Information Note on the Court’s case-law No. 78
September 2005
Mathew v. the Netherlands - 24919/03
Judgment 29.9.2005 [Section III]
Article 3
Inhuman treatment
Conditions of detention in a Correctional Institution, and alleged maltreatment and denial of medical care: violation, no violation
Facts: The applicant was arrested on Aruba on a charge of inflicting grievous bodily harm. From October 2001 until the end of April 2004 he was detained on remand in a Correctional Institution (KIA). During most of that time, he was under a special detention regime which amounted to solitary confinement. An incident in which the applicant had caused serious injury to the acting KIA governor had led to the imposition of the special regime, aimed at keeping the applicant away from other prisoners. On two other occasions after, the applicant had assaulted prison staff. The regime comprised his not being allowed to leave his cell without handcuffs around his wrists and fetters around his ankles (the use of fetters was discontinued after a certain time). Contact with the outside world was also limited. For a certain period, there was a large opening in the roof of the applicant’s cell through which the rain penetrated. The cell was located on the second and top floor of the KIA prison building and exposed its occupant to the heat of the sun. There were no lifts. In June 2002, the applicant was found to be suffering from a serious spinal condition. Aruba’s only neurosurgeon found that the applicant had a Lumbar Discal Hernia and considered surgery to be appropriate. He asked for the applicant to be examined by another neurosurgeon for a second opinion, which did not happen. The applicant was provided with a wheelchair in August 2002, but permission to use it was withdrawn following an incident in February 2003, when he ripped a piece of metal off his wheelchair and used it as a weapon against prison staff. The applicant received physiotherapy in hospital at certain periods, but it was discontinued allegedly because his physical condition prevented him from walking from his cell to the vehicle which was to take him to hospital, and from sitting up straight in the vehicle. The applicant began court proceedings requesting more comfortable detention conditions. A local court ordered the prison to review the need for continuing the special regime at regular intervals. In April 2003, the applicant was found guilty by the Joint Court of Justice. A considerably lower sentence than would normally be justified by the applicant’s crimes was imposed on him (three years and six months instead of five years) in view of the unusual severity of the regime imposed on him while on remand. The facts of the case are disputed by the parties. The applicant maintains that in addition to being placed in solitary confinement in abject conditions, he was physically abused by prison staff, injured by the use of fetters on his feet and denied urgently needed medical treatment.
Law: The Government’s preliminary objection (victim status): Although the Joint Court of Justice had imposed a considerably lower sentence to compensate the applicant for the unusual severity of the prison regime imposed on him, it had not acknowledged either expressly or in substance that the applicant had been a victim of a violation of Article 3 (objection dismissed).
Article 3 – Concerning the refusal of necessary medical treatment: The Court accepted that since June 2002 the applicant had suffered from a serious spinal condition which very likely made physical activity painful and difficult for him. However, it can not find established that the applicant was incapacitated to the point of immobility. Article 3 could not be interpreted as requiring a prisoner’s every wish and preference regarding medical treatment to be accommodated. The practical demands of legitimate detention might impose restrictions which a prisoner would have to accept. A prisoner’s choice of physician should as a rule be respected, subject if need be to the condition that responsibility for any additional expense not justified by genuine medical reasons be accepted by the prisoner. The Court did not find the absence of a second medical opinion regarding the need for surgery to be the fault of the Netherlands authorities, as much of the information available suggested that the applicant was apt to set preconditions for accepting medical treatment. Concerning the withdrawal of the permission to use a wheelchair after the applicant had ripped a piece of metal off his wheelchair and used it as a weapon against prison staff, the authorities were entitled to consider this a necessary measure on safety grounds. As to the physiotherapy which the applicant required, the question was whether treatment in prison was made necessary by the applicant’s state of health. Whilst it was accepted that transport to hospital caused the applicant discomfort at such a level that he might have well preferred to be visited by a physiotherapist in prison, it was not established that the applicant’s condition dictated the latter course. At some moments, the applicant had apparently been capable of extreme physical resistance (ripping of metal from the wheelchair), and a physiotherapist who examined him prior to release stated that despite going nine months without treatment, he could walk a distance of at least 90 meters and carry out complex physical actions such as twisting his body and walking stairs. In these circumstances, the Court concluded that it had not been established that the applicant had been denied necessary medical care.
Conclusion: no violation (unanimously).
Article 3 – Concerning the conditions of detention: The Court accepted that the KIA authorities had found the applicant impossible to control except in conditions of strict confinement. However, the Aruban authorities were aware that the applicant was not a person fit to be detained in the KIA in normal conditions and that the special regime designed for him was causing him unusual distress. Attempts were made to alleviate the applicant’s situation to some extent, but the Government could and should have done more. Accommodation suitable for prisoners of the applicant’s unfortunate disposition did not exist on Aruba at the relevant time (it is only now being built), but no attempt appeared to have been made to find an appropriate place of detention for the applicant elsewhere in the Kingdom. In conclusion, there had been a violation of Article 3 in that the applicant had been kept in solitary confinement for an excessive and unnecessarily protracted period, kept for at least seven months in a cell that failed to offer adequate protection against the weather and the climate, and kept in a location from which he could only gain access to outdoor exercise and fresh air at the expense of unnecessary and avoidable physical suffering.
Conclusion: 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