ECHR Article 3
Degrading treatment
violation
In fact – since 2006 the applicant suffering from paraplegia of the lower limbs and urinary incontinence and anal currently serving a sentence of thirty years’ imprisonment. In August 2010, he asked for a suspended sentence for medical reasons the judge to sentence enforcement. He alleged that the premises were unsuitable for her disability that required him to use a wheelchair, he had to be assisted by an inmate made ??available to shower and that physiotherapy that were lavished on him were insufficient. In February 2011, the court in the execution of sentences dismissed the application and held that the applicant’s health was compatible with his imprisonment following on corroborating medical evaluations of two experts. The court, however, clarified that the detention center was not suitable to the applicant and there were better equipped institutions to welcome him. The applicant’s appeal against this decision were unsuccessful.
Law – Article 3: The applicant with a disability that forces him to move mainly in a wheelchair even if it may sometimes seem to move with canes or a walker, his complaints are examined in the light of the principles governing state care obligations to persons with disabilities, in view of their vulnerability to challenges of detention.
Quality of care provided to the applicant in detention, including the question of whether the national authorities have done what could reasonably be required of them to provide him with rehabilitation he needed and offer him a chance seeing her condition improve, no physiotherapist has occurred within the detention center for three years. No specific measures have been taken during that period of time and no solution has been sought for the applicant to benefit from physiotherapy sessions tailored to his condition, despite repeated recommendations by doctors to take care of in a specialized environment. The only behavior of the applicant, who seems to have been reluctant to any transfer, mainly because of family separation, can not justify the inertia of prison and health authorities.
Regarding the conditions of detention, and in access to health, and more specifically to the showers, they are not located in the cell, the applicant can not get there alone and they are not equipped to be accessible to disabled persons in wheelchairs. In addition, given the applicant’s condition, the inmate in charge of the day to attend must help him realize his toilet. This was deemed unacceptable by the Comptroller General of places of deprivation of liberty. Moreover, if the legislature opened in 2009 the possibility to all detainees who are in a disability to designate a caregiver of their choice, such a measure, assuming that this choice conditions were met in this case , is not sufficient to meet the needs of the applicant who saw the difficult time of the shower, given his incontinence, lack of privacy and support role given to fellow inmate. Indeed, this aid does not constitute a supplement to support the applicant by health professionals and the prisoner designated to assist it did not receive the training necessary for the practice of gestures required for a disabled person. In this regard, the Court has repeatedly held that the assistance of a fellow inmate, even voluntary, does not mean that the applicant’s special needs are met and that the State has complied in this respect its obligations under Article 3 of the Convention.
Ultimately, the applicant’s continued detention is not in itself incompatible with Article 3 of the Convention but national authorities have not ensured proper care to spare him his treatment contrary to this provision. Given its severe disabilities, and the fact that he suffers from urinary and anal incontinence, the detention period he lived without the benefit of any rehabilitation treatment, and in an institution where he can take showers that with the help of a fellow inmate, submitted the applicant hardship of an intensity that exceeded the unavoidable level of suffering inherent in detention. These circumstances constitute degrading treatment prohibited by Article 3. The absence of evidence suggesting that the authorities acted with the aim of humiliating or debasing the applicant does not affect this conclusion.
Conclusion: violation (unanimously).
Article 41: 7 000 EUR for moral damage.
10401/12 – Legal Summary, [2015] ECHR 269
Bailii
European Convention on Human Rights
Human Rights
Updated: 28 December 2021; Ref: scu.544175