Published on 28 August 2023
FIRST SECTION
Application no. 53640/22
Hatem SAAD
against Italy
lodged on 21 November 2022
communicated on 10 July 2023
SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE
The application concerns the detention from 8 October 2021 to 12 December 2022 in the San Vittore (Milan) prison of the applicant, who suffers from a borderline and antisocial disorder with psychotic episodes, as well as substance abuse, and has engaged in self-harming behaviour while in prison.
On 13 May 2022 the Milan investigating judge (giudice per le indagini preliminari) ordered the applicant’s placement in a specialised structure (Residence for Execution of Security Measures – “REMS”); the judge also revoked the precautionary detention with effect from the date when a place became available in a REMS and ordered that, until then, the applicant remains in prison.
Following that decision, the applicant, unsuccessfully, filed a new request before the Milan investigating judge, asking for the revocation of the precautionary detention or its replacement with detention in a healthcare facility. Upon appeal, the Milan District Court considered that the precautionary detention had already been revoked by the decision of 13 May 2022 and thus declared the request inadmissible. The applicant appealed against the decision to the Court of Cassation.
On 12 December 2022 the applicant was transferred to a REMS.
The applicant complains under Articles 2, 3 and 5 §§ 1 and 4, Article 6 § 1 and Article 13 of the Convention of the unlawfulness of his prolonged detention, of the conditions of his detention deemed inadequate for his mental health in the absence of specific treatment, of the absence of domestic remedies and of the non-enforcement of the domestic court’s decision ordering his placement in a specialised structure.
QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES
1. Has there been a breach of the applicant’s rights under Article 3 of the Convention (see Sy v. Italy, no. 11791/20, §§ 76-89, 24 January 2022)? In particular:
(a) in light of the applicant’s psychiatric disorder and of the decision issued by the Milan investigating judge on 13 May 2022 ordering his placement in a REMS, was the applicant’s detention in prison compatible with his state of health?
(b) did the applicant receive adequate medical treatment during his detention in prison (see Rooman v. Belgium [GC], no. 18052/11, §§146-47, 31 January 2019, and Strazimiri v. Albania, no. 34602/16, §§ 103-12, 21 January 2020)?
2. Has there been a breach of the applicant’s rights under Article 5 § 1 of the Convention? In particular, following the decision of 13 May 2022 ordering the applicant’s placement in a REMS and revoking the precautionary detention with effect from the date when a place became available, was the applicant’s continued detention “in accordance with a procedure prescribed by law” within the meaning of Article 5 § 1 of the Convention?
3. Did the applicant have at his disposal an effective procedure by which he could challenge the lawfulness of his detention, as required by Article 5 § 4 of the Convention?
4. Did the applicant have an effective and enforceable right to compensation for his allegedly unlawful detention, as required by Article 5 § 5 of the Convention (see Sy, cited above, §§ 141-48)?
5. Has there been a breach of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention as regards the implementation of the decision issued by the Milan investigating judge on 13 May 2022 (see Sy, cited above, § 153)?