CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 1 juin 2010

.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. 131 June 2010 Jasińska v. Poland - 28326/05 Judgment 1.6.2010 [Section IV] Article 2 Positive obligations Suicide of prisoner through overdose of psychotropic drugs prescribed for mental disorders: violation   Facts – The applicant is the grandmother of R.Ch., who had been undergoing treatment since his childhood for psychological problems and headaches. In 2002 R.Ch. began a prison sentence for theft. In August 2004 he was taken to hospital, where he died after admitting that he had swallowed 60 psychotropic tablets, prescribed by a prison doctor. The autopsy established that death was due to drug poisoning. Criminal proceedings instituted by the public prosecutor’s office were closed on the ground that R. Ch. had committed suicide after taking a substantial quantity of drugs in one go, having hidden them under his tongue each time the nurse had distributed them. In 2006 the applicant brought further proceedings against the authorities, but the criminal investigation was terminated on the ground that there was no evidence to suspect that a third party had been involved or that the authorities had been negligent. Law – Article 2: It was generally accepted that R.Ch. had long been suffering from mental problems and severe headaches. Furthermore, an expert report of 29 May 2002 had indicated that he had mentioned a previous attempt to commit suicide and, three days before his death, a doctor’s report had found that he was suffering from depression. Accordingly, the prison authorities, who had been apprised of the deterioration in his mental state, should have given thought to the risk of suicide. However, the medical prescriptions had been renewed without any consideration being given to other means of monitoring his condition. Moreover, after the proceedings against R.Ch., no thought had ever been given to a possible placement in a specialised institution or in solitary confinement. The Court questioned whether a prison regime had been appropriate in the present case. The authorities in charge of the post-mortem procedures had never attempted to clarify the exact circumstances in which the psychotropic drugs had been administered or how supervisory duties had been carried out by the medical staff, whose task was, in theory, to ensure that prisoners swallowed their pills. Nor had the Government provided a plausible explanation for how R. Ch. had managed to elude the vigilance of the prison authorities by amassing a lethal quantity of drugs. There had accordingly been a clear deficiency in the system, which had allowed a first-time prisoner, who was mentally fragile and whose state of health had deteriorated, to gather a lethal dose of drugs without the knowledge of the medical staff, and to commit suicide. The duty to provide inmates with adequate medical care should not be confined to prescribing appropriate medicines without also ensuring that they were properly taken and properly monitored. This was particularly important where mentally disturbed prisoners were concerned. Accordingly, the authorities had failed to comply with their obligation to protect R.Ch.’s right to life Conclusion : violation (unanimously). Article 41: EUR 16,000 for non-pecuniary damage. (See also Renolde v. France , no. 5608/05, 16 October 2008, Information Note no. 112)   © 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