CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 16 juin 2005

.s3ABFC313 { font-size:10pt } .sEB86A30B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; page-break-after:avoid } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .sA241FE93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-align:justify; page-break-after:avoid; border-bottom:0.75pt solid #000000; padding-bottom:1pt } .s2EF62ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s8F2B0B1B { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:12pt } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s5F48796F { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s5CB9E8AB { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; border-bottom:1pt solid #000000; padding-bottom:1pt } .sDF790F1E { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s3DC36BA9 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } Information Note on the Court’s case-law No. 76 June 2005 Reggiani Martinelli v. Italy (dec.) - 22682/02 Decision 16.6.2005 [Section III] Article 3 Degrading treatment Inhuman treatment Holding in detention of a person with a cerebral disease which caused physical and psychological suffering, having had a tumour removed from the brain prior to incarceration: inadmissible   The applicant has been incarcerated for manslaughter since 1997 and was given a final twenty-six-year prison sentence in 2001. Five years before she was remanded in custody, the applicant had had a brain tumour removed, followed by a major course of radiotherapy lasting several weeks. After the operation she began to suffer from occasional obtusion and from vertigo. During her detention the symptoms worsened and the applicant also suffered from fainting fits, headaches, anxiety and insomnia. Under domestic law, a stay of execution of a prison sentence, or house arrest, are granted only when the prisoner suffers from a particularly severe complaint which has reached a stage where the treatment and care available in prison are no longer sufficient, or from a “severe disability”. The applicant lodged an application to be placed under house arrest on medical grounds. The court gave its ruling on the basis of the prison medical file, which recorded the treatment given to the applicant and the findings of private experts. The court rejected the application, observing that there had been no recurrence of the tumour and no permanent mental or physical impairments. Fresh examinations ruled out any recurrence of the tumour and revealed major cerebral impairments with behavioural and emotional effects. The applicant lodged a second application to be placed under house arrest on medical grounds. The court dismissed the request on the basis of reports by a medical expert and by the prison doctor. It found, inter alia , that the applicant’s life had never been endangered by her numerous fainting fits, which had been treated promptly by prison staff. The applicant lodged a third application for house arrest. She was suffering increasingly from psychological, emotional and behavioural instability. The court held that the applicant’s suffering, certified by experts and by the reports of prison doctors, was not the result of a “severe disability” that could justify a stay of execution of sentence. The court added that since there was no evidence of any recurrence of the tumour or of any lesions to the frontal lobes of the brain causing a prefrontal syndrome, the applicant’s suffering (aggravation of psychological condition and increased emotional excitability) did not constitute a threat to her life and could be treated adequately inside the prison. The application was rejected. In January 2005 the applicant lodged a fresh application for a stay of execution of sentence, which was being examined when the instant decision was given. Inadmissible under Article 3 of the Convention – The applicant’s condition, causing both physical and psychological suffering, was the result of a surgical operation performed prior to her incarceration. At the time she was remanded in custody, there had been no cause for concern about her state of health and her suffering had gradually increased since then. The applicant’s state of health could not be attributed to her imprisonment and the worsening of her suffering during her detention could not be imputed to the prison authorities. The development of the condition had been carefully monitored by the prison’s medical team and doctors had intervened when she had had fits, deciding if necessary to commit her to specialised medical centres in order to review her state of health and provide her with the most suitable medical treatment. With respect to the appropriateness of holding the applicant in detention despite the gradual decline in her health, no one had ever expressed the opinion that her condition was incompatible with detention, even if the experts’ findings were not totally consistent. The domestic courts had rejected the applications for a stay of execution of sentence in reasoned decisions, taking into account the opinions of experts. The last petition for a stay of execution was being examined when the Court gave its decision. The Court could not substitute its views for those of domestic courts with respect to the appropriateness of holding an individual in detention, especially when, as in the present case, the national authorities had generally fulfilled their obligation to protect the applicant’s physical well-being, in particular by providing suitable medical care. The case-file showed that the treatment of the applicant’s condition in detention had been of the same quality as that which she could have received outside. In those circumstances, neither the applicant’s state of health nor the distress she claimed to have been suffering were of a sufficiently severe nature, at the material time, to entail a violation of Article 3: manifestly ill-founded.   © Council of Europe/European Court of Human Rights This summary by the Registry does not bind the Court. Click here for the Case-Law Information Notes