CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 4 juin 2019

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s379BC09C { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s9793A85B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s339D85E6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s665E407E { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } Communicated on 4 June 2019   FIRST SECTION Application no. 4312/13 Alfonso TARRICONE against Italy lodged on 28 December 2012 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The applicant, who has a history of mental health issues, has been detained in different correctional facilities since 1996. In 2004, during the course of proceedings before the L’Aquila Court Responsible for the Execution of Sentences, an independent psychiatric expert who examined the applicant on the court’s request diagnosed him with a form of schizophrenia and recommended his hospitalisation in order to provide him with pharmacological and rehabilitative treatment. Throughout his detention the applicant lodged several applications before the domestic courts arguing that his state of health was incompatible with detention and that he was not receiving appropriate medical care, and seeking external hospitalisation for therapeutic purposes. According to the applicant’s account, he was repeatedly transferred to correctional facilities that were inappropriate for persons with his mental health issues and for the entire duration of his detention the authorities failed to provide him with adequate pharmacological treatment and psychiatric care for his mental health disorder, which worsened over time. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES Has the applicant been subjected to inhuman or degrading treatment, in breach of Article 3 of the Convention? Taking into account the applicant’s medical history, have the responsible authorities discharged their obligation to ensure that that applicant’s health and well ‑ being while in detention were adequately secured by, among other things, providing him with appropriate medical assistance, as required by Article 3 of the Convention (see Rooman v.   Belgium [GC], no. 18052/11, §§ 145 ‑ 148, 31   January 2019)? In particular: a)     Was the applicant’s medical condition regularly and systematically monitored? b)     Is there evidence of what may be considered a “comprehensive therapeutic strategy” aimed at adequately treating the applicant’s health problems or preventing their aggravation, rather than addressing them on a symptomatic basis? c)     Were decisions of the domestic courts assessing the compatibility of the applicant’s detention with his state of health based on recent medical assessments? If so, who performed such medical assessments? On what grounds was the applicant’s request for a fresh independent psychiatric assessment refused by the Campobasso Court Responsible for the Execution of Sentences on 25 October 2011?   The Government are requested to provide documentary evidence in support of their answers. INFORMATION SOUGHT The Government are further invited to furnish a copy of the applicant’s prison medical register ( diario clinico ).