FOURTH SECTION
Application no. 61376/11
D.R.
against Poland
lodged on 21 September 2011
STATEMENT OF FACTS
The applicant, Mr D.R., is a Polish national, who was born in 1975 and is currently in detained in the Wolow Prison.
The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows.
On 25 September 2001 the applicant was arrested on remand. Between 2003 and 2004, and for some months in 2005, he was detained in the Wrocław Remand Centre.
On 14 September 2003 the Wrocław Regional Court convicted the applicant of rape in aggravated circumstances and murder and sentenced him to life imprisonment. The conviction was upheld on 9 September 2005 by the Wrocław Court of Appeal.
On 8 December 2005 the applicant brought a civil action for protection of his personal rights against the Wrocław Remand Centre. He complained that he had been harassed and ill‑treated by the prison officers throughout his pre‑trial detention and after his conviction.
On 28 September 2010 the Wrocław District Court partly allowed his action and awarded him 5,000 Polish zlotys (PLN) in compensation. The court established that the applicant’s personal rights had been violated by the actions of the prison officers to which he had been subjected in a discriminatory manner as other prisoners had not suffered such treatment. The court based its conclusion on statements made by many witnesses who at some point had shared a cell with the applicant, the Ombudsman’s reports in the applicant’s case and evidence provided by the defendant. The witnesses stated that sharing a cell with the applicant had entailed many inconveniences for them as well since such cells would be searched twice a day and meals would be served last, thus cold (even if the cell was in the middle of the corridor). Moreover, the applicant was insulted in their presence and his personal belongings were scattered during searches; such treatment was inflicted on the applicant only.
The court established that the applicant had been constantly transferred from cell to cell so that he would spend between a few days and a maximum of two weeks in one cell. Such measures were not justified by the organisational needs of the Remand Centre or by the applicant’s behaviour.
The court further established that the cells in which the applicant had been placed had been searched much more often than other cells. The applicant’s cell would sometimes be searched twice a day while other cells would be searched weekly or monthly. Also during searches in other cells the prison officers would not spoil food belonging to the detainees or disperse their personal items, as would happen in respect of the applicant. Moreover, meals were delivered to his cell last, and thus they were always cold.
The court also referred to an incident on 20 April 2005 when the applicant was ordered to leave his cell and pack his personal items. He refused and was aggressive. In response he was forced to lie on the floor and ordered by the prison officers to undress in the presence of a co‑detainee. When he refused he was brought to another cell to be searched and was later punished with solitary confinement for fourteen days. The court considered that there had been no justification for searching his cell more often, in a disorderly manner or ordering him to undress. There is no indication that the applicant had been in conflict with other prisoners or had participated in any illegal group in prison.
The court considered that the attitude of the prison officers had been caused by their negative assessment of the offences with which the applicant had been charged. There had been no other justified ground for treating the applicant in a manner different from other prisoners. As a consequence of being subjected to different treatment from the rest of the prisoners the applicant could have reasonably felt a sense of injustice and harassment.
The prison officers also repeatedly insulted the applicant and reminded him of the crime for which he had been detained and later convicted. They allowed him no small favours which were common in the Wrocław Remand Centre such as allowing prisoners from different cells to meet for coffee or extending family visits.
The court dismissed the applicant’s other allegations in particular that such harassment led to a deterioration of his mental state. It also considered as manifestly ill‑founded the allegations of lack of access to medical treatment or an adapted diet. The court dismissed as unfounded the applicant’s allegations regarding censoring and delaying his correspondence and not allowing him family visits. There was also no evidence that the applicant was detained in cells where the space per prisoner had been lower then three square metres. Finally, the court considered that the fact that the applicant, a non‑smoker, had spent some time in the same cell with smokers had been caused by difficulty in separating smokers from non‑smokers.
The applicant and the defendant both lodged appeals against the judgment.
On 15 February 2011 the Wrocław Regional Court amended the impugned judgment in that it dismissed the applicant’s action. The appellate court considered that transferring the applicant from one cell to another did not violate his personal rights. It was necessary because of ongoing refurbishments of the cells and for organisational purposes. Moreover, the applicant did not provide dates on which he had been transferred. The Regional Court considered that the applicant was not subject to treatment that had not been authorised by the internal rules of the Remand Centre. The court finally acknowledged that the absence of favours from the prison officers in respect of the applicant could not ground an allegation against them because a lack of “empathy” towards him fell outside the professional sphere.
On 26 August 2011 the applicant’s court‑appointed lawyer saw no grounds to lodge a cassation appeal on his behalf.
COMPLAINTS
The applicant complains under Articles 3, 6 and 13 of the Convention that he was subjected to ill‑treatment and that the remedies pursued by him failed. He submits that other detainees were not subjected to such harsh treatment by the prison officers.
QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES
1. Has the applicant been subjected to inhuman or degrading treatment by the prison officers in the Wrocław Remand Centre in breach of Article 3 of the Convention?
2. Has the applicant suffered discrimination on the ground of his status i.e. the type of offences he had been charged with, contrary to Article 14 of the Convention read in conjunction with Article 3?
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy