Information Note on the Court’s case-law No. 77

July-August 2005

Rohde v. Denmark - 69332/01

Judgment 21.7.2005 [Section I]

Article 3

Degrading treatment

Inhuman treatment

Pre-trial detention in solitary confinement of a drug-trafficking suspect – later acquitted – who subsequently developed a mental illness: no violation

Facts: The applicant was arrested and charged with drug trafficking in relation to an importation of papaya fruits in which 5.684 kg of cocaine were found. The City Court decided that the applicant be placed in solitary confinement on 14 December 1994. The measure was prolonged on several occasions given the lack of reasonable explanations on the applicant's involvement in the importation of the drugs. It was lifted on 28 November 1995, when the applicant confirmed that he had had been involved in the importation of the fruits, but under the belief that the smuggling concerned diamonds. Thereafter, the applicant was kept under Normal pre-trial detention conditions until 14 May 1996, when the High Court sitting with a jury acquitted the applicant of the drug offences. Subsequently, the applicant instituted court proceedings claiming compensation. During the proceedings medical reports were procured which revealed that the applicant had shown no signs of mental suffering before his detention, but that at the time of the examination, that is, at the end of 1997 the applicant's sense of reality was lacking to such an extent that he could be characterised as psychotic, most likely suffering from a paranoid psychosis. Moreover, taking the applicant's distinct personality and mental vulnerability into account, it was found probable that the outbreak and the progress of his illness were linked to the fact that he was solitary confined during a longer period. By a final judgment of 5 September 2000 the Supreme Court granted the applicant compensation in the amount of 1,109,600 Danish kroner  (DKK), covering pecuniary damage for disablement and loss of working capacity. The applicant's claim for compensation for non‑pecuniary damage was refused since the court found that the applicant himself to a significant extent gave rise to the measures taken against him, notably by having changed explanation several times and actively having opposed the investigation of the drug case by construing a “cover story”. Moreover, the Supreme Court found that there was no reason to assume that the applicant had not been treated in a proper manner during his detention on remand and that acco