CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 17 janvier 2024

.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 } .s4ACA9207 { page-break-before:always; clear:both; mso-break-type:section-break } .s23860FF7 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:center } .s6DB91820 { text-align:center } .s88830249 { width:100%; margin-right:auto; margin-left:auto; border-collapse:collapse } .s591C39CD { width:5.84%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s2EF62ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .sEECE831 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; color:#474747 } .s26C0AB39 { width:18.36%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s86EAA7F5 { width:49.72%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s231FDD0B { width:26.08%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s9FDAE09D { width:5.84%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sEFEAA334 { width:18.36%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sE93B1978 { width:49.72%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s619BBF62 { width:26.08%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } Published on 5 February 2024   FOURTH SECTION Application no. 23325/22 Ammar Abdullah Mohammed AMEEN against Portugal and 3 other applications (see list appended) communicated on 17 January 2024 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The applicants are two brothers of Iraqi origin who are currently in pre ‑ trial detention in Monsanto High Security Prison (“HSP”). On 2 September 2021 they were arrested in Lisbon on suspicion of membership of an international terrorist organisation, namely “Daesh” (the so ‑ called “Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant” or “ISIL”, also known as “ISIS”), international terrorism and crimes against humanity. On 13   April 2022, following a decision of the Lisbon Court of Appeal of 23   March 2022, the investigating judge decided to maintain the applicants in pre-trial detention and to impose a ban on telephone calls and correspondence in accordance with Article 200 § 1 (d) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. An appeal lodged by the applicants against this decision was rejected on 5   May 2022. On 2 September 2022, the Public Prosecutor brought charges against the applicants for membership of an international terrorist organisation, international terrorism, war crimes and disobedience. On 21 December 2022, the investigating judge confirmed the charges against the applicants and referred the case for trial ( despacho de pronúncia ) before the Court of Lisbon where the case is pending. Relying on Article 3 of the Convention (applications nos.   23325/22, 23377/22 and 4620/23), the applicants complain of their conditions of detention in Monsanto HSP. In particular, they allege that the imposition of the high-security regime, combined with various restrictions imposed on them, including intensive video surveillance in the prison and the prohibition of contact between them and with their families, and on sending or receiving correspondence, coupled with their lack of access to outdoor and occupational activities, the poor quality of food, the lack of hygiene, the lack of physical exercise in the open air and the overcrowding in communal areas, amount to inhuman and degrading treatment. Under Article 13, they also complain of the lack of an effective domestic remedies in respect of these claims. Relying on Article 6 of the Convention (applications nos. 23325/22 and   23377/22), the applicants complain of the unfairness of the proceedings concerning the imposition on them, and the maintenance of, the high-security regime and, without invoking any provision of the Convention, the lack of an effective remedy in this respect. Relying on Article 8 of the Convention (all applications), the applicants submit that the ban on telephone calls and correspondence imposed on them and the prohibition of contact between them are in breach of their right to respect for private life. In application no. 53430/22, they also complain of excessive video surveillance in the prison, including in the visiting area. They allege that the ban on correspondence imposed on them was extended to correspondence with their lawyer, in breach of their right of defence guaranteed by Article   6 § 3 c) of the Convention and of their right to respect for private life protected by Article 8 of the Convention. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Have the imposition of the high-security regime and further restrictions on the applicants, including intensive video surveillance in the prison and the prohibition of contacts, attained the minimum threshold of severity required to fall within the scope of Article 3 (see Piechowicz v. Poland , no.   20071/07, §§   159-162, 17 April 2012; Muršić v. Croatia [GC], no. 7334/13, §   97, 20   October 2016; and Provenzano v. Italy , no. 55080/13, § 147, 25   October 2018)?   2.     If so, have the applicants been subjected to inhuman or degrading treatment, in breach of Article 3 of the Convention, as a result of the effect on them of the restrictions stemming from the high-security prison regime under which they have been detained, the material conditions of their detention and the lack of meaningful activities (see Piechowicz , cited above, §§   162-65;   Csüllög v. Hungary , no.   30042/08, §§   27-31, 7   June 2011; and   Muršić, cited above, § 101)?   3.     Has the imposition of the high-security regime and further restrictions on the applicants constituted a breach of their rights under Article 8 of the Convention? In particular, did the authorities put disproportionate restrictions on the applicants’ correspondence, including with their lawyer ( see Enea v.   Italy [GC], no. 74912/01, § 140, ECHR 2009 ; Lebois v. Bulgaria , no.   67482/14, § 62, 19 October 2017; and Danilevich v. Russia , no. 31469/08, §§   49-50, 19 October 2021), and by means of video surveillance, including in the visiting areas of the prison during their detention (see Piechowicz , cited above, § 239, and Gorlov and Others v.   Russia , nos. 27057/06 and 2 others, §   82, 2 July 2019)?   4.     Did the applicants have at their disposal an effective domestic remedy for their complaints brought under Articles 3 and 8 of the Convention, as required by Article 13 of the Convention?   APPENDIX List of cases: No. Application no. Case name Introduction date Applicant’s name Year of birth Place of detention Nationality Representative’s name Location 1. 23325/22 Ameen v. Portugal 04/05/2022 Ammar Abdullah Mohammed AMEEN 1987 Lisbon Iraqi Vítor CARRETO Torres Vedras 2. 23377/22 Ameen v. Portugal 04/05/2022 Yasir Abdullah Mohammed AMEEN 1990 Lisbon Iraqi Vítor CARRETO Torres Vedras 3. 53430/22 Ameen v. Portugal 14/11/2022 Ammar Abdullah Mohammed AMEEN 1987 Lisbon Iraqi Yasir Abdullah Mohammed AMEEN 1990 Lisbon Iraqi Vítor CARRETO Torres Vedras 4. 4620/23 Ameen v. Portugal 13/01/2023 Ammar Abdullah Mohammed AMEEN 1987 Lisbon Iraqi Yasir Abdullah Mohammed AMEEN 1990 Lisbon Iraqi Vítor CARRETO Torres Vedras