CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 7 juillet 2011

.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. 143 July 2011 Hellig v. Germany - 20999/05 Judgment 7.7.2011 [Section V] Article 3 Degrading treatment Inhuman treatment Inmate’s seven-day placement in security cell without clothing: violation   Facts – The applicant, who was serving a prison sentence, got into a fight with the prison staff. He was then taken to a security cell, where he was strip-searched and apparently left naked. The security cell measured over 8 square metres and was equipped with a mattress and a squat toilet. The applicant remained there for seven days, when he was transferred to the prison hospital. The prison pastor, who visited the applicant in the security cell, observed that he was naked and in a very agitated state of mind. The applicant subsequently requested the competent courts to declare that his detention in the security cell had been unlawful, but his request was dismissed. Law – Article 3: In order to prevent the applicant from attacking prison staff, the authorities had placed him in a security cell with only very basic facilities that were thus unsuitable for long-term accommodation. Even though it was unclear whether the applicant had been left naked for his entire stay in that cell, there were strong, clear and concordant indications that this had indeed been the case: the pastor who had visited him in the security cell had noted that he was naked and the Government had acknowledged that it was general practice to keep inmates in such cells naked in order to prevent self-injury. The Court noted that depriving an inmate of his clothing might arouse feelings of fear, anguish and inferiority capable of humiliating and debasing him. Moreover, the competent regional court had not been able to establish with certainty whether there was a serious danger of self-injury or suicide at the time of the applicant’s placement in the security cell. Further, there was no indication that the prison authorities had considered the use of less intrusive measures, such as providing the applicant with tear-proof clothing, as recommended by the CPT*. In sum, the applicant’s placement for seven days in the security cell might have been justified, but depriving him of his clothes during his stay there constituted inhuman and degrading treatment. Conclusion : violation (unanimously). Article 41: EUR 10,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage. * European Committee for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment.   © 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