CEDH · CASELAW;JUDGMENTS;CHAMBER;ENG — 29 octobre 2015

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s598389FB { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:14pt } .sF5E1C6CF { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline; color:#ff0000 } .sB1AFDE2D { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left; font-size:14pt } .s2348ECBC { width:232.5pt; display:inline-block } .sE208486F { font-family:Arial; color:#ff0000 } .s598389F8 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:11pt } .s4ACA9207 { page-break-before:always; clear:both; mso-break-type:section-break } .s9793A85B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .sB9D5CABB { width:28.35pt; display:inline-block } .sD3B63DAD { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s79DE5897 { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:17.85pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17.85pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sA8776625 { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:29.2pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17.6pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sF7A86111 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; font-size:10pt } .s34D46E87 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .sF74FAE9B { font-family:Arial; font-size:9.5pt } .s72C8F48C { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:36.6pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-15.05pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sA20670C4 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:48.75pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-17pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .s59DEA84 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:59.5pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-17.85pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .s39A7D870 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s33165EBA { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .s13907D4E { margin-top:18pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s583D00FA { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:17pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-17pt } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s4B243ECC { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sF7A4323 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .s6163AF01 { width:168.94pt; display:inline-block } .s7602FED2 { width:18.21pt; display:inline-block } .sC1AC44A4 { width:228.11pt; display:inline-block } .sB8987CE9 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .s379BC09C { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left } .s2EB42ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:10pt } .sC36A6361 { font-family:Arial; color:#000000 } .s3DC36BA9 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 }       FIFTH SECTION                 CASE OF STORY AND OTHERS v. MALTA   (Applications nos. 56854/13, 57005/13 and 57043/13)               JUDGMENT       STRASBOURG   29 October 2015   FINAL   29/01/2016   This judgment has become final under Article 44 § 2 of the Convention. It may be subject to editorial revision. In the case of Story and Others v. Malta, The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting as a Chamber composed of:   Josep Casadevall, President,   Angelika Nußberger,   Boštjan M. Zupančič,   Vincent A. De Gaetano,   André Potocki,   Aleš Pejchal,   Síofra O’Leary, judges, and Claudia Westerdiek, Section Registrar, Having deliberated in private on 22   September 2015, Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date: PROCEDURE 1.     The case originated in three applications (nos.   56854/13, 57005/13 and 57043/13) against the Republic of Malta lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) by three Polish nationals, Mr   Edward Story, Mr Bartosz Gołdziński and Mr Tomasz Przewłocki (“the applicants”), on 22 August 2013. 2.     The applicants, who had been granted legal aid, were represented by Ms   M.   Gąsiorowska, a lawyer practising in Warsaw, Poland. The Maltese Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Dr   P.   Grech, Attorney General. 3.     The applicants alleged that they were being detained in inhuman and degrading conditions, contrary to Article 3 of the Convention. 4.     On 10 September 2014 the complaints concerning the applicants’ conditions of detention were communicated to the Government and the remainder of applications nos. 56854/13 and 57043/13 were declared inadmissible. 5.     On 29 October 2014 the Government of Poland, who had been notified by the Registrar of their right to intervene in the proceedings (Article 36 § 1 of the Convention and Rule 44), indicated that they did not intend to do so. THE FACTS I.     THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE 6.     The applicants were born in 1983, 1984 and 1974 respectively and are currently detained in the Corradino Correctional Facility (Paola, Malta). A.     Mr Story (“the first applicant”) 7.     The first applicant was arraigned in court on 8 May 2012 and was remanded on the same day on drug-related charges. He is currently in pre ‑ trial detention. 8.     The first applicant submitted that in May 2012 when he arrived in prison he had been placed in Division 6, a disciplinary division with very strict standards and no privacy. No one spoke his language in that division. He was eventually moved to Division 13, where again no one spoke his language. The applicant alleged that items belonging to him had been stolen and the prison authorities had ignored his complaints, as a result of which he went on hunger strike for three days between 11 and 13 June 2012 (the latter action is indicated in the applicant’s medical records submitted to the Court). According to the Government, from the official records (which were not submitted to the Court) it did not appear that the applicant had ever complained about the matter to the prison authorities. 9.     After two weeks the first applicant was transferred to Division 3. The records held by the prison authorities show that he is currently being held in cell no. 152, which is situated in Division 3. This division is located in the older section of the prison building that has undergone various stages of upgrading and renovation. However, the possibilities for further improvements are limited owing to the manner in which the building is constructed, such as with high windows and thick walls. 10.     The first applicant has been occupying cell no. 152 as sole occupant. 11.     The applicant submitted that in order to make his cell habitable he had had to paint it himself and equip it with proper lighting. By the Government’s admission, the painting of cells appears to be the normal procedure amongst inmates and the paint is provided by the authorities free of charge. However, the Government contended that the cell had already been equipped with artificial lighting, which was dealt with by the prison electrician, not inmates. 12.     There are two ventilators and a window in cell no. 152. The wall ‑ mounted ventilator measures 20 cm by 15 cm and is covered by a rectangular piece of cardboard and there is another smaller ventilator in the ceiling. The applicant submitted that when it rained, water would pour in through the wall-mounted ventilator, which he considered was simply a hole in the wall, and which was covered by cardboard to stop the wind entering in the winter months – in consequence it rendered the room devoid of any ventilation. 13.     The cell has a window, behind which are two iron grids and a third layer of exterior iron bars. The window consists of both a perspex section that allows daylight to enter and a wooden part. Both sections can in principle be opened and closed from within the cell. The window is situated at a height of 250 cm and measures 76.5 cm in width by 46 cm in height. According to the Government (and from the photographs submitted) the window in cell no. 152 is always kept closed by the occupant, despite the fact that he could open and close it by climbing onto the bed. The applicant submitted that windows in other divisions were much lower. 14.     In his cell, in order to attempt to open the window he had to stand on the sink and reach for the lock by means of a piece of wood. The window, once opened, had to be kept open by means of some support, such as a metal or wooden plank, which was not usually allowed in prison. The applicant, who is of a heavy build, is unable to open such a window without the help of other lighter inmates. The Government contested that allegation, arguing that the window could be opened by using a tool (a two-foot arm) which is available to inmates for opening and closing windows as necessary. In any case, the applicant could climb onto the bed to open and close the window. 15.     Lighting in cell no. 152 consists of a ceiling light and two wall ‑ mounted portable lamps, which may be moved about throughout the cell as required (both 25 Watts). 16.     According to the first applicant, there was often no running water in the cell and any water was surely not potable. However, according to the Government, running water was available in each cell, including cell no.   152 (photographs submitted), and Maltese tap water flowing through the Corradino Correctional Facility was certified for human consumption, as outlined by the certificate issued by the Director of Environmental Health, dated 24 January 2014, submitted to the Court. Furthermore, according to the Government, each division was equipped with a purified potable water system, which could be accessed by all inmates. 17.     Inmates are also permitted to buy bottled water from the tuck-shop (a pack of six bottles cost 2.10 euros (EUR) or EUR 0.35 per bottle). Every inmate is given “gratuity” money for such purchases amounting to EUR   27.95 monthly. The first applicant received EUR 117 as gratuity money during 2012 and EUR 363.35 during 2013. Inmates are also given the opportunity to work against a nominal payment of EUR 18.63 monthly. The first applicant received EUR 13.39 during 2012 and EUR 242.19 during 2013 for his work. 18.     The Government admitted that there was no combined flushing toilet system installed in Division 3 due to the nature of the structure of the building, so inmates had to flush their own personal toilet by means of a water bucket provided within each cell. To this end, there were wall-mounted water taps in order to fill the buckets with water. Combined flushing toilets were available in the new part of the prison. The first applicant alleged that there was often no running water for flushing. 19. All inmates have access to showers at divisional level and no cell is provided with an in-cell shower. Furthermore, all inmates can use the showers numerous times daily, for as long as necessary; the showers are open for approximately twelve hours a day. However, the first applicant claimed that there were only three shower cubicles, one of which had no running water but just a plastic bottle of water, while another did not have a showerhead. Thus, only one of the showers was functional. The Government contested that allegation, arguing that sometimes the showers were damaged by the inmates. Other inmates fixed them temporarily until the authorities in turn fixed the outlets appropriately. 20.     According to the first applicant, hot water was often not available in winter and frequently no water was available in summer. He submitted that complaints about the lack of water were often made to the prison guards, but they were not noted down. The Government submitted that water supply was available all year round. The same applied to hot water, which was however subject to short time lags until the water reheated whenever the water was running continuously. The authorities also made available an external water supply in the event of shortages (particularly in summer, when water bowsers were brought in to increase the water supply). 21.     According to the Government, no cell in any part of the prison building (either the old block or the new block) is equipped with a heater. During summer, the inmates are allowed fans to cool down their cells. The first applicant has two fans in his cell. 22.     According to the photographs submitted, the state of cell no.   152 was tidy. 23.     Inmates were permitted to purchase other non-essential items for their cells, including televisions or monitors, DVD players, or game consoles upon request. The first applicant’s requests have all been granted. 24.     The first applicant claimed that his cell was damp and humid. According to the Government, an inspection of cell no. 152 conducted by prison officials detected no mould in the cell. 25.     The first applicant alleged that he had been asked to pay for his own medication, but as he had been unable to pay, he had remained in pain. The Government submitted that he had been in receipt of various medicines provided free of charge through the Public Health Service (PHS) in line with Regulation 31 of the Prisons Regulations (Subsidiary Legislation 260.03). According to the records held by the authorities (submitted to the Court), it also transpired that the first applicant had been visited eleven times by a doctor between 27 August 2012 (following the applicant’s admission on remand) and 30 December 2013. On eight occasions, the prescription of medicines had been required and in fact twelve medicines had been provided to the applicant. Those medicines were supplied by the PHS except for the Bioflor sachets, where a generic alternative was provided instead. It transpires that the applicant has not made any purchases relative to “self-recommendations” (the non-acceptance of generic medicine against branded medicine, see paragraph 53 below). 26.     The first applicant claimed that he had not been allowed to make telephone calls at 12.15 p.m., which was the only time he could reach his relatives. 27.     The Government referred to the relevant regulations (see Relevant Domestic Law, paragraph 56 below) but stated that in practice, all inmates were allowed any number of calls between 9.30 a.m. and 11.45 a.m. As from 1 January 2014 the times were changed to between 8.30 a.m. and 11.45 a.m. and between 2 p.m. and 8 p.m. Inmates who work were granted a specific period between noon and 12.15 p.m. No calls could be made between 12.25 p.m. and 2 p.m., during which time inmates were confined to their cells. 28.     Inmates are given two EUR 5 telephone cards every month on the first day of the month. The first applicant has been in receipt of those cards since his arrival in prison. From the records held by the authorities it also transpires that the applicant availed himself of the opportunity to call abroad using his cards on average 4.5 times a day during the period 1 January to 6   February 2014. This refers to calls lasting a minimum of three minutes. Shorter calls were also made. A detailed analysis of the calls lasting more than three minutes shows that seventy-six of them lasted over ten minutes, while some lasted over twenty minutes. In terms of the time during which the calls were made, fifty (30% of the calls) were registered during the morning between 9.08 a.m. and 11.58 a.m., while the remaining 117 calls (70%) were registered between 2.30 p.m. and 7.54 p.m. It also transpires that the applicant has availed himself of incoming call times ranging from 10   a.m. to 12.11 p.m. (69% of the calls were registered between 22   May 2012 and 7 December 2013). The rest of the calls (31%) were registered between 2.05 p.m. and 6.44 p.m. He received thirty-five incoming calls in 2012 and 175 in 2013. According to the Government the applicant has never submitted a written request to the director for permission to make calls at 12.15   p.m. B.     Mr Gołdziński (“the second applicant”) 29.     The second applicant is currently serving a term of imprisonment for drug ‑ related offences. He was sentenced to nine years’ imprisonment and fined EUR 23,000 by the Criminal Court on 5 December 2013. 30.     From the prison authorities’ records, it transpires that the second applicant is being held in cell no. 130, situated in Division 3 of the Corradino Correctional Facility. While the applicant complained of a lack of living space in the dormitories of ten persons (sic.), the Government argued that he had been occupying the said cell as sole occupant. It does not appear that he has made any prior complaint about his cell or any specific aspect of his detention to the prison authorities, nor has he requested to change cell. 31.     The complaint and the general conditions of detention pertaining to the second applicant are the same as described in respect of the first applicant (above), with a few differences as set out below. 32.     The second applicant submitted that he generally left his window open. He claimed that it was not possible to open the window by climbing onto the bed. The window was situated 1.5 metres above the sink, and thus it was only by standing on the sink that one could open it. Lighting consisted of a ceiling light and one wall-mounted portable lamp, which he had purchased himself – he had not requested an additional lamp, although inmates were in fact allowed two lamps. 33.     According to the second applicant there was often no running water in the cell. However, according to the Government, tap water was available in each cell, including cell no. 130 (photographs submitted). 34.     The second applicant received gratuity money amounting to EUR   293.44 during 2012 and EUR 363.35 during 2013, as well as EUR   130.41 during 2012 and EUR 242.19 during 2013 for work carried out by him. 35.     The second applicant submitted that he had two fans in his cell. He claimed that in winter the cold was terrible and made him ill. He maintained that he often did not have bed linen or blankets, sometimes not even a bed to sleep on. The Government contested the allegation, asserting that each inmate, including the second applicant, was provided with two sets of bed linen and two blankets, that further blankets were available on request and that beds were a staple in every cell. No record of such a complaint had been found by the Government. 36.     According to the Government, the second applicant kept his cell in a disorderly and unkempt state. When the prison authorities, through the correctional supervisor, had brought this to the applicant’s attention, he had replied that the mess was due to his ongoing personal family troubles and he promised to clean his room. 37.     The second applicant’s requests for non-essential items have all been granted. 38.     A part of cell no. 130 shows signs of dampness, which produces mould (approximately one square metre as transpires from a photograph submitted). The applicant submitted that the photograph was not realistic and that in reality there was mould in a larger part of the cell. This had given him asthma, a condition he had never suffered from before. 39.     The Government pointed out that the second applicant had been in receipt of various medicines provided free of charge through the PHS. According to the Government, it transpires from the records held by the authorities that he had been visited forty-three times by a doctor between 5   October 2011 (date of the applicant’s admission on remand) and 23   January 2014. On twenty-nine occasions, prescriptive medicines had been required and in fact fifty medicines had been provided to him. Those medicines had been supplied by the PHS, except for a specific shampoo, where a generic alternative had been provided instead. 40.     The second applicant claimed that he had had to purchase some medicines himself. However, according to the Government, that was a choice made by the applicant himself. From the records held by the authorities, it transpires that a number of “self-recommendations” (see paragraph 53 below) were registered on the applicant’s behalf. They concerned ear drops to remove ear wax, Voltaren gel, a number of vitamins and Daktarin powder. 41.     Lastly, the second applicant claimed that he had been made to take medicine without any explanations, and that he was not allowed access to the yard. C.     Mr   Przewłocki (“the third applicant”) 42.     On 30 January 2012 the Criminal Court sentenced the third applicant to twelve years’ imprisonment and to a fine of EUR 23,000 for drug ‑ related offences. 43.     From the prison authorities’ records, it transpires that the third applicant is being held in cell no. 137, which is situated in Division 3. At the time of the introduction of the application he had been in Division 3 for three years and ten months. He has been occupying the said cell as sole occupant. He has never made any complaint relative to his cell or to any specific aspect of his detention to the prison authorities, nor has he requested a transfer from one division to another. The general conditions of detention pertaining to the third applicant are the same as for the other two applicants (above), with a few differences as set out below. 44.     According to the third applicant, there was only one ceiling ventilator in his cell, which he claimed did not work. The Government contested that statement. The applicant submitted that there were two portable lamps –the ceiling lamp was controlled centrally and could not be switched on or off as needed. From the photographs submitted it appears that cell no. 137 is kept in a relatively tidy state. The third applicant has been allowed to acquire other non-essential items in the cell. He claimed that they did not require authorisation. He also alleged that one of his personal fans had been removed from his cell after the photographs had been taken. The Government submitted that apart from the ceiling fan, the applicant had another fan in his cell, and that only one box fan per inmate was allowed. 45.     According to the Government, an inspection of cell no.   137 conducted by the prison officials did not detect any mould. However, the third applicant submitted that there was some 50 cm of mould around his sink. 46.     The third applicant also complained of a lack of running water (contested by the Government) and flushing toilet system. He claimed that the lack of water, particularly the inability to flush the toilet, created unhygienic conditions. Also, the relevant equipment to clean the room was not provided. He alleged that he had been regularly sick because of the tap water in his room and that the doctor had told him that he should not drink it. The Government submitted that according to the doctor’s report (submitted to the Court), the applicant had never complained of bowel problems or complained to the doctor about the tap water. Nor had it been substantiated that he had received such a reply from the doctor. The applicant pointed out that the result of the tests carried out by the Government had not referred to water collected in his room, as no water had been collected. 47.     The third applicant received EUR 101.28 as gratuity money during 2011, EUR 363.55 during 2012 and EUR 363.35 during 2013. He also received EUR 18.63 during 2011, EUR 111.78 during 2012 and EUR   93.15 during 2013 (between August and December 2013) for work he had carried out. 48.     The third applicant also received various medicines provided free of charge through the PHS. From the records held by the authorities it also transpires that he was visited thirty-one times by a doctor between 26   April 2011 (following the applicant’s admission in detention on remand) and 21   January 2014. On fifteen occasions, the prescription of medicines was required and in fact twenty-eight medicines were provided to him. Those medicines were supplied by the PHS, except for cold-relief tablets and a cream, for which a generic alternative was provided. It transpires that two “self-recommendations” were registered on behalf of the applicant: a pain killer and a cream which was only available free of charge through the PHS if it had been prescribed by a consultant dermatologist, which was not the case for the applicant. II.     RELEVANT DOMESTIC LAW AND PRACTICE A.     Prison Regulations (Subsidiary Legislation 260.03) 49.     Regulation 3(1) reads as follows: “In the application of these regulations the following basic principles and treatment objectives shall at all times be observed: ( a ) The aim of these regulations is to instil in prisoners a sense of discipline and responsibility and, so far as possible, to enable them to reform their character while undergoing their punishment according to law with the dignity and respect due to the human person, to educate them about the impact of crime on their victims, families and communities, and to improve their prospect of successful resettlement in society after release; and ( b ) The deprivation of liberty, by the keeping of a person in prison, is a punishment in itself and the conditions of that deprivation of liberty and the prison’s regime shall not be aggravated except as required for justifiable segregation or the maintenance of security, good order and discipline.” 50.   Regulations 17 and 18 read as follows: Regulation 17 “(1) Every request by a prisoner to see the Director, the Board [of Visitors of the Prisons] or a member thereof, and any complaint made by a prisoner, shall be recorded by the prison officer to whom it is made and promptly passed on to the Director. (2) The Director shall, without undue delay, see prisoners who have asked to see him and take cognizance of any request or complaint made to him. (3) Where a prisoner has asked to see the Board or a member thereof, the Director shall ensure that the Board or the member is told of the request on their next visit to the prison. (4) Prison officers in direct contact with prisoners, shall, at their request, supply prisoners with an appropriate form approved by the Director for the purpose of making requests, complaints or petitions. Prisoners may, however, submit any request, complaint or petition in any other proper written form and even verbally.” Regulation 18 “(1) If a prisoner so requests the Director may interview him without any other person being present. (2) If a prisoner so requests the Board and any members thereof may interview him without the Director or any other person being present. (3) Every prisoner shall be allowed to make a request or complaint to the Director, to the Board or to the Minister, or to petition the President of Malta, or to an internationally recognised human rights body, under confidential cover. (4) Every request, complaint or petition of a prisoner shall be dealt with and replied to without undue delay.” 51.     Under Regulation 23(3), the cleanliness of the cell, including the toilet situated within it, is the responsibility of the particular inmate occupying the cell. 52.     Regulation 25 specifically deals with the provision of food to prisoners. Regulation 25(4) provides that sentenced persons are not allowed to have any food other than that ordinarily provided, unless duly authorised by the director or medical officer. In addition, as from 1994, a privilege was granted to all sentenced prisoners: they could receive a meal prepared by their family once a week, on Sundays. The rule was subsequently changed to an option of either Saturday or Sunday. In accordance with the prison’s operational procedure, every meal has to be inspected in front of the person delivering it. Any other method of delivery of food items, including postal delivery, is prohibited. 53.   Regulation 31 provides for a prison medical service. The PHS provides a list of medicines that may be obtained free of charge, and where the prescribed medicine is not supplied by the Government, it is substituted by generic medicine. This is the same system that is applicable to all Maltese citizens and all recipients of the PHS (including all inmates). Should a patient decline or refuse the generic medicines offered, he or she may opt to buy other similar medicines. The non-acceptance of generic medicine against branded medicine is registered as a “self ‑ recommendation”. The prison authorities have a special fund in order to buy medicines that are not on the PHS list. The fund is reserved for cases requiring immediate intervention. 54.     In so far as relevant, Regulation 51 reads as follows: “(1) Except as provided by these regulations, every letter and communication to or from a prisoner may be read or examined by the Director or a prison officer deputed by him, and the Director may stop any letter or communication if its contents are objectionable or if it is of inordinate length.” “(2) A convicted prisoner shall be entitled: ( a ) to send and receive a letter on his admission to prison and thereafter once a week; and ( b ) to receive a visit once a week. (3) The Director may allow a prisoner to send or receive an additional letter or visit where necessary for his welfare or that of his family. (4) The Director may allow a prisoner entitled to a visit to send and receive a letter instead.” 55.     Regulation 54 reads as follows: “(1)   A prisoner who is a party to any legal or judicial proceedings may correspond with his legal adviser in connection with those proceedings and, unless the Director has reason to suspect that any such correspondence contains matter not relating to the proceedings, the said correspondence shall not be read or stopped under regulation   51(1). (2)   A prisoner shall on request be provided with writing material for the purposes of the foregoing subregulation and of subregulation (4). ... (4) A prisoner may correspond with an advocate or legal procurator for the purpose of obtaining legal advice on matters other than those referred to in subregulation   (1).” 56.     Regulation 59 deals with telephone communication by inmates. Regulation 59(3) provides that it is the prerogative of the prison director, with the approval of the Minister, to determine the frequency and duration of telephone calls made or received by inmates as well as the persons with whom such communications can be held. Regulation   59(4) specifically deals with foreign inmates who do not have any relatives in Malta, who may be allowed one free call a month to a relative overseas. The duration of the call is determined by the director. 57.     Regulation 63 reads as follows: “(1) Except as provided by these regulations, a prisoner shall not be permitted to communicate with any outside person or organisation. (2) The Minister may, with a view to securing discipline and good order or for the prevention of crime or in the interests of any persons, impose restrictions, either generally or in particular cases, upon the communications to be permitted between a prisoner and other persons or organisations other than communications as are referred to in regulation 53(1).” 58.     Regulations 106 to 109 read as follows: Regulation 106 “(1) The Board shall visit and inspect the prison not less than once a month and regularly see each prisoner either at his place of work or confinement or in such other manner as the Board deems convenient. (2) If the Board so requests, such visits and inspections shall be attended by the Director and any other prison officer or officers designated by the Director.   (3) The prisoners shall be asked if they have any complaints to make with regard to their treatment in the prison and any prisoner wishing to make a complaint shall be heard in such part of the prison as the Board may deem fit: Provided that no sanction shall be ordered, applied, permitted or tolerated against any person or organization for having communicated to the Board any information, whether true or false, and no such person or organization shall be otherwise prejudiced in any way. (4) Neither the Director nor any other prison officer shall be present while a prisoner is making a complaint before the Board. The Director, however, shall be heard on any such complaint. (5) The Board shall keep a record of all complaints made to it by prisoners and its decision thereon, and shall, if it deems necessary, take the sworn evidence of the complainant and of such prison of fleers and other prisoners or other persons as the Board may deem relevant. The oath shall be administered by the Chairman or other member presiding. (6) Unless it is evidently frivolous or groundless, every request or complaint shall be promptly dealt with and replied to without undue delay.” Regulation 107 “It shall also be the duty of the Board to hear and decide upon, as soon as practicable, any request or complaint made to it by a prisoner, or any person on his behalf, other than those made directly to it or to any of its members during the course of a visit or inspection.” Regulation 108 “(1) The decisions of the Board shall be taken by a majority of the members present and voting. In the case of an equality of votes the Chairman shall have a casting vote in addition to his original vote. (2) The decisions of the Board shall not be binding upon the Director but it shall be the duty of the Director to take serious cognizance of the recommendations of the Board following a decision taken as provided in subregulation (1) and to enter into a dialogue with the Board on possible implementation measures. Subject to the provisions of subregulation (3), where the Director, or any other prison officer acting on his behalf, is of the opinion that the recommendations of the Board cannot be implemented for reasons which are in the best interests of the prison administration, an explanation in writing of these reasons shall, within one month of the date of receipt of the Board’s recommendations, be forwarded to the chairman of the Board and copied to the Minister, or to a person delegated by him. The Minister, or the person delegated by him, may confirm or vary the decision of the Director. (3) Where the recommendation of the Board entails, in the opinion of the director, a security issue requiring strict confidentiality the Director, within the period of one month mentioned in subregulation (2), shall make a statement to this effect to the Chairman of the Board and shall concurrently submit a personal report directly to the Minister, or to the person delegated by him, giving his own comments on the recommendation, together with his opinion as to whether or not such recommendation should be accepted. The Minister ‘s decision, or that of the person delegated by him, shall be final and conclusive.” Regulation 109 “1) The members of the Board shall make a note in the official Visitors’ Book of every visit or inspection made by them, with such remark as they deem proper in regard to the prisons and the prisoners. (2) The official Visitors’ Book shall be produced to the Board at each monthly meeting and at such other times as the Board may require. (3) The Minister may request to examine the official Visitors’ Book and the minutes book of the Board.” B.     Prison Act 59.     Section 8 of the Prison Act, Chapter 260 of the Laws of Malta, provides for the establishment of the Board of Visitors of the Prisons. In so far as relevant, it reads as follows: “(1) There shall be a Board of Visitors of the Prisons, composed of such members as shall be appointed annually by the President of Malta. (2) The Visitors shall hold office from the 1st January of the year for which they shall be appointed. (3) If any vacancy in the Board occurs during the year, on account of death, resignation or for any other cause, the President shall, as soon as practicable, appoint another person to fill the vacancy: Provided that the Board and the members thereof may act notwithstanding any such vacancy. (4) The members of the Board shall exercise such functions as shall be assigned to them by regulations made under article 6 of this Act. (5) The Minister responsible for justice, the Chief Justice, the judges, the magistrates and the Attorney-General shall be ex officio Special Visitors of the prisons, and as such it shall be lawful for them to have at any time access to the prisons for the purpose of inspecting such prisons and any of the prisoners therein. They shall enter in the official Visitors’ Book any remarks which they may deem proper in regard to the prisons and prisoners, and the book shall be produced to the members of the Board of Visitors on their next visit to the prisons.” C.     Code of Organisation and Civil Procedure 60.     Article 469A of the Code of Organisation and Civil Procedure (“the COCP”), Chapter 12 of the Laws of Malta, provides for judicial review of administrative action and, in so far as relevant, reads as follows: “ (1) Saving as is otherwise provided by law, the courts of justice of civil jurisdiction may enquire into the validity of any administrative act or declare such act null, invalid or without effect only in the following cases: ( a ) where the administrative act is in violation of the Constitution; ( b ) when the administrative act is ultra vires on any of the following grounds: (i) when such act emanates from a public authority that is not authorised to perform it; or (ii) when a public authority has failed to observe the principles of natural justice or mandatory procedural requirements in performing the administrative act or in its prior deliberations thereon; or (iii) when the administrative act constitutes an abuse of the public authority’s power in that it is done for improper purposes or on the basis of irrelevant considerations; or (iv) when the administrative act is otherwise contrary to law. (2) In this article - "administrative act" includes ( tfisser ) the issuing by a public authority of any order, licence, permit, warrant, decision, or a refusal to any demand of a claimant, but does not include any measure intended for internal organization or administration within the said authority ... "public authority" means the Government of Malta, including its Ministries and departments, local authorities and any body corporate established by law. (4) The provisions of this article shall not apply where the mode of contestation or of obtaining redress, with respect to any particular administrative act before a court or tribunal is provided for in any other law. (5) In any action brought under this article, it shall be lawful for the plaintiff to include in the demands a request for the payment of damages based on the alleged responsibility of the public authority in tort or quasi tort, arising out of the administrative act. The said damages shall not be awarded by the court where notwithstanding the annulment of the administrative act the public authority has not acted in bad faith or unreasonably or where the thing requested by the plaintiff could have lawfully and reasonably been refused under any other power.” III.     RELEVANT EUROPEAN REPORTS 61.     In so far as relevant, the Report to the Maltese Government on the visit to Malta carried out by the European Committee for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment (“the CPT”) (from 26 to 30   September 2011) published on 4 July 2013, reads as follows: “In Divisions 2 and 3, material conditions were also far below any acceptable standard. Cells were in a very poor state of repair and had only very limited access to natural light. Another major problem was the high level of humidity in many cells, caused by water leaking from the ceiling. In this regard, cell no. 51 in Division 2 (which also had no window) and cell no. 114 in Division 3 were particularly affected. The latter cell was extremely dilapidated and so humid (with water running down the walls) that the prisoner could not keep any personal belongings in his cell. Moreover, in many cells, the toilet flush was not functioning, and, in particular in Division 3, most of the shower facilities (including the sinks) were broken. In the light of the above, the CPT urged the Maltese authorities to draw up a comprehensive plan to renovate the entire CCF as soon as possible and to provide a timetable for the implementation of the different stages. Divisions 2 and 3 should be renovated as a matter of priority.” THE LAW I.     JOINDER OF THE APPLICATIONS 62.     In accordance with Rule 42 § 1 of the Rules of Court, the Court decides to join the applications, given their similar factual and legal background. II.     ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 3 OF THE CONVENTION 63.     The applicants complained that they were being detained in inhuman and degrading conditions, contrary to Article 3 of the Convention, which reads as follows: “No one shall be subjected to torture or to inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.” 64.     The Government contested that allegation. A.     Scope of the complaint 65.     The Court notes that, in so far as the first applicant also referred to his short stay in Divisions 6 and 13, even assuming that any complaint concerning that period of his detention is not inadmissible for non ‑ compliance with the six-month rule (see Aden Ahmed v.   Malta , no.   55352/12, §§   67 ‑ 73, 23 July 2013, for general principles and their application), no detailed factual information has been provided on the matter, nor have any specific observations been made concerning those divisions. 66.     In consequence, the Court considers that the present case is limited in scope to the conditions of detention in Division   3. B.     Admissibility 1.     The Government’s objection of non-exhaustion of domestic remedies (a)     The parties’ submissions 67.     The Government submitted that the applicants had failed to institute proceedings before the domestic authorities to complain about the alleged breach. They considered that the applicants could have lodged a complaint to the Board of Visitors of the Prisons under Regulation 107 of the Prison Regulations (S.L. 260.03) (hereinafter “the Board”). The members of the Board regularly visited various divisions of the prison and received complaints from inmates; however, they were also competent to deal with complaints other than those made directly to them during the visits. The Government contended that complaints to the Board were not limited, thus there was no impediment to an applicant complaining about the material conditions of his or her cell. They emphasised that the Board had a duty to reply to such complaints (Regulation 107) and even though their decisions were not binding (Regulation 108(2)), where the director, or any other prison officer acting on his behalf, was of the opinion that the recommendations of the Board could not be implemented for reasons which were in the best interests of the prison administration, a written explanation of those reasons had to be forwarded to the chairman of the Board and copied to the Minister, or to a person delegated by him, within one month of the date of receipt of the Board’s recommendations. The Minister, or the person delegated by him, may confirm or vary the decision of the director. According to the Government, that regulation thus imposed on the director the duty to issue a decision, which could be challenged in court through an action of judicial review (Article 469 A of the COCP), which the applicants could have brought with the assistance of a legal aid lawyer, in the event that they did not have sufficient funds to appoint their own lawyer. 68.     The Government considered that the applicants could also have instituted an action in tort, seeking damages for any loss sustained on account of their conditions of detention, if they could prove on the basis of probabilities that they had suffered damage which was attributable to the Government’s acts or omissions. 69.     Lastly, the Government submitted that the applicants had failed to institute constitutional redress proceedings before the relevant jurisdictions, which had wide-ranging powers to deal with Convention violations. The Government submitted that such proceedings could also be heard with urgency, reducing the duration of the proceedings to two months from the date of filing an application. For example, in the case of Richard John Bridge vs Attorney General , the case (in connection with the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction proceedings) had been decided by two levels of jurisdiction in approximately a month and a half (from 6 July to 24   August 2012). Although the Court had previously criticised the duration of such proceedings, in the Government’s view any delays in constitutional proceedings were counterbalanced by the fact that those jurisdictions could issue interim orders pending proceedings. They cited for example a decree in the case of Emanuel Camilleri vs Inspector Louise Callejja and the Commissioner of Police (no. 50/2013), where the Civil Court (First Hall), in its constitutional jurisdiction, had released a sentenced person from prison pending the proceedings. In the particular circumstances of that case, the main witness who had testified in the applicant’s trial, at which a guilty verdict had ultimately been returned, was subsequently put on trial for perjury in connection with her testimony. Thus, in the Government’s view, in the absence of speedy proceedings there nevertheless existed a speedy interim remedy which could be decreed by the constitutional jurisdictions under Article 46(2) of the Constitution and Article 4(2) of the European Convention Act. 70.     According to the Government it was evident that those remedies were effective. They formed part of the normal process of redress, were accessible and offered reasonable prospects of success where this was justified. The applicants had never even asked the prison authorities to change cell or made specific complaints about the factors which they considered inappropriate. 71.     The applicants submitted that they had been unable to lodge a complaint with the Board as none of its members was ever present on (or was ever shown) the premises in Division 3. (b)     The Court’s assessment (i)     General principles 72.     In the context of complaints of inhuman or degrading conditions of detention, the Court has already observed that two types of relief are possible: an improvement in the material conditions of detention, and compensation for the damage or loss sustained on account of such conditions (see Roman Karasev v.   Russia , no.   30251/03, §   79, 25   November 2010, and Benediktov v. Russia , no. 106/02, § 29, 10   May 2007). If an applicant has been held in conditions in breach of Article   3, a domestic remedy capable of putting an end to the on-going violation of his or her right not to be subjected to inhuman or degrading treatment is of the greatest value. However, once the applicant has left the facility in which he or she has endured the inadequate conditions, what remains relevant is that he or she should have an enforceable right to compensation for the violation that has already occurred (see Ananyev and Others v. Russia , nos. 42525/07 and 60800/08, § 97, 10 January 2012). 73.     Where the fundamental right to protection against torture, inhuman and degrading treatment is concerned, the preventive and compensatory remedies have to be complementary in order to be considered effective. The existence of a preventive remedy is indispensable for the effective protection of individuals against the kind of treatment prohibited by Article 3. Indeed, the special importance attached by the Convention to this provision requires, in the Court’s view, the States parties to establish, over and above a compensatory remedy, an effective mechanism in order to put an end to such treatment rapidly (see Ananyev and Others, cited above, §   98, and Torreggiani and Others v.   Italy , nos. 43517/09, 46882/09, 55400/09, 57875/09, 61535/09, 35315/10 and 3