Information Note on the Court’s case-law No. 77
July-August 2005
Rohde v. Denmark - 69332/01
Judgment 21.7.2005 [Section I]
Article 3
Degrading treatment
Inhuman treatment
Pre-trial detention in solitary confinement of a drug-trafficking suspect – later acquitted – who subsequently developed a mental illness: no violation
Facts: The applicant was arrested and charged with drug trafficking in relation to an importation of papaya fruits in which 5.684 kg of cocaine were found. The City Court decided that the applicant be placed in solitary confinement on 14 December 1994. The measure was prolonged on several occasions given the lack of reasonable explanations on the applicant's involvement in the importation of the drugs. It was lifted on 28 November 1995, when the applicant confirmed that he had had been involved in the importation of the fruits, but under the belief that the smuggling concerned diamonds. Thereafter, the applicant was kept under Normal pre-trial detention conditions until 14 May 1996, when the High Court sitting with a jury acquitted the applicant of the drug offences. Subsequently, the applicant instituted court proceedings claiming compensation. During the proceedings medical reports were procured which revealed that the applicant had shown no signs of mental suffering before his detention, but that at the time of the examination, that is, at the end of 1997 the applicant's sense of reality was lacking to such an extent that he could be characterised as psychotic, most likely suffering from a paranoid psychosis. Moreover, taking the applicant's distinct personality and mental vulnerability into account, it was found probable that the outbreak and the progress of his illness were linked to the fact that he was solitary confined during a longer period. By a final judgment of 5 September 2000 the Supreme Court granted the applicant compensation in the amount of 1,109,600 Danish kroner (DKK), covering pecuniary damage for disablement and loss of working capacity. The applicant's claim for compensation for non‑pecuniary damage was refused since the court found that the applicant himself to a significant extent gave rise to the measures taken against him, notably by having changed explanation several times and actively having opposed the investigation of the drug case by construing a “cover story”. Moreover, the Supreme Court found that there was no reason to assume that the applicant had not been treated in a proper manner during his detention on remand and that accordingly the case disclosed no appearance of a violation of Article 3 of the Convention.
Law: Article 3 – Whether the duration of the isolation had been excessive: The Court reiterated that solitary confinement was not in itself in breach of Article 3. Whilst prolonged removal from association with others was undesirable, whether such a measure fell within the ambit of Article 3 depended, inter alia, on the particular conditions, stringency, duration and effects of the measure on the person concerned. Moreover, the Court noted that in the more recent reports of the European Committee for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (CPT) concerning Denmark, solitary confinement featured prominently as an issue in the ongoing dialogue between the CPT and the Danish authorities. The CPT had stressed that all forms of solitary confinement without appropriate mental or physical stimulation were likely in the long term to have damaging effects, resulting in deterioration of mental faculties and social abilities. In the present case, the length of the solitary confinement had lasted eleven months and fourteen days. Whilst such a length could give rise to concern, in making its assessment the Court took into account the applicant's conditions of detention and the extent of his social isolation. He had been in a cell of around eight square metres in which there was a television and had access to newspapers. Although he was excluded from association with other inmates, the applicant had regular contact with prison staff, and received weekly language lessons and visited the prison chaplain. He was regularly attended by doctors, nurses and physiotherapists, and received visits from his family and friends under supervision. In these circumstances, the Court found that the period of solitary confinement had not amounted to treatment contrary to Article 3.
Whether the applicant's mental health had been effectively monitored: The Court noted that the very day of his arrest the applicant had expressed contemplation of suicide. Moreover, in mid-January 1995 he went on a hunger strike, during which he was monitored every day by doctors, and once by a psychiatrist. On the basis of the medical notes submitted, the Court considered it established that the applicant had been regularly attended to by medical staff, and that the latter had reacted promptly and increased their observation of the applicant when he had shown changes in mood or behaviour. Moreover, the Court recalled the statements of the Chief Consultant of the Copenhagen Prisons before the domestic courts underlining that none of the highly qualified and well-trained doctors and nurses attending the applicant had noted any signs of mental disorder in the applicant. Hence, it could not share the applicant's view that the monitoring carried out had not been as such adequate and sufficient. Admittedly, the applicant was not automatically or regularly examined by a psychologist or a psychiatrist, however such a general obligation could not be imposed on the authorities. Finally, as to the testimonies of the applicant's mother, cousin, the prison chaplain and teacher that his behaviour during his detention in isolation should have given rise to the authorities providing more specialised medical monitoring, none of these witnesses had expressed their concerns to the courts or to the prison personnel, which would have been highly appropriate. In these circumstances, the Court concluded there had been no lack of effective medical monitoring.
Conclusion: no violation (4 votes to 3).
© 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