5.  The applicant was born in 1968 and is detained in Rezina. 6.  The applicant was sentenced to life imprisonment on an unknown date some 10 years prior to the relevant events and is serving his sentence in prison no. 17 in Rezina. On 16 March 2011 the prison administration found a mobile phone in his cell. Since this is an object possession of which is prohibited by prison rules, on 23 March 2011 the prison administration sanctioned him with a reprimand. 7.  On 26 July 2011 the prison board decided that the applicant was always to be handcuffed when moving outside his cell. An extract from the decision of the prison board issued to the applicant noted that the prison board had “examined [the applicant]” and had decided to apply handcuffs. No further reasons were given and the length of the period for which the measure was to apply was not specified. It appears from the applicant’s submissions that the measure was revoked at an extraordinary meeting of the prison board five months after it was imposed. 8.  On 28 July 2011 the applicant asked the prison administration on what grounds the prison board had decided that he should be handcuffed. On 3 August 2011 he was informed that the sanction had been applied on the basis of order no. 4 of the Prisons Department (see paragraph 17 below). No further details were given. 9.  In a letter dated 26 September 2011 the Prisons Department informed the applicant, in response to his request, that the use of handcuffs and other restraints was prescribed by the Regulation Concerning the Serving of Sentences, adopted by Government Decision no. 583 of 26 May 2006 (“the Regulation” – see paragraphs 14 and 16 below). 10.  Also on 26 September 2011 the applicant challenged the prison board’s decision before the investigating judge, arguing that he had been sanctioned twice for the same offence, contrary to the express legal requirements, and that he had not been informed of the reasons for the decision to handcuff him. He noted that handcuffing was a sanction and relied on the reply of the Prisons Department (see the preceding paragraph) in arguing that that sanction could only be applied on the basis of the Regulation and not some secret order. None of the circumstances in respect of which the Regulation provided for the use of handcuffs had been cited by the prison board. 11.  In their submissions to the court, the prison administration argued that the sanction had been lawfully applied and that the applicant had been properly informed. The prosecutor, who also participated in the hearing, added that the sanction had been necessary in order to prevent the applicant posing any danger to other detainees. 12.  On 25 November 2011 the Rezina District Court dismissed the applicant’s complaint as unfounded. It found that the measure in question had been applied lawfully and in order to prevent the applicant posing any danger to other detainees. That decision was final. 13.  The applicant attempted to have the decision quashed by using an extraordinary remedy, but on 3 October 2012 the Supreme Court of Justice refused his request. 14.  Under Article 593 of the Regulation Concerning the Serving of Sentences, adopted by Government Decision no. 583 of 26 May 2006 (“the Regulation”), only one sanction may be applied in respect of a disciplinary offence. 15.  Under Article 95 of the Regulation, as modified on 26 September 2008, persons serving life imprisonment shall be handcuffed when moving outside their cells if it is established during the last evaluation that the absence of such a measure will pose an immediate danger to other detainees, prison staff or other persons. Evaluations of this kind shall be carried out at least once every six months. 16.  Under Article 219 of the Regulation, a detainee may be handcuffed if (i) he or she physically resists prison staff or “is infuriated” (until he or she calms down), (ii) he or she refuses to move under escort, (iii) there are grounds for believing that there is a risk of the detainee escaping, (iv) he or she attempts suicide or self-mutilation, or attacks other detainees (until the detainee calms down), or (v) during the escorting of a detainee after his or her escape and subsequent apprehension. 17.  According to the Government, order no. 4 of the Prisons Department adopted on 13 January 2009 provides, in section 39/1, that the prison board may decide on whether there is any need to handcuff a person sentenced to imprisonment for life or whether to remove handcuffs from such a person, depending on the degree of danger posed by him or her. 18.  The European Prison Rules (annex to Recommendation Rec(2006)2 of the Committee of Ministers to member States of 11 January 2006), in so far relevant, read as follows:
“... 68.2 Handcuffs, restraint jackets and other body restraints shall not be used except:
a. if necessary, as a precaution against escape during a transfer, provided that they are removed when the prisoner appears before a judicial or administrative authority, unless that authority decides otherwise; or
b. by order of the director, if other methods of control fail, in order to protect a prisoner from self-injury [or] injury to others or to prevent serious damage to property, provided that in such instances the director shall immediately inform the medical practitioner and report to the higher prison authority. 68.3 Instruments of restraint shall not be applied for any longer time than is strictly necessary.
...” 19.  The relevant parts of the 25th General Report (April 2016) of the European Committee for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (CPT/Inf (2016) 10) provide as follows:
“The basic objectives and principles for the treatment of life-sentenced prisoners 74. In the CPT’s view, the objectives and principles for the treatment of life-sentenced prisoners enunciated by the Committee of Ministers in Recommendation Rec (2003) 23 on the management by prison administrations of life sentence and other long-term prisoners remains the most pertinent and comprehensive reference document for this group of prisoners. In summary, these principles are:
...
- the normalisation principle: life-sentenced prisoners should, like all prisoners, be subject only to the restrictions that are necessary for their safe and orderly confinement;
...
Conclusion 81. The CPT calls upon member states to review their treatment of life-sentenced prisoners to ensure that this is in accordance with their individual risk they present, both in custody and to the outside community, and not simply in response to the sentence which has been imposed on them. In particular, steps should be taken by the member states concerned to abolish the legal obligation of keeping life-sentenced prisoners separate from other (long-term) sentenced prisoners and to put an end to the systematic use of security measures such as handcuffs inside the prison.”