CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 4 mai 2000

.s3ABFC313 { font-size:10pt } .sD4B5322E { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify } .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 } .s97EB40D9 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:14pt; page-break-after:avoid } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s65B66A85 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt } .s5F48796F { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s8B6C6D43 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; 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 18 May 2000 Bollan v. the United Kingdom (dec.) - 42117/98 Decision 4.5.2000 [Section III] Article 3 Inhuman treatment Confinement of prisoner in cell as disciplinary measure, leading her to suicide: inadmissible Article 5 Article 5-1 Lawful arrest or detention Confinement in cell of prisoner as disciplinary measure: inadmissible A., step-daughter of the first applicant, daughter of the second and mother of the third, committed suicide whilst on remand. She had been a drug addict for a number of years and had passed several spells in drugs rehabilitation clinics without success. On the day after admission, she was examined by a doctor who did not discern any suicidal tendency in her conduct despite her drug dependency. On the day of her death, at around 11 a.m., she started kicking at the door of her cell. The Residential Officer told her that she would be kept in her cell until she calmed down while other prisoners were in free association before lunch. The Residential Officer was called to another unit soon after midday and overlooked her; he had not mentioned her to his supervisor or anyone else. Around 12.30 p.m., A. was found dead in her cell, hanging from the window. The conclusion of the inquiry into her death was that there was no particular reason to suspect that she would commit suicide although she had not taken her usual medication that particular morning. The applicants initiated proceedings in the Sheriff Court, claiming damages on behalf of the third applicant on account of, inter alia , the prison staff’s negligence. They were refused legal aid and their appeal against this refusal was to no avail. Inadmissible under Article 3: A. was told by prison officers that she would remain in her cell instead of joining others in association before lunch because of her behaviour. The evidence gathered at the inquiry confirmed that there were no reasons to suspect that she was a suicide risk. Moreover, in view of the short duration of the confinement, the fact that the confinement was in her own cell and that there were no indications, physical or mental, which rendered or should have rendered the prison staff aware that she was at risk of any severe or acute suffering as a result of the measure, it could not be considered as amounting to ill-treatment: manifestly ill-founded. Inadmissible under Article 5 § 1: Measures adopted within a prison may disclose interferences with the right to liberty in exceptional circumstances. Generally, however, disciplinary steps, imposed formally or informally, which have effects on conditions of detention within a prison, cannot be considered as constituting deprivation of liberty. Such measures must be regarded in normal circumstances as modifications of the conditions of lawful detention and therefore fall outside the scope of Article 5 § 1. Taking into consideration the type, duration and manner of implementation of the measure, the confinement of A. in her cell from 11.10   a.m. to 12.30 p.m. was a variation in the routine conditions of detention, the nature and degree of which did not in the instant case involve a deprivation of liberty: manifestly ill-founded. Inadmissible under Article 11: This provision does not apply within the context of prisons, to confer a right to mix socially with other prisoners at any particular time or place: incompatible ratione materiae.   © 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