CEDH · PRESS;CHAMBERJUDGMENTS;ENG — 24 juillet 2001

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .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 } .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 } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sADADF4A7 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline } .sCB27B9E { width:16.66pt; display:inline-block } .sC5412BEF { width:51.05pt; display:inline-block } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left } .s85226119 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .s653E6C45 { font-family:Arial; font-size:6.67pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .s2EB42ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:10pt } .s3133A7C8 { font-family:Arial; color:#0069d6 } EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS     558   24.7.2001   Press release issued by the Registrar   JUDGMENT IN THE CASE OF VALAŠINAS v. LITHUANIA   The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing judgment [1] in the case Valašinas v. Lithuania (application number 44558/98). The Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Articles 3 (prohibition of degrading treatment) and 8 (right to respect for correspondence) of the European Convention on Human Rights, and no violation of Article 34 (right of individual petition) of the Convention.   Under Article 41 of the Convention, the Court awarded the applicant 6,000 Lithuanian litai (LTL) for non-pecuniary damage, and granted him LTL 1,693.87 for legal costs and expenses. (The judgment exists only in English).   1.     Principal facts   The applicant, Mr Juozas Valašinas, a Lithuanian national, was born in 1974. He served a sentence of 9 years’ imprisonment for the theft, possession and sale of firearms. From an unspecified date in early April 1998 he was detained in Pravieniškės prison ( Pravieniškių 2-oji sustiprintojo režimo pataisos darbų kolonija ). He was released on 14 April 2000 following a Presidential pardon. The present case concerned the conditions of the applicant’s detention in Pravieniškės prison and his treatment there.   2.     Procedure and composition of the Court   The application was lodged with the European Commission of Human Rights on 14 May 1998. The applicant, who had been granted legal aid, was represented before the Court by Mr V. Sviderskis, a lawyer practising in Vilnius. The Lithuanian Government were represented by their Agent, Mr G. Švedas, Vice-Minister of Justice. The application was registered on 16 November 1998 after being transmitted to the Court. By a decision of 14 March 2000, a Chamber of the Third Section of the Court declared the application partly admissible. On 25 and 26 May 2000 Delegates of the Chamber took evidence in Lithuania, including a visit to Pravieniškės prison. Judgment was given by the Chamber which was composed as follows:   Jean-Paul Costa (French), President , Loukis Loucaides (Cypriot), Pranas Kūris (Lithuanian), Françoise Tulkens (Belgian), Karel Jungwiert (Czech), Nicolas Bratza (British), Hanne Sophie Greve (Norwegian),   judges , and Sally Dollé , Section Registrar .   3.     Summary of the judgment [2]   Complaints   The applicant alleged, in particular, that the conditions of his detention in Pravieniškės prison and his treatment there amounted to degrading treatment in breach of Article 3 of the Convention. In this regard the applicant complained about the general facilities in the prison.   He also complained about a body search on 7 May 1998 following a visit from a relative: the applicant alleged that he had been obliged to strip naked in the presence of a woman prison officer with the intention of humiliating him; he had been then ordered to squat, and his sexual organs and the food he had received from the visitor had been examined by guards who had worn no gloves. In addition, the applicant complained of victimisation by the prison administration by way of disciplinary penalties for his legitimate activities as a defender of prisoners’ rights, for which there was no was no adequate review.     The applicant also complained that the control of his correspondence with the Convention organs by the prison authorities amounted to a violation of Articles 8 and 34 of the Convention.   Decision of the Court   Article 3 of the Convention   The Court reiterated its case-law according to which ill-treatment must attain a minimum level of severity if it is to fall within the scope of Article 3 of the Convention. The Court stressed that the suffering and humiliation involved must go beyond that inevitable element of suffering or humiliation connected with a given form of legitimate treatment or punishment. Measures depriving a person of his liberty may often involve such an element. Under Article 3 of the Convention the State must ensure that a person is detained in conditions which are compatible with respect for his human dignity, that the manner and method of the execution of the measure do not subject him to distress or hardship of an intensity exceeding the unavoidable level of suffering inherent in detention and that, given the practical demands of imprisonment, his health and well-being are adequately secured.   The Court found that the general conditions of detention in Pravieniškės prison did not breach Article 3 of the Convention.   As regards the body search of the applicant on 7 May 1998, the Court considered that, whilst strip searches may be necessary on occasions to ensure prison security or prevent disorder or crime, they must be conducted in an appropriate manner. In the Court’s opinion the way in which this particular search had been conducted showed a clear lack of respect for the applicant, and in effect diminished his human dignity. The Court concluded that it had constituted degrading treatment in breach of Article 3 of the Convention.   As regards the alleged victimisation of the applicant, the Court found that the applicant had not been victimised for the expression of his views or the exercise of his legitimate rights and freedoms. The Court considered that the disciplinary penalties imposed on the applicant had not been arbitrary, had been subjected to a proper review by the prison administration and the Ombudsman, and had not amounted to treatment contrary to Article 3 of the Convention.   Articles 8 and 34 of the Convention   The Court found that the control of the applicant’s correspondence with the Convention organs amounted to an unjustified interference with the right to respect for correspondence under Article 8 of the Convention, given its consistent case-law on the subject, but had not significantly interfered with the applicant’s right of petition under Article 34.     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 Contacts:   Roderick Liddell (tel.: (0)3 88 41 24 92), Emma Hellyer (tel.: (0)3 90 21 42 15),   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] 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 the case to the Grand Chamber. [2] .     This summary by the Registry does not bind the Court.