CEDH · PRESS;GENERAL;ENG — 8 novembre 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 } .s653E6C45 { font-family:Arial; font-size:6.67pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s9793A85B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .sADADF4A7 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline } .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 } EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS   602 8.11.2005   Press release issued by the Registrar   CHAMBER JUDGMENT ALVER v. ESTONIA   The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing a judgment [1] in the case of Alver v. Estonia (application no. 64812/01).   The Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment) of the European Convention on Human Rights.   Under Article 41 (just satisfaction) of the Convention, the Court awarded the applicant 3,000   euros (EUR) for non-pecuniary damage. (The judgment is available only in English.)   1.     Principal facts The applicant, Rein Alver, is an Estonian national who was born in 1969.   On 22 May 1996 he was taken into custody on suspicion of having committed burglary.     On 19 May 1997 he was convicted of fraud and burglary and sentenced to four years’ imprisonment. His conviction was later quashed on procedural grounds and, on 28 September 1999, he was again convicted and sentenced to four years and six months’ imprisonment. On 19 January 2000 the Supreme Court refused him leave to appeal.   In total, the applicant was detained on remand for about three years and seven months. For most of that period, he was held in Tallinn Central Prison (for three years and two months overall, including about ten months in the prison hospital). He also spent 14 short periods, lasting from five to 15 days, in Jõgeva Police District Arrest House ( Jõgeva Politseiprefektuuri arestimaja ), where he was taken in connection with his trial. In total he spent 139 days in the arrest house.   The occupancy rate of the cells in which the applicant was detained in Tallinn Central Prison varied considerably. According to the Estonian Government, the cells were usually between 33 sq. m and 39 sq. m. According to the applicant: for two months there were 17 inmates in his cell; for 17 months there were 15; and, for seven months, 14. Detainees were allowed to walk outside their cell for an hour a day. The applicant maintained that the cells lacked fresh air and natural light, the quality of the food had been poor, the punishment cells cold and damp and that rats came out of the hole used as a toilet. The Estonian Government conceded that the natural light in the central prison cells was insufficient, though there had been no lack of fresh air and the heating system in most of the cells had been renovated in 1997-1998. The quality of the food had been regularly monitored.   In Jõgeva Arrest House, the cells measured approximately 11 sq. m and accommodated four or five inmates on average. The applicant submitted that the cells were extremely unsanitary, had no ventilation and only a small window and that there had been no proper furniture and only a shared platform in place of a bed. Food was provided only once a day. The Government stated that the cells in the arrest house had large glass block windows, although in most of the cells they had been walled up for security reasons, and that three meals, including two hot meals, were served daily.   According to the applicant’s medical records, he was healthy in March 1997. While on detention, however, he was admitted to Tallinn Central Prison Hospital on several occasions, notably: 6-20 November 1997 with liver damage; 11-25 February 1998, diagnosed with hepatitis B and C; and, 17 May to 22 December 1999, with tuberculosis.   On 22 December 1999 the applicant was sent to serve his sentence in Murru Prison. He was released in November 2000.   Following his release, Tartu County Expert Committee on Disabilities established, in a decision of 28 February 2001, that the applicant’s capacity to work had been reduced by 80%.   2.     Procedure and composition of the Court   The application was lodged with the European Court of Human Rights on 5 June 2000 and declared partly admissible on 9 March 2004.   Judgment was given by a Chamber of seven judges, composed as follows:   Nicolas Bratza (British), President , Josep Casadevall (Andorran), Giovanni Bonello (Maltese), Rait Maruste (Estonian), Stanislav Pavlovschi (Moldovan), Lech Garlicki (Polish), Javier Borrego Borrego (Spanish), judges , and also Michael O’Boyle , Section Registrar .   3.     Summary of the judgment [2]   Complaint   The applicant complained about his prolonged detention in cramped unsanitary conditions, which, he claimed, led to his contracting liver disease and tuberculosis. He relied on Article 3. Decision of the Court   Article 3 The Court took note of the length of time the applicant had spent in detention on remand and the size of the cells in which he had been held.   Concerning the number of inmates in the cells in Tallinn Central Prison, the occupancy rate varied considerably. The Court observed that, whereas the information provided by the Government with regard to the size of the cells and the dates when the applicant was kept in each cell was very precise, they provided only brackets within which the number of detainees in individual cells varied (usually between six, eight, ten or 12 and 14), failing to indicate for how long the number of inmates remained at 14 and for which periods it was below that figure. The Court considered that it could legitimately draw inferences from the Government’s failure to provide more specific information on that point. Although it was unable to establish the exact amount of space per detainee in the cells concerned throughout the relevant period, it noted that, even according to the Government, there were periods where the space per detainee was limited to 1.81 sq. m in the arrest house and 2.36 sq. m in the central prison. The Court also took account of the findings of the Council of Europe’s Committee for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman and Degrading Treatment or Punishment (CPT), that the cells in Jõgeva Arrest House and Tallinn Central Prison were often overcrowded. Against that background, the Court found it established “beyond reasonable doubt” that the applicant was kept in overcrowded conditions during a large part of the period of his detention on remand.   The Court also took into consideration the fact that the lack of space was combined with limited freedom of movement outside the cells, the length of time during which the applicant was held in those conditions and the poor conditions in the detention facilities.   According to the CPT’s 1997 report covering Jõgeva Arrest House and Tallinn Central Prison, the cells in the arrest house were poorly equipped, with little or no access to natural light and “woefully inadequate” artificial lighting and ventilation. The food was very meagre in quantity. With regard to the central prison – where the applicant spent most of his time in pre-trial detention – the report pointed out that the hygiene conditions were poor, the cell facilities in a very poor state of repair and dirty, access to natural light limited and ventilation, inadequate. The CPT described the conditions in the Estonian police arrest houses and in Tallinn Central Prison as inhuman and degrading. In that context, the Court noted the Government’s admission that the detention conditions were problematic for economic reasons and that the central prison had been closed down in 2002 as the building had been deemed unsuitable to serve as a prison.   In addition, the Court observed that the applicant was diagnosed with tuberculosis more than two years after he had been taken into custody and that it appeared to be most probable that he was infected while in detention. Although that fact in itself did not imply a violation of Article 3, given, in particular, the fact that the applicant received treatment, the Court considered it to be characteristic of the overall conditions of the applicant’s detention.   Finally, the Court reiterated that, although the question whether the purpose of the treatment was to humiliate or debase the victim was a factor to be taken into account, the absence of any such purpose could not exclude a finding of a violation of Article 3.   The Court concluded that the conditions of the applicant’s detention, in particular the overcrowding, inadequate lighting and ventilation, impoverished regime, poor hygiene conditions and state of repair of the cell facilities, combined with the applicant’s state of health and the length of the period during which he was detained in such conditions, were sufficient to cause distress and hardship of an intensity exceeding the unavoidable level of suffering inherent in detention.     Accordingly, there had been a violation of Article 3   ***   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)   Beverley Jacobs (telephone: +00 33 (0)3 90 21 54 21) 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 does not bind the Court.