|
European Court of Human Rigths
038
27.1.2005
Press release issued by the Registrar
CHAMBER JUDGMENT
RAMIREZ SANCHEZ v. FRANCE
The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing a
judgment in the case of Ramirez Sanchez v. France (application no.
59450/00).
The Court held:
* by four votes to three, that there had been no violation of
Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment) of the
European Convention on Human Rights;
* unanimously, that there had been a violation of Article 13 (right
to an effective remedy) of the Convention.
The Court considered, unanimously, that the finding of a violation was
in itself sufficient just satisfaction for the non-pecuniary damage
alleged by the applicant. Under Article 41 (just satisfaction), the
Court awarded the applicant 5,000 euros (EUR) for costs and expenses.
(The judgment is available only in French.)
1. Principal facts
The applicant, Ilich Ramirez Sanchez, better known as "Carlos the
Jackal", is a Venezuelan national who was born in 1949. He is
currently detained in Fresnes Prison.
Prosecuted in connection with investigations into several terrorist
attacks carried out in France, the applicant was sentenced to life
imprisonment on 25 December 1997 for the murder of three police
officers in 1975.
For eight years and two months, i.e. from his detention in the Santé
Prison on 15 August 1994 until his transfer to Saint-Maur Prison on 17
October 2002, the applicant was detained in solitary confinement. The
grounds given to justify the decisions to prolong the applicant's
detention in solitary confinement were generally his dangerousness,
the need to maintain order and safety in the prison and the likelihood
that he might seek to escape; on each occasion, the applicant
underwent medical examinations to determine his fitness for solitary
confinement.
This regime meant that the applicant was detained alone in a cell
measuring 6.84 m2, which, in his opinion, was dilapidated and poorly
insulated; he had no contact with other prisoners or prison warders
and was authorised to leave his cell only for a two-hour daily walk.
The applicant further alleged that his only recreation was provided by
newspapers and the television which he rented, and that he received no
visits except for those from his lawyers and a monthly visit by a
cleric.
Following his transfer to Saint-Maur Prison, the applicant was no
longer detained in solitary confinement. However, since being
transferred to Fresnes Prison in March 2004, he has again been
subjected to this measure.
2. Procedure and composition of the Court
The application was lodged with the European Court of Human Rights on
20 July 2000 and declared admissible on 19 February 2004.
Judgment was given by a Chamber of 7 judges, composed as follows:
Christos Rozakis (Greek), President,
Loukis Loucaides (Cypriot),
Jean-Paul Costa (French),
Françoise Tulkens (Belgian),
Peer Lorenzen (Danish),
Nina Vajic (Croatian),
Snejana Botoucharova (Bulgarian), judges,
and also Santiago Quesada, Deputy Section Registrar.
3. Summary of the judgment
Complaints
The applicant submitted that his prolonged detention in solitary
confinement from 15 August 1994 to 17 October 2002 had infringed
Article 3 of the Convention. He further alleged that the decisions to
prolong his confinement were taken unlawfully, in breach of Article 13
of the Convention.
Decision of the Court
Article 3
The Court pointed out that, even in the most difficult circumstances,
such as the fight against terrorism and organised crime, the
Convention prohibited in absolute terms torture and inhuman or
degrading treatment or punishment.
It acknowledged that the applicant's detention had posed serious
difficulties for the French authorities and understood that they had
considered it necessary to take extraordinary security measures to
detain a man who, at the time in question, was viewed as the most
dangerous terrorist in the world.
As to the conditions of the applicant's detention
During his detention in solitary confinement at the Santé Prison, the
cell occupied by the applicant, without cellmates, was sufficiently
large for one prisoner and contained a bed, a table and washing and
toilet facilities; it also had a window which provided natural light.
The applicant had books, newspapers and a television, and had access
to the exercise yard for two hours per day, as well as to a gym for
one hour per day.
Furthermore, he was visited by a doctor twice a week and by a cleric
once a month, and received very frequent visits from his 58 lawyers,
including his current representative, who had visited him more than
640 times over a period of four years and ten months.
In those circumstances, the Court considered that the applicant had
not been detained in complete sensory isolation or in total social
isolation.
As to the length of the solitary confinement
The Court noted that a prisoner's exclusion from the prison
environment did not in itself constitute a form of inhuman treatment.
In the present case, it observed that the applicant had not been
subjected to sensory isolation or total social isolation, but to
relative social isolation. In that respect, the Court attached
particular weight to the fact that the applicant's lawyer, who was now
also his partner, had been able to visit him on a very regular basis,
and that he had also received visits from 57 other lawyers. It also
noted that, whatever its duration, his continued detention in solitary
confinement, regrettable in itself, had not caused him a level of
suffering that reached the threshold of gravity required for a
violation of Article 3.
Furthermore, the extensions to the applicant's solitary confinement
had been decided in accordance with the provisions of the circular of
8 December 1998, applicable in the case. In particular, the applicant
had received very regular visits from doctors who, while refusing to
condone his detention in solitary confinement after July 2000, had not
found that it had had adverse effects on his health. The applicant had
declined psychological assistance in July 2002, and on examination by
a psychiatrist when he arrived at Saint-Maur Prison, no subsequent
treatment had been suggested. Equally, the applicant himself claimed
that he had been in perfect mental and physical health.
The Court also took account of the French Government's concerns that
the applicant could take advantage of the prison's internal or
external communications systems to renew contact with members of his
terrorist group or to seek to spread his beliefs among the other
prisoners and perhaps to plan an escape.
While it shared the Committee for the Prevention of Torture's concerns
about the long-term effects of the applicant's social isolation, the
Court found that the general and very particular conditions in which
he had been detained, and the length of that detention, had not
reached the minimum level of severity necessary to constitute inhuman
treatment within the meaning of Article 3, particularly in view of the
applicant's personality and the exceptional level of danger that he
posed. Accordingly, it concluded that there had been no violation of
Article 3.
Article 13
The applicant applied to the administrative court seeking to have one
of the decisions placing him in solitary confinement quashed. In a
judgment of 25 November 1998, the court dismissed his application,
pointing out that the measure was an internal one which was not
eligible for referral to the administrative courts. In that
connection, the Court noted that the Conseil d'Etat had amended its
position in that area in July 2003 by accepting that a decision to
place a prisoner in solitary confinement could be referred to the
administrative courts.
Accordingly, the Court concluded that there had been a violation of
Article 13, on account of the absence in French law of a remedy that
would have enabled the applicant to contest the decision to prolong
his detention in solitary confinement.
Judges Rozakis, Loucaides and Tulkens expressed a joint dissenting
opinion, which is annexed to the judgment.
***
The Court's judgments are accessible on its Internet site
(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.
_______________________
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.
This summary by the Registry is not binding on the Court.
|
|
 |
