CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 19 octobre 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 } Published on 8 November 2021   FOURTH SECTION Application no. 30138/21 Rui Miguel MIRANDA MAGRO against Portugal lodged on 9 June 2021 communicated on 19 October 2021 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the applicant’s detention at the Caxias Prison Hospital, following his conviction to a security measure ( medida de segurança de internamento ) at a psychiatric establishment for damage, threat and sexual harassment. Under Article 3, the applicant complains of his conditions of detention. He claims that he should have been detained in a psychiatric facility. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Has the applicant been subject to inhuman and degrading treatment, in breach of Article 3?   In particular:   (a) Is the applicant receiving an adequate medical treatment at the Prison Hospital of Caxias (see Rooman v. Belgium [GC], no. 18052/11, §§ 146-148, 31   January 2019; and Strazimiri v. Albania , no. 34602/16, § 103, 21   January 2020)?   (b) Are the applicant’s conditions of detention in conformity with the applicant’s state of health, and with the decision issued by the Criminal Court of Évora on 2 February 2021?   2. Has there been a breach of Article 5 § 1 of the Convention? In   particular, considering the mental health conditions of the applicant, is his detention in a hospital ward of a regular prison establishment compatible with Article 5 § 1 e) of the Convention (see Ilnseher v. Germany [GC], nos.   10211/12 and 27505/14, § 127, 4 December 2018, and Rooman , cited above, § 192) ?