CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 16 octobre 2008

.s3ABFC313 { font-size:10pt } .sEB86A30B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; page-break-after:avoid } .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 } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s5F48796F { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s8EB5F569 { font-family:Arial; font-size:6.67pt; vertical-align:super } .s5CB9E8AB { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; border-bottom:1pt solid #000000; padding-bottom:1pt } .sDF790F1E { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s3DC36BA9 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } Information Note on the Court’s case-law No. 112 October 2008 Renolde v. France - 5608/05 Judgment 16.10.2008 [Section V] Article 2 Positive obligations Suicide of mentally disturbed prisoner in disciplinary cell: violation   Article 3 Degrading treatment Inhuman treatment Placement of mentally disturbed prisoner in disciplinary cell for forty-five days: violation   Facts : The applicant’s brother, who had been detained pending trial, was stated in a medical report to be suffering from psychiatric disorders. He was transferred to another prison. His prison file described him as normal and mentioned sedative treatment. However, two days after his transfer he tried to commit suicide by slashing his arms. A psychiatric emergency team diagnosed an acute delirious episode and prescribed appropriate treatment. He was supplied with medication twice a week but no attempt was made to ensure that he actually took it. He was subsequently put in the care of the regional medical and psychological service and placed in a cell on his own where he was subject to special supervision in the form of more frequent patrols. However, he then assaulted a warder and was ordered to serve 45 days in a punishment cell. The day after that order was made, he wrote a letter to his sister in which he said that he could not go on. After seeing the letter, his lawyer requested a psychiatric assessment of his mental fitness to be detained in a punishment cell, but he was found hanged in his cell before he could be examined. Three days earlier he had been given several days’ supply of medication, but once again without any attempt being made to ensure that he took it. A public prosecutor started a preliminary investigation which found, inter alia , that the applicant’s brother had committed suicide and that there were no traces of medicinal substances in his body. The prosecutor requested a judicial investigation into suspected involuntary homicide by a person or persons unknown. The dead man’s siblings joined the proceedings as civil parties. The investigating judge ordered a psychiatric report by two experts, who concluded that the applicant’s brother had been fit for detention in the punishment block and that the reason no medical substances had been found in his body was that he had decided of his own accord not to follow his treatment. Given his history of delirium, that decision may have increased the risk of suicide. Counsel for the civil parties asked the investigating judge to bring involuntary-homicide charges on the grounds that the measures taken for the deceased’s safety and care were inadequate, the life of a prisoner known to be extremely fragile had been put at risk by sentencing him to the punishment cell, and he had not been given the assistance to which he was entitled as a person at risk. The judge refused that request and ruled that there was no case to answer, after finding that the applicant’s brother had been properly supervised by specialists and that on the face of it his suicide was due to a psychotic disorder, there being nothing to indicate a depressive syndrome. That decision was upheld on appeal,. Law : Article 2 – The evidence showed that the authorities had known from the moment the initial suicide attempt was made that the applicant’s brother was suffering from acute psychotic disorders capable of resulting in self-harm. Although his condition was variable and there was not necessarily an immediate risk of a further suicide attempt, the risk was nevertheless real and he should have been closely monitored for any sudden deterioration in his condition. For a prisoner in that condition, the authorities might have been expected to take specially adapted measures to ascertain whether he was well enough to remain in detention. However, despite his suicide attempt and the diagnosis of his mental condition, the question of his admission to a psychiatric hospital did not appear ever to have been discussed. Further, having failed to order a suitable placement for the applicant’s brother, the authorities should at the very least have provided medical treatment corresponding to the seriousness of his condition. Without overlooking the difficulties with which prison authorities were faced, the Court had serious doubts as to the advisability of leaving a prisoner known to be suffering from psychotic disorders to administer his own daily medication unsupervised. Even though it was not known what had driven the applicant’s brother to suicide, the failure to ensure that he was taking his daily medication had played a part in his death. Lastly, his mental state did not appear to have been taken into account as, three days after his initial suicide attempt, he was given the maximum penalty by the disciplinary board of 45 days’ detention in a punishment cell. This had isolated him and deprived him of visits and all activities, thereby aggravating the risk of suicide. In the light of all these considerations, the Court concluded that the authorities had failed to comply with their positive obligations to protect the applicant’s brother’s right to life. Conclusion : violation (unanimously). Article 3 – In the case of Keenan v. the United Kingdom (no.   27229/95, ECHR 2001‑III, Information Note no. 29), the Court had found that the infliction of what was described as the serious disciplinary punishment of 7 days’ solitary confinement in a punishment block and 28 days’ additional detention constituted treatment that was proscribed by Article 3 of the Convention. The penalty imposed in the applicant’s brother’s case, was substantially more severe and liable to break his physical and moral resistance. He had been suffering from anguish and distress at the time. Indeed, eight days before his death his condition had so concerned his lawyer that she had immediately asked the investigating judge to order a psychiatric assessment of his fitness for detention in a punishment cell. The penalty imposed on the applicant’s brother was, therefore, not compatible with the standard of treatment required in respect of a mentally ill person and constituted inhuman and degrading treatment and punishment. Conclusion : violation (unanimously).   © Council of Europe/European Court of Human Rights This summary by the Registry does not bind the Court. Click here for the Case-Law Information Notes