CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;DECCOMMISSION;ENG — 21 mai 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. 28524/95                       by Donald PEERS                       against Greece           The European Commission of Human Rights (First Chamber) sitting in private on 21 May 1998, the following members being present:              MM     M.P. PELLONPÄÄ, President                  N. BRATZA                  E. BUSUTTIL                  A. WEITZEL                  C.L. ROZAKIS            Mrs    J. LIDDY            MM     L. LOUCAIDES                  B. MARXER                  B. CONFORTI                  I. BÉKÉS                  G. RESS                  A. PERENIC                  C. BÎRSAN                  K. HERNDL                  M. VILA AMIGÓ            Mrs    M. HION            Mr     R. NICOLINI              Mrs    M.F. BUQUICCHIO, Secretary to the Chamber         Having regard to Article 25 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms;         Having regard to the application introduced on 9 October 1994 by Donald PEERS against Greece and registered on 12 September 1995 under file No. 28524/95;         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       27 November 1996 and the observations in reply submitted by the       applicant on 4 August 1997;   -      the Commission's decision of 16 September 1997 to request       supplementary observations;   -      the supplementary observations submitted by the respondent       Government on 8 October 1997 and the observations in reply       submitted by the applicant on 10 February 1998;       Having deliberated;         Decides as follows:   THE FACTS         The applicant is a British national, born in 1949. He is currently detained in Agias prison in Canea, Greece. In the proceedings before the Commission he is represented by Mrs Rozy Spartali-Aretaki, a lawyer practising in Canea.         The facts of the case, as they have been submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows:   A.     Particular circumstances of the case         On 19 August 1994 the applicant, who had been treated for heroin addiction in the United Kingdom, was arrested at Athens airport for drug-related offences. His money was seized.         The applicant claims that the police also seized a quantity of methadone - a medically prescribed substance for heroin addicts in the United Kingdom - he had with him. He also claims that, as he was suffering from withdrawal symptoms, he asked to see a doctor; he was asked to sign a statement first; although he applicant agreed, no medical assistance was given to him. According to the applicant, a police officer acted as an interpreter during his questioning at Athens airport.         The applicant was subsequently transferred to the Central Police Headquarters of Athens in Alexandras avenue where he was detained until 24 August 1994.         The applicant gives the following account of what happened to him there. As he was suffering from withdrawal symptoms, the applicant made repeated requests for medical assistance. However, none was given to him. He was taken before three different judicial officers. He was not legally represented. Although he was assisted by an interpreter, his services were inadequate. As a result of this and his medical condition, he could not follow the proceedings which were very brief. The charges were not notified to him in writing. Following his third appearance before a judicial officer, four days after his arrest, he was taken to a hospital where he was given an injection and a pill. he was returned to the Police Headquarters and fell into deep sleep. At one stage he woke up and realised that his property was being ransacked by two fellow detainees. The next morning he was given another pill.         On 24 August 1994 the applicant was transferred to Koridallos prison and was admitted in the prison's psychiatric unit. In a certificate dated 25 July 1995 a psychiatrist of this unit states that, when the applicant was admitted, he was in a comatose state.         The applicant gives the following account of what happened during his stay in the psychiatric unit. He was held in the segregation unit for several days in a single cell in the beginning and then together with eight to ten other persons. The cells contained nothing but beds. He was given a mattress and two blankets. The meals "were served on the floor". He was given medication which he found excessive. At a certain stage he was taken to the main psychiatric unit. In a letter dated 9 October 1994 the applicant claims that this happened "after he had been examined by a doctor". In a letter dated 5 December 1994 he claims that, while in the segregation unit, he was never examined by a doctor. He spent one night in the main psychiatric unit in a cell with five others. The cell was very noisy because each inmate had his own television set and radio. At this stage he was given back certain clothing items he had with him when he arrived in Koridallos prison. It appears that some other personal property items, including a rechargeable portable shaving razor, were kept by the prison authorities. On at least two occasions -in a letter dated 9 October 1994 and a letter dated 25 August 1996 - the applicant claims that he never signed for these items. In a letter dated 1 December 1995 the applicant makes reference to property kept by the prison authorities for which he had signed and which had been recorded.         On 30 August 1994 the applicant was examined by a doctor who, according to the applicant, spoke English. The applicant claims that he asked for his medication to be reduced and to be discharged from the psychiatric unit. The doctor discharged him, having certified that he was a user of drugs. The applicant was immediately taken to Koridallos prison proper.         The applicant makes the following claims which concern his entire period of detention there from 30 August 1994 until September 1996. The only things that prisoners were provided with were a mattress, two blankets and eating utensils. No pillows, sheets or towels were officially supplied. Prisoners were expected to procure for themselves toilet paper, toothpaste, other "toiletries" and writing paper. Prisoners received two meals per day (in addition to breakfast), except for Sunday when only one mid-day meal was served. There was no information as to the prison rules and routine in English. All notices were in Greek. The only persons who would speak English were a social worker and a doctor. The library, which was in any event destroyed during the riot of November 1995,   had no books on the Greek legal and penitentiary system in English. All requests, including those for medical assistance, had to be submitted in Greek. Whenever he tried to submit a request in writing in English it was ignored. The announcements on the loudspeakers were also made in Greek. Moreover, all vocational and educational training was conducted in Greek. The only manner in which he could study Greek was by listening to one set of language tapes available in the prison library.         It appears that the applicant initially requested to be kept "in a quiet cell". As a result, he was placed in the segregation unit in the "Delta" section of Koridallos prison.         The applicant gives the following description of the conditions of detention in the segregation unit. In his cell there was room for two beds and an asian-type toilet. There was only one window in the ceiling which did not allow any natural light in because the glass was opaque and dirty. However, "a little rainfall" would pass through because the glass was cracked in some places. In summer the cell became "unbearably hot" at midday, when prisoners had to stay in for some hours. In winter the cell was not heated and became very cold. There was electrical light but it was so high up that he could not read. At one stage it was left on all night. The ventilation was inadequate. Exercise could be taken in two adjoining courtyards.         The applicant also claims that, while in the segregation unit, he could not hear the loudspeakers. He was allowed only one telephone call per week between 9:00 and 10:30 on Monday morning. He could not reach "his embassy or lawyer" at the time. It appears that telephone calls could be made also in the evening, but were again often limited to one per day. When he spoke with his embassy, he was informed that no legal aid could be obtained before the trial hearing. He continued consulting a psychiatrist who did not speak English adequately. He was given anti-depressants, sedatives and sleeping pills.         The applicant further claims that he was offered the possibility of leaving the segregation unit but refused because he did not want to be placed in the drug offenders wing, the "Delta" wing.         At a certain stage, the applicant was moved from the segregation unit to the "Alpha" wing. He claims that he continued consulting the psychiatrist. As his condition had improved, he was only given sleeping pills.         As no distinction is in principle made between remand prisoners and convicts in Koridallos prison, the applicant was subjected to the same conditions of detention until his transfer to Tirintha prison in September 1996.         The applicant gives the following account of what happened in the "Alpha wing" after he left the segregation unit:   -      He was detained in cells which were four metres to three metres or five metres to three metres. The cells had "open" "asian-type" toilets and, as a result, he had "no toilet privacy". There was also a sink in each cell. However, there was no hot water. The walls were "very occasionally" freshly painted. In the winter the cells were only heated for a few hours every day. In the summer they became very hot, since there was very little ventilation. However, in a letter dated 25 August 1996 the applicant claims that, during especially hot periods, the doors were left open for some hours at mid-day and for one or two hours in the evening, depending on the number of members of staff present. There were no chairs or wardrobes. Most of the time, he shared a cell with two other persons. Only for a very short period of time, coinciding with the preparation by a social worker of a report dated 30 August 1996, did he share a cell with only one person. One night he had to share the cell with four other persons, although there were only three beds.   -      Food was often served cold "in the most insanitary manner possible". Although food was prepared in the prison's kitchens, there were four additional cookers in each wing where prisoners could cook extra food they bought or received. These cookers were shared by three hundred and fifty persons. Not all four of them were always functioning and, as a result, prisoners had to wait up to an hour in order to use them.   -      There were ten showers in the basement, without curtains. Hot water was available only a few hours a day. Clothes washing and drying facilities did not exist and prisoners have to wash their clothes in the showers. The queues for the showers were very long.   -      The prison buildings were unpainted and damp. There were some areas in the prison where there was no glass in the windows. However, in a letter dated 25 August 1996 the applicant stated that a refurbishing of the prions buildings was underway. No provision was made for activities. There was only one table tennis and some weight lifting equipment in the basement.   -      There were four telephones in each wing for three hundred and fifty persons. Not all four were always functioning. This allowed for one and a half minute telephone communications on average per day per prisoner. He applicant had to wait for up to an hour to use the telephone. Prisoners could only receive visits from family members, two per week for those in detention on remand and one for convicts. These lasted approximately twenty minutes. The prisoners were separated from the visitors by glass panels. He did not have any family in Greece. Visits from friends were authorised by the prison director on a discretionary basis and he was allowed a visit from a friend only once. No home leave was granted to foreign prisoners.   -      There was no possibility of work for remand prisoners.         Further to an order by the investigating judge, the applicant was examined by an expert-psychiatrist. On 5 September 1994 the latter opined that the applicant was not a drug-addict.         On 18 January 1995 the applicant asked Dr P, the psychiatrist of Koridallos prison, for a medical report. On 23 January 1995 Dr P certified that the applicant was receiving psychiatric treatment as from 24 August 1994. On 30 August 1994 he was diagnosed as a user of drugs. As from 9 September 1994 he was being treated for anxiety and depression. The applicant had produced to Dr P a letter by a British psychiatrist to the effect that he was a heroin addict.         The applicant claims that on 27 January 1995 he wrote to the Minister of Justice in English to protest about the situation in Koridallos prison, but has received no reply. He also claims that he raised the issue of his missing property with three different judicial officers who visited Koridallos prison, two from Piraeus and the last one from Athens. None of these officers spoke English adequately. The last request was submitted in writing in Greek, the applicant having been assisted in this connection by a friend. He has received no reply so far.         On 2 March 1995 the organisation "Over 18" certified that the applicant had asked to be admitted to their programmes which he had been following for two months; he was trying seriously to overcome his addiction to drugs.         On 1 June 1995 the psychiatric clinic of Eginitio Hospital issued a certificate to be used in court to the effect that the applicant had reported to them that he was a drug addict and was suffering from withdrawal symptoms. On 25 July 1995 the applicant applied to the psychiatric unit of Koridallos prison for another medical certificate. Such a certificate was issued on the same day and confirmed what Dr P had stated on 23 January 1995.         On 28 July 1995 the applicant was tried at first instance by the three-member Court of Appeal (trimeles efetio) of Athens for drug- related offences. He claims that until then he had not been notified of the charges. He was represented by counsel provided to him by the representative of a drug-addiction therapy programme. Since he did not speak Greek, he was assisted by an interpreter. The court, having read the expert opinion of 5 September 1994 and some of the above-mentioned medical certificates, considered that he was a drug addict; as such he had repeatedly engaged in drug-trafficking, something which had become a professional activity, and had to be found guilty. However, the applicant, being a drug-addict, could not be found guilty of possession of drugs. The court sentenced the applicant to thirteen years' imprisonment and a fine of 5,000,000 drachmas. However, it ordered that he should recover the money which had been seized from him at the time of his arrest. The applicant claims that he was never served with any of the court documents in English.         The applicant appealed and a hearing was fixed for 3 November 1997. After his conviction the applicant was allowed to work as a cleaner on an unremunerated basis.         In November 1995 there was a riot in Koridallos prison in the course of which some property items which the applicant had surrendered on his admission were destroyed. The prison library was also destroyed.         The applicant claims that some time before January 1996 he applied for release into a drug-addiction therapy unit but his application was refused. He claims that at that time all therapy groups had been cancelled; only pills were given. It appears, however, that by August 1996 group therapy had resumed.         On 30 August 1996 a social worker reported to the director of Koridallos prison that there could be no connection between the delay in the examination of the applicant's appeal and his application to the Commission. She also stated that the money which had been seized from the applicant would be returned to him after the examination of his appeal; the applicant had been informed accordingly. According to the social worker, the applicant, after his conviction, shared the cell with only one convict. Letters sent by the applicant were not opened. Letters sent to the applicant by the European Commission of Human Rights were opened by a prison officer in front of the applicant. Foreigners who did not speak Greek could not participate in the vocational training courses organised in Koridallos prison. A programme for learning Greek used to be available in the prison library but was destroyed during the riots. However, it was the intention of the social office to replace it in due course. According to the Penitentiary Code, remand prisoners did not have the right to work. However, the applicant, after his conviction, started working as a cleaner. Almost immediately after his arrival in Koridallos prison the applicant started being treated by Dr P, a psychiatrist. He continued to participate in the awareness and self-help therapeutical programmes for foreign prisoners of two organisations, "Drug-Addicts Anonymous" and "Over 18". He was also being taken care of on an individual basis by a psychologist-member of "Drug-Addicts Anonymous". Finally, since his arrival in Koridallos prison, the applicant's case was being followed by the prison's social service. The personal property items the applicant had surrendered upon his arrival in Koridallos prison had been stored in a specially designated place but were destroyed by other inmates during the riot of November 1995. It was true that no distinctions were made between remand prisoners and convicts. The applicant did not have the free assistance of an interpreter when he appeared before the investigating judge after his arrest. However, the social service of the prison had arranged for the applicant to have the free assistance of a lawyer and an interpreter when he appeared before the first instance court. First instance court decisions were not notified to the prisoners concerned. However, the applicant could have asked the social service of the prison for a copy. The social service would have then contacted a charitable organisation. It could have also arranged for its translation by the competent service of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs at the expense of a charitable organisation.         In September 1996 the applicant was transferred from Koridallos to Tirintha prison. According to a letter by the director of Tirintha prion dated 20 November 1996, this was done "to ensure better conditions of detention for the applicant". From Tirintha prison the applicant was transferred at his request to Agias prison.         The outcome of the applicant's appeal is not known.     B.     Relevant domestic law and practice         Article 74 of the Code of Criminal Procedure provides as follows:         "Petitions and statements by detained accused persons are       submitted in writing and are handed over to the director of the       prison where the accused is detained; a report is drafted; then       they are registered in a special book and are transmitted to the       competent authority immediately ..."         Article 5 of the Penitentiary Code provides as follows:         "2.   Whenever a member of staff commits an illegal act against       a prisoner or violates his/her rights, the prisoner has the right       to complain in writing and without delay to the superior       penitentiary authority and, subsequently, to the court which       supervises the execution of the sentence.         3.    The prison director must transmit any petition or letter       addressed by a prisoner to a public authority without delay and       without being informed of its content ..."         Article 121 para. 1 of the Penitentiary Code provides that the duties of the judge which supervises the execution of the sentence are provisionally discharged by the public prosecutor of the first instance criminal court (isangeleas plimmeliodikon) of the place of detention, while the duties of the court which supervises the execution of the sentence are provisionally discharged by the first instance criminal court (plimmeliodikio) of the place of detention sitting in camera.         The Government have submitted copies of the following documents:   -      a decision by a public prosecutor not to institute criminal       proceedings against prison officers for causing bodily harm to       a foreign inmate; the criminal complaint which the prisoner in       question had lodged in Greek;   -      two letters by Patras prison transmitting to the public       prosecutor criminal complaints lodged by two inmates against the       director of the prison, a social worker and another member of       staff;   -      a letter by the Ministry of Justice asking the public prosecutor       of the Court of Appeal of Piraeus to inquire into complaints of       anonymous prisoners in Koridallos - which concerned the duties       assigned to some inmates - and to report back as soon as       possible; a letter by the public prosecutor of the first instance       criminal court of Piraeus informing the public prosecutor of the       Court of Appeal of Piraeus that no further action was to be taken       on the complaint ; a letter by the public prosecutor of the Court       of Appeal of Piraeus informing the Ministry of Justice of the       same;   -      a letter by the Ministry of Justice asking a public prosecutor       to inquire into a complaint an inmate had lodged with the       Ministry about corruption by the director and a social worker of       a prison hospital; a letter by the public prosecutor transmitting       to the Ministry of Justice her decision that no further action       should be taken;   -      a letter by the Ministry of Justice transmitting to a public       prosecutor a letter by an inmate who claimed to have information       concerning terrorist organisations; a letter by the public       prosecutor to the Ministry of Justice to the effect that he had       questioned the inmate in question who had only very vague       information to provide and was probably seeking to be transferred       to a prison in Athens;   -      a letter by the Ministry of Justice to Koridallos and Patras       prisons transmitting an inmate's complaint about his transfer       from the first prison to the second;   -      a letter by the Ministry of Justice asking a public prosecutor       to discuss with a prisoner a matter he had raised in a letter       addressed to the Ministry; a letter by the public prosecutor       informing the Ministry of Justice that he had met the prisoner       in question who wanted to discuss the merits of a criminal case       against him and that he had advised him to submit his arguments       to the competent criminal court; he had also advised him that he       did not have the right to install a telephone in prison at his       own expense;   -      a letter by the Ministry of Justice asking the public prosecutor       of Piraeus to inquire into two prisoners' complaints about the       staff of the psychiatric wing of Koridallos prison; a letter by       the public prosecutor informing the Ministry that he had met the       prisoners who did not want, however, to name the persons       concerned;   -      a letter by the Ministry of Justice asking a public prosecutor       to meet a foreign prisoner who had complained in Greek about       procedural irregularities at his trial; a letter by the public       prosecutor to the Ministry to the effect that he had met the       prisoner in question and had informed him of his right of appeal;   -      a letter by the Ministry of Justice asking a public prosecutor       to meet a prisoner; a letter by the prison transmitting a letter       by the prisoner in question to the Ministry of Justice;   a letter       by the prosecutor informing the Ministry of Justice that he had       met the prisoner in question and another prisoner and had       discussed with them the question of the date of their trial;   -      a letter by the Ministry of Justice asking the public prosecutor       of Amfissa to inquire into a complaint submitted by a prisoner       in Larissa that the   authorities of Amfissa prison would not       allow him to talk on the phone with his brother who was detained       in Amfissa; a letter by the public prosecutor informing the       Ministry of Justice that the complaints were unsubstantiated;   -      a letter by the Ministry of Justice asking the public prosecutor       for an inquiry into complaints by an inmate that he had been set       up, being falsely accused of drug-trafficking in prison; a letter       by the public prosecutor informing the Ministry of Justice that       the allegations were unsubstantiated; the public prosecutor's       decision not to take further action;   -      a letter by the Ministry of Justice asking a public prosecutor       for an inquiry into allegations that an inmate was not being       given work; a letter by the prosecutor to the effect that the       applicant was being given work whenever such work was available       and whenever it was his turn;   -      a letter by the Ministry of Justice asking a public prosecutor       to inquire into complaints contained in a letter by a prisoner       in Koridallos about access to the telephone; a letter by       Koridallos prison transmitting the above-mentioned letter to the       Ministry with comments on the substance of the inmate's       complaints; a letter by the public prosecutor informing the       Ministry of Justice that he had visited the prison, heard the       applicant's complaints, given the necessary instructions to the       prison authorities for the problem to be resolved and decided not       to take further action;   -      a letter by the Ministry of Justice asking a public prosecutor       to inquire into a complaint by a foreign prisoner in Greek about       threats by prison officers;   -      a letter by the Ministry of Justice dated 23 March 1994 asking       the public prosecutor of Amfissa to inquire into complaints by       prisoners held in the Amfissa prisoners' hospital. The complaints       concerned overcrowding, the state of disrepair of the rooms, the       lack of central heating and colour television, the quality of the       food and water, the unavailability of medical care and the       limited access to the telephone; a letter by the prosecutor dated       21 April 1994 informing the Ministry that extra funds had been       requested from the Ministry for the refurbishment of the rooms,       that the staff were not in any manner responsible through their       intended actions or negligence for the excessive number of       prisoners per room, that the food, heating, medical care and       access to telephone were adequate, that the water was the same       as that used by the rest of the population of Amfissa, that the       Ministry had not provided any colour televisions and that the       prisoners were, in any event, allowed to use their own;   -      a letter by the Ministry of Justice asking the public prosecutor       to inquire into the unspecified complaints of a prisoner and the       prosecutor's answer that a case-file had been opened in this       connection by an inquiring magistrate;   -      a letter by the Ministry of Justice transmitting a prisoner's       letter to a public prosecutor for information and for any action       which might be appropriate; a letter by the prison authorities       transmitting the above-mentioned prisoner's letter to the       Ministry unopened; the letter in question by which the prisoner       complained about extensive corruption in the prison and informed       the Minister of an impending uprising.         Article 105 of the law introducing the Civil Code provides for the award of compensation to persons who sustain losses as a result of something done or omitted by an organ of the state in the exercise of the powers invested in it, except where the legal rule which has been breached serves to protect the general interest.         Article 101 para. 3 of the Code of Criminal Procedure provides that the investigating judge is under an obligation to appoint legal counsel ex officio, if such a request is expressly submitted by the accused.   COMPLAINTS   1.     The applicant complains of the conditions of his detention in Koridallos prison. He invokes Article 3 of the Convention. He also invokes Article 6 para. 2 of the Convention in that, whilst in detention on remand, he had been subjected to the same regime as convicts.   2.     The applicant complains under Article 6 of the Convention of the length of the proceedings against him. He also complains, invoking the same provision, that he had to arrange himself through the drug-therapy group for an interpreter at first instance and that, being currently unrepresented, he cannot obtain a copy of the first instance decision and does not have access to the case-file for the preparation of his appeal. In addition, he claims that he was discriminated against by the first instance court in the following manner. Although national law provides for lower sentences in the cases of drug-addicts, the domestic court refused to apply the relevant provision because the applicant was certified as a drug-addict by a United Kingdom, as opposed to a Greek, authority. In his observations of 4 August 1997 the applicant also complained under Article 6 para. 3 (b) and (c) of the Convention that he did not have a lawyer at the pre-trial stage.   3.     The applicant further complains that, although he is a drug- addict, he does not receive adequate medical treatment. He does not invoke any provisions of the Convention in this connection.   4.     The applicant complains under Article 8 of the Convention that letters sent by the Commission's Secretariat are being opened by the prison administration not always in front of him. Some letters, including letters that have been mailed for him from outside the prison, have been lost.   5.     The applicant complains under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 that the money which was confiscated during his arrest has not been returned to him in breach of the order of the first instance criminal court and that the property which he surrendered when being admitted in Koridallos prison was destroyed during the riots.   6.     The applicant complains that he is hindered in the effective exercise of his right of petition, in breach of the last sentence of Article 25 para. 1 of the Convention. He claims that the delays in the hearing of his appeal are the result of the application he has lodged with the Commission.     PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE COMMISSION         The application was introduced on 9 October 1994 and registered on 12 September 1995.         On 27 June 1996 the Commission (Second Chamber) decided to communicate the application to the respondent Government.         The Government's written observations were submitted on 27 November 1996, after an extension of the time-limit fixed for that purpose. The applicant replied on 4 August 1997.         On 16 September 1997 the First Chamber of the Commission, to which the case was transferred, decided to request supplementary observations.         The Government's written observations were submitted on 8 October 1997. The applicant replied on 10 February 1998, after an extension of the time-limit fixed for that purpose.         On 21 January 1997 the Commission (First Chamber) granted the applicant legal aid.     THE LAW   1.     The applicant complains under Article 3 (Art. 3) of the Convention of the conditions of his detention in Koridallos prison. He also complains under Article 6 para. 2 (Art. 6-2) of the Convention that, whilst in detention on remand, he had been subjected to the same regime as convicts.         Article 3 (Art. 3) of the Convention provides as follows:         "No one shall be subjected to torture or to inhuman or degrading       treatment or punishment."         Article 6 para. 2 (Art. 6-2) of the Convention provides as follows:         "Everyone charged with a criminal offence shall be presumed       innocent until proved guilty according to law."         The Government argue that the applicant has not exhausted domestic remedies. They submit that he should have used the possibilities for complaining under Article 5 of the Penitentiary Code by addressing himself to the public prosecutor of the first instance criminal court (isangeleas plimmeliodikon) of Athens. If he had not obtained redress, he could have challenged the decision of the prosecutor before the local first instance criminal court which would have examined the case in camera (simvulio plimmeliodikon).         The Government stress that prisons, including Koridallos prison, are regularly visited by prosecutors. They have submitted extracts from the prosecutors' duty roll to support their contention. The Government also submit that prisoners in Greece are free to correspond with all judicial and political authorities. They have submitted in this connection copies of a number of complaints addressed by prisoners to the Ministry of Justice. The Government contend that these complaints were lodged under Article 5 of the Penitentiary Code. They have also submitted copies of complaints addressed to other authorities. The Government state that prisoners' complaints are examined by prosecutors who are independent judicial officers and who have the right to institute criminal proceedings.         The Government further submit that national law contains a number of criminal and civil law provisions which protect the dignity, physical integrity and personality of all citizens. Whenever an agent of the State illegally violates a person's right, he or she is punished, usually by a disciplinary penalty, and the State pays compensation.         According to the Government, there was nothing preventing the applicant from lodging a complaint in English. In any event, he could have asked for the assistance of his embassy or of one of the charitable organisations with which he was in contact. Similarly he could have inquired about his rights.         However, the Government stress that the above-mentioned remedies concern illegal acts committed against prisoners by prison staff, i.e. violations of criminal or disciplinary provisions. They do not concern the lack of "luxurious life conditions in prison" or more general complaints relating to the administration, maintenance or enlargement of prisons. Complaints concerning the improvement of life conditions in prisons are examined by the Ministry of Justice on the basis of "more general administrative and political considerations".         In any event, the Government submit that the complaints are manifestly ill-founded. The conditions in Koridallos prison are in general normal and human. Human dignity is respected and the special needs of the applicant were catered for. The European Committee for the Prevention of Torture has found the conditions in the segregation unit of Koridallos prison acceptable. Following his conviction, the applicant shared a cell with only one other inmate and worked. Moreover, the Government question the applicant's creditworthiness. They refer in this connection to the fact that the applicant never raised his complaints with the domestic authorities. However, in the Government's view, "this is not the only indication" that the applicant is untrustworthy. No further details are provided.         The applicant submits that a complaint under Article 5 of the Penitentiary Code is not an effective remedy. The law does not specify the competence of the organs mentioned in that provision, the procedure they should follow, the nature of the decisions they may adopt and the kind of reparation they can afford. In any event, the applicant does not complain of "illegal acts or violations of his rights" as these concepts are understood in Greek law.         Moreover, the applicant argues that, even assuming that this was an effective remedy, he did not have access to it. He was never informed of his rights, something which was in any event impossible since he could not communicate with the prison staff due to linguistic problems. Since his money had been confiscated he could not engage the services of a lawyer and there is no possibility of obtaining legal aid for complaining about prison conditions. Complaints lodged in English were not answered by the authorities. This is evidenced by the fate of the letter the applicant sent to the Ministry of Justice on 27 January 1995. All the complaints produced by the Government before the Commission, including those by foreign prisoners, are in Greek. The applicant could not ask another person to draft a complaint for him. This would have resulted in the prison's staff's having knowledge of the complaint and might have entailed adverse consequences for the applicant.         The applicant points out that very few of the letters of complaint produced as evidence by the Government emanate from Koridallos prison, which moreover is not regularly visited by prosecutors. In any event, the Government have not produced evidence of any complaints which had positive results for the complainants.         As regards the substance of the complaints the applicant submits that subjecting remand prisoners to the same regime as convicts is in breach of national law and Recommendation No. R(87)3 of the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe. He also stresses the lack of any possibility of communication with the prison staff due to linguistic problems, the impossibility of submitting any requests in a language other than Greek and the absence of any information concerning life in prison in English. Finally, he submits that the conditions in Koridallos prison are degrading since prisoners cannot keep clean and warm, have very limited contact with the outside world due to the scarcity of telephones and lack entertainment and physical exercise.         The Commission must first examine the Government's contention that the applicant has not exhausted domestic remedies. The Commission recalls in this connection that, according to the Court's case-law, it is incumbent on the Government claiming non-exhaustion to satisfy the Convention organs that the remedy was an effective one available in theory and in practice at the relevant time, that is to say, that it was accessible, was one which was capable of providing redress in respect of the applicant's complaints and offered reasonable prospects of success. However, once this burden of proof has been satisfied it falls to the applicant to establish that the remedy advanced by the Government was in fact exhausted or was for some reason inadequate and ineffective in the particular circumstances of the case or that there existed special circumstances absolving him or her from the requirement (Eur. Court HR, Mentes and others v. Turkey judgment of 28 November 1997, to be published in Reports 1997, para. 57).         The Commission will first consider whether the applicant should have lodged a complaint under Article 5 of the Penitentiary Code. The Commission notes that complaints under this provision must be first addressed to the superior penitentiary authority. The Government submit that, in the circumstances of the case, this would be the local public prosecutor. The applicant, however, argues that a complaint under Article 5 of the Penitentiary Code cannot be considered to be an effective remedy because, inter alia, the law does not specify the nature of the decisions that can be adopted under this provision and the kind of reparation that can be afforded. The Commission has examined the evidence produced by the Government concerning the practice under Article 5 of the Penitentiary Code. The Commission considers that the Government have not submitted anything which could establish that the prosecutor's powers in this connection extend beyond the institution of criminal proceedings in cases where criminal law has been breached.         In any event, the Commission notes that the Government accept that the procedure under Article 5 of the Penitentiary Code, which concerns "illegal acts or violations of a prisoner's rights", would not provide a remedy in respect of complaints relating to the general administration or facilities in a prison. This view is confirmed by the manner in which the prosecutor reacted in the only case invoked by the Government which concerned complaints about the general conditions of detention, namely the case of the Amfissa prisoners' hospital in respect of which the Ministry of Justice requested an inquiry on 23 March 1994. However, what the applicant complains about in the present case is precisely the general conditions in Koridallos prison. The Commission, therefore, considers that complaining to the Public Prosecutor under Article 5 of the Penitentiary Code was not, in the circumstances of the case, a remedy which was capable of providing redress in respect of the applicant's above-mentioned complaints. It follows that this was not a remedy which had to be exhausted.         The Commission considers that the same holds true in respect of a complaint under the same provision to the Ministry of Justice since, as the Government accept, such a complaint would have been examined on the basis of more general administrative and political