CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 29 mai 2012

.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 } .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. 152 May 2012 Julin v. Estonia - 16563/08 Judgment 29.5.2012 [Section I] Article 3 Degrading treatment Inhuman treatment Confinement of prisoner to restraint bed for nine hours: violation   Facts – The applicant, a convicted prisoner, was confined to a restraint bed for nearly nine hours following an incident with prison officers in which he was alleged to have become aggressive after being prohibited from taking tobacco to the punishment cell. The incident report stated that he had made threats, used foul language, banged at length against the door, struck a prison officer on the hand and failed to comply with lawful orders. His condition was monitored every hour, with the need for his continued restraint being assessed on the basis of his behaviour. Law – Article 3 ( confinement to restraint bed ): While confinement to a restraint bed did not necessarily give rise to an issue under Article   3, in view of the high risk of ill-treatment it entailed, its application would be subject to thorough scrutiny by the Court, as regards both its lawfulness and the grounds for and manner of its use. As to the question of lawfulness, the grounds, conditions and procedure for the use of such restrictive means of restraint had to be defined with the utmost precision,. The domestic regulations were, however, quite superficial and general and, as the Estonian Supreme Court had recently recognised, lacking in detail. Nevertheless, the way the authorities had acted in the applicant’s case had in practice offered him some additional guarantees: his situation had been reviewed hourly and he had been seen twice by medical staff, whose observations were recorded in a report. As regards the grounds for and manner of use of the measure, the Court noted that medical checks were performed only at the beginning and end of the confinement with an eight-hour interval in-between when the applicant was not seen by medical staff. It reiterated that restraint should never be used as a means of punishment but only to avoid self-injury or serious danger to others or to prison security. While the applicant’s behaviour appeared to have been aggressive and disturbing, it was doubtful that, as the sole occupier of his cell, he posed a sufficient threat to himself or others as to justify such a severe measure and there was no indication that the authorities had given any consideration to using alternative measures. Most importantly, even if the applicant’s initial confinement was justified, the Court was not persuaded that the situation had remained as serious for nearly nine hours. Confinement to a restraint bed, without valid medical reasons –   which had not been shown   – should rarely be needed for more than a few hours. However, after six (and again after seven) hours’ confinement the authorities had decided to continue the restraint on the grounds that the applicant’s “behaviour” was “abnormal” although he was “silent”. These reasons were wholly insufficient for the extension of the restraint for such a long period. Regard being had to the great distress and physical discomfort the prolonged immobilisation must have caused him, the level of suffering and humiliation the applicant endured could not be considered compatible with Article   3. Conclusion : violation (unanimously). The Court also found, by six votes to one, that there had been no violation of Article   3 on account of the use of force and handcuffs following an isolated incident and, unanimously, no violation of Article   3 concerning the effectiveness of the investigation into the applicant’s allegations of ill-treatment. It further unanimously found a violation in respect of one of his two complaints of a breach of his right of access to a court (Article 6 §   1). Article 41: EUR 10,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage.   © 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