CEDH · PRESS;HEARINGS;ENG — 14 juin 2001

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s5FFF0A77 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:1pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sA1D3DA2E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s94935B0F { width:389.85pt; display:inline-block } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s33165EBA { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .sD35C6159 { width:1.54pt; display:inline-block } .s38DD6A04 { width:18.2pt; display:inline-block } .s19E53254 { width:2.39pt; display:inline-block } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left } .s2EB42ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:10pt } .s3133A7C8 { font-family:Arial; color:#0069d6 }   EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS     424   14.6.2001   Press release issued by the Registrar   HEARING IN THE CASE OF MAGALHÃES PEREIRA v. PORTUGAL   Thursday 14 June 2001 at 9.30 a.m.   The applicant   The case concerns an application lodged by a Portuguese national, Mr Joaquim Magalhães Pereira, who was born in 1940 and lives in Maia (Portugal). He was formerly a lawyer and is at present detained in the secure psychiatric unit of Santa Cruz do Bispo at Matosinhos (Portugal)   Summary of the facts   The applicant, who was suspected of fraud, was arrested on 1 March 1996 and remanded in custody. On 11 November 1996, having obtained a psychiatric report which revealed that he was suffering from residual schizophrenia requiring him to undergo long-term psychiatric treatment, the Porto Criminal Court found that he was not responsible under the criminal law and that he was dangerous. It therefore ordered his detention in a secure hospital for a maximum period of eight years and on 4   December 1996 he was transferred to the secure psychiatric unit of Santa Cruz do Bispo.   By an order of 24 January 1997 a judge of the Porto Criminal Court decided that, in accordance with the relevant legislation, the mandatory periodic review of the applicant’s detention should take place on 1 March 1998.   The file was transmitted to the Porto Court for the Execution of Sentences ( Tribunal de Execução das Penas ) where on 19 February 1997 the judge responsible for the execution of sentences appointed a lawyer to represent the applicant under the legal aid scheme, as he had not retained one himself. The judge also asked the staff of the Santa Cruz do Bispo psychiatric unit to report on the applicant’s condition.   Dr M.S.C. informed the judge that the applicant, whom he described as “clinically stabilised”, could be granted release on probation provided that he agreed to accept psychiatric support outside hospital and continued to take his medication. The judge decided, however, to await the expiry of the time-limit laid down in Article 504 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.   Following an application for release lodged by the applicant on 2 July 1997, the judge wrote on the cover of the file the word “seen”.   On 2 June 1998 the applicant himself filed a new application for release, relying, inter alia , on Article 5 § 4 of the European Convention on Human Rights. On 1 July 1998 the applicant was interviewed by the judge in the presence of a civil servant employed at the secure psychiatric unit of Santa Cruz do Bispo whom the judge had appointed to defend the applicant’s interests, since the lawyer appointed as his representative under the legal aid scheme was not present. The applicant said that he considered himself cured and that the medication he was continuing to take was therefore useless. A short time later he personally filed a further application for release and pleadings criticising the medical report compiled by the Institute of Forensic Medicine.   The applicant absconded during temporary leave of absence between 1 and 3 April 1999. He was rearrested on 11 November 1999.   On 20 January 2000 the Court for the Execution of Sentences decided that the applicant’s detention should continue. Its decision was based on the report by the Institute of Forensic Medicine and on the fact that the applicant had not proved worthy of the trust which the prison system had placed in him. Lastly, the judge held that there was no cause to consider the applications for release filed by the applicant in person, as he was mentally ill.   By an order of 4 February 2000 the judge responsible for the execution of sentences decided not to consider an appeal against the above ruling to the Porto Court of Appeal ( Tribunal da Relação ) lodged by the applicant himself. By an order of 1 March 2000 the judge responsible for the execution of sentences decided not to consider an appeal by the applicant against the order of 4 February.   Four habeas corpus applications lodged by the applicant with the Supreme Court ( Supremo Tribunal de Justiça ), in which he argued that his detention was unlawful, were all rejected. In   addition, by an order of 5 January 2000, the President of the Criminal Division of the Supreme Court decided that applications filed by the applicant himself would no longer be considered, regard being had to a psychiatric report of 27 May 1998, which stated that the applicant’s mental illness prevented him from comprehending the abstract concept of habeas corpus .   Complaints   The applicant complains of the unlawfulness of his detention. He further complains that he did not have legal assistance enabling him to appeal against the decision which deprived him of his liberty. Lastly, he complains of the excessive length of the proceedings to review the lawfulness of his continuing detention. He relies on Article 5 §§ 1 and 4 of the Convention.   Procedure   The application was lodged with the European Commission of Human Rights on 3 April 1997. Having been examined by the Court since 1 November 1998, in accordance with the provisions of Protocol No. 11, the application was brought to the attention of the Portuguese Government, in so far as it concerned Article 5 §§ 1 and 4 of the Convention, the remainder of the complaints being declared inadmissible. On 22 March 2001 the Court (Fourth Section) decided to hold a hearing on the admissibility and merits of the application.   Composition of the Court   The case will be heard by a Chamber composed as follows:   Georg Ress (German), President , Antonio Pastor Ridruejo (Spanish), Lucius Caflisch [1] (Swiss), Jerzy Makarczyk (Polish), Ireneu Cabral Barreto (Portuguese), Nina Vajić (Croatian), Matti Pellonpää (Finnish), judges , Volodymyr Butkevych (Ukrainian), John Hedigan (Irish) Snejana Botoucharova (Bulgarian), substitute judges ,   and also Vincent Berger , Section Registrar .   Representatives of the parties   Government:   Mr António Henriques Gaspar, Agent ;   Applicant:   Mr Joaquim Pires de Lima, Counsel .     After the hearing the Court will begin its deliberations, which are held in private. Judgment will be delivered at a later date.   Registry of the European Court of Human Rights F – 67075 Strasbourg Cedex Contact:   Roderick Liddell (telephone: (0)3 88 41 24 92) Fax: (0)3 88 41 27 91   The European Court of Human Rights was set up in Strasbourg in 1959 to deal with alleged violations of the 1950 European Convention on Human Rights. On 1 November 1998 a full-time Court was established, replacing the original two-tier system of a part-time Commission and Court. [1] .     Judge elected in respect of Liechtenstein.