Source: http://www.juricaf.org/arret/CONSEILDELEUROPE-COUREUROPEENNEDESDROITSDELHOMME-19840712-1044883
Timestamp: 2017-01-21 18:07:27+00:00
Document Index: 293124892

Matched Legal Cases: ['arrêt ', "l'article 17", "l'article 18", "l'article 17", "l'article 19", "l'article 17", "l'article 17", "l'article 17", "l'article 30", "l'article 10", "l'article 25", "l'article 36", "l'article 3", "l'article 3", "l'article 5", "l'article 5", "l'article 5", "l'article 5", "l'article 5", "l'article 20", "l'article 187", "l'article 7", "l'article 5", "l'article 5", "l'article 5", "l'article 5", "l'article 3", "l'article 3", "l'article 3", "l'article 7", "l'article 26", "l'article 26", "l'article 27"]

D. contre la BELGIQUE
Page d'accueil > Résultats de la recherche D. contre la BELGIQUE
Type d'affaire : DecisionType de recours : Partiellement recevable ; partiellement irrecevableNumérotation : Numéro d'arrêt : 10448/83Identifiant URN:LEX : urn:lex;coe;cour.europeenne.droits.homme;arret;1984-07-12;10448.83 Analyses : (Art. 6-1) DELAI RAISONNABLEParties : Demandeurs : D.Défendeurs : la BELGIQUETexte : APPLICATION/REQUÃTE NÂ° 10448/83
D . v/BELGIU M D . c/BELGIQU E
DECISION of 12 July 1984 on the admissibility of the application DÃCISION du 12 juillet 1984 sur la recevabilitÃ© de la requÃ©t e
ArtieJe 3 or the Convention : Conditions of detention (in parricular, solitary confinement) of an offender in various institutions for the insane (Complaint declared admissible) . Article 5, paragraph I (e) of the Convention : Offender detained successively in several institutions for the insane alleging that his mental state no longer justifies his detention (Complaint declared admissible) . Articfe 5, paragraph 4 of the Convention : Does examination of an offender's continued detention by the Belgian Social Defence Committee meet the requirements of this provision ? (Complaint declared admissible) . Article 26 of the Convention : Domestic remedies have been properly exhausted when the applicant has raised, at least in substance, the complaints he puts to the Commission before the national authorities.
Artide 3 de la Convention : Conditions de la dÃ©tention ( notamment l'isolement) d'un dÃ©linquant imemÃ© dans divers Ã©tablissement pour aliÃ©nÃ©s (Grief dÃ©clarÃ© recevable) . Article 5, paragraphe / , Btf. e), de la Convention : DÃ©linquant intemÃ© successivement dans plusieurs Ã©tablissements pour aliÃ©nÃ©s et ajfirmant que son Ã©tat mental ne justifie plus son internement (Grief dÃ©clarÃ© recevable).
Article 5, paragraphe 4, de la Convention : L'e.ramen par les commissions belges de dÃ©fense sociale du nminrien de l'intememeni d'un dÃ©linquani rÃ©pond-il aux exigences de cette disposition ? (Grief dÃ©clarÃ© recevable) . Article 26 de la Convention : Les recours internes sont valablement exercÃ©s lorsque le requÃ©rant a aniculÃ©, au moins en substance, devam les autoritÃ©s tmtionales les griefs qu'il soumet Ã (a Commission .
THE FACTS ((ranÃ§ais : voir p . 1 77) The applicant, a Belgian citizen, was born in 1938 in S . He is presently in hiding in the Netherlands . In the proceedings before the Commission he is represented by Mr . Schaink, a lawyer praclising in Amsterdam . On 28 March 1961 the Indictment Chamber of the Ghent Court of Appeal established that the applicant had committed a series of criminal offences including three homicides, one attempted homicide with qualified theft, thefi on 20 occasions, attempted qualified theft and illegal detention of firearms . As he was found to be criminally insane, it was directed that he should be confined for a period of 15 years to a special institution on the basis of the Act of Social Protection in respect of Mental Defectives and Habitual Offenders of 9 April 1930 . The Social Defence Committee decided on the same day that he should be detained in the specialised prison of Toumai (Doornik) .
In the course of December 1961 it was decided that he should be transferred to the social defence institution of Tunthout . According to the Government this institution is reserved for the less dangerous offenders who qualify for rehabilitation . In June 1962 the applicant was however returned to Tournai . In July 1963 the Social Defence Committee of this prison decided that he should be returned to Turnhout . He evaded from that establishment on 6 January 1964 and was rearrested on I I January 1964 . Following his evasion, the Social Defence Committee ordered on 3 February 1964 that he should be returned to Tournai, since this institution was considered to be the only one which was sufficiently secure for dangerously insane persons such as the applicant . On I July 1964, the Social Defence Act was replaced by a new Act on the Social Protection in respect of Mental Defectives and Habitual Offenders . The most relevant change in the law is, according to the applicant, that under the new Act confinemem lasts for an indefinite period . In December 1966, the Social Defence Committee acceded to the applicant's request for a transfer to Ghent prison in order to be examined by a psychiatrist of his choice, Dr . G .
On I March 1967 he was retumed to Tournai . On 10 March 1967 the applicant made an unsuccessful attempt to evade from the prison yard . As from September 1967, the applicant was placed under special surveillance, while he accepted at the same time reluctantly to perform some work in prison (rÃ©gime occupationnel) . In December 1967 he was transferred back to the psychiatric ward of Ghent prison, from where he anempted to escape on 21 February 1968 . Following this incident, the Minister of Justice ordered in conformity with Art . 17, para 2 of the Social Defence Act 1964 that for reasons of security he should be transferred to Tournai .
In a letter of 12 December 1968, the prison director of Tournai, in reply to the Minister of Justice, advised the Minister that the applicant might use the linguistic argument for a transfer to a prison in a Flemish-speaking region from where his escape plans would be more likely to be successful . In December 1969, the Social Defence Committee ordered the applicant's transfer to the psychiatric unirof Ghent prison in the framework of a request for release introduced by him on the basis of Art . 18 of the Social Defence Act . On 23 February 1970, the applicant was again transferred to Turnhout . For security reasons, he was placed for a long period under close surveillance ("rÃ©gime d'observation") normally applied to newcomers, since it appeared that he was obsessed by the idea of escaping . The Committee of Social Defence was regularly kept informed of his attitude and conduct and approved of the continuation of this close surveillance . Through the intermediary of a protestant almoner, contacts were established with the Salvation Army in the Netherlands with a view to his future reintegration into society . However, as these projects did not materialise the authorities retumed the applicant to Toumai on 16 August 1971, allegedly for fear of a further escape attempt as a result of his disappointment . On 27 April 1972 the applicant was transferred to Ghent for a period of 15 days in order to facilitate visits by his mother . According to a medical report dated 24 May 1972 the applicant seemed this time better reconciled with prison life than during his preceding stays in Ghent . The Social Defence Committee authorised his stay in Ghent until October 1973 . It instructed a collegial body of three medical experts to report on the applicant's present mental state . On 9 October 1973 the Social Defence Committee rejected a request for release introduced by the applicant considering that no substantial improvement in the mental condition of the applicant had occurred and decided to return the applicant to Tumhout . This decision was based on the medical expert opinion of the above three psychiatrists who had examined the applicant and who had in their report of 31 August 1973 concluded that the applicant suffered from chronic schizophrenia and was incapable of controlling his acts .
The director of the prison of Turnhout informed however the Minister of Justice by letter of 16 October 1973 of his hesitations as regards the appropriateness of the applicant's return to that establishment, in view of the difficulties he had caused in the past for his fellow prisoners and to prison staff . The Minister then decided on 20 October 1973, in accordance with Art . 17, para 2 of the Social Defence Act, to return the applicant for security reasons to Tournai . On 4 July 1975, it was decided, after consultation between the President of the Social Defence Committee and the prison administration, to transfer the applicant to the prison of Si . Gilles for a thorough personality examination . This prison comprises a Penitentiary Orientation Centre (C .O .P .), run by a multidisciplinary team, directed by a psychiatrist, Prof . W ., assisted by other scientists, such as psychiatrists, specialists in psychology, sociology and criminology as well as social workers . On the strength of a report forwarded by the above team on I October 1976, the Social Defence Committee ordered on 5 February 1 977 the applicant's release on probation for a period of 10 years . This decision was to become effective as soon as the Committee were to find that a certain number of conditions regarding lodging, employment, conduct and supervision were fulfilled . The Public Prosecutor of Gltent opposed the execution of the above decision in accordance with Art . 19 of the Social Defence Act . This appeal was examined by the Social Defence Committee of Appeal, which on 3 March 1977 upheld the appeal and decided that the applicant should be kept in detention . The Committee of Appeal considered that it was insufficient for the Social Defence Committee to find an improvement in the mental state of the prisoner . It required conditions for rehabilitation to be fulfilled simultaneously and cumulatively . On 9 May 1977 the applicant again tried to escape . Having re-examined the applicant's case on 20 September 1977 the Social Defence Committee decided on 5 October 1977 to maintain the applicant's detention but to place him in semi-custodial care in the social defence establishment of Merksplas, designed for male criminals not suffering from any mental illness . The Minister of Justice, in conformity with A rt . 17, para 2 of the Social Defence Act, decided to suspend provisionally the execution of this decision and to request the C .O .P . to fi x together with the prison authorities concemed details of the applicant's prison rÃ©gime . In a report drawn up on 18 November 1977, the C .O .P . informed the Social Defence Comminee and the prison administration of Ghent prison that the transfer of the applicant to Merksplas was not to be recommended as constituting the best method of treating the applicant . It suggested that he be released on probation, with a view to his gradual reintegration into society . Pending the decision of the Social Defence Committee the applicant remained in Ghent .
On 25 May 1978 the Social Defence Committee decided to grant a leave pertnit of one day for the months of June, July and August and to allow him to work as a gardener in a convent under the guidance of a staff member of the C .O .P . The first leave took place under normal conditions on 15 June 1978 . The C .O .P . then recommended the transfer of the applicant to the psychiatric ward of the Louvain prison in order to continue from there in close contact with the prison authorities the rehabilitation scheme . However as it became apparent that the applicant intended to profit from a further leave to escape and flee to Holland, the scheme was interrvpted following the advice of the C .O .P . In a report drawn up on 13 July 1978, Dr . W . concluded that the applicant's present conduct predicted a very unfavourable future for the applicant in the long mn . The fact that at this advanced stage of the rehabilitation scheme he was not ready to accept any conditions made it almost certain in his view that if he were free he would try to avoid any form of control and supervision and would behave as a"lone wolf" . On 14 July 1978 the Minister of Justice, in accordance with Art . 17, para 2 of the Social Defence Act, decided to transfer the applicant provisionally to Tournai . On 18 August 1978, the applicant escaped after having attacked a prison staff member. He was rearrested on 20 August 1978 . In the course of October 1978 he was transferred for a period of 15 days to the psychiatric wing of Ghent prison in order to facilitate visits by his mother . He was returned to Tournat on 25 October 1978 . On 16 April 1980 the Social Defence Committee ordered the applicant's transfer to the social defence prison of Tumhout for a psychiatric examination, to be carried out by Dr . L ., head of the psychiatric ward of the Stuyveberg hospital in Antwerp . The applicant was admitted there on 8 May 1980 . On 9 December 1980 the Social Defence Committee re-examined his case on the basis of the report established by Dr. L . on 20 October 1980 . The latter had concluded that the applicant did not suffer from insanity or serious mental disorder and that he disposed of the mental faculties to maintain himself in society "provided he could benefit from a sufficiently guided and lengthy transitory phase in an adequate environment" ("mits een voldoende begeleide en langdurige overgangsfase in een geschikt milieu") . Since the latter condition was not fulfilled, the Social Defence Committee decided to maintain the applicant's detention . The applicant introduced a plea of nullity against this decision which was rejected by the Court of Cassation on 10 February 1981 . The Court of Cassation argued that insofar as the plea of nullity was directed against the decision not to release the applicant, the plea was unfounde d - 168 -
since the decision had been taken in accordance with the law . Insofar as it was directed against details of the execution of the detention order the Court of Cassation declared itself incompetent . On 12 March 1981 the applicant made a new attempt to escape, after which he was returned to Tournai on 25 March 1981 on decision of the Minister of Justice in accordance with Art . 17, para 2 of the Social Defence Act . On 16 August 1981 the applicant escaped from Toumai prison . He was rearrested on 18 August 1981 . In September 1981 and March 1982 the applicant was provisionally transferred to the psychiatric wing of Ghent prison for a period of three weeks each time in order for him to be allowed to be visited by his mother . A medical report of 12 February 1982 drawn up by the prison doctors of Tournai for the attention of the Social Defence Committee qualifies the applicant as a cold psychopath, panicularly dangerous, although not in an overt manner, whose continued detention was necessary but whose transfer to a prison in a Flemish establishment was highly desirable for obvious cultural reasons . On 13 May 1982 the Social Defence Committee decided to transfer the applicant provisionally to the Ghent prison for a period of 3 months and to grant him a gradual leave scheme under the supervision of the Ghent Social Rehabilitation Office . A first permit took place on 27 May 1982 . The applicant devoted most of his time to gardening in a home . A second permit took place on 9 June 1982 . On 29 June 1982 the Social Defence Committee re-examined the applicant's case and decided to continue the leave permits . During the third permit, which took place on 7 July 1982, the applicant escaped . . .
The applicant was arrested on 9 July 1982 in the Netherlands (Oostburg) and placed in detention . On 14 July 1982 the Belgian authorities requested the applicant's extradition on the basis of the Treaty on Extradition and Mutual Assistance concluded between the Netherlands, Belgium and Luxembourg, signed in Brussels on 27 June 1962 and ratified by Belgium on I June 1964 .
The Regional Court of Middelburg authorised the extradition on 8 October 1982 . A plea of nullity introduced against this decision was rejected by the Supreme Court of the Netherlands on 12 April 1983 . In forwarding its decision to the Minister of Justice in accordance with Art . 30, para 2 of the Extradition Act, the Regional Court of Middelburg drew the Minister's attention to the particular harsh aspects of this extradition . The President of the Supreme Coun by letter of 12 April 1983 also drew the attention of the Minister to letters which the applicant, his counsel and third persons had addressed to him in which they had invoked Art . 10, para 2 of the Extradition Act which enabled the Minister of Justice to refuse an extradition if the consequences of the extradition would be particularly harsh in view inter alia of the bad health conditions of the person concerned . The Minister of Justice then ordered a psychiatric examination of the applicant . The psychiatrist, Dr . L ., drew up a report on 3 December 1982 . He concluded that the applicant was not mentally ill and that he did not constitute a danger for society . He considered that the applicant's extradition to Belgium would signify "the end of his existence" . If the applicant were to remain in the Netherlands, he would require expert assistance for his rehabilitation, adapted to his long period of detention . The Minister of Justice forwarded by letter of 25 April 1983 the applicant's pleas and the psychiatric report drawn up in the Netherlands to the Belgian Minister of Justice with the request to inforrn the Netherlands authorities as regards prospects for the applicant's future after his extradition . By letter of 26 May 1983, the Belgian Minister of Justice answered that he could not provide this information, since the review of the confinement pronounced in respect of the applicant fell exclusively within the competence of the Social Defence Committee and that the possibility of any change could only be examined if the requested person were made available to the Belgian authorities . In the light of the above answer, the Netherlands Minister of Justice decided to forward his letter as well as the psychiatric report drawn up in the Netherlands to the competent Social Defence Committee, so that their contents could be taken into account in future decisions as regards the applicant's continued detention . On this basis the Netherlands Minister of Justice granted the extradition of the applicant on 22 June 1983 . On 24 June 1983 the Regional Court of Middelburg, called upon to decide every 30 days on the prorogation of the applicant's detention with a view to his extradition, decided to suspend the applicant's detention and to order his innnediate release . The Coun considered in particular that the applicant's intention to introduce an application with the European Commission of Human Rights against Belgium and the Netherlands implied that the Netherlands must abstain from taking measure s
which could jeopardise this right of petition . Although the outcome of these proceedings could not be anticipated, the applicant's continued detention in the course of these proceedings required careful justification . As regards the danger of absconding, the Court held that even if this risk was real, the applicant could be released on condition that he declared himself to the local authorities . The applicant was then released . Since the above decision concerned only the applicant's detention but did not affect the power of the State to extradite the applicant, he brought on 20 June 1983 injunction proceedings against the State to prohibit the extradition a) pending the proceedings based on art . 25 of the European Convention and b) pending efforts by the Minister of Justice through diplomatic channels to make the Belgian authorities withdraw the extradition request and to achieve a friendly settlement . On 14 July 1983, the President of the Regional Court in The Hague rejected these requests . The applicant appealed from this decision to the Court of Appeal in The Hague . Since such appeal has no suspensive effect the applicant went immediately into hiding . As the applicant no longer complied with his duty to report weekly to the Iocal authorities, the public prosecutor of Middelburg introduced a request with the Regional Court of Middelburg to quash the decision to suspend the applicant's detention with a view to his extradition . This request was acceded to on 18 August 1983 . On 20 October 1983, the Court of Appeal in The Hague confirtned the decision of the Regional Court of The Hague of 5 July 1983 . The Court of Appeal distinguised between the formal aspect and material aspect of an application to the Commission . On the first point, the Court of Appeal observed, inter alia, that Belgium had also accepted the right of individual petition and that the applicant's extradition to Belgium would therefore not constitute an impediment to the exercise of the right of individual petition . The suspension of the extradition was not required by the Convention itself but could follow from an application of Rule 36 of the Commission's Rules of Procedure, which in the present case had however not been applied by the Commission . As regards the material aspect of the application to the Commission, the Court of Appeal considered that the applicant had failed to substantiate his claim that he would be subject to treatment contrary to Art . 3 in Belgium if extradited, and that, therefore, no joint responsibility of the Netherlands for this breach could be established . The fact that the privileges granted to him in Belgium would probably be withdrawn in view of the fact that he had abused them, did not warrant the conclusion that he would be subject to treatment contrary to Art . 3 of the Convention . - 171 -
The applicant, who has been in hiding since the decision of 14 July 1983 by the Regional Court of The Hague, has no means of subsistence . From time to'lime he has contact with Ã¢ social worker of the Salvation Arrny and with a protestant clergyman . They have both expressed the view that the applicant does not constitute a danger for society, that he is mentally sane but that he suffers immensely from the present situation
S .COMPLAINT The applicant's complaints against thÃ© Netherlands form the subjÃ©ct of a separate application (No . 10447/83 v . Ihe Netherlands) . The applicant's complaints against Belgium concem a breach of Art . 5 (1), 5 (4), 7 and 3 as regards his continued detention and the failure on behalf of the Belgian authorities to order his release (on probation) . These complaints can be summarised as follows : As regards Art . 5 (1 ) The applicant, referring to the judgment of the Court in the case of X v . the United Kingdom . (Eur . Court of H .R ., judgment of 5 November 1981, Series A, Vol . 46) considers that in his 'situation paras I (a) and I (e) of Art . 5 are both applicable . He considers that, even if it were true that at the relevant time he was criminally insane, it had now been scientifically established that he was no longer suffering from such mental disorder, so that the detention has ceased to be justified in the light of Art . 5(1) (e) . He refers to the medical opinion by Dr . L . of 20 October 1980, carried out on request of the Social Defence Committee and confirmed by the expert opinion of December 1982, established at the request of the Netherlands Minister of Justice . Both experts conclude that he does not suffer from any mental illnes or disorder, as a result of which he would constitute a danger for society . The applicant is therefore of the opinion that the initial decision to confine himfor a period of 15 years on the basis of the Social Defence Act of 1930 does not cover his continued detention under Art . 5 . Art . 18 of the Social Defence Act of 1964 requires two conditions to be fulfilled simultaneously for the Social Defence Committee to be able to grant release : an improved mental state and the fulfilment of such conditions for rehabilitation while Art . 20 of the fotmer Act did not require the fulfilment of conditions regarding rehabilitation . The application of Art . 18 of the present Social Defence Act had led the applicant into a vicious circle : his attempts to escape were the result of the fact that he had noprospects of release . The attempts to escape were interpreted by the Social Defence Committee as implying that he did not qualify for rehabilitation and refused to release him as a result of which he undertook further attempts to escape .
As regards ArY . 7 The applicant is of the opinion that he is also the victim of a breach of An . 7 of the Convention in that the conditions for his release are more stringent than those existing at the time of his conviction . In any event, the conditions under which he would continue to be detained were very different from those prevailing at the time of the decision of the Ghent Court of Appeal, so that there can no longer be any question of a "lawful detention after conviction" within the meaning of Art . 5(1) (a) . He refers in this respect to the judgement of the European Court of Human Rights in the case of Van Droogenbroeck, in which it held that, with the passage of time, the link between the initial decision to detain and the decision not to release may become so remote that the deprivation of liberty becomes arbitrary and hence incompatible with Art . 5 (Eur . Court H .R ., judgment of 24 June 1982, Series A, Vol . 50, para . 40) .
As regards Art . 5 (4 ) Referring to the case law of the European Court of Human Rights in the cases of X and Winterwerp ( cf . above-mentioned judgment and judgment of 27 November 1981, Series A, Vol . 47) the applicant considers that he is entitled on the basis of A rt . 5 (4) to a review of the lawfulness of his detention by an authority independent both of the executive and of the pa rt ies . He submits that the Social Defence Committee does not meet the standards of Art . 5 (4), neither as regards its composition nor as regards the procedure before it .
Composition Art . 12 of the Social Defence Act of 1964 provides that the Social Defence Committee is composed of three members and their substitutes : a magistrate, who presides . an advocate and a medical doctor (psychiatrist) . According to the applicant all members are of advanced age, incapable of exercising these htnctions in accordance with modem concepts . In support of this allegation the applicant submits an article published by Prof . W ., Director of the C .O .P . in Brrtssels and member of the Appeal Social Defence Committee, who attributes this situation inter alia to the low remuneration received by members . The legal members of the Committee are not in any way specialised in the relevant area . Moreover, the psychiatrist in the Committee is often at the same time administratively linked to the prisons administration and therefore not independent . Procedure According to the applicant the initial medical expertise which is at the basis of the confinement is being given excessive emphasis . The periodic reports are very superficial . In his case, a first serious medical expertise was carried out betwee n
1975 and 1978 and a second one in 1980 . In Tournai he had moreover been unable to communicate with the psychiatrists since the latter were francophone . The possibility offered by the law to proceed to a counter expertise was unrealistic in view of the high costs involved . In the proceedings before the Social Defence Commiuee the facts for which the detainee had been initially convicted were of primary importance and not the detainee's personality . Decisions to reject requests for release were never properly motivated , contrary to what the European Court of Human Rights had required in the case of X . v . the United Kingdom (opus cit . para 66) . There was finally a clear inequality of arms as regards remedies of which parties disposed in respect of decisions of the Social Defence Committee . When the Comminee rejected a request for release, no remedy was available, while if the Committee acceded to the request, the public prosecutor's department could appeal . He had in fact been a victim of this inequality as the public prosecutor successfully appealed in 1977 against the Social Defence Committee's decision to release him . As regards Art . 3 The applicant considers that throughout his detention hehas been subject to inhuman and degrading treatment contrary to Art . 3 and will be so, if the detention is continued . While detained in Tournai, he has spent approximately 14 years in isolation, in a punishment cell where he disposed of no table, chair or bedding, had only a small window in the cell from which he could only see a bare wall, was entitled to the visit of a clergyman once a week only (5 to 10 minutes) had no work, no recreation, no radio or T . V . In addition as a Flemish-speaking person he could not communicate with the francophone prison guards or doctors . He had been frequendy drugged against his will . He further complains that in reality he is serving a life sentence without prospects of release . None of the prison administrations has ever elaborated a time table for his release . Admittedly, solitary confinement, as such, did not constitute treatment contrar y to Art . 3 . This could however be the case, in a given situation having regard to the particular conditions, the stringency of the measure, its duration, its objective pursued and the effects on the person concemed (cf . Applications Nos . 7572/76, 7586/76 and 7587/76 v . Federal Republic of Germany, D .R . 14, 64) . Measures of solitary confinement of many months or even years as a reaction to his abortive attempts to evade were wholly disproportionate to the nature of these acts . During his successful evasions he had moreover not shown a dangerous social behaviour . The limits perntissible under An . 3 had been largely transgressed in his case .
The applicant quotes the "General Repo rt on the treatment of long-term prisoners" adopted by the European Committee on Crime Problems in 1977 (para 77) in which it is stated : "It is inhuman to imprison a person for life without any hope of release" and "Nobody should be deprived of the chance of possible release" . This report moreover contains a series of recommendations for the treatment of long-term prisoners, to which the applicant's treatment did far from correspond .
THE LA W The applicant complains about the continuation of his detention ordered in 1962 on the basis of the Act of Social Protection in respect of Mental Defectives and Habitual Offenders of 9 April 1930 as he was found to be criminally insane . He considers that his detention has ceased to be justified under Art . 5 of the Convention and also invokes Art . 7 of the Convention in this respect . He moreover argues that the Social Defence Committee instituted by the above legislation does not offer the guarantees of a judicial procedure required by Art . 5 (4) of the Convention . He also considers that the treatment to which he was subject in prison and to which he expects to be subject if returned to the Belgian authorities is contrary to Art . 3 of the Convention . The Government have argued that the applicant has failed to exhaust domestic remedies as required by Art . 26 of the Convention since he has not submitted the above complaints to the competent domestic authorities . The applicant has argued that his numerous requests on release were all based implicitly or explicitly on the ground that he considered his detention unlawful, since no longer fulfilling the conditions for deprivation of liberty listed under Art . 5 paras . (1) (a) to (f) of the Convention . The Commission recalls that according to its constant case-law the requirement of exhaustion of domestic remedies has been complied with if the applicant has raised, at least in substance, the complaints he puts to the Commission before the competent authorities in the domestic proceedings even without particular reference to the Convention (cf . e .g . Application No . 7367/76, D .R . 8 p . 185) . The Commission considers that in the present case the above condition has been satisfied, having regard to the reasons invoked by the applicant for requesting his release, namely that he considered himself to be mentally sane relying on medical evidence .
The Govemment have further argued that the applicant has only on one occasion seized the Court of Cassation and that in any event more than six months have elapsed since the latter rejected the applicant's plea of nullity . The Commission recalls that according to its constant case-law under Art . 26 of the Convention only those remedies must be exhausted that are likely to be effeÃ§tive (cf . e .g . Application No . 5613/72, D .R . 4 p . 177) . The Commission notes that the Court of Cassation in its decision of 10 February 198 1 upheld the decision of the Social Defence Committee on the grounds that the decision not to discharge the applicant had been taken in accordance with the law and that decisions regarding the mode of execution of the confinemeni did not fall under its jurisdiction . In these circumstances the Commission considers that a further appeal to the Court of Cassation is doomed to fail, the decisions of the Social Defence Committee since that date being solely concemed wilh the latter aspect . â¢ Moreover, the applicant, being presently not in detention, does not dispose of any remedy to prevent the detention to continue under conditions which he considers to be contrary to the Convention . . Finally the Commission recalls that where an application concems a continuing situation and where this state of affairs cannot be the result of a particular decision or event, the application cannot be rejected for non-observance of the six months' time-limit (cf. Application No . 7151/75 and 7152/75 . Sporrong and L6nnroth v . Swedenâ¢ D .R . 15 p . 15) . In these circumstances, therefore, the Commission concludes that the application cannot be rejected for non-exhaustion of domestic remedies or noncompliance with the six months' fule within the meaning of Art . 26 of the Convention . In the present case, the Commission finds that the applicant's allegations raise substantial issues of fact and law in particular as regards Arts . 3 and 5 of the Convention, which necessitate an examination on the merits of the application . It follows that the application cannot be regarded as manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Art . 27 (2) of the Convention and must be declared admissible, no other ground for declaring it inadmissible having been established . For these reasons- and without prejudging the merits, the Commissio n DECLARES THE APPLICATION ADMISSIBLE .
(TRADUCTION) EN FAI T Le requÃ©rant, ressortissant belge, est nÃ© en 1938 Ã S . . Il est Ã prÃ©sent en fuite aux Pays-Bas . Dans la procÃ©dure devant la Commission, il est reprÃ©sentÃ© par Me Schaink, avocat Ã Amsterdam . Le 28 mars 1961, la chambre des mises en accusation de la cour d'appel de Gand a Ã©tabli que le requÃ©rant avait commis une sÃ©rie de crimes, notamment trois meurtres, une tentative de meurtre avec vol qualifiÃ©, vingt vols et une tentative de vol qualifiÃ© avec dÃ©tention illÃ©gale d'armes Ã feu . Son aliÃ©nation mentale ayant Ã©tÃ© Ã©tablie, la cour ordonna son internement pour 15 ans dans un Ã©tablissement spÃ©cialisÃ©, en application de la loi du 9 avril 1930 de dÃ©fense sociale Ã l'Ã©gard des anormaux et des dÃ©linquants d'habitude . La commission de dÃ©fense sociale ordonna le mÃ¨me jour le placement de l'intÃ© ressÃ© dans la prison spÃ©cialisÃ©e de Toumai (Doomik) . Dans le courant de dÃ©cembre 1961, la commission ordonna le transfÃ©rement du requÃ©rant Ã l'Ã©tablissement de dÃ©fense sociale de Turnhout . Selon le Gouvemement, cet Ã©tablissement est destinÃ© aux internÃ©s choisis parmi les moins dangereux et pouvant Ãªtre soumis Ã un rÃ©gime rÃ©Ã©ducatif . En juin 1962, le requÃ©rant fut cependant renvoyÃ© Ã Toumni . En juillet 1963, la commission de dÃ©fense sociale de cet Ã©tablissement dÃ©cida de le placer Ã nouveau Ã Tumhout . Il s'en Ã©vada le 6 janvier 1964 et fut arrÃ©tÃ© le 11 janvier 1964 . A la suite de ce0e Ã© vasion, la commission de dÃ©fense sociale ordonna le 3 fÃ©vrier 1964 son transfÃ¨rement Ã Toumai, cet Ã© tablissement Ã© tant considÃ©rÃ© comme le seul prÃ©sentant les garanties se sÃ©curitÃ© pour les malades dangereux comme le requÃ©rant . Le IÂ° l juillet 1964, la loi de 1930 fut remplacÃ©e par une nouvelle loi de dÃ©fense sociale Ã l'Ã©gard des anormaux et des dÃ©linquants d'habitude . Selon le requÃ©rant, la modi fi cation la plus importante introduite par ce texte est que l'intemement est prononcÃ© pour une durÃ©e indÃ©terminÃ©e . En dÃ©cembre 1966, la commission de dÃ©fense sociale fit droit Ã la demande du requÃ©rant d'Ãªtre transfÃ©rÃ© Ã la prison de Gand pour y Ã©tre examinÃ© par un psychiatre de son choix, le docteur G . Le 1Â° mars 1967, le requÃ©rant fut renvoyÃ© Ã Toumai . Le 10 mars 1967, il tenta une Ã©vasion depuis le prÃ©au de l'Ã©tablissement . A partir de septembre 1967, il fut placÃ© sous une surveillance particuliÃ¨re tout en ayant acceptÃ© avec rÃ©ticence d'i' .tre soumis au rÃ©gime occupationnel . - 177 -
En dÃ©cembre 1967, il fut Ã nouveau transfÃ©rÃ© Ã l'annexe psychiatrique de la prison de Gand, d'oÃ¹ il tenta Ã nouveau de s'Ã©vader le 21 fÃ©vrier 1968 . A la suite de cet incident, le ministre de la Justice ordonna, conformÃ©ment Ã l'article 17, alinÃ©a 2 de la loi de dÃ©fense sociale de 1964 le transfert de l'intÃ©ressÃ© Ã Tournai par mesure de sÃ©curitÃ©. Dans une lettre du 12 dÃ©cembre 1968, le directeur de la prison de Tournai, rÃ©pondant au ministre de la Justice, indiqua Ã ce dernier que le requÃ©rant pourrait utiliser l'argument linguistique pour se faire transfÃ©rer dans une prison de la rÃ©gion flamande d'oÃ¹ ses plans d'Ã©vasion auraient plus de chance de rÃ©ussir . En dÃ©cembre 1969, la commission de dÃ©fense sociale examina une demande de mise en libertÃ© introduite par le requÃ©rant sur la base de l'article 18 de la loi de dÃ©fense sociale et ordonna le transfÃ©rement du requÃ©rant Ã l'annexe psychiatrique de la prison de Gand . Le 23 fÃ©vrier 1970, le requÃ©rant fut de nouveau transfÃ©rÃ© Ã Tumhour . Par mesure de sÃ©curitÃ©, il fut laissÃ© pendant une pÃ©riode prolongÃ©e sous le rÃ©gime d'observation auquel sont soumis tous les internÃ©s Ã leur arrivÃ©e car il semblait obsÃ©dÃ© par l'idÃ©e de s'Ã©vader . La commission de dÃ©fense sociale fut tenue pÃ©riodiquement inforrnÃ©e de son comportement et approuva son maintien sous observation . Par l'intermÃ©diaire d'un aumÃ´nier protestant, des contacts furent pris avec l'ArmÃ©e du Salut aux Pays-Bas en vue du reclassement futur de l'intemÃ© . Cependant, ces projets ne s'Ã©tant pas rÃ©alisÃ©s, les autoritÃ©s renvoyÃ¨rent le requÃ©rant Ã Toumai le 16 ao0t 1971 pour, dirent-elles, prÃ©venir une nouvelle tentative d'Ã©vasion suite Ã la dÃ©ception de l'intÃ©ressÃ© . Le 27 avril 1972, le requÃ©rant fut transfÃ©rÃ© Ã Gand pour une pÃ©riode de 15 jours afin de lui pertnettre de recevoir plus facilement la visite de sa mÃ¨re . Selon un rapport mÃ©dical du 24 mai 1972, le requÃ©rant semblait cette fois s'Ãªtre mieux adaptÃ© Ã la vie en prison que lors de ses prÃ©cÃ©dents sÃ©jours Ã Gand . La commission de dÃ©fense sociale autorisa son maintien Ã Gand jusqu'au mois d'octobre 1973 . Elle chargea ensuite un collÃ©ge de trois mÃ©decins d'Ã©tablir un rapport sur l'Ã©tat mental du requÃ©rant . Le 9 octobre 1973, la commission de dÃ©fense sociale rejeta une demande de mise en libertÃ© introduite par le requÃ©rant car elle estimait qu'aucune amÃ©lioration substantielle de son Ã©tat mental n'Ã©tait enregistrÃ©e . Elle dÃ©cida de renvoyer l'intÃ©ressÃ© Ã Turnhour . Sa dÃ©cision se fondait sur l'avis des trois psychiatres qui avait examinÃ© le requÃ©rant et conclu dans leur rapport du 31 aoÃ»t 1973 qu'il souffrait de schizophrÃ©nie chronique et Ã©tait incapable de se contrÃ´ler . Par lettre du 16 octobre 1973 le directeur de la prison de Toumhout informa cependant le ministre de la Justice de ses hÃ©sitations sur l'opportunitÃ© de rÃ©intÃ©grer le requÃ©rant dans cet Ã©tablissement- vu les difficultÃ©s qu'il avait autrefois causÃ©s Ã - 178 -
ses co-dÃ©tenus et aux gardiens . Le ministre dÃ©cida alors le 20 octobre 1973 de renvoyer par mesure de sÃ©curitÃ© le requÃ©rant Ã Toumai, en application de l'article 17, alinÃ©a 2 de la loi de dÃ©fense sociale . Le 4 juillet 1975, il fut dÃ©cidÃ©, aprÃ¨s concertation entre le prÃ©sident de la commission de dÃ©fense socialÃ© et l'administration pÃ©nitentiaire, de transfÃ©rer le requÃ©rant Ã la prison de St . Gilles pour y @tre soumis Ã un examen approfondi de sa personnalitÃ© . Cet Ã©tablissement comporte un Centre d'orientation pÃ©nitentiaire (C .O .P .), dirigÃ© par une Ã©quipe pluridisciplinaire sous la direction du Professeur W ., psychiatre, assistÃ© par une Ã©quipe scientitique comprenant psychiatres, psychologues, sociologues, criminologues et assistants sociaux . Sur la foi du rappon Ã©tabli par cette Ã©quipe le 1Â° 1 octobre 1976, la commission de dÃ©fense sociale ordonna le 5 fÃ©vrier 1977 la libÃ©ration Ã l'essai de l'intÃ©ressÃ© pour une pÃ©riode de dix ans . Cette dÃ©cision prendrait effet dÃ¨s que la commission aurait constatÃ© la rÃ©union d'un certain nombre de conditions concernant le logement, la mise au travail, le comportement et la tutelle . Le Procureur du Roi Ã Gand forma opposition Ã cette dÃ©cision, conformÃ©ment Ã l'article 19 de la loi de dÃ©fense sociale . L'opposition fut examinÃ©e par la commission supÃ©rieure de dÃ©fense sociale qui la dÃ©clara recevable le 3 mars 1977 et dÃ©cida de maintenir le requÃ©rant en dÃ©tention . La commission supÃ©rieure estima insuffisant que la commission sociale ait constatÃ© une amÃ©lioration de l'Ã©tat mental du dÃ©tenu . Il fallait Ã©galentent constater, de maniÃ¨re cumulative, la rÃ©union de conditions propres Ã sa rÃ©adaptation sociale . Le 9 mai 1977, le requÃ©rant tenta Ã nouveau une Ã©vasion . AprÃ¨s avoir rÃ©examinÃ© le cas du requÃ©rant le 20 septembre 1977, la commission de dÃ©fense sociale dÃ©cida le 5 octobre 1977 de maintenir le requÃ©rant en dÃ©tention, mais de le placer en milieu semi-ouvert dans l'Ã©tablissement de dÃ©fense sociale de Merksplas, rÃ©servÃ© aux internÃ©s non dÃ©ficients mentaux . Le ministre de la Justice dÃ©cida, en application de l'article 17, alinÃ©a 2 de la loi de dÃ©fense sociale, de surseoir provisoirement Ã ce transfÃ¨rement et demanda au C .O .P . d'Ã©tudier de concert avec la direction de l'Ã©tablissement les modalitÃ©s du rÃ©gime du requÃ©rant au sein de l'Ã©tablissement . Dans son rapport du 18 novembre 1977, le C .O .P . informa la commission de dÃ©fense sociale et la direction de la prison de Gand qu'un placement du requÃ©rant Ã Merksplas n'Ã©tait pas recommandÃ© du point de vue thÃ©rapeutique . Il proposait une libÃ©ration Ã l'essai en vue d'une rÃ©adaptation progressive Ã la sociÃ©tÃ© . En attendant la dÃ©cision de la commission, le requÃ©rant resta Ã Gand. Le 25 mai 1978, la conunission de dÃ©fense sociale dÃ©cida d'accorder une permission de so rt ie d'un jour pour les mois de juin, juillet et aoÃ»t et d'autoriser l e - 179 -
requÃ©rant Ã travailler comme jardinier dans un couvent sous la su rv eillance d'un membre du personnel du C .O .P . La premiÃ¨re permission s'est dÃ©roulÃ©e norroalement le 15 juin 1978 .O .P . recommanda alors de transfÃ©rer le requÃ©rant Ã l'annexe psychiat ri .LeC que de la prison de Louvain afin d'y poursuivre, en contact Ã©troit avec la direction, le plan de rÃ©adaptation Ã la sociÃ©tÃ© . Cependant, il est appam clairement que le requÃ©rant se proposait de me tt re Ã pro fi t une nouvelle pertoission pour s'Ã©vader et se rendre aux Pays-Bas, si bien que, sur conseil du C .O .P ., le plan fut interrompu . Dans son rapport du 13 juillet 1978, le docteur W . faisait un pronostic trÃ¨s dÃ©favorable pour l'avenir . vu le comportement du requÃ©rant . Le fait qu'Ã cette phase avancÃ©e du plan de rÃ©adaptation, l'intÃ©ressÃ© n'Ã©tait pas prÃ©t Ã se soumettre Ã aucune condition rendait quasi certain que, s'il Ã©tait libre, il essaierait de se soÃ»straire Ã toute forme de su rv eillance et se comporterait en .bÃ©te traquÃ©eÂ» . Le 14juillet 1978, le ministre de la Justice, dÃ©cida conformÃ©ment Ã l'article 17, alinÃ©a 2 de la loi de dÃ©fense sociale, de transfÃ©rer provisoirement le requÃ©rant Ã Tournai . Le 18 aoAt 1978, le requÃ©rant s'Ã©vada de cet Ã©tablissement aprÃ¨s enavoir agressÃ© un gardien . Il Pot Ã nouveau arrÃªtÃ© le 20 aoÃ»t 1978 . Dans le courant d'octobre 1978, il fut transfÃ©rÃ© pour quinze jours Ã l'annexe psychiatrique de la prison de Gnnd afin de lui permettre de recevoir plus facilement les visites de sa mÃ¨re . Il fut renvoyÃ© Ã Tournai le 25 octobre 1978 . Le 16 avril 1980, la commission de dÃ©fense sociale ordonna le transferement du requÃ©rant Ã l'Ã©tablissement de dÃ©fense sociale de Turnhour pour le soumettre Ã un examen psychiatrique par le docteur L ., mÃ©decin-chef du service de psychiatrie de l'hÃ´pital Stuyveberg Ã Anvers . Le requÃ©rant fut admis dans cet Ã©tablissement le 8 mai 1980 . Le 9 dÃ©cembre 1980, la commission rÃ©examina le cas de l'intÃ©ressÃ© sur la bas e du rapport Ã©tabli par le docteur L . le 20 octobre 1980 . Le psychiatre conclut que le requÃ©rant ne souffrait pas d'aliÃ©nation et de trouble mental grave et qu'il jouissaindes facultÃ©s mentales propres Ã le maintenir dans la sociÃ©tÃ© Â« Ã condition d'Ãªtre suffisament guidÃ© et de passer par une phase transitoire de longue durÃ©e dans un milieu protÃ©gÃ©â¢ (â¢mits een voldoende begeleide en langdurige overgangsfase in een geschikt milieuÂ») . CettÃ© demiÃ¨re condition n'Ã©tant pas remplie, la commission de dÃ©fense sociale dÃ©cida de maintenir le requÃ©rant en dÃ©tention . Le requÃ©rant introduisit contre cette dÃ©cision un pourvoi que la Cour de cassation rejeta le 10 fÃ©vrier 1981 . Elle estima que, dans la mesure oÃ¹ le pourvoi attaquait la dÃ©cision de ne pas libÃ©rer le requÃ©rant, ,
il Ã©tait dÃ©pourvu de fondement puisque cette dÃ©cision avait Ã©tÃ© prise conformÃ©ment Ã la loi . Dans la mesure oÃ¹ le pourvoi concernait les modalitÃ©s de l'application de la dÃ©cision d'intemement, la Cour de cassation se dÃ©clara incompÃ©tente . Le 12 mars 1981, le requÃ©rant tenta une nouvelle fois de s'Ã©vader, aprÃ¨s quoi il fut renvoyÃ© Ã Tournai le 25 mars 1981, sur dÃ©cision du ministre de la Justice, en application de l'article 17, alinÃ©a 2 de la loi de dÃ©fense sociale . Le 16 aoÃ»t 1981, le requÃ©rant s'Ã©vada de la prison de Tournai et fut repris le 18 ao0t 1981 . En septembre 1981 et mars 1982, le requÃ©rant fut transfÃ©rÃ© Ã titre provisoire Ã l'annexe psychiatrique Ã la prison de Gand pour une pÃ©riode de trois semaines chaque fois, afin de permettre Ã sa mÃ¨re de lui rendre visite . Le rapport Ã©tabli le 12 fÃ©vrier 1982 par les mÃ©decins de la prison de Toumai Ã l'intention de la commission de dÃ©fense sociale qualifie le requÃ©rant de psychopathe froid et particuliÃ¨rement dangereux, bien que de maniÃ¨re latente ; il estime que le maintien en dÃ©tention du requÃ©rant reste indiquÃ©, mais qu'il est trÃ¨s souhaitable pour des motifs culturels Ã©vidents, de le transfÃ©rer dans une prison flamande . Le 13 mai 1982, la commission de dÃ©fense sociale dÃ©cida de transfÃ©rer provisoirement l'intÃ©ressÃ© Ã la prison de Gnnd pour une pÃ©riode de trois mois, et de lui accorder des permissions de sortie selon un schÃ©ma progressif, sous la tutelle de l'office de rÃ©adaptation sociale de Gand .
Une premiÃ¨re journÃ©e de sortie fut organisÃ©e le 27 mai 1982 . Le requÃ©rant passa le plus clair de son temps Ã jardiner dans un . home* . Une deuxiÃ¨me permission de sortie fut accordÃ©e pour le 9 juin 1982 . Le 29 juin 1982, la commission de dÃ©fense sociale rÃ©examina le cas du requÃ©rant et dÃ©cida de poursuivre le processus des permissions de sortie . Lors de la troisiÃ¨me permission de sortie, accordÃ©e le 7juillet 1982, le requÃ©rant a pris la fuite . . s
Le requÃ©rant fut arrÃªtÃ© le 9 juillet 1982 aux Pays-Bas (Oostburg) et placÃ© en dÃ©tention . Le 14 juillet 1982, les autoritÃ©s belges demandÃ¨rent l'extradition du requÃ©rant sur la base du traitÃ© d'extradition et l'entraide judiciaire en matiÃ©re pÃ©nale conclu entre les Pays-Bas, la Belgique et le Luxembourg, signÃ© Ã Bruxelles le 27 juin 1962 et ratifiÃ© par la Belgique le 1â¢' juin 1964 . - 181 -
Le tribunal rÃ©gional de Middelburg autorisa l'extradition le 8 octobre 1982 . Un pourvoi en cassation formÃ© contre cette dÃ©cision fut repoussÃ© par la Cour suprÃªme des Pays-Bas le 12 avril 1983 . En adressant sa dÃ©cision au ministre de la Justice, conformÃ©ment Ã l'article 30, alinÃ©a 2 de la loi sur l'extradition, le lribunal rÃ©gional de Middelburg attira l'attention du ministre sur les conditions particuliÃ¨rement rigoureuses de cette extradition . Le prÃ©sident de la Cour suprÃªme attira Ã©galement l'attention du ministre, par lettre du 12 avril 1983, sur les courriers que le requÃ©rant, son conseil et des tierces personnes lui avaient adressÃ©s en invoquant l'article 10, alinÃ©a 2 sur la loi sur l'extradition qui permet au ministre de la Justice de refuser une extradition si les consÃ©quences devaient en Ãªtre particuliÃ¨rement rigoureuses, compte tenu notamment du mauvais Ã©tat de santÃ© de l'intÃ©ressÃ© . ' . Le ministre de la Justice ordonna alors un examen psychiatrique du requÃ©rant . Le psychiatre, le docteur P ., Ã©tablit son rapport le 3 dÃ©cembre 1982 . II concluait que le requÃ©rant n'Ã©tait pas un malade mental et ne constituait pas un danger pour la sociÃ©tÃ© . Il estimait qu'une extradition du requÃ©rant Ã la Belgique signifierait .la fin de son existence . . Si le requÃ©rant restait aux Pays-Bas- il lui faudrait l'assistance d'un expert pour se reclasser comptetenu de la longue durÃ©e de sa dÃ©tention . Par lettre du 25 avril 1983, le ministre nÃ©erlandais de la Justice adressa l'argumentation du requÃ©rant et le rapport du psychiatre nÃ©erlandais Ã son homologue belge en lui demandant d'informer le Gouvernement des Pays -Bas des perspectives d'avenir du requÃ©rant aprÃ¨s extradition Ã©ventuelle . Par lettre du 26 mai 1983, le ministre belge de la Justice rÃ©pondit ne pas Ãªtre en mesure de foumir cette information puisque le rÃ©examen de l'intemement ordonnÃ© Ã l'Ã©gard du requÃ©rant relÃ¨ve exclusivement de la compÃ©tence de la commission de dÃ©fense sociale et que la possibilitÃ© d'un changement Ã©ventuel ne pourrait Ãªtre examinÃ©e que si la personne requise se trouvait Ã la disposition des autoritÃ©s belges . Au vu de cette rÃ©ponse, le ministre nÃ©erlandais de la Justice dÃ©cida d'adresser sa lettre ainsi que le rapport psychiatrique Ã©tabli aux Pays-Bas Ã la commission de dÃ©fense sociale compÃ©tente pour que leur contenu puisse Ã¨tre pris en considÃ©ration dans les futures dÃ©cisions concemant le maintien en dÃ©tention du requÃ©rant . C'est sur cette base que le ministre nÃ©erlandais de la Justice autorisa l'extradition du requÃ©rant le 22 juin 1983 . Le 24 juin 1983, le tribunal rÃ©gional de Middelburg, qui devait dÃ©cider tous les trente jours du maintien en dÃ©tention du requÃ©rant en vue de son extradition, dÃ©cida de suspendre la dÃ©tention de l'intÃ©ressÃ© et d'ordonner sa mise en libertÃ© immÃ©diate . Le tribunal estima notamment que l'intention du requÃ©rant de dÃ©poser une requÃªte auprÃ¨s de la Commission europÃ©enne des Droits de l'Homme dirigÃ©e contre la Belgique et les Pays-Bas impliquait que les Pays-Bas s'abstiennent d'entraver ce droit de recours . Bien que l'on ne puisse pas anticiper l'issue de la procÃ©dure, l e - 182 -
maintien du requÃ©rant en dÃ©tention pendant ladite procÃ©dure exige une justification valable . Pour ce qui concerne le risque de fuite, le tribunal dÃ©clara que mÃªme si ce risque Ã©tait rÃ©el, le requÃ©rant pouvait nÃ©anmoins Ãªtre mis en libertÃ©, Ã condition de se prÃ©senter aux autoritÃ©s locales .
Le requÃ©rant fut donc remis en libertÃ© . La dÃ©cision prÃ©cÃ©dente ne concemant que la dÃ©tention du requÃ©rant sans affecter le pouvoir de l'Etat d'extrader l'intÃ©ressÃ©, le requÃ©rant sollicita contre l'Etat, le 20 juin 1983 une ordonnance du juge interdisant son extradition (a) pendant la procÃ©dure engagÃ©e sur la base de l'article 25 de la Convention europÃ©enne et (b) pendant les efforts que le ministre de la Justice dÃ©ployait par voie diplomatique pour amener les autoritÃ©s belges Ã retirer leur demande d'extradition et parvenir Ã un rÃ¨glement amiable . Le 14 juillet 1983, le prÃ©sident du tribunal rÃ©gional de La Haye, rejeta ces dentandes . Le requÃ©rant fit appel de cette dÃ©cision devant la cour d'appel de La Haye . L'appel n'ayant pas d'effet suspensif, le requÃ©rant prit immÃ©diatement la fuite . Comme le requÃ©rant ne se soumettait plus Ã l'obligation de se prÃ©senter chaqu e semaine aux autoritÃ©s locales, le parquet de Middelburg demanda au tribunal rÃ©gional de Middelburg d'annuler la dÃ©cision du suspendre l'internement du requÃ©rant en vue de son extradition . Le tribunal fit droit Ã cette demande le 18 aoÃ»t 1983 . Le 20 octobre 1983, la cour d'appel de La Haye confirma la dÃ©cision du tribunal rÃ©gional de La Haye en date du 5 juillet 1983 . La cour d'appel distingua entre l'aspect formel et l'aspect matÃ©riel d'une requÃªte de la Commission . Sur le premier point, la cour fit observer notamment que la Belgique, elle aussi, avait reconnu le droit de recours individuel et que l'extradition du requÃ©rant Ã ce pays ne constituerait donc pas une entrave Ã l'exercice de ce droit de recours . La suspension de l'extradition n'Ã©tait pas requise par la Convention elle-mÃªme, mais pouvait dÃ©couler d'une application de l'article 36 du RÃ¨glement intÃ©rieur de la Commission auquel, en l'espÃ¨ce, celle-ci n'avait cependant pas recouru . Sur l'aspect matÃ©riel de la requÃªte Ã la Commission, la cour d'appel estima que le requÃ©rant n'avait pas Ã©tayÃ© son argumentation selon laquelle il serait soumis en Belgique Ã un traitement contraire Ã l'article 3 s'il Ã©tait extradÃ©, et que, dÃ¨s lors, on ne pouvait Ã©tablir une responsabilitÃ© conjointe des Pays-Bas du chef de cette violation . Le fait que les privilÃ¨ges qui lui avaient Ã©LÃ© accordÃ©e en Belgique lui seraient probablement retirÃ©s puisqu'il en avait abusÃ© ne justifiait pas la conclusion qu'il serait soumis Ã un traitement contraire Ã l'article 3 de la Convention .
Le requÃ©rant, qui se cache depuis le jugement rendu le 14 juillet 1983 par le tribunal rÃ©gional de La Haye, n'a aucun moyen de subsistance . De temps en temps, il contacte un assistant social de l'arrnÃ©e du Salut et un pasteur protestant . Tous deux ont dÃ©clarÃ© que le requÃ©rant ne constitue pas un danger pour la sociÃ©tÃ©, qu'il est mentalement sain, mais qu'il souffre trÃ¨s fortement de la situation qu'il vit Ã l'heure actuelle . GRIEFS Les griefs du requÃ©rant contre les Pays-Bas font l'objet d'une requÃªte distincte (NÂ° 10447/83 contre les Pays-Bas) . Les griefs du requÃ©rant contre la Belgique concement les violations de l'article 5, par . 1 et 4, et des articles 7 et 3 en ce qui conceme son maintien en dÃ©tention et le fait que les autoritÃ©s belges n'ont pas ordonnÃ© da libÃ©ration Ã l'essai . Ces griefs peuvent se rÃ©sumer comme suit :
Au regard de l'article 5, par . 1 Le requÃ©rant, Ã©voquant l'arrÃªt rendu p ar la Cour dans l'affaire X c/RoyaumeUni (Cour eur . D .H . arrÃªt du 5 novembre 1981, SÃ©rie A, NÂ° 46) estime que les paragraphes 1(a) et 1(e) de l'article 5 s'appliquent tous deux Ã sa situation . Selon lui, mÃ©me s'il Ã©tait exact qu'Ã l'Ã©poque des faits il Ã©tait pÃ©nalement irresponsable, il est maintenant scientifiquement Ã©tabli qu'il ne souffre plus de troubles mentaux, de sorte que sa dÃ©tention n'est plus justifiÃ©e au regard de l'article 5, par . 1 (e) . Le requÃ©rant renvoie Ã l'expertise mÃ©dicale du docteur L ., en date du 20 octobre 1980, menÃ©e Ã la demande de la commission de dÃ©fense sociale et confirmÃ©e par l'expertise de dÃ©cembre 1982, Ã©tablie Ã la demande du ministre nÃ©erlandais de la Justice . L'un et l'autre experts ont conclu qu'il ne souffre pas d'une maladie ou d'une dÃ©ficience mentale qui en ferait un danger pour la sociÃ©tÃ© . Le requÃ©rant estime en consÃ©quence que la dÃ©cision initiale de l'intemer pour une pÃ©riode de 15 ans conformÃ©ment Ã la loi de dÃ©fense sociale de 1930 ne justifie plus son maintien en dÃ©tention au regard de l'article 5 . L'article 18 de la loi de dÃ©fense sociale de 1964 exige que deux conditions soient remplies simultanÃ©ment pour que la commission de dÃ©fense sociale puisse admettre l'internÃ© au bÃ©nÃ©fice de la libÃ©ration : une amÃ©lioration de l'Ã©tat mental et la rÃ©union de conditions perrnettant le reclassement de l'intÃ©ressÃ© . Or, l'article 20 de la prÃ©cÃ©dente loi n'exigeait pas ces conditions concernant la rÃ©adaptation sociale . L'obligation faite par l'article 187 de la loi actuelle a entrainÃ© le requÃ©rant dans un cercle vicieux : ses tentatives d'Ã©vasion Ã©taient en effet le rÃ©sultat de l'absence de perspectives de libÃ©ration . La contmission a interprÃ©tÃ© ces tentatives d'Ã©vasion comme impliquant qu'il ne remplissait pas les conditions d'une rÃ©adaptation et elle a refusÃ© de le mettre en libertÃ©, ce qui a eu pour effet de l'inciter Ã de nouvelles tentatives d'Ã©vasion .
Au regard de l'article 7 Le requÃ©rant estime Ãªtre Ã©galement victime d'une violation de l'arricle 7de la Convention, en ce sens que les conditions prÃ©vues pour sa mise en libertÃ© sont plus rigoureuses que celles qui existaient Ã l'Ã©poque de sa condamnation . Du reste, les conditions d'un maintien en dÃ©tention Ã©taient trÃ¨s diffÃ©rentes de celles qui prÃ©valaient Ã l'Ã©poque de l'arrÃ¨t rendu par la cour d'appel de Gand, si bien qu'il ne peut plus Ãªtre question d'une -nouvelle dÃ©tention rÃ©guliÃ¨re aprÃ¨s condamnation . au sens de l'article 5, par . 1 (a) . Le requÃ©rant renvoie Ã cet Ã©gard Ã l'arrÃ¨t rendu par la Cour europÃ©enne des Droits de l'Homme en l'affaire Van Droogenbroeck dans laquelle elle a dÃ©clarÃ© qu'avec l'Ã©coulement du temps, le lien entre la dÃ©cision initiale d'internement et/ou de non-Ã©largissement peut devenir si distendu qu'il se mue en une privation de libertÃ© arbitraire, et, dÃ¨s lors, incompatible avec l'article 5 (Cour eur . DH, arrÃ©t Van Droogenbroeck du 24 juin 1982, SÃ©rie A, NÂ° 50, par . 40) .
Au regard de l'arllcle 5, par . 4 Evoquant la jurisprudence de la Cour europÃ©enne des Droits de l'Homme dans les affaires X et Winterwerp (cf . arrÃªt susmentionnÃ© et arrÃ¨t du 27 novembre 1981, SÃ©rie A, NÂ° 47), le requÃ©rant estime Ãªtre fondÃ© Ã rÃ©clamer, sur la base de l'article 5, par . 4, un contr8le de la rÃ©gularitÃ© de sa dÃ©tention par un organe indÃ©pendant Ã la fois de l'exÃ©cutif et des parties . Selon lui, la commission de dÃ©fense sociale ne rÃ©pond pas aux exigences de l'article 5, par . 4, ni par sa composition, ni par sa procÃ©dure . Composition L'article 12 de la loi de la dÃ©fense sociale de 1964 stipule que la commission de dÃ©fense sociale se compose de trois membres et de leurs supplÃ©ants : un magistrat, qui prÃ©side la commission, un avocat et un psychiatre . Selon le requÃ©rant, tous les membres seraient Ã¢gÃ©s, inaptes Ã exercer leurs fonctions selon des normes modernes . A l'appui de cette accusation, le requÃ©rant soumet un article publiÃ© par le professeur W ., directeur du C .O .P . de Bruxelles et membre de la commission supÃ©rieure de dÃ©fense sociale, pour qui cette situation s'explique notamment par la faible rÃ©munÃ©ration versÃ©e aux membres de ladite commission . Les juristes membres de cette commission n'ont pas les qualifications spÃ©cifiques requises . En outre, le psychiatre de la commission Ã©tant souvent administrativement liÃ© Ã l'administration pÃ©nitentiaire n'est dÃ¨s lors pas indÃ©pendant . ProcÃ©dure Selon le requÃ©rant, l'expertise mÃ©dicale initiale qui est Ã l'origine de son internement se voit accorder une importance excessive alors que les rapports pÃ©riodiques sont au contraire trÃ¨s superficiels . Dans son cas, une premiÃ¨re expÃ©rtise mÃ©dicale sÃ©rieuse a Ã©tÃ© effectuÃ©e entre 1975 et 1978 et une deuxiÃ©me en 1980 . A Tournai, il a en outre pu communiquer avec les psychiatres qui Ã©taient francophones .
La possibilitÃ© qu'offre la loi de procÃ©der Ã une contre-expertise n'est pas rÃ©aliste compte tenu de son cotlt Ã©levÃ© . Dans la procÃ©dure devant la commission de dÃ©fense sociale, c'est aux faits qui sont Ã l'origine de la condamnation du dÃ©tenu que l'on a accordÃ© la primautÃ© et non Ã la personnalitÃ© de l'intÃ©ressÃ© . Les dÃ©cisions repoussant les demandes de libÃ©ration n'ont jamais Ã©tÃ© convenablement motivÃ©es, contrairement Ã ce que la Cour europÃ©enne des Droits de l'Homme a exigÃ© dans l'affaire X c/Royaume-Uni (op . cit ., par . 66) . Enfin, il y avait manifestement inÃ©galitÃ© des armes en ce qui conceme les recours offerts aux parties pour contester les dÃ©cisions de la commission de dÃ©fense sociale . En effet, lorsque la commission rejette une demande de mise en libertÃ©, aucun recours n'est ouvert Ã l'intÃ©ressÃ© alors que si la commission fait droit Ã la demande, le Procureur du Roi pÃ©ut faire appel . Le requÃ©rant a en rÃ©alitÃ© Ã©tÃ© victime de cette inÃ©galitÃ© puisque l'appel interjetÃ© en 1977 par le Procureur du Roi contre la dÃ©cision de la cotrunission de le mettre en libertÃ© a Ã©tÃ© couronnÃ© de succÃ©s . Au regard de l'article 3 Le requÃ©rant estime avoir Ã©tÃ©, tout au long de sa dÃ©tention, soumis Ã un traitement inhumain et dÃ©gradant contraire Ã l'article 3 et qu'il le serait encore si la dÃ©tention se poursuivait . Pendant son internement Ã Tournai, il a passÃ© environ 14 ans en isolement complet, dans une cellule disciplinaire oÃ¹ il n'avait ni table ni chaise ni couchage ; la cellule n'avait qu'une petite fenÃªtre d'oÃ¹ il ne pouvait voir qu'un mur nu . Le dÃ©tenu ne recevait la visite d'un pasteur qu'une fois par semaine (5 Ã 10 minutes), n'avait ni heures de travail,'ni rÃ©crÃ©ation, ni radio, ni tÃ©lÃ©vision . De plus,-Ã©tant de langue flamande, il ne pouvait communiquer ni avec les gardiens ni avec les mÃ©decins francophones . On lui a souvent administrÃ© des drogues contre sa volontÃ© . Il se plaint en outre de purger en fait une peine de prison Ã vie sans aucune perspective de libÃ©ration . Aucun des Ã©tablissements pÃ©nitentiaires n'ajamais mis au point un calendrier pour sa libÃ©ration . Bien sÃ»r, l'isolement cellulaire ne constitue pas en soi un traitement contraire Ã l'a rt icle 3 . Ce peut nÃ©anmoins @tre lecas si, dans un cas pa rt iculier, il y a lieu d'avoir Ã©gard aux conditions particuliÃ¨res, Ã la rigueur de la mesure, Ã sa durÃ©e, Ã l'objectif pou rsuivi ainsi qu'aux effets sur la personne concemÃ©e (cf . requÃªte c/RÃ©publique FÃ©dÃ©rale d'Allemagne, D .R . 1 4 sNo752/6,8et7 . . â¢ p .64) . L'isolement cellulaire qui lui fut imposÃ© pendant plusieu rs mois, voire plusieurs annÃ©es, en rÃ©action Ã ses tentatives infructueuses d'Ã©vasion Ã©tait une mesure totalement dispropo rt ionnÃ©e avec la nature de ce compo rtement . Du reste, lo rs de
ses Ã©vasions rÃ©ussies, le requÃ©rant n'a pas manifestÃ© un comportement social dangereux . Les limites autorisÃ©es au regard de l'article 3 ont Ã©tÃ© largement dÃ©passÃ©es dans son cas . Le requÃ©rant cite le - rapport gÃ©nÃ©ral sur le traitement des dÃ©tenus en dÃ©tention de longue durÃ©e â¢, adoptÃ© en 1977 par le ComitÃ© europÃ©en sur les problÃ¨mes criminels (par . 77) qui prÃ©cise - il est inhumain d'emprisonner une personne pour la vie sans lui laisser aucun espoir de libÃ©ration - et - personne ne devrait Ãªtre privÃ© de la possibilitÃ© d'une libÃ©ration Ã©ventuelleÂ» . Ce rapport contient en outre une sÃ©rie de recommandations pour le traitement des dÃ©tenus de longue durÃ©e auxquelles le traitentent appliquÃ© au requÃ©rant Ã©tait loin de correspondre . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . .
EN DROI T Le requÃ©rant se plaint de son maintien en dÃ©tention aprÃ©s qu'en 1962 ait Ã©tÃ© ordonnÃ© son intemement pour dÃ©mence sur la base de la loi du 9 avril 1930 de dÃ©fense sociale Ã l'Ã©gard des anormaux et dÃ©linquants d'habitude . Il estime que cet intemement ne se justi fie plus au regrd de l'a rticle 5 de la Convention et invoque Ã© galement Ã cet Ã©gard l'article 7 . Il fait valoir en outre que la comrnission de dÃ©fense sociale instituÃ©e par la lÃ©gislation prÃ©citÃ©e n'offre pas les garanties d'une procÃ©durejudiciaire requises parl'anicle 5, par . 4 de la Convention . Il estime Ã©galement que le traitement auquel il a Ã©tÃ© soumis en prison et auquel il peut s'attendre s'il est renvoyÃ© aux autoritÃ©s belges est contraire Ã l'a rticle 3 de la Convention . Le Gouvernement soutient, quant Ã lui, que le requÃ©rant n'a pas Ã©puisÃ© les recours internes, contme l'exige l'a rticle 26 de la Convention, puisqu'il n'a pas soumis les griefs susdits aux autoritÃ©s internes compÃ©tentes . Le requÃ©rant a fait valoir que ses nombreuses demandes de mise en libe rtÃ© se fondaient toutes expressÃ©ment ou implicitement sur l'idÃ©e que sa dÃ©tention Ã©tait selon lui irrÃ©guliÃ¨re, puisqu'elle ne remplissait plus les conditions de privation de libe rt Ã© Ã© numÃ©rÃ©es Ã l'a rt icle 5, par . 1(a) Ã (t) de la Convention . La Commission rappelle que, selon sa jurisprudence constante, il suffit pour que le requÃ©rant ait Ã©puisÃ© les recours intemes qu'il ait articulÃ©, au moins en substance, devant les autoritÃ©s nationales, les griefs qu'il soumet Ã la Commission, mÃªme sans s'Ãªtre expressÃ©ment rÃ©fÃ©rÃ© Ã la Convention ( cf. par exemple, la requBte NÂ° 7367/76, D .R . 8 p . 185) .
La Commission estime qu'enl'espÃ©ce la condition susdite a Ã©tÃ© remplie, eu Ã©gard aux motifs invoquÃ©s par le requÃ©rant pour demander samise en libertÃ©, Ã savoir qu'il se considÃ©rait comme mentalement sain au vu des rapports mÃ©dicaux . Le Gouvemement a soutenu en outre que le requÃ©rant n'avait saisi qu'Ã une seule occasion la Cour de cassation et que, du reste, plus de six mois s'Ã©taient Ã©coulÃ©s depuis le rejet du pourvoi par la Cour . La Commission rappelle que, selon sa jurisprudence constante, seules doivent Ã©tre Ã©puisÃ©es au regard del'article 26 de la Convention les voies de recours susceptibles d'Ãªtre efficaces (cf. par exemple la requÃ©te NÂ° 5613/72, D .R . 4 p . 177) . La Commission relÃ¨ve que, dans son arrÃ©t du 10 fÃ©vrier 1981, la Cour de cassation a confirmÃ© la dÃ©cision de la commission de dÃ©fense sociale en estimant que le refus de remettre le requÃ©rant en libertÃ© Ã©tait conforme Ã la loi et que les dÃ©cisions concemant les modalitÃ©s d'exÃ©cution de l'intemement ne relevaient pas dÃ© sa compÃ©tence . Dans ces conditions, la Commission estime qu'un nouveau recours Ã la Cour de cassation serait vouÃ© Ã l'Ã©chec, les dÃ©cisions de la commission de dÃ©fense sociale prises depuis cette date ne concernent que ce demier aspect de l'intemement . En outre, le requÃ©rant n'Ã©tant pas actuellement dÃ©tenu ne dispose d'aucune voie de recours pour empÃªcher la dÃ©tention de se poursuivre dans des conditions qu'il estime contraires Ã la Conventio n Enfin, la Commission rappelle que lorsqu'une requÃªte concerneune situation continue et que ce tt e situation n'a pas Ã©tÃ© crÃ©Ã©e par une dÃ©cision ou un Ã©vÃ©nement spÃ©cifique, ladite requÃ©te ne saurait Ãªtre rejetÃ©e pour inobse rv ation du dÃ©lai de six mois (cf. requÃ©tes NÂ°' 7151/75 et 7152/75, Sporrong et Ltinnroth c/SuÃ¨de, D .R . 15 p . 15) .
La Commission estime dÃ¨s lors que la re quÃ©te ne saurait Ãªtre rejetÃ©e pour dÃ©faut d'Ã©puisement des recours intemes ou inobse rv ation de la rÃ¨gle dessix mois au sens de l'article 26 de la Convention . En l'espÃ©ce, la Commission constate que les allÃ©gations du requÃ©rant posen t d'importants problÃ¨mes de fait et de droit, notamment en ce qui concerne les articles 3 et 5 de la Convention, qui appellent un examen au fond de l'affaire . Il s'ensuit que la requ2te ne saurait Ãªtre considÃ©rÃ©e comme manifestement mal fondÃ©e au sens de l'article 27 ; par . 2 de la Convention, et qu'elle doit dÃ©s lors Ãªtre dÃ©clarÃ©e recevable, aucun autre motif d'irrecevabilitÃ© n'ayant Ã©tÃ© Ã©tabli . Par ces motifs,tout moyen de fond Ã©tant rÃ©se rvÃ©, la Commission DÃCLARE LA REQUÃTE RECEVABL E
- 188 -Origine de la décision Pays : Conseil de l'EuropeJuridiction : Cour européenne des droits de l'hommeFormation : Commission (plénière)Date de la décision : 12/07/1984Fonds documentaire : HUDOC Haut de page