Source: http://www.juricaf.org/arret/CONSEILDELEUROPE-COUREUROPEENNEDESDROITSDELHOMME-19850311-1026383
Timestamp: 2017-01-22 19:09:48+00:00
Document Index: 316770651

Matched Legal Cases: ['arrêt ', "l'article 762", "l'article 770", "l'article 237", "l'article 762", "l'article 767", "l'article 77", "l'article 191", "l'article 767", "l'article 3", "l'article 3", "l'article 3", "l'article 3", "l'article 3", "l'article 27"]

Type d'affaire : DecisionType de recours : Partiellement recevable ; partiellement irrecevableNumérotation : Numéro d'arrêt : 10263/83Identifiant URN:LEX : urn:lex;coe;cour.europeenne.droits.homme;arret;1985-03-11;10263.83 Analyses : (Art. 13) DROIT A UN RECOURS EFFECTIF, (Art. 14) DISCRIMINATION, (Art. 3) PEINE DEGRADANTE, (Art. 3) PEINE INHUMAINEParties : Demandeurs : R.Défendeurs : DANEMARKTexte : APPLICATION/REQUÃTE NÂ° 1 0263/8 3 R .v/DENMAR K R . c/DANEMAR K DECISION of 11 March 1985 on the admissibility of the application DÃCISION du 11 mars 1985 sur la recevabilitÃ© de la requÃªt e
Article 3 of the Convention : 1 7 months' solirarv confinemenr whilst in detention on remm nd. Etamination of the severity of the measure . irs length, its aim and the effects it had on the prisoner. Here, having regard to the conditions of such confinement, no appearance of a violation . Article 3 de la Convention : DÃ©tention provisoire Ã l'isolement durant 17 ntois. Examen du degrÃ© de rigueur de cette mesure, de sa durÃ©e, de son but et de ses effets sur le dÃ©tenu . En l'espÃ¨ce, vu les conditions de cette dÃ©tention, pas d'apparence de violation .
THE FACTS (Exvact)
((ranÃ§ais : voir p . 154)
The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties may be summarised as follows : The applicant is a Danish citizen born in 1946 . At the time of introducing his application he was detained on remand in Vestre Faengsel . Copenhagen, Denmark . Before the Commission the applicant is represented by Mr Amold Rothenborg, a lawyer practising in Copenhagen, Denmark . On 24 October 1980, shortly before midnight . the 22 year-old drug addict A . was killed by several stabs in the chest inflicted with a knife . The murder was committed in Grdndalsparken - a park near Copenhagen . Interrogation of a number o f 149
A .'s acquaintances revealed that various persons, mentioned by name, wanted "to get rid of her" because "she talked too much with the police" .
It appears that A ., who had been a drug addict for many years, had intimate knowledge of illicit traffic in drugs . In some cases she had apparently managedm get free drugs from her supplier by threatening to inform .
In the light of this information and technical examinations in connection with the murder of A ., J . was arrested on 29 October 1980 . Pursuant to Article 760 para . 2 of the Administration of Justice Act he was brought before a judge on 30 October 1980 . 1 . who pleaded not guilty, was detained on remand for a term expiring on 27 November 1980 . This decision was made in pursuance of Article 762 para . I sub-parÃ¢ . 3 and Article 762 para . 2 of the Administration of Justice Act .
Article 762 of the Administration of Justice Act reads : A suspect may be detained on remand when there is ajustified reason to believe that he has committed an offence subject to public prosecution if according to the law the offence ntay result in imprisonment for I year and 6 months or mÃ´re and if I) according to information received concerning the suspect's"situation there is specific reason to believe (hat he will abscond or , 2) according to information received concerning the suspect's situation there is specific reason (o fear thai once at large . he will commit a new similar offence or . 3) in view of the circunistances of the case there is specific reason t o believe that the suspect will impede the investigation in particular by removing evidence or by warning or innuencing others . A suspect niay furthemiore be detained on remand when a particularly strong suspicion indicates that he has contmined an offence subject tÃ´ public prosecution and this may result in imprisonment for 6 years or ntore and when respect for the public interest according to the inforrriation received about thÃ© gravity of the case requires that the suspect is not at large . Detention on rentand may not be imposed if the offence is expected to resul t in a fine or imprisonntent not exceeding 6 .months (haefte) or if the deprivation of liberty will be disproponionate to the interference with the suspect's situation, the importance of the case and the outcome expected if the suspect is found guilty .150
At the sanie time, a decision for isolation (solitary confinement) was given . cf . Article 770 para . 3 of the Administration of Justice Act which reads (â¢) : "On request of the police the court may decide that the detainee shall be totally or partially isolated if the purpose of the detention on remand so requires . " On the basis of information elicited in the course of the investigations, the applicant, R ., was arrested on 31 October 1980 at 0010 hrs . . charged with being an accomplice to the niurder of A . He was brought before a City Court on the same day and it was decided to detain him on remand and in solitary confinement according to the Administration of Justice Act, Anicle 762 para . I sub-para . 3 and Article 762 para . 2 . The applicant was kept in detention on remand and in solitary confinement until and during his trial which contmenced before the Court of Appeal on 19 March 1982 . The trial ended on 2 April 1982 . The solitary confinement had ended 2 days earlier . The applicant was found guilry of the charges brought against him and sentenced to life intprisonnient . He appealed against the decision to the Supreme Court which, on 17 August 1982 . upheld the judgment . The applicant is at present serving his sentence at Horsens State Prison . Detention on reman d With regard to the applicant's detention on rcmand the applicant was as mentioned above, arrested on 31 October 1980 . In its fi rst decision ( Kendelse) concerning this the City Court smled :
"Whereas- according to information available, there is some reason to suspect that the detainee was an accomplice to infringement of A rt icle 237 (homicide) of the Penal Code : whereas the nature of the offence and the detainee's stance on the charges are found to give specific cause for assunting that he will render further investigaiions difficult, notably by influencing others ; and whereas consideration for enforcentent of the law, in the light of the information available about the gravity of the offence comniiued, is deemed to require that he shall not be at large, the conditions for detention on remand in pursuance of Anicle 762 para . I sub-para 3 and Article 762 para . 2 of the Administration of Justice Act are deetned to be fulfilled : HELD The detainee, R . . born on 30 September 1946, shall be remanded in custody . The term of detention, fixed under Article 767 of the Adntinistration of Justice Act, shall expire on 14 November 1980 . " (`) Anicle 770 para . 3 of the Danish Administration of lustice Act was amended on 6 June 1984 . However . the text quoted above is ihe one which was in force before that amendment .
At the same time, the Court made an order for isolation in pursuance of Article 770 para . 3 of the Administration of Justice Act . The applicant appealed neither against the order for remand in custody nor against the order for isolation . On 14 November 1980 the applicant was additionally charged with illicit traffic in drugs in contravention of Article 191 of the Danish Penal Code . In consequence of this the Court now referred also to Article 762 para . I sub-para . 2 of the Administration of Justice Act (risk of repetition) . Hereafter and with reference to the above reasons, the Court extended the term of detention every four weeks . Before the expiry of each term the police submitted to the Court, cf . Article 767 of the Administration of Justice Act, detailed information about the continued investigations . On that basis the Court gave a decision to the effect that the conditions for continued detention had been fulfilled . During his period of detention the applicant appealed against his continuing detention twice . He appealed against the City Court's decision of 2 April 1981 and the decision of 3 November 1981 . In both cases the detention was upheld by the Cou rt of Appeal . Solitary Confnement During his detention on remand the applicant was kept in solitary confinement from his arrest on 31 October 1980 until 30 March 1982 . Whenever the applicant appealed against his detention on remand to the Court of Appeal this also included the question of solitary confinement . Furthermore, the applicant brought on 8 October 1981 a separate appeal against the City Court's decision concerning the continuing solitary confinement . After an oral hearing the Court of Appeal decided on 27 October 1981 to maintain the confinement according to Article 770 para . 3 of the Administration of Justice Act . During his solitary confinement the applicant was kept in a cell of approximately 6 square metres . He was allowed to exercise in the fresh air twice a day in a narrow area each time for 30 minutes . In his cell he was allowed to listen to the radio, to watch television and to read books supplied to him by the prison library . Since the prison staff was busy he had only little contact with them . The applicant submits that during the first eight months of detention he only received nine visits from his wife . Subsequently, he was allowed one visit per week . He had no contact with other detainees . However, he was in contact with other persons in connection with police interrogations and court hearings . During his confinement he was hospitalised for a period of about three months at the County Hospital at Nykbbing SJaelland for medical examination .
THE LAW (Eztract) The applicant has complained that he was held in solitary confinement from 31 October 1980 until 30 March 1982 . He maintains that the isolation made him mentally sick . He submits that this treatnient was a kind of psychological torture and in violation of Article 3 of the Convention which reads "No one shall be subjected to torture or to inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment . " The Commission recalls that it has exaniined a number of complaints from applicants contending that isolation of detainees on remand or of prisoners serving sentences was in contravention of Atticle 3 of the Convention . The Commission has held that the segregation of a prisoner from the prison community does not in itself constitute a form of inhuman treatment (cf . Nos . 7572/76, 7586/76 and 7587/76, Dec . 8 .7 .78, D .R . 14 p . (A) . The Comission has also been confronted with a number of solitary confinement cases (cf . No . 1392/62 . Dec . 14 .7 .65, Collection 17 p . I, No . 5006/71, DÃ©c . 9 .2 .72, Collection 39 p . 91 . No . 2749/66, Dec . 16 .12 .66, Yearbook 10 . p . 382, No . 6038/73 . Dec . 11 .7 .77, Collection 44 p . 115, No . 4448/70 . Dec . 16 .7 .70, Collection 34 p . 70, No . 8395/78, Dec . 16 .12 .81, D .R . 27 p . 50) . It has stated that prolonged solitary confinement is undesirable, especially where the person is detained on remand . However, in assessing whether such a measure may fall within the ambit of Anicle 3 of the Convention in a given case . regard must be had to the panicular conditions, the stringency of the measure, its duration, the objective pursued and its effects on the person concerned . Complete sensory isolation coupled with complete social isolation can no doubt ultintately destroy the personality, and may therefore . in certain circumstances, constitute a form of inhuman treatment which cannot be justified by the requirements of security, the prohibition of torture and inhuman treatment contained in Article 3 of the Convention being absolute in character (cf . No . 5310/71, Ireland v . the United Kingdom, Comm . Report 25 .1 .76, p . 379) . As regards the form of isolation to which the applicant was subjected, the Commission has noted that the applicant was kept in a cell of approximately six square metres . There he was allowed to listen to the radio and watch television . The Commission further observes that throughout the period when he was kept in isolation the applicant was allowed to exercise in the open air for one hour every day . He had the loan of books from the prison library . He was in daily contact with prison staff in connection with inter alia the handing out of food and exercise in the prison yard . This involved personal contact with prison staff several times daily . Furthermore, he was in contact with various persons in connection with a nuntber of court hearings and during police interrogations . In connection with the medical examination which commenced in April 1981 and ended with the opinion of the Medico-legal Council of 10 December 1981 the applicant was seen by doctors and other medical staff .
He was furthermore admitted to the prison department of the County Hospital at NykAbing Spelland for a period of three months for medical exantinations . Throughout his period of detention he was subject to restrictions with regard to visits . However, he was allowed to receive controlled visits by his fantily .TheCom is ionfunherniorerecalsthat heap licant's~riminalcaseconcerned narcotics offences and hotnicide involving a substantial number of people and necessitating thorough and complicated investigations . The decision to isolate the applicant and the other restrictions to which he was subjected .with regard to visits must therefore also be seen in the light of a case which concerned charges of particular gravity . However, when a measure of solitary confinement is considered, a balance must be struck' between the requirements of the investigation and the effect which the isolation will have on the detained person . Where solitary confinement is applied . the authÃ´rities must therefore ensure that its duration does not become excessive . In the circumstances of the present case the Connnission considers that the applicant was isolated for an undesirable length of time . Nevertheless, having regard to the particular conditions of the contlnement in question, the Commission finds that the measure was not of such severity as to fall within the scope of_Article 3 of the Convention . Accordingly, this coniplaint mus(be rejectedas manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Anicle 27 para . 2 of the Convention .
(TRADUCT/ON) EN FAIT (Extrait
contniesuit :,
) Les faits de la cause, tels que les parties les ont exposÃ©s, peuvent se rÃ©sumer . .
Le requÃ©rant est un ressonissant danois nÃ© en 1946 et qui . au moment de l'introduction de sa requÃªte . Ã©tait en dÃ©tention provisoire Ã Vestre Faengsel, Copenhague .Danemark . Devant la Contmission, il est reprÃ©sentÃ© par Me Arnold Rothenborg, avocat Ã Copenhague .154
Le 24 octobre 1980, peu avant minuit, A ., toxicome de 22 ans, fut tuÃ©e de plusieurs coups de couteau dans la poitrine . Le meurtre fut connnis Ã Gr6ndalsparken, parc situÃ© prÃ¨s dc Copenhague . L'interrogatoire de plusieurs relations de A . rÃ©vÃ©la que diverses personnes, dont les notns furent citÃ©s, dÃ©siraient - se dÃ©barrasser d'elle ~ car -elle parlait trop avec la policeâ¢ . Il semble que A ., toxiconiane depuis de nombreuses annÃ©es, connaissait particuliÃ¨rement bien le ntilieu des trafiquants de drogue . Elle aurait parfois rÃ©ussi Ã se procurer gratuitement dc la drogue en nienaÃ§am de dÃ©noncer son fournisseur . A la lumii!re de ces renseignements et de l'enquÃªte menÃ©e sur le meurtre de A ., J . fut arrÃªtÃ© le 29 octobre 1980 . ConformÃ©nient Ã l'anicle 760 par . 2 de la loi sur l'adntini,tration de la justice, il comparut le lendeniain devant un juge . Il plaida non coupable et fut maintenu en dÃ©tention provisoire jusqu'au 27 novembre 1980 . Cette dÃ©cision fut prise en application de l'article 762 par . I al . 3 et par . 2 de la loi sur l'adntini .ctration de la justice . L'anicle 762 est ainsi libellÃ© : Un suspect peut Ãªtre placÃ© en dÃ©tention provisoire lorsqu'il y a tout lieu de croire qu'il a comntis une infraction donnant lieu Ã poursuites judiciaires et punissable d'un emprisonnement de dix-huit mois ou plus et s i 1 . selon les informations recueillies sur la situation du suspect, il y a lieu de penser que l'intÃ©ressÃ© se soustraira Ã la justice o u 2 . selon les inforntations recueillies sur la situation du suspect . il y a lieu de redouter qu'une fois libre, il rÃ©cidivera ou qu e 3 . vu les circonstances, il y a lieu de penser que le suspect entravera le cours de l'instruction, notamntent en supprintant des preuves ou en avertissant ou influenÃ§ant autrui . Le suspect peut Ã©galement Ãªtre placÃ© en dÃ©tention provisoire lorsque, d'une part, il y a forte prÃ©somption qu'il a contntis une infraction donnant lieu Ã poursuites judiciaires et punie d'une peine de prison de six ans ou plus et que . d'autre part, l'imÃ©rÃ©t gÃ©nÃ©ral exige, vu les rensiegnentents recueillis sur la gravitÃ© de l'affaire, que le suspect ne soit pas laissÃ© en libertÃ© . Par contre, la dÃ©tention provisoire ne peut pas Ãªtre ordonnÃ©e si l'infraction n'est punie que d'une antende ou d'une peine de prison n'excÃ©dant pas six mois (haefte) ou si la privation de libertÃ© serait une mesure disproportionnÃ©e vu la situation du suspect . l'intportance de l'affaire ou le rÃ©sultat escomptÃ© si l'intÃ©ressÃ© Ã©tait reconnu coupable .
SimultanÃ©ment fut rendue une dÃ©cision de mise Ã l'isolement cellulaire conformÃ©ment Ã l'article 770 par . 3 de la loi sur l'administration de la justice, ainsi . libellÃ© (â¢) : Sur demande de la police, le tribunal peut dÃ©cider de mettre le dÃ©tenu Ã l'isolement total ou partiel si l'objet de la dÃ©tention provisoire l'exige . Sur la base des informations recueillies au cours de l'instruction, le requÃ©rant fui arrÃ©tÃ© le 31 octobre 1980 Ã 10 heures et inculpÃ© dÃ© complicitÃ© dans l'assassinat de A . Il fut traduit le mÃ©me jour devant un tribunal municipal qui dÃ©cida de le placer en dÃ©tention provisoire et Ã l'isolement cellulaire conformÃ©ntent Ã la loi sur l'administration de la justice, article 762 para . I al . 3 et par . 2 . Le requÃ©rant fut maintenu en dÃ©tention et Ã l'isolÃ©ment cellulaire jusqu'Ã la fin du proc8s, qui .s'ouvrit devant la cour d'appel le 19 mars 1982 pour se terminer le 2 avril 1982 . L'isolement cellulaire avait pris fin deux jours plus t6t . Le requÃ©rant fut reconnu coupable des accusations portÃ©es contre lui et condamnÃ© Ã la rÃ©clusion Ã vie .
Il fit appel de cette dÃ©cision devant la Cour suprÃ©me . qui confirma l'arrÃ©t le 17 aotit1982 . Le requÃ©rant purge Ã prÃ©sent sa peine Ã la prison d'Etat de Horsens . DÃ©tention provisoir e S'agissant de la dÃ©tention provisoire du requÃ©rant, l'intÃ©ressÃ© fut, comme indiquÃ© supra, arrietÃ© le 31 octobre 1980 . Dans la premiÃ¨re dÃ©cision (Kendelse) rendue Ã ce sujet, le tribunal municipal dÃ©clara : Â«ConsidÃ©rant que, selon les informations recueillies . il y a lieu de soupÃ§onner que l'intÃ©ressÃ© est complice du crime puni par l'article 237 (homicide) du Code pÃ©nal ; considÃ©rant la nature de l'infraction et la position de l'intÃ©ressÃ© face aux accusations, qui permeuent de penser que l'intÃ©ressÃ© rendra difficile la poursuite de l'instruction, notamment Ã©n influenÃ§ant des tÃ©moins ; et considÃ©rant que, pour assurer l'application de la loi et vu les informations disponibles sur la gravitÃ© de l'infraction, il est nÃ©cessaire de ne pas laisser l'intÃ©ressÃ© en libenÃ©, les conditions prÃ©vues pour la dÃ©tention provisoire Ã l'article 762 para . I al . 3 et 762 par . 2 de la loi sur l'administration de la justice sont remplie s DÃCIDE l'intÃ©ressÃ© R ., nÃ© le 30 septembre 1946, restera en,dÃ©tention provisoire . Le tenne de cette dÃ©tention fixÃ© conformÃ©ment Ã l'article 767 de ladite loi, est le 14 novembre 1980 . ~ ' SimultanÃ©ment, le tribunal ordonna l'isolement conformÃ©ment Ã l'article 77 0 par . 3 de la loi sur l'administration de la justice . Le requÃ©rant n'interjeta appel ni de la dÃ©cision de dÃ©tention provisoire ni de celle de mise Ã l'isolement . . (') L'anicle 770 de la loi danoise sur l'administration de la justice fut amendÃ© le 6 juin 1984 mais le texte citÃ© plus haut est celui qui Ã© tait en vigueur avant l'amendement .
Le 14 novembre 1980, le requÃ©rant fut inculpÃ© en outre de trafic de drogue en violation de l'article 191 du Code pÃ©nal danois, Ã la suite de quoi le tribunal invoqua Ã©galement l'anicle 762 par . I al . 2 de la loi sur l'administration de la justice (risque de rÃ©cidive) . UltÃ©rieurement et en invoquant les mÃ¨mes raisons, le tribunal repoussa toutes les quatre semaines le terme de la dÃ©tention . Avant l'expiration de chaque terme, la police sountettait au tribunal, conformÃ©ment Ã l'article 767 de la loi sur l'administration de lajustice, des informations dÃ©taillÃ©es sur la poursuite de l'instruction . Sur la base de ces informations, le tribunal dÃ©cidait que les conditions du maintien en dÃ©tention se trouvaient remplies . Pendant sa pÃ©riode de dÃ©tention, le requÃ©rant fit par deux fois appel des dÃ©cisions le maintenant en dÃ©tention . Il interjeta appel contre les dÃ©cisions du 2 avril et du 3 novembre 1981 du tribunal municipal . Dans les deux cas, la cour d'appel confirma le maintien en dÃ©tention . Isolement cellulaire Pendant sa dÃ©tention provisoire, le requÃ©rant fui maintenu en isolement cellulaire depuis son arrestation le 31 octobre 1980 jusqu'au 30 mars 1982 . Chaque fois que le requÃ©rant se pourvut contre sa dÃ©tention provisoire devant la cour d'appel, sa demande ponait Ã©galement sur la question de l'isolement cellulaire . De plus, le 8 octobre 1981, le requÃ©rant interjeta un appel distinct contre la dÃ©cision du tribunal municipal concernant son maintien Ã l'isolement . AprÃ¨s une audience contradictoirela cour d'appel dÃ©cida le 27 octobre 1981, conformÃ©ment Ã l'anicle 770 par . 3 de la loi sur l'adntinistration de la justice, de maintenir l'intÃ©ressÃ© Ã l'isolement . Pendant son isolement, le requÃ©rant fut dÃ©tenu dans une cellule d'environ six mÃ¨tres carrÃ©s et autorisÃ© Ã sortir Ã l'air libre deux fois par jour trente minutes chaque fois, pour prendre de l'exercice dans une cour exiguÃ« . Dans sa cellule, il pouvait Ã©couter la radio, regarder la tÃ©lÃ©vision et lire des livres que lui fournissait la bibliothÃ¨que de la prison . Comme le personnel Ã©tait occupÃ©, le dÃ©tenu n'avait guÃ¨re de contacts avec les gardiens . le requÃ©rant soutient que pendant les huit premiers mois de sa dÃ©tention, il n'a reÃ§u que neuf fois la visite de son Ã©pouse . Par la suite, il fut autorisÃ© Ã recevoir une visite par semaine . Il n'avait aucun contact avec les autres dÃ©tenus, mais en avait avec d'autres personnes, lors des interrogatoires de police et des audiences du tribunal . Pendant son isolement, il fut hospitalisÃ© pour observation Ã l'hÃ´pital du comtÃ© de Nyk6bing Sjaelland pendant trois mois environ .
EN DROIT (Extrait ) Le requÃ©rant se plaint d'avoir Ã©tÃ© maintenu Ã l'isolement du 31 octobre 1980 au 30 mars 1982 . 11 soutient que cet isolement l'a rendu mentalement ntalade et qu e 157
ce traitement Ã©tait une tonure psychologique contraire Ã l'article 3 de la Convention, ainsi libellÃ© : : . Nul ne peut Ã©ire soumis Ã la tonure ni 8 des peines ou [raitements inhumain s ou dÃ©gradants . La Commission rappelle avoir examinÃ© un certain nombre de griefs formulÃ©s par un requÃ©rant soutenant que l'isolenient, pendant la dÃ©tention provisoire ou pendant l'exÃ©cution d'une peine de prison, Ã©tait contraire Ã l'article 3 de la Convention . La Contniission a considÃ©rÃ© que l'exclusion d'un dÃ©tenu de la collectivitÃ© carcÃ©rale ne constitue pas en elle-mÃªme une forme de traitement inhumain (cf . No 7572/76 . 7586/76 et 7587/76, dÃ©c . 8 .7 .78, D .R . 14 p . 64) . La Commission a Ã©galenient eu Ã exaniiner un certain nombre de cas d'isolement cellulaire (cf . No 1392/62, dÃ©c . 14 .7 .65, Recueil 17 p . I ; No 5006/71, dÃ©c . 9 .2 .72, Recueil 39 p . 91 ; No 2749/66 . dÃ©c . 16 .12 .66, Annuaire 10 p . 382 ; No 6038/73, dÃ©c . 11 .7 .77, Recueil 44 p . 1 15 : No 4448/70, dÃ©c . 16 .7 .70, Recueil 34 p . 70 ; No 8395/78, dÃ©c . 16 .12 .81, D .R . 27 p . 50) . Elle a dÃ©clarÃ© qu'un long isolement cellulaire n'est pas souhaitable, surtout lorsque la personne est en dÃ©tention provisoire . Toutcfois, pour apprÃ©cier si une telle mesure peut, dans un cas particulier, tontber sous le coup de l'article 3 de la Convention, il faut tenir cotnpte des circonstances particuliÃ¨res de l'affaire, de la rigueur de la mesure, de sa durÃ©e, de l'objectif poursuivi et de ses effets sur l'intÃ©ressÃ© . Un isolentent sensoriel coinplet . doublÃ© d'un isolenient social total . peut sans Ã ucun doute aboutir Ã une destruction de la personnalitÃ© et donc, dans certaines conditions, constituer une fomie de traitement inhumain qui ne saurait se justifier par des exigences de sÃ©curitÃ© . car`l'interdiction de la torture et du traitement inhumain Ã©noncÃ©e Ã l'article 3 de la Convention a un caractÃ¨re absolu (ef . No 5310/71 . Irlande c/Royaume-Uni, Rapport Conini . 25 .1 .76- p . 379) . S'agissant de la forme d'isolentent Ã laquelle le requÃ©rant a Ã©tÃ© soumis, la Commission a relevÃ© que l'intÃ©ressÃ© a Ã©tÃ© dÃ©tenu dans une cellule d'environ six mÃ¨tres carrÃ©s oÃ¹ il pouvait Ã©couter .la radio et regarder la tÃ©lÃ©vision . La Comniission relÃ¨ve en outre que pendant la pÃ©riode d'isolement- le requÃ©rant a pu prendre de l'exercice en plein air une heure par jour . Il pouvait emprunter des livres Ã la bibliothÃ¨que de la prison . Il Ã©tait en contact quotidien avec le personnel pÃ©nitentiaire pour ce qui concerne notamment la distribution des repas et l'exercice dans la cour de la prison, ce qui impliquait un contact personnel avec des gardiens plusieurs fois parjour .De plus . l'intÃ©ressÃ© rencontrait diverses personnes lors dÃ©s audiences dÃ» tribunal et des interrogatoires par la police . Lors de la mise sous observations mÃ©dicale, qui a commencÃ© en avril 1981 et s'est terntinÃ©e le 10 dÃ©cembre 1981 par l'avis de la commission mÃ©dico-lÃ©gale, le requÃ©rant a Ã©tÃ© exantinÃ© par des mÃ©decins et d'autres membres du personnel ntÃ©dical . Il a en outre Ã©tÃ© admis, pour trois mois d'examens mÃ©dicaux Ã la section carcÃ©rale de l'hÃ´pital du comtÃ© Ã Nyk6bing Sjaelland . Pendant sa dÃ©tention, l'intÃ©ressÃ© a vu ses visites soumises Ã restrictions, mais a nÃ©anmoins Ã©tÃ© autorisÃ© Ã recevoir sous surveillance des visites de sa famille . 158
La Commission rappelle en outre que le procÃ¨s du requÃ©rant concernait des infractions Ã la kgislation sur les stupÃ©fiants et un homicide impliquant un grand nombre de personnes et nÃ©cessitant des enquÃ©tes complexes et approfondies . Il faut dÃ¨s lors examiner l'isolentent du requÃ©rant et les restrictions en matiÃ¨re de visiies dans le contexte d'une affaire qui coniportait des accusations particuliÃ¨rement graves . Toutefois, lorsqu'on exantine une mesure d'isolement cellulaire, il faut mettre en balance les exigences de l'instruction et l'effet que l'isolentent aura sur le dÃ©tenu . S'il y a isolement, les autoritÃ©s doivent s'assurer que la durÃ©e de la mesure ne devient pas excessive . Or, dans les circonstances de l'espÃ¨ce, la Commission estime qu'il n'Ã©tait pas souhaimble que le requÃ©rant (Ã»t isolÃ© pendant une aussi longue durÃ©e . NÃ©anmoins, vu les conditions particuliÃ¨res de ce rÃ©ginie d'isolement, la Commission estime que la ntesure n'Ã©tait pas d'une gravitÃ© propre Ã la faire totnbcr sous le coup de l'article 3 de la Convention . En consÃ©quence, ce grief doit Ã©tre rejetÃ© comme ntanifestement ntal fondÃ©, au sens de l'article 27 par . 2 de la Convention .
159Origine de la décision Pays : Conseil de l'EuropeJuridiction : Cour européenne des droits de l'hommeFormation : Commission (plénière)Date de la décision : 11/03/1985Fonds documentaire : HUDOC Haut de page