Information Note on the Court’s case-law 31
June 2001
Papon v. France (no. 1) (dec.) - 64666/01
Decision 7.6.2001 [Section III]
Article 3
Inhuman treatment
Continued detention of a convict despite very advanced age and health problems: inadmissible
In April 1998 the applicant was sentenced to ten years’ imprisonment for aiding and abetting crimes against humanity. In 1996 he had to have a triple heart bypass operation. He is now 90 years old and has been serving his sentence since October 1999, when the Court of Cassation dismissed an appeal he had lodged on points of law. He was initially held in Fresnes Prison but, on an application by his lawyer, was transferred by the prison authorities to the Santé Prison, where the conditions of detention would be more suitable. He has been held there since November 1999. In January 2000 he had to be fitted with a pacemaker. According to information supplied by the Government, the applicant’s health is monitored by doctors and nurses from the prison’s Outpatient Consultation and Treatment Unit (Unité de consultations et soins ambulatoires – UCSA), set up under the Act of 18 January 1994, and by outside specialists in a hospital environment. He is in an individual cell in the prison’s “VIP” wing. Two applications he made for a pardon on medical grounds were refused by the French President in the light of expert reports. In July 2000 he made a number of complaints to the governor of the Santé Prison about some of the conditions in which he was being held. The applicant submitted that his imprisonment was contrary to Article 3 on account of the combination of his extreme old age and his poor state of health.
Inadmissible under Article 3: advanced age as such is not a bar to pre-trial detention or to imprisonment in any of the Council of Europe’s member States. However, age in conjunction with other factors, such as state of health, may be taken into consideration either at the sentencing stage or while the sentence is being served. None of the provisions of the Convention expressly prohibits detention beyond a certain age, but in two recent decisions (Priebke v. Italy, no. 48799/99, 5 April 2001 and Sawoniuk v. the United Kingdom, no. 63716/00, 29 May 2001) the Court stated that the detention of an elderly person for a lengthy period might raise an issue under Article 3. In the instant case, although the applicant’s movement was restricted owing to his state of health, his general state of health was described as good by a doctor whom he had recently seen and he did not exhibit any signs of dependency; moreover, he was being given regular medical attention and treatment. In determining his conditions of detention, the national authorities had as far as possible taken his state of health and age into account; in particular, they had found solutions to some of the problems he had raised. Lastly, the applicant still kept up a social life and received regular visits from his family and his lawyers. Consequently, as things stood, his situation had not attained the minimum level of severity required to fall within the scope of Article 3. If the situation worsened, various measures were available to the national authorities under French law: convicted prisoners could be released on parole if it was established that they required treatment, while in particularly serious circumstances calling for humanitarian measures, the President could exercise his prerogative of mercy at any time: manifestly ill-founded.
© 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