CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 12 juillet 2021

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s379BC09C { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s339D85E6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s665E407E { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sA1D3DA2E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } Published on 2 August 2021   FIRST SECTION Application no. 29926/20 A.Z. against Italy lodged on 21 July 2020 communicated on 12 July 2021 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the alleged insufficiency of the measures put in place by the authorities to protect the applicant’s life against the risk of suicide in prison. The applicant also complains that his state of mental health is incompatible with detention and that his continued stay in prison is unlawful. On 28 August 2020, the Court applied an interim measure in the case under Rule 39 of the Rules of Court, indicating to the respondent Government “to provide the applicant, until a decision on the merits is issued by the Supervising Tribunal, with the necessary surveillance and psychiatric treatment, as ordered by the decision of the Supervising Judge of 11 August 2020”. According to the applicant, his transfer to the Prison “Francesco Uccella” of Santa Maria Capua Vetere did not provide him with adequate surveillance and psychiatric treatment and even worsened his conditions of detention as he was moved further away from his family. The   Court further granted the application priority under Rule 41 of the Rules of Court. By a decision of 17 November 2020, the Supervising Tribunal rejected the applicant’s complaints, considering that he was receiving the necessary surveillance and psychiatric treatment and that his mental health was compatible with the conditions of detention. The applicant filed a new request under Rule 39 of the Rules of Court, contesting the findings of the Supervising Tribunal. On 26 November 2020, the Court rejected the request. Referring to Article 2 of the Convention the applicant complains that the authorities have not done all that could reasonably be expected of them to prevent the risk of suicide. He also complains under Article 3 and Article 5 § 1 (e) of the Convention that his conditions of detention are inadequate in view of his mental health and that, as a person of unsound mind, his detention would only be lawful if effected in a hospital, clinic or other appropriate institution authorised for that purpose. Invoking Article 34 of the Convention the applicant complains that the respondent Government failed to fulfil their obligation to comply with the interim measure indicated by the Court. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Has the applicant exhausted all effective domestic remedies, as required by Article 35 § 1 of the Convention (see, for instance, Neshkov and   Others v. Bulgaria , nos. 36925/10 and 5 others, § 183, 27 January 2015, and Longin v. Croatia , no. 49268/10, § 41, 6 November 2012)?   2.     Having regard to the applicant’s multiple suicide attempts while in detention (August 2019, September 2019, January 2020, July 2020 and September 2020), do the Government consider that the authorities have done everything that could reasonably be expected of them to prevent the risk of suicide, thereby fulfilling their positive obligations under Article 2 of the Convention (see, in particular, the principles set out by the Court in Jeanty v. Belgium , no. 82284/17, § 72, 31 March 2020; Ketreb v. France , no. 38447/09, § 84, 19 July 2012; Keenan v. the United Kingdom, no.   27229/95, § 97, ECHR 2001 III; and Citraro and Molino v. Italy [Committee], no. 50988/13, 4 June 2020)?   3.     Has there been a breach of the applicant’s rights under Article 3 of the Convention? In particular: (a) Did the applicant receive adequate medical treatment during his detention (see Jeanty v. Belgium , no. 82284/17, §§ 101 - 114, 31   March 2020)? (b) Were the applicant’s conditions of detention in conformity with his state of health, particularly having regard to the conclusions of the medical report drafted by the Spoleto prison’s Psychiatric Monitoring Unit, according to which the applicant faces “a high-level suicide risk” and is therefore “poorly compatible with detention and in need to be placed in an adequate therapeutic community structure, near his home-town (as contact with his family is necessary), where he can be subjected to a medium to long-term psychotherapeutic treatment”?   4. Has there been a breach of Article 5 § 1 of the Convention? In particular, having regard to the applicant’s state of health described above, did his continued deprivation of liberty fall within paragraph (e) of this provision? If so, was the applicant’s continued detention “in accordance with a procedure prescribed by law” within the meaning of Article 5 § 1 of the Convention? The parties are invited to submit to the Court references to the relevant provisions of the domestic law and judicial practice, where available.   5.     Having regard to the measures taken in response to the Court’s decision of 28 August 2020 to indicate an interim measure under Rule 39 of the Rules of Court, was there a hindrance by the State in the present case with the effective exercise of the applicant’s right of application, ensured by Article 34 of the Convention?   The Government are also invited to provide the Court with a copy of the medical reports concerning the state of mental health of the applicant and, in particular, of those referred to in the decision of the Supervising Tribunal of 17 November 2020.