TrustHLT/LaCour huggingface dataset:
AP1 (Applicant): There's always been a possibility for special cases like this.
AP1 (Applicant): The regulations after, I think, the newest is from last year, made it explicitly possible for special cases to transfer to the Netherlands.
AP1 (Applicant): And then the government suggested that James Murray himself ended his supposed therapeutic contacts on Curaçao when accepting to be transferred to Aruba.
AP1 (Applicant): The government stated that he requested this transfer despite being aware that the Aruba prison was not equated with a forensic counseling unit.
AP1 (Applicant): It commented that the lack of psychiatric help does not appear to have been a cause for concern to the applicants.
AP1 (Applicant): But how could that be the case, even if he really received any treatment, when he was not aware that he needed further treatment, and if so, what kind of treatment?
AP1 (Applicant): Could he be expected to have any idea with which treatment would be adequate for him?
AP1 (Applicant): Could he be expected to complain about the lack of such treatments?
AP1 (Applicant): Moreover, when a sentence on imposition is an irreducible under domestic law, it will be capricious to expect a prisoner to work towards his own rehabilitation without knowing whether, at an unspecified future date, a mechanism might be introduced which would allow him, on the basis of that rehabilitation, to be considered for release.
AP1 (Applicant): Members of the court, what we discussed today was the sad life of James Murray, sad in the first place because of an incomprehensible crime that he committed in his young days.
AP1 (Applicant): He received a life sentence not because he deserves to be detained for the rest of his life, but because the court thought that at the moment of his trial, he was too dangerous to fix the point of time at which he could regain his freedom.
AP1 (Applicant): Obviously, the court had in mind that he would be pardoned when his dangerousness had ended.
AP1 (Applicant): After more than 30 years of imprisonment, James Murray again appeared in court, this time for assessment of his dangerousness.
AP1 (Applicant): But the court concluded that it still would be too hazardous to liberate him.
AP1 (Applicant): Small wonder, for never, never anything has been done to improve his condition.
AP1 (Applicant): The decision of your courts that all life sentences should be reconsidered after some time has been an important step forward.
AP1 (Applicant): This will only be effective if, from the outset of their sentence, it is made clear to the prisoners what they must do to be considered for release.
AP1 (Applicant): But that is not enough.
AP1 (Applicant): The principle should be established that the authorities have to provide to the prisoners within reasonable limits the help they need to rehabilitate themselves.
AP1 (Applicant): James Murray never understood what he should do to regain his freedom and never received the help he needed.
AP1 (Applicant): We urge your court to take the necessary measures to prevent this happening ever again.
Dean Spielmann (JudgeP): Thank you, Professor Reijntjes.
GR1 (Government): Please.
GR1 (Government): I will answer most of the questions of the judges.
GR1 (Government): The question by Judge Vucic will be answered by my colleague, Dr. Kier, who may also speak
GR1 (Government): for a few words in conclusion.
GR1 (Government): First, the question of Judge Silvis, of whether the review was actually necessary if the state is of the view that the preceding situation was already in conformity with the convention.
GR1 (Government): My answer to that is, first of all, I have here the new penal code of Curaçao, which is a comprehensive code, of course, fully renewed, reviewed a couple of years ago.
GR1 (Government): And the introduction of the review of life sentences was only a small part of this comprehensive review.
GR1 (Government): That being said, the government remains of the view that the preceding period was in conformity with the convention, but that doesn't mean that no improvements in that area are possible.
GR1 (Government): Standards are, of course, improving.
GR1 (Government): Standards are increasing.
GR1 (Government): We have seen that in recent years in the court's case law.
GR1 (Government): And in order to make the standards even better, this part of the penal code was introduced as well.
GR1 (Government): The question by Judge Kilbrough on the difference between rehabilitation as a negative or positive obligation.
GR1 (Government): Well, on the negative element, first of all, I merely say that if the court wishes to see this as a negative obligation, the government at least has not done anything to stand in the way of Mr. Marais' rehabilitation.
GR1 (Government): That said, we are of the view that rehabilitation entails a positive obligation.
GR1 (Government): And in that sense, I repeat what I have said before, that by cooperating to Mr. Marais' transfer to Aruba
GR1 (Government): in order to be closer to his family, by at least making available mental health care to a certain extent, and also activities in prisons, the government has fulfilled its positive obligations in this regard.
GR1 (Government): The question of Judge Pinto Dalbo-Kerke about whether there has been a plan for rehabilitation, my answer can be short, no, there has not been a plan for rehabilitation.
GR1 (Government): There have been activities offered, to which I will come back in answering the question of you, Mr. President, later on,
GR1 (Government): but not by means of a rehabilitation plan.
GR1 (Government): Then the second question of Judge Pinto, whether rehabilitation is based on a kingdom policy, I must stress here once again that the administration of justice is an autonomous responsibility of the four countries of which the Kingdom of the Netherlands is currently composed.
GR1 (Government): The name of Vice Minister Teven has been mentioned here at the initiative of the Applicants' Council.
GR1 (Government): This is totally not appropriate in this context.
GR1 (Government): This Vice Minister has no responsibility for rehabilitation in Curaçao or in Aruba.
GR1 (Government): So I will not even go into that issue any further, nor into his letter of 16 April 2012, which was mentioned.
GR1 (Government): That letter is irrelevant in the context of the present case.
GR1 (Government): I must stress that.
GR1 (Government): Finally, Mr. President, you inquired about the days in prison.
GR1 (Government): Now, we have heard in strong words what a day in prison looks like.
GR1 (Government): You will forgive me, of course, that I cannot give you a clear picture of exactly how Mr. Moret or anybody else
GR1 (Government): spent their days during many years in prison.
GR1 (Government): What I can tell you is that in Curaçao, as in Aruba, activities are offered.
GR1 (Government): When I speak about activities, I'm talking about work.
GR1 (Government): I am talking about work in the kitchen.
GR1 (Government): There are, for some prisoners, there is a possibility of working outdoors in a farm.
GR1 (Government): There are church services.
GR1 (Government): There is a shop.
GR1 (Government): There is an outdoor sport facility, even though I realize that the word outdoor may be a little bit ill-conceived here, but you know what I mean.
GR1 (Government): There is no roof and there are sport facilities available.
GR1 (Government): Whether the prisoner chooses to avail of these activities is, of course, another question.
GR1 (Government): Clearly, in Aruba, Mr. Moret did have a regular job
GR1 (Government): as an upholsterer, eight hours a day, and he also trained others.
GR1 (Government): He did occasionally attend religious services as well.
GR1 (Government): And then your other question, Mr. President,
GR1 (Government): about paragraph 45 of our memorial, the information from the medical file.
GR1 (Government): I think I have addressed that in my pleadings.
GR1 (Government): We have done what we could to retrieve any information that was lacking.
GR1 (Government): Believe me, I more than you probably would want to have more information here.
GR1 (Government): Unfortunately, that is not the case.
GR1 (Government): What we have, we have provided to you.
GR1 (Government): And then finally, on financial issues, Mr. President,
GR1 (Government): it's far from me to complicate the procedure by asking you to refer the issue under Article 41 of the Convention, and I would not even request two weeks.
GR1 (Government): I had prepared a few very small words.
GR1 (Government): The only reason I didn't express them is because it's always such an anticlimax to talk about money after having spoken about the really serious matters.
GR1 (Government): But I can read them out to you.
GR1 (Government): The fact that the applicants have not themselves undergone, and when I say applicants, of course, I'm talking about the family members, have not themselves undergone the treatment complained of means that there are no grounds for awarding any just satisfaction to them.
GR1 (Government): Furthermore, since the applicants, and again I refer to the family members, by definition may only have incurred costs and expenses after the death of Mr. Murray,
GR1 (Government): the government is only prepared to reimburse such costs and expenses, of course, in case the court would conclude that a violation has occurred, insofar as they were made after the 26th of November 2014, and the usual requirements of specification and reasonableness remain applicable, of course.
GR1 (Government): So that is what I wanted to say on financial issues.
GR1 (Government): If you allow me, I would now pass the floor to my colleague Dr. Kier for a final word.
GR2 (Government): Judge Vucinic inquired about the impossibilities of a transfer to the European part of the kingdom.
GR2 (Government): Now, perhaps two preliminary remarks.
GR2 (Government): Of course, first of all, this is at the wish of those concerned.
GR2 (Government): If that wish is not expressed, we do not we're not in habit of using the very limited possibilities that we have under the kingdom statutes to transfer prisoners across the ocean.
GR2 (Government): And the second one is that there needs to be a clear indication that treatment in the European kingdom would be considered successful, which is not necessarily the case because it also depends on the ability to maintain social contacts.
GR2 (Government): Rehabilitation is to a large extent also dependent upon that.
GR2 (Government): It has been stressed before, but let me just reiterate it at the outset again.
GR2 (Government): The administration of justice is the autonomous responsibility of each constituent party of the kingdom.
GR2 (Government): Where a sentence is executed is not a matter of pick and choose where it is most convenient.
GR2 (Government): The practice is, the rule is, a sentence is executed within the country concerned.
GR2 (Government): That is how our constitutional arrangements of my country work.
GR2 (Government): However, it is correct that the possibility exists under Article 40 of the kingdom statute to execute sentences in other countries within the kingdom.
GR2 (Government): And here I think it is useful to distinguish two distinct situations.
GR2 (Government): Nowadays, and my colleague Mr. Becker referred to it, Article
GR2 (Government): 180 of the penal code provides the possibility of confinement to a custodial clinic.
GR2 (Government): But I can tell you, which is a matter of fact for your information, nobody has been transferred to the European part of the kingdom so far, nor do we have practical arrangements in this context.
GR2 (Government): It's different with regard to youth offenders, just for the sake of completeness.
GR2 (Government): The Pijmaatregel, and I trust Judge Silvers will be able to translate that in chambers, but youth offenders in need of treatment have been transferred, but this is done specifically on the basis of extensive arrangements between the countries concerned.
GR2 (Government): And then the second situation is at the time that we are talking about today, when Mr. Murray was detained.
GR2 (Government): Article 180 did not exist.
GR2 (Government): Convicted persons would on occasion be transferred, of course, this happens occasionally, but never for reasons of providing custodial treatment or rehabilitation treatment, et cetera.
GR2 (Government): Custodial treatment also simply because this is not ordered by the judge concerned, and persons may not be placed in a clinic without a judicial order to that effect.
GR2 (Government): And therefore, I think that also is worth emphasizing.
GR2 (Government): Mr. President, if you allow me just one minute to conclude.
GR2 (Government): Our government's position is the following.
GR2 (Government): The government entertains some serious doubts as to the question whether this case should be examined on its merits by the Grand Chamber of the Court, and primarily because we argue that the late Mr. Murray can no longer be
GR2 (Government): qualified a victim of an alleged violation of the Convention, having been pardoned, demonstrating that the system works not only de jure, but also de facto.
GR2 (Government): And I remind the Court of the applicable figures.
GR2 (Government): The past six years, 99 pardons, focusing on live prisoners.
GR2 (Government): Seven live prisoners have sought a pardon.
GR2 (Government): In two instances, this request was granted.
GR2 (Government): And just to be sure, this is not the instance in which the person concerned committed suicide awaiting his pardon request.
GR2 (Government): Just want to make that sure.
GR2 (Government): In addition, in 2011, the periodic review of life sentences was introduced in the Criminal Code of Curacao.
GR2 (Government): Although this periodic review did not exist in 1980, and I also refer to the question by Judge Silvis concerning the retroactive effect of court judgments, the government's position is that it would be entirely unreasonable to measure the state's behavior since 1980 according to a standard that was introduced by the court many, many years later on.
GR2 (Government): As for Mr. Murray, I think what is also worthwhile
GR2 (Government): considering is that the earlier pardon requests were denied because the domestic authorities held that the continuation of the execution of the sentence still served penological reasons.
GR2 (Government): And that view was shared by the joint court in its 2012 judgment, for example.
GR2 (Government): And then as for the lack of treatment, whether that is custodial treatment or rehabilitation activities, my conclusion is the following.
GR2 (Government): First of all, it's untrue that absolutely no counseling or rehabilitation activities were provided to the applicant.
GR2 (Government): The applicant did not always wish to use them.
GR2 (Government): He often said to social workers that he had no intention of talking to them.
GR2 (Government): I don't think that can be blamed or a government can be made responsible for that.
GR2 (Government): As for custodial treatment more specifically, the domestic court imposing the sentence did not order treatment in a custodial clinic.
GR2 (Government): You cannot place people in a custodial clinic without there being a judicial basis for that.
GR2 (Government): The late Mr. Murray did not express any wish during his
GR2 (Government): detention to this effect.
GR2 (Government): He did not want to be transferred to the European part of the kingdom.
GR2 (Government): He wanted to be transferred to Aruba.
GR2 (Government): That wish was granted.
GR2 (Government): It has not been demonstrated why confinement to a custodial clinic in a different part of the world would have been more beneficial to Mr. Murray's rehabilitation than placement
GR2 (Government): in a prison in his country of residence.
GR2 (Government): And that, in effect, is our conclusion.
GR2 (Government): What matters, surely, is not so much the accessibility of treatment per se, but its effectiveness.
GR2 (Government): And if that effectiveness is not shown, we believe that that is the key issue in this case.
GR2 (Government): Mr. President, distinguished members of the court, I thank
GR2 (Government): you for your attention.
Dean Spielmann (JudgeP): Thank you. I have a further point for the applicants.
Dean Spielmann (JudgeP): Mr. Böcker, you have clarified what I called earlier the financial point,
Dean Spielmann (JudgeP): the additional point you raised, and you have developed that orally, so I take for granted that you will not produce a further document on that, which means that the applicants, since this is a new argument, should have now the possibility, very briefly, just to answer this specific point.
Dean Spielmann (JudgeP): In the alternative, if you do not want to reply now, orally, I will grant you leave to file a very small observation concerning this specific point within two weeks, and of course this will also be transmitted to the government.
Dean Spielmann (JudgeP): But I need to give you the opportunity to respond to that additional argument, which has been developed for the first time now in the second round.
AP1 (Applicant): Mr President, we will be happy to leave this question to the wisdom of your court.
Dean Spielmann (JudgeP): Thank you very much and we have now come to the end of the hearing.
Guido Raimondi (JudgeP): I declare open the public hearing on the merits in the case of Fernandes de Oliveira v. Portugal versus Portugal.
Guido Raimondi (JudgeP): The application was lodged with the court on 4 December 2014 on the Article 34 of the Convention by a Portuguese national, Mrs. Maria da Glória Fernandes de Oliveira.
Guido Raimondi (JudgeP): The application was allocated to the fourth section of the court, pursuant to Rule 52, Paragraph 1 of the Rules of the Court.
Guido Raimondi (JudgeP): The application was communicated to the government on 22 January 2016.
Guido Raimondi (JudgeP): On 28 March 2017, a chamber of the fourth section delivered its judgment in the case.
Guido Raimondi (JudgeP): The government are represented by their agent, Mrs.Maria de Fátima da Graça Carvalho, Deputy Attorney General, assisted by Mrs. Ana Garcia Marques and by Dr. António José  Pires Preto, advisors.
Guido Raimondi (JudgeP): The applicant is represented by Mrs. Ana Pereira  de Sousa, counsel, assisted by Mrs.Catarina Botelho and Dr. Carlos Fernandes da Silva, advisors.
Guido Raimondi (JudgeP): I also welcome, among others, the members of the French Conseil d'État, a group of Serbian judges and prosecutors, a group of trainee judges at the Administrative Court of Strasbourg and a group of trainee judges from Austria.
Guido Raimondi (JudgeP): Having consulted with the agent of the government and the applicant, I have determined the order of addresses as follows.
Guido Raimondi (JudgeP): Mrs. Ana Pereira  de Sousa for the applicant will speak first and then Mrs. Maria de Fátima da Graça Carvalho for the government will follow.
Guido Raimondi (JudgeP): I would like to explain that, in addition to the interpreting in the two official languages of the court, English and French, I have granted the applicant's representative leave to plead in Portuguese before the court.
Guido Raimondi (JudgeP): Moreover, interpretation into Russian has been authorized for the benefit of a group of lawyers attending this hearing whose visit was organized by the European Human Rights Advocacy Center.
Guido Raimondi (JudgeP): That interpretation is not arranged by the court and no transcription of the oral translation will be included in the official record of the proceedings.
Guido Raimondi (JudgeP): I now call on Mrs. Pereira  de Sousa for the applicant.
Guido Raimondi (JudgeP): Please, your order for madam.
AP1 (Applicant): Os meus respeitosos cumprimentos.
AP1 (Applicant): É uma honra poder estar aqui, esperando eu ser digna da confiança que me depositaram para exercer este mandato.
AP1 (Applicant): A posição da requerente já é conhecida.
AP1 (Applicant): Para a infirmar, o Estado dirá liminarmente, como já o fez, que nada faria prever que o seu filho se viesse a suicidar.
AP1 (Applicant): Para o efeito, ele junta, entre o mais, distintos conjuntos de folhas, de difícil leitura e que não estão organizados de forma global e sequenciada, bem como o depoimento depostado pela médica assistente, doutora Ana Araújo.
AP1 (Applicant): Sejamos claros, o António José era um indivíduo do sexo masculino, na casa dos 30 anos e solteiro.
AP1 (Applicant): Estava desempregado.
AP1 (Applicant): O seu lar era disfuncional e as suas relações familiares eram pobres.
AP1 (Applicant): Ele possuía um historial de vários internamentos desde a década de 80.
AP1 (Applicant): Ele foi objeto de distintos quadros de diagnóstico de acentuado agravidade, tais como depressão major, esquizofrenia e alcoolismo crónico.
AP1 (Applicant): O seu último internamento foi precedido de uma tentativa de suicídio através de uma overdose medicamentosa.
AP1 (Applicant): A quando deste, referiu não ter um projeto de vida, que a esperança o abandonara, sentindo-se marginalizado.
AP1 (Applicant): A vida não tinha sentido, disser então para a posteridade.
AP1 (Applicant): Era preferível morrer.
AP1 (Applicant): Cerca de 26 dias depois, ele consumou os seus declarados intentos.
AP1 (Applicant): Fê-lo depois de nem 40 horas de ter dado entrada nas urgências de outro hospital por intoxicação alcoólica e de não ter sido observado por nenhum médico.
AP1 (Applicant): Fê-lo da forma mais violenta e desfecho irreversível que conhecia, a tirar-se para a linha de comboio existente a escassos metros do hospital.
AP1 (Applicant): Tudo isto quadra ostensivamente com aquilo que a literatura científica existente a este respeito designa de profile suicida.
AP1 (Applicant): Não fora dar-se o caso de estar desde logo em causa o explosivo coquetel de doença mental, alcoolismo e história de parasuicídio, assim claríssimos preditores de suicídio, como dizem os especialistas, por bandas de um paciente psiquiátrico.
AP1 (Applicant): E é assim que, também de acordo com o parceiro do professor Dr. Carlos Fernandes, o António
AP1 (Applicant): José padecia de pelo menos metade dos 12 fatores com o momento apontados como preditores de suicídio.
AP1 (Applicant): Não haja equívocos.
AP1 (Applicant): O risco do filho da requerente cometer suicídio era ostensivamente previsível.
AP1 (Applicant): Pelo que se o Estado português não consiga prever o suicídio, apenas a si e tão somente a si o deve.
AP1 (Applicant): Mas neste enquadramento o Estado dirá, como também já o disse, que tudo fez para acompanhar e vigiar adequadamente o António José.
AP1 (Applicant): Acontece que uma radiografia da documentação que junta, infirma-o redobrada e inequivocamente.
AP1 (Applicant): Na verdade, do depoimento da médica Araújo, verifica-se que ela encara a tentativa de suicídio ocorrida como tendo resultado de uma toma de medicação à balda, não tendo sido uma intoxicação grave, no sentido dele precisar de cuidados intensivos.
AP1 (Applicant): Isto é, para si, o Estado do António José não comportava nenhum risco que inspirasse qualquer cuidado adicional ou especial.
AP1 (Applicant): Ela refere que o António José não tinha a convicção de querer morrer, nada tendo verbalizado, quando já vimos o oposto.
AP1 (Applicant): Está escrito.
AP1 (Applicant): Ela declara que um doente com patologias esquizofrénicas, se tiver alucinações imperativas, pode matar-se ou suicidar-se, mas ouvi-da que o António José tinha justamente diagnósticos de psicose e alucinações.
AP1 (Applicant): E daí, portanto, que nunca se tenha registado no processo qualquer radiação ou risco suicida.
AP1 (Applicant): E daí também que absolutamente nada a este respeito tenha dito ao seu colega médico, ao ano revés, que a passou temporariamente a substituir.
AP1 (Applicant): Médico este que depois em juízo que o testemunho que aquela lhe passou foi este.
AP1 (Applicant): Diziu que o doente estaria relativamente bem, inclusivamente para pré-alta.
AP1 (Applicant): E eu não ia pôr isso em causa.
AP1 (Applicant): E consequentemente não se tenha prescrito qualquer medida específica tendente a preveni-lo.