CEDH · CASELAW;REPORTS;ENG — 6 mars 1997

.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 } .s23A41E03 { width:36pt; display:inline-block } .s8828C2CA { width:31.28pt; display:inline-block } .s41A29154 { width:6.84pt; display:inline-block } .s3BF17DD1 { width:28.07pt; display:inline-block } .s28DAEA75 { width:27.97pt; display:inline-block } .s932E7F2A { width:27.5pt; display:inline-block } .s79535B21 { width:28.92pt; display:inline-block } .s49A78FE0 { width:26.55pt; display:inline-block } .sAAB0713D { width:3.88pt; display:inline-block } .s68DBBFE3 { width:26.18pt; display:inline-block } .s490C142E { width:28.91pt; display:inline-block } .sC54A673A { width:28.45pt; display:inline-block } .s7B336495 { width:33.24pt; display:inline-block } .sE23107D { width:24.29pt; display:inline-block } .s69CD3139 { width:17.11pt; display:inline-block } .s9288C869 { width:26.97pt; display:inline-block } .sECC8F45 { width:24.18pt; display:inline-block } .s80F1F894 { width:21.82pt; display:inline-block } .s7F5ECC96 { width:23.73pt; display:inline-block } .s44B3A84A { width:19.48pt; display:inline-block } .s9B2C2C0D { width:18.61pt; display:inline-block } .s50014358 { width:26.56pt; display:inline-block } .s480FA962 { width:25.14pt; display:inline-block } .s14C63E04 { width:29.39pt; display:inline-block } .s3A84A612 { width:25.61pt; display:inline-block } .s2201579D { width:26.09pt; display:inline-block } .s77461277 { width:27.98pt; display:inline-block } .sDEF96EB { width:6.5pt; display:inline-block } .sC89A8679 { width:33.17pt; display:inline-block } .s478A9419 { width:30.81pt; display:inline-block } .s6CFF9571 { width:25.89pt; display:inline-block } .s4DD997A9 { width:19.46pt; display:inline-block }        EUROPEAN COMMISSION OF HUMAN RIGHTS     Application No. 21967/93     Sándor Sárközi     against     Hungary     REPORT OF THE COMMISSION     (adopted on 6 March 1997)     TABLE OF CONTENTS     Page   I.   INTRODUCTION     (paras. 1-0)   1     A.   The application     (paras. 2-4)   1     B.   The proceedings     (paras. 5-0)   1     C.   The present Report     (paras. 0-0)   2   II.   ESTABLISHMENT OF THE FACTS   (paras. 0-0)   4     A.   Particular circumstances of the case     (paras. 0-0)   4     B.   Evidence before the Commission     (paras. 0-0)   8     C.   Relevant domestic law and practice     (paras. 0-0)   8   III.   OPINION OF THE COMMISSION   (paras. 0-0)   11     A.   Complaints declared admissible     (para. 0)   11     B.   Points at issue     (para. 0)   11     C.   Article 3 of the Convention     (paras. 0-0)   11       CONCLUSION     (para. 0)   14     D.   Article 8 of the Convention     (paras. 0-0)   14       CONCLUSION     (paras. 0, 0)   17     E.   Article 13 of the Convention     (paras. 0-0)   17     a.   Claims concerning the applicant's detention     (paras. 0-0)   17       CONCLUSION     (para. 0)   19     b.   Claims concerning the applicant's correspondence       (paras. 0-0)   19       CONCLUSION     (para. 0)   20     F.   Recapitulation     (paras. 0-0)   20   PARTLY DISSENTING OPINION OF MRS. THUNE, MRS. LIDDY, MR. BUSUTTIL, MR. BRATZA AND MRS. HION   21   APPENDIX :   DECISION OF THE COMMISSION AS TO THE             ADMISSIBILITY OF THE APPLICATION   23     I.   INTRODUCTION     1.   The following is an outline of the case as submitted to the European Commission of Human Rights, and of the procedure before the Commission.   A.   The application   2.   The applicant is a Hungarian citizen, born in 1960. When lodging his application, he was serving a sentence of five years and six months' imprisonment in the Budapest Prison.   In the proceedings before the Commission, he is represented by Ms. J. Gaál, a lawyer practising in Budapest.   3.   The application is directed against Hungary.   The respondent Government were represented by Mr. K. Bárd, Agent of the Government of Hungary.   4.   The case concerns the applicant's complaints that the conditions of his detention amounted to inhuman and degrading treatment, that the Budapest prison authorities had violated his right to respect for his correspondence, and that he had no effective remedy before a national authority to complain about these alleged violations of his Convention rights.   The applicant invokes Articles 3, 8 and 13 of the Convention.   B.   The proceedings   5.   The application was introduced on 19 April 1993 and registered on 3 June 1993.   6.   On 19 October 1993 the Commission (First Chamber) decided, pursuant to Rule 48 para. 2 (b) of its Rules of Procedure, to give notice of the application to the respondent Government and to invite the parties to submit written observations on its admissibility and merits.     7.   The Government's observations were submitted on 30 December 1993. The applicant replied on 30 March 1994.     8.   On 18 January 1994, the Commission granted the applicant legal aid for the representation of his case.   9.   On 27 June 1995 the case was transferred from the First Chamber to the Plenary Commission, by decision of the latter.   10.   On 5 July 1995 the Commission declared admissible the applicant's complaints under Articles 3, 8 and 13 of the Convention.   It declared inadmissible the remainder of the application.   11.   The text of the Commission's decision on admissibility was sent to the parties on 19 July 1995 and they were invited to submit further observations, namely factual information concerning the applicant's conditions of imprisonment.     12.   The Government submitted observations on 25 August and 4 September 1995, to which the applicant replied on 21 February 1996, following a considerable extension of the time-limit in view of the fact that the applicant's representative had been temporarily unable to reach the applicant following his release.   The Government supplemented their observations on 12 April 1996, and the applicant replied again on 13 May 1996.   The Government filed additional observations on 27 July 1996.   13.   During the examination of the merits, the respondent Government requested the Commission to apply Article 29 of the Convention, presenting further submissions on admissibility.   However, the Commission decided that there was no basis on which to apply Article 29.   14.   After declaring the case admissible, the Commission, acting in accordance with Article 28 para. 1 (b) of the Convention, also placed itself at the disposal of the parties with a view to securing a friendly settlement.   In the light of the parties' reaction, the Commission now finds that there is no basis on which such a settlement can be effected.   C.   The present Report   15.   The present Report has been drawn up by the Commission in pursuance of Article 31 of the Convention and after deliberations and votes, the following members being present:           Mr.   S. TRECHSEL, President     Mrs.   G.H. THUNE     Mrs.   J. LIDDY     MM.   E. BUSUTTIL       G. JÖRUNDSSON       A.S. GÖZÜBÜYÜK       A. WEITZEL       J.-C. SOYER       H. DANELIUS       F. MARTINEZ       C.L. ROZAKIS       L. LOUCAIDES       J.-C. GEUS       B. MARXER       M.A. NOWICKI       I. CABRAL BARRETO       B. CONFORTI       N. BRATZA       I. BÉKÉS       J. MUCHA       D. ŠVÁBY       G. RESS       A. PERENI?       C. BÎRSAN       P. LORENZEN       K. HERNDL       E. BIELI?NAS           E.A. ALKEMA       M. VILA AMIGÓ     Mrs.   M. HION     Mr.   R. NICOLINI   16.   The text of this Report was adopted on 6 March 1997 by the Commission and is now transmitted to the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe, in accordance with Article 31 para. 2 of the Convention.   17.   The purpose of the Report, pursuant to Article 31 of the Convention, is:     (i)   to establish the facts, and     (ii)   to state an opinion as to whether the facts found disclose a breach by the State concerned of its obligations under the Convention.   18.   The Commission's decision on the admissibility of the application is annexed hereto.   19.   The full text of the parties' submissions, together with the documents lodged as exhibits, are held in the archives of the Commission.   II.   ESTABLISHMENT OF THE FACTS   A.   Particular circumstances of the present case   a.   The general background   20.   In May 1990 the applicant was arrested by the Szigetvár City Police (Városi Rend?rkapitányság) on a charge of theft.   After having absconded in June 1990, the applicant was arrested again in May 1991 and he was kept in detention during the subsequent criminal proceedings.   On 3 March 1992 the Szigetvár District Court (Városi Bíróság) convicted the applicant of theft and of the offence of having escaped from prison and sentenced him to four years and two months' imprisonment.   In the ensuing proceedings, a cumulative sentence of five years and six months' imprisonment was fixed.   The criminal proceedings against the applicant were subsequently reopened; however, in the resumed trial proceedings, his conviction was confirmed.   b.   The conditions of the applicant's detention   aa.   The Budapest Prison   21.   On 6 July 1992 the applicant was transferred to the Budapest Prison (Fegyház és Börtön) to serve his sentence under the strict regime.     22.   The prison authorities classified the applicant as "particularly dangerous" ("különösen veszélyes").   In this respect, the authorities had regard to the nature of the criminal offences committed by the applicant, his having set fire on two occasions of earlier detention, as well as his previous attempts to commit suicide.   Upon the regular review, his classification was not changed, mainly because of his aggressive behaviour towards other inmates and the prison staff.     23.   In the Budapest Prison, which was constructed in 1988, all prison cells are of equal size, i.e. 27.56m?, and have an adjoining separate lavatory.   Natural light comes from two windows sized 135x75cm.   The maximum of prison inmates per cell is eight.   Each prisoner has a bed (bunk beds) and a wardrobe, there is one table per cell and one chair per inmate.   Prisoners can watch television in a communal room and they are allowed to take their personal television sets into their cell.     24.   In the course of the applicant's detention, prisoners exceeding the maximum number were placed in the prison cells.   For these purposes, a third upper bed was installed on the bunk beds.     25.   The applicant asserts that he has been detained together with a maximum of eleven prisoners in a cell, and that this accommodation, due to a general overcrowding in the prison, lasted regularly several months.   26.   The Government disagree with the applicant as to the reasons and the length of these periods of accommodation in overcrowded cells.   They maintain that a number of prisoners had to be moved for some weeks on account of reconstruction works in another municipal prison.   In the absence of any information in the Budapest Prison registers, they cannot confirm or refute the applicant's submissions that he was detained in overcrowded cells.   27.   The applicant had to change cells several times.   The applicant claims that this moving formed part of a routine to prevent him from informing other inmates about their rights.   The Government refer to the applicant's problems with other inmates, as stated by the prison educators in several written reports.   28.   In reply to the applicant's allegation that sanitary equipments did not function for lengthy periods, the Government submit that, as a general rule, any necessary repair work is carried out quickly.   The parties further disagree on the facilities to watch television.   29.   Due to the applicant's classification as "particularly dangerous", the range of working facilities was limited.   Between 11 January and 10 March 1993 and between 11 and 20 April 1994, the applicant worked for the Budapest Timber Company (Budapesti Faipari Vállalat), first as a trained, later as an unskilled worker in the processing of synthetic materials.   During these periods the applicant spent eight hours a day at work outside his cell.   The applicant's employment was, on both occasions, terminated upon his own request, inter alia, for health reasons.   The applicant claims that he faced practical problems in presenting himself for work on the ground that he frequently had to move cells.   30.   The applicant did not participate in the other activities generally offered to inmates, such as visiting the library once a week, joining workshops, using body-building and other training facilities, or participating in religious ceremonies.   The applicant claims that the participation in such activities was permitted only as a special reward for prisoners.   Moreover, in case of bad weather conditions, the Budapest Prison authorities did not arrange for the one hour's daily exercise in the uncovered prison yard.   31.   The applicant claims that, following various complaints with Hungarian authorities about his conviction and ill-treatment in prison, he was beaten several times by other inmates, at the instigation of the prison staff.   32.   According to the Budapest Prison records on the health of prisoners, the applicant was involved in fights with other inmates on 11 and 31 December 1992, respectively.   He received medical treatment.   The inmate who had attacked the applicant on 11 December 1992 was punished by twenty days' solitary confinement.   The inmate who had attacked the applicant on 31 December 1992 was punished by a suspension of his right to receive visits.   33.   Following the fight on 31 December 1992, the applicant was detained in separation from other prisoners.   On 6 January 1993 the disciplinary punishment of six days' solitary confinement was inflicted upon him.   Taking into account the period of time previously spent in separation, the punishment was not executed.   34.   On 8 February 1993 the National Headquarters of Penal Institutions of the Ministry of Justice (Igazságügyi Minisztérium, Büntetés-végrehajtás Országos Parancsnoksága) rejected the applicant's complaint concerning the conditions of his detention.   35.   On 26 May 1993 the Pécs Public Prosecutor's Office dismissed the applicant's complaint, dated 29 April 1993, about, inter-alia, alleged ill- treatment in June 1990.   The Prosecutor's Office found that his submissions were unsubstantiated and, in any event, belated.   bb.   The transfers to the Pécs Prison   36.   In the course of his retrial before the Szigetvár District Court, the applicant was three times transferred to the Pécs Prison (Büntetés-végrehajtási Intézet) in order to attend the trial hearings on 11 May, 12 June and 16 July 1993.     37.   The applicant alleges that he was also transferred to Pécs Prison in order to be questioned by the Public Prosecutor prior to the retrial and that on one of these occasions, he was beaten by the Pécs prison staff and received medical treatment at the Tököl Prison Hospital.   The Government dispute the applicant's contention.   They note that, at the relevant time, the applicant did not complain about any such ill-treatment and that, according to the medical files of the Tököl Prison Hospital, he did not receive any medical treatment in 1993.   cc.   The Sopronk?hida Prison   38.   Between 13 June and 17 July 1994, the applicant was detained in the Sopronk?hida Prison (Fegyház és Börtön).     39.   He was confined to a cell with a basic area of 8.3m?, destined for occupation by two prison inmates.   The cell had natural light and was furnished with two beds, two chairs and a table.   Furthermore, there was a lavatory and a wash-basin.     40.   For most of the time, the applicant was alone in one of these cells.   According to the Government, the other inmates did not tolerate the applicant's provocative and aggressive behaviour.   41.   During his detention in the Sopronk?hida Prison, the applicant was entitled to visit the library, to listen to radio or watch television.   In accordance with the prison rules, he in fact spent one hour every day in the open air.   Moreover, he could have applied for participation in sporting activities which were offered two and three times a week for one and a half or two hours, respectively.   c.   The applicant's correspondence   42.   In the course of his detention, the applicant corresponded, inter alia, with domestic authorities and, as from 19 April 1993, when he introduced his application pursuant to Article 25 of the Convention, with the Commission.   43.   According to the applicant, the Commission's letters   were stopped by the prison authorities, opened in his absence, and handed to him with an average delay of two or three days.   He also claims that his letters to authorities and to the Commission were often stopped by the prison authorities and mailed only after considerable delay.   The respondent Government dispute the applicant's allegations of constant interferences with his correspondence.     44.   The Budapest Prison does not keep a record of the prisoners' correspondence and the delivery of correspondence addressed to them, but incoming mail is, as a rule, stamped with the date of arrival.     45.   The exchange of correspondence with the Commission took the following course:   (a)   The applicant's letter of 19 April 1993 reached the Commission on 29 April 1993.   The applicant replied to the Commission's general information letter, sent on 5 May 1993, on 19 May 1993.   (b)   The envelope of the Commission's letter of 3 June 1993, mailed on 7 June 1993, was stamped by the Budapest Prison authorities with 11 June 1993 as date of arrival.     (c)   The postmark on the envelope of the applicant's letter of 11 June 1993 is sufficiently legible to read 16 June 1993.   The letter arrived at the Commission on 23 June 1993.      (d)   The applicant's letter of 13 June 1993 was posted on 14 June 1993 and arrived at the Commission on 16 June 1993.     (e)   The applicant's letter of 22 June 1993 in which he complained about, inter alia, ill-treatment and interferences with his mail was smuggled from the prison by his wife and was mailed in France.   It reached the Commission on 30 June 1993.   (f)   The Commission's letter of 23 June 1993 was mailed on 25 June 1993; its envelope was stamped with 29 June 1993 as date of arrival, it had been opened and the letter itself was stamped by the prison authorities.   The applicant alleges that this letter was handed over to him not by prison staff, but by another prisoner.   (g)   The applicant's letter of 25 June 1993 arrived at the Commission on 29 June 1993 (postmark illegible).   In this letter he stated that he was prohibited from continuing correspondence with the Commission.   46.   The applicant's complaints with the National Headquarters of Penal Institutions, dated 14 and 24 June 1993, which related to his alleged ill- treatment and the prison conditions as well as the interference with his correspondence, were dismissed.   The National Headquarters found in particular that the applicant's letters were never stopped by the Budapest Prison, but all letters were duly mailed, as evidenced by the arrival of correspondence in reply thereto.     47.   The prison authorities subsequently changed their routine regarding the applicant's correspondence with the Commission.   The Commission's letter of 1 July 1993 and its envelope were not stamped upon arrival.   On 6 July 1993 it was handed unopened to the applicant and he was promised that he would experience no more interferences with his correspondence either to or from the Commission.   The ensuing correspondence was transmitted within normally eight to ten days.       B.   Evidence before the Commission   48.   As regards the conditions of the applicant's detention, the Commission had regard to the parties' submissions and, inter alia, to documents and photographs filed by the respondent Government.     49.   The Commission also took note of the Report to the Hungarian Government on the visit to Hungary carried out by the European Committee for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (CPT) from 1 to 14 November 1994, the Comments of the Hungarian Government of 14 December 1995 and a further Interim Report of April 1996.   C.   Relevant domestic law and practice   a.   General provisions on detention after conviction   50.   S. 41 para. 1 of the Hungarian Penal Code (a Büntet? Törvénykönyvr?l szóló 1978. évi IV. törvény) provides for three categories of detention after conviction, namely a light regime (fogház), a medium regime (börtön) and a strict regime (fegyház).   According to S. 42, criminal offenders sentenced to life imprisonment, to a term of imprisonment of three years or more for particularly serious offences, or to a term of imprisonment of two years or more for recidivism, have to serve their sentence in a strict regime prison.   51.   According to Law-Decree 11 of 1979 on the enforcement of punishments and measures (a büntetések és intézkedések végrehajtásáról szóló 1979. évi 11. törvényerej? rendelet), as amended by Law XXXII of 1993 (1993. évi XXXII. törvény) ("the Law on Enforcement of Sentences") which entered into force on 15 April 1993, the human dignity of convicts shall be respected, they may not be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment, or to medical experiments, and no scientific research or experiment may be performed upon them without their consent.   52.   S. 26 of the Law on Enforcement of Sentences relates to strict regime prisons and provides in particular that the inmate's daily life shall be regulated in detail and that he is to be under constant control; that even within the prison, his movements are subject to permission and supervision; that he may exceptionally participate in work outside the prison if he can be separated from the outside world.   Having served at least one year of the prison sentence imposed, the inmate may be permitted to move within the prison or part of it without supervision but under control, and to take part in work outside prison.   53.   S. 36 para. 1 (k) provides that inmates are entitled to one hour's daily exercise.     54.   Pursuant to S. 41 para. 1 of the Law on Enforcement of Sentences, inmates may be rewarded, inter alia, for exemplary conduct.     55.   S. 42 para. 1 of the Law on Enforcement of Sentences provides for disciplinary punishment in cases of breach of discipline (reprimand, reduction of a prisoner's money for personal expenditure, or solitary confinement), if the general means of handling conflicts between inmates, i.e. pedagogical and psychological consultation and therapeutic treatment, fail.   If a prisoner's aggressive behaviour constitutes a criminal offence, criminal prosecution measures are taken against the person concerned.   56.   The prison rules are contained in Order 8/1979. (VI.30.)IM (8/1979. /VI.30./ IM rendelet) ("the Prison Rules"), issued by the Minister of Justice.   57.   According to Rule 9 of the Prison Rules, the custody, supervision and control of inmates are organised according to their category of detention and the classification of the inmates within the category concerned.   According to Rule 10, inmates under the strict regime shall be detained in an area separate from the other areas of the prison.   Within that area the different groups within the category shall be kept separately, and the doors of the cells shall be kept locked.   Inmates are classified in different groups according to security aspects, pursuant to Rule 33 para. 1.   In this respect, Rule 23 of the Security Rules (Biztonsági Szabályzat), issued as Appendix to Instruction 102/1989 (IK.2)IM, provides that an inmate shall be considered as "particularly dangerous" ("különösen veszélyes") if, having regard to his personality or the nature of the offence committed by him, it is likely that he is a danger to his own or another's life or health, or that he may escape from prison or if his conduct otherwise constitutes a security risk.   S. 94 para. 2 of these Security Rules provides for a review of an inmate's classification in an interval of six months.   58.   Under Rule 85 para. 1 of the Prison Rules, inmates are placed in common cells of six to eight cubic metres each.   In this respect, Rule 366 para. 1 of Instruction 101/1981 (IK.2)IM, as amended by Instruction 6/1990 (IK. Bv. Mell. 1)IM, specifies that common cells should allow at least 3 m? per person.   b.   Prisoners' correspondence   59.   According to S. 36 para. 1 (b) of the Law on Enforcement of Sentences, inmates are entitled to correspond with their relatives and persons designated by them and approved by the prison authorities; the frequency and length of letters are not subject to any restrictions.   S. 36 para. 5 provides for a control of inmates' correspondence for reasons of security, except for letters sent to public authorities and to international organisations; inmates are entitled to be informed about the possibility of control.     60.   The National Commander of the Penitentiary Institutions (Büntetésvégrehajtás Országos Parancsnoka) has instructed all prison authorities to open letters in the presence of the prisoner concerned and, if no objectionable objects are found, to hand them over to him unread.   If letters are transilluminated or other technical screening methods are used, letters must be handed over to the prisoners unopened.   c.   Complaints about prison conditions and interference with correspondence   61.   According to S. 36 para. 1 (g) of the Law on Enforcement of Sentences, an inmate may report, or complain about, alleged violations of his rights with the prison authorities or with other state organs.   62.   According to Rule 22 of the Prison Rules, an inmate may lodge complaints and apply for the remedying of any individual injury.   His complaint and application shall be settled by the competent special service of the institution, except when the matter belongs to the competence of the governor.   If the inmate is not satisfied with the measures taken by the competent special service, he may complain with the governor, and afterwards with the National Headquarters of the Penal Institutions.   No further complaint lies against the measures taken by the National Headquarters.   Complaints have no suspensive effect.   According to Rule 27 para. 2, the inmate may request to be heard by the competent public prosecutor.   63.   S. 11 (a) of Law V of 1972 on the Public Prosecutor's Office (a Magyar Köztársaság Ügyészségér?l szóló 1972. évi V. törvény) provides, inter alia, that the public prosecutor may supervise the lawfulness of the conditions of detention, detention on remand, forced medical treatment and the execution of the detention.   According to S. 11 (c), the public prosecutor may hear inmates and examine complaints concerning the execution of sentences.   The organs competent for the execution of sentences are required to comply with the public prosecutor's instructions ensuring respect for the law, and concerning the conditions of detention on remand (S. 12 para. 1).     64.   The public prosecutors' legal status is laid down in SS. 51-53 of the Hungarian Constitution (Alkotmány).   Thus the Chief Public Prosecutor is elected by Parliament, upon nomination by the President of the Republic.   He is responsible to the Parliament. Public Prosecutors are appointed by the Chief Public Prosecutor.   The Chief Public Prosecutor is the Director of Public Prosecutions.   65.   According to Article 70/K of the Constitution, as amended by Act XXXI of 1989 (1989. évi XXXI. törvény), claims based on the violation of fundamental rights, and objections regarding decisions taken by public authorities in the performance of their functions can be brought before a court.   It follows from the official commentary which is attached to Act XXXI of 1989 that Article 70/K was intended to make   access to court possible in respect of claims against other persons or the state in connection with fundamental rights.     66.   The Hungarian Constitutional Court has characterised Article 70/K as a "living and effective instrument of the Hungarian legal system" (decisions 32/1990. /XII.22./ AB; 58/1991. /XI.8./ AB; 46/1994. /X.21./ AB; 34/1994. /VI.24./ AB). In its decision 32/1990.(XII.22.)AB, the   Constitutional Court held that a Government order of 1981, according to which the judicial review of particular administrative decisions could be excluded, was in breach of the Constitution and the Government was requested to pass new legislation.   In the interim, the petitioner was instructed to seek judicial review on the basis of Article 70/K.   III.   OPINION OF THE COMMISSION   A.   Complaints declared admissible   67.   The following complaints were declared admissible:     -   that the conditions of his imprisonment in Hungarian prisons amounted to inhuman and degrading treatment or punishment contrary to Article 3 (Art. 3) of the Convention;     -   that the control of his correspondence as a prisoner amounted to a breach of his right to respect for his correspondence contrary to Article 8 (Art. 8) of the Convention;     -   that he did not have an effective remedy in respect of the alleged violation of Article 3 (Art. 3);     -   that he did not have an effective remedy in respect of the alleged violation of Article 8 (Art. 8).   B.   Points at issue   68.   Accordingly, the issues to be determined are:     -   whether there has been a violation of Article 3 (Art. 3) of the Convention;     -   whether there has been a violation of Article 8 (Art. 8) of the Convention;     -   whether there has been a violation of Article 13 of the Convention in respect of the applicant's claims under Article 3 (Art. 3);     -   whether there has been a violation of Article 13 (Art. 13) of the Convention in respect of his claims under Article 8 (Art. 8).   C.   Article 3 (Art. 3) of the Convention   69.   The applicant complains that the conditions of his detention amounted to inhuman and degrading treatment and punishment.   He invokes Article 3 (Art. 3) which reads as follows:     "No one shall be subjected to torture or to inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment".   70.   The applicant turns the Commission's attention in particular to the fact that he had to spend most of the day in the Budapest Prison in a cell of 27.56m? with seven or even more other inmates.   He also alleges a general practice of unfavourable treatment, such as having to change cells frequently, facing difficulties in the allocation of work or in participating in sport or other leisure facilities.   71.   The respondent Government maintain that the circumstances of the applicant's detention did not amount to inhuman and degrading treatment or torture prohibited by Article 3 (Art. 3).   According to the Government, the conditions of his detention are in compliance with the demands of the enforcement of sentences in respect of inmates qualified as "particularly dangerous".   a.   General principles   72.   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 (cf. Eur. Court HR, 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 degrading and in breach of Article 3 (Art. 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 HR, Tyrer v. the United Kingdom judgment of 25 April 1978, Series A no. 26, p. 15, para. 30).   73.   The Commission has previously examined complaints under Article 3 (Art. 3) about prison conditions (cf. No. 6038/73, Dec. 11.7.73, Collection 44, p. 115; No. 7854/77, Dec. 12.7.78, D.R. 12 p. 185; No. 8317/78, Dec. 15.5.80, D.R. 30, p. 44; No. 11701/85, Dec. 12.5.1988, unpublished; No. 14610/89, Dec. 9.7.1991, D.R. 71, p. 168; No. 18942/91, Dec. 6.4.1993, and No. 20560/92, Dec. 30.8.1994, unpublished).   These cases often concerned the solitary confinement of prisoners (cf. No. 5310/71, Ireland v. the United Kingdom, Comm. Report 25.1.76, Series B no. 23, Vol. I, p. 379; Nos. 7572/76, 7586/76 and 7587/76, Dec. 8.7.78, D.R. 14 p. 64; No. 8317/78, loc. cit.; No. 14610/89, loc. cit.).   b.   The applicant's status as prisoner   74.   The applicant was convicted of theft and of having escaped from prison and a cumulative sentence of five years and six months' imprisonment was fixed.   Until his release on probation in August 1994, he served his sentence under a strict regime, first in the Budapest Prison and the last month in the Sopronk?hida Prison.     75.   Throughout the applicant's detention, the prison authorities, having regard to the nature of offences committed by him and his previous attempts to commit suicide, treated him as being a "particularly dangerous" person.   Upon regular reviews during his detention, this classification was confirmed on account of his aggressive behaviour towards other prisoners and the prison staff.   The Commission finds that, in view of the applicant's own conduct, there was a need for security measures.   His classification as being a "particularly dangerous" person as such, and the corresponding restrictions on his movement in prison, did not, therefore, amount to treatment contrary to Article 3 (Art. 3).   c.   The applicant's detention in the Budapest Prison   76.   In the Budapest Prison, the applicant was detained in a cell of 27.56m? which was generally destined to be occupied by eight inmates.   There was sufficient natural light and elementary furniture as well as a sanitary installation.   There are no indications that the cells, and in particular the sanitary equipment suffered from neglect to such an extent as to render the confinement inhuman or degrading.     77.   Considering the applicant's submissions as to the temporary admission of additional inmates in the Budapest Prison, the Commission finds that such practice may have contributed to the overcrowding of the cell.   However, in the circumstances of the present case, such temporary measures to face the necessity of placing prisoners exceeding the maxiumum number, though undesirable in a modern prison system, were not contrary to Article 3 (Art. 3).   78.   As to the daily routine in the Budapest Prison, the Government has drawn the Commission's attention to the various working and leisure facilities usually available to inmates.   However, the one hour's daily exercise could not be ensured to the prisoners in case of bad weather conditions, as the premises of the Budapest Prison lacked adequate facilities, its court-yard being uncovered.     79.   In this context, the Commission also notes that, pursuant to the relevant provisions of Hungarian law, the applicant was entitled to exchange correspondence, in particular with his relatives, and to receive visits.   80.   The applicant's occupational situation in the Budapest Prison has to be seen against his classification as being a "particularly dangerous" prisoner.   The Commission notes that the applicant was only assigned work for short periods early in 1993 and again in April 1994.   However, the applicant's employment was terminated upon his own wish.   81.   Examination of the material before the Commission permits the conclusion that generally his possibilities to participate in working and other activities depended upon his own conduct.     82.   In assessing the applicant's situation in the Budapest Prison, the Commission has also considered the aggressive behaviour of other inmates.   However, to the extent that, on two occasions in December 1992, the applicant suffered injuries following fights by other inmates, the Commission notes that his medical treatment was ensured and disciplinary measures were taken against both prisoners in question.   There is no evidence to show that the prisoners acted at the instigation of the prison staff, or with their acquiescence.     83.   In this respect, the Commission further notes that the applicant himself was classified as being a "particularly dangerous" person and reported as aggressive towards other inmates and the prison staff.   Following the fight of 31 December 1992, a disciplinary measure was inflicted upon him and there is nothing to suggest that this disciplinary punishment was not justified in the circumstances.     d.   The applicant's transfers to the Pécs Prison   84.   Moreover, in 1993, in the course of his detention in the Budapest Prison, the applicant was repeatedly transferred to the Pécs Prison in the context of his retrial proceedings.   In this respect, the applicant raised a new complaint about alleged ill-treatment by the Pécs prison staff.   Even assuming that its consideration of the present case can extend to this additional allegation, the Commission, in the absence of any entries in the medical files of the Tököl Prison Hospital or other evidence, finds no sufficient factual basis for accepting the applicant's rather generally phrased accusation.   e.   The applicant's detention in the Sopronk?hida Prison   85.   In the Sopronk?hida Prison, the applicant was accommodated in a cell of 8.3m? with the elementary furniture for two inmates and a lavatory and a wash- basin.   The applicant spent most of the time alone in such a cell.   However, it appears that this single accommodation was a consequence of the applicant's own conduct towards the other inmates and not imposed as a disciplinary measure of solitary confinement.   There is no indication that the applicant was thereby segregated from other prisoners.   Having regard to the Government's information on the opportunities to take part in physical exercises and other activities, the Commission, in the absence of any particular criticism on the part of the applicant, finds no element of ill-treatment in the course of his one-month detention in the Sopronk?hida Prison.   f.   General appreciation   86.   In sum, the Commission considers that, during his detention, the applicant was not subjected to any "inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment" within the meaning of Article 3 (Art. 3) of the Convention.     CONCLUSION   87.   The Commission concludes, unanimously, that in the present case there has been no violation of Article 3 (Art. 3) of the Convention.   D.   Article 8 (Art. 8) of the Convention   88.   The applicant complains about interferences by the Budapest Prison authorities with his correspondence.   He invokes Article 8 (Art. 8), which provides 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."   89.   The applicant generally complains about a practice of the Budapest Prison authorities to open and to control as well as to delay prisoners' correspondence.   Nevertheless his argument before the Commission is focused on alleged interferences with his correspondence to and from the Commission, in particular the control and delay of such letters.   90.   The Government submit that there was only evidence to show that one letter sent by the Commission had been opened by the prison authorities, i.e. the letter of 23 June 1993.   Moreover, there was nothing to show that there had been delays in forwarding the applicant's letters.   91.   The Commission has examined in turn the applicant's complaints about interferences by the Hungarian authorities with his right to respect for his correspondence.   a.   The opening of the Commission's letter of 23 June 1993   92.   The Commission finds that its letter of 23 June 1993 had been opened in the applicant's absence, as evidenced by the entry stamp put by the prison authorities not only on the envelope, but on the letter itself.     93.   There has, therefore, been an interference with the applicant's right under Article 8 para. 1 (Art. 8-1) in this respect.   Such interference is in breach of Article 8 (Art. 8), unless justified under paragraph 2 of Article 8 (Art. 8-2).   94.   The basis for interferences with a prisoner's correspondence is to be found in S. 36 of the Hungarian Law on the Enforcement of Sentences.   While prisoners are in principle entitled to correspond with relatives, other persons as well as with domestic authorities and international organisations, their correspondence may be controlled by the prison authorities for reasons of security, except for letters sent to public authorities and to international organisations (S. 36 para. 5 of the Law on the Execution of Sentences).      95.   The Commission finds that its letter dated 23 June 1993 had been opened by the Budapest Prison authorities contrary to S. 36 para. 5 of the Law on the Enforcement of Sentences.   This interference was not, therefore, "in accordance with the law".     96.   It follows that the interference complained of was not justified under Article 8 para. 2 (Art. 8-2) of the Convention.   97.   The Commission further examined, for reasons of completeness, whether the other conditions under paragraph 2 of Article 8 (Art. 8-2) were satisfied.   In this respect, the Commission considers that it has been recognised that some measure of control over prisoners' correspondence is called for in order to secure the order in prison and is not in itself incompatible with the Convention (cf. Eur. Court HR, Silver and Others judgment, op. cit., pp. 37-38, paras. 97- 98; Campbell v. the United Kingdom judgment of 25 March 1992, Series A no. 233, p. 18, paras. 44-45).   However, under the Convention, there can be no compelling reason for the control of the Commission's correspondence (cf. Eur. Court HR,   Campbell judgment, op. cit., p. 22, para. 62).   Accordingly, the opening of the Commission's letter of 23 June 1993 cannot be regarded as "necessary in a democratic society" within the meaning of paragraph 2 of Article 8 (Art. 8-2).   b.   Further issues relating to the Commission's correspondence   98.   The Commission considers that the applicant's allegation that the Commission's letter of 23 June 1993, after having been opened in his absence, was not handed over to him by the prison staff, but by another prisoner, is not supported by evidence.     99.   As regards the applicant's submission that the opening of the letter of 23 June 1993 showed a general practice of opening letters from the Commission, the Commission notes the Government's statement that in July 1993 the Budapest Prison authorities changed their "routine" of control.   Nevertheless, considering all circumstances, the Commission finds no sufficient factual elements to conclude that any of its other letters had been opened before being handed over to the applicant.   100.   As regards the alleged delays in forwarding correspondence, the Commission notes that the lapse of time between the date of a letter and its receipt by the applicant or the Commission, respectively, varied generally between eight and ten days.   There is no indication that these periods considerably exceeded the usual periods of postal delivery.     101.   However, the applicant's letter of Friday, 11 June 1993 was only posted on Wednesday, 16 June 1993 and received by the Commission on 23 June 1993, which was the next Wednesday.     102.   The applicant maintains that this letter had been deliberately retained by the Budapest Prison authorities.   The Government deny any such interference.   They argue in particular that there is no proof of the date when the applicant put his letter for mailing.   103.   The Commission observes that the applicant's letter was mailed five days after it had been dated by him.   Taking into account that the possible delay in mailing the said letter comprised a week-end, the transmission period of a total of twelve days does not, in the Commission's view, result in an interference with the applicant's right under Article 8 para. 1 (Art. 8-1).   104.   The Commission finally finds that the applicant's assertion, raised in his letter of 25 June 1993, that he was prohibited from continuing further correspondence with the Commission has not been substantiated.   105.   In sum, the Commission, on the material before it, finds no further interferences with the Commission's correspondence.   c.   Other correspondence issues   106.   As regards his other correspondence, the applicant did not specify the letters subjected to control or other interferences. However, the Commission considers, and this was not disputed by the Government, that the Hungarian prison authorities generally subjected the applicant's other correspondence to a control for security reasons.   Such interference is in breach of Article 8 (Art. 8), unless justified under paragraph 2 of Article 8 (Art. 8-2).   107.   In the Commission's view, the control of the applicant's other correspondence was based on S. 36 of the Act on the Execution of Sentences.   There is no indication that the applicant was not, in accordance with the relevant rules, aware of the possibility of control.   Moreover, the applicant did not substantiate any incident of unlawful i