CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;DECCOMMISSION;ENG — 16 avril 1998

.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. 33492/96                       by Henryk JABLONSKI                       against Poland        The European Commission of Human Rights (Second Chamber) sitting in private on 16 April 1998, the following members being present:              MM    J.-C. GEUS, President                 M.A. NOWICKI                 G. JÖRUNDSSON                 A. GÖZÜBÜYÜK                 J.-C. SOYER                 H. DANELIUS            Mrs   G.H. THUNE            MM    F. MARTINEZ                 I. CABRAL BARRETO                 J. MUCHA                 D. SVÁBY                 P. LORENZEN                 E. BIELIUNAS                 E.A. ALKEMA                 A. ARABADJIEV              Ms    M.-T. SCHOEPFER, 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 2 January 1995 by Henryk JABLONSKI against Poland and registered on 19 October 1996 under file No. 33492/96;        Having regard to :   -     the reports provided for in Rule 47 of the Rules of Procedure of      the Commission;   -     the observations submitted by the respondent Government on      18 June 1997 and the observations in reply submitted by the      applicant on 25 July 1997;        Having deliberated;        Decides as follows:   THE FACTS        The applicant is a Polish citizen born in 1957.   He is currently detained in Kaminsk prison.   In the proceedings before the Commission he is represented by Ms Zofia Daniszewska-Dek, a lawyer practising in Bialystok.        The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows:   A.    Particular circumstances of the case:   a)    Uncontested facts        On 21 May 1992 the applicant was detained on remand on suspicion of aggravated theft, armed robbery and attempted homicide.        On an unspecified date in August 1992 the investigations were completed.        Apparently, after this date the applicant requested an order remanding the case for further investigation.   In particular, he asked for evidence to be taken from certain witnesses.        The applicant's request for witnesses to be called was dismissed; however a psychiatric expert report was ordered.        On 12 October 1992 the Bialystok Regional Prosecutor (Prokurator Wojewódzki) lodged a bill of indictment with the Bialystok Regional Court (S*d Wojewódzki).        On 22 October 1992 the court scheduled the first hearing for 27 November 1992.        On an unspecified date in October 1992 the applicant, who at the material time was detained in the Bialystok Detention Centre, went on hunger strike.   His hunger strike lasted until the end of 1993.   The applicant lost nineteen kilos.   During his strike he was once, on an unspecified date, examined by a psychologist and psychiatrist who stated that he had a psychopathic personality and suffered from a neurasthenic syndrome and alcoholic epilepsy.   Subsequently, on 1 April 1993, upon the Bialystok Regional Court's request, an internist and cardiologist examined the applicant and found that he should remain in prison as his life was not in danger; however, they stated that the applicant should be placed under intensive medical observation and, in view of his serious weight loss, feeding by intravenous drip should be considered.   Subsequently, the applicant was given a liquid diet.        On 18 November 1993 a prison doctor examined the applicant and found that he could be treated in prison.       In the meantime, on an unspecified date in September 1993, the applicant was given a blood test; the tests did not show any disorder. Since the applicant complained of general weakness, pallor, headaches and chest pains, blood tests were again ordered in December 1993.   They showed that he was suffering from severe anaemia.          On 9 December 1993 the applicant was admitted to the hospital of the Faculty of Gastrology of the Bialystok Academy of Medicine.   He received treatment until 17 December 1993.   The extract from the medical records, which was issued on 17 December 1993, stated, inter alia:        "he was admitted to the hospital in a state of extreme exhaustion      ..., complaining about general weakness, pains in his chest and      heart palpitations. Subsequent analyses showed that there was an      extremely low level of haemoglobin in his blood ... [4.1%; 6,7%      according to the relevant tests] ... resulting from a chronic      deficiency of iron and vitamins.   During the treatment he was      given two transfusions and iron compounds were administered ...      and therefore his condition improved ... Recommendations: good      food and further treatment.   From the medical point of view, he      should not be kept in prison."        As from 17 December 1993 the applicant was again detained in Bialystok Detention Centre.   He was placed in a medical ward, where he remained until 24 December 1993.   As he refused to consent to any further medical tests or to take medicines, the authorities decided not to administer any treatment against his will.   However, he received psychological and psychiatric consultation.   He was again placed in a prison ward when diagnosed as having anaemia and gastritis.        In the meantime, the hearings scheduled for 27 November 1992, 20 January, 2 June, 24 September and 1 December 1993 were adjourned on the ground that the applicant was continuing his hunger strike.        On an unspecified date the applicant complained to the Governing Board of Prisons about the inadequate medical treatment which he had received in the Bialystok Prison.        On 23 February 1994 the Head of the Legal Department of the Governing Board of Prisons replied to the applicant's complaint and stated, inter alia, that the complaint was unsubstantiated as the applicant's illness resulted only from his "refusal to eat".        On 27 February 1994 the applicant complained to the Governor of the Bialystok Detention Centre about his inadequate treatment in the prison hospital.        On 9 March 1994 the applicant had further blood tests; according to them the applicant had a level of haemoglobin of 12,4 % in his blood.        On 13 and 22 March 1994 the applicant inserted several pieces of metal into his eyes.   On 23 March 1994 he was examined by a psychiatrist who stated that these self-inflicted injuries were a consequence of the applicant's protest against the prolongation of the criminal proceedings against him.   He was placed in an ophthalmic ward of the Bytom Prison Hospital where he remained from 25 April to 23 June 1994.   Following his treatment in that hospital, there are still three pieces of metal in the applicant's eyes.        On 17 May 1994 the Governor of the Bialystok Detention Centre replied to the applicant's complaint of 27 February 1994 and stated that there had been no indication of inadequate treatment in the prison hospital.   He also asserted that the applicant's inflexible attitude to the treatment in prison and his refusal to face trial had obstructed proper treatment.        On 31 August 1994 the applicant requested the Bialystok Regional Court to call ophthalmology experts, submitting that he was suffering from a severe pain in his eyes.   His request was transferred to the authorities of the Bialystok Detention Centre.        On 28 September 1994 the Deputy Governor of the Bialystok Detention Centre refused to call ophthalmological experts on the ground that in the view of the experts who had previously examined the applicant, there had been no need to treat the applicant outside the prison.        On 5 October 1994 the next hearing before the Bialystok Regional Court was adjourned.   It transpires from the subsequent letter of the Chief Justice of the Bialystok Regional Court dated 3 October 1996 that the hearing was cancelled in view of the fact that the applicant had inflicted injuries on himself.        In the meantime, on an unspecified date, the applicant again inflicted injuries on himself, in particular by hitting his head against a wall.        On 22 November 1994 the Bialystok Regional Court adjourned the next hearing, apparently in view of the fact that the applicant had inflicted the above injuries on himself.        On 28 November 1994 the applicant again complained to the Head of the Governing Board of Prisons about the inadequate treatment which he had received in the prison hospitals.   He also asked the Chief of the Bialystok Detention Centre to call ophthalmological experts at his own expense.        On 5 December 1994 the Bialystok Regional Court again adjourned a hearing.   It transpires from the subsequent letter of the Chief Justice of the Bialystok Regional Court, which was dated 3 October 1996, that the court had found that the applicant had injected saliva into his leg.   On 17 January 1995 the Bialystok Regional Court again adjourned a hearing on the same ground.        Meanwhile, from the beginning of December 1994, the applicant complained to the prison authorities about an abscess and phlegmon in his leg.        On 19 January 1995 the Head of the Legal Department of the Governing Board of Prisons replied to the applicant's complaint of 28 November 1994.   He stated, inter alia, that the Chief Prisons Physician had not found any irregularities in the applicant's treatment in the prison hospitals and that the latter had obstructed his treatment by inflicting injuries on himself.        From 17 to 22 February 1995 the applicant was treated in the Barczewo Prison Hospital.        On 21 February 1995 the Bialystok Regional Court adjourned a hearing in view of the fact that the applicant was receiving treatment in the prison hospital.        On 29 March 1995 the Olsztyn Penitentiary Court (S*d Penitencjarny), on the request of the Governor of the Barczewo Prison, ordered the applicant to pay all the costs of the above treatment as it had resulted from self-inflicted injury.          On an unspecified date the applicant appealed against this decision.   He denied that the treatment in question had resulted from any self-inflicted injury.        In the meantime, on an unspecified date, the applicant swallowed two metal rods and three pieces of wire.   He did not consent to surgery in the prison hospital.        On 27 April 1995 the Bialystok Regional Court adjourned a hearing.   It transpires from the subsequent letter of the Chief Justice of the Bialystok Regional Court of 3 October 1996 that the hearing was cancelled on the ground of the above-mentioned self-inflicted injury.        On 5 May 1995 the Olsztyn Regional Court dismissed the applicant's appeal against the order of 29 March 1995 and held that the applicant had deliberately inflicted injuries on himself "... in order to compel the authorities to take certain measures".        On an unspecified date the applicant requested the Bialystok Regional Court to release him.        On 24 November 1995 his request was dismissed in view of the reasonable suspicion that the applicant had committed the offences with which he had been charged and their serious nature.   The court referred also to the medical statement of 18 November 1993 confirming that the applicant could be treated in prison.        In the beginning of November 1995 the applicant complained to the authorities about various subsequent ailments, in particular a cyst in his kidney and urinary problems.   The previous ultrasound examinations (of December 1993 and April 1994) as well as the subsequent examinations of 17 November 1995 and November 1996 showed that the applicant had a cyst of a diameter of twenty millimetres in his kidney, the size of which had remained unchanged.   The applicant refused to undergo a kidney operation in a urological ward of the Lódz Detention Centre Prison Hospital, requesting that he be released so as to enable him to receive medical treatment outside the prison.        On 20 December 1995 the applicant requested the Bialystok Regional Court to release him.        On 29 December 1995 the Bialystok Regional Court made a request to the Supreme Court (S*d Najwyzszy) to prolong the applicant's detention on remand until 30 December 1996.   This request was prepared in view of the fact that on 1 January 1996 an amendment to the Polish Code of Criminal Procedure was to take effect (see Relevant domestic law).   The court stated, inter alia:          "When the applicant finished his hunger strike, he deliberately      inflicted injuries on himself in order to compel [the court] to      make a favourable decision on altering the preventive measure      imposed on him.   For these reasons it is not known when the      accused will be brought to trial and therefore his detention      should be prolonged until 30 December 1996."        Eventually, the amendment concerning the maximum period of detention on remand came into force on 4 August 1996 and the above request was not lodged with the Supreme Court.        On 30 December 1995 the Supreme Court transferred the applicant's request of 20 December 1995 to the Bialystok Regional Court.        On 15 January 1996 the Chief Justice of the Bialystok Regional Court transferred the request to the Chief Judge of the Criminal Division of the Bialystok Regional Court.        On 18 January 1996 the Supreme Court informed the applicant that all requests for release should be lodged with the court of first instance, i.e. the Bialystok Regional Court.        On 19 January 1996 the Bialystok Regional Court dismissed the applicant's request for release dated 20 December 1995.   The court held that there had been no circumstances concerning the applicant's health which might have militated in favour of his release and that the state of the applicant's health had been caused entirely by his own conduct. The court stated that the applicant had wished to compel the court to make a favourable decision on his detention and that the impossibility of bringing the applicant to trial had diminished the chances of resolving his complaints.        In the meantime, on an unspecified date, the applicant complained to the Ombudsman about inadequate treatment in prison.   He submitted that a cyst which had appeared in his kidney called for immediate treatment.   Apparently, the complaint was transferred to the authorities of the Olsztyn Detention Centre.        On 22 January 1996 the Governor of the Olsztyn Detention Centre replied to the above complaint and stated that according to the results of the ultrasound examination of 17 November 1995 there was no reason for the requested treatment and that the main problems concerning the applicant's health had resulted from injuries which he had been inflicting on himself.        In the meantime, on an unspecified date, the applicant complained to the Supreme Court about the length of his detention which had meanwhile exceeded three years.        On an unspecified date the applicant requested the Bialystok Regional Court to order further investigations in his case and remit his case to the investigating prosecutor.   This request was dismissed on 25 January 1996.        On 25 January 1996 the applicant's complaint about the length of his detention, which had originally been addressed to the Supreme Court, was transferred to the Bialystok Court of Appeal (S*d Apelacyjny).        On 8 February 1996 the Deputy Chief Justice of the Bialystok Court of Appeal replied to the applicant's above complaint.   He stated that the hearings in the applicant's case had been cancelled five times in view of the fact that the applicant had gone on hunger strike and then on the ground that the applicant had inflicted injuries on himself.   He also held that there had been no indication that the applicant should have been released on account of his state of health as he had been under medical care in prison.        On an unspecified date the applicant applied to the Bialystok Regional Court to release him in view of his state of health.   This application was dismissed on 29 March 1996.        On an unspecified date the applicant appealed against the above- mentioned decision, arguing that his detention on remand had meanwhile exceeded four years and that his state of health was desperately bad.        On 19 April 1996 the Bialystok Court of Appeal dismissed his appeal, finding that the length of the applicant's detention had been attributable to his behaviour alone and that a change in the applicant's attitude would result in the immediate examination of his case, and that it might have resulted in "... a change of opinion as to whether the detention should be maintained further".        On an unspecified date the applicant again filed a request for release.        On 11 June 1996 the Bialystok Regional Court dismissed the applicant's request in view of the high probability that he had committed the offences with which he had been charged and their serious nature.   The court also found that no circumstances concerning the applicant's health had argued for his release as the current state of his health had resulted only from the hunger strike and self-inflicted injuries.        On 6 August 1996 the Bialystok Regional Court requested the Supreme Court to prolong the applicant's detention on remand until 30 July 1997 in view of the fact that he had attempted to obstruct the due course of proceedings.   The court also stated:        "... the detention should be prolonged until 30 July 1997 ... for      the reason that the accused has inflicted injuries on himself and      therefore, it is not known when he will be able to be brought to      trial."        On 5 September 1996 the Supreme Court, sitting in camera, prolonged the applicant's detention until 1 March 1997 and found that the applicant had exceptionally obstructed the due course of proceedings and had intentionally contributed to their length.   The court also held that it was not necessary to prolong the applicant's detention until 30 July 1997 and that by 1 March 1997 the court of first instance should be able to order an additional medical examination of the applicant, to schedule the hearing and to give judgment.        On 13 September 1996 the applicant complained to the Minister of Justice about the length of his detention on remand and the conduct of the proceedings in his case.   This complaint was transferred to the Bialystok Regional Court.        In the meantime, on an unspecified date, the applicant again filed a request for release.        On 24 September 1996 the Bialystok Regional Court dismissed his request on the grounds that there was a reasonable suspicion that he had committed the offences in question and that the need to ensure the due course of proceedings militated against his release.   The court held that the applicant's illness did not amount to a danger to his life or health and that it had resulted from the deliberate acts of the applicant.        On 26 September 1996 a copy of the decision of the Supreme Court was served on the applicant.        On 3 October 1996 the Chief Justice of the Bialystok Regional Court replied to the applicant's complaint of 13 September 1996.   He found that there had been no irregularities in the conduct of the proceedings.   He stated that all the twelve hearings scheduled from 27 November 1992 until 27 April 1995 had been cancelled in view of the fact that the applicant had inflicted injuries on himself.        On 10 October 1996, on the applicant's appeal, the Bialystok Court of Appeal upheld the decision of the Bialystok Regional Court of 24 September 1996 and held:        "It is true that the accused is sick, though his illness results      from self-inflicted injuries ... . As the accused is under      medical care in the prison, there is no danger to his life ..."        On 21 November 1996 the applicant was brought from the Barczewo prison to the Bialystok Detention Centre as the court had scheduled a hearing for 10 December 1996.        On 10 December 1996 the hearing was cancelled as the court was improperly composed.   The next hearing was held on 10 January 1997. During the hearing the applicant requested the court to call witnesses proposed by him.   On 24 February 1997 the hearing was adjourned as the majority of prosecution and defence witnesses as well as the injured party failed to appear.        During the hearings of 27 and 28 February 1997 the court heard evidence from witnesses and dismissed the applicant's request for further evidence to be called.   On 28 February 1997 the Bialystok Regional Court pronounced judgment.   It convicted the applicant of aggravated theft and attempted homicide and sentenced him to fifteen years' imprisonment, deprivation of his civil rights for eight years and a fine of PLN 400.        On an unspecified date the applicant's lawyer lodged an appeal against this judgment.   Subsequently, on an unspecified date, the applicant challenged J.D.-S. and J.Z.-L., judges of the Bialystok Court of Appeal who were assigned to sit on the appeal panel, submitting that both of them had previously dealt with his requests for release and that they did not, therefore, offer sufficient guarantees of impartiality.   His challenge was dismissed by the Bialystok Court of Appeal on 9 September 1997 as being ill-founded.        On the same day the court held an appellate hearing and gave judgment dismissing the applicant's appeal.        On 18 September 1997 a copy of the judgment of the Bialystok Court of Appeal was served on the applicant.   On 1 October 1997 the applicant filed a notice of cassation appeal, requesting the court to serve the written reasoning of the judgment on him.   He submitted it to the authorities of the Barczewo prison on 3 October 1997.        On 20 October 1997 the Bialystok Court of Appeal rejected the applicant's notice of appeal, refusing to serve the written reasoning on him since he had failed to lodge the notice within the seven-day time limit prescribed by Section 464 para. 3 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.        On 1 November 1997 the applicant requested the Minister of Justice to lodge an ex officio cassation appeal on his behalf.   The request was dismissed on 22 January 1998.   b)    Contested facts        The Government submit that in 1996 the applicant constantly inflicted injuries on himself by swallowing various objects.        The applicant denies this.        The relevant entries in the applicant's medical records made from the end of 1995 to 15 July 1996 do not contain any indication that he had swallowed any objects.   The entry made on 16 May 1996 contains a doctor's note: "objects in [the] stomach?".   The entry of 20 November 1996 reads: "refusal to undergo an X-ray examination; no confirmation as to the objects in his stomach". The entry made on 28 December 1996 reads:        "Complaints by a detainee, previous ailments and operations:      objects in eyes: no complaints at present; objects in his      stomach: on 25 October and 20 November 1996 [the applicant]      refused to undergo an X-ray examination; on 23 December 1996 [he]      claimed that there were no further objects. ... I administer a      further X-ray examination. [He] complains about a pain in his      stomach. ... Psychiatric examination of 4 November 1996 disclosed      an abnormal personality ... Diagnosis: objects in eyes; [as      regards the] objects in the stomach, [to date] in the absence of      results of the X-ray examination there is no confirmation that,      as [the applicant] states, there are no such objects ... General      condition: good; some peritoneal symptoms ... Conclusions: [the      applicant] can be detained in prison.   Doctor [name and signature      illegible]."        The subsequent X-ray examination made on an unspecified date in January 1997 did not disclose any objects in the applicant's stomach; it confirmed a diaphragm hernia.   B.    Relevant domestic law and practice   1.    Medical treatment of detainees.        The medical records concerning the treatment of a detainee in the course of detention on remand are kept in the prison archives.   The court competent to deal with the case usually has at its disposal only such documents as the experts' reports or medical certificates submitted by the parties or requested by a court as evidence.        Section 219 of the Polish Code of Criminal Procedure provides:        " If the state of health of the accused requires treatment in a      medical establishment, he cannot be further detained except in      such an establishment."   2.    Preventive measures, in particular, detention on remand.        The Polish Code of Criminal Procedure lists as preventive measures, inter alia, detention on remand, bail and police supervision.        Section 209 of the Code of Criminal Procedure provides:        "Preventive measures may be imposed in order to secure the due      course of proceedings if the evidence against the accused      sufficiently justifies the opinion that he has committed a      criminal offence."        The Code of Criminal Procedure sets out the scope of discretion as to maintaining the preventive measures.   Detention on remand is regarded as the most extreme measure among the preventive measures and the domestic law lays down that in principle it should not be imposed if more lenient measures are adequate or sufficient.          Section 213 of the Code of Criminal Procedure provides:        "1.    A preventive measure (including detention on remand) shall      be immediately quashed or altered, if the basis therefor has      ceased to exist or new circumstances have arisen which justify      quashing or replacing a given measure with a more or less severe      one."        Section 218 of the Code of Criminal Procedure provides:        "If there are no special reasons to the contrary, detention on      remand should be quashed, in particular when:        (1)    it may seriously jeopardise the life or health of the      accused, or        (2)    it would entail excessively burdensome effects for the      accused or his family."        Section 225 of the Code of Criminal Procedure provides:        "Detention on remand shall be imposed only when it is mandatory;      this measure shall not be imposed if bail or police supervision,      or both of these measures, are considered adequate."   3.    Statutory time-limits for detention on remand.        Until 4 August 1996, i.e. the date on which the relevant provisions of a new Law of 29 June 1995 on Amendments of the Code of Criminal Procedure and Other Criminal Statutes entered into force, the national law did not set out any time-limits concerning the detention on remand after the bill of indictment has been lodged with the court competent to deal with the case.   Initially, the relevant provisions of the new Law concerning the time-limits for detention were to enter into force on 1 January 1996; however, their vacatio legis was eventually prolonged until 4 August 1996.        Section 222 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in the version applicable after 4 August 1996, insofar as relevant, provides:        "3.    The whole period of detention on remand until the date on      which the court of first instance gives judgment may not exceed      one year and six months in cases concerning offences.   In cases      concerning serious offences this period may not exceed two years.        4.     In particularly justified cases the Supreme Court may, upon      the request of the court competent to deal with the case, ...      prolong detention on remand for a further fixed period exceeding      the periods referred to in paras. 2 and 3, when it is necessary      in connection with a suspension of the proceedings ... or when      the accused has deliberately obstructed the termination of the      proceedings in the terms referred to in para. 3."        In principle, a detainee is entitled to appeal against a decision prolonging his detention.   However, when the Supreme Court prolongs detention on remand under Article 222 para. 4 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the law provides for no appeal.   4.    Cassation appeal.        As from 1 January 1996, i.e. the date on which the relevant provisions of a new Law of 29 June 1995 on Amendments to the Code of Criminal Procedure and Other Criminal Statutes entered into force, a party to criminal proceedings may lodge a cassation appeal with the Supreme Court against any final decision of an appellate court which has terminated the criminal proceedings.        Section 463a para. 1 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, insofar as relevant, provides:        "1.    A cassation appeal may be lodged only on the grounds      referred to in Section 388 [these include a number of procedural      irregularities] or on the ground of another flagrant breach of      law provided that the judicial decision in question was affected      by such breach. ..."        Section 464 of the Code of Criminal Procedure provides:        "1.    Parties to criminal proceedings shall be entitled to lodge      a cassation appeal.        2.     A cassation appeal which has been lodged by a party other      than a prosecutor shall be filed and signed by a lawyer.        3.     Notice of a cassation appeal must be lodged with the court      which has given the decision to be appealed against within seven      days from the date on which such decision was pronounced.   The      appeal itself must be lodged within thirty days from the date on      which the decision was served on the party concerned."        Accordingly, lodging a notice of cassation appeal within the prescribed time-limit is a prerequisite for lodging the appeal itself.        As regards the substantive grounds for a cassation appeal, an appellant can invoke any breach of the substantive or procedural provisions of criminal law.   This includes a breach of the presumption of innocence, guaranteed under Section 3 para. 2 of the Code, which states:        "2.    An accused shall not be presumed guilty until his guilt is      proved according to principles provided by this Code."         Moreover, an appellant who claims that failure to examine witnesses affected the outcome of his trial or that the rules concerning the admissibility of evidence were violated, or that the manner in which evidence was taken or refused to be called was contrary to procedural provisions may, in his appeal, invoke a breach of the relevant provisions (Section 152 et seq.) of the Code relating to the admissibility of evidence.     COMPLAINTS   1.    The applicant complains under Article 3 of the Convention about inadequate medical treatment in prison.   He also complains that he was subjected to degrading treatment in view of the manner in which his criminal case, his numerous complaints concerning his state of health and requests for release were dealt with by the Polish authorities.     2.    The applicant complains under Articles 4 para. 1 and Article 5 para. 3   of the Convention about the length of his detention on remand, submitting that he was held in slavery as his detention on remand exceeded a reasonable time.   3.    Under Article 5 para. 4 of the Convention he complains that the proceedings relating to the prolongation of his detention were conducted slowly and unpredictably and that he did not receive adequate information concerning either the grounds for prolongation of his detention or the period for which his detention was to be prolonged.   4.    The applicant also complains under Article 6 para. 1 of the Convention that the criminal proceedings against him were unreasonably long.   5.    Under Article 6 para. 2 and Article 7 of the Convention he complains that the authorities considered him to be guilty from the date on which the case was referred to the competent court.   6.    The applicant invokes Article 6 para. 3 (b) and (d) of the Convention, submitting that the domestic authorities did not order further investigations in his case.   He claims that the witnesses who were proposed by him were not called in the course of the investigations.     PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE COMMISSION        The application was introduced on 2 January 1995 and registered on 19 October 1996.        On 27 February 1997 the Commission decided to communicate the application to the respondent Government.        The Government's written observations were submitted on 18 June 1997, after a second extension of the time-limit fixed for that purpose.   The applicant replied on 25 July 1997.        On 28 October 1997 the Commission granted the applicant legal aid.        On 6 February 1998 the Government submitted a translation of their observations.        On 12 March 1998 the applicant submitted his additional observations.     THE LAW   1.    The applicant complains under Article 3 (Art. 3) of the Convention about inadequate medical treatment in prison.   He also complains that he was subjected to degrading treatment in view of the manner in which his criminal case, his numerous complaints concerning his state of health and requests for release were dealt with by the Polish authorities.        Article 3 (Art. 3) of the Convention provides:        "No one shall be subjected to torture or to inhuman or degrading      treatment or punishment."     a)    The Government submit that the Convention entered into force with respect to Poland on 19 January 1993.   Poland recognised the Commission's competence to receive individual applications "from any person, non-governmental organisation or group of individuals claiming to be a victim of a violation by Poland of the rights recognised in the Convention through any act, decision or event occurring after 30 April 1993".   Since all the complaints submitted by the applicant relate to the criminal proceedings against him which commenced on 21 May 1992, i.e. before 30 April 1993, the application, insofar as it relates to events prior to this date, is outside the competence ratione temporis of the Commission.        The applicant does not address this issue in his submissions.        The Commission observes that the present application relates in part to a period prior to 1 May 1993, the date on which Poland's declaration acknowledging the right of individual petition took effect. Since, in that declaration Poland limited the Commission's competence to facts subsequent to the declaration, the Commission, by reason of its competence ratione temporis, can examine the applicant's complaints only insofar as they relate to the period after this date.        It follows that this part of the application is inadmissible as being incompatible ratione temporis with the provisions of the Convention within the meaning of Article 27 para. 2 (Art. 27-2) of the Convention.   b)    The Government further submit that in any event the applicant's complaint under Article 3 (Art. 3) of the Convention is manifestly ill- founded because throughout the entire period of his detention he received medical treatment adequate to his state of health.   They stress that he failed to cooperate with prison doctors in the course of treatment either by his refusals to undergo various medical examinations or tests, or by his failure to take medicines administered by them.   Moreover, he systematically deteriorated his condition by his repeated self-inflicted injuries.   Also, he did not consent to undergo surgery proposed by prison doctors even though the prison medical services were able to provide him with medical care needed by him.        The Government admit that according to the recommendation of doctors of the Bialystok Academy of Medicine of 17 December 1993, following the applicant's treatment prompted by his hunger-strike, from the medical point of view the applicant should not have been kept in prison.   This, however, did not mean that he could not be detained in the prison hospitals, which could provide him with medical care equal to the level of public health care.   In the Barczewo Prison Hospital, where he was placed after being discharged from the hospital of the Bialystok Academy of Medicine, the authorities were able to provide him with the treatment required by his condition.   Furthermore, the authorities carefully supervised his state of health, which is shown by the fact that they subsequently placed him in various medical wards when he needed a specific type of treatment, i.e. an ophthalmic or urological one.        The Government conclude that the measures applied by the authorities in the applicant's case, in particular his continuing detention on remand, did not amount to treatment contrary to Article 3 (Art. 3) of the Convention.        The applicant contests this.   He submits that he inflicted injuries on himself since he could not see any other way to draw the authorities' attention to the length of his detention and of the proceedings against him and to his desperately bad state of health. The authorities, by their lack of any serious response to his various complaints, prompted him to go on hunger strike for fourteen months. As late as 9 December 1993, when he was extremely exhausted, they placed him in the hospital of the Bialystok Academy of Medicine but ignored the doctors' conclusion that he should not be kept in prison.        The applicant further maintains that the prison medical services were unsatisfactory and insufficient. For instance, his treatment in an ophthalmic ward of the Bytom Hospital resulted in three pieces of metal being left in his eyeball.   Thus, he could not expect that his various serious ailments, including a cyst in his kidney, would be adequately treated or operated on in prison hospitals.   The authorities could have released him in order to let him receive medical treatment in a public health care establishment.   They could, by applying such a measure, have avoided his further desperate attempts to call their attention to his condition which was still deteriorating.   Their refusal to do so, coupled with the inadequate medical care in prison, seriously affected his health and thus amounted to treatment contrary to Article 3 (Art. 3) of the Convention.        The Commission reiterates that, according to the Convention organs' case-law, ill-treatment must attain a minimum level of severity if it is to fall within the scope of Article 3 (Art. 3) of the Convention (Eur. Court HR, Ireland v. the United Kingdom judgment of 18 January 1979, Series A no. 25, p. 65, para. 162).   It recalls that lack of medical treatment in the course of detention may raise an issue under Article 3 (Art. 3) of the Convention.   In such cases, the factors to be considered are the seriousness of the applicant's condition, the quality of medical care he receives and whether his state of health is compatible with detention.   Also, there remains the State's obligation to maintain a continuous review of the detention arrangements employed with a view to ensuring the health and well-being of all prisoners, having due regard to the ordinary and reasonable requirements of imprisonment (see, e.g. Lukanov v. Bulgaria, Comm. Report 12.1.95, D.R. 80-A, p. 128 et seq.)        The Commission further observes that the State has no obligation under Article 3 (Art. 3) of the Convention to release a detainee or to transfer him to a civil hospital, even when he has a disease which is particularly hard to treat (see, Chartier v. Italy, Comm. Report 8.12.88, D.R. 33, p. 41 et seq.).        As regards the present case, the Commission notes that the applicant, on several occasions, inflicted injuries on himself and that he twice refused his consent to treatment or surgery proposed by the authorities.   This did not, however, absolve them from their obligation to ensure his health and well-being during detention.        In this context the Commission observes that from October 1992 to December 1993, when the applicant was on hunger strike, the authorities called various medical experts to assess the state of his health, they ordered blood tests aimed at monitoring his condition and placed him in a civil hospital on 9 December 1993, when his condition seriously worsened.   Also, upon his subsequent placement in the medical ward of the Bialystok Detention Centre, the applicant would have received a more thorough medical treatment rather than a mere psychological consultation if he had consented to further tests and taken the medicines prescribed by doctors.        Furthermore, when on 12 and 22 March 1994, the applicant inserted several pieces of metal into his eyes, the authorities provided him with ophthalmological treatment in the Bytom Prison Hospital.   He was treated, from 17 to 22 February 1995, in the Barczewo prison Hospital in connection with injuries to his leg.   Finally, from December 1993 to November 1996, on four occasions, the authorities ordered an ultrasound examination in response to his complaints about a cyst in his kidney.   They also offered him an operation in the prison hospital. The last record relating to his health, dated 28 December 1996, described his state of health as good.        The Commission therefore considers that there is no indication that the authorities did not provide the applicant with medical treatment.   Nor can it be said that they failed to monitor carefully his state of health or its compatibility with detention.   There is no appearance that the quality of medical care received by him was insufficient.   Rather, the applicant's lack of cooperation in the course of his treatment hindered the efforts made by the authorities in order to improve his condition.        As a consequence, the Commission finds that the treatment complained of did not reach the threshold of severity required to bring it within the scope of Article 3 (Art. 3) of the Convention.        It follows that this part of the application is inadmissible as being manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 27 para. 2 (Art. 27-2) of the Convention.   2.    The applicant complains under Articles 4 para. 1 and Article 5 para. 3 &