Information Note on the Court’s case-law No. 161
March 2013
Zarzycki v. Poland - 15351/03
Judgment 12.3.2013 [Section IV]
Article 3
Degrading treatment
Detention for more than four years of prisoner whose forearms had been amputated: no violation
Facts – The applicant lost both his forearms in an accident and is certified as having a first-degree disability, requiring the assistance of another person. In June 2002 he was remanded in custody on suspicion of a number of offences against a minor and of coercing a person into committing perjury. He was convicted in 2002 and in 2003 the appeal court upheld the first-instance judgment sentencing him to three years’ imprisonment. While in custody the applicant was informed of the procedure for obtaining prostheses and given assistance in making the application and seeking reimbursement of the cost. He asked to be fitted with bio-mechanical prostheses, but was unable to afford the non-refundable portion of the price. In July 2003 he was granted leave from serving his sentence to seek orthopaedic care outside the penitentiary system and obtained two basic-type mechanical prostheses free of charge and underwent physiotherapy. He returned to prison in July 2004. In October 2006 he was granted parole and released.
Before the European Court, the applicant complained that, in view of his disability and his special needs, his protracted detention had been in breach of Article 3 of the Convention.
Law – Article 3: Persons in custody are in a vulnerable position and the authorities are under a duty to protect them. Where the authorities decided to place and maintain in detention persons with disabilities, they should demonstrate special care in guaranteeing conditions that correspond to the special needs resulting from the disability. In this type of case, three factors in particular had to be taken into account in assessing whether continued detention was compatible with the prisoner’s state of health where this was giving cause for concern. These were: (a) the prisoner’s condition, (b) the quality of care provided and (c) whether or not the prisoner should continue to be detained in view of his or her state of health. In applying these principles, the Court had already held that detaining persons suffering from a serious physical disability in conditions inappropriate to their state of health or leaving such persons to rely on their cellmates in receiving assistance to relieve themselves, bathe and get dressed or undressed, amounted to degrading treatment.
A series of medical reports which had been drafted both before and after the applicant had been equipped with basic-type mechanical prostheses had clearly stated that he was not self-sufficient and fit to be detained in prison. However, throughout both periods of his detention the authorities had taken steps to ensure the applicant was assisted by his fellow inmates. They had made arrangements within the remand centre to enable the applicant to call on his fellow inmates when the need arose. Other special arrangements had also been made in an attempt to relieve or to make up for the hardships of his detention such as the possibility of taking showers six times a week. Therefore, it could not be said that the authorities had abandoned their obligations towards the applicant and left him to rely entirely on the availability and goodwill of his fellow prisoners.
Moreover, the applicant’s condition had clearly not required any specialised care, for which formal nurse training would have been necessary. He was for the most part autonomous, especially after he started using the prostheses, and the assistance which he needed was limited to common washing and dressing tasks which required higher precision. It was true that the Court had often criticised the scheme of providing routine assistance to a prisoner with a physical disability through cellmates, even if they were volunteers and even if their help had been solicited only when the prison infirmary was closed. In the particular circumstances of the present case, however, the Court did not find any reason to condemn the system which had been put in place by the authorities to secure the adequate and necessary aid to the applicant.
As regards obtaining prostheses, full reimbursement of the cost of the basic-type mechanical prostheses had been approved without any undue delay and the necessary notices had been obtained with regard to the financing of bio-mechanical prostheses, which the applicant had decided to get. Eventually, the applicant had obtained mechanical prostheses free of charge and had undergone the necessary physiotherapy. Thus, the penitentiary authorities had actively looked for, and had succeeded without undue delay in providing, an appropriate solution to the applicant’s situation. Moreover, the case did not relate to a systemic problem caused by flaws in the medical-insurance system for providing orthopaedic or prosthetic care to detainees deprived of any financial means. Under the Polish legislation every patient seeking to obtain bio-mechanical prostheses could claim only a very limited refund and had to pay the difference from his or her funds. Consequently, bearing in mind that the basic-type mechanical prostheses had been available and indeed provided to the applicant free of charge and that a refund of a small part of the cost of bio-mechanical prostheses had also been available, the respondent State could not be said to have failed to discharge its obligations under Article 3 by not paying the full costs of a prosthetic device of an advanced type. In conclusion, the Court noted the pro-active attitude of the prison administration vis-à-vis the applicant. The authorities had provided the applicant with the regular and adequate assistance his special needs warranted. Moreover, there was no evidence of any incident or positive intention to humiliate or debase the applicant. Therefore, even though a prisoner with amputated forearms was more vulnerable to the hardships of detention, the treatment of the applicant in the circumstances of the present case had not reached the threshold of severity required to constitute degrading treatment contrary to Article 3 of the Convention.
Conclusion: no violation (five votes to two).
© 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