Information Note on the Court’s case-law No. 71
January 2005
Ramirez Sanchez v. France - 59450/00
Judgment 27.1.2005 [Section I]
Article 13
Effective remedy
Absence of a remedy in domestic law permitting a detainee to contest his placement in solitary confinement: violation
Article 3
Inhuman treatment
Prolonged placement of a terrorist detainee in solitary confinement: no violation
Facts: The applicant was placed in detention in mid-August 1994. He was investigated in connection with several terrorist attacks and was sentenced to life imprisonment in 1997 for the murder of a police officer. He was placed in the prison’s solitary confinement wing in application of a measure which was renewed on a three-monthly basis until mid-October 2002. The reasons given to justify the solitary confinement were generally the level of danger posed by the prisoner, the need to maintain order and safety in the prison and the likelihood that he might seek to escape. The detention in solitary confinement lasted for eight years and two months. It involved detention in a single cell, no contact with other prisoners or the prison warders, a prohibition on activity outside the cell apart from a two-hour daily walk, and restrictions on his visiting rights; the applicant could read newspapers and watch television in his cell. The applicant’s psychological and physical health remained satisfactory. No appeal lay against the decision to place him in solitary confinement and the decisions to prolong it, which were taken by the administrative authorities on the basis of a medical report.
Law: Article 3 – As to the conditions of the applicant’s detention: he had not been detained in complete sensory isolation or in total social isolation; with regard to this second point, although he had been forbidden to have any contact with the other prisoners and the prison wardens, he did receive numerous visits. As to the length of the solitary confinement, the Court attached particular importance to the fact that the applicant’s lawyer, who was also his partner, had been able to visit him on a very regular basis, and that he had also received visits from 57 other lawyers; in addition, given the applicant’s age and state of health, his continued detention in solitary confinement had not caused him a level of suffering that reached the threshold of gravity required for a violation of Article 3. He had received regular visits by doctors. Although the doctors no longer condoned his detention in solitary confinement after July 2000, none of the medical certificates drawn up when deciding on whether to prolong the applicant’s solitary confinement had specifically stated that solitary confinement had had adverse effects on his physical or mental health, or had requested a psychiatric report. The applicant had declined the psychological treatment suggested. Finally, the respondent Government’s fears that the applicant would re-establish contact with members of his terrorist group, seek to spread his beliefs among the other prisoners or plan an escape were not groundless or unreasonable. While it shared the concerns of the European Committee for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment with regard to the possible long-term effects of the applicant’s solitary confinement, the Court found that the general and very particular conditions in which he had been detained, and the length of that detention, had not reached the minimum level of severity necessary to constitute inhuman treatment, particularly in view of the applicant’s personality and the exceptional level of danger that he posed.
Conclusion: no violation (4 votes to 3).
Article 13 – According to the established case-law of the Conseil d’Etat, decisions placing prisoners in solitary confinement were to be regarded as equivalent to internal regulations and could not be appealed against before the administrative courts. In a judgment of 30 July 2003, the Conseil d’Etat amended its position and established that judicial review could be sought with regard to a decision to place a prisoner in solitary confinement. In this particular case, there had been a violation of Article 13 on account of the absence in French law of a remedy which would have enabled the applicant to contest the decision to prolong his detention in solitary confinement.
Conclusion: violation (unanimously).
Article 41 – The Court considered that the finding of a violation was in itself sufficient just satisfaction for the non-pecuniary damage suffered by the applicant. It made an award in respect of the costs and expenses incurred in bringing the proceedings.
© 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