CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;DECCOMMISSION;ENG — 2 mars 1994

.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. 21780/93                       by T. V.                       against Finland         The European Commission of Human Rights (First Chamber) sitting in private on 2 March 1994, the following members being present:              MM.    A. WEITZEL, President                  F. ERMACORA                  E. BUSUTTIL                  A.S. GÖZÜBÜYÜK            Mrs.   J. LIDDY            MM.    M.P. PELLONPÄÄ                  B. MARXER                  G.B. REFFI                  B. CONFORTI                  N. BRATZA                  I. BÉKÉS                  E. KONSTANTINOV              Mrs.   M.F. BUQUICCHIO, Secretary to the Chamber         Having regard to Article 25 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms;         Having regard to the application introduced on 11 February 1993 by T. V. against Finland and registered on 29 April 1993 under file No. 21780/93;         Having regard to the report provided for in Rule 47 of the Rules of Procedure of the Commission;         Having regard to :   -      the observations submitted by the respondent Government on 26 August       1993 and the observations in reply submitted by the applicant on 17       October 1993;   -      the information submitted by the respondent Government on       16 February 1994 and the comments in reply submitted by the       applicant on 24 February 1994;         Having deliberated;         Decides as follows:   THE FACTS         The applicant is a Finnish citizen born in 1948 and currently serving a prison sentence at the Central Prison of Turku. He is represented by Mr. Markku Fredman, a lawyer practising in Helsinki.         The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.   Particular circumstances of the case         (a)   The initial disclosure of the applicant's HIV-positivity         In 1990 the applicant was charged with, inter alia, manslaughter and desecration of a corpse through sexual intercourse. At the first hearing before the City Court (raastuvanoikeus, rådstuvurätten) of Helsinki on 1 March 1990 both the applicant and the lawyer of the victim requested that the proceedings take place behind closed doors and that the documents in the case be ordered to be kept confidential. The City Court ordered that the proceedings be conducted behind closed doors and that the documents be kept confidential, but only until the end of the proceedings before the City Court.         At the City Court's request an opinion on the applicant's mental state was submitted in November 1990, indicating, inter alia, that he was carrying the HIV-virus. The applicant requested that the opinion not be attached to the minutes of the City Court, but be added to the documents. The City Court decided, however, to attach the opinion to its minutes. It thereby became public in connection with its judgment of 29 November 1990, whereby it convicted the applicant and sentenced him to nine years', one month's and twenty days' imprisonment.         The applicant appealed against his conviction to the Court of Appeal (hovioikeus, hovrätten) of Helsinki, but not against the City Court's failure to order the opinion on his mental state to be kept confidential nor against the refusal to include it in the documents only.         On 4 April 1991 the Court of Appeal rejected the applicant's appeal. He then requested leave to appeal, again without challenging the failure to order the opinion on his mental state to be kept confidential or the refusal to include it in the documents only.         On 24 July 1991 the Supreme Court (korkein oikeus, högsta domstolen) refused leave to appeal.         In her decision of 22 December 1992 the Deputy Parliamentary Ombudsman (eduskunnan apulaisoikeusasiamies, riksdagens biträdande justitieombudsman) considered that the including of the applicant's HIV- positivity in the opinion on his mental state could not be considered necessary, as his HIV-positivity had not affected his criminal responsibility.         (b)   The applicant's stay in the Turku Central Prison from            22 August 1991 to 23 March 1993         As from 22 August 1991 the applicant was placed in the Central Prison of Turku. The applicant visited medical clinics outside this prison at least on 19 and 21 August, 2 and 30 September, 7 October, 25 November and 9 December 1992 and 13 January as well as 7, 8 and 9 September 1993. As he was accompanied by one or several guards, he was refused permission to have medical consultations in private at the clinics.         In response to a petition by the applicant the Department for Prison Administration of the Ministry of Justice (oikeusministeriön vankeinhoito-osasto, justitieministeriets fångvårdsavdelning) on 17 January 1992 assured the applicant that information regarding his HIV-positivity was not being disclosed to third parties. The Department pointed out that during every visit to clinics outside the Central Prison of Turku the applicant had been accompanied by the same guard, who had not even been allowed to inform other guards of the applicant's disease.         In response to a further petition by the applicant the Department for Prison Administration on 2 March 1992 considered that the applicant could be properly treated in the prison and by paying visits to clinics outside the prison area. Thus, there was no reason to transfer him outside the prison for permanent treatment.         On 27 April 1992 the applicant was, at his own request, placed in the isolation ward of the Western wing of the prison. This ward is primarily intended for prisoners serving a disciplinary punishment. Prisoners requesting a solitary cell are not placed in this ward, unless the Chief Warden gives his approval. Only a few prisoners are occasionally placed in this section. The ward has been renovated and is more attractive than the unrenovated section with day cells in the Northern wing, where prisoners requesting placement in a solitary cell are usually placed. The door to the applicant's cell was always locked. The cell had a toilet and a window, but no wash basin. He was, however, permitted to shower every day. The applicant was only permitted to leave his cell for a reason such as exercising, seeing an prison official, bathing, taking a shower or for the distribution of food. He was not permitted to associate with fellow prisoners on the common premises or otherwise participate in leisure time activities, but could attend religious services. One hour was reserved for daily exercise.         On 16 July 1992 the applicant was transferred within the isolation ward to the so-called security cell in order to provide better conditions. The cell is equipped with a security gate, a   toilet, a wash basin and a bigger window. The cell door could, under certain conditions, be left open. Otherwise the normal conditions at the isolation ward applied.         In response to further petitions by the applicant the Department for Prison Administration on 27 and 28 July and 25 August 1992 found that his treatment was being implemented according to the instructions given by the University Hospital of Turku. His transfer was therefore considered unnecessary.         On 6 September 1992 the applicant lodged a further petition with the Department for Prison Administration, complaining, inter alia, of lack of adequate facilities to have his hair cut. In its decision of 19 October 1992 the Department found no reason to take further measures, as the Central Prison of Turku had informed the Department that such facilities would be arranged.         In response to a further petition by the applicant the Department for Prison Administration reiterated its view that the applicant's treatment in the Central Prison of Turku had been adequate.         (c)   The applicant's stay in the Prisoners' Hospital from 23 March            to 10 May 1993         On 23 March 1993 the applicant was transferred to the Prisoners' Hospital at Hämeenlinna, where he was, at his own request, placed in a separate room intended for patients needing special care. His request was based on his strong suspicions that his illness would otherwise be disclosed to fellow patients. The room has its own toilet and shower.         In a medical report of 25 March 1993 the applicant was found to be somewhat paranoid, largely preoccupied with other prisoners learning about his illness. The report did not conclude that he was in need of any specific treatment and indicated that the applicant had consented to surveillance staff being informed of his disease. Such consent only applies to the staff of the Prison Hospital and does not entitle staff to inform staff at another institution.         On 20 April 1993 the applicant was transferred to a regular patient room, which had a toilet, but no wash basin. The applicant had access to a common shower.          No special restrictions were imposed on the applicant in the hospital.         The Prison Hospital employs prisoners for cleaning work including changing linens soiled with blood and other secretions. To this end, prisoners are provided with and advised to use protective gloves. They are not informed of the patients' state of health.         Up to the spring of 1993 the Prisoners' Hospital would indicate diseases communicable through blood with a yellow triangle in the patient card. Staff members surveying prisoners' state of health could thereby know which prisoners suffered from such a disease and ensure that laundry and equipment relating to a such a prisoner be treated separately.         According to the Government, the triangles were only indicated in the binders with the patient cards and not accessible to the patients themselves. According to the applicant, his patient card could occasionally be seen by anyone in the hospital corridors.         As from spring of 1993 any prisoner carrying a disease communicable through blood receives a special laundry bag and is requested to put any laundry soiled with blood or other secretions into this. Such laundry is washed separately.         The hospital guards are being warned of diseases communicable through blood and indicate such diseases with a yellow triangle in their personal patient cards.         (d)   The applicant's present stay in the Central Prison of Turku         On 10 May 1993 the applicant was transferred to the Central Prison of Turku, where he was, at his own request, placed in the previously mentioned security cell in the isolation ward. The reason for the transfer to Turku was his need to undergo further examinations at the University Hospital of Turku.         In her decision of 18 August 1993 the Deputy Parliamentary Ombudsman found no reason to criticise the applicant's treatment in the Central Prison of Turku and the Prisoners' Hospital.         According to an indication in the applicant's file valid up to 15 September 1993, the applicant had once made an attempt to escape. Following a petition by the applicant the Prison Governor on 15 September 1993 nullified the indication as erroneous.         According to a medical report of 9 September 1993 the applicant's disease appears to have reached the final stage of AIDS.         (e)   Clothing practice         During his visits to clinics outside the Central Prison of Turku the applicant wore the regular, brown two-piece prison outfit with a grey collar. There exists no special prison outfit for visits outside the prison area, but generally a well-kept prison outfit is reserved for such occasions. The guard escorting the applicant during the visits wore a uniform.         In her decision of 25 January 1991 the Deputy Parliamentary Ombudsman considered that the applicant's obligation to wear prison clothes while visiting medical clinics outside the prison area could be based on domestic law and a circular letter issued by the Department for Prison Administration.         (f)   The handling of the applicant's correspondence         When receiving letters with a cover note the applicant acknowledges receipt of it in writing and the acknowledgement is added to his file. Letters arriving without a cover note are not being registered.         Letters sent by the applicant are not being registered.   Relevant domestic law and regulations of lower rank         (a)   Publicity of documents         According to the 1951 Act on the Publicity of Official Documents (laki 83/51 yleisten asiakirjain julkisuudesta; lag 83/51 om allmänna handlingars offentlighet, hereinafter "the 1951 Act") official documents are public (Chapter 1, Section 1). They include, inter alia, documents drawn up and issued by an authority as well as documents submitted to an authority and which are still in that authority's possession (Section 2, para. 1).         Everyone shall have access to a public, official document (Section 6, as amended by Act no. 739/88). An exception is made, inter alia, for medical and similar reports, which are accessible to the public only following the consent of the person they relate to (Chapter 3, Section 17). Documents may also be regarded as confidential as a result of the obligation of a civil servant to observe secrecy (see below).         (b)   Publicity of court proceedings         The publicity of court proceedings is governed by the 1984 Act on the Publicity of Court Proceedings (laki 945/84 oikeudenkäynnin julkisuudesta, lag 945/84 om offentlighet vid rättegång).         The court may, at the request of a party or for another weighty reason, decide to hold an oral hearing either entirely or partly in the absence of the public (Section 5). The publicity of documents submitted in the course of court proceedings is normally governed by the 1951 Act. However, if an oral hearing has been entirely or partly held in the absence of the public or if, during such a hearing, a document or information which should be kept confidential has been submitted, the court may decide that the documents in the case be kept confidential for up to forty years (Section 9, subsections 1 and 2).         No separate appeal lies against a decision made under the 1984 Act (Section 11).         (c)   The obligation of prison staff to observe secrecy         The obligation of prison staff to observe secrecy is prescribed in the Civil Servants Act (valtion virkamieslaki 755/86, statstjänstemannalag 755/86). A civil servant may not without permission disclose information which he has received knowledge of in office and which is, inter alia, prescribed or ordered to be kept confidential or which concerns a person's state of health (Chapter 5, Section 23).         Under the 1986 Decree on the Prison Administration (asetus 134/86 vankeinhoitolaitoksesta, förordning 134/86 om fångvårdsväsendet, hereinafter "the 1986 Decree") a prison staff member shall not disclose such information to prisoners which could, inter alia, jeopardise a private interest. Moreover, he may not without a valid reason disclose information regarding, inter alia, a prisoner to others, not even to another civil servant who does not need the information in his office (Chapter 2, Section 32, paras. 1 and 6).         (d)   Treatment of prisoners         Under the 1975 Decree on the Treatment of Prisoners (vankein- hoitoasetus 431/75, fångvårdsförordning 431/75, hereinafter "the 1975 Decree") prisoners shall be treated fairly and with respect for their dignity (Chapter 1, Section 5, subsection 1 as well as Section 31, para. 2 of the 1986 Decree).         Under the 1889 Decree on the Enforcement of Punishments (asetus 39/1889 rangaistusten täytäntöönpanosta, förordning 39/1889 om verkställighet af straff, hereinafter "the 1889 Decree") prisoners shall be placed inter alia with regard to their state of health (Chapter 3, Section 2) either in individual cells or in a cell with several prisoners, if possible having regard to their own wishes. A prisoner may be kept separately from other prisoners (Section 3, as amended by Act no. 128/87).         Under a circular letter issued by the Department for Prison Administration on 26 March 1980 a prisoner may, if not for disciplinary reasons, only be placed in solitary confinement for his own protection, if he fears living with fellow prisoners or if he puts forward another acceptable reason for his request. Such a prisoner shall primarily be placed in another section than the isolation ward. His conditions in isolation shall interfere as little as possible with his physical and mental health. As regards the surveillance of his physical and mental health, the same rules apply as for prisoners placed in isolation for disciplinary reasons.         (e)   Prison clothing         A prisoner shall be allowed to wear his own clothes, if these are in a good condition and provided no apparent risk of him escaping could be caused thereby (Chapter 2, Section 7 of the 1889 Decree). If a prisoner is to appear before a court he shall, whenever necessary, be provided with suitable clothes clearly distinguishable from his prison clothes. He may, however, also be provided with such clothes for other visits outside the prison area (Chapter 4, Section 12 of the 1975 Decree).         Detailed instructions on a prisoner's clothing are to be found in circular letters issued by the Prison Department of the Ministry of Justice.         (f)   The handling of prisoners' correspondence         According to the Constitution Act (Suomen hallitusmuoto 94/19, Regeringsform för Finland 94/19) there shall be no interference with the right of a Finnish citizen to respect for his correspondence, unless exceptions are made by law (Chapter 2, Section 12).         A prisoner's correspondence may be screened (Chapter 2, Section 9 of the 1889 Decree and Chapter 9, Section 49 of the 1975 Decree). However, according to a directive of 26 February 1991 issued by the Department for Prison Administration a prisoner's correspondence inter alia with the European Commission of Human Rights shall not be screened. This prohibition has been upheld in a subsequent directive of 2 November 1992.         (g)   Remedies under domestic law against acts of civil servants         According to Chapter 10, Section 93, subsection 2 of the Constitution Act, anyone who has suffered an infringement of his rights, or damage, through an illegal act or negligence on the part of a civil servant, is entitled to demand that the civil servant be convicted and held liable for damages, or to report him for the purposes of having charges brought against him. Under the Tort Liability Act (vahingon- korvauslaki 412/74, skadeståndslag 412/74) damage proceedings may also be instituted against the State for actions taken by civil servants (Chapters 3 and 4).         A prisoner may complain of his treatment to the Prison Governor or the Prison Board (vankilan johtokunta, fängelsedirektion) and of their decisions to the Department for Prison Administration. He can also turn to the Parliamentary Ombudsman, whose special obligation is to supervise compliance with the law in prisons.   COMPLAINTS         The applicant complains under Articles 3 and 8 of the Convention of the degrading implementation of his prison sentence. He alleges         (a) that his HIV-positivity was disclosed due to the City Court's failure to order the opinion on his mental state to be kept confidential;         (b)   that the decision of the Deputy Ombudsman had the effect of further disclosing his HIV-positivity to the public (this complaint having been made in the applicant's observations of 17 October 1993);         (c) that staff members of the Central Prison of Turku and the Prisoners' Hospital have been informed of his HIV-positivity and that they have further disclosed, and continue to disclose, such information to others;         (d) that he has received inadequate treatment in general, having been forced to request placement in isolation and, in particular, that he has received inadequate medical treatment;         (e) that he has been refused permission to have private consultations with doctors when visiting the clinics outside the prison area;         (f) that he has been forced to wear normal prison clothes while visiting medical clinics outside the Central Prison of Turku and the Prisoners' Mental Hospital; and         (g) that letters from the Commission have been screened by prison officials.         In his observations of 17 October 1993 relating to the allegedly inadequate, other than medical, treatment the applicant further refers to the lack of adequate facilities enabling him to have his hair cut in the Central Prison of Turku. Allegedly, the prison employs no barber, with the effect that the prisoners cut each other's hair. This often results in scars and the scissors are not always properly washed. As the applicant does not wish to subject his fellow prisoners to the risk of being contaminated by HIV, he is being forced to cut his hair himself.   PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE COMMISSION         The application was introduced on 11 February 1993 and registered on 29 April 1993.         On 30 June 1993 the Commission decided to bring the application to the notice of the Government and to invite them to submit written observations on the admissibility and merits of the case, with the exception of the applicant's complaint under Article 3 of the Convention as far as relating to his allegedly inadequate medical treatment and the refusal to allow him to have medical consultations in private during his visits to clinics outside the prison area.         The Government's observations were submitted on 26 August 1993 and the applicant's comments in reply on 17 October 1993.         On 7 September 1993 the Commission granted the applicant legal aid.         On 27 January 1994 the Government were requested to submit certain further factual information pertaining to elements of the applicant's observations in reply. This information was submitted on 16 February 1994 and the applicant's comments in reply on 24 February 1994.   THE LAW         The applicant complains under Articles 3 and 8 (Art. 3, 8) of the Convention of the degrading implementation of his prison sentence. He alleges         (a) that his HIV-positivity was disclosed due to the City Court's failure to order the opinion on his mental state to be kept confidential;         (b)   that the decision of the Deputy Ombudsman had the effect of further disclosing his HIV-positivity to the public (this complaint having been made in the applicant's observations of 17 October 1993);         (c) that staff members of the Central Prison of Turku and the Prisoners' Hospital have been informed of his HIV-positivity and that they have further disclosed, and continue to disclose, such information to others;         (d) that he has received inadequate treatment in general, having been forced to request placement in isolation, and, in particular, that he has received inadequate medical treatment;         (e) that he has been refused permission to have private consultations with doctors when visiting medical clinics outside the prison area;         (f) that he has been forced to wear normal prison clothes while visiting medical clinics outside the prison area; and         (g) that letters from the Commission have been screened by prison officials.         In his observations of 17 October 1993 relating to the allegedly inadequate treatment in general the applicant further refers to the lack of adequate facilities enabling him to have his hair cut in the Central Prison of Turku.         The Commission has examined the complaints separately and, as regards the various aspects relating to the applicant's treatment, also together.         (a)   The initial disclosure of the applicant's HIV-positivity         As regards the City Court's failure to order the opinion on the applicant's mental state to be kept confidential, the Government argue that the applicant has not complied with the six months' time limit prescribed by Article 26 (Art. 26) of the Convention. Should the Commission not   consider the City Court's failure as an instantaneous act, they argue that domestic remedies have not been exhausted. The applicant never requested that the opinion be kept secret, but merely asked that it be attached to the City Court's documents, to which public access would have been possible on request. Once disclosed by the City Court, the opinion on the applicant's mental state would, admittedly, have remained public at least up to the Court of Appeal's judgment. However, as criminal proceedings against a detainee have to be conducted speedily, the disclosure of opinion could have been of a limited duration, had the applicant's appeal against the disclosure been successful. This remedy was therefore an effective and sufficient one.         In the further alternative, the Government consider the complaint manifestly ill-founded. They admit that the disclosure of the opinion on the applicant's mental state interfered with his right to respect for his privacy as guaranteed by Article 8 para. 1 (Art. 8-1) of the Convention, but argue that it was justified under para. 2 of the provision. The disclosure was lawful under the Act on the Publicity of Court Proceedings and aimed at preventing crime. Admittedly, the inclusion of the applicant's HIV-positivity in the opinion on his mental state was not necessary as far as the opinion assessed whether he should be considered to bear criminal responsibility for his offence. The mental examination was, however, a means of making a total evaluation of the applicant and the report thereby inevitably included also other information. The Government finally emphasise the need for public control of court proceedings and conclude that the disclosure of the opinion on the applicant's mental state was proportional to the aim pursued and necessary in a democratic society.         The applicant argues that the City Court's disclosure of the opinion on his mental state, including his HIV-positivity, created a continuing situation due to the subsequent and ongoing disclosure of his disease. Although he has told only one of his prison guards about his HIV- positivity, many persons in the Central Prison of Turku are allegedly informed of it. As he cannot himself decide on his care, more and more people are obtaining information about his HIV-positivity.         The applicant further refutes the Government's non-exhaustion argument. The City Court was bound by the Convention and under domestic law it had to consider ex officio whether to order that the documents in the applicant's case be kept confidential. Once the City Court had failed to do so, the opinion on his mental state became public. A subsequent appeal could not have repaired the damage which had already occurred.         The applicant finally maintains that the City Court's failure to order the opinion on his mental state to be kept confidential was not justified under Article 8 para. 2 (Art. 8-2), as the indication of his HIV-positivity was irrelevant in the assessment of his criminal responsibility. Reference is made to the Deputy Ombudsman's decision of 22 December 1992.         Even assuming that the applicant has exhausted domestic remedies in regard to the present complaint, the Commission recalls that under Article 26 (art. (Art. 26) of the Convention it may only deal with a matter within a period of six months from the date on which the final decision was taken. Assuming that the Supreme Court's refusal to grant the applicant leave to appeal constitutes that final decision, the Commission observes that it dates back to 24 July 1991, while the complaint before the Commission was lodged only on 11 February 1993, that is more than six months later.         It follows that this complaint must be rejected under Article 27 para. 3 (Art. 27-3) of the Convention.         (b)   The further disclosure of the applicant's HIV-positivity in            the Deputy Ombudsman's decision         With reference to Article 26 (Art. 26) of the Convention the Commission again considers that it is not required to decide whether or not the further disclosure of the applicant's HIV-positivity in the Deputy Ombudsman's decision of 22 December 1992 discloses any appearance of a violation of the Convention. The Commission observes that this complaint was lodged on 17 October 1993, that is more than six months later.         It follows that this complaint must also be rejected under Article 27 para. 3 (Art. 27-3) of the Convention.         (c)   The access to information regarding the applicant's            HIV-positivity and the alleged further disclosure of such            information         The Government submit that the complaint is manifestly ill-founded as unsubstantiated. The staff has observed strict professional secrecy in regard to the applicant's disease. The use of warning triangles in the Prisoners' Hospital was based on medical considerations and formed part of normal institutional practice when treating patients with diseases communicable through blood. The triangles could not be seen by patients. Moreover, there is no indication that the applicant's illness would be common knowledge among the applicant's previous or present fellow prisoners or guards.         The applicant refutes the Government's argument that staff involved in his treatment have not, and do not, reveal his HIV-positivity to others. Allegedly, his patient card with the warning triangle could occasionally be seen by anyone in the corridors of the Prisoners' Hospital. If the triangle had not been visible, the applicant would not himself have become aware of its existence.         The applicant further underlines that the obligation of a civil servant to observe secrecy also applies with regard to other civil servants. Thus, a prison guard is not allowed to inform another guard of the reasons for accompanying a prisoner to hospital. He further refers to his visits to the clinic at the University Hospital of Turku from 7 to 9 September 1993. On 7 and 8 September, respectively, he was accompanied by different pairs of guards of the Central Prison of Turku and only on 9 September by his regular guard. At least the guards who accompanied him during the first visit would have overheard his conversation with the doctor. He therefore refused to talk to the doctor under those circumstances.         The Commission has considered the complaint under Article 8 (Art. 8) of the Convention, which reads as follows:         "1.   Everyone has the right to respect for his private and family       life, his home and his correspondence.         2.    There shall be no interference by a public authority with the       exercise of this right except such as is in accordance with the law       and is necessary in a democratic society in the interests of       national security, public safety or the economic well-being of the       country, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection       of health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and       freedoms of others."         The Commission considers that access by prison and medical staff to information regarding the applicant's HIV-positivity constitutes an interference with his right to respect for his private life. The Commission finds no indication, however, that staff have unlawfully gained access to such information. A legitimate aim of such access is the protection of the rights and freedoms of others. The Commission finally considers it justified that staff dealing with the applicant receive information about a disease of his which is communicable through blood. The access was, and is, therefore proportionate to the aim pursued and can be regarded as necessary in a democratic society.         The Commission finds no substantiation of the applicant's allegation that staff members have disclosed, and continue to disclose, information regarding his HIV-positivity to others.         It follows that the complaint must be rejected as being manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 27 para. 2 (Art. 27-2) of the Convention.         (d)   The allegedly inadequate treatment of the applicant         The Government submit that the complaint regarding the alleged inadequate treatment in general due to the applicant's isolation is inadmissible either for non-exhaustion of domestic remedies or as being manifestly ill-founded. No complaints to the prison authorities have been made by the applicant. His placement in isolation has consistently been based on his own wishes. He has not specified the alleged incidents which allegedly led him to request placement in the Prison Mental Hospital and the isolation ward of the Central Prison of Turku, nor has he reported any such incidents to the prison staff. His fear of his disease being disclosed has been deemed to be a psychological symptom.   In any case, the compliance with the applicant's requests to be placed in isolation shows that regard has been had to his safety. His everyday conditions in the prison institutions were, and continue to be, satisfactory and also comply with the Council of Europe's Prison Rules of 1987.         As regards the allegedly inadequate facilities for the cutting of the applicant's hair in the Central Prison of Turku, the Government submit that the prison does employ a prisoner as barber for the other prisoners. However, as from 1991 the applicant has preferred to cut his hair himself and does not appear to regard this situation as problematic.         The applicant argues that a petition to the prison authorities does not constitute a remedy under Article 26 (Art. 26) of the Convention in regard to the present complaint. He further maintains that, although he did request to be placed in isolation, he was forced to make this request as a result of the circumstances in the Central Prison of Turku. He emphasises his efforts to minimise the risk of fellow prisoners being contaminated by the HIV-virus and contends that the penitentiaries where he has been placed during his disease are not properly prepared to accommodate and treat prisoners with this disease. Reference is further made to the 1993 Report by the European Committee for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman and Degrading Treatment or Punishment, which questions the conditions of prisoners placed in solitary confinement at their own request (Report of the Committee 1.4.93, pp. 28-32).         As regards the allegedly inadequate facilities for the cutting of his hair in the Central Prison of Turku, the applicant in his observations of 24 February 1994 questions the reliability of the Government's submissions. Because of a rash on his scalp he does not wish to subject the prison barber to the risk of being contaminated by the HIV-virus. Although even special arrangements could draw strangers' attention to his HIV-positivity, no such measures have been proposed.         The Commission need not resolve the question whether effective domestic remedies have been exhausted, as the complaint as a whole is manifestly ill-founded for the following reasons.         The Commission has considered the complaint under Article 8 (Art. 8) of the Convention. It finds, however, that the applicant's initial complaint of allegedly inadequate treatment has remained unsubstantiated. As far as the complaint relates to his alleged impossibility to have his hair cut, the Commission observes that the Central Prison of Turku appears to employ a barber, whose services the applicant does not wish to avail himself of. Rather, he appears to prefer to cut his own hair. This arrangement is not creating any serious inconvenience to him. The Commission therefore finds no disclosure of any appearance of a violation of Article 8 (Art. 8).         In these circumstances, the complaint must be rejected as being manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 27 para. 2 (Art. 27-2) of the Convention.         (e)   The refusal of medical consultations in private during the            applicant's visits outside the prison area         The Commission has considered the complaint under the above-quoted Article 8 (Art. 8) of the Convention. It finds no indication that the refusal was, and is, not in accordance with domestic law, given that it must be considered an inherent part of the implementation of the applicant's prison sentence. The refusal must further be considered to aim at the prevention of disorder and crime and to be necessary in a democratic society to this end. Accordingly, the refusal is justified under paragraph 2 of Article 8 (Art. 8-2).         It follows that this complaint must also be rejected as being manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 27 para. 2 (Art. 27-2) of the Convention.         (f)   The applicant's obligation to wear prison clothes while            visiting medical clinics outside the prison area         The Government submit that the applicant's obligation may be considered as an interference with his right to respect for his private life, as enshrined in Article 8 (Art. 8). This interference is, however, justified under Article 8 para. 2 (Art. 8-2). The clothing rule has a legal basis in the 1889 Decree, the circular letter by the National Prison Administration issued by virtue of that Decree as well as in the 1975 Decree. The prison clothes permit the applicant's identification as a prisoner, but not as the carrier of any specific disease. The prison rules have not been applied to the applicant because of his HIV- positivity. The legitimate grounds for the rules are primarily public safety and prevention of crime and disorder. The interference with the applicant's rights is necessary in a democratic society. The applicant is serving a sentence for a violent offence, and according to prison records he has once attempted to escape. The behaviour of prisoners who are likely to attempt to escape in such situations has proven unpredictable. Also the possibility of impulsive reactions must be considered. Visiting clinics outside the prison area has been discovered to be particularly risky, as it is quite possible for a prisoner to disappear into a crowd, unless he is wearing clothes easily recognisable by guards. The outfit worn by the applicant have no conspicuous details such as numbers or letters. Thus, a lay person cannot identify him as a prisoner. Moreover, the medical staff obtain knowledge of his status as a prisoner through his medical records.         The applicant emphasises the frequency of his visits to clinics outside the prison area. He refutes the Government's statement that he once attempted to escape and refers to the subsequent deletion of the indication in his file. He does not have the slightest reason to attempt to escape during a visit, as he is constantly in need of medication and medical assistance. No distinction has been made between the applicant and other prisoners in this respect.         The Commission has examined this complaint under the above-quoted Article 8 (Art. 8) of the Convention. It considers that the applicant's obligation to wear prison clothes during his visits to the clinics constitutes an interference with his right to respect for his private life as guaranteed by paragraph 1 of Article 8 (Art. 8-1).         As regards the justification of his obligation, the Commission first observes that during the period complained of the applicant has been and is being detained as a person lawfully convicted of offences. Moreover, domestic law gives no absolute right to a prisoner to use plain clothes outside the prison area. The applicant's obligation was therefore, and continues to be, in accordance with the law.         The Commission further considers that the refusals had, and continue to have, the legitimate aim of protecting the interests of public safety and preventing public disorder and crime (cf., concerning the obligation to wear a prison uniform within a prison, No. 8231/78, Dec. 6.3.82, D.R. 28 pp. 5, 30).         The Commission finally observes that Section 12 of the 1975 Decree leaves a certain discretion to the prison authorities when deciding whether to grant a prisoner's request for permission to wear plain clothes. In the consideration of such a request various elements may be taken into account, such as the prisoner's mental state and the premises to be visited by the prisoner. Having regard to the particular circumstances of the present case, the Commission cannot find that the refusal to grant the applicant permission to wear plain clothes was in any way arbitrary. It must therefore be considered to fall within the margin of appreciation afforded to the Contracting States under Article 8 (Art. 8). The Commission therefore concludes that the applicant's obligation was proportionate to the aim pursued and can be regarded as necessary in a democratic society. In conclusion, the refusals were, and in the circumstances at present continue to be, justified under para. 2 of Article 8 (Art. 8-2).         It follows that this complaint must also be rejected as being manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 27 para. 2 (Art. 27-2) of the Convention.         (g)   The alleged screening of the applicant's correspondence         The Government submit that domestic remedies have not been exhausted in regard to this complaint. The applicant has not complained of the alleged screening to the prison authorities or the Parliamentary Ombudsman, nor has he lodged any report with the police or taken any other legal steps against the prison officials or the State.         Should the Commission consider the domestic remedies to have been exhausted, the Government consider the complaint manifestly ill-founded. The Government refer to the prohibition of screening prisoners' correspondence with the Commission as well as to an investigation carried out in the course of the Commission proceedings which found no evidence in support of the applicant's contention. The applicant has further been able properly to use his right under Article 25 (Art. 25) of the Convention to lodge and pursue his application before the Commission.         The applicant contends that correspondence with the Commission has been interfered with. The fact that the officials suspected of having opened letters have not admitted having done so, cannot be of any significant importance.         (aa) The Commission has considered this complaint under Article 8 (Art. 8) of the Convention and Article 25 para. 1 (Art. 25-1), respectively.         The Commission has first considered the complaint under Article 8 (Art. 8) of the Convention. Regardless of whether or not the applicant has exhausted domestic remedies, the Commission cannot find any substantiation in support of his contention that his correspondence with the Commission has been screened.         It follows that the this aspect of the complaint must be rejected as being manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 27 para. 2 (Art. 27-2) of the Convention.         (bb) The Commission has next considered the complaint under Article 25 para. 1 (Art. 25-1) of the Convention, whic