CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;DECCOMMISSION;ENG — 28 juin 1995

.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. 21221/93                       by L.J.                       against Finland         The European Commission of Human Rights (First Chamber) sitting in private on 28 June 1995, the following members being present:              Mr.    C.L. ROZAKIS, President            Mrs.   J. LIDDY            MM.    E. BUSUTTIL                  A.S. GÖZÜBÜYÜK                  M.P. PELLONPÄÄ                  B. MARXER                  G.B. REFFI                  B. CONFORTI                  N. BRATZA                  I. BÉKÉS                  E. KONSTANTINOV                  G. RESS                  A. PERENIC                  C. BÎRSAN              Mrs.   S. DOLLÉ, Acting 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 13 December 1992 by L.J. against Finland and registered on 21 January 1993 under file No. 21221/93;         Having regard to the report provided for in Rule 47 of the Rules of Procedure of the Commission;         Having deliberated;         Decides as follows:   THE FACTS         The applicant is a Finnish citizen, born in 1949 and currently serving a prison sentence in the Helsinki Central Prison. He is represented by Mr. Kari Aarrevuo, a lawyer in Helsinki.         The facts, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows.   I.     Particular circumstances of the case   1.     Background         Since 1965 the applicant has been convicted of a number of violent and other offences, for which reason he was classified as a dangerous recidivist and incarcerated in preventive detention for about ten years up to 18 September 1989, when he was released on parole.   2.     The criminal proceedings against the applicant         (a)   The case of attempted manslaughter         In 1991 the applicant and E. were charged with attempted manslaughter committed on 1 February 1991. In the alternative, E. was charged with having aided and abetted the applicant in the offence.         On 22 April 1991 the City Court (raastuvanoikeus, rådstuvurätten) of Helsinki acquitted the applicant of the charges for attempted manslaughter, but convicted him of certain other offences. E. was acquitted of all charges.         The prosecution appealed to the Court of Appeal (hovioikeus, hovrätten) of Helsinki. Following a further oral hearing, the Court of Appeal, on 19 March 1992, convicted the applicant of, among other offences, attempted manslaughter committed without his having been in possession of his full senses. It furthermore convicted E. of having aided and abetted the applicant in the offence.         The Court of Appeal considered that the various statements made by the victim, F., did not suffice for concluding that the applicant had been the perpetrator of the attempted manslaughter. However, it also took into account, among other evidence, statements made by E. and W. as well as the results of an analysis by the Central Forensic Laboratory of gunpowder collected from the sleeves of the applicant's jacket. The Court of Appeal also found that the applicant had been unable to state his whereabouts on the day of the crime in a convincing manner. For instance, at the Court of Appeal's hearing he had modified his account of the means of transportation which he had claimed to have used on that day.         The Court of Appeal sentenced the applicant to about six years' imprisonment. It also authorised the revocation of his release on parole from an institution for preventive detention.         On 22 June 1992 the Supreme Court (korkein oikeus, högsta domstolen) refused the applicant leave to appeal.         The applicant was assisted by counsel throughout the proceedings.         (b)   The murder case         On 4 June 1992 the City Court of Helsinki convicted the applicant of, among other offences, murder committed without his having been in possession of his full senses. He was sentenced to eleven years' imprisonment. The City Court based the applicant's conviction on the statements of a number of witnesses, who had been accompanying the applicant at some point during the day of the crime, as well as on an autopsy report.         The City Court also authorised the applicant's incarceration as a dangerous recidivist.         The applicant's appeal to the Court of Appeal of Helsinki was rejected on 29 October 1992 without any further oral hearing having been held. Leave to appeal was refused by the Supreme Court on 8 February 1993.         The applicant was assisted by counsel throughout the proceedings.         In January 1993 the applicant's counsel was informed by the police that certain share certificates believed to have been stolen from the murder victim at the time of the offence had been found by the victim's mother. The applicant's counsel was unable to obtain information as to when this finding had been reported to the police.   3.     The applicant's incarceration as a dangerous recidivist         On 27 April 1993 the Prison Court (vankilaoikeus, fängelse- domstolen), basing itself on the Court of Appeal's judgment of 19 March 1992, with immediate effect revoked the applicant's release on parole from an institution for preventive detention, considering that the conditions for his incarceration as a dangerous recidivist were fulfilled.         On 19 October 1993 the Prison Court, basing itself on the Court of Appeal's judgment of 29 October 1992, considered that the conditions for the applicant's incarceration as a dangerous recidivist were again fulfilled.   4.     The applicant's prison conditions         On 13 January 1994 the applicant was transferred to the semi-open ward in the Central Prison of Riihimäki. According to the applicant, this was tantamount to placement in solitary confinement. He was no longer authorised to work or carry out any hobby activities. He was only allowed to exercise during one hour per day. He claims that his de facto solitary confinement was ordered because he had complained about having received a salary lower than that paid to ordinary prisoners.         On 28 January 1994 the applicant was transferred to the isolation ward of the Helsinki Central Prison. He was authorised to associate with three fellow prisoners for three hours a day. He had no right to carry out hobby activities. His cell was allegedly located mainly underground and due to insufficient insulation the temperature in the cell was low in the wintertime.   5.     Facts established by the European Committee for the Prevention       of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment         On 1 April 1993 the above-stated Committee ("the CPT"), an organ of the Council of Europe, issued its report following its visit in May 1992 to, inter alia, the Helsinki Central Prison. The CPT found, inter alia, that the material conditions of detention in the isolation unit were poor and that the regime in that unit did not provide sufficient mental and physical stimulation (paras. 71-72). Generally, the CPT was struck by the poor general state of repair of the prison (para. 83).         The CPT's report was followed by an interim report in reply by the Finnish Government of 26 August 1993 and a further follow-up report of 18 February 1994 (for extracts from the CPT's and the Government's reports, see the Appendix).   II.    Relevant domestic law   1.     The incarceration of dangerous recidivists         The 1953 Act on the Incarceration of Dangerous Recidivists (laki 317/53 vaarallisten rikoksenuusijain eristämisestä, lag 317/53 om internering av farliga återfallsförbrytare, "the 1953 Act") is applicable to an offender convicted of certain offences, attempted offences or complicity in offences involving aggravated violence or constituting a particular danger to the life and health of others and provided the offender is sentenced to at least two years' imprisonment. The convicting and sentencing court may authorise the Prison Court to order the offender's incarceration in an institution for preventive detention, if, during a period of ten years preceding the offence at issue, he has committed another offence of an extremely violent character or an offence involving a particular danger to the life and health of others and provided he is clearly to be considered as particularly dangerous to the life and health of others. Such an offender is considered as a dangerous recidivist (section 1, as amended by Acts nos. 303/71, 491/71 and 702/91).         If the Prison Court decides to incarcerate a dangerous recidivist, he shall immediately be transferred to an institution for preventive detention in order to serve his imprisonment. The Prison Court shall reconsider its incarceration order, if the placement of the recidivist in such an institution is found to be clearly unnecessary in the light of new information (section 5, subsection 1; section 9, subsection 1, as amended by Act no. 303/71, and subsection 2).         If an incarcerated recidivist is sentenced to a further prison sentence, the enforcement of his total period of imprisonment shall continue to take place in an institution for preventive detention (section 13, subsection 1, as amended by Act no. 702/91). An incarcerated recidivist shall be released on parole only upon having served his total term of imprisonment, unless the Prison Court still considers him dangerous to the life or health of others in accordance with section 1 of the 1953 Act. If he is not released on parole, the matter shall be re-examined by the Prison Court at least every six months (sections 14 and 15 of the 1953 Act, both as amended by Act no. 303/71).   2.     The Prison Court         The Prison Court shall consist of the Director-General for the Prison Administration of the Ministry of Justice (oikeusministeriön vankeinhoito-osasto, justitieministeriets fångvårdsavdelning) or his Deputy and of four other members appointed by the President of the Republic for a period of five years. Two of these four members shall have judicial experience and one of them shall be a physician experienced in psychiatry. The President and the Vice President of the Prison Court shall be appointed by the President of the Republic among the lawyer members of the Court. Members shall swear a judicial oath (section 5, subsections 2-4 of the 1953 Act).         As regards the grounds for disqualifying a member and the Prison Court's deliberations, the provisions of the Code of Judicial Procedure (Oikeudenkäymiskaari, Rättegångs Balken) relating to courts of appeal shall be applicable, mutatis mutandis (section 6, subsection 1).   3.     Institutions for preventive detention         The institution for preventive detention is either a separate institution or part of another penitentiary (section 10). In view of the small number of incarcerated recidivists no separate institution currently exists (circular letter of 2 June 1988 issued by the Department for Prison Administration). The recidivists shall be grouped according to their special features and their need for treatment (section 11, subsection 1 of the 1953 Act). An incarcerated recidivist shall have the right to enjoy, at his own expense, better food and more comfort than that normally available in the institution, provided this would not jeopardise prison order or his safe placement (section 12, subsection 1).         Pursuant to the 1971 Decree on the Institution for Preventive Detention (asetus 448/71 pakkolaitoksesta, förording 448/71 om tvångsinrättning), such an institution shall have a semi-open, an open and a closed ward (section 2). The recidivist shall initially be placed in a semi-open ward, but shall be transferred to an open ward as soon as he can be expected to adjust to the order and the conditions there and provided his transfer would not jeopardise his safe placement. The Prison Court may transfer him to a semi-open ward, if this is considered necessary for his own security, his safe placement or if, for some other reason, he cannot adjust to the order and the conditions in an open ward. A recidivist who refuses to comply with the order or the conditions in a semi-open ward may be transferred to a closed ward. In the case of an emergency his transfer can be ordered by the Prison Board (vankilan johtokunta, fängelsets direktion) and shall be immediately reviewed by the Prison Court. A recidivist shall not be kept in a closed ward longer than necessary. His placement there shall be reviewed by the Prison Court at least every three months (sections 3 and 4). Placement in a specific ward is not subject to appeal.          A recidivist placed in an open or a semi-open ward shall either be placed in a single cell or share his cell with other incarcerated prisoners, consideration being given, as far as possible, to his own wishes. Unless the Governor of the institution, for particular reasons, decides otherwise, the recidivist shall be permitted to work with the other incarcerated prisoners and also to associate with them during his spare time (section 6).         A recidivist placed in a closed ward shall have a single cell. With the Governor's permission he may work and, for particular reasons, also associate with other incarcerated prisoners during his spare time (section 8).         In addition to what is prescribed in the 1971 Decree, chapters 2 and 3 of the 1889 Decree on the Enforcement of Punishments (asetus 39/1889 rangaistusten täytäntöönpanosta, förordning 39/1889 om verkställighet af straff) shall also be applicable to institutions for preventive detention and to recidivists placed in such institutions (section 13, subsection 2 of the 1971 Decree, as amended by Decree no. 449/75).         According to the 1889 Decree, a prisoner may be isolated for security reasons (chapter 3, section 9 of the 1889 Decree, as amended by Act no. 128/87), for investigatory reasons (chapter 2, section 10c, subsection 1 of the 1889 Decree, as amended by Act no. 612/74) or for disciplinary reasons (chapter 2, section 10a of the 1889 Decree, as amended by Act no. 612/74).   4.     Right to a re-hearing before a court of appeal         Under chapter 26, section 8 of the Code of Judicial Procedure a judgment of a court of a lower instance as regards the charges brought against an accused cannot be amended following a re-evaluation of the evidence without a re-hearing having been held, unless the sentence imposed by a court of appeal amounts only to fines or unless a re-hearing would clearly be unnecessary. In the last-mentioned assessment special regard shall be had to the interests of the accused.   COMPLAINTS   1.     The applicant complains under Article 6 para. 2 of the Convention of a breach of the presumption of innocence in the above-mentioned two sets of criminal proceedings brought against him. He considers that he was wrongly convicted because he had published a book criticising the Finnish system of justice.   a.     As regards his conviction of attempted manslaughter, the applicant submits, more particularly, that it was based merely on the statement by himself and E., who was himself a co-accused in the case, as well as on mere circumstantial evidence.   b.     In regard to the second set of criminal proceedings the applicant considers, more particularly, that his conviction of murder was principally based on the statements made by R., a witness invoked by the prosecution who had initially been arrested as a co-suspect. The applicant also suspects that certain evidence supporting the defence was omitted from the material presented by the prosecution. The police investigation which he requested for the purpose of clarifying whether such evidence existed was concluded only after the Supreme Court's had refused him leave to appeal. The applicant finally also complains about the lack of an oral hearing before the Court of Appeal.   2.     The applicant furthermore complains that his incarceration as a dangerous recidivist has not been ordered by a "court" or "tribunal" within the meaning of Articles 5 and 6 of the Convention, respectively. He refers to the close connection between the Prison Court and the Department of Prison Administration. He also complains under Article 13 of the Convention about the lack of an effective remedy against his incarceration as ordered by the Prison Court.   3.     The applicant finally complains that his incarceration as a dangerous recidivist is an inhuman and discriminatory form of punishment, considering the following elements as a whole. The duration of the incarceration is indefinite, given the Prison Court's possibility of prolonging his incarceration after he has served the total term of imprisonment based on the sentences imposed by the ordinary courts. His everyday conditions have allegedly been arbitrarily decided by the prison authorities. The incarceration has also resulted in a certain degree of solitude. Moreover, he has to wear a prison uniform different from that worn by prisoners who have not been incarcerated as dangerous recidivists. His right to work in the prison as well as his freedom of movement within the prison area have also been more restricted in comparison with other prisoners, or has been non-existent. He suspects that his incarceration has been ordered as a result of his criticism notably of the Director of the Prison Department and a justice of the Supreme Court. The applicant states that the first-mentioned official is a member of the Prison Court and that the Supreme Court justice acts as President thereof. The applicant invokes Article 3 of the Convention as well as Article 14 in conjunction with Articles 3 and 9.   THE LAW   1.     The applicant complains under Article 6 para. 2 (Art. 6-2) of the Convention of a breach of the presumption of innocence in the two sets of criminal proceedings against him.         The Commission has examined this complaint under Article 6 paras. 1, 2 and 3 (Art. 6-1, 6-2, 6-3) which, in so far as they are relevant, read as follows:         "1.   In the determination of ... any criminal charge       against him, everyone is entitled to a fair and public       hearing ... by [a] ... tribunal ...         2.    Everyone charged with a criminal offence shall be       presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law.         3.    Everyone charged with a criminal offence has the       following minimum rights:       ...       b.    to have adequate time and facilities for the       preparation of his defence;       ...       d.    to examine or have examined witnesses against him and       to obtain the attendance and examination of witnesses on       his behalf under the same conditions as witnesses against       him; ..."         As the requirements of Article 6 para. 3 (Art. 6-3) represent particular aspects of the right to a fair trial guaranteed in Article 6 para. 1 (Art. 6-1), the Commission has examined the application from the point of view of these two provisions taken together (e.g., Eur. Court H.R., Lüdi judgment of 15 June 1992, Series A no. 238, p. 20, para. 43), also bearing in mind the presumption of innocence guaranteed by Article 6 para. 2 (Art. 6-2).         Before turning to the respective sets of criminal proceedings at issue, the Commission recalls that it is normally not competent to deal with a complaint alleging that errors of law and fact have been committed by domestic courts. An exception could only be made where the Commission considers that such errors might have involved a possible violation of any of the rights and freedoms set out in the Convention or one of its Protocols, for instance in that a judgment has no legal justification and thereby violates a party's right to receive a fair trial (cf. Eur. Court H.R., De Moor judgment of 23 June 1994, Series A no. 292-A, p. 18, para. 55; No. 7987/77, Dec. 13.12.79, D.R. 18 pp. 31, 45). As a general rule, however, it is for the domestic courts to assess the evidence before them, in particular since they have the benefit of hearing witnesses and assessing their credibility (e.g., Eur. Court H.R., Klaas judgment of 22 September 1993, Series A no. 269-A, pp. 17-18, paras. 29-30). The Commission's task is to ascertain whether the proceedings, considered as a whole, including the way in which evidence was taken and submitted, were fair (e.g., the above-mentioned Lüdi judgment, loc.cit.). It follows that the Commission cannot examine whether or not the applicant was guilty or innocent of the offences of which he was convicted.   a.     As regards the first set of criminal proceedings against the applicant, the Commission observes, more particularly, that his conviction was based on an assessment of a significant amount of corroborative circumstantial and forensic evidence. The material submitted to the Commission does not call the findings of the Court of Appeal into question. The Commission furthermore notes that the applicant was assisted by counsel throughout the domestic proceedings and finds no indication that he was at any time prevented from questioning the witnesses appearing before the Court of Appeal or otherwise challenging the evidence invoked by the prosecution.         Having assessed all elements of this set of proceedings, in particular as regards the way in which evidence was taken and submitted, the Commission finds no indication that the applicant was denied a fair trial within the meaning of Article 6 paras. 1 and 3 of the Convention or that the presumption of innocence guaranteed by Article 6 para. 2 (Art. 6-2) was breached.   b.     As regards the second set of criminal proceedings against the applicant, the Commission observes that his conviction of murder was based on an assessment of a significant amount of testimonial and forensic evidence. The material submitted to the Commission does not call the findings of the City Court and the Court of Appeal into question. The Commission furthermore notes that the applicant was assisted by counsel throughout the domestic proceedings and finds no indication that he was at any time prevented from questioning the witnesses appearing before the City Court or otherwise challenging the evidence invoked by the prosecution.         The Commission futhermore finds no indication that evidence supporting the defence and available at the relevant time was omitted from the material presented by the prosecution. Nor can it find that the police investigation requested by the applicant for the purpose of clarifying whether certain further evidence existed was deliberately delayed to his detriment. In addition, there is no indication that the applicant has been prevented from requesting a re-opening of the proceedings with reference to any fresh evidence allegedly supporting the defense.         As finally regards the lack of an oral hearing before the Court of Appeal, the Commission recalls Finland's reservation to Article 6 (Art. 6) which reads, in so far as relevant, as follows:         "For the time being, Finland cannot guarantee a right to an       oral hearing in so far as the current Finnish laws do not       provide such a right. This applies to:         1. proceedings before the Courts of Appeal ... in       accordance with chapter 26 [section] 7 ..., of the Code of       Judicial Procedure ..."         The Commission observes that under chapter 26, section 8 of the Code of Judicial Procedure a judgment of a court of a lower instance as regards the charges brought against an accused cannot be amended following a re-evaluation of the evidence without a re-hearing having been held, unless the sentence imposed by a court of appeal amounts only to fines or unless a re-hearing would clearly be unnecessary. In the applicant's case the City Court's judgment of 4 June 1992 was not amended and he was thus not entitled to a re-hearing under Finnish law. In the light of Finland's reservation and this fact the Commission therefore considers that this aspect of the complaint raises no issue under Article 6 (Art. 6).         Having assessed all elements of this set of proceedings, in particular as regards the way in which evidence was taken and submitted, and taking into account Finland's reservation, the Commission finds no indication that the applicant was denied a fair trial within the meaning of Article 6 paras. 1 and 3 (Art. 6-1, 6-3) of the Convention or that the presumption of innocence guaranteed by Article 6 para. 2 (Art. 6-2) was breached.   c.     It follows that this complaint must as a whole be rejected as being manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 27 para. 2 (Art. 27-2) of the Convention.   2.     The applicant furthermore complains that his incarceration as a dangerous recidivist has not been ordered by a "court" or "tribunal" within the meaning of Articles 5 (Art. 5) and 6 (Art. 6) of the Convention, respectively. He also complains under Article 13 (Art. 13) of the Convention about the lack of an effective remedy against his incarceration by the Prison Court.   a.     The Commission considers that the complaint concerning the status of the body ordering the applicant's incarceration falls to be examined under Article 5 para. 1 (a) (Art. 5-1-a) of the Convention. This provision reads as follows:         "Everyone has the right to liberty and security of person.       No one shall be deprived of his liberty save in the       following cases and in accordance with a procedure       prescribed by law:         a. the lawful detention of a person after conviction by a       competent court; ..."         The Commission recalls that in order for detention after conviction to be lawful within the meaning of Article 5 para. 1 (a) (Art. 5-1-a) of the Convention, it must result from, follow and depend upon, or occur by virtue of a "conviction by a competent court". In short, there must be a sufficient causal connection between the conviction and the deprivation of liberty at issue (Eur. Court H.R., Weeks judgment of 2 March 1987, Series A no. 114, p. 23, para. 42).         The Commission observes that the applicant's present imprisonment is based on a number of convictions by ordinary courts, whose competence within the meaning of Article 5 para. 1 (a) (Art. 5-1-a) has not been challenged by him. On the basis of those convictions and the sentences imposed on the applicant the ordinary courts went on to authorise his incarceration as a dangerous recidivist in an institution for preventive detention.         It is true that under section 15 of the 1953 Act the Prison Court may order that the applicant should remain in preventive detention once he has served his full prison term. There is no indication, however, that such an order has been issued at present. In these circumstances the Commission considers that the decisions of the Prison Court which the applicant now complains of relate merely to the implementation of his present term of imprisonment as based on the sentences imposed by the ordinary courts. Accordingly, there is, at least for the time being, a sufficient causal connection between the applicant's convictions and his incarceration as a dangerous recidivist. This aspect of the complaint therefore discloses no appearance of a violation of Article 5 (Art. 5) of the Convention.   b.     The Commission finds no separate issue under Article 13 (Art. 13) of the Convention.   c.     It follows that this complaint must as a whole be rejected as being manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 27 para. 2 (Art. 27-2) of the Convention.   3.     The applicant finally complains that his incarceration as a dangerous recidivist is an inhuman and discriminatory form of punishment, considering a number of elements referred to by him. He invokes Article 3 (Art. 3) of the Convention as well as Article 14 in conjunction with Articles 3 and 9 (Art. 14+3+9).   a.     The Commission has first examined the complaint under Article 3 (Art. 3) of the Convention which reads as follows:         "No one shall be subjected to torture or to inhuman or       degrading treatment or punishment."         The Commission recalls that ill-treatment must attain a minimum level of severity if it is to fall within the scope of Article 3 (Art. 3). The assessment of this minimum is relative and must take account of all the circumstances of the case, including the duration of the treatment, its physical and mental effects and, in some cases, the sex, age and state of health of the person subjected to it (e.g., Eur. Court H.R., Ireland v. the United Kingdom judgment of 18 January 1978, Series A no. 25, p. 65, para. 162). In order for a punishment to be in breach of Article 3, the humiliation or debasement involved must attain a particular level and must in any event be other than the usual element of humiliation associated with imprisonment after a criminal conviction. Such an examination is also relative and depends on all the circumstances of the case and, in particular, on the nature and context of the punishment itself and the manner and method of its execution (Eur. Court H.R., Tyrer judgment of 25 April 1978, Series A no. 26, p. 15, para. 30).         The Commission observes that as a dangerous recidivist the applicant is not eligible to be released on parole before he has served his total term of imprisonment as imposed by the ordinary courts. The Commission recalls, however, that a lengthy prison sentence or a combination of prison sentences does not in itself raise any issue under Article 3 (Art. 3) of the Convention, nor does the Convention secure any right to be released on parole (No. 14610/89, Dec. 7.91, D.R. 71 pp. 168-221, at p. 191). The Commission cannot therefore find that the Prison Court's discretionary power of prolonging the applicant's incarceration after he has served his present prison terms could, at least not at present, raise an issue under Article 3 (Art. 3).         The Commission furthermore recalls that the segregation of a prisoner from the prison community does not in itself constitute a form of inhuman or degrading treatment. Whilst prolonged removal of a person from association with others is undesirable, the question whether such a measure is contrary to Article 3 (Art. 3) of the Convention depends on the particular conditions of its application, including its stringency, duration and purpose, as well as its effects on the person concerned. The removal of a prisoner from association with fellow inmates for security, disciplinary or protective reasons does not normally amount to inhuman treatment or punishment (cf., e.g., Bouajila v. Switzerland, Comm. Report 1.7.93, paras. 102-104, to be published; Dhoest v. Belgium, Comm. Report 14.5.87, paras. 116-118, D.R. 55 pp. 5-50, at pp. 20-21, with further references, and the above-mentioned No. 14610/89, pp. 190-191, with further references).         The Commission finds no substantiation of the applicant's complaint that his prison conditions, including his isolation, have been arbitrarily decided. In assessing the applicant's everyday conditions the Commission has also had regard to the CPT's report of 1 April 1993, as well as the respondent Government's interim and follow-up reports concerning the relevant ward of the Helsinki Central Prison (see the Appendix). It considers, however, that the fact that one of the applicant's cells was located partly underground is not sufficient to raise an issue under Article 3 (Art. 3) (see No. 20560/92, Dec. 30.8.94, not published).         Finally, the Commission observes that under section 12 of the 1953 Act the applicant, having been classified as a dangerous recidivist, has the right to enjoy, at his own expense, better food and more comfort than that normally available, provided this would not jeopardise prison order or his safe placement.         Having made an overall assessment of the elements inherent in the applicant's incarceration as well as of his everyday prison conditions, the Commission concludes that they do not disclose any appearance of a violation of Article 3 (Art. 3) of the Convention.   b.     The Commission has next examined the complaint under Article 14 of the Convention in conjunction with Article 3 (Art.14+3). Article 14 (Art. 14) reads as follows:         "The enjoyment of the rights and freedoms set forth in this       Convention shall be secured without discrimination on any       ground such as sex, race, colour, language, religion,       political or other opinion, national or social origin,       association with a national minority, property, birth or       other status."         The Commission accepts that the applicant, having been classified as a dangerous recidivist, has been treated differently from ordinary prisoners. However, because of this classification, he is not in a situation comparable to that of ordinary prisoners. Accordingly, there is no appearance of any violation of Article 14 in conjunction with Article 3 (Art. 14+3).   c.     The applicant also alleges that his incarceration discriminates against him on account of his opinions as expressed in a book. The Commission has examined this complaint under Article 14 of the Convention in conjunction with Article 10 para. 1 (Art. 14+10-1) which, in so far as relevant, reads as follows:         "Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. This       right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to ...       impart information and ideas without interference by public       authority ...".         The Commission recalls at the outset that the applicant's incarceration has been ordered by the Prison Court on the basis of judgments authorising such a measure. These authorisations have been issued in view of his recidivism. The Commission finds no indication that the applicant's incarceration is discriminatory on account of his personal opinions. Accordingly, there is no appearance of any violation of Article 14 in conjunction with Article 10 (Art. 14+10) either.   d.     It follows that this complaint must as a whole be rejected as being manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 27 para. 2 (Art. 27-2) of the Convention.         For these reasons, the Commission, unanimously,         DECLARES THE APPLICATION INADMISSIBLE.         Acting Secretary                             President     to the First Chamber                     of the First Chamber            (S. DOLLÉ)                             (C.L. ROZAKIS)                                  APPENDIX         EXTRACTS FROM THE REPORT OF THE EUROPEAN COMMITTEE FOR THE PREVENTION OF TORTURE AND INHUMAN OR DEGRADING TREATMENT OR                  PUNISHMENT ("THE CPT") OF 1 APRIL 1993         [As regards solitary confinement, notably in the Helsinki Central       Prison; pp. 28-31:]         "...       69.   Reference has already been made to the large number of       prisoners in Helsinki Central Prison who had requested to be       placed in solitary confinement... . The prisoners concerned were       accommodated in the isolation unit of the prison, which also       housed those who had been placed in non-voluntary solitary       confinement (including prisoners classified as dangerous       recidivists - cf. paragraph 77) and inmates undergoing the       disciplinary penalty of cellular confinement.         The CPT has serious reservations about both the material       conditions in this unit and the regime applied to prisoners       placed there for non-disciplinary reasons.         70.   The isolation unit was located in the 'day cells' wing in       the prison. Most of the cells contained only a platform bed and       a lavatory - both made of concrete. Four of the cells had been       converted to accommodate prisoners thought to be especially       dangerous and likely to be held in solitary confinement for       extended periods. Material conditions in those cells were of a       slightly higher standard. None of the cells possessed any storage       space, with the result that the limited range of personal       possessions allowed to prisoners tended to be left strewn on the       floor.         Many of the cells were in an unhygienic condition and some were       extremely dirty. The condition of the in-cell lavatories also       left a great deal to be desired. In this respect, it should be       noted that the lavatories could only be flushed from outside the       cell and prisoners alleged that their requests for this to be       done were frequently ignored by the staff.         71.   In short, the material conditions of detention in the       isolation unit at Helsinki Central Prison were poor.       ...         72.   The delegation [of the CPT] discussed the regime provided       in the isolation unit with staff and prisoners there. It emerged       that the inmates' activities consisted of reading and writing in       their cells, together with one hour of outdoor exercise each day,       when they might be allowed to associate with the other prisoners       from the unit. No work was available, even in the cells, and no       group association or sporting activities were provided. To sum       up, the vast majority of prisoners spent their time alone in       their cells, with little to occupy them. Given the extended       periods for which persons may be held under voluntary or       non-voluntary segregation, the regime which was offered to them       cannot be regarded as acceptable.         73.   It is generally acknowledged that all forms of solitary       confinement without appropriate mental and physical stimulation       are likely, in the long term, to have damaging effects, resulting       in deterioration of mental faculties and social abilities. The       delegation found that the regime applied in the solitary       confinement unit in Helsinki Central Prison did not provide such       stimulation.       ...         77.   Finally, reference should be made to the small number of       [dangerous recidivists] (nine at the time of the visit) subject       to the terms of [the 1953 Act]. ...         78.   The delegation was informed that such prisoners were often       held for very long periods under a solitary confinement-type       regime. ..."         [With regard to the material conditions of detention in the       Helsinki Central Prison; p. 32:]         79.   "[The prison] provided accommodation for inmates in two       areas, referred to as the 'day cells' and 'night cells' sections.       ... The ground floor of the 'day cells' east wing contained the       isolation unit ... . The prison was not overcrowded and prisoners       lived one to a cell throughout the establishment.         80.   Most of the cells were of a reasonable size (up to 9 m2),       acceptably furnished (bed, table, chair, wardrobe and bookshelf)       and benefited from adequate lighting and sanitation. However, it       would be preferable for sanitation facilities to be partitioned       off from the living areas in the cells.       ...         83.   ...    [G]enerally, the delegation was struck by the poor       general state of repair of the prison; further, some areas were       extremely dirty.       ..."                                    ****     EXTRACTS FROM THE RESPONSE OF THE FINNISH GOVERNMENT TO THE REPORT OF THE CPT   (DATED 26 AUGUST 1993)         [With regard to solitary confinement; pp. 34-35:]         "... The isolation unit of Helsinki Central Prison is located in       the section of day cells east where renovations will begin in       1994. The cells used for solitary confinement will have to be       rebuilt to meet reasonable standards for the accommodation of       prisoners. ...         The Prison Administration Department will during the current year       issue new instructions on the application of chapter 3, section       9 of [the 1889 Decree] concerning solitary confinement, taking       into account the recommendation by the CPT for informing the       prisoner in writing of the reasons for solitary confinement.         The prisoner is heard before any decision is taken on solitary       confinement. ..."         [With regard to the Helsinki Central Prison; pp. 45-47:]         "... The building which houses the cells at Helsinki Central       Prison will be fully renovated in the years to come. ... The       areas to be rebuilt will be fitted with central heating and       automatic ventilation. Most of the cells will be fitted with       toilets and wash-basins, some also with a shower. The furniture       will be: bed, chair, desk, bookshelf, two lockers and notice       board. The technical equipment will be: central heating, hot and       cold water, automatic ventilation, fire alarm, call system,       receiver for PA system, tv antenna, overhead light, and       reading-lamp.       ...         [p. 75:]         "... Renovation of the part of Helsinki Ce