CEDH · PRESS;CHAMBERJUDGMENTS;ENG — 16 mars 2010

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sA678F94A { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right; font-size:11pt } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s598389F8 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:11pt } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s2F5E426D { font-family:Arial; font-size:6pt; font-weight:bold; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s3DC36BA9 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } .s2E932ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:11pt } .s27210F8D { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic; text-transform:uppercase } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s99A63BFE { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left; font-size:11pt } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .s4BAE41EE { font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt } .sA101A847 { font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; font-weight:bold } .sE0D34C67 { font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .sADADF4A7 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sBACB3E60 { font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; text-decoration:underline; color:#800080 } .sC7EAD8B { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline } .s9FE28126 { margin-top:0pt; margin-right:42.5pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left; font-size:11pt } .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 } .sB853CD26 { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt } 210 16.03.2010     Press release issued by the Registrar   Chamber judgment [1]   Jiga v. Romania (application no. 14352/04)   OBLIGATION FOR DEFENDANT TO WEAR PRISON CLOTHING IN COURT WAS CONTRARY TO PRESUMPTION OF INNOCENCE   Unanimously:   Violation of Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment) Violation of Article 5 § 3 (right to liberty and security) Violation of Article 6 § 2 (right to the presumption of innocence) of the European Convention on Human Rights     Principal facts   The applicant, Dan Jiga, was born in 1961 and lives in Reghin. At the relevant time he was Director General of the Economic and Budgetary Directorate at the Ministry of Agriculture and Food. D.F. was working in the same Ministry.   In 2002 they were charged and remanded in custody. Mr Jiga was charged with trading in influence, accepting or soliciting bribes, and abuse of office to the detriment of public interests. He was suspected of taking a commission in connection with a privatisation procedure.   The applicant was unsuccessful in challenging his remand in custody on the ground that the condition of a threat to public order, as required by the Code of Criminal Procedure, was not met. On five occasions his detention was extended by 30 days and all his appeals were dismissed. The courts referred to a threat to public order that would be posed by his release, the extent of the damage at issue, the organised nature of the criminal activity and the obstruction to the establishment of the truth caused by the conflicting attitudes of Mr Jiga and D.F. In addition, the Court of Appeal quashed a judgment in which the applicant’s detention was replaced by an order not to leave the country.   In February 2003 the two accused were committed for trial before Bucharest County Court on the above-mentioned charges. Between November 2002 and November 2004 the applicant was regularly taken to court in handcuffs and dressed in the prison clothing usually worn by convicts.   Mr Jiga was held in Bucharest-Jilava prison in a cell measuring 14 sq.m. with nine beds. He had access to the showers once a week and was authorised to take a daily 60-minute walk. The prisoners could use a library, read periodicals and watch television in their cells.   Mr Jiga’s case attracted wide media attention. Numerous articles were published in the press in 2002 and 2003 concerning the charges against him, the evidence in the case-file and the progress of the proceedings. In 2004, during an interview, the Principal Public Prosecutor of the prosecution service’s national anti-corruption office, mentioning that Mr Jiga and D.F. had been “committed for trial for taking bribes of 190,000 US dollars”, cited the case as a success story in the drive against corruption. The anti-corruption office explained in a subsequent interview, on 6 August 2004, that this was just one example of a major corruption case.   On 7 January 2005 Mr Jiga was found guilty of taking bribes and abuse of office and sentenced to five years’ imprisonment. The length of his pre-trial detention was deducted from the sentence to be served. He was acquitted of the charge of trading in influence. In a judgment of 9 February 2006 he was released on parole.     Complaints, procedure and composition of the Court   Relying in particular on Article 3, the applicant complained that he had been held in poor conditions in Bucharest-Jilava prison, and under Article 5 § 3 he complained of the length and unjustified prolongation of his detention on remand. Relying on Article 6 § 2, the applicant also complained about a breach of his right to be presumed innocent, on account of statements by the Principal Public Prosecutor and the obligation to wear prison clothing in court.   The application was lodged with the European Court of Human Rights on 4 February 2004.   Judgment was given by a Chamber of seven judges, composed as follows:   Josep Casadevall (Andorra), President , Corneliu Bîrsan (Rumania), Boštjan M. Zupančič (Slovenia), Alvina Gyulumyan (Armenia), Egbert Myjer (Netherlands), Ineta Ziemele (Latvia), Luis López Guerra (Spain), judges,   And also Santiago Quesada , Section Registrar .     Decision of the Court   Article 3   The part of the applicant’s complaint concerning insufficient medical treatment in prison was rejected for failure to exhaust domestic remedies.   Mr Jiga was held for several months in a cell where the individual living space was about 1.55 sq m. and even smaller when furniture was taken into account. It was well below the standard of 4 sq.m recommended to the Romanian authorities in the report of the European Committee for the Prevention of Torture (CPT) following its last visit to Romanian prisons, including that of Jilava. The applicant was moreover confined for most of the day and had limited access to showers and walks.   Although there was no evidence of an intention on the authorities’ part to humiliate Mr Jiga, the conditions of his detention and the length of time he had had to endure them had subjected him to an ordeal of an intensity that exceeded the inevitable level of suffering inherent in detention. The Court therefore found that there had been a violation of Article 3.   Article 5 § 3   The Court reiterated that the period covered by Article 5 § 3 generally ended on the date of the decision determining the charges against the detainee, already at the level of the trial court. In the case of Mr Jiga, the relevant period ran from 18 November 2002 to 10 November 2003 (from arrest to conviction), representing 11 months, three weeks and three days.   Whilst certain offences posed a particular threat to public order, such a danger necessarily decreased as time passed, thus requiring the authorities to give concrete reasons that were even more specific and in the general interest in order to show that the custodial measure continued to be justified. In Mr Jiga’s case, no explanation had been given to demonstrate how, with the passage of time, his release would have had a negative impact on civil society or would have impeded the investigation, especially after the examination of the witnesses.   That lack of reasoning had not been made good by the courts’ brief reference to the seriousness of the charges, the prospect of a harsh sentence or the amount of the damage at issue. That reference had in fact raised more questions than answers with regard to the potential threat to public order. In addition, the decision to refuse the proposed alternative measure (an order restraining him from leaving the country) had not contained concrete reasoning.   As the authorities had not given “relevant and sufficient reasons” for maintaining Mr Jiga in pre-trial detention, the Court found that there had been a violation of Article 5 § 3.   The Court rejected the complaint concerning the right to be brought promptly before a judge because it had been submitted more than six months after the review by a court of the decision to remand the applicant in custody.     Article 6 § 2   The statements of the public prosecutor (anti-corruption office) and the press campaign   By virtue of the right to freedom of expression and to impart information, authorities were entitled to inform the public of any objective elements of judicial proceedings, provided they did so with discretion and refrained from prejudging guilt.   The Court observed that the statements by the anti-corruption prosecutor referred to the progress in the case and did not formally declare Mr Jiga guilty. They had also been made outside the criminal proceedings. It was noteworthy that the public prosecutor had clarified some of his comments in a second article published on his own initiative and that the only court to rule on the case after his statements actually acquitted the applicant of one of the charges.   Moreover, this case had received extensive coverage in the national press because of the applicant’s position – and in the context of the drive against corruption, a subject of concern for both the national authorities and the general public – and there was nothing to suggest that the authorities had fuelled the press campaign. In addition, the courts that heard the case were composed entirely of professional judges capable of setting aside any suggestions from third parties.   This part of the application was therefore rejected as ill-founded.     The wearing of prison clothing by the applicant in court   Whilst States had no obligation to ensure separate treatment for convicted and accused persons in prisons, any measures concerning remand prisoners had to avoid breaching their right to be presumed innocent.   The applicant’s public appearance in prison clothing was contrary to the legislation in force and had not been justified by the authorities. The damage for Mr Jiga had been increased by the fact that his co-accused, D.F., appeared at the hearings in civilian clothing, such difference being likely to reinforce the impression that Mr Jiga was guilty.   The Court therefore found that there had been a violation of the right to be presumed innocent, as guaranteed by Article 6 § 2.   Article 41 (Just satisfaction)   Under Article 41 the Court held that Romania was to pay the applicant 12,800 euros (EUR) in respect of non-pecuniary damage and EUR 2,450 for costs and expenses.   ***   The judgment is available only in French. This press release is a document produced by the Registry. It does not bind the Court. The judgments are available on its website ( http://www.echr.coe.int ).   Press contacts Céline Menu-Lange (tel: + 33 (0)3 90 21 58 77) or Stefano Piedimonte (tel: + 33 (0)3 90 21 42 04) Kristina Pencheva-Malinowski (tel: + 33 (0)3 88 41 35 70) Tracey Turner-Tretz (tel: + 33 (0)3 88 41 35 30) Frédéric Dolt (tel: + 33 (0)3 90 21 53 39) Nina Salomon (tel: + 33 (0)3 90 21 49 79)   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.   [1] Under Article 43 of the Convention, 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.