CEDH · CASELAW;JUDGMENTS;CHAMBER;ENG — 25 avril 2017

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s2E932ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:11pt } .s598389F8 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:11pt } .s9793A85B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .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 } .sE208486F { font-family:Arial; color:#ff0000 } .s99A63BFE { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left; font-size:11pt } .s4ACA9207 { page-break-before:always; clear:both; mso-break-type:section-break } .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 } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s33165EBA { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .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 } .s4B243ECC { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sC422C878 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:17.85pt } .s83BE5C30 { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; vertical-align:super } .sF7A86111 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; font-size:10pt } .sAADB120E { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:28.35pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; font-size:10pt } .s5243C837 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; font-size:10pt } .sC7EAD8B { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline } .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 } .s583D00FA { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:17pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-17pt } .s15BC6592 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:17.3pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-17pt } .sF7A4323 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .sBAD0D18F { width:1.87pt; display:inline-block } .s165BD465 { width:190.1pt; display:inline-block } .s7602FED2 { width:18.21pt; display:inline-block } .sC1AC44A4 { width:228.11pt; display:inline-block } .s379BC09C { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .sEC176AAF { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s26BAC482 { margin-top:10pt; margin-bottom:10pt; text-align:center } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left } .s2EB42ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:10pt } .s653E6C45 { font-family:Arial; font-size:6.67pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .s3DC36BA9 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 }       FOURTH SECTION           CASE OF REZMIVEȘ AND OTHERS v. ROMANIA   (Applications nos. 61467/12, 39516/13, 48231/13 and 68191/13)           JUDGMENT (Extracts)   This version was rectified on 25 June 2017 under Rule 81 of the Rules of Court.     STRASBOURG   25 April 2017     FINAL   25/07/2017     This judgment has become final under Article 44 § 2 of the Convention. It may be subject to editorial revision.   In the case of Rezmiveș and Others v. Romania, The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting as a Chamber composed of:   Ganna Yudkivska, President ,   Vincent A. De Gaetano,   Nona Tsotsoria,   Paulo Pinto de Albuquerque,   Krzysztof Wojtyczek,   Iulia Motoc,   Marko Bošnjak, judges , and Marialena Tsirli, Section Registrar , Having deliberated in private on 21 March 2017, Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date: PROCEDURE 1.     The case originated in four applications (nos.   61467/12, 39516/13, 48231/13 and 68191/13) against Romania lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) by four Romanian nationals, Mr   Daniel Arpad Rezmiveș, Mr Laviniu Moşmonea, Mr Marius-Gheorghiţă Mavroian and Mr Iosif Gazsi (“the applicants”), on 14 September 2012, 6   June 2013, 24 July 2013 and 15 October 2013 respectively. 2.     The first applicant, Mr Rezmiveș, was represented by Ms   M.C.   Boncea and the third applicant, Mr Mavroian, by Ms   N.T.   Popescu, a lawyer practising in Bucharest. The second and fourth applicants, Mr Moşmonea and Mr Gazsi, were granted leave by the Section President, under Rule 36 § 2 of the Rules of Court, to present their own case. [1] 3.     The Romanian Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Ms C. Brumar, of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. 4.     Before the Court the applicants complained in particular, under Article 3 of the Convention, about the conditions of their detention in various prisons or police detention facilities. 5.     Between 7 October 2013 and 25 June 2014 the Government were given notice of the complaints brought by the applicants under Article 3 of the Convention concerning the conditions of their detention. At the same time, the Section President, sitting as a single judge (Rule 54 § 3), declared the rest of the complaints raised in the applications inadmissible. 6.     On 15 September 2015 a Chamber of the Third Section informed the parties that as a structural problem had been raised, the Court intended to apply Rule 61, and invited them to submit their observations on the matter. In accordance with Rule 41 and Rule 61 § 2 (c), the Chamber also decided to process the above-mentioned applications as a matter of priority. Both the Government and the applicants submitted observations on the application of the pilot-judgment procedure. THE FACTS I.     THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE 7.     The applicants were born in 1970, 1966, 1976 and 1972 respectively. Mr Rezmiveş, Mr Moşmonea and Mr Gazsi are currently detained in Timişoara, Pelendava and Baia Mare Prisons respectively. Mr   Mavroian, who had been detained in Focşani Prison, was released on 13 January 2015. A.     The first applicant’s detention 8.     On 5 April 2011 the first applicant was admitted to Gherla Prison. He remained there until 12 March 2012, when he was transferred to Aiud Prison. On 13 April 2012 he was transferred to Oradea Prison, where he stayed until 20 December 2012, before being moved to Timişoara Prison on 5 August 2013. 9.     The first applicant complained about the conditions of detention in Gherla, Aiud and Oradea Prisons. In particular, he complained of overcrowding (submitting that there was between 1.60 sq. m and 2.22 sq. m of living space per prisoner), the lack of natural light, the short duration of daily exercise and the lack of recreational activities. ... B.     The second applicant ’s detention 10.     On 13 February 2008 the second applicant was placed in pre-trial detention in Craiova Prison. Following his conviction, he served his sentence there until 17 May 2012, when he was transferred to Târgu-Jiu Prison. On 11 July 2012 he was transferred to Pelendava Prison. 10.     The second applicant complained about the detention conditions in all three prisons. ... C.     The third applicant ’s detention 16.     On 15 December 2009 the third applicant was admitted to Rahova Prison, where he stayed for several months before being transferred successively to Tulcea (2010), Iași (2010-14) and Vaslui (2011-13) Prisons. 17.     The third applicant complained about the conditions of detention in Rahova Prison, referring in particular to overcrowding, lack of ventilation in cells, mould on the walls, poor-quality food and the presence of bedbugs. ... D.     The fourth applicant ’s detention 23.     The fourth applicant was held in the Baia Mare police detention facility from 26 March to 25 May 2012 before being transferred to Gherla Prison. 24.     In his application form the fourth applicant complained of poor hygiene conditions, the lack of a toilet, running water, natural light and adequate ventilation, the presence of rats and the insufficient access to showers at the Baia Mare police detention facility. In relation to his detention in Gherla Prison, he complained of overcrowding, lack of ventilation in cells, insufficient and poor-quality food served in rusty containers, and the presence of only one bathroom between twenty-seven detainees, which had two toilets and no hot water and could not be cleaned more than once a month. ... II.     RELEVANT DOMESTIC LAW A.     Provisions on sentencing and the execution of sentences and detention measures ... 27.     Law no. 254/2013 on sentencing and the execution of sentences and detention measures came into force on 1   February 2014, repealing Law no.   275/2006. Its implementing regulations were published on 11 April 2016. Law no. 254/2013 provides that persons deprived of their liberty may complain to a post-sentencing judge if they consider that the conditions of their detention do not comply with the domestic rules on detainees’ accommodation. The rules in question are laid down in Order no.   433/2010 of the Ministry of Justice, in force as from 15   February   2010, and concern the compulsory standards for detention in prisons (see paragraph 34 below). The judge may order the management of a custodial facility to remedy the problems complained of. The judge’s decisions can be challenged in the district court within whose jurisdiction the custodial facility lies and are binding on the facility in question. 28.     On 1 February 2014 a new Code of Criminal Procedure (“the NCCP”) came into force. The NCCP provides for new preventive measures in the context of criminal proceedings, such as judicial supervision (Articles 211-215 1 ), judicial supervision on bail (Articles 216-217) and house arrest (Articles 218-222). ... 29.     A new Criminal Code (“the NCC”) came into force on 1 February 2014. 30.     The NCC has retained the three main penalties provided for in the former Criminal Code: life imprisonment, fixed-term imprisonment and fines (Article 53 of the NCC). 31.     Prisoners sentenced to life imprisonment may be released on parole if they have served at least twenty years of their sentence, have displayed good conduct and have satisfied all the civil obligations imposed in the sentencing judgment (Article   99 of the NCC). Prisoners sentenced to fixed-term imprisonment may be released on parole if they have already served two-thirds of a sentence of up to ten years, or three-quarters of a sentence of more than ten and less than twenty years, if they are serving their sentence under an open or semi-open regime, if they have satisfied all the civil obligations imposed in the sentencing judgment, and if the court is in favour of their reintegration into society (Article 100, paragraph 1, of the NCC). 32.     The imposition of a sentence may be waived under Article 80 of the NCC if the offence is not a serious one and the court considers that the convicted person’s conduct, his or her efforts to mitigate the effects of the acts committed and the prospects of rehabilitation justify such a measure. The measure provided for in Article 80 is not applicable to anyone who has a previous conviction or has evaded prosecution or trial, or to offences carrying a sentence of more than five years’ imprisonment.   The NCC provides for the possibility of suspending a sentence consisting of a fine or less than two years’ imprisonment in the light of the person’s conduct prior to conviction, subject to fulfilment of the civil obligations imposed in the sentencing judgment (Articles 83-90 of the NCC). Lastly, under Article 159 of the NCC, the parties may reach a friendly settlement avoiding criminal liability where the proceedings were instituted by the prosecuting authorities of their own motion. 33.     Law no. 252/2013, which came into force on 1 February 2014, governs the organisation and operation of the probation system.   ... B.     Provisions concerning liability in tort 36.     Article 1349 § 1 of the Civil Code provides that everyone must observe the rules of conduct imposed by the law or local custom and refrain from interfering, through actions or inaction, with the rights or legitimate interests of others. Any act committed by a person that causes damage to another renders the person through whose fault the damage was caused liable to make reparation for it (Article 1357 of the Civil Code). C.     Statistical data concerning the number of detainees in facilities operated by the ANP 37.     The National Prison Administration ( Administraţia Naţională a Penitenciarelor – “the ANP”) publishes statistics on its website [2] concerning the number of detainees in all facilities under its authority. These statistics indicate that 33,434 people were being held on 31   December 2013, 28,225 on 26   January 2016 and 28,062 on 9 August 2016, in facilities with a total capacity of 18,820 places. According to the same data, the occupancy rate of all facilities under the ANP’s authority was 154.36% on 23 June 2015, 153.87% on 14 July 2015, 150.92% on 15 September 2015, 150.74% on 29   March 2016, 150.41% on 17 May 2016 and 149.11% on 9 August 2016. In calculating the occupancy rate, the ANP used a figure of 4 sq. m of living space per detainee, as provided in Order no. 433/2010 ... D.     Recommendations issued by the People’s Advocate ... 39.     In his Recommendation no. 26 of 7 November 2014 the People’s Advocate noted that at Miercurea-Ciuc Prison there was severe overcrowding (1   sq. m of living space per prisoner), poor lighting, no laundry-drying facilities, insufficient furniture, no canteen for serving meals and an infestation of bedbugs. At Târgu-Jiu Prison, the People’s Advocate noted on 17 November 2014 that there was overcrowding (between 1.21 and 2.52 sq. m of living space per prisoner) and no canteen (Recommendation no. 29). On the same date he observed that the water supply for prisoners at Jilava Prison was unfit for consumption (Recommendation no.   30) and that at Galaţi Prison there was very severe overcrowding (183.99%), insufficient furniture and no permanent water supply (Recommendation no.   31). 40.     On 24 November 2015 the People’s Advocate investigated matters including allegations of poor detention conditions at Botoşani Prison. He observed that one complainant was being held in an overcrowded cell (2.13   sq. m per prisoner), meals were served in the cells, the showers were unfit for use and, according to the complainant’s fellow inmates, there were sometimes rats, mice, lice and bedbugs (Recommendation no. 24). Overcrowding (2.21 sq. m per prisoner), insufficient washrooms and toilets that were not partitioned off were also observed at Pelendava Prison (Recommendation no. 28 of 23 December 2015). During an inspection of Botoşani Prison in 2016, the People’s Advocate noted that the prison’s occupancy rate was 159.88% in November 2015, that one complainant’s cell had 2 sq. m of living space and that the mattresses were very worn out. According to the complainant’s fellow inmates, there were bedbugs. The People’s Advocate also found that the furniture was inadequate and insufficient and that there was insufficient natural light and artificial lighting (Recommendation no. 10 of 30 March 2016). E.     Legislative initiative to improve detention conditions in ANP facilities 41.     From 3 to 13 November 2016 the Ministry of Justice held a public consultation on a Bill to amend Law no. 254/2013 on sentencing and the execution of sentences and detention measures. The Bill seeks to introduce a compensation scheme whereby detainees who are victims of chronic overcrowding are entitled to a three-day remission of their sentence for each period of thirty days spent in overcrowded cells. On 23 November 2016 the Romanian Government approved the Bill to amend Law no.   254/2013. The Bill will then have to be examined by Parliament. III.     RELEVANT COUNCIL OF EUROPE MATERIALS A.     The Committee of Ministers 42.     On 30 September 1999 the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe adopted Recommendation No. R (99) 22 concerning prison overcrowding and prison population inflation. The Recommendation reads as follows, in particular: “The Committee of Ministers, under the terms of Article 15.b of the Statute of the Council of Europe, ... Recommends that governments of member states: - take all appropriate measures, when reviewing their legislation and practice in relation to prison overcrowding and prison population inflation, to apply the principles set out in the Appendix to this Recommendation; Appendix to Recommendation No. R (99) 22 I.     Basic principles 1.     Deprivation of liberty should be regarded as a sanction or measure of last resort and should therefore be provided for only where the seriousness of the offence would make any other sanction or measure clearly inadequate. 2.     The extension of the prison estate should rather be an exceptional measure, as it is generally unlikely to offer a lasting solution to the problem of overcrowding. Countries whose prison capacity may be sufficient in overall terms but poorly adapted to local needs should try to achieve a more rational distribution of prison capacity. 3.     Provision should be made for an appropriate array of community sanctions and measures, possibly graded in terms of relative severity; prosecutors and judges should be prompted to use them as widely as possible. 4.     Member states should consider the possibility of decriminalising certain types of offence or reclassifying them so that they do not attract penalties entailing the deprivation of liberty. 5.     In order to devise a coherent strategy against prison overcrowding and prison population inflation a detailed analysis of the main contributing factors should be carried out, addressing in particular such matters as the types of offence which carry long prison sentences, priorities in crime control, public attitudes and concerns and existing sentencing practices. ... III.     Measures relating to the pre-trial stage Avoiding criminal proceedings – Reducing recourse to pre-trial detention 10.     Appropriate measures should be taken with a view to fully implementing the principles laid down in Recommendation No R (87) 18 concerning the simplification of criminal justice; this would involve in particular that member states, while taking into account their own constitutional principles or legal tradition, resort to the principle of discretionary prosecution (or measures having the same purpose) and make use of simplified procedures and out-of-court settlements as alternatives to prosecution in suitable cases, in order to avoid full criminal proceedings. 11.     The application of pre-trial detention and its length should be reduced to the minimum compatible with the interests of justice. To this effect, member states should ensure that their law and practice are in conformity with the relevant provisions of the European Convention on Human Rights and the case-law of its control organs, and be guided by the principles set out in Recommendation No. R (80) 11 concerning custody pending trial, in particular as regards the grounds on which pre-trial detention can be ordered. 12.     The widest possible use should be made of alternatives to pre-trial detention, such as the requirement of the suspected offender to reside at a specified address, a restriction on leaving or entering a specified place without authorisation, the provision of bail or supervision and assistance by an agency specified by the judicial authority. In this connection attention should be paid to the possibilities for supervising a requirement to remain in a specified place through electronic surveillance devices. 13.     In order to assist the efficient and humane use of pre-trial detention, adequate financial and human resources should be made available and appropriate procedural means and managerial techniques be developed, as necessary. ... V.     Measures relating to the post-trial stage The implementation of community sanctions and measures – The enforcement of custodial sentences 22.     In order to make community sanctions and measures credible alternatives to short terms of imprisonment, their effective implementation should be ensured, in particular through: - the provision of the infrastructure for the execution and monitoring of such community sanctions, not least in order to give judges and prosecutors confidence in their effectiveness; and - the development and use of reliable risk-prediction and risk-assessment techniques as well as supervision strategies, with a view to identifying the offender’s risk to relapse and to ensuring public protection and safety. 23.     The development of measures should be promoted which reduce the actual length of the sentence served, by giving preference to individualised measures, such as early conditional release (parole), over collective measures for the management of prison overcrowding (amnesties, collective pardons). 24.     Parole should be regarded as one of the most effective and constructive measures, which not only reduces the length of imprisonment but also contributes substantially to a planned return of the offender to the community. 25.     In order to promote and expand the use of parole, best conditions for offender support, assistance and supervision in the community have to be created, not least with a view to prompting the competent judicial or administrative authorities to consider this measure as a valuable and responsible option. 26.     Effective programmes for treatment during detention and for supervision and treatment after release should be devised and implemented so as to facilitate the resettlement of offenders, to reduce recidivism, to provide public safety and protection and to give judges and prosecutors the confidence that measures aimed at reducing the actual length of the sentence to be served and the community sanctions and measures are constructive and responsible options. ” 43.     The second part of Recommendation Rec(2006)2 of the Committee of Ministers to member States on the European Prison Rules (adopted on 11   January 2006 at the 952nd meeting of the Ministers’ Deputies), is devoted to conditions of detention. The relevant parts of the Recommendation read as follows: “18.1. The accommodation provided for prisoners, and in particular all sleeping accommodation, shall respect human dignity and, as far as possible, privacy, and meet the requirements of health and hygiene, due regard being paid to climatic conditions and especially to floor space, cubic content of air, lighting, heating and ventilation. 18.2. In all buildings where prisoners are required to live, work or congregate: a. the windows shall be large enough to enable the prisoners to read or work by natural light in normal conditions and shall allow the entrance of fresh air except where there is an adequate air conditioning system; b. artificial light shall satisfy recognised technical standards; and c. there shall be an alarm system that enables prisoners to contact the staff without delay. 18.3. Specific minimum requirements in respect of the matters referred to in paragraphs 1 and 2 shall be set in national law. 18.4. National law shall provide mechanisms for ensuring that these minimum requirements are not breached by the overcrowding of prisons. 18.5. Prisoners shall normally be accommodated during the night in individual cells except where it is preferable for them to share sleeping accommodation. ” 44.     On 7   May 2012, in a memorandum which was declassified at the 1144th meeting of the Ministers’ Deputies (June 2012), the Committee of Ministers evaluated the general measures adopted for the execution of judgments in ninety-three Romanian cases relating mainly to overcrowding and material conditions of detention in prisons and police detention facilities (the Bragadireanu group of cases (no. 22088/04)). The situation in police detention facilities was described as giving rise to “serious concerns” because, in addition to overcrowding, the cells were located in police station basements, there was inadequate ventilation and access to natural light and the opportunities for out-of-cell activities were very limited . The Committee of Ministers stated that significant additional measures were still required to ensure that police detention facilities afforded conditions that were fully compatible with the requirements deriving from Article 3 of the Convention. The authorities were encouraged to transfer everyone detained on remand to prisons. The overcrowding in the vast majority of Romanian prisons was said to give rise to “serious concerns” . ... 46.     On 12 February 2015 the Committee of Ministers published a memorandum [3] assessing the general measures taken or envisaged in the above-mentioned cases to resolve the issues of overcrowding and poor conditions of detention. Regarding police detention facilities, the memorandum concluded that, as well as being overcrowded, a number of such facilities were structurally unsuitable for longer-term detention. In addition to the severe overcrowding and the shortage of individual beds, the cells were located in police station basements and there was inadequate ventilation and access to natural light. The Romanian authorities were encouraged to provide appropriate living conditions in the cells, to review the system of pre-trial detention on police premises and to ensure that remand prisoners were not held in such facilities for extended periods and were transferred promptly to prisons. The measures introduced in the new Code of Criminal Procedure to reduce prison overcrowding in particular (house arrest, judicial supervision, suspension of sentence and discharge) did not appear likely to contribute to a significant reduction in the prison population. According to the conclusions of the memorandum, Romanian prisons were still severely overcrowded and the material conditions were precarious. The recommendations issued to the Romanian authorities included diversifying the range of alternative measures to imprisonment, relaxing the conditions of access to conditional release, ensuring the proper functioning of the probation service and continuing with plans to modernise the prison estate. 47.     With regard to the remedies available in respect of complaints concerning overcrowding and poor material conditions, in the same memorandum the Committee of Ministers assessed preventive remedies (Law no. 254/2013) and found that they did not allow the domestic courts to carry out a comprehensive review of such complaints and to order corrective measures where the minimum national standard was incompatible with the requirements deriving from the Court’s case-law. Doubts were also expressed as to the effectiveness of decisions by post-sentencing judges, especially in a context characterised by systemic overcrowding. As regards compensatory remedies, the Committee of Ministers observed that the examples provided by the authorities in relation to ordinary liability in tort did not prove with the requisite degree of certainty that a compensatory remedy existed in this field. The Committee of Ministers recommended that additional measures be taken in order to fully respond to the indications which the Court had given the Romanian authorities in the Iacov Stanciu v.   Romania judgment (no.   35972/05, 24   July   2012) as regards the setting up of an adequate and effective system of remedies. B.     European Committee for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (CPT) ... 49.     In the Seventh General Report on the CPT’s activities (CPT/Inf   (97)   10), published on 22 August 1997, the CPT referred, among other things, to situations of overcrowding: “13. ... An overcrowded prison entails cramped and unhygienic accommodation; a constant lack of privacy (even when performing such basic tasks as using a sanitary facility); reduced out-of-cell activities, due to demand outstripping the staff and facilities available; overburdened health-care services; increased tension and hence more violence between prisoners and between prisoners and staff. This list is far from exhaustive. The CPT has been led to conclude on more than one occasion that the adverse effects of overcrowding have resulted in inhuman and degrading conditions of detention. 14.     To address the problem of overcrowding, some countries have taken the route of increasing the number of prison places. For its part, the CPT is far from convinced that providing additional accommodation will alone offer a lasting solution. Indeed, a number of European States have embarked on extensive programmes of prison building, only to find their prison populations rising in tandem with the increased capacity acquired by their prison estates. By contrast, the existence of policies to limit or modulate the number of persons being sent to prison has in certain States made an important contribution to maintaining the prison population at a manageable level. ... ” ... 51.     The CPT visited various Romanian prisons and police detention facilities in 1995, 1999, 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2006, 2009 and 2010. The reports published following these visits referred in general to significant overcrowding and poor hygiene conditions in the facilities visited. 52.     In a report published on 24 November 2011 following its visit to Romania from 5 to 16 September 2010 the CPT gave a detailed overview of the situation encountered in the different police detention facilities it had visited. Most of the cells in those facilities were overcrowded and in a poor state of repair; access to natural light and ventilation was poor, and the artificial lighting was inadequate; the toilets were not fully partitioned off; and the detainees were not supplied with bodily hygiene products . In some of the facilities, detainees were given only one meal a day and the food was of poor quality. In other facilities, detainees were kept in their cells for twenty-three hours a day. In conclusion, the police detention facilities visited were found to be unsuitable long-term accommodation for persons deprived of their liberty. The part of the report containing recommendations reads as follows: “ The CPT recommends, once again, that the Romanian authorities take the necessary measures to guarantee that in police detention facilities: –     each detainee has at least 4 sq. m of living space in multi-occupancy cells; –     each detainee has a clean mattress and blankets ; –     there is adequate natural light, artificial lighting and ventilation in the cells; any unnecessary fittings on windows must be removed; –     toilets built into cells are partitioned off; –     the cells and sanitary facilities are kept in a decent state of repair and cleanliness; –     detainees have basic hygiene products; –     satisfactory food (in terms of quality and quantity) is served to detainees, in accordance with the European Prison Rules; –     anyone detained for more than twenty-four hours has at least one hour’s outdoor exercise every day. The CPT also recommends that the Romanian authorities continue their efforts to offer some form of activity, besides a daily walk, to anyone held for more than a few days in police detention facilities. ...” 53.     The same report contains observations on the situation at one particular prison. According to the report’s findings, some of the cells at that prison were overcrowded (with less than 3 sq. m of living space per prisoner), with dirty and foul-smelling sanitary facilities. There was no access to hot water. The CPT issued the following recommendations: “... 62.     The CPT recommends that the Romanian authorities take steps at Poarta Albă Prison to: –     reduce occupancy rates in the cells in blocks II and IV, the aim being to offer a minimum of 4 sq. m of living space per prisoner as laid down in the rules in force; –     repair/renovate the sanitary facilities in block II (in the cells) and block IV (in the cells and communal showers); –     allow prisoners in block IV to have a warm shower at least once a week; consideration should be given in this regard to Rule 19.4 of the European Prison Rules; –     undertake a full renovation of block IV as soon as possible; –     review the quality and quantity of meals provided to prisoners, ensuring that minimum daily intake requirements are strictly complied with and regular inspections of supplies, in particular meat, are carried out. ...” 54.     From 5 to 17 June 2014 a CPT delegation visited a number of police detention facilities (Bucharest City police detention facilities nos. 1, 10, 11 and 12, Afumaţi and Cernica police stations, and Arad Police Inspectorate and Bihor County Police Inspectorate detention facilities) and four prisons (Arad, Oradea, Târgşor and Bucharest-Rahova). The report (CPT/Inf (2015) 31) produced following the visit was published on 28 September 2015. With regard to the police detention facilities, the CPT observed that many detainees were still being held there for prolonged periods, even though the facilities were not suitable for such lengthy stays. The CPT recommended that the Romanian authorities ensure that detainees were no longer held for lengthy periods in police facilities and were instead detained in prisons. The conditions in most of the police detention facilities visited, with two exceptions (Oradea and Arad), were similar to those observed in 2010 (overcrowding, dilapidation, lack of hygiene, and insufficient natural light and ventilation). Turning to the detention conditions in the prisons, the CPT noted that overcrowding remained a significant problem and recommended that the Romanian authorities redouble their efforts to develop a penal policy placing emphasis on non-custodial measures. The material conditions at Arad Prison – which had been renovated between 1998 and 2010 – were generally satisfactory, apart from the dilapidated state of certain cells, decrepit walls, damage to beds and wardrobes and problems of vermin infestation. At Oradea Prison, built in the nineteenth century, there were run-down buildings, with overcrowded cells where the walls and ceilings were exposed to water seepage, and in some cases with no artificial lighting or access to natural light, and furniture and mattresses in a poor condition. At Târgşor Prison there were also overcrowded and poorly ventilated cells, with triple bunkbeds, limited access to natural light and seriously inadequate artificial lighting. As far as sanitary facilities and hygiene were concerned, the CPT noted that the toilets and washbasins in several cells were dilapidated and that there were shower heads missing (Arad and Oradea); and that the toilets were unfit for use and detainees were not supplied with enough soap, detergent and sanitary towels (Târgşor). The CPT delegation had received a large number of complaints about the quantity and quality of food. Despite the efforts made at three prisons to offer prisoners work and/or social and educational activities, the vast majority of the prison population did not take part in such activities. The CPT issued the following recommendations in the light of its visit: “ A. Police detention facilities ... In the light of the above observations, the CPT urges the Romanian authorities to take the necessary measures to ensure that at police detention facilities: –     detainees have at least 4 sq. m of living space in shared cells (Bucharest central police detention facility and facilities nos. 10, 11 and 12); –     cells have sufficient access to natural light and artificial lighting and ventilation (Bucharest central police detention facility and facilities nos. 10, 11 and 12 and Arad detention facility); any unnecessary fittings of grilles/bars on windows should be removed and the windows expanded (Bucharest police detention facilities nos. 10, 11 and 12 and central facility); –     all detainees have a clean mattress and bedding (Bucharest police detention facilities nos. 10, 11 and 12 and central facility and Arad detention facility); –     the sanitary facilities in the cells at Bucharest central police detention facility and facilities nos. 10, 11, 12 and Oradea detention facility are fully partitioned off (up to the ceiling); –     detainees in Arad police detention facility are immediately provided with access to suitable toilets, including at night; the use of buckets and bottles should be abandoned ; –     the cells and sanitary facilities are regularly maintained and kept clean . With regard to meals, reference is made to the observations and recommendations set out in paragraphs 62 and 64 . Furthermore, the CPT recommends that improvements be made to the exercise yards at the detention facilities visited, taking into account the observations made in paragraph 40 . The CPT also recommends that the authorities continue their efforts to offer some form of activity, besides a daily walk, to anyone held for more than a few days in police detention facilities. B.     Prisons ... 58.     The CPT recommends that the following measures be taken in the institutions visited in the light of the observations set out in paragraphs 54-57: –     review cell occupancy rates in order to guarantee a minimum of 4 sq.   m of living space per detainee in shared cells, not including sanitary facilities (Oradea and Târgşor Prisons); –     carry out the necessary renovation and repair work in wings E3 and E4 at Oradea Prison, and ensure that any damaged furniture and mattresses are replaced; –     guarantee that all detainees in wing E3 at Oradea Prison and in the darker closed-regime cells at Târgşor Prison have sufficient access to natural light and adequate ventilation in the cells during the daytime; access to artificial lighting should also be improved in the closed-regime cells at Târgşor Prison; solutions should be found to avoid keeping the light on all night, for example by installing night lights; –     carry out regular disinfestation of the buildings at Arad Prison. In addition, the cells at the prisons visited should be equipped with signalling systems. ... 61.     The CPT recommends that the Romanian authorities take the following measures in the light of the observations set out in paragraphs 59 and 60: –     repair and renovate the sanitary facilities in the relevant wings of Arad, Oradea and Târgşor   Prisons; at Oradea Prison, the walls and ceilings damaged by water seepage must also be repaired; –     provide detainees with sufficient personal hygiene products and detergent to clean their cells. ... 64.     The CPT recommends that the Romanian authorities take steps to guarantee that the quality and quantity of the food provided to detainees in the prisons visited, and in all other prisons in Romania, comply with the minimum daily intake requirements for protein and vitamins. The CPT calls on the authorities to ensure that the calorie levels currently under discussion comply with the minimum daily intake requirements, and wishes to receive a copy of the new standards in due course . The CPT also recommends that the kitchens be regularly inspected, with constant attention being paid in particular to compliance with hygiene standards. In addition, the CPT wishes to receive confirmation that the faulty freezer cabinet in the kitchen at Oradea Prison has been replaced. 4.     Activities ... The CPT recommends that the Romanian authorities redouble their efforts to develop programmes of activities for convicted prisoners, including those under the closed regime, and remand prisoners, especially in Oradea and Târgşor Prisons. The aim should be to allow both categories of prisoners to spend a reasonable portion of the day (eight hours or more) outside their cells, carrying out a variety of motivating activities. To that end, there should be a sufficient number of appropriate staff, in particular psychologists, supervisors and social workers. The CPT recommends that the teams of psychologists, supervisors and social workers at the three prisons visited be strengthened, first of all by filling any vacant posts in those prisons without delay. ” ... C.     European Committee on Crime Problems (CDPC) 57.     On 3 0 June 2016 the CDPC published the White Paper on Prison Overcrowding (PC-CP (2015) 6 rev 7), approved on 28   September   2016 by the Committee of Ministers at its 1266th meeting. The White Paper highlights various aspects that national authorities are encouraged to consider when devising their long-term strategies and specific actions to tackle prison overcrowding. The relevant parts of the document read as follows: “ IV.     Root causes of overuse of deprivation of liberty and of prison overcrowding ... d.     Limited use of community sanctions and measures 71.     Recommendation No. R(92)16 on the European Rules on community sanctions and measures (CSM) sets a number of standards and principles for their use and by doing so incites the member states to introduce a reliable system in order to motivate courts to make more use of CSM instead of imprisonment. CSM can maintain the right balance between protection of society, reparation of the harm done to victims and dealing with the needs of social adjustment of the offenders. 72.     Such alternatives can fully or partially replace prison sentences and may include for example treatment orders, fines, confiscation of assets, suspended sentences linked to the fulfilment of certain conditions by the offender, community service/sanctions and many other sanctions and measures, often specially adapted to the particular offender and the circumstances of the crime. What they all have in common is that the crime committed will indeed be met with an adapted and therefore efficient sanction/reaction which can also help prevent future offences. Economic sanctions together with CSM or as standalone alternatives to imprisonment seem to be quite efficient and have often more effects on offenders than the mere use of prison. ... 75.     Community service is an example in this respect as it helps maintaining offenders in the outside social environment, developing their social and employment skills and working towards their reintegration into society. The role of the local communities in relation to this is very important as they should provide for such possibilities for community service. They thus become a partner in dealing with crime in a manner which steps out of the traditional criminal justice methods and on the other hand become facilitators in social integration of offenders which is a basic indicator of inclusive communities. ... V.     How to address prison overcrowding a.     Deprivation of liberty as a measure of last resort 84.     As mentioned earlier, this principle is to be found in the relevant Committee of Ministers recommendations. These texts invite the member states to use deprivation of liberty only when the seriousness of the offence combined with consideration of the individual circumstances of the case would make any other sanction or measure clearly inadequate. If this view is largely accepted in reality its interpretation differs which may lead to divergent transpositions into concrete action and rules in the different criminal justice systems. ... 85.     In many of its judgements the Court has reiterated that, in view of both the presumption of innocence and the presumption in favour of liberty, remand in custody must be the exception rather than the norm and should be a measure of last resort. In Torreggiani v. Italy the Court reminds of the relevant Committee of Ministers recommendations to be taken into consideration when devising penal policies and reorganising the penitentiary system and invites judges and prosecutors to make more use of alternatives to custody and make lesser use of detention in order, among others, to reduce the growth of prison population. 86.     In order to avoid the excessive use of remand in custody and imprisonment courts should apply the principle of using deprivation of liberty as a measure of last resort. Unfortunately only too often deprivation of liberty is a measure of first resort instead of being seen and accepted as an exceptional method of execution of a penal sanction. Courts should not deprive a person of his/her liberty simply because it is provided by law and is carried out in a lawful manner, but also because it is reasonable and necessary in all circumstances (evaluated on a case-by-case basis). This requires the application of the principle of proportionality and the careful assessment of the risk of reoffending and of the risk of causing harm to the society. 87.     The length of pre-trial detention should be fixed by law and/or be reviewed at regular intervals. The length of pre-trial detention should in no case exceed the length of the sanction provided for the offence alleged to have been committed. In addition to the length of pre-trial detention being fixed by law, the need for continuation of detention on remand of any suspect or accused should be reviewed at regular intervals as with time the pressing necessity to remand someone in custody may decrease or even disappear. 88.     Remand detention can last many months, sometimes years because a person may be considered to be a remand detainee until the last instance court has delivered its judgement. It seems therefore advisable to consider detaining such persons convicted by first instance court together with sentenced prisoners after the judgement of the first instance court is delivered in order to avoid situations of overcrowding in remand facilities and to start preparing the persons for rehabilitation in view of their future release. ... 100.     Long prison sentences or prison sentences for life concern usually a minority of the prison population. Nevertheless with time their number rises and more prisoners accumulate who tend to stay locked up for decades or sometimes for life. In accordance with the case-law of the European Court of Human Rights35 any such prisoners should have the right at regular intervals to request early release and this request should be properly considered and reasons given for decisions. ... b.     Revision of penal law, decriminalisation and alternatives to penal proceedings ... 112.     It can be argued that only acts and behaviour that are seriously harmful or causing a risk of harm or real danger to other persons should be criminalised and should entail prison sentences. The need for proportionality between the real harmfulness of the offence committed and the real risk posed by the offender and the degree of punishment is also a very important point to be considered. 113.     On the other hand it should be fully recognised that crimes committed by dangerous offenders merit special attention and often bring about the use of prolonged deprivation of liberty to protect society and potential victims, which must be seen as fully justified. The definition of dangerousness may vary, but the definition from the Committee of Ministers Recommendation CM/Rec 2014 (3) on dangerous offenders may be useful as a starting point in this respect. ‘A dangerous offender is a person who has been convicted of a very serious sexual or very serious violent crime against persons and who presents a high likelihood of re offending with further very serious sexual or very serious violent crimes against persons.’ Violence may be defined as the intentional use of physical or psychological force. 114.