Source: http://www.juricaf.org/arret/CONSEILDELEUROPE-COUREUROPEENNEDESDROITSDELHOMME-19831212-990782
Timestamp: 2017-01-19 21:39:22+00:00

Document:
M. c. ROYAUME-UNI
Page d'accueil > Résultats de la recherche M. c. ROYAUME-UNI
Type d'affaire : DecisionType de recours : Partielllement recevable ; partielllement irrecevableNumérotation : Numéro d'arrêt : 9907/82Identifiant URN:LEX : urn:lex;coe;cour.europeenne.droits.homme;arret;1983-12-12;9907.82 Analyses : (Art. 6-1) DELAI RAISONNABLE, (Art. 6-1) JUGEMENT PUBLIC, (Art. 6-1) PROCES EQUITABLEParties : Demandeurs : M.Défendeurs : ROYAUME-UNITexte : APPLICATION / REQUÃTE NÂ° 9907/82 M . v/the UNITED KINGDO M M . c/ROYAUME-UN I DECISION of 12 December 1983 on the admissibility of the application DECISION du 12 dÃ©cembre 1983 sur la recevabilitÃ© de la requ@t e
A rticle 3 of the Convention : Isolation and strict surveillance of a psychopathic prisoner, deemed highlv dangerous and untreatable . Given the need to protect the safety of other persons in the establishment, the constant psychiatric controls and the prospect of more comfonable accommodation, the conditions of detention could not be said to have attained the degree of severin, prohibited by Anicle 3 . Article 3 de la Convention : Isolement et surveillance Ã©troite d'un dÃ©tenu psychopathe jugÃ© trÃ¨s dangereux et incurable . Vu la nÃ©cessitÃ©de sauvegarder la sÃ©curitÃ© des autres personnes se trouvant dans l'Ã©tablissement, la surveillance psychiatrique constante et la perspective d'un logement plus confonable, les condirions de la dÃ©tention ne peuvent Ã©tre considÃ©rÃ©es comme atteignant le niveau prohibÃ© par l'arricle 3 .
(franÃ§ais : voir p. 136)
The facts as they have been submitted by the applicant, a British citizen born in 1953, who is detained in Wakefield Prison, may be summarised as follows : On 26 June 1974 the applicant appeared before the Central Criminal Court, accused of killing and robbing a man, in order to purchase drugs in March 1974, while working as a male prostitute . He pleaded guilty to manslaughter with diminished responsibility and was sentenced to be detained at Broadmoor Special Hospital, under Sections 60 and 65 of the Mental Health Act 1959 . During 1976 the applicant attempted to strangle another patient, and took part in seizing a third patient as a hostage . In February 1977, while in Broadmoor, the applicant killed another inmate, with an accomplice and was charged and convicted of murder before Reading Crown Court on 6 October 1977 . He was sentenced to
life imprisonment, with the recommendation by the Judge that consideration be given to his return to a special hospital, under Section 72 of the Mental Health Act 1959 . The medical reports prepared before and after the trial predominently concluded that, although the applicant was suffering from psychopathic disorders, there was no evidence of mental illness, and so no basis for a direction under Section 72 of the Mental Health Act . Nevertheless, one consultant, Dr A ., considered that it should be possible to contain and care for the applicant in a special hospital, and stated that he would be prepared to give medical evidence in support of a Section 60 Order, if the Court thought it appropriate . In addition, Dr B . affirmed that "one would hope that with the passage of time (the applicant's) personality would mature . . ." The applicant was, Iherefore, imprisoned in Wakefield Prison, but kept on normal location . Whilst in Wakefield Prison, on 29 July 1978, the applicant killed two fellow prisoners and was charged with murder, charges on which he was convicted on 16 March 1979 by Leeds Crown Court, and sentenced to life imprisonment . He gave no reasons for these murders, and none was apparent, except that he stated that he was depressed . From 29 July 1978 to date, the applicant has been in F Wing at Wakefield Prison, in a special cell which he describes as a"cage", removed from association, pursuant to Rule 43 (b) of the Prison Rules . The applicant contends that he spends 23 hours each day in his cell, the remaining hour being spent in an exercise yard . He is never allowed to associate, or speak to, or see any other prisoner in the prison . His only human contact is, therefore, with figures of authority . His cell, which he describes as a"cage", since it has a cage-like door made of steel mesh, measures approximately 2 metres by approximately 4 metres, which is a standard size in Wakefield Prison . The applicant has no frame for his bed, which consists of four mattresses on the floor . The remaining furniture consists of one cardboard chair, one cardboard table and one cardboard corner fitting . The window of the cell is approximately 2 metres from the ground, and the glass is approximately I centimetre thick, and frosted . so that it is opaque . There is a further ventilation gap, which measures 7 .5 centimetres by 15 centimetres, and through which the applicant can see a blank wall directly opposite, and, for a band of approximately one centimetre, the sky . The applicant is allowed to receive one bath a week, or two, if staff requirements allow it . Whenever he leaves his cell, he is accompanied by a total of five prison officers, but a privacy door separates him from them while he has bath : the applicant contends that this is not effective to grant him privacy . He is not permitted to attend church services . However, the visiting catholic priest has visited the applicant at the latter's request, such visits taking place with the priest staying outside the steel mesh 'cage-door' of the applicant's cell . The applicant contends that in these conditions he cannot take communion, as it would be a travesty of his beliefs . - 131 -
The applicant is not permitted to attend the prison library or weekly film shows, or to watch any television or to visit the prison shop . He does have access to the library trolley twice a week, which contains a limited selection of some 300 books, which are changed approximately every 8 weeks . He also has access to the two wing newspapers . He may use a radio, providing he uses an earphone (at whatever time of day), in order that it is not overheard by other prisoners, which he contends results in a periodic ear complaint, necessitating the syringing of his ears, most recently in May 1982 . Providing that sufficient staff is available (four ordinary officers and one senior officer), the applicant may leave his cell to slop out as required . In any event, he may slop out after each meal (similarly accompanied), but this necessitates using a chamber pot in his cell at other times . He may also leave his cell to collect mea)s, spending the minimum time necessary outside his cell for this purpose, and accompanied, as on all occasions when he leaves his cell, by five prison officers . He eats his meals in his cell, for which purpose he is only provided with a plastic spoon, the plastic knife and fork provided for other prisoners being considered a security risk . The applicant receives visits from one person from outside the prison in a special cubicle, measuring some 2 metres by 3 metres, adjoining the visiting area . Visits take place in conditions of strict security, requiring the presence of at least two prison officers in the cubicle . Three further offtcers, one of whom must be a senior officer, are immediately outside the cubicle . The applicant contends that this denies privacy, and imposes an oppressive and restrictive atmosphere . At no time does the applicant have any contact with any other prisoner . The applicant further states that no psychiatrist has interviewed him, nor examined him, since March 1979, when he was visited to establish his reaction to receiving two further sentences of life imprisonment, and was told that he was 'untreatable' . According to information provided by the respondent Government, pursuant to Rule 42, para . 2 (a) of the Rules of Procedure of the Commission, the applicant was examined by the Principal Medical Officer at Wakefield, who is a qualified psychiatrist, before his trial in March 1979, and also by a consultant psychiatrist for the defence . Both psychiatrists concluded that the applicants was not suffering from mental illness, and that there was nothing to suggest that his condition was susceptible to psychiatric treatment . The applicant was seen by the psychiatrist for the defence on several occasions after the trial . At Wakefield Prison he is seen daily by the Principal or the Senior Medical Officer, both of whom have psychiatric qualifications . He receives small doses of anti-depressants and / or tranquillisers, as required, treatment which is discussed with him . In the opinion of the Principal Medical Officer, there has been no change in the applicant's mental state since July t978, and he continues not to be treatable . The applicant accepts that he is seen, Beetingly, by the Medical Officer dailyfor long enough to say "Good moming" and insists that no thorough assessment of his treatability has been conducted since 1979 . He therefore contends that there i s
no adequate basis upon which to conclude that he remains untreatable, some four years later . On 28 October 1981 the applicant petitioned the Home Secretary for a transfer from Wakefield Prison, in order to alleviate his conditions . On 9 September 1981 the applicant also petitioned the Regional Director of Prisons, to reduce the severity of his conditions of detention, which he described as inhuman, and constituting mental torture . On 3 November 1981 . the applicant petitioned Lord Belstead, the Minister of State at the Home Office, for a transfer, in order to alleviate his frustration, and for a reduction in the severity of his conditions . The Home Office replied to these three petitions by one letter of 21 June 1982, as follows : "The Secretary of State has fully considered all the issues raised in your petitions, but regrets to have to inform you that he is not prepared to grant any of your requests . " The applicant has also attempted to raise the conditions of his detention, through Lord Avebury, and through two Members of Parliament . The respondent Government have stated that consideration is being given to moving the applicant to a different cell, which would be larger, have integral sanitation, and might permit limited association with other prisoners on a basis commensurate with security .
COMPLAINTS The applicant contends that the conditions of his detention, and in pa rt icular his solitary confinement, constitute mental tort ure . Fu rt hermore, he contends that the general conditions of his detention are inhuman and degrading . He invokes Article 3 of the Convention .
With regard to the conditions of the applicant's detention, he is detained in a cell with a special steel mesh front partition, faced with an outer door, which is normally kept open, unless the applicant requests otherwise . The cell, which is of normal size, is lit by diffused natural light, through a window with frosted glass, and contains three items of fumiture, apart from the applicant's bed, which is made up of four foam mattresses placed one on top of the other . The conditions of the applicant's cell are, therefore, distinguishable from those of other prisoners in the same prison, and, in particular, other prisoners remove d
from association under Rule 43 of the Prison Rules, by virtue of the sparse furnishing . and, more especially, by virtue of the wire mesh inner door to the cell, which gives rise to its description as a"cage" . The Commission does not consider that the fumishings themselves reveal particularly stringent conditions of detention for the applicant . In particular the applicant does not allege that they are not functional, albeit the bare minimum for the requirements of a long terrn prisoner . Nor does the fact that they are made out of cardboard have any particular significance, apart from the very important security consideration which is implied . Nevertheless these sparse furnishings must be seen in the context of the whole of the applicant's conditions of detention, and, in particular . the fact that he has practically no opportunity to leave these surroundings . The Commission considers this particularly relevant in connection with the wire mesh door to the applicant's cell, which must operate as a constant reminder to him of his special status in the prison . Furtherroore the reference to the cell thus equipped as a "cage", even though this is neither accurate, nor its official description by the prison authorities, clearly carries with it humiliating overtones of inhuman conditions . The Commission notes, however, the objective which lies behind the existence of this mesh door, which is, on the one hand, to enable the applicant to have some further contact with the prison community when his outer door is open, whilst, on the other hand, providing the measure of security deemed necessary by the prison authorities to prevent or hinder any outbreaks of violence by the applicant . This risk is undoubtedly real . It is clear from the applicant's past behaviour that he is an extremely dangerous prisoner . In particular, the applicant has, in the past, when able to associate with other prisoners, repeatedly been involved in extremely violent assaults on other inmates, with an attempted murder in 1976, and three specific murders, including two of fellow prisoners in 1978 . In addition, the Commission must take account of the fact that, although the applicant's outbursts of violence in 1976 and 1977 were apparently connected with attempts to obtain release . there was no specific reason for the two murders in 1978, which arose according to the applicant, because he was "depressed" . In these circumstances, there is a clear need for extrenie security precautions in relation to the applicant, and this need is reflected in the provision of the wire mesh door to his cell . The Commission must regard this as the implementation of a legitimate objective, and, in this respect, must also take account of the fact that the outer door is kept closed if the applicant so wishes . The applicant also complains of the degree of his isolation from the remainder of the prison community, and the extraordinary circumstances in which he can leave his cell, accompanied by five prison officers . Clearly the degree of the applicant's isolation is extreme and affects all aspects of his daily life, including the rare occasions on which he leaves his cell, for example for visits and baths . Furthermore i t - 134 -
has already lasted since July 1978 in a substantially unchanged form, although the possibility of a change in these conditions, with the availability of a new type of cell, is under consideration . The Commission must consider the object and purpose of these restrictions in the light of the available evidence, and, in particular, in the light of the applicant's past behaviour . As has already been stated, the applicant has committed, inter alia, two murders of fellow prisoners for no apparent reason, and is suffering from psychopathic disorders which have been described by leading consultants as "umreatble" . In these circumstances, the Commission considers that the respondent Government's duty to ensure the safety and the welfare of the prison population, as a whole, extends beyond the conditions of the applicant, taken in isolation, to include that of other inmates, and the prison staff . In the light of the applicant's unpredictable and violent behaviour, and the wholly exceptional risks which it is considered that he represents to the whole of the population of Wakefield Prison, the Commission must regard the conditions of his isolation as the implementation of a legitimate objective . Furthermore, the respondent Government have informed the Commission, pursuant to Rule 42, para . 2 (a) of its Rules of Procedure, of the prospect of providing the applicant, in the near future, with a different cell, which would provide much more room, and would include integral sanitation, which it is hoped will also permit some limited association with other prisoners . This is a significant prospect for a change in conditions of the applicant's detention, which would permit the security provisions applied to the applicant to be ameliorated .
The applicant is also able to use a radio at all times, and has access to books and two daily newspapers . These are important aspects of his detention, which illustrate that the prison authorities have not restricted the applicant's indirect contact with the outside world, where this is possible within the confines of the requirements of safety . In addition, the applicant is able to receive visits, albeit under conditions of great security, and his contact with other human beings is not, therefore, wholly limited to figures in authority . The Commission must also examine the applicant's general conditions and, in particular, the degree and duration of his isolation, in the light of the effects they have had on him, in order to determine whether or not they come within the degree of seriousness such as to raise an issue under Article 3 of the Convention . The applicant particularly complains that he has not been subject to a thorough psychiatric examination since immediately after his trial in March 1979, and he contends that there is, therefore, no basis for the view, held by the respondent Government, that he is still suffering from an untreatable psychiatric disorder justifying the extraordinary conditions of his detention . He stresses, in particular, that the prognosis of one consultant was that â¢ one could hope that with the passage of time (the applicant's) personality would mature . . ." .
The applicant's medical and mental health is kept under review by the principal medical officer of Wakefield Prison, and the other medical staff . Both the principal medical officer, and the senior medical officer, one of whom sees the applicant daily, have psychiatric qualifications, although the applicant contends that their visits are brief and perfunctory . â¢ The Commission has already referred to the duty upon a detaining authority to maintain a continuous review of the detention arrangements of prisoners in exceptional isolation, with a view to ensuring the health and well-being of all prisoners, with due regard to the ordinary and reasonable requirements of imprisonment . This includes the provision of specialist medical psychiatric anention, where this is necessary, as part of the positivie duty owed to detainees in such circumstances . The scope of this duty must vary in accordance with the particular conditions of a given detainee, as well as the requirements of the prison as a whole and of its entire population . In the present case, bearing in mind the qualifications of those who are responsible for the applicants medical and mental welfare, and the continuous review which they exercise in respect of the applicant, and in the absence of any suggestion by the applicant that his mental or physical state has deteriorated during his detention in these conditions, the Commission concludes that severe though they are, they do not attain such a degree of harshness in the particular case of the applicant, as to raise an issue under Article 3 of the Convention . It follows that this application is manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 27, p ara . 2 of the Convention .
(TRADUCTION) EN FAI T Les faits, tels qu'ils ont Ã©tÃ© exposÃ©s par le requÃ©rant, ressonissant britannique nÃ© en 1953 et dÃ©tenu Ã la prison de Wakefield, peuvent se rÃ©sumer comme suit : Le 26 juin 1974, le requÃ©rant a comparu devant le tribunal pÃ©nal central, sur l'inculpation de vol et de meurtre perpÃ©trÃ©s dans le but d'acheter de la drogue en mars 1974, alors qu'il travaillait comme prostituÃ© . Il plaida coupable sur le chef d'homicide mais invoqua sa responsabilitÃ© attÃ©nuÃ©e et fut condamnÃ© Ã Ãªtre intemÃ© Ã l'hdpital psychiatrique de Broadmoor, conformÃ©ment aux articles 60 et 65 de la loi de 1959 sur les malades mentaux .
Au cours de l'annÃ©e 1976, le requÃ©rant essaya d'Ã©trangler un autre patient et participa Ã la prise en otage d'un troisiÃ¨me . En fÃ©vrier 1977, alors qu'il Ã©tait Ã Broadmoor, le requÃ©rant, aidÃ© d'un complice, tua un autre pensionnaire de l'Ã©tablissement et fut reconnu coupable de meurtre par le tribunal de Reading le 6 octobre 1977 . Le juge le condamna Ã la prison Ã vie, en recommandant d'examiner sa rÃ©intÃ©gration dans un hÃ´pital psychiatrique, conformÃ©ment Ã l'article 72 de la loi de 1959 sur les malades mentaux . Les rapports Ã©tablis par les mÃ©decins avant et aprÃ¨s le procÃ¨s concluaient essentiellement que si le requÃ©rant souffrait de troubles psychopathiques, rien ne prouvait cependant l'existence d'une maladie mentale, de sorte qu'il n'existait pas de base lÃ©gale Ã une dÃ©cision conforme Ã l'article 72 de la loi prÃ©citÃ©e . NÃ©anmoins, l'un des consultants, le Dr A ., estima qu'il devait Ã¨tre possible de maintenir ou de soigner le requÃ©rant dans un Ã©tablissement psychiatrique et se dÃ©clara disposÃ© Ã fournir les Ã©lÃ©ments mÃ©dicaux nÃ©cessaires Ã la dÃ©livrance d'une ordonnance conforme Ã l'article 60 si le tribunal l'estimait appropriÃ© . De plus, le Dr B . affirma que -l'on pouvait espÃ©rer qu'avec le temps, la personnalitÃ© (du requÃ©rant) deviendrait plus mature . . . - Le requÃ©rant fut donc incarcÃ©rÃ© Ã la prison de Wakefield mais dans des quartiers normaux . Pendant qu'il Ã©tait dans cette prison, le 29 juillet 1978, le requÃ©rant tua deux co-dÃ©tenus et fut accusÃ© du crime de meurtre, dont le tribunal de Leeds le reconnut coupable le 16 mars 1979 et pour lequel il le condamna Ã la prison Ã perpÃ©tuitÃ© . Le requÃ©rant ne fournit aucun motif pour expliquer ces meurtres et il n'y en avait aucun apparent, sauf l'Ã©tat de dÃ©pression oÃ¹ il affirmait se trouver . Depuis le 29 juillet 1978, le requÃ©rant se trouve dans le bÃ¢timent F de la prison de Wakefield, dans une cellule spÃ©ciale qu'il dÃ©crit comme Ã©tant une â¢cageâ¢, sÃ©parÃ© du reste des dÃ©tenus conformÃ©ment Ã l'anicle 43 b) du RÃ¨glement pÃ©nitentiaire . Le requÃ©rant soutient que, chaque jour, il passe 23 heures dans sa cellule et la 24Â° dans une cour pour prendre un peu d'exercice . Il n'est jamais autorisÃ© Ã se mÃªler aux autres dÃ©tenus, Ã leur parler ou Ã les voir . Il n'a donc de contact humain qu'avec des reprÃ©sentants de l'autoritÃ© . Sa cellule, qu'il dÃ©crit comme une â¢cage - parce qu'elle est dotÃ©e d'une porte en acier grillagÃ©, mesure environ deux mÃ¨tres sur quatre, ce qui correspond Ã la norme pour les cellules de la prison de Wakefield . Le requÃ©rant n'a pas de chÃ¢lit mais un lit composÃ© de quatre matelas posÃ©s sur le sol, le reste du mobilier comprenant une chaise, une table et une Ã©tagÃ¨re d'angle, le tout en carton rigide, la fenÃ¨tre de la cellule est situÃ©e Ã environ deux mÃ©tres du sol et la vitre, Ã©paisse d'un cm Ã peu prÃ¨s, est en verre dÃ©poli, et donc opaque . La cellule comporte un autre trou d'aÃ©ration, de 7,5 cm sur 15, par lequel le requÃ©rant peut apercevoir juste en face un mur blanc, ainsi qu'une bande de ciel par un espace large d'environ I cm . Le requÃ©rant est autorisÃ© Ã prendre un ou deux bains par semaine si les nÃ©cessitÃ©s du service le permettent . Chaque fois qu'il quitte sa cellule, il est escortÃ© de cinq gardiens au total, mais une porte l'en sÃ©pare lorsqu'il est dans le bain . Le requÃ©ran t
soutient que cela ne lui laisse pratiquement pas d'intimitÃ© . Il n'est pas autorisÃ© Ã assister Ã l'office Ã l'Ã©glise mais, sur sa demande, l'aumÃ´nier catholique lui a rendu visite ; pendant ces visites, le prÃªtre reste Ã l'extÃ©rieur de la porte en acier grillagÃ© de la =cageâ¢ . Le requÃ©rant soutient que, dans ces conditions, il ne peut pas prendre la communion car ce serait parodier ses convictions . Le requÃ©rant n'est pas autorisÃ© Ã frÃ©quenter la bibliothÃ¨que de la prison ni le s projections cinÃ©matographiques hebdomadaires, ni Ã regarder la tÃ©lÃ©vision ou Ã se rendre Ã la cantine . Il a par contre accÃ¨s, deux fois par semaine, au chariot de la bibliothÃ¨que qui offre un choix limitÃ© de quelques 300 livres que l'on change environ toutes les huit semaines . Il peut Ã©galement empntnter les deux joumaux circulant dans le pavillon . Il peut aussi utiliser un poste de radio Ã condition de se servir d'un Ã©couteur individuel (Ã tout moment de la journÃ©e), de faÃ§on Ã n'Ãªtre pas entendu des autres dÃ©tenus . Selon lui, cet Ã©couteur lui provoque une otalgie pÃ©riodique, ce qui l'oblige Ã se soumettre Ã des injections, la derniÃ¨re fois en mai 1 982 . A condition qu'il y ait suffisamment de personnel disponible (quatre gardiens ordinaires et un gardien principal), le requÃ©rant peut quitter sa cellule pour sortir faire ses besoins . Il peut aller Ã la toilette aprÃ¨s chaque repas (toujours avec ses accompagnateurs), mais il lui faut utiliser un pot de chambre dans sa cellule les autres fois . Il peut aussi quitter sa cellule pour aller chercher ses repas dans le minimum de temps et accompagnÃ©, comme toujours lorsqu'il quitte sa cellule, de cinq gardiens . Il mange dans sa cellule et il ne lui est foumi Ã cet effet qu'une cuiller en plastique, la fourchette et le couteau en plastique foumis aux autres dÃ©tenus Ã©tant considÃ©rÃ©s pour lui comme un risque pour la sÃ©curitÃ© . Le requÃ©rant reÃ§oit les visites d'une seule personne extÃ©rieure Ã la prison dans un habitacle spÃ©cial de deux mÃ¨tres sur trois, qui jouxte le parloir . Lesvisites se dÃ©roulent dans des conditions de sÃ©curitÃ© trÃ¨s strictes, en prÃ©sence d'au moins deux gardiens dans l'habitacle . Trois autres gardiens, dont l'un doit Ã©tre un gardien-chef, se trouvent juste Ã la porte de l'habitacle . Le requÃ©rant soutient que cela empÃ¨che toute intimitÃ© et impose une atmosphÃ©re oppressante et restrictive . A aucun moment, le requÃ©rant n'a de contact avec un autre dÃ©tenu . Le requÃ©rant affirme, en outre, qu'aucun psychiatre ne l'a interrogÃ© ni examinÃ© depuis mars 1979, date Ã laquelle un spÃ©cialiste lui a rendu visite pour se rendre compte de sa rÃ©action Ã l'annonce d'abord de deux autres peines de prison Ã perpÃ©tuitÃ©, ensuite du fait qu'il Ã©tait . incurable Â» . Selon les informations foumies par le Gouvernement dÃ©fendeur, conformÃ©ment Ã l'article 42, par . a, du RÃ¨glement intÃ©rieur de la Commission, le requÃ©rant a Ã©tÃ© examinÃ© par le mÃ©decin principal de Wakefield, psychiatre qualifiÃ©, avant son procÃ¨s en mars 1979, ainsi que par un psychiatre consultant dÃ©signÃ© par la dÃ©fense . L'un et l'autre psychiatres ont conclu que le requÃ©rant ne souffrait pas de maladie mentale et que rien ne donnait Ã penser que son Ã©tat appelait un traitement psychiatrique . Le psychiatre choisi par la dÃ©fense a examinÃ© le requÃ©rant Ã plusieurs reprises aprÃ¨s le procÃ¨s . A la prison de Wakefield, le mÃ©decin principal ou le mÃ©decin-chef le voit quotidiennement et tous deux son t
qualifiÃ©s en psychiatrie . L'intÃ©ressÃ© reÃ§oit de faibles doses d'antidÃ©presseurs et/ou de tranquillisants, le cas Ã© chÃ©ant, et le mÃ©decin discute avec lui de ce traitement . Selon le mÃ©decin principal, il n'y a eu aucune amÃ©lioration dans l'Ã©tat mental du requÃ©rant depuis juillet 1978 et l'intÃ©ressÃ© relÃ¨ve toujours de la catÃ©gorie des incurables . Le requÃ©rant reconnait que le mÃ©decin le voit quotidiennement, mais Ã la hÃ¢te, le temps de dire - bonjour . et il persiste Ã dire que, depuis 1979, aucune apprÃ©ciation approfondie du caractÃ¨re curable de son Ã©tat n'a Ã©tÃ© faite . En consÃ©quence, selon lui, rien ne permet de fonder la conclusion que, quatre ans plus tard, il est toujours impossible de le traiter . Le 28 octobre 1981, le requÃ©rant a demandÃ© au ministre de l'IntÃ©rieur de qui tt er la prison de Wakefield pour un autre Ã©tablissement afin d'attÃ©nuer la rigueur de sa dÃ©tention . Le 9 septembre 1981, il a Ã©galement demandÃ© au directeur gÃ©nÃ©ral des se rv ices pÃ©nitentiaires de diminuer la ri gueur de ses conditions de dÃ©tention, qu'il qualifte d'inhumaines et d'Ã©quivalentes Ã une to rt ure mentale . Le 3 novembre 1981, le requÃ©rant a de nouveau demandÃ© son transfe rt Ã Lord Belstead, ministre d'Etat au ministÃ¨re de l'IntÃ©rieur, pour attÃ©nuer sa frustation et rÃ©duire la rigueur de sa dÃ©tention . Le ministÃ¨re de l'IntÃ©rieur a rÃ©pondu Ã ses trois demandes par une seule lettre du 21 juin 1982, ainsi libellÃ©e : .Le Ministre a pleinement examinÃ© toutes les questions soulevÃ©es par vos requÃ©tes, mais a le regret de devoir vous informer qu'il n'est disposÃ© Ã donner suite Ã aucune de vos demandes . Le requÃ©rant a Ã©galement tentÃ© de soulever le problÃ¨me des conditions de sa dÃ©tention par l'intermÃ©diaire de Lord Avebury et de deux parlementaires . Le Gouvernement dÃ©fendeur a dÃ©clarÃ© qu'on examine actuellement la possibilitÃ© de dÃ©placer le requÃ©rant dans une cellule diffÃ©rente, qui serait plus vaste, aurait des installations sanitaires complÃ¨tes et permettrait une participation limitÃ©e Ã la vie des autres dÃ©tenus, dans une mesure compatible avec la sÃ©curitÃ© .
GRIEFS Le requÃ©rant soutient que les conditions de sa dÃ©tention, notamment son isolement cellulai re , constituent une torture mentale . Il prÃ©tend en outre que les conditions gÃ©nÃ©rales de son internement sont inhumaines et dÃ©gradantes . 11 invoque l'article 3 de la Convention .
En ce qui conceme les conditions de dÃ©tention, le requÃ©rant est incarcÃ©rÃ© dans une cellule dont la paroi frontale est une cloison en acier grillagÃ©, devant laquelle se trouve une porte qui reste normalement ouverte, Ã moins que le requÃ©rant ne demande de la fermer . La piÃ¨ce, de taille normale, est Ã©clairÃ©e par la lumiÃ¨re naturelle diffusÃ©e par une fenÃªtre en verre dÃ©poli, et comporte trois piÃ¨ces de mobilier, en dehors du lit du requÃ©rant, composÃ© de quatre matelas-mousse superposÃ©s . . La cellule du requÃ©rant se distingue donc des cellules des autres dÃ©tenus de la mÃªme prison, et notamment des dÃ©tenus sÃ©parÃ©s de la population pÃ©nitentiaire en vertu de l'article 43 du RÃ¨glement pÃ©nitentiaire, en raison du mobilier qui y est rare et . surtout, de la porte intÃ©rieure en acier grillagÃ© qui l'amÃ¨ne Ã dÃ©crire sa cellule comme une â¢ cage â¢ . La Commission n'estime pas qu'en soi, l'ameublement dÃ©note, pour le requÃ©rant, des conditions particuliÃ¨rement rigoureuses de dÃ©tention . En particulier, le requÃ©rant ne dit pas que ce mobilier n'est pas fonctionnel, mÃ¨me s'il constitue un strict minimum pour les exigences d'une dÃ©tention de longue durÃ©e . Par ailleurs . le fait que ce mobilier soit en carton rigide n'a pas de signification particuliÃ¨re autre que les considÃ©rations trÃ¨s importantes pour la sÃ©curitÃ© que cela implique . NÃ©anmoins, il faut replacer ce rare mobilier dans le contexte de l'ensemble des conditions d'incarcÃ©ration du requÃ©rant, et notamment du fait qu'il n'a prÃ tiquement aucune occasion de quitter cet environnement . La Commission estime que cet Ã©lÃ©ment est d'autant plus pertinent que la porte grillagÃ©e de la cellule rappelle constamment au requÃ©rant sa situation particuliÃ¨re dans la prison . En outre, la rÃ©fÃ©rence Ã la cellule ainsi Ã©quipÃ©e comme une . cage . - mÃªme si cette description n'est ni exacte ni conforme Ã celle que les autoritÃ©s pÃ©nitentiaires en donnent officiellement - Ã©voque manifestement de maniÃ©re humiliante une situation inhumaine . La Commission relÃ¨ve cependant dans quel but a Ã©tÃ© placÃ©e cette porte grillagÃ©e qui, d'un cÃ¹tÃ©, permet au requÃ©rant d'avoir quelques contacts avec la communautÃ© pÃ©nitentiaire lorsque la porte extÃ©rieure est ouverte, mais qui permet aussi d'assurer le degrÃ© de sÃ©curitÃ© que les autoritÃ©s pÃ©nitentiaires estiment nÃ©cessaires pour prÃ©venir ou empÃ©cher tout excÃ©s de violence de la part du requÃ©rant . Ce risque existe incontestablement, car il ressort Ã l'Ã©vidence des antÃ©cÃ©dents du requÃ©rant qu'il s'agit d'un prisonnier extrÃªmement dangereux . Dans le passÃ©, en effet, lorsque le requÃ©rant Ã©tait mÃ¨lÃ© aux autres prisonniers, il s'est livrÃ© Ã plusieurs reprises Ã des agressions extrÃªmement violentes sur d'autres dÃ©tenus, a essayÃ© d'en tuer un en 1976 et a tuÃ© trois personnes en 1978, dont deux codÃ©tenus . De plus, la Commission doit tenir compte du fait que si les excÃ¨s de violence du requÃ©rant en 1976 et 1977 Ã©taient apparemment liÃ©s Ã des tentatives faites pour obtenir une libÃ©ration, les deux meurtres de 1978 n'avaient pas de motif prÃ©cis autres que ceux donnÃ©s par le requÃ©rant, Ã savoir qu'il Ã©tait â¢dÃ©primÃ© . . - 140 -
Dans ces conditions, il est clair qu'il faut prendre Ã propos du requÃ©rant des prÃ©cautions extrÃªmes en matiÃ¨re de sÃ©curitÃ©, et que cette nÃ©cessitÃ© se traduit par l'existence de la porte mÃ©tallique et grillagÃ©e ajoutÃ©e Ã sa cellule . La Commission doit considÃ©rer cela comme rÃ©pondant Ã un objectif lÃ©gitime, et tenir compte aussi du fait que la porte extÃ©rieure reste fermÃ©e si le requÃ©rant le dÃ©sire . Le requÃ©rant se plaint Ã©galement du degrÃ© de son isolement du reste de la communautÃ© pÃ©nitentiaire, et des prÃ©cautions extraordinaires lorsqu'il quitte sa cellule, accompagnÃ© de cinq gardiens . A coup sÃ»r, l'isolement du requÃ©rant est extrÃ©me et affecte tous les aspects de sa vie quotidienne, y compris les rares occasions oÃ¹ il peut quitter sa cellule, par exemple lorsqu'il reÃ§oit une visite ou va prendre un bain . De plus, cet isolement dure depuis juillet 197 8 pratiquement sans changement, mÃ©me si l'on envisage actuellement de modifier ces conditions de dÃ©tention en incarcÃ©rant le requÃ©rant dans un autre type de cellule . La Commission doit examiner l'objet et le but de ces restrictions Ã la lumiÃ¨re des Ã©lÃ©ments disponibles, et notamment des antÃ©cÃ©dents du requÃ©rant . Comme il a dÃ©jÃ Ã©tÃ© dit, le requÃ©rant a commis notamment deux meurtres sur des codÃ©tenus sans raison apparen(e, et il souffre de troubles psychopathiques que d'Ã©minents experts ont qualifiÃ©s d' Â« incurablesÂ» . Dans ces conditions, la Commission estime que l'obligation incombant au Gouvernement dÃ©fendeur d'assurer la sÃ©curitÃ© et le bien-Ã©tre de la population pÃ©nitentiaire dans son ensemble dÃ©passe la situation du requÃ©rant considÃ©rÃ© isolÃ©ment, et embrasse celle des autres dÃ©tenus et du personnel pÃ©nitentiaire . Compte tenu du comportement imprÃ©visible et violent du requÃ©rant et des risques tout Ã fait exceptionnels qu'il reprÃ©sente, estime-t-on, pour l'ensemble de la population de la prison de Wakefield, la Commission doit voir dans les conditions de son isolement la mise en auvre d'un objectif lÃ©gitime . De plus, le Gouvernement dÃ©fendeur a, conformÃ©ment Ã l'article 42, par . 2 a), du RÃ¨glement intÃ©rieur, informÃ© la Commission de la perspective de foumir prochainement au requÃ©rant une cellule diffÃ©rente, plus spacieuse, dotÃ©e d'installations sanitaires complÃ¨tes, et qui, espÃ¨re-t-on, permettrait aussi de l'associer Ã la communautÃ© pÃ©nitentiaire . C'est lÃ une importante perspective de changement dans les conditions de dÃ©tention du requÃ©rant qui permettra d'amÃ©liorer les dispositions de sÃ©curitÃ© appliquÃ©es Ã l'intÃ©ressÃ© . Le requÃ©rant peut Ã©galement utiliser une radio Ã tout moment de la journÃ©e . et avoir accÃ¨s Ã des livres et Ã deux quotidiens . Ce sont lÃ des aspects importants de son intemement, qui montrent que les autoritÃ©s pÃ©nitentiaires n'ont pas restreint les contacts indirects du requÃ©rant avec le monde extÃ©rieur, lorsqu'ils sont possibles dans les limites requises par la sÃ©curitÃ© . En outre, le requÃ©rant peut recevoir des visites encore que dans des conditions de grande sÃ©curitÃ©, et ses contacts avec les autres Ãªtres humains ne sont donc pas entiÃ¨rement limitÃ©s Ã des reprÃ©sentants de l'autoritÃ© . - 141 -
La Commission doit Ã©galement examiner les conditions gÃ©nÃ©rales appliquÃ©es au requÃ©rant, notamment le degrÃ© et la durÃ©e de cet isolement Ã la lumiÃ¨re des effets qu'ont eus sur lui ces mesures pour dÃ©terminer si elles atteignent ou non le degrÃ© de gravitÃ© susceptible de faire problÃ¨me au regard de l'article 3 de la Convention . Le requÃ©rant se plaint notamment de n'avoir pas fait l'objet d'un examen psychiatrique approfondi depuis mars 1979, soit immÃ©diatement aprÃ¨s son procÃ¨s, et il soutient que rien ne permet de fonder le point de vue soutenu par le Gouvernement dÃ©fendeur qu'il souffre toujours d'un trouble psychiatrique incurable et justifiant les conditions extraordinaires de sa dÃ©tention . Il souligne notamment que le pronostic de l'un des consultants Ã©tait que Â« on ne peut espÃ©rer qu'avec le temps, la personnalitÃ© (du requÃ©rant) deviendra plus mature . . . â¢ . L'Ã©tat de santÃ© physique et mentale du requÃ©rant fait l'objet d'une surveillance constante de la part du mÃ©decin-chef de la prison de Wakefield et du personnel mÃ©dical . Or, tant le mÃ©decin-chef que le mÃ©decin principal qui, Ã tour de rÃ´le voient le requÃ©rant quotidiennement, sont qualifiÃ©s en psychiatrie, mÃªme si, d'aprÃ¨s le requÃ©rant, leurs visites sont brÃ¨ves et peu approfondies . La Commission a dÃ©jÃ Ã©voquÃ© l'obligation faite Ã l'autoritÃ© pÃ©nitentiaire de vÃ©rifier constamment les dispositions prises pour les prisonniers maintenus en isolement exceptionnel, afin d'assurer le bien-Ã©tre et la santÃ© de tous les prisonniers, compte tenu des exigences habituelles et raisonnables de la vie en prison . Les prestations d'un mÃ©decin-psychiatre spÃ©cialisÃ©, chaque fois que cela est nÃ©cessaire, font partie de l'obligation positive due aux dÃ©tenus en pareille circonstance . La portÃ©e de cette obligation varie en fonction des conditions propres Ã chaque dÃ©tenu, et aussi selon les exigences de l'Ã©tablissement et de ses pensionnaires . En l'espÃ¨ce, vu les qualifications des personnes responsables du bien-Ãªtre mÃ©dical et mental du requÃ©rant et de la surveillance constante qu'elles exercent sur lui et compte tenu de ce que le requÃ©rant n'a nullement laissÃ© entendre que son Ã©tat physique ou mental se soit dÃ©tÃ©riorÃ© pendant sa dÃ©tention dans ces conditions, la Commission estime que tout en Ã©tant trÃ¨s rigoureuses, ces conditions n'atteignent pas en l'espÃ¨ce le degrÃ© de rigueur qui ferait problÃ¨me au regard de l'article 3 de la Convention . Il s'ensuit que la requÃªte est manifestement mal fondÃ©e, au sens de l'article 27, par . 2, de la Convention .
- 142 -Origine de la décision Pays : Conseil de l'EuropeJuridiction : Cour européenne des droits de l'hommeFormation : Commission (plénière)Date de la décision : 12/12/1983Fonds documentaire : HUDOC Haut de page

References: l'article 72
 l'article 72
 l'article 60
 l'article 42
 l'article 3
 l'article 43
 l'article 42
 l'article 3
 l'article 3
 l'article 27