CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 3 mai 2007

.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. 97 May 2007 Hüseyin Yıldırım v. Turkey - 2778/02 Judgment 3.5.2007 [Section IV] Article 3 Degrading treatment Inhuman treatment Failure to take into account a prisoner's serious invalidity when arranging for his detention and transfer: violation   Facts : The applicant sustained injuries in a road accident which left him disabled. He was arrested at his home under an arrest warrant dating back several years, on account of his suspected involvement in the activities of a faction of an extreme left-wing armed organisation, as a result of which he had already been sentenced to seven years’ imprisonment. The applicant, who was incapable of moving or looking after his own needs, was placed on a foam mattress and questioned as he lay on it. He was then placed in pre-trial detention and immediately placed in the hospital unit for a few days before being transferred to another prison. His state of health was diagnosed to have deteriorated and he was declared medically unfit to remain incarcerated. He was obliged to undergo serious neurological surgery. He subsequently began to suffer from sphincter problems, requiring him to wear a urethral catheter, and contracted various more or less serious dermatological, neurological or respiratory illnesses; he also showed signs of chronic depression. A panel of specialists from the Institute of Forensic Medicine found that his state of health was incompatible with his imprisonment and declared that he was confined to a wheelchair and that his condition was incurable. The permanent after-effects had previously been diagnosed by the board of health at the public hospital. During his detention the applicant was assisted by some of the prisoners sharing his cell, who prepared his food and fashioned a makeshift a commode by cutting a hole in a plastic stool. He was also under the care of his brother and two sisters, who took turns looking after him in the prison wing of the public hospital. The applicant was transferred in a police van to attend a hearing at the State Security Court. The gendarmes who were accompanying him allegedly dropped him; the press published photographs which showed him on the ground attempting to rise. The applicant was sentenced to life imprisonment, then released under a presidential pardon. Law : A detainee’s clinical details had to be taken into account in arrangements for the enforcement of custodial sentences, particularly concerning the duration of detention of a person with a life-threatening pathology or whose state of health was incompatible with lengthy incarceration. The conditions of detention were plainly inappropriate for the applicant’s severe disability, placing him for about three years in a situation which could not but arouse in him constant feelings of anxiety, inferiority and humiliation that were sufficiently strong to amount to degrading treatment. No special steps had been taken to alleviate his stay in prison or in hospital. During the transfers when events that amounted to degrading treatment had occurred, responsibility for the applicant had been placed in the hands of gendarmes who were certainly not qualified to foresee the medical risks involved in moving a disabled person. Although the highest medical authorities, including forensic experts, had strongly recommended his early release, stressing the permanent nature of his illness and the unsuitability of prison conditions for a person in his medical condition, his imprisonment had continued. The applicant had received no assistance to spare him from degrading treatment. The time he spent in detention had infringed his dignity and had certainly caused both physical and mental hardship beyond that inevitably associated with imprisonment and medical treatment. Conclusion : violation (unanimously). Article   41 – EUR 10,000 for 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