Communicated on 18 December 2019
SECOND SECTION
Application no. 75763/17
Fatbardh BUDO
against Albania
lodged on 18 October 2017
SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE
Following the applicant’s arrest on 13 September 2017, in application of his conviction by a final court decision given in March 2017 for the offence of falsification of documents, the applicant was urgently transferred to the Tirana Hospital University Centre (“THUC”) to receive treatment for embolism, namely arterial thrombosis.
On 5 October 2017 the applicant, invoking Article 25 of the Constitution and Article 3 of the Convention, requested the Tirana District Court to put an end to his inhuman treatment sustained as a result of him being shackled to the hospital bed. On 16 October 2017 the People’s Advocate (Ombudsman), in its role as the National Preventive Mechanism set up under the Optional Protocol to the United Nations Convention against Torture and other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading, Treatment or Punishment, found that the applicant had been subjected to inhuman treatment on account of the use of handcuffs. It recommended that the prosecutor’s office institute criminal proceedings. To date, it would appear that the request of the applicant, who remained hospitalised at THUC at the time of the introduction of the application, is still pending before the Tirana District Court.
In a separate set of proceedings, on 15 September 2017 the applicant requested the Tirana District Court to commute the prison sentence imposed on him, in accordance with the Criminal Code. To date, it would appear that the proceedings are pending before the Court of Appeal.
The applicant complains about a breach of Article 3 of the Convention on account of the use of handcuffs and of Article 13 on account of the lack of an effective remedy for his Article 3 complaint.
QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES
1. Has the applicant been subjected to inhuman or degrading treatment, in breach of Article 3 of the Convention? In particular, has the use of handcuffs amounted to inhuman or degrading treatment (see, for example, Stoleriu v. Romania, no. 5002/05, §§ 71-84, 16 July 2013; Tănase v. Romania, no. 5269/02, §§ 70-85, 12 May 2009; Tarariyeva v. Russia, no. 4353/03, §§ 106-11, ECHR 2006‑XV (extracts); Henaf v. France, no. 65436/01, §§ 47-60, ECHR 2003‑XI; and Mouisel v. France, no. 67263/01, § 47, ECHR 2002‑IX)?
The parties are invited to provide information about the duration of the alleged treatment at the THUC and the outcome of the applicant’s legal action of 5 October 2017, including copies of any domestic courts’ decisions.
2. Did the applicant have at his disposal an effective domestic remedy for his complaint under Article 3 of the Convention, as required by Article 13 of the Convention?
3. Do the facts of the present application, namely the authorities’ use of handcuffs to attach a prisoner to a hospital bed, reveal the existence of a structural or systemic problem which may give rise to similar applications before the Court (see Rule 61 § 1 of the Rules of Court) (see also, mutatis mutandis, Prizreni v. Albania, no. 29309/16, §§ 49 and 54-58, 11 June 2019)?
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy