CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 11 janvier 2024

.s3ABFC313 { font-size:10pt } .sD4B5322E { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .sA241FE93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-align:justify; page-break-after:avoid; border-bottom:0.75pt solid #000000; padding-bottom:1pt } .s2EF62ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s8F2B0B1B { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:12pt } .s97EB40D9 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:14pt; page-break-after:avoid } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s65B66A85 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt } .s5F48796F { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s3DC36BA9 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } .s8B6C6D43 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; border-bottom:1pt solid #000000; padding-bottom:1pt } .sDF790F1E { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } Legal summary January 2024 D v. Latvia - 76680/17 Judgment 11.1.2024 [Section V] Article 3 Degrading treatment Inhuman treatment Positive obligations Segregation, restricted access to basic prison resources and denial of human contact of a prisoner by fellow inmates due to subordinate position in informal prisoner hierarchy; lack of comprehensive State action: violation Article 46 Article 46-2 Execution of judgment General measures Respondent State to take general measures addressing the systemic issue of informal prison hierarchies Facts – Between 2008 and 2017 the applicant served a sentence of imprisonment in different prisons. He complained that he was subjected to inhuman and degrading treatment due to his subordinate position at the lowest level of an informal prisoner hierarchy. His complaints were dismissed by the Prison Administration and the domestic courts. Law – Article 3 (substantive aspect): (a) Establishment of the facts – In the recent case of S.P. and Others v.   Russia , the Court had noted the inherent complexities involved in scrutinising informal prisoner hierarchies. Those complexities arose from entrenched patterns of behaviour that included abuse and ritualistic and symbolically degrading treatment meted out to prisoners in the lowest category, namely “outcast” prisoners, by their fellow inmates. In that case, owing to the respondent State’s failure to engage with the proceedings, the Court had relied extensively on third-party materials – ranging from prison monitoring reports to academic research into prison conditions and inmates’ behaviour – to corroborate the applicants’ accounts of events. In contrast, in the present case the main facts were not in dispute between the parties. The Court established them as follows. First, an informal prisoner hierarchy, also known as a caste system, had existed in the Latvian prisons during the time the applicant had been detained. Its existence had been documented in at least two prisons where he had been held, in the Ombudsman’s annual reports, the report of the European Committee for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (CPT) on its visit to Latvian prisons in 2016, research by independent journalists, and domestic judgments. Second, the applicant had belonged to the lowest caste of prisoners within that hierarchy, the “ kreisie ”, which faced a range of restrictions regarding their use of communal facilities, access to services, and interaction with the other prisoners. Third, the applicant had not been subjected to any actual violence or threat of violence, by prison staff or other prisoners. (b) Whether the applicant was subjected to a treatment prohibited by Article   3 – When addressing the issue of an informal hierarchy among prisoners in S.P. and Others , the Court had made significant findings regarding the threshold of severity triggering the application of Article   3. While not all applicants in that case categorised as “outcast” prisoners had experienced physical violence, they had nonetheless lived under a constant threat of such violence. The resulting mental anguish and fear of ill-treatment had been considered to undermine their human dignity and instil a sense of inferiority in them, thereby constituting a form of degrading treatment in violation of Article   3. The restrictions that they had endured had served as additional evidence of degrading treatment. In the present case, the applicant’s account bore relevant similarity to the above case, specifically as regards the physical and symbolic separation faced by prisoners in the " kreisie" category. Prisoners in that lowest group faced many arbitrary restrictions on using shared resources: they had separate benches, toilets, and dining areas and were not allowed to queue with other prisoners for the shop or medical care; they were banned from joining in sports or using common showers, their beds were less comfortable and located towards the periphery of shared spaces, they were tasked with performing menial jobs, such as cleaning and doing laundry for the other inmates. Such physical and symbolic separation had the effect of sending a potent message of inferiority, thereby undermining the human dignity of prisoners in the applicant’s situation. It thus constituted degrading treatment within the meaning of Article   3. That conclusion was not undermined by the fact that the applicant had chosen to comply with the demands and limitations set by the informal hierarchy, rather than opposing or challenging them. The applicant’s emphasis on his own resilience, rather than on the tangible effects of the hierarchical norms imposed, provided the Court with insight into the coping mechanisms that prisoners in his situation might employ. While such mechanisms could potentially mask the full extent of emotional distress, it was imperative to recognise that the lack of overt confrontation and violent incidents did not lessen the reality of the underlying suffering. Life in such a hostile environment often resulted in a continuous accumulation of stress, particularly for individuals subjected to inequity, and not solely from immediate or chronic threats. The mere anticipation of such threats could also cause enduring mental harm and anxiety of an intensity exceeding the level of stress caused by detention under normal conditions. The Court thus found that the applicant’s physical and social segregation, coupled with restricted access to basic prison resources and denial of human contact, had led him to endure mental anxiety that must have exceeded the unavoidable level of suffering inherent in detention, even though he had not been subjected to physical violence. That situation which he had endured for years on account of his position in the lowest caste of prisoners in an informal hierarchy had amounted to a treatment prohibited under Article   3. (c) State’s obligation to protect the applicant from ill-treatment – The applicant had not experienced any ill-treatment from prison staff. Nevertheless, the absence of any direct State involvement in acts of ill‑treatment that met the condition of severity such as to engage Article   3 did not absolve the State from its obligations under this provision. In particular, the national authorities had an obligation to take measures to ensure that individuals within their jurisdiction were not subjected to torture or to inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, including such ill-treatment administered by private individuals. The issue of informal prisoner hierarchies was well-documented within Latvian penal institutions and that problem had been prevalent in the prisons where the applicant had been held. Therefore, the prison staff and the broader authorities should reasonably have been aware both of its existence and the applicant’s position within it. Even in the absence of explicit incidents of violence or confrontation, the inherent risk of ill‑treatment faced by the applicant during his term of imprisonment could not be overlooked. Consequently, it fell to the Government to explain what measures had been taken to mitigate the applicant’s vulnerability and to address the broader issue of prisoner hierarchies. Bearing in mind the systemic nature of the issue, individual interventions would not have addressed the core issue at the heart of the applicant’s grievances. Even if specific incidents of violence or ill-treatment were to be investigated and those responsible held to account, such measures would not alter the underlying power dynamics of the informal prisoner hierarchy or the applicant’s subordinate position in it. Limiting interventions to addressing specific incidents did not constitute the comprehensive approach that prison management authorities should adopt when grappling such a systemic issue. The Latvian Ombudsman had consistently criticised the lack of such an overarching approach, underlining the shortcomings of the traditional, incident-focused strategy and had asserted that the domestic authorities had been acting unlawfully in their failure to dismantle the established informal hierarchies within prisons. Similarly, the Supreme Court of Latvia had opined that State authorities bore a general obligation to address the issue of informal hierarchies, which was one contributing factor to inter-prisoner violence. Accordingly, the State authorities had failed to protect the applicant from the treatment prohibited under Article 3 associated with his belonging to the group of “ kreisie ” prisoners and to have in place effective mechanisms to improve his individual situation or to deal with the issue in a comprehensive manner. Conclusion: violation (unanimously). Article 41: no claim in respect of damage. Article 46: It was for the domestic authorities to draw the necessary conclusions from the judgment and to take appropriate general measure to address the issue of informal prison hierarchies in a manner that went beyond the circumstances of the present case in order to prevent future similar violations. More specifically, the domestic courts were required to take due account of the Convention standards as applied in this judgment. (See also Premininy v. Russia , 44973/04, 10 February 2011, Legal Summary ; D.F. v.   Latvia , 11160/07, 29 October 2013, Legal Summary ; Gjini v.   Serbia , 1128/16, 15   January 2019, Legal Summary ; S.P. and Others v. Russia , 36463/11 et al., 2 May 2023, Legal Summary )   © Council of Europe/European Court of Human Rights This summary by the Registry does not bind the Court. To access legal summaries in English or French click here . For non-official translations into other languages click here .