CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 10 octobre 2022

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s379BC09C { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .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 } Published on 2 November 2022   FIFTH SECTION Application no. 55234/21 M.A. against Latvia lodged on 10 November 2021 communicated on 10 October 2022 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns detention of a person in prison between July 2021 and February 2022 despite the fact that a court order had been issued for her to undergo inpatient treatment in a psychiatric hospital. In a first set of criminal proceedings, in 2018 the applicant was sentenced to four years’ imprisonment. She started serving that sentence on 17   September 2018. Subsequently, another set of criminal proceedings was instituted against her. In those proceedings, a psychiatric expert concluded that the applicant, in light of her health condition, could not participate in court proceedings or serve a sentence in prison. On 13 July 2021 the court decided to continue those proceedings with respect to application of compulsory medical measures and ordered her to undergo inpatient medical treatment in a psychiatric hospital for a period of six months. On 5 January 2022 a similar court order was made again. The domestic authorities took some steps in that respect, but the applicant was placed in a psychiatric hospital only on 4 February 2022. The applicant complains, in essence, under Article 3, Article 5 § 1 and Article 13 taken in conjunction with Article 3 of the Convention, that she was kept in detention in prison without adequate treatment despite the court’s order to place her in a psychiatric hospital. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Has the applicant exhausted all effective domestic remedies, as required by Article 35 § 1 of the Convention in relation to her complaint under Article   3 of the Convention (see, mutatis mutandis, Ābele v. Latvia , nos.   60429/12 and 72760/12, §§ 47-52, 5 October 2017)? Notably, what avenues under domestic law were available and effective in the context of the applicant’s complaints, having particular regard to her state of health?   2.     Has the applicant been subjected to inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, in breach of Article   3 of the Convention in the present case?   In particular, was the applicant’s detention in the ordinary prison facilities from 13 July 2021 to 4 February 2022 (including the prison hospital) despite her state of health and the domestic courts’ orders to place her in a psychiatric hospital compatible with Article 3 of the Convention (see Rooman v. Belgium [GC], no. 18052/11, §§ 143-48, 31 January 2019; Strazimiri v. Albania , no.   34602/16, §§ 103-12, 21 January 2020; and Sy v. Italy , no. 11791/20, §§   76-81, 24 January 2022)?   Did the circumstances and manner of the treatment by the prison authorities (including the prison hospital) of the applicant’s ailments amount to inhuman treatment?   3.     Did the applicant’s detention in the ordinary prison facilities from 13   July 2021 to 4 February 2022 fall within one of the grounds authorising deprivation of liberty listed in sub-paragraphs (a) to (f) of Article   5 § 1 and was it lawful and justified for the purposes of that provision, and therefore in conformity with Article 5 § 1 (see Rooman v. Belgium [GC], no.   18052/11, §§ 205-14, 31 January 2019; Strazimiri v. Albania , no.   34602/16, §§ 116-24, 21 January 2020; Sy v. Italy , no. 11791/20, §§ 93-149, 24 January 2022; and Pankiewicz v. Poland , no. 34151/04, §§ 44-45, 12   February 2008)?   4.     Did the applicant have at her disposal an effective domestic remedy for her complaint under Article 3, as required by Article 13 of the Convention?