to his health.           In this situation, the Commission, whilst appreciating the special hardship that the detention on remand from 8 September 1986 until 9 December 1987 must have caused the applicant, cannot find that it attained such a level of severity as is required to constitute a violation of Article 3 (Art. 3) of the Convention.   4.       It follows that the applicant's complaints do not disclose any appearance of a violation of the guarantees enshrined in Article 3 (Art. 3) of the Convention.   The Commission concludes therefore that the application is manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 27 para. 2 (Art. 27-2) of the Convention.             For these reasons, the Commission             DECLARES THE APPLICATION INADMISSIBLE     Deputy Secretary to the Commission               President of the Commission          (J. RAYMOND)                                         (C.A. NØRGAARD)