CEDH · PRESS;GENERAL;ENG — 11 mars 2004

.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 } .s40F41F73 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .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 } .s6B505E72 { margin:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .sD711EC90 { margin-left:31.52pt; padding-left:7.48pt; font-family:serif } .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 } .s37CDBE05 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .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 120 11.3.2004   Press release issued by the Registrar   CHAMBER JUDGMENTS IN THE CASES OF G.B. v. BULGARIA AND IORGOV v. BULGARIA   The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing two judgments [1] in the cases of G.B. v. Bulgaria (application no. 42346/98) and Iorgov v. Bulgaria (application no. 40653/98). (These judgments are available only in English).   The Court held unanimously in both cases that: there had been a violation of Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman and degrading treatment) of the European Convention on Human Rights; no separate issues arose under Article 13 (right to an effective remedy) of the Convention.   Under Article 41 (just satisfaction) of the Convention, the Court awarded Mr G.B. 2,000 euros (EUR) for non-pecuniary damage and Mr Iorgov EUR   1,500 for non-pecuniary damage and EUR   1,000 for costs and expenses.     1.     Principal facts   G.B. is a Bulgarian national, born in 1945. In 1973 he was convicted of the murder of his wife and sentenced to 20 years imprisonment. He was released in 1984.     On 8 December 1989 he was convicted of the murder of his second wife and sentenced to the death penalty. His sentence was upheld on appeal on 28 July 1990.   Plamen Parashkevov Iorgov is a Bulgarian national, born in 1957. On 9 May 1990 he was convicted, among other things, of the murder on 17 July 1989 of three children, aged 8, 10 and 12, attempted rape of one of them and attempted rape of a woman in 1984. He was sentenced to the death penalty and his sentence upheld on appeal on 24 October 1990.   On 20 July 1990 the Bulgarian Parliament adopted a decision deferring the execution of the death penalty; (there had been a de facto moratorium in place since November 1989). On 10 December 1998 the death penalty was abolished, following which, both applicants’ sentences were commuted to life imprisonment without parole eligibility.     The applicants complained about their detention under a special regime in Sofia Prison. During most of the time in question they were alone in their cells, where they spent almost 23 hours a day. They were not allowed to join other categories of prisoners for meals in the canteen or for other activities; food was served in their cells. They were allowed only two visits a month. Human contact was effectively limited to conversations with fellow prisoners during the permitted one-hour daily walk and occasional dealings with prison staff.   G.B. was monitored by the prison psychological service and seen several times by psychiatrists who found that he displayed signs of “psychopathy and emotional and volitional instability [typical of] a primitive personality”. He was on several occasions admitted to the prison hospital and treated for neurosis, sleeplessness and loss of appetite. He also complained that he was hearing voices and suffered from feelings of fear.   On an unspecified date he was sent to a psychiatric hospital for treatment after he threatened to hang himself.   In February 1996 Mr Iorgov reported that he had a health problem which turned out to be a swollen salivary gland. In April 1996 a doctor recommended surgery, which was not carried out until July 1998. Mr Iorgov maintained that he had been refused timely surgical help despite his suffering.     2.     Procedure and composition of the Court   G.B. v. Bulgaria was lodged with the European Commission of Human Rights on 18 February 1998 and Iorgov v. Bulgaria on 4 December 1997. Both cases were transmitted to the Court on 1 November 1998 and declared partly admissible on 3 October 2002.   Judgment for both cases was given by a Chamber of seven judges, composed as follows:   Christos Rozakis (Greek), President , Françoise Tulkens (Belgian), Nina Vajić (Croatian), Egil Levits (Latvian), Snejana Botoucharova (Bulgarian), Anatoli Kovler (Russian), Khanlar Hajiyev (Azerbaijani), judges , and also Søren Nielsen , Section Registrar .     3.     Summary of the judgments [2]   Complaints   Both applicants alleged that their detention amounted to inhuman and degrading treatment because they were detained prior to the abolition of the death penalty in Bulgaria (during a moratorium on executions). They complained that they were victims of “death row phenomenon”, pointing to their fears of a possible resumption of executions and the length of time they were detained in uncertainty. They also complained about their prison conditions. They relied on Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman and degrading treatment) and Article 13 (right to an effective remedy).   Decision of the Court   Article 3   Death row phenomenon The Court noted that there was medical evidence that G.B. suffered psychological problems and that at least some of the occasions where he needed psychological help had been provoked by news concerning debates on the moratorium on executions and the death penalty. Mr Iorgov had also stressed that he suffered immensely at the thought of his possible execution and that it was inhuman to keep him in such uncertainty for so long.   However, in both cases, the Court noted that the applicants were convicted and sentenced to death at a moment when executions were no longer carried out in Bulgaria. By the time their convictions and sentences were upheld on appeal (prior to that their sentences were not enforceable), a parliamentary moratorium on executions was in place. The moratorium remained in force until the abolition of the death penalty in Bulgaria in 1998. Nothing comparable to “death row phenomenon” – which in some cases involved a condemned person being brought to the execution chamber and then being returned to her or his cell following a last-minute stay of execution – happened or could have happened to either applicant.   The Court accepted that initially the applicants must have been in a state of some uncertainty, fear and anxiety as to their future. However, it considered that their feelings of fear and anxiety must have diminished as time went on and the moratorium continued in force.   G.B. had received medical and psychological help and it could not be excluded that the incidents when he felt fear and anxiety and was in need of help were caused by a multitude of factors, including the inevitable suffering or humiliation he felt concerning the loss of his liberty.   The detention conditions The Court observed that G.B . and - between June 1995 and the end of 1998 - Mr Iorgov were subjected to a special regime in Sofia Prison which was very restrictive and involved very little human contact.   The Court accepted that the prohibition of contacts with other prisoners for security, disciplinary or protective reasons did not in itself amount to inhuman treatment or punishment. However, all forms of solitary confinement without appropriate mental and physical stimulation were likely, in the long term, to have damaging effects, resulting in the deterioration of a prisoner’s mental faculties and social abilities. Although the damaging effects of the impoverished regime to which the applicants were subjected were known, the regime remained in place for many years with no amendments to the relevant law and regulations. It was also significant that the Bulgarian Government had not invoked any particular security reasons requiring the applicants’ isolation and had not mentioned why it was not possible to revise the regime for prisoners in the applicants’ situation to provide them with adequate opportunities for human contact and a reasonable occupation.   The Court also noted that the evidence concerning the treatment of Mr Iorgov’s swollen salivary gland, although not conclusive, suggested that there had been an unwarranted delay in providing him with adequate medical assistance.   The Court therefore considered that the stringent custodial regime to which G.B had been subjected for more than eight years (more than six of which occurred after the entry into force of the European Convention on Human Rights in Bulgaria) and to which Mr Iorgov was subjected after 1995, as well as the material conditions in which they were detained, must have caused them suffering exceeding the unavoidable level inherent in detention. The Court therefore concluded that the applicants had been subjected to inhuman and degrading treatment, in violation of Article 3.   Article 13   In both cases, the Court held that no separate issue arose under Article 13.   ***   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 does not bind the Court.