CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 20 janvier 2011

.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 } .s5F48796F { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .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 } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s3DC36BA9 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } Information Note on the Court’s case-law 137 January 2011 Kashavelov v. Bulgaria - 891/05 Judgment 20.1.2011 [Section V] Article 3 Degrading treatment Systematic handcuffing of life prisoner whenever he left his cell: violation Facts – The applicant was sentenced to life imprisonment without commutation on various charges, including aggravated murder, and ordered to serve his sentence under the so-called “special regime”. Consequently, he was kept in his cell at all times except for an hour-long daily walk, during which he was not allowed to communicate with other prisoners. The applicant also alleged that he was handcuffed whenever he was taken out of his cell. Law – Article 3: Handcuffing – The Court had no objections to the material conditions of the applicant’s imprisonment or to the detention regime he had been held in. It also accepted that, in view of the length of the applicant’s sentence, his criminal record and his violent antecedents, the use of handcuffs could be warranted on specific occasions, such as transfers outside the prison. However, it observed that the applicant was systematically handcuffed each time he was taken out of his cell, even when taking his daily walk. This practice had been applied to him for some thirteen years, despite the fact that there never appeared to have been an incident in which the applicant had tried to escape, or to hurt himself or anyone else. Concurring with the European Committee for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (CPT), which had found such practice to be unjustified, the Court concluded that the applicant’s systematic handcuffing had constituted degrading treatment. Conclusion : violation (unanimously). The Court found no violation of Article   3 on account of the special detention regime. It found violations of Article 6 §   1 and Article   13 of the Convention on account of the length of the proceedings against the applicant and the lack of an effective remedy in that respect. Article 41: EUR 7,000 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