CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITY;ENG — 4 décembre 2003

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s523616E0 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; font-size:14pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s5BA5B7C7 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; font-size:14pt } .s662121A1 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .sB8987CE9 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .sB9D5CABB { width:28.35pt; display:inline-block } .s61ED8A2B { width:14.36pt; display:inline-block } .s61E420C2 { font-family:Arial; font-variant:small-caps } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s84D0D60A { width:8.36pt; display:inline-block } .s84582066 { width:4.99pt; display:inline-block } .s859E34A4 { width:11.02pt; display:inline-block } .s9793A85B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .s1E56514F { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; font-size:14pt } .s58B8AE49 { clear:both; mso-column-break-before:always } .s147369FC { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .sDEA336FF { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:29.2pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17.6pt } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sE8EB5753 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .s8AD34D0 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:20.15pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:8.8pt; font-size:10pt } .s451A1BF5 { margin-top:6pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .s6BBACBD8 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:20.15pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:8.8pt; font-size:10pt } .sEEE3CE35 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:20.15pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:8.8pt; font-size:10pt } .s160BBE39 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:20.15pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:8.8pt; font-size:10pt } .s9671CAED { margin-top:6pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s901C2590 { width:56.7pt; display:inline-block } .s604022B8 { width:8.21pt; display:inline-block } .s5E15F1C8 { width:0.33pt; display:inline-block } .s6A2D01E8 { width:6.24pt; display:inline-block } .s1D4BDF5D { width:37.58pt; display:inline-block } .s9E013676 { width:0.32pt; display:inline-block } .sE440377D { width:26.24pt; display:inline-block } .s7486CA7E { width:0.34pt; display:inline-block } .s39A7D870 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s37CDBE05 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s5749FA4E { width:31.55pt; display:inline-block } .s1B6A592B { width:47.03pt; display:inline-block } .sE23B8C04 { width:53.28pt; display:inline-block } .sF89967D6 { width:33.95pt; display:inline-block } .s936EB0A2 { width:17.01pt; display:inline-block } .sA839E164 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:20.15pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:8.8pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .sF0B473AD { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:20.15pt; margin-bottom:24pt; text-indent:8.8pt; font-size:10pt } .s9CF13DC7 { margin-top:24pt; margin-left:29.2pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17.6pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s4B243ECC { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sE0459D3D { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:14.2pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s80B288F6 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:56.7pt; margin-bottom:12pt; font-size:10pt } .s47E2B0C6 { margin-top:6pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sF200DB55 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:49.65pt; margin-bottom:12pt; font-size:10pt } .sDFC5B1C5 { margin-top:6pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sCACA8EA8 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:20.15pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:8.8pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .sB853CD26 { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt } .sB853CD33 { font-family:Arial; font-size:7pt } .s72A1204C { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:20.15pt; margin-bottom:42pt; text-indent:8.8pt; font-size:10pt } .s292CCFD { margin-top:42pt; margin-bottom:12pt; font-size:14pt } .s145CCEB3 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:36pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .s731EBF6B { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:24pt; font-size:14pt } .sAC135DF5 { margin-top:24pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:14.4pt } .s527A9694 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:20.15pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-indent:8.8pt; font-size:10pt } .sA76511A4 { margin-top:18pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.4pt } .s377C1984 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .sA918FEC8 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.4pt } .sBED5F98F { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:36pt } .sA5C4F8A9 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s89431896 { width:230.36pt; display:inline-block } .sE0439A5A { width:232.02pt; display:inline-block } FIRST SECTION DECISION AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF Application no. 69332/01 by Peter ROHDE against Denmark The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting on 4   December 2003 as a Chamber composed of:   Mr   C.L. Rozakis , President ,   Mr   P. Lorenzen ,   Mr   G. Bonello ,   Mrs   N. Vajić ,   Mr   E. Levits ,   Mrs   S. Botoucharova ,   Mr   A. Kovler, judges , and   Mr   E . Fribergh , Section Registrar , Having regard to the above application lodged on 19 February 2001, Having regard to the observations submitted by the respondent Government and the observations in reply submitted by the applicant, Having deliberated, decides as follows: THE FACTS The applicant, Mr Peter Rohde, is a Danish national, who was born in 1965. His domicile is unknown. He is represented before the Court by Ms   Merethe Stagetorn, a lawyer practising in Copenhagen. The Government were represented by their Agent, Mr Hans Klingenberg of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, and their Co-Agent, Ms Nina Holst ‑ Christensen of the Ministry of Justice. A.     The circumstances of the case On 25   October 1994 a warehouseman found 5.684 kg of cocaine hidden in a consignment of green papaya fruits from Brazil, ordered by the applicant.      The discovery was reported to the police, which on the same day interviewed the applicant. He denied having any knowledge of the cocaine and explained that he had ordered the fruits because he contemplated to develop a health product made from the seeds. On 13   December 1994 at Copenhagen Airport when the applicant set about to emigrate to England he was arrested and charged with drug trafficking. On 14 December 1994 the City Court in Copenhagen ( Københavns Byret) decided with reference to Section 762, Subsection 1 (iii) and Section 770a of the Administration of Justice Act (Retsplejeloven) that the applicant be detained on remand and in solitary confinement. The time limit was fixed at 28 December 1994 with regard to the solitary confinement and at 10 January 1995 as concerns the pre-trial detention. The City Court referred notably to the facts that a person, PL, whom the applicant had known as one of his acquaintances for just under six months had been arrested in the same case, that PL had picked up a load of papaya fruits shortly after the applicant’s consignment of papaya fruits had been delivered to the applicant, that co ‑ offenders were assumed still to be at large, that further investigation was required in the case, and that the applicant had taken up residence in London after the commencement of the case. On appeal to the High Court of Eastern Denmark, the decision was upheld on 17 December 1994 on the grounds stated by the City Court. During a police interview on 21 December 1994 the applicant stated that in October 1994 he had been contacted by a Brazilian papaya fruit farmer, called RS, in search of a business partner in Denmark. RS had found the applicant via a friend, RB, whom the applicant knew from the USA. Accordingly, the applicant had contacted PL in order to obtain his assistance with the import.     On 28 December 1994 the City Court extended the solitary confinement until 10 January 1995. It appears from the court record that the applicant’s counsel had confirmed in writing that the applicant had consented to this extension without appearing in court. The detention on remand in solitary confinement was prolonged by the City Court on 10 January 1995, upheld on appeal on 16   January 1995 by the High Court, which found among other things that no reasonable explanation of the applicant’s import of papaya fruits had been brought to light, and that the applicant’s import of the fruits seemed to constitute the link between PL and the cocaine.     The applicant’s pre-trial detention in solitary confinement was prolonged anew by the City Court on 7   February and 7   March   1995. The applicant appealed against the latter decision to the High Court, and submitted in this connection his diary, which contained notes as to RS and RB on the dates 11 and 14 October 1994. The applicant explained that RS and RB had been supposed to come to Denmark on 14   October 1994, but that they had never showed up. On 24   March   1995 the High Court confirmed the City Court’s decision of 7 March 1995 on the following grounds: “...Despite the new information on [the applicant’s] diary book notes, his import of papaya fruits is still found to constitute the link between [PL], also charged, and the discovery of the cocaine. This is supported by the telephone call made by [the applicant] on 24 October 1994 [to PL]. Therefore, the reasons for continued detention on remand under Section 762, Subsection 1 (i) and (iii), and for continued solitary confinement are still justified as stated in the City Court order of 7 March 1995.” The pre-trial detention in solitary confinement was further extended as follows; by the City Court on 4 April 1995, upheld on appeal by the High Court on 20   April 1995; by the City Court on 25 April 1995, upheld on appeal by the High Court on 11 May 1995; by the City Court on 30   May   1995; on 27   June; 7 July; 25 July; 22 August; 19 September; 3   October; 17   October; and 31 October 1995, the latter upheld on appeal by the High Court on 2   November 1995. At a court hearing before the City Court on 28 November 1995 the applicant confirmed an explanation, he had given to the police at an interview on 26   September 1995, namely that he and PL had planned to smuggle diamonds in the papaya fruits. After the papaya fruits had been delivered on 24 October 1994, PL had informed the applicant that the diamonds had well arrived and that PL had sold them with a profit amounting to 500,000   Danish kroner (DKK). When the applicant had been confronted by the police and the press with the discovery of the cocaine, he had panicked and decided to emigrate to England. Also, the applicant admitted that his previous explanation about RS and RB, and the notes in his diary had been construed, and made up by him and PL before their arrest as a “cover story”. The City Court thereafter lifted the solitary confinement. Nevertheless, the applicant remained voluntarily in solitary confinement until 12   December 1995. During the period when the applicant was detained in solitary confinement he was placed in the Western Prison (Vestre Fængsel). The cells there have an area of about eight square metres. They are furnished with a bed, a table, a chair, a lamp, a bookcase, a cupboard, a radio, a   refrigerator/ freezing compartment, a duvet, a pillow, a mirror, a sink, bed linen, a tea-towel and a towel. Persons detained on remand in solitary confinement in the Western Prison can use a fitness room, borrow various games, borrow books once a week, occupy themselves with hobby activities, buy goods in the shop, including newspapers, and receive tuition, including school tuition. Also, a television is available, which includes access to the local text TV of the prison. Persons detained in solitary confinement have access to two daily exercise periods (morning and afternoon), each lasting half an hour. It is up to the detainee himself to decide whether to make use of the outdoor exercise option. During the period from 14 December 1994 until 28 November 1995 the applicant, like other detainees in solitary confinement, regularly received visits by doctors and nurses. In the applicant’s case, he was attended to twenty-seven times by a prison doctor, and forty-three times by a nurse. Also, during this period, twelve times he had contact with a welfare worker (social worker). The applicant had daily contact with the prison staff when food was dispensed, at outdoor exercise etc., and the applicant’s counsel was a frequent visitor. Furthermore, the applicant could write to and receive visits from family, although under surveillance. After the solitary confinement had been lifted on 28 November 1995, the applicant’s detention on remand was prolonged several times by the courts until 14   May 1996, when the High Court sitting with a jury acquitted the applicant of the drug offences. However, in keeping with the applicant’s confession he was convicted of aggravated tax fraud and sentenced to 8   months’ imprisonment and an additional fine of DKK 875,000 (or in the alternative 60 days’ imprisonment). By a City Court judgment of 21 June 1996, a co-accused, MP, who in the meantime had been extradited from the USA, and PL were convicted of the cocaine smuggling. Subsequently, on 12 July 1996, the applicant claimed compensation for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage pursuant to Section 1018a of the Administration of Justice Act for having been detained from 14   December   1994 until 14 May 1996. The total claim for compensation amounted to more than DKK 19 million, thereof DKK 10 million for injury to his feelings and reputation. In support of the latter counsel referred to the unusually long unjustified pre-trial detention, the massive press attention given to the case, and to the fact that the applicant was a known person and that the case therefore had been unusually and extraordinarily insulting to him. The prosecution first considered the claim, where upon in June   1997 it was brought before the City Court. In a letter of 10 July 1997 counsel stated that she also wished to invoke Article 3 of the Convention and for this purpose she requested that a report be procured from the Legal ‑ Psychiatric Clinic ( Retspsykiatrisk Klinik) concerning the applicant’s mental state of health during and after his detention on remand. On 18   September 1997 the City Court complied with his request, and the report was submitted on 19   January 1998 stating, inter alia : “The subject is a now 32-year-old male, who had never exhibited any signs of a mental disorder until just over three years ago. From his early youth and until 1992 he was a successful competition swimmer. As from 1990 he was self-employed in a business which he ran successfully until his arrest in December 1994. Until his arrest he seems always to have functioned well. He has never abused any drugs or alcohol.   During this examination he was found of normal to good intelligence. There is no basis for assuming that he suffers from epilepsy or any other organic brain disease. [The applicant] states having delusions of persecution and that he suffers from megalomania, and he appears distrustful and on guard. His perception of reality is lacking to such an extent that he can be characterised as psychotic. A final clarification of his illness cannot be made, but most likely he suffers from a paranoid psychosis. Since his release, probably due to his psychotic condition, the [applicant’s] way of living has been affected by a considerable and vagrant travel activity, which to some degree has been characterised by a lacking capability to maintain human contacts, to make bond or to root himself in localities.    On the basis of the information available it must be assumed that [the applicant’s] mental suffering coincided with the period when he was detained on remand in solitary confinement. Moreover, taking into account [the applicant’s] distinct personality and mental vulnerability, it is probable that the out-break and the progress of [his] illness are causally linked to the fact that he was solitary confined during a longer period”. In addition, statements of 30   March   and 4   May 1998 from the Medico ‑ Legal Council ( Retslægerådet ) were submitted before the City Court. In the former it was stated inter alia : “... the Medico-Legal Council states that until about three years ago [the applicant] did not seem to exhibit any signs of a mental disorder or personality disorder. He is of good intelligence. During his prolonged pre-trial detention and solitary confinement in the period from December 1994 until May 1996, he developed a psychosis, characterised particularly by failing perception of reality and grandeur. It is difficult to fix the exact time when the psychosis developed during the pre-trial detention. At a psychiatric visit on 18   January 1995 no psychosis-like symptoms were found, but a “situational reaction” and a hunger strike. During the forensic psychiatric examination - completed in January   1998 - he was found both by clinical psychiatric testing and by psychological testing to be psychotic, probably suffering from a paranoid psychosis (mental disorder with delusions).     In the Medico-Legal Council’s view it is very difficult to establish [the exact cause for the applicant’s mental illness], but it is reasonable to assume that the considerable and long lasting mental strain which the case involved, presumably in conjunction with a distinct personality characterised by sensitivity and vulnerability significantly influenced the progress of the mental illness. The solitary confinement was a particular and severe mental strain, but also other circumstances like the charge and the subsequent indictment may have contributed to the progress of the applicant’s mental disorder.” In the latter the Medico ‑ Legal Council supplemented: “ ... The Council finds it substantiated that the main diagnosis is paranoid schizophrenic and not a post traumatic stress reaction, as the condition is a psychosis-like condition. But heavy mental strain is one of the prerequisites both for development of [the applicant’s] psychosis and for the development of a post-traumatic stress reaction, and in addition to the psychotic symptoms [the applicant] exhibits symptoms which are characteristic of a post-traumatic stress reaction (irritability, concentration difficulties, sleeping difficulties, nightmares, depressive tendencies with suicidal thoughts). ... the Council cannot assess or make any statement as to whether the mental disorder is permanent.”   Moreover, an assessment of 3   August 1998 by the National Board of Industrial Injuries ( Arbejdsskadestyrelsen ) was submitted as to the applicant’s degree of disablement and loss of working capacity as a result of his mental illness. The Board estimated that the degree of the applicant’s disablement amounted to approximately 30   % and that he had lost 1/3 of his working capacity. From the prison medical journals submitted it appeared that the applicant from 13   December 1994, the day of his arrest, until 14 December 1994 12.30 p.m. was placed in an observation cell as he had expressed contemplation of suicide. During this period he was observed thirty-six times by the prison staff. In January 1995 the applicant went on hunger strike for several days, during which a nurse and a doctor monitored him, and on 18   January 1995 a psychiatric assessment was made, which concluded: “Visit to a thirty-year-old male, charged with Article 191[of the Penal Code ( straffeloven )], of which, according to himself, he is innocent. He is now carrying out a hunger strike, as a protest against his conception that the press and others have convicted him in advance, and he is fully aware of the consequences of such an act and is at present writing farewell letters, his will, etc. Diagnosis: situational reaction.” During the applicant’s detention on remand in solitary confinement from 13 December 1994 until 28 November 1995 medical inspections were carried out forty-three times by a nurse and twenty-seven times by a doctor. During the proceedings before the City Court the applicant raised his claim for compensation to DKK   22,556,334. Having heard the applicant and 15 witnesses, by judgment of 1   October   1998 the City Court granted the applicant compensation in the amount of DKK 790,475 and stated inter alia: “... Having regard to the findings on the evidence in the High Court’s verdict of 14   May 1996, and to the evidence produced during these proceedings, the court finds it established that an agreement had been concluded between PL and MP on the smuggling of cocaine from Brazil to Denmark so that the cocaine was to be hidden in a consignment of papaya fruits. Accordingly, in Brazil MP placed the cocaine in a pallet with green papaya fruits to be imported by the firm..., from which [the applicant] had ordered the fruits. However, PL had tricked [the applicant] into establishing ... a health firm, and ordering the papaya fruits via this firm by stating that the import of green papaya fruits was to cover smuggling of diamonds, although to PL cocaine was involved. After the arrival [of the papaya fruits] complications arose whereby the smuggled cocaine was discovered. [The applicant] had taken initiatives as to the potential commercial exploitation of green papaya fruits for health products, etc. The court finds that [the applicant] has exhibited considerable contributory negligence by embarking on an agreement with PL on the smuggling of diamonds from Brazil. He knew that PL was trained gemmologist, but their acquaintance was of recent date and his efforts to ensure that PL’s criminal intention was limited to diamond smuggling were poor. PL’s statement to the effect that at some time he briefly remarked to [the applicant] that he had previously tried to smuggle cocaine is contested by [the applicant] and no decisive weight has been attached to it in this assessment of the evidence. ...On the evidence [before it] the court finds that [the applicant] started establishing [the health firm] to be in charge of the import of papaya fruits etc. after having agreed with PL to assist in smuggling diamonds from Brazil hidden in consignments of papaya fruits. According to the evidence it cannot be excluded that [the applicant] also intended to obtain a commercial profit from [the health firm]. However, having regard to the applicant’s knowledge of the discovery of the cocaine and to the police interviews in general, the courts finds that [the applicant] should have realised that the investigation theory of the police was that [his established health firm] was only a cover for the import of cocaine, and that any profit from the sale of health products made from papaya fruits was quite immaterial. Furthermore, the court notes that [the applicant’s] rather experimental/impulsive way of starting up his firm was suited to strengthen this assumption by the police, and that the applicant should have realised this.       After the police had found the cocaine and after the press publicity on 26   October   1994, but before his own arrest, [the applicant] chose together with PL to agree on a false statement about the background of his import of papaya fruits, ...[the story about RS and RB] supported by construed diary notes. [The applicant] maintains that he asked PL repeatedly at this stage whether PL had anything to do with the cocaine. Despite PL’s denials [the applicant] should have suspected serious mischief at least at this stage. [The applicant] was arrested on 13 December 1994. He did not change his statement until 26 September 1995, when during an interview [with the police] he told about the planned diamond smuggling. This statement was repeated at the hearings before the court on 28 and 30 November 1995 and then maintained. The solitary confinement was terminated at the court hearing on 28 November 1995. ... accordingly, the court finds that [the applicant] has exhibited contributory negligence by way of his suspicious conduct/failure to clear himself of suspicion, partly by having embarked on the alleged smuggling of diamonds and taking relevant steps, having construed and made use of a false cover story and having failed to explain the true facts of the case until the autumn of 1995, whereby he must also have realised that with this course of events in the autumn of 1995 he himself had considerably contributed to causing doubts about the correctness of his present statement, cf. in this respect [the High Court decision of 15 January 1996 as to the continued pre-trial detention]. The court finds that the contributory negligence exhibited by [the applicant] therefore entails that he has basically forfeited the right to compensation for the harm inflicted on him by the arrest and the pre-trial detention... In accordance with the opinion of the Medico-Legal Council the court finds that the applicant did not show any signs of mental disorder or personal disorder [before his arrest], but that during the prolonged pre-trial detention and solitary confinement he developed a psychosis, particularly characterised by a failing perception of reality, delusions of reference as well as delusions of persecution and of grandeur. It is impossible to fix the exact time when the psychosis developed during the pre-trial detention as no psychosis-like symptoms were found at a psychiatric visit on 18   January 1995, but a “situational reaction” and a hunger strike, whereas in the forensic psychiatric examination - completed in January 1998 - [the applicant] was found psychotic, probably suffering from a paranoid psychosis (mental disorder with delusions) ... Particularly concerning the European Convention on Human Rights and the basis of responsibility in general: ... generally, any kind of deprivation of liberty constitutes a strain on the person involved. Such a strain manifests itself even more with regard to pre-trial detention in solitary confinement, which entails complete exclusion from association with other inmates, and visits only to a limited extent and subject to surveillance. In some cases this strain may, for a particular individual, prove to have consequences beyond what is generally foreseeable and predictable by the legislator owing to that individual’s mental preparedness and life situation in general. It must be presumed that the legislator considers solitary confinement necessary for the sake of the investigation, particularly in grave criminal cases committed by a group of persons acting in a more organised way, in which the clearing up to a great extent depends on the persons’ lack of opportunities to harmonise their statements mutually and with others. In order to balance the interests of the detainee against the interest of the society in prosecuting crimes, the legislator has laid down provisions on solitary confinement cf. Sections 770a to 770c of the Administration of Justice Act. Thus, the use of totally solitary confinement is limited to a continuous period of eight weeks [except for] cases, where the charge concerns an offence being punishable under the law by imprisonment for six years or more, which are not subject to any restriction in time. The charge against [the applicant] for drug offences under Article 191 of the Penal   Code satisfies this condition. Under Section 770b, the courts must check whether the purpose of the solitary confinement can be fulfilled by less radical measures, and they must ensure that the measure is not disproportionate to the importance of the case and the sanction that may be expected if the person charged is found guilty. Furthermore, under this provision the court must “take into account the special potential strain on the person charged owing to his youth, or physical or mental weakness” when it orders solitary confinement. In the opinion of the court, the legislator has thus realised that solitary confinement may at worst result in an unintended harmful effect owing to the mental weakness of the person charged. This is attempted countered by imposing a duty on the Prison and Probation Service staff (kriminalforsorgens personale ), including the prison doctor, to be aware off any danger signals, according to which psychiatric monitoring may prove relevant. The question of medical monitoring may be raised by everybody who is in contact with the detainee, including counsel, as well as the detainee himself and the prison staff. If so, the judge responsible for a continuation of the pre-trial detention in solitary confinement must decide whether the interest of society in prosecution must give way for the mental wellbeing of the person charged, with particular regard to the risk of permanent mental harm.               It is a matter for the courts to check and apply the provisions of the law compared with general principles of law, including the principles expressed in the European Convention on Human Rights... as incorporated into Danish law by Act No. 285 of 29   April 1992. Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights sets out that “no one shall be subjected to torture or to inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment”. Article 5 of the Convention provides for the situations in which a person may exceptionally be deprived of his liberty. [The applicant’s] detention on remand was ordered due to the risk of influencing others and the risk of evasion, and solitary confinement was imposed in addition due to the risk of influencing others. Pursuant to the case-law of the European Commission of Human Rights, a decision as to whether Article 3 of the Convention is violated depends on a specific assessment of the circumstances of the case, particularly the stringency of the solitary confinement, its duration, the purpose of the solitary confinement and its effect on the inmate’s health. In addition to the specific elements of the case, the court has taken into account the assessments made by the European Commission of Human Rights, the Human Rights Committee of the United Nations (CCPR), the Committee against Torture of the United Nations (CAT), and the Committee for the Prevention of Torture of the Council of Europe (CPT) on the conditions of solitary confinement in Denmark as well as national deliberations, most recently report (betænkning) No. 1358/1998 on pre ‑ trial detention in solitary confinement...    The court finds that the pre-trial detention in solitary confinement and the subsequent ordinary pre-trial detention did not involve any violation of Article 3 of the Convention by virtue of its duration, form or conditions, as seen in relation to the nature of the suspected offence. The same applies as to the effect of the imprisonment on [the applicant’s] health. However, the court finds that the detention on remand in solitary confinement has had a mental consequential effect to [the detriment of the applicant and that it] occurred under such circumstances as to trigger liability for the Government [for the   following reason]. It must be assumed, even without the establishment of committed human errors e.g. by failing monitoring, that incidents may occur, where the detained subsequently are found to have developed psychiatric damage, which to a significant extent has been caused by the pre-trial detention [as opposed to normal predictable mental after ‑ effects], and which may be entailed by the usual administrative rates fixed to cover non-pecuniary damage. In the present case, having regard to the medical statements, the court finds it established that [the applicant] suffers from a paranoid psychosis (mental disorder with delusions) and a traumatic strain-reaction, and that the detention on remand to a very significant extent caused this. The public authorities have a special duty of solicitude for detainees, which entails liability to compensation should they fail to comply with this duty. With regard to solitary confinement the court finds that a strengthened degree of culpability must be employed towards the public authorities. It may be difficult for the surroundings to recognise in particular a paranoid psychosis. However, having regard to the information provided by [the applicant] about his claustrophobia and his contemplation of suicide, which resulted in his placement in an observation cell, the court finds that [the applicant], maybe already at the time of the arrest, behaved in such a way that could and should have caused a closer observance in the period to follow, than were actually performed of [the applicant’s] mental development, in any case subsequent to [the applicant’s] hunger strike in January   1995. The court finds that the authorities carry the burden of proof that the [above] circumstances have had no influence on the psychiatric damage incurred. Thus, the court finds that it cannot be excluded that the mental damage to a significant extent could have been avoided or reduced by a more thorough observation, and that the courts [had such an observation been carried out] would have had an opportunity for balancing the risk of (permanent) damage against the interest of the investigation cf. Section 770b of the Administration of Justice Act.” Both the applicant and the prosecution appealed against the City Court judgment of 1 October 1998 to the High Court of Eastern Denmark, to which a letter of 5 October 1998 was submitted containing an account of the nurses’ monitoring of the applicant during his pre ‑ trial detention in solitary confinement during the period from 13   December   1994 until 28   November   1995. Thus, as to the forty-three medical inspections which had been carried out by nurses the head of nursing stated inter alia: “.   It does not appear at any time from the nurses’ report books summarising the visits that the nurses suspected that [the applicant] was developing a paranoid psychosis. Considering the nurses’ background both in the prison service and the psychiatric system, one would expect that the nurses who made these visits would have observed it, if [the applicant] had been developing a psychosis-like condition. It should be added that the nurses’ visits in the south wing [where the applicant was placed] were performed by the “permanent nurses” of the south wing, who were [therefore] able to monitor any changes in [the applicant’s] mental condition.” A similar account was made as to the doctors’ monitoring of the applicant, i.e. twenty-seven medical examinations carried out by doctors in the relevant period. In a letter of 2 October 1998 the chief consultant of the Copenhagen Prisons ( Københavns Fængsler ), a specialist of internal medicine and medical gastroenterology concluded inter alia : “that [the applicant] was not at any time found to be mentally ill to a major extent corresponding to the otherwise obvious and probable harmful effect of the solitary confinement ordered by the courts;    that at no time [the applicant] was found to be borderline psychotic, not to mention psychotic (thus not suffering from a paranoid psychosis either); that the psychiatrist’s assessment of [the applicant] on 18 January 1995 was carried out for administrative reasons only in connection with [the applicant’s] short-term refusal to eat, which had caused no complications (it was not a total fast as [the applicant] drank juice). The psychiatric assessment was not carried out due to an uncertainty on the prison doctor’s behalf as to [the applicant’s] mental state, [since]   neither the ordinary prison doctor nor, in particular, the psychiatrist had found [the applicant’s mental state] very remarkable or even mentally threatened. [Instead] the psychiatrist made the said administrative assessment to make doubly sure that [the applicant] was found competent [to cope with the situation] concerning his refusal to eat.” The chief consultant also provided a general account on visits and assessments of detainees. He mentioned that such may take place at counsel’s request. In this respect the letter stated as follows: “Concerning [the applicant] it should be noted in this connection that the doctors [of the Prison and Probation Service] have received no inquiries during the said detention period from [the applicant’s] prosecutor or two counsel, apart from the letter of 18   January 1995 from [the applicant’s] first counsel and the letter of 21 June 1995 from [the applicant’s] second counsel.   In the letter of 18 January 1995 [the first counsel] stated that he found the applicant very depressed, and he asked that doctors attend to [the applicant]. No letter of reply was sent to [the first counsel] since he had not requested such, and since he had stated in the letter that he had not notified [the applicant] that he had written the said letter (all other things being equal, a reply would require [the applicant’s] specific consent and thus indicate to [the applicant] that his counsel had sent a letter without his consent), but the most important reason for not sending a reply was the fact that [the applicant] had not been found depressed in connection with a medical assessment, including the psychiatric assessment   made on 18 January 1995. If the latter had been the case, a letter of reply would have been forwarded to counsel nevertheless, possibly even without [the applicant’s] specific (informed) consent, and ... also from the prison doctor to the judicial instances via the Prison and Probation Service.   In the letter of 21 June 1995 [the second counsel] asked that herbal medicine ... be given to [the applicant]. Otherwise, [the two counsel] have not given notice orally, by telephone or in writing about any deviant state observed as to [the applicant]. [It should be noted in this respect that notably [the second counsel] and the doctors [of the Prison and Probation Service] are in regular good contact concerning the inmates’ state of health and particular complex matters related thereto, also in relation to court measures, such as solitary confinement]. The doctors [of the Prison and Probation Service] are pleased to receive notices from everybody (including school teachers, ministers of religion etc. within and outside [the Prison and Probation Service], not to mention the applicant) regardless of the nature of the notices and the information since, all other things being equal, such notices give the doctors better possibilities of performing their work of ensuring the best possible conditions for the inmates’ health subject to the terms ordered by the courts. “   Also, the Director of the Copenhagen Prisons gave an account of the monitoring of the applicant during his pre-trial detention and the period of solitary confinement. In a letter of 7 October 1998 he stated, among other things: “For the purpose of this account the prison management has procured information on [the applicant’s] stay in the prison from the chief consultant, the head of nursing, the welfare worker, supervisory staff [at the applicant’s unit] and from his workplace in the prison. Supervisory staff in the south wing [which monitored the applicant during his entire period in solitary confinement] stated that despite the solitary confinement he functioned well, knew how to structure his everyday life and occupy himself, and he did not in any way appear mentally conspicuous. At no time did the staff find any reason to contact the health staff to obtain a psychiatric assessment, which is otherwise an initiative very frequently taken by staff. The principal officer of the west wing [to which the applicant was transferred after the solitary confinement] and the staff in the kitchen where he worked have stated the same. [The applicant’s] welfare worker who regularly talked with him during his entire detention has also stated the same. With reference to the comments of the court [in connection with the compensation proceedings] decisive importance must be attached, however, to the question whether these assessments are supported by the doctors’ monitoring of [the applicant]. The chief consultant has provided the appended statement on the case. For details please refer to this assessment. It appears from the chief consultant’s statement that during his entire period of detention [the applicant] has been extremely carefully monitored and assessed by doctors. Visits by doctors, including psychiatrists, may be carried out at the request of the health staff of the Copenhagen Prisons, but may also be carried out at the request of staff, counsel or the prosecutor. In [the applicant’s] case, counsel only once requested a visit from a doctor [i.e. the first counsel in his letter of 18   January 1995], which had, however, already been made by a psychiatrist in connection with the hunger strike, cf. below. During all visits, doctors and nurses of the Copenhagen Prisons have their attention directed at signs of psychoses, both obvious signs and minute signs. They are, of course, particular attentive to such signs in a case of solitary confinement, which is in itself a stressful measure. If, in connection with a visit, a doctor finds even the slightest suspicion that the inmate is or may possibly be on his way to become mentally ill, a statement to that effect is given to counsel and the prosecutor. This was not done in [the applicant’s] case, as there was never at any time any suspicion of a mental illness. The reason why [the applicant] was attended to by a psychiatrist on 18 January 1995 at the initiative of the Copenhagen Prisons was not that a mental illness was suspected, but solely that the internal guidelines prescribe this when inmates go on hunger strike. Anyway, no psychopathological characters were found at the examination, but a situational reaction ...Particularly referring to the chief consultant’s statement, the Copenhagen Prisons repudiate that [the applicant] has been subjected to failure of health monitoring. During his entire stay, [the applicant] was regularly visited by doctors and nurses, and these visits have not given any rise to any suspicion of mental disorders...” Moreover, the Western Prison gave their account of the monitoring of the applicant during his pre-trial detention and solitary confinement. A letter of 8 October 1998 stated inter alia : “After the passing of the judgment in the compensation proceedings on 1   October   1998 I have had conversations with the following persons about [the applicant’s] stay in the Copenhagen Prisons: DW, then social worker in the east unit, states that [the applicant] was an intelligent and interesting young man. During his stay [the applicant] started painting. He read a lot. His behaviour was not conspicuous. He seemed present during conversations. He was bitter and angry with the police and felt unjustly treated. These thoughts did not seem pathological to DW. JL, prison officer, ..., who knew [the applicant] during his entire stay in the south wing, stated that he painted, was active and seemed to function well. He was good-humoured to be with and was given a rather free rein. He was always ready with a gay remark. He was considered by all staff as a person who functioned well and was not conspicuous. He knew how to establish an everyday life. He felt unjustly treated by the system and thought that solitary confinement in general could be considered as some kind of torture. CL, prison officer, ..., who also monitored [the applicant] in the south wing, stated that he was not pathologically conspicuous. He was quite ordinary to talk to. In the circumstances he managed the solitary confinement incredibly well. JEL, ..., who was the foreman in the kitchen where [the applicant] worked after the solitary confinement, stated that he did not seem mentally conspicuous or affected by the long solitary confinement. VB, principal officer, west wing, stated that [the applicant] functioned well during his stay in the west wing after the solitary confinement and did not seem affected by the solitary confinement.” Additional statements from the Legal ‑ Psychiatric Clinic and the Medico ‑ Legal Council were submitted on 29   April 1999 and 9   August 1999 respectively, and the applicant and several witnesses were heard. By judgment of 27   August 1999 the High Court granted the applicant compensation in the amount of DKK 1,334,600 covering as follows:     non-pecuniary damage                  DKK       100,000   lost earnings                                   DKK       125,000   loss of working capacity        DKK   1,022,000   disablement                              DKK         87,600   The High Court found that the applicant’s mental illness was caused or mainly caused by the solitary confinement, but pointed out that on the basis of the medical statements before it, it was not possible to establish when the mental disorder broke out or how it had progressed. On the material before it, the court found it established that during his detention the applicant had been treated in a proper manner. Thus, having regard to the reason for the solitary confinement and the treatment of the applicant during this period, the court found that in spite of the duration of the solitary confinement and its serious effects on the applicant’s mental health, Article 3 of the Convention could not be considered breached. The court found that compensation for non-pecuniary damage was justified pursuant to section 1018a § 2 of the Administration of Justice Act for the deprivation of liberty exceeding the sentence laid down in the verdict of 14 May 1996. However, according to section   1018a   §   3 of the said Act the applicant was found to a considerable extent to have given rise to the measures himself, due to so-called “own   fault”, in the period between 13   December 1994 until 26   September 1995, when the applicant made the statement to the police as to his participation in diamonds smuggling. Accordingly, a sum of DKK   100,000 was found to be reasonable. Also, the compensation for lost earnings was reduced due to “own fault” The amounts for disablement and loss of working capacity were calculated on the basis of the Compensation Act (Erstatningsansvarsloven), and the information on the applicant’s previous yearly income. Since no exact moment of injury could be established the court chose 13   December   1994 as the starting point. Considering that it was common knowledge to the authorities that solitary confinement entails a risk of disturbing the mental health, and taking into account the extraordinary and severe damage, which the long lasting detention in segregation caused the applicant, the court found no reason to reduce these amounts on the “own fault” considerations.    Having been granted leave to appeal, by judgment of 5   September 2000 the Supreme Court (Højesteret) reduced the amount to be paid in compensation to DKK 1,109,600, covering as follows:     non-pecuniary damage            DKK   0   lost earnings                                       DKK   0   loss of working capacity         DKK   1,022,000   disablement                               DKK   87,600   The Supreme Court agreed unanimously with the High Court that the solitary confinement was the main reason for the applicant’s mental suffering. Also, noting that there was no reason to assume that the applicant had not been treated in a proper manner during his detention on remand, it confirmed the High Court’s finding that the case disclosed no appearance of a violation of Article 3 of the Convention. Moreover, the Supreme Court upheld the High Court’s finding that to a significant extent the applicant himself gave rise to measures taken against him, and pointed out that the applicant’s explanations during the criminal proceedings did not leave an impression of being provided by someone who lacked ability to act rationally. As to the amounts regarding compensation for disablement and loss of working capacity the Supreme Court confirmed that it was common knowledge that solitary conf