TrustHLT/LaCour huggingface dataset:
AP2 (Applicant): It found that James Murray did not receive any treatment at all.
AP2 (Applicant): Moreover, the reports of the CPT makes it rather improbable that efficient treatment had been possible.
AP2 (Applicant): In order to meet a long-existing need for professional behavioral assistance for prisoners, in 1990, a special unit was opened in the Curaçao prison, the Forensic Observation and Counseling Unit.
AP2 (Applicant): The prison has been visited by the CPT in 1992.
AP2 (Applicant): The CPT found that the prison had a total capacity of 198, but at that time was holding nearly 500 inmates.
AP2 (Applicant): The medical staff comprised two general practices, a dental surgeon, a psychiatrist, who only was available for consultation on occasional basis, and a physiotherapist.
AP2 (Applicant): The CPT especially noticed the lack of a psychologist and the inadequacy of outpatient psychiatric care.
AP2 (Applicant): The staff of the FOBA had to cope with these problems by providing differentiated activity programs.
AP2 (Applicant): It is said to have prepared individualized treatment plans to be implemented by the surveillance staff.
AP2 (Applicant): And up-to-date observation records would be maintained for each patient, comprising a weekly psychiatric assessment sheet.
AP2 (Applicant): But can a psychiatrist and a psychologist, who both carry out the main activities of a general psychiatric clinic on Curaçao, and who have neither any penitentiary nor any forensic specialization, be expected to provide sufficient treatment to whole-life prisoners with complex mental problems?
AP2 (Applicant): Did they possess sufficient skills and knowledge even to draw up a plan for the rehabilitation of James Murray?
AP2 (Applicant): Also, this plan has disappeared without a trace.
AP2 (Applicant): The government cannot provide us with any plan or assessment for treatment that would be given to James Murray.
AP2 (Applicant): Obviously, no trace of such a plan or assessment is to be found in the observation records.
AP2 (Applicant): Not one psychiatric assessment sheet had been produced.
AP2 (Applicant): James Murray himself always denied that he received any professional treatment.
AP2 (Applicant): If he did not speak the truth, the government would have been able to provide us in this procedure with plans and assessments and to give an indication on the contents of the given treatment.
AP2 (Applicant): The government did not succeed in providing more than a letter of a Dr. Montoya de Orocoella,
AP2 (Applicant): dated 6 September 1991, in which this doctor mentions the existence of therapeutic contacts with James Murray without clarifying nor specifying their content.
AP2 (Applicant): The government, C.45 of its Memorial on the Merits,
AP2 (Applicant): asked prison authorities on Curacao and on Aruba to produce details on these contacts.
AP2 (Applicant): But the only information these authorities could give was that the medical file of James Murray does not contain anything on such contacts, nor on any treatment given to him.
AP2 (Applicant): We refer to the letters of 24 July 2014 and 1 September 2014 from the psychologists employed by the Aruban prison.
AP2 (Applicant): They only confirm that the Joint Court found in 2012 that James Murray never received any professional treatment to improve his mental conditions.
AP2 (Applicant): At this point, I would like to say something about the general penitentiary climate on Curacao and in the Netherlands.
AP2 (Applicant): After the CPT disqualified in 1994 the situation in the Curacao prison as inhuman and degrading, on Curacao and on Aruba the situation has improved.
AP2 (Applicant): But in 2013 the CPT still had to qualify the general penitentiary culture as being an incapacity culture, hardly providing for any activities from and for inmates.
AP2 (Applicant): The complete lack of treatment in the case of James Murray fits perfectly within this qualification.
AP2 (Applicant): It has not been an accident, but it is a result of governmental policy.
AP2 (Applicant): With regard to whole life prisoners, the penal policy in the Caribbean part of the Kingdom of the Netherlands does not differ from that in the realm in Europe.
AP2 (Applicant): Since 2005, the Dutch government stresses that life imprisonment means imprisonment for life.
AP2 (Applicant): Exemplary is a letter to Parliament from the Dutch Secretary for Justice and Security, Mr. Teven, dated on 16 April 2012, and I quote,
AP2 (Applicant): life imprisonment is imprisonment for life.
AP2 (Applicant): Return into society is excluded unless the exceptional case that a whole life prisoner is granted a pardon.
AP2 (Applicant): For this reason, whole life prisoners do not qualify for activities aiming at reintegration, unquote.
AP2 (Applicant): This is all happening in spite of a clear tendency towards much more emphasis on rehabilitation, which is notably demonstrated by the Council of Europe's legal instrument and your court's case law, whereby the progression principle is developed.
AP2 (Applicant): In the course of serving a sentence, a prisoner should move progressively through the prison system, whereby moving from the early days of a sentence, when the emphasis may be on punishment and retribution, to the later stage when the emphasis should be on preparation for release.
AP2 (Applicant): In the case of Dixon against the United Kingdom, your court underlined the evaluation in European penal policy towards the increasing importance of the rehabilitative aim of imprisonment, particularly towards the end of a long prison sentence.
AP2 (Applicant): Here we come to the essence of this case.
AP2 (Applicant): Even if a prisoner is told what he must do to be eligible for release and under which conditions, he must also be given a real opportunity to satisfy these conditions.
AP2 (Applicant): Our position is that the government should assess of its own accord what will be needed for the rehabilitation of any whole life prisoner to make clear to him what he must do to become eligible for release and, as far as necessary, to provide him with professional assistance to attain this objective.
AP2 (Applicant): In the case of James Murray, after assessment of his mental condition, should have been decided what kind of treatment, therapy, training, support, or activities would have been suitable to improve his mental condition, to strengthen the structure of his personality, and to decrease the risk of recidivism.
AP2 (Applicant): A lack of professional expertise on Curaçao to accomplish this should have resulted in the transfer of James Murray to the Netherlands, where such particular expertise would have been available.
AP2 (Applicant): In conclusion, James Murray was not given any real chance at all to regain his freedom someday.
AP2 (Applicant): What happened was exactly the kingdom's penal policies and intended purpose.
AP2 (Applicant): Or to quote Mr. Taven, and I quote,
AP2 (Applicant): life imprisonment is imprisonment for life, unquote.
AP2 (Applicant): When James Murray had not become terminally ill, he still had been in prison until his death.
AP2 (Applicant): I will end by quoting a line from a CPT report on whole life sentences.
AP2 (Applicant): I quote, nobody should be forced to die in prison, unquote.
Dean Spielmann (JudgeP): Thank you very much Mrs. Reijntjes-Wendenburg. I call Mr. Böcker.
GR1 (Government): Following the death of James Murray on the 26th of November in 2014, the government was informed that Mr. Murray's son,
GR1 (Government): Johnny Francis von Hainingen, and Mr. Murray's sister,
GR1 (Government): Alta Grazia Murray, wished to pursue the application.
GR1 (Government): In its letter of the 10th of December 2014, the Grand Chamber invited the parties to address at today's oral hearing the issue of whether Mr. von Hainingen and
GR1 (Government): Ms. Murray have a legitimate interest in pursuing
GR1 (Government): the application.
GR1 (Government): The timing of this hearing did not allow for a solution of this question beforehand, which is, though inevitable, also unfortunate.
GR1 (Government): Openly discussing family relations is a delicate and perhaps painful matter, even more so directly after a person's demise.
GR1 (Government): Nevertheless, the issue has to be addressed, since it is decisive for the relevance of anything else.
GR1 (Government): So I will do just that.
GR1 (Government): Should the Grand Chamber conclude that the alleged relationship with Mr. Murray actually existed?
GR1 (Government): And should it find the existence of a close-blood relationship in itself sufficient to allow Mr. von Hainingen and Ms. Murray to
GR1 (Government): pursue the application?
GR1 (Government): The government has little to add, and will, of course, accept that finding.
GR1 (Government): Should, however, the Grand Chamber require the existence of additional personal interests, which the Court's case law would seem to suggest, I draw your attention to the following facts and circumstances.
GR1 (Government): In all available reports drawn up about Mr. Murray in the
GR1 (Government): course of 35 years, his three children are mentioned sporadically and in very brief terms.
GR1 (Government): In his report of October 1979, the psychiatrist Dr. Schoonmaker
GR1 (Government): mentions the fact that Mr. Murray had three children with
GR1 (Government): three women, but that already during the respective pregnancy periods, and certainly after the children's birth, his attention for both mothers and children sharply decreased.
GR1 (Government): According to the report of the psychiatrist Dr. Matros of
GR1 (Government): August 2012, Mr. Murray had doubts whether one of the
GR1 (Government): children was actually his.
GR1 (Government): Insofar as the government was aware on the basis of the files that we have, Mr. van Heineggen never visited Mr. Murray during
GR1 (Government): We are now informed that he did, in fact, visit his father six times.
GR1 (Government): I cannot give any decisive opinion about that particular issue.
GR1 (Government): There is no recollection whatsoever of this in our files.
GR1 (Government): What we do have is a recent check by the Aruba Correctional Institute over the past five years where no record was found of any visit by Mr. van Heineggen in that period.
GR1 (Government): Finally, I note that Mr. Murray's repeated requests to be
GR1 (Government): transferred to Aruba were explicitly motivated by his wish to be closer to his mother.
GR1 (Government): There was never any mention of his children.
GR1 (Government): The government is aware that this is different from Mr.
GR1 (Government): Murray's sister, Altagracia, who did keep in contact with her brother during the second part of his detention in Aruba.
GR1 (Government): In this regard, I merely raise the question of whether in a situation where an applicant's closest blood relatives, namely his children, have never had any contact with their father or show no interest in pursuing the application, it falls to another relative to come forward.
GR1 (Government): In case the Grand Chamber feels that respect for human rights demands the continuation of the examination, I wish to draw attention to the introduction in 2011, it has been mentioned by the Applicant's Council, of the periodic review of life sentences in the criminal code of Curacao.
GR1 (Government): This legislative amendment potentially provides important beneficial consequences for the situation of life prisoners in Curacao.
GR1 (Government): I also point at improved institutional facilities for mental health, both in Curacao and Aruba.
GR1 (Government): And finally, the introduction of the possibility of confinement to a custodial clinic, also in 2011, in both countries.
GR1 (Government): A final note in my introduction, Mr. President,
GR1 (Government): should the Grand Chamber decide to pursue the case, I hope that the government will be given a separate chance to express itself on financial issues, which may raise new questions that have not been dealt with so far in the preceding months.
GR1 (Government): Mr. President, without prejudice to our point of view on the
GR1 (Government): pursuit of the application, I will from now on refer to Mr. van Heineken and Ms. Murray as the applicants and turn to
GR1 (Government): the merits of the case.
GR1 (Government): Two issues under Article 3 of the Convention are under discussion today.
GR1 (Government): Firstly, the question of whether the life sentence imposed on the late Mr. Murray was in conformity with Article 3.
GR1 (Government): Secondly, the same question in relation to the applicants' general conditions of detention, both in Aruba and in Curacao.
GR1 (Government): A chamber of the Third Section of the Court, in its unanimous judgment of 10 December 2013, declared both allegations unfounded.
GR1 (Government): The government considers this judgment a sound basis for its position before the Grand Chamber.
GR1 (Government): I will first discuss the question of whether the late Mr. Murray's life sentence was in conformity with Article 3 of
GR1 (Government): the Convention.
GR1 (Government): In the same context, I will address the question of psychological and psychiatric assistance available to Mr.
GR1 (Government): Murray in his respective places of detention.
GR1 (Government): I will also, to the best of my ability, answer the additional questions the Grand Chamber raised in its letters of 7 July and 4 December 2014.
GR1 (Government): According in particular to the Grand Chamber's judgment in the case of Vinter and others versus the United Kingdom, what is essential for a life sentence to be in conformity with the Convention is the existence of both a possibility of review and a prospect of release.
GR1 (Government): I note that this Grand Chamber judgment was duly taken into account by the Chamber in the present case.
GR1 (Government): Central to the government's position are the following facts and circumstances.
GR1 (Government): Firstly, Mr. Murray was released at the age of 60 after a request
GR1 (Government): for pardon based on his deteriorating health was granted on 31 March 2014, 34 years after he was sentenced to life for the murder of 6-year-old Darlie Lai.
GR1 (Government): Before that, on 6 September 2013, he was placed in a nursing home on Curacao.
GR1 (Government): Mr. Murray's formal status as a prisoner during the intervening
GR1 (Government): period primarily meant that the authorities remained financially responsible for his medical care.
GR1 (Government): Our first point is, therefore, that as of 6 December 2013, but ultimately as of 31 March 2014, Mr. Murray could no longer claim to be the victim of a violation.
GR1 (Government): This chain of events also demonstrates that the pardon system in Curacao, which I will discuss later on, is not the paper tiger the applicants claim and takes a prisoner's personal circumstances seriously into consideration.
GR1 (Government): The fact that these circumstances were deplorable in the present case does not in itself diminish the validity of that conclusion.
GR1 (Government): Secondly, in anticipation of the introduction in Curacao of an obligatory period of review of life sentences after 20 years, psychiatric examination of Mr. Murray pertaining to such review
GR1 (Government): was initiated in September 2011.
GR1 (Government): A year later, the Joint Court of Justice of Aruba, Curacao, and St. Martin, and of Bonaire, St. Eustatius, and Saba,
GR1 (Government): having regard to the reports drawn up, decided that Mr. Murray's sentence still served
GR1 (Government): a reasonable purpose.
GR1 (Government): The Joint Court specifically took into account the risk of recidivism and the position of the victim's next of kin, while at the same time acknowledging that the interest of society in retribution was no longer valid 33 years after the murder, and this must have been a response to major demonstrations in Curacao against a possible release of Mr. Murray.
GR1 (Government): Thirdly, ever since Mr. Murray was convicted,
GR1 (Government): he had the possibility of seeking a pardon.
GR1 (Government): I note that the Court held in its case law that the form which the required review should take, executive or judicial, is a matter within the margin of appreciation of the State.
GR1 (Government): Since the Grand Chamber in its letter of the 4th of December specifically referred to paragraph 57 of the Court's judgment in the case of Laszlo Magyar versus Hungary, I should observe that the Pardons Act, unlike the Hungarian Code of Criminal Procedure, explicitly describes the threshold for a successful pardon request, notably the expiration of the aims pursued through the application of criminal law.
GR1 (Government): The authorities will therefore need to examine whether a pardon request demonstrates that that threshold has been reached.
GR1 (Government): The nature and intensity of their information gathering will be guided by that same criterion.
GR1 (Government): In reply to the Grand Chamber's more specific questions, I reiterate that the power to seek a pardon in Curacao lies with the Governor, who seeks advice from the Joint Court of Justice, which in turn seeks advice from the Public Prosecution Service.
GR1 (Government): All of those may seek information from all relevant authorities, institutions, and persons.
GR1 (Government): These are obliged to provide such information.
GR1 (Government): The Joint Court is obliged by law to motivate its advice.
GR1 (Government): The Governor is obliged by law to motivate a decision rejecting the request different from what the Applicants' Council suggested just now.
GR1 (Government): While the Governor is the authority taking the decision, the Minister of Justice bears political responsibility, which is expressed by his or her counter signature.
GR1 (Government): In reply to the Grand Chamber's question to what extent reports on Mr. Murray were sought and submitted in relation to his
GR1 (Government): repeated request for pardon, I submit that all available reports by psychiatrists, psychologists, and social workers, for whatever reason they were drawn up, were attached to our memorial of the 1st of September of last year.
GR1 (Government): In one of these, a report from the social worker attached to the Aruba Correctional Institute of August 2013 was drawn up specifically in the context of Mr. Murray's pardon request.
GR1 (Government): All other reports, a total of 10, were drawn up in different contexts, notably the applicant's conviction, his request to be transferred to Aruba, and the review of his sentence.
GR1 (Government): I stress, however, that the need for obtaining information in the framework of a pardon request depends on the circumstances of the case, including on the arguments set forth in the pardon request and on the question of what information is available from other sources.
GR1 (Government): Fourthly, in response to the allegation that the pardon system de facto did not provide any relief, I note that since 2009, 99 pardons have been granted in the former Netherlands Antilles and Curaçao.
GR1 (Government): Focusing on life prisoners, I can offer the following specifications.
GR1 (Government): Since 1980, a life sentence in the Netherlands Antilles has been imposed on nine persons, including Mr. Murray.
GR1 (Government): Seven of those, once again including Mr. Murray,
GR1 (Government): have sought a pardon.
GR1 (Government): One of those seven was extradited to France.
GR1 (Government): A second one committed suicide pending his request while the public prosecution service was intending to submit a positive recommendation to the joint court.
GR1 (Government): In two instances, a pardon request was granted, including Mr. Murray's.
GR1 (Government): Currently, three persons are serving a life sentence in Curaçao on the basis of convictions in the years 1999 and 2000.
GR1 (Government): I note that the court held in its decision in the case of Einhorn versus France that the fact that the possibility of a pardon is limited does not justify the conclusion that the sentence is irreducible.
GR1 (Government): In its judgment in the case of Yorgov II versus Bulgaria, the court held that the fact that there had been no decision to grant clemency to any prisoner sentenced to life did not suffice to prove that that penalty is irreducible de facto.
GR1 (Government): On this last question of the de facto reducibility of a life sentence, the applicants argue, whatever the facts and arguments I have just summed up, that given Mr. Murray's
GR1 (Government): individual situation, he had no prospect of release, notably because he was not offered adequate treatment for personality disorder or transferred to a custodial institution in the Netherlands.
GR1 (Government): Mr. Murray was sentenced to life in Curaçao, or formally
GR1 (Government): speaking, in the former Netherlands Antilles.
GR1 (Government): The Joint Court of Justice, when convicting Mr. Murray in 1980,
GR1 (Government): held that while confinement to a custodial clinic or ter verschikkingstelling would have been appropriate, that option was not available in Curaçao.
GR1 (Government): In order to properly understand this situation, let me stress that the Netherlands Antilles had a population of 300,000 at the time, scattered over six islands, Leeward and Windward Islands being some 1,000 kilometers distant from each other and having either Papiamento or English as their respective daily language.
GR1 (Government): The country was simply too small to afford its own custodial hospital.
GR1 (Government): Furthermore, as the Joint Court observed, transfer to the Netherlands to execute a sentence of confinement to a custodial clinic had in the past proved impracticable and was in the present case considered impossible by the psychiatrist due to Mr. Murray's limited intelligence
GR1 (Government): and his insufficient ability to express himself verbally.
GR1 (Government): In his letter of the 4th of December, the Grand Chamber inquired about the meaning of these last words.
GR1 (Government): Though I should be cautious in pretending to provide an authoritative interpretation of the words of a psychiatrist and of an independent court, especially 35 years afterwards, it is a fact that Mr. Murray's Dutch was very
GR1 (Government): poor, as was just confirmed by the applicant's counsel.
GR1 (Government): He did speak Papiamento and English in as much as I have been informed.
GR1 (Government): Papiamento is a very small language, at the time spoken by some 200,000 persons on the islands of Curacao, Aruba, and Bonaire.
GR1 (Government): Communication in that language in daily life in the European part of the kingdom is virtually impossible.
GR1 (Government): This is a fortiori the case in the context of psychiatric treatment.
GR1 (Government): It is conceivable that this same context would make treatment in English, particularly as it is spoken in the Caribbean, equally difficult.
GR1 (Government): What matters, however, is not so much the accessibility of treatment in a custodial institute per se, but rather the effectiveness of such treatment.
GR1 (Government): In-depth communication and the creation of a situation of mutual trust are essential.
GR1 (Government): And apart from anything else, I note that the joint court did not so much refer to languages.
GR1 (Government): It referred to Mr. Murray's inability to express himself
GR1 (Government): verbally, so it apparently was conceived as a wider problem than just languages.
GR1 (Government): It is therefore understandable that both the psychiatrist and the judges, also taking unfortunate precedence into account, concluded that this language situation, in combination with Mr. Murray's limited intelligence, made a
GR1 (Government): successful treatment in the European part of the kingdom illusory.
GR1 (Government): I should stress at this point that the administration of justice is the autonomous responsibility of the separate parts of the kingdom.
GR1 (Government): Judgments are executed by and within the country in which they are passed.