Communicated on 8 September 2020
Published on 28 September 2020
FIRST SECTION
Application no. 71682/17
Christodoulos XIROS
against Greece
lodged on 16 January 2018
SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE
The applicant has been convicted and sentenced to six life sentences for participating in the activities of a terrorist organisation and is currently detained at Diavata prison.
The application concerns mainly his conditions of detention and, according to the applicant’s allegations, his long-term solitary confinement with total isolation for an indefinite duration, as well as the lack of an effective remedy in this respect. It also concerns complaints that the applicant’s conditions of detention were incompatible with acute allergic urticaria from which he suffers, that he was not provided with a special diet as recommended in his medical reports and that he did not receive adequate medical treatment (Articles 3 and 13 of the Convention).
In addition, the applicant complains under Article 8 of a number of incidents such as correspondence monitoring, censorship of incoming mail, lack of contact with his family and lawyer and infringement of his freedom of religion under Article 9.
QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES
1. Did the conditions of the applicant’s detention and his long-term solitary confinement amount to inhuman or degrading treatment in breach of Article 3 of the Convention, given, on the one hand, the description of his conditions of detention and, on the other hand, his allegations, that he has been kept in continuous solitary confinement since 11 November 2015, in Diavata prison?
2. Did the applicant have at his disposal an effective domestic remedy for his complaint regarding the conditions of detention and solitary confinement under Article 3, as required by Article 13 of the Convention?
3. As regards the applicant’s allegation that contact with his family and lawyer was refused during specific time periods, his cell was under constant video surveillance, his correspondence was continuously monitored and censorship was applied to all his incoming mail, was there an interference with the applicant’s right to respect for his private life and correspondence under Article 8 § 1 of the Convention? If so, was the interference justified under Article 8 § 2 of the Convention?
4. Has there been an interference with the applicant’s freedom of religion, within the meaning of Article 9 § 1 of the Convention, in view of the restrictions on attending prison church and meeting the bishop during his visit to the prison? If so, was that interference prescribed by law and necessary in terms of Article 9 § 2?
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy