Information Note on the Court’s case-law 70
December 2004
Gelfmann v. France - 25875/03
Judgment 14.12.2004 [Section II]
Article 3
Degrading treatment
Inhuman treatment
Continued detention of convicted prisoner with AIDS: no violation
Facts: The applicant was imprisoned after being convicted on several criminal charges. He suffered from AIDS, which he had contracted before his imprisonment. The applicant considered that his state of health was incompatible with imprisonment and applied for a stay of execution of his sentence. Medical experts found that the applicant regularly turned down and contested any therapeutic care and periodic monitoring of his health. Two experts concluded that his illness was developing in such a way as to enable him to be detained in an ordinary prison, since medical treatment could be administered in prison and medical supervision was adequately provided by a team of specialist doctors. Another expert stated that the applicant’s health was incompatible with ordinary imprisonment and required specialised inpatient care. A psychiatrist found that the applicant continued to be criminally dangerous. An initial decision was given in favour of the applicant’s release, on the ground that two experts had concluded that his serious and progressive illness was incurable. That decision was quashed on an appeal by the prosecutor.
Law: Article 3 – The applicant had suffered from AIDS for almost twenty years and had contracted several so-called opportunistic infections, which appeared to have been treated or to have stabilised, although a recurrence of these illnesses could not of course be ruled out. The three experts appointed as part of the procedure concerning his two applications for a stay of execution had noted that the applicant was “uncooperative” and had refused or interrupted treatment on several occasions, sometimes for long periods. Although all three experts considered that the applicant’s short- and medium-term chances of survival were reasonable, since there had been considerable progress in treatment to manage AIDS, something, however, that did not make it possible to consider that the illness could be definitively overcome, their conclusions were nonetheless different with regard to the compatibility of his health and any consequential treatment with imprisonment: in one doctor’s opinion, the applicant’s state of health required hospitalisation and was incompatible with ordinary imprisonment; a second doctor had concluded that his illness was compatible with detention, as treatment was simple and could be administered in prison, and the third doctor thought that the medical care provided in prison was entirely suitable, although detention in a hospital setting would be more coherent. In addition, the authorities were attentive to the applicant’s state of health. Thus, he had been hospitalised for assessment following deterioration in his general health, then, in view of the tests carried out and his state of health, the hospital had authorised his release and return to prison, since the treatment in prison for his illness was of the same quality as that which could be provided outside. It also appeared from the case file that the applicant’s health was being monitored in a civil hospital. In those circumstances, and in the light of an overall appreciation of the relevant facts on the basis of the evidence before it, the Court considered that neither the applicant’s state of health nor his alleged distress were so severe as to entail a violation of Article 3. In any event, were the applicant’s health to deteriorate further, French law provided the national authorities with means of taking action. In particular, the applicant could lodge another application for a stay of execution, as part of which new expert reports would be ordered.
Conclusion: no violation (unanimously).
© 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