Published on 6 December 2021
FIRST SECTION
Application no. 48200/21
Valerio ARMENI
against Italy
lodged on 22 September 2021
communicated on 17 November 2021
STATEMENT OF FACTS
The application concerns the continued detention in Regina Coeli prison (Rome) of the applicant, acquitted by reason of insanity and suffering from a severe psychiatric disorder, notwithstanding the domestic courts’ decisions ordering his placement in a specialised structure (Residence for Execution of Security Measures – “REMS”).
In particular, the applicant complains, under Articles 3, 5 §§ 1 and 5, Article 6 § 1 and Article 13 of the Convention, of the unlawfulness of his prolonged detention, of the conditions of his detention deemed inadequate for his mental health in the absence of specific treatment, of the absence of domestic remedies and of the non-enforcement of the domestic courts’ decisions ordering his placement in a specialised structure.
QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES
1. Has there been a breach of the applicant’s rights under Article 3 of the Convention? In particular:
(a) in light of the applicant’s psychiatric disorder, was the detention compatible with his state of health and with the decisions issued by the Rome investigating judge on 15 May 2020 and by the Rome Assize Court on 9 October 2020 concerning his placement in a REMS?
(b) Did the applicant receive adequate medical treatment during his detention in prison (see Rooman v. Belgium [GC], no. 18052/11, §§146-147, 31 January 2019, and Strazimiri v. Albania, no. 34602/16, §§ 103-112, 21 January 2020)?
2. Has there been a breach of the applicant’s rights under Article 5 § 1 of the Convention? In particular, was the applicant’s continued detention “in accordance with a procedure prescribed by law” within the meaning of Article 5 § 1 of the Convention?
3. Has there been a breach of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention as regards the implementation of the decisions issued by the Rome investigating judge on 15 May 2020 and by the Rome Assize Court on 9 October 2020?
4. Did the applicant have an effective and enforceable right to compensation for his allegedly unlawful detention, as required by Article 5 § 5 of the Convention?
5. Was there an available remedy for the purposes of Article 13 of the Convention, for the applicant to complain of the alleged violations of Articles 3 and 5 § 1?