Information Note on the Court’s case-law 70
December 2004
Farbtuhs v. Latvia - 4672/02
Judgment 2.12.2004 [Section I]
Article 3
Degrading treatment
Prolonged detention of invalid in conditions unsuitable for his state of health: violation
Facts: The applicant, aged 83, was found guilty of crimes against humanity and genocide. Medical experts stated that the applicant, a paraplegic, was fit to serve a custodial sentence if, as well as receiving appropriate medication for his many debilitating illnesses, he received constant care and had access to special equipment. The Prisons Service acknowledged that its establishments did not have appropriate equipment for the needs of seriously ill prisoners or qualified staff capable of providing appropriate care. The applicant submitted numerous unsuccessful applications to be released from the obligation to serve his sentence. That sentence was served in a prison infirmary. He applied for early release on health grounds, without success. A medical report by a panel of experts recommended his early release on the ground of ill-health. On that basis, and using an option available under domestic law, the prison governor sought an order from the courts for the applicant’s early release. The court acknowledged that the prison conditions were not adapted to the applicant’s specific needs, but refused to order his release. The medical and prison authorities, which were also authorised to take action for that purpose, recommended the applicant’s release, emphasising that the prison had neither the equipment nor the staff required to meet his specific needs; in addition, during his imprisonment, two further illnesses had appeared and the other illnesses had worsened. The court refused to order his release, as it considered that the case file did not clearly indicate the incurable illnesses from which the applicant was suffering and how exactly the prison conditions were unsuited to his needs. The applicant appealed successfully. He was released a year and one month after the date on which the administrative authorities had taken steps to that end on the basis of a concurring official expert report.
Law: Article 3 – The applicant complained of his detention in the prison infirmary. Aged 84 when he was imprisoned, he had been paraplegic and disabled to the point of being unable to attend to most basic daily tasks unaided. In particular, he was unable to get up, sit down, move, get dressed or washed without assistance. Moreover, when taken into custody he was already suffering from a number of serious illnesses, the majority of which were chronic and incurable.
When the national authorities decided to imprison such a person and to keep him in custody, they had to be particularly careful to ensure that the conditions of detention were consistent with the specific needs arising out of the prisoner’s infirmity.
In this particular case, before handing down a custodial sentence, the authorities had submitted the applicant to medical examinations in order to determine whether he was fit to serve a prison sentence, and he had not been placed in prison immediately: before becoming a prisoner, he had undergone medical examinations for two weeks. The Latvian authorities could not therefore be said to have failed to weigh up the consequences of imprisoning the applicant. During his incarceration, however, the applicant’s illnesses had worsened and new illnesses had appeared, indicating that a prolonged spell in prison was inappropriate for him.
The authorities and the prison staff had made considerable efforts to ease the applicant’s situation. While the authorities could not be accused of seeking to humiliate or debase the applicant, Article 3 could also be infringed by inaction or lack of diligence on the part of the public authorities.
In the case before the Court, the prison governor, and later the representatives of the prison administration, had acknowledged and emphasised the inadequacy of technical and staff conditions in the prison in relation to the applicant’s specific needs, and had then applied to the court for his early release; although an official expert report made the same recommendation, the relevant courts did not order the applicant’s release until a year later. Admittedly, the applicant’s family, the infirmary staff and, in their absence, fellow-prisoners looked after the applicant in prison, but the anxiety and discomfort which such an infirm person, conscious that he would not receive any qualified help in the event of an emergency, could be expected to experience in such circumstances posed in themselves a serious problem under Article 3. The detention conditions were unsuited to the applicant’s state of health: the situation in which he had been put was bound to cause him permanent anxiety and a sense of inferiority and humiliation so acute as to amount to “degrading treatment”. By delaying his release in spite of the existence of a formal application setting out the need for his release and an expert report which supported that request, and by keeping him in prison for more than a year, the national authorities had failed to comply with the provisions of Article 3.
Conclusion: violation (six votes to one).
Article 41 – The Court awarded the applicant a sum in respect of the non-pecuniary damage sustained as a result of his prolonged detention in conditions unsuited to his health. The Court also made an award in respect of costs, in spite of the failure to submit adequate vouchers.
© Council of Europe/European Court of Human Rights
This summary by the Registry does not bind the Court.
Click here for the Case-Law Information Notes
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy