Resolution CM/ResDH(2009)2[1]
Execution of the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights
Rivière against France
(Application No. 33834/03, judgment of 11 July 2006, final on 11 October 2006)
The Committee of Ministers, under the terms of Article 46, paragraph 2, of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, which provides that the Committee supervises the execution of final judgments of the European Court of Human Rights (hereinafter “the Convention” and “the Court”);
Having regard to the judgment transmitted by the Court to the Committee once it had become final;
Recalling that the violation of the Convention found by the Court in this case concerns the inhuman and degrading treatment inflicted on the applicant, as the conditions of his detention were not appropriate for a person with a mental disorder (violation of Article 3) (see details in Appendix);
Having invited the government of the respondent state to inform the Committee of the measures taken to comply with France’s obligation under Article 46, paragraph 1, of the Convention to abide by the judgment;
Having examined the information provided by the government in accordance with the Committee’s Rules for the application of Article 46, paragraph 2, of the Convention;
Having satisfied itself that the respondent state paid the applicant the just satisfaction provided in the judgment (see details in Appendix),
Recalling that a finding of violations by the Court requires, over and above the payment of just satisfaction awarded by the Court in its judgments, the adoption by the respondent state, where appropriate:
- of individual measures to put an end to the violations and erase their consequences so as to achieve as far as possible restitutio in integrum; and
- of general measures, preventing similar violations;
DECLARES, having examined the measures taken by the respondent state (see Appendix), that it has exercised its functions under Article 46, paragraph 2, of the Convention in this case and
DECIDES to close the examination of this case.
Appendix to Resolution CM/ResDH(2009)2
Information about the measures to comply with the judgment in the case of
Rivière against France
Introductory case summary
This case concerns inhuman and degrading treatment inflicted on the applicant, who was detained under conditions which were not appropriate to a person with a mental disorder (violation of Article 3). The European Court acknowledged that in the circumstances the prison authorities had not remained passive but had made efforts to alleviate the applicant’s mental disorder from a medical point of view, but nevertheless found that the medical supervision provided to him when the Court delivered its judgment was not appropriate.
The European Court referred inter alia to a number of provisions in national law concerning the hospitalisation of prisoners with mental disorder, and to Committee of Ministers’ Recommendation No. R(98)7 on the ethical and organisational aspects of health care in prison (the importance of which the Court underlined). The Recommendation states that prisoners suffering from serious mental disturbance should be kept and cared for in a hospital facility adequately equipped and possessing appropriately trained staff. The Court also held that Article 3 cannot be interpreted as laying down a general obligation to release a detainee on health grounds or to place him in a civil hospital so that he may receive a particular kind of medical treatment, but that under this provision the state must ensure that people are detained in conditions compatible with respect for their human dignity and that, given the practical demands of imprisonment, their health and well-being are adequately secured by, among other things, the provision of the requisite medical assistance.
I.Payment of just satisfaction and individual measures
a) Details of just satisfaction
Pecuniary damage
Non-pecuniary damage
Costs and expenses
Total
-
5 000 euros
-
5 000 euros
Paid on 06/07/2007
b) Individual measures
The appreciation of the appropriateness of the applicant’s care and thus of the execution of the European Court’s judgment calls for a balance to be struck between the measures taken and the detainee’s health.
In relation to the applicant’s place of detention, the following is to be noted. Following the European Court’s judgment, the French authorities considered transferring the applicant from Riom prison to Château-Thierry prison, which specialises in the care of psychopathic detainees. This transfer did not take place because the applicant refused it, a fact which he indicated as early as October 2006. Thus he is still in Riom prison, as he was when the European Court delivered its judgment. In Riom he benefits from professional training and also has contacts with a friend who visits him regularly, which would no longer be possible were he transferred. The Director of Riom Prison stated on 6/04/2007 that the applicant still does not wish to be transferred to another prison, which the applicant confirmed in a letter the same day.
Regarding the applicant’s health care and more generally his health, the situation: he meets a psychiatric nurse every week as well as the prison psychiatrist on request or if the nurse considers it necessary, and in any event at least once a month. The context has changed insofar as the applicant’s health has stabilised at a much better level than it was at the time of the European Court’s judgment. The Prison Director had certified this in writing. The psychiatrist issued a medical certificate on 29/03/2007 confirming that he sees the applicant regularly in consultation and that “his present state of health is compatible with his continuing his detention at Riom”.
Finally, the authorities have undertaken to take specific measures if M. Riviere’s health were to worsen, in the framework of the existing regulations and legislative rules so as to ensure appropriate treatment of the patient, for example by transferring him to an adapted structure, and if necessary by committing him compulsorily to a hospital.
II.General measures
The violation in question was caused by structural difficulties concerning the psychiatric care of detainees noted by public organisations as well as by non-governmental organisations in the last few years.
To remedy this situation and improve the psychiatric care of detainees, the authorities have launched a new, wide-ranging programme. This programme lays down a new regime for the in-patient treatment of all prisoners with psychiatric disorders, irrespective of the illness and the duration of their committal, where there is a medical decision that the detainee needs full-time care. It is based on Law No. 2002-1138 of 9/09/2002 which is currently being implemented.
Special secure units called “UHSA” (unités hospitalières spécialement aménagées) will be set up. These secure units will be under the clinical responsibility of ordinary hospitals whilst the security aspects will be the responsibility of the prison authorities. The hospitalisation of prisoners will take place in these units with the consent of the patient or by enforced internment by decision of the Préfet.
17 secure units, representing 705 places, will be created, in two phases. The first phase, which provides for the setting up of 9 secure units (440 places) from 2008 onwards, the remainder being scheduled for 2010‑2011. The whole project has been validated by the professional bodies and trade unions representing psychiatric medical staff in May 2006, and by trade unions representing prison staff in June 2006. Ministerial approval was given in autumn 2006 to the list of hospitals in which it is proposed to create secure units. The technical and functional requirements have been sent to the regional hospital authorities, which issued invitations to tender as from October 2006, for the first nine units. A budget of 12.6 million euros was spent in 2007 to finance the preliminary studies of conception and programming. The secure units set up in the context of the first phase of the programme cover all the regional prison directorates in the country.
The French authorities have underlined the fact that they will ensure that these measures are properly implemented. In this respect, they draw attention to the French government’s answer after the CPT’s report on its visits to French prisons (document CPT/Inf(2007)45 of 10/12/2007). It appears in this answer that this new step in the treatment of patients will be followed by an analysis of the necessary changes to the regional medical and psychiatric departments (“SMPR”, hospital out-patient departments situated in prisons) and their co‑ordination with the UHSA.
The efforts by the French authorities to improve the conditions of treatment of prisoners will continue, not least in the framework of their co‑operation with the CPT. In this respect, the French authorities recall that in its answer to the CPT report, the government expresses its conviction that the CPT’s visits, combined with the other similar mechanisms, contribute to the improvement of the treatment of persons deprived of liberty and to the respect of their fundamental rights. The adoption by the French Parliament of Law No. 2007‑1545 of 30/10/2007, creating the post of General Controller of Places of Detention, apart from implementing the Optional Protocol to the Convention against torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, also shows the will of the French authorities to work towards better respect for the fundamental rights of prisoners. Clearly the improvement of psychiatric care is an integral part of this process.
Finally it should be noted that the European Court’s judgment has been duly sent to the departments concerned in the Ministry of Justice, and that it has been posted and commented on the intranet site of the Ministry of Justice.
III.Conclusions of the respondent state
The government considers that the measures adopted have fully remedied the consequences for the applicant of the violation of the Convention found by the European Court in this case, that these measures will prevent new, similar violations and that France has thus complied with its obligations under Article 46, paragraph 1 of the Convention.
[1] Adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 9 January 2009 at the 1043rd meeting of the Ministers’ Deputies
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy