TrustHLT/LaCour huggingface dataset:
AP1 (Applicant): harm perpetrated against an identified individual and does not seek to challenge a generally applicable law. The government also asked the Court to separate the issue
AP1 (Applicant): of – issues of standing insofar they were concerned with Articles 2 and 3 on the one hand and Articles 5 and 8 on the other hand. The government relied mainly on – on
AP1 (Applicant): the notion that rights under the Articles 5 and 8 of the Convention are not subject to the Convention are not transferable and that, therefore, could not be invoked independently by the Center for – for legal resources. However, the issue of transferability
AP1 (Applicant): is not in itself decisive in this respect. The Court has in the past accepted
AP1 (Applicant): to hear cases filed by the – filed and – filed by the direct victim's relatives with respect to non-transferable rights filed under Articles 3, 5, or 6 of the Convention.
AP1 (Applicant): So the Court has applied a public interest, the – the interest of human rights criteria not only to cases that have been validly filed, but also to cases filed by relatives acting as indirect victims. And we refer to – to – for the relevant
AP1 (Applicant): case law, we refer to – to – to our written submissions. In the present case,
AP1 (Applicant): Valentin Campano's ability to access justice independently during his lifetime was severely impaired, as he had been confined in institutions and under the control of medical professionals. So I refer here to possible remedy that could exist while
AP1 (Applicant): Campano was alive as opposed to after he died. So while – while it was unknown
AP1 (Applicant): that his intellectual capacity was limited, he referred – he received no support to exercise his rights in the period preceding his – his death. And the Court
AP1 (Applicant): has applied a public interest to the case law in the period preceding his – his death. Furthermore, the abuses that formed the object of our claims under the other
AP1 (Applicant): Articles of the Convention, so Articles 3, 5, 8 of the Convention, are closely linked to his death. For example, the absence of adequate support and representation
AP1 (Applicant): which makes up the object of our Article 8 claim meant that Valentin Campano could not speak during his lifetime about the abuse directed against him, and that there was no one to complain on his behalf after he died. We maintain that the Center
AP1 (Applicant): for Legal Resources has standing as an indirect victim to complain on his behalf with respect to the violations that occurred during his lifetime, including violations of his Article 5 and 8 rights, because the details of these abuses came to surface only after he died.
AP1 (Applicant): We also submit that granting standing to the Center for Legal Resources to pursue this application is in the interest of human rights. The interest of human rights
AP1 (Applicant): concept in Article 37, paragraph 1 in Fine of the Convention does entitle the Court to depart from its current practice on admissibility. I will not dwell any longer
AP1 (Applicant): on this point due to time restrictions, particularly seeing that third-party interveners, and in particular the Commissioner for Human Rights, have highlighted the importance of the issues involved in this case and the importance of a judgment on the merits from the Court from the own end in this case. To conclude, we respectfully
AP1 (Applicant): argue that effective human rights protection requires that the Court recognize that the Center for Legal Resources has standing to bring proceedings on Valentin Campano's behalf in the specific and exceptional circumstances of this case.
AP1 (Applicant): One of the ways in which this could be achieved is by extending the indirect victim status to the Center for Legal Resources. We submit that this interpretation
AP1 (Applicant): of the indirect victim rule would not add to the State's obligations under the Convention, but that it would ensure a greater protection of the human rights of persons in an exceptionally vulnerable situation like Valentin Campano. The government cannot
AP1 (Applicant): be allowed to escape scrutiny of its compliance with its obligations under the Convention.
Dean Spielmann (JudgeP): Thank you. I call Miss Iorgulescu.
AP2 (Applicant): Mr. President, honorable judges, we formally renew our request
AP2 (Applicant): to this court to find violence of Article 2, 3, 5, 8 taken alone or jointly with Article 13 and 14.
AP2 (Applicant): I will refer in my intervention only to some aspect of the case that are subject of dispute between the parties or which are particularly central to a proper understanding of the case.
AP2 (Applicant): In particular, I will talk about some aspects of our submission under Articles 2, 3, 8, and 13 of the convention.
AP2 (Applicant): At the time when Valentin Campano arrived to the Tretata Social Care Home, his condition was described as stable, generally good state, good appetite, normal parameters.
AP2 (Applicant): In the months before the transfer, Campano has undergone several medical examinations in January, October, November 2003, all of which were generally positive.
AP2 (Applicant): Valentin Campano received regular antiretroviral medication prior to arriving at the Tretata Social Care Home.
AP2 (Applicant): The government acknowledged that it had an obligation to explain the circumstances in which Valentin Campano died, as he was under the control of its agents before he died.
AP2 (Applicant): The government had offered a totally unsatisfactory explanation, claiming in generic terms that HIV is a very serious progressive disease, which eventually kills the person who is infected with.
AP2 (Applicant): Besides being a huge stereotype, this is inaccurate.
AP2 (Applicant): People on drug treatment can now live as long as anybody else.
AP2 (Applicant): Other than relying on stereotypical views, the government failed to offer any explanation for the rapid deterioration in Campano's health after he was transferred to the Tretata Social Care Home, resulting in his death.
AP2 (Applicant): The reality is that Campano died from a lack of treatment and care at the Tretata Social Care Home and Poiana Mare Hospital.
AP2 (Applicant): We'd like to draw the court's attention to several factors leading to this conclusion.
AP2 (Applicant): First of all, the successive transfers between the placement to Tretata Social Care Home and then twice between Tretata and Poiana Mare Hospital were poorly planned and executed.
AP2 (Applicant): In particular, the social services were not able to identify any institution that was willing to accept him.
AP2 (Applicant): Presumably, in order to facilitate Campano's admission, social services arranged for his real intellectual disability to be omitted from his new handicap certificate issued in October 2003.
AP2 (Applicant): As a result, a few days after Valentin Campano arrived to the Tretata, actually in the paper it's about the arrival of the equipment on Valentin Campano, the staff, they are motivated, their inability to provide him with care as they lack the requisite skills to deal with his medical condition and accuse the social services for misleading them.
AP2 (Applicant): Furthermore, it is ironic that Valentin Campano ended up in the Poiana Mare Hospital in the circumstances in which this hospital initially refused to accept him on the basis that it lacked the skills and facilities to treat HIV-positive patients.
AP2 (Applicant): Second, essential drugs and medical history were not passed on during the transfer between institutions.
AP2 (Applicant): Valentin Campano's medical record, as well as the statements by staff involved in his transfer, indicates that his treatment with antiretroviral medication has been discontinued during most of its stay at Tretata Social Care Home.
AP2 (Applicant): The government stated that Valentin Campano's medical record at the Poiana Mare Hospital demonstrated he received antiretroviral medication during his stay there, and that in any event, he did not submit evidence to prove the contrary.
AP2 (Applicant): However, the government ignored our allegation that they were knowingly relying on forged document.
AP2 (Applicant): We pointed out that before the chamber, the government had submitted a duplicate medical record along with the original record available from the original file in domestic proceedings.
AP2 (Applicant): The documents submitted by the government included antiretroviral medication, whereas the original record did not.
AP2 (Applicant): Moreover, the information in the original record that Valentin Campano had not received antiretroviral medication during his stay at the Poiana Mare Hospital is confirmed by a police report dated 8 December 2005.
AP2 (Applicant): Third, the government's recurring suggestion that the Poiana Mare Hospital hygiene conditions were adequate, the alimentation and treatment were properly provided in accordance with the standard existing at the material time, is false, as demonstrated by the admissions of its agents in different circumstances, as well as by the findings of the Committee for the Prevention of Torture and other international organizations, but also by the High Court Prosecutor's Office in 2006.
AP2 (Applicant): For its part, the Committee for the Prevention of Torture highlighted the link between the conditions at the Poiana Mare Hospital and the highly mortality rates between 2002 and 2004 in the report after his visit in 2004.
AP2 (Applicant): By the beginning of 2004, the Romanian authorities were fully aware that living standards and condition of care and treatment at Poiana Mare Hospital were extremely substandard, resulting in a very high patient mortality rate.
AP2 (Applicant): Starting in 1995, the Committee for the Prevention of Torture warned Romanian authorities about the living conditions.
AP2 (Applicant): And in response, in the same year, the Romanian government committed to close the hospital.
AP2 (Applicant): Governmental commissions visiting the hospital in July and September 2003 identified a long list of deficiencies and threatened to apply sanctions to those responsible.
AP2 (Applicant): It follows that the authorities were aware of the situation at the Poiana Mare Hospital and therefore had an obligation to take active measures to protect patients, including by stopping further admissions to the hospital, particularly so where, as in this case, the hospital lacked the necessary facilities and skills to provide valentine companion with the requisite care.
AP2 (Applicant): With respect to the obligation to investigate under Article 2 and 3 on the Convention, we would like to draw attention of the Court to the fact that by decisions in August 2005 and October 2007, the Dolj County Prosecutor's Office and the Calafate First Innocent Court highlighted major flaws into the official investigation, including the failure to gather essential evidence, such as medical records from institutions that were in contact with a valentine companion, prior to his arrival to the Cetate Social Care Home, and to question certain witnesses.
AP2 (Applicant): I want just to draw the Court's attention that my colleague Georgiana Pasco, she has never been asked to put down any kind of witnesses, or she was not invited to any hearings during the criminal proceedings in Romania.
AP2 (Applicant): So the failure to clarify central aspects of the case, including whether Tintanu received antiretroviral medication in the Cetate Social Care Home and the Poenamare Hospital, and the evolution of his state of health at the two institutions, and the treatment he actually received.
AP2 (Applicant): In view of these deficiencies, the two institutions returned the case for additional investigative measures.
AP2 (Applicant): Ultimately, although the flaws they identified were never remedied, the final decision of not indictment survived and became final on April 2008.
AP2 (Applicant): The government sought to rely on the investigation carried out by a commission working under the authority of the Dolt County Prefect in 2004, which concluded that nobody was liable for Campano's death.
AP2 (Applicant): The commission, however, was not independent and impartial, considering that it included a representative of the social services that acted as Campano's guardian up to the age of 18, which transferred Campano to the Cetate Social Care Home, and which failed to ensure he had a guardian after he turned 18.
AP2 (Applicant): The government equally invoked the conclusion of the report dated 20 July 2006 of the Disciplinary Commission of the Physicians Association, which also did not detect any wrongdoing in relation to Campano's death.
AP2 (Applicant): The government omitted, however, to mention the fact that the investigation authorities challenged this report, and that the challenge has been rejected as out of time.
AP2 (Applicant): Anyway, this body also lacked the guarantees of independence from undue influence required under Article 2.
AP2 (Applicant): As for the body normally entitled to carry out such examination, the Forensic Medicine Institute, its task was hampered by the restrictive scope of the questions.
AP2 (Applicant): It had to answer the fact that it did not have all relevant medical records at its disposal.
AP2 (Applicant): The bottom line in relation to Valentin Campano's death is the fact that the Cetate Social Care Home and Buena Mare Hospital clearly lacked the equipment and skills required to deal with an emergency situation, and that during the time of his hospitalization, he only received sedative medication and glucose drip.
AP2 (Applicant): An eminent independent medical expert, which we asked to look at Campano's medical file, concluded that a form of pneumonia, very common in HIV patients, certainly when antiretroviral treatment is substandard, it may well have been the cause of Valentin Campano.
AP2 (Applicant): This hypothesis is corroborated with the conclusion of the autopsy report, which points out pneumonia as a possible cause of death.
AP2 (Applicant): If that was the case, this condition was not diagnosed or treated at Buena Mare Hospital or Cetate Social Care Unit.
AP2 (Applicant): The medical expert consulted by the Center for Legal Resources concluded categorically that faulty medical supervision and substandard medical care demonstrating gross negligence ultimately resulted in Campano's death.
AP2 (Applicant): We therefore call on this Court to find that there have been violations of Article 2 and 3 of the Convention, both with respect to their substantive as well as to their procedural aspects.
AP2 (Applicant): Under Article 8 of the Convention, the government objected that we have not exhausted domestic remedies in this respect, as we don't raise our claims before the domestic courts before.
AP2 (Applicant): The government is making this submission for the first time during this proceeding, and it is stopped doing so.
AP2 (Applicant): The objection also lacks merit.
AP2 (Applicant): The Center for Legal Resources has complained explicitly and implicitly about all aspects of this complaint.
AP2 (Applicant): For example, in the initial complaint to the prosecutor's office in 2004, the Center referred explicitly to Valentin Campano's lack of involvement in the decision to transfer him between institutions prior to his death, as well as the authorities' failure to appoint a guardian, as we have been mandatory under the domestic law.
AP2 (Applicant): We argue that Article 8 was violated onto counts.
AP2 (Applicant): Although the government has not explained their objection to these claims, we wish to briefly reiterate them.
AP2 (Applicant): First, we argue that the state has a positive obligation under Article 8 of the Convention to adopt legislation on legal capacity that is compliant with the court's own jurisprudence in the field, as well as international standards.
AP2 (Applicant): In this case, it is obvious that authorities have failed to appoint a guardian to Campano after he turned 18.
AP2 (Applicant): Guardianship is designed under Romanian legislation as a measure of protection, and guardians are supposed to ensure the rights of the word are adequately protected, eclodic, with respect to compulsory confinement and medical treatment.
AP2 (Applicant): The Romanian legislation, even though the government said we have new Romanian legislation, which is very new and very according to the court's jurisprudence, we may say no.
AP2 (Applicant): The legal capacity is not compatible with international legal standards, mainly because it only permits the measures of full incapacitation and placement under plenary guardianship with the attendant loss of rights.
AP2 (Applicant): In our case, Valentin Campano, guardians up until he was 18 exposed him to the abuses that eventually led to his death.
AP2 (Applicant): Finally, turning to our claims under Article 13 of the Convention, one central requirement is the state must take into account the fact that person may be personally incapable of using their procedural rights, and therefore they should take positive measure to ensure they benefit from redress from any abuses committed against them.
AP2 (Applicant): We reiterate our submission that Article 13, in conjunction with the obligation under Article 2 and 3, imposes an obligation of sound substance to ensure that such establishments are effectively monitored by independent authorities aiming at preventing ill treatment and other forms of abuse.
AP2 (Applicant): Romania does not yet have an adequate mechanism for monitoring places of detention, including the time of the establishment where Valentin Campano died.
AP2 (Applicant): Despite the fact that it is bound to do so according to the optional protocol to the Convention against Torture, it's Romania's sign in July 2009.
Dean Spielmann (JudgeP): Thank you very much. I call Mr. Muižnieks.
TP1 (ThirdParty): Mr. President, distinguished members of the Court,
TP1 (ThirdParty): this is my first appearance before the European Court and the second time that the Council of Europe Commissioner for Human Rights intervenes orally in a hearing before the Court.
TP1 (ThirdParty): This underlines the importance of this case, which will set the position of the Court regarding access to justice of some of the most vulnerable people in Europe, people with intellectual or psychosocial disabilities.
TP1 (ThirdParty): My intervention today is based on, both on observations submitted by my predecessor in October 2011, and on my own assessment of the situation.
TP1 (ThirdParty): Since the beginning of my mandate in April 2012, the rights of persons with disabilities have been a central focus of my work, as reflected in my visits to Austria, Finland, Ireland, the Czech Republic, and Spain.
TP1 (ThirdParty): In the first half of 2012, my office published two issue papers addressing, respectively, the right of people with disabilities to live independently and be included in the community, and secondly, the right to legal capacity for persons with intellectual and psychosocial disabilities.
TP1 (ThirdParty): I've repeatedly highlighted the urgent need to ensure that persons with disabilities, in particular, persons with intellectual and psychosocial disabilities, effectively enjoy their human rights on an equal basis with others, and the importance of guaranteeing participation of such persons in all decisions affecting their lives.
TP1 (ThirdParty): My overall assessment of the situation is that the living conditions of persons with disabilities are, in general, unsatisfactory.
TP1 (ThirdParty): Thousands of them are kept in old, secluded institutions.
TP1 (ThirdParty): School segregation still affects many children with disabilities, and discrimination in the job market is widespread.
TP1 (ThirdParty): International standards, in particular, the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, the CRPD, and the Council of Europe Disability Action Plan, enshrine far-reaching rights for persons with disabilities.
TP1 (ThirdParty): However, implementation has been slow and remains inadequate in all member states, without exception.
TP1 (ThirdParty): I've paid special attention to the situation of persons with intellectual and psychosocial disabilities, who constitute a particularly stigmatized and vulnerable group, and who continue to be deprived of their most basic human rights in many member states.
TP1 (ThirdParty): My main concern is that cases concerning human rights violations experienced by people with disabilities are often not brought to courts.
TP1 (ThirdParty): Access to justice for persons with disabilities, and in particular, intellectual disabilities, remains highly problematic, notably due to inadequate legal incapacitation procedures and restrictive rules on legal standing.
TP1 (ThirdParty): There's an urgent need to reform outdated and non-CRPD-compliant legal capacity legislation throughout Europe, especially through the establishment of supported decision-making.
TP1 (ThirdParty): The situation of persons with intellectual and psychosocial disabilities and the protection of human rights in psychiatric care settings were addressed in two reports which followed my visits to Austria and the Czech Republic.
TP1 (ThirdParty): In Austria, there's currently a debate about legal capacity and the introduction of supported autonomous decision-making for persons with intellectual or psychosocial disabilities.
TP1 (ThirdParty): An interesting aspect I noted in the Austrian system is that patients' ombudsmen, ombudspersons, act as legal representatives in court proceedings for involuntary placement and also support individuals during their stay in hospitals or psychiatric departments.
TP1 (ThirdParty): In principle, their tasks end by law when the individual dies in an institution.
TP1 (ThirdParty): However, in 2010, the Austrian Supreme Court of Justice held that their power of representation remains in such cases as otherwise there would be a gap in human rights protection.
TP1 (ThirdParty): And I think that is what we're discussing today, is gaps in human rights protection.
TP1 (ThirdParty): While in the Czech Republic, I expressed concerns about the generalized practice of the courts to fully deprive persons with disabilities of their legal capacity, despite their de facto ability to perform a series of the acts required in daily life.
TP1 (ThirdParty): Therefore, I warmly welcome the legislative changes adopted by the Czech government, which abolish the full deprivation of legal capacity as of 1 January 2014 and introduce a system of supported decision-making as an alternative to the guardianship system based on substitute decision-making.
TP1 (ThirdParty): The failure of the state to take appropriate measures to provide access for persons with disabilities to the support they may require in exercising their legal capacity raises an issue under Article 8 of the Convention.
TP1 (ThirdParty): A positive obligation on the state to provide such support can be inferred from international law.
TP1 (ThirdParty): This entails an obligation to initiate incapacitation procedures if necessary and to appoint a legal representative.
TP1 (ThirdParty): Support is of the utmost importance in order to give access to justice to people with intellectual disabilities.
TP1 (ThirdParty): Without assistance, these persons are often not in a position to make themselves heard.
TP1 (ThirdParty): I'm aware that Article 34 of the Convention requires that an applicant should claim to be a victim of a violation of one of the rights set forth in the Convention, that is, to have been directly affected by the violation alleged.
TP1 (ThirdParty): Nevertheless, the Court has permitted applications by indirect victims in a number of cases, for instance, close relatives of a deceased person alleging violations of the right to life.
TP1 (ThirdParty): The Court has also accepted to examine cases in which an applicant had died in the course of the proceedings or cases in which the applicant had died before the submission of the application by close relatives.