CEDH · PRESS;CHAMBERJUDGMENTS;ENG — 27 janvier 2005

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s40F41F73 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s33165EBA { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .s6B505E72 { margin:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .s46D9A5CB { margin-left:28.52pt; text-align:left; padding-left:7.48pt; font-family:serif } .s3C4DB099 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left; font-size:10pt } .s83BE5C30 { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; vertical-align:super } .s1EDF3BA6 { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; font-weight:bold; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .sADADF4A7 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s9F8EB0C0 { width:18.63pt; display:inline-block } .s9E97F54A { width:85.05pt; display:inline-block } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left } .s2EB42ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:10pt } .s653E6C45 { font-family:Arial; font-size:6.67pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS   038 27.1.2005   Press release issued by the Registrar   CHAMBER JUDGMENT RAMIREZ SANCHEZ v. FRANCE   The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing a judgment [1] in the case of Ramirez Sanchez v. France (application no. 59450/00).   The Court held:   by four votes to three, that there had been no violation of Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment) of the European Convention on Human Rights; unanimously, that there had been a violation of Article 13 (right to an effective remedy) of the Convention.   The Court considered, unanimously, that the finding of a violation was in itself sufficient just satisfaction for the non-pecuniary damage alleged by the applicant. Under Article 41 (just satisfaction), the Court awarded the applicant 5,000 euros (EUR) for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in French.)     1.     Principal facts   The applicant, Ilich Ramirez Sanchez, better known as “Carlos the Jackal”, is a Venezuelan national who was born in 1949. He is currently detained in Fresnes Prison.   Prosecuted in connection with investigations into several terrorist attacks carried out in France, the applicant was sentenced to life imprisonment on 25 December 1997 for the murder of three police officers in 1975.   For eight years and two months, i.e. from his detention in the Santé Prison on 15 August 1994 until his transfer to Saint-Maur Prison on 17 October 2002, the applicant was detained in solitary confinement. The grounds given to justify the decisions to prolong the applicant’s detention in solitary confinement were generally his dangerousness, the need to maintain order and safety in the prison and the likelihood that he might seek to escape; on each occasion, the applicant underwent medical examinations to determine his fitness for solitary confinement.   This regime meant that the applicant was detained alone in a cell measuring 6.84 m 2 , which, in his opinion, was dilapidated and poorly insulated; he had no contact with other prisoners or prison warders and was authorised to leave his cell only for a two-hour daily walk. The applicant further alleged that his only recreation was provided by newspapers and the television which he rented, and that he received no visits except for those from his lawyers and a monthly visit by a cleric.     Following his transfer to Saint-Maur Prison, the applicant was no longer detained in solitary confinement. However, since being transferred to Fresnes Prison in March 2004, he has again been subjected to this measure.     2.     Procedure and composition of the Court   The application was lodged with the European Court of Human Rights on 20 July 2000 and declared admissible on 19 February 2004.   Judgment was given by a Chamber of 7 judges, composed as follows:   Christos Rozakis (Greek), President , Loukis Loucaides (Cypriot), Jean-Paul Costa (French), Françoise Tulkens (Belgian), Peer Lorenzen (Danish), Nina Vajić (Croatian), Snejana Botoucharova (Bulgarian), judges , and also Santiago Quesada , Deputy Section Registrar .     3.     Summary of the judgment [2]   Complaints   The applicant submitted that his prolonged detention in solitary confinement from 15 August 1994 to 17 October 2002 had infringed Article 3 of the Convention.   He further alleged that the decisions to prolong his confinement were taken unlawfully, in breach of Article 13 of the Convention.   Decision of the Court   Article 3 The Court pointed out that, even in the most difficult circumstances, such as the fight against terrorism and organised crime, the Convention prohibited in absolute terms torture and inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.   It acknowledged that the applicant’s detention had posed serious difficulties for the French authorities and understood that they had considered it necessary to take extraordinary security measures to detain a man who, at the time in question, was viewed as the most dangerous terrorist in the world.   As to the conditions of the applicant’s detention During his detention in solitary confinement at the Santé Prison, the cell occupied by the applicant, without cellmates, was sufficiently large for one prisoner and contained a bed, a table and washing and toilet facilities; it also had a window which provided natural light. The applicant had books, newspapers and a television, and had access to the exercise yard for two hours per day, as well as to a gym for one hour per day.   Furthermore, he was visited by a doctor twice a week and by a cleric once a month, and received very frequent visits from his 58 lawyers, including his current representative who had visited him more than 640 times over a period of four years and ten months.   In those circumstances, the Court considered that the applicant had not been detained in complete sensory isolation or in total social isolation.   As to the length of the solitary confinement The Court noted that a prisoner’s exclusion from the prison environment did not in itself constitute a form of inhuman treatment. In the present case, it observed that the applicant had not been subjected to sensory isolation or total social isolation, but to relative social isolation. In that respect, the Court attached particular weight to the fact that the applicant’s lawyer, who was now also his partner, had been able to visit him on a very regular basis, and that he had also received visits from 57 other lawyers. It also noted that, whatever its duration, his continued detention in solitary confinement, regrettable in itself, had not caused him a level of suffering that reached the threshold of gravity required for a violation of Article 3.   Furthermore, the extensions to the applicant’s solitary confinement had been decided in accordance with the provisions of the circular of 8 December 1998, applicable in the case. In particular, the applicant had received very regular visits from doctors who, while refusing to condone his detention in solitary confinement after July 2000, had not found that it had had adverse effects on his health. The applicant had declined psychological assistance in July 2002, and on examination by a psychiatrist when he arrived at Saint-Maur Prison, no subsequent treatment had been suggested. Equally, the applicant himself claimed that he had been in perfect mental and physical health.   The Court also took account of the French Government’s concerns that the applicant could take advantage of the prison’s internal or external communications systems to renew contact with members of his terrorist group or to seek to spread his beliefs among the other prisoners and perhaps to plan an escape.   While it shared the Committee for the Prevention of Torture’s concerns about the long-term effects of the applicant’s social isolation, the Court found that the general and very particular conditions in which he had been detained, and the length of that detention, had not reached the minimum level of severity necessary to constitute inhuman treatment within the meaning of Article 3, particularly in view of the applicant’s personality and the exceptional level of danger that he posed. Accordingly, it concluded that there had been no violation of Article 3.       Article 13 The applicant applied to the administrative court seeking to have one of the decisions placing him in solitary confinement quashed. In a judgment of 25 November 1998, the court dismissed his application, pointing out that the measure was an internal one which was not eligible for referral to the administrative courts. In that connection, the Court noted that the Conseil d’Etat had amended its position in that area in July 2003 by accepting that a decision to place a prisoner in solitary confinement could be referred to the administrative courts.   Accordingly, the Court concluded that there had been a violation of Article 13, on account of the absence in French law of a remedy that would have enabled the applicant to contest the decision to prolong his detention in solitary confinement.   Judges Rozakis, Loucaides and Tulkens expressed a joint dissenting opinion, which is annexed to the judgment.   ***   The Court’s judgments are accessible on its Internet site ( http://www.echr.coe.int ).   Registry of the European Court of Human Rights F – 67075 Strasbourg Cedex Press contacts:   Roderick Liddell (telephone: +00 33 (0)3 88 41 24 92)   Emma Hellyer (telephone: +00 33 (0)3 90 21 42 15)   Stéphanie Klein (telephone: +00 33 (0)3 88 41 21 54) Fax: +00 33 (0)3 88 41 27 91   The European Court of Human Rights was set up in Strasbourg by the Council of Europe Member States in 1959 to deal with alleged violations of the 1950 European Convention on Human Rights. Since 1 November 1998 it has sat as a full-time Court composed of an equal number of judges to that of the States party to the Convention. The Court examines the admissibility and merits of applications submitted to it. It sits in Chambers of 7 judges or, in exceptional cases, as a Grand Chamber of 17 judges. The Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe supervises the execution of the Court’s judgments. [1] Under Article 43 of the European Convention on Human Rights, within three months from the date of a Chamber judgment, any party to the case may, in exceptional cases, request that the case be referred to the 17 ‑ member Grand Chamber of the Court. In that event, a panel of five judges considers whether the case raises a serious question affecting the interpretation or application of the Convention or its protocols, or a serious issue of general importance, in which case the Grand Chamber will deliver a final judgment. If no such question or issue arises, the panel will reject the request, at which point the judgment becomes final. Otherwise Chamber judgments become final on the expiry of the three-month period or earlier if the parties declare that they do not intend to make a request to refer. [2] This summary by the Registry is not binding on the Court.