Source: http://www.juricaf.org/arret/CONSEILDELEUROPE-COUREUROPEENNEDESDROITSDELHOMME-19840315-991182
Timestamp: 2017-07-25 21:01:26+00:00
Document Index: 196394808

Matched Legal Cases: ['arrêt ', "l'article 3", "l'article 26", "l'article 3", "l'article 26", "l'article 30", "l'article 293", "l'article 25", "l'article 3", "l'article 27", "l'article 3"]

R., S., A. et C. c. PORTUGAL
Page d'accueil > Résultats de la recherche R., S., A. et C. c. PORTUGAL
Type d'affaire : DecisionType de recours : Partiellement recevable; partiellement irrecevableNumérotation : Numéro d'arrêt : 9911/82Identifiant URN:LEX : urn:lex;coe;cour.europeenne.droits.homme;arret;1984-03-15;9911.82 Analyses : (Art. 5-1) LIBERTE PHYSIQUE, (Art. 5-1-e) ALIENE, (Art. 5-4) INTRODUIRE UN RECOURSParties : Demandeurs : R., S., A. et C.Défendeurs : PORTUGALTexte : APPLICATIONS/REQUÃTES N" 9911/82 & 9945/82 (joined/jointes ) R ., S . . A . and C . v/PORTUGA L R ., S . . A . et C . c/PORTUGA L DECISION of 15 March 1984 on the admissibility of the applications DÃCISION du 15 mars 1984 sur la recevabilitÃ© des requÃªtes
Article 3 of the Convention : Prisoner-applicants, on hunger strike, largely responsible themselves for the delays before their examination by doctors . Complaint declared manifestly ill founded. . . . Arlieles 3 and 26 of the Convention : An applicant who alleges official tolerance of ill-treatment is not absolved from his dutv to exhaust domestic remedies, unless he substantiates such allegations with a detailed explanation . -
Article 3 de la Conventlon : RequÃ©rants dÃ©tenuslargemem responsables du retard avec lequel ils otu Ã©tÃ© examinÃ©s par des mÃ©decins Ã l'occasion de leur giÃ¨ve de la faim . Grief manifestement mai fondÃ©. Articles 3 et 26 de la Convention : Ix requÃ©rant qui allÃ¨gue une tolÃ©rance officielle de mauvais traitement ne peut Ãªtre relevÃ© de l'obligation d'Ã©puiser les voies de recours internes que s'il Ã©taye lesdites allÃ©gations par des explications circonstanciÃ©es.
(English :see p. 205)
Les quatre requÃ©rants ont militÃ© dans une organisation politique clandestine (Brigadas Revolucionarias) qui, notamment, organisa l'attaque de plusieurs agences de banques pour se procurer des fonds.
- 2pp -
ArrÃ©tÃ© en 1 978, le requÃ©rant S . s'est plaint au directeur de la police judiciaire de Porto d'avoir Ã©tÃ© maltraitÃ© par des agents . AprÃ¨s enquÃªte le directeur classa la plairne . Toutefois le parquet se saisit de l'affaire mais, en ce qui concerne les agents de police visÃ©s par le requÃ©rant, le juge prononÃ§a un non-lieu faute d'indices suffisants, en mai /982. Le parquet recourut contre ceue dÃ©cision auprÃ¨s de la cour d'appel de Porto et la procÃ©dure Ã© tait encore pendante au moment de l'examen de la requÃªte. ArrÃªtÃ© en 1980, le requÃ©rant R . s'esr plaint au directeur de la police judiciaire de Porto d'avoir Ã©tÃ© agressÃ© par un agent . AprÃ¨s enquÃªte le directeur classa l'affaire . Lr requÃ©rant dÃ©posa plainte pÃ©nale nmis, aprÃ¨s enquÃªte, elle fut Ã©galement classÃ©e . Le requÃ©rant recourut contre cette dÃ©cisiort (reclamaÃ§ao hierarquica) . Au cours des mois de nmi et juin /982 . alors qu'ils Ã©taient dÃ©tenus, les quatre requÃ©rants, successivement, enramÃ¨rent une grÃ¨ve de la faim pour revendiquer le bÃ©nÃ©fice d'une amnistie Ã laquelle ils estimaient avoir droit pour avoir commis des infractions de caractÃ¨re politique . Ils furent transfÃ©rÃ©s dans un autre Ã©tablissement et soumis Ã un rÃ©gime plus svict, puis deuz d'entre eua furent placÃ©s dans un hÃ´pital pour dÃ©tenus. Les requÃ©rants refusÃ¨rent d'Ãªtre examinÃ©s par des mÃ©decins attachÃ©s aux Ã©rablissements pÃ©nitentiaires . afin d'Ã©viter que la presse fi7t informÃ©e de leur Ã©tat de santÃ© par le seul canal des autoritÃ©s, et exigÃ¨rent la prÃ©sence du mÃ©decin de leur chois . AprÃ¨s de longues nÃ©gociations, les requÃ©rants - les premiers dÃ¨s juin 1 982 - furent examinÃ©s par une Ã©quipe contposÃ©e d'un mÃ©decin dÃ©signÃ© par I'Ordre des ntÃ©decins, d'un mÃ©decin des prisons et d'un mÃ©decin de leur choix . L'Ã©tat de trois d'emre eta fut jugÃ© grave .
Les requÃ©rants mirenr fin Ã leur grÃ¨ve de la faim le 3 juillet 1982.
EN DROIT (Extrait ) 1 . Quant aux allÃ©gations de mauvais traitements infligÃ©s aux requÃ©rants S . et R . par des agents de la police judiciair e I . Les deux requÃ©rants susmentionnÃ©s se plaignent d'avoir Ã©tÃ© maltraitÃ©s par des agents de la police judiciaire de Porto aprÃ¨s qÃ»e ces demiers aient procÃ©dÃ© Ã leur arrestation . Le requÃ©rant S . aurait subi de mauvais traitements en avril 1978 et le requÃ©rant R . en dÃ©cembre 1980 . 2 . lls allÃ¨guent de ce fait la violation de l'article 3 de la Convention, aux termes duquel â¢ nul ne peut Ã¨tre soumis Ã la torture ni Ã des peines ou traitements inhumains ou dÃ©gradants- . - 201 -
3 . Pour ce qui est du grief forniulÃ© par le requÃ©rant S ., la Commission constate que les faits dont il se plaint se situent Ã une Ã©poque antÃ©rieure au 9 novembre 1978, date de l'entrÃ©e en vigueur de la Convention Ã l'Ã©gard du Portugal . Or, selon les principes de droit international gÃ©nÃ©ralement reconnus, la Convention ne gouverne, pour chacune des Parties Contractantes, que les faits postÃ©rieurs Ã son entrÃ©e en vigueur Ã l'Ã©gard de cette Panie . Il s'ensuit que cette panie de la requÃªte Ã©chappe Ã la compÃ©tence ratione temporis de la Commission . 4 . Pour ce qui est de la violation de la disposition susmentionnÃ©e de la Convention allÃ©guÃ©e par le requÃ©rant R ., le Gouvernement dÃ©fendeur soutient que le requÃ©ram n'apas satisfait Ã la condition de l'Ã©puisement des voies de recours internes, prÃ©vue Ã l'article 26 de la Convention, dans la mesure oÃ¹ la procÃ©dure ouverte contre l'auteur de l'agression est toujours pendante devant les instances nationales et oÃ¹ en outre, le requÃ©rant aurait pu introduire, dÃ¨s le dÃ©but ou six mois aprÃ¨s le dÃ©pÃ´t de la plainte, une action civile en dommages-intÃ©rÃ¨ts . Le requÃ©rant, quant Ã lui, estime que les recours auxquels le Gouvernement fait rÃ©fÃ©rence ne sont pas des recours efficaces Ã©tÃ nt donnÃ© que les autoritÃ©s nationales supÃ©rieures tol8rent des traitements contraires Ã l'article 3 ou s'abstiennent d'en empÃªcher la rÃ©pÃ©tition . 5 . La Commission constate, en premier lieu, qu'une premiÃ©re plainte adressÃ©e par le requÃ©rant au directeur de la police judiciaire fut classÃ©e par dÃ©cision de ce dernier du 11 aoÃ¹t 1981 . Toutefois, le requÃ©rant a ensuite portÃ© plainte en novembre 1981 au procureur de la RÃ©publique auprÃ¨s du tribunal de Sintra et le magistrat ordonna l'ouverture d'une poursuite pÃ©nale Ã l'encontre de l'auteur prÃ©sumÃ© de l'agression . Le procureur n'a pas requis qu'il fÃ¹t procÃ©dÃ© Ã une instmction prÃ©paratoire, dirigÃ©e par le juge d'instruction, mais ordonna que la procÃ©dure pÃ©nale eÃ¹t la forme d'une enquÃªte prÃ©liminaire (-inquÃ©rito preliminar .), sous sa responsabilitÃ©, ainsi que l'autorisaient les dispositions du droit portugais applicable pour ce qui conceme la poursuite pÃ©nale d'infractions moins graves (v . articles I et 2 du dÃ©cret-loi 605/77, modifiÃ© par le dÃ©cret-loi 377/77) . 6 . Cette procÃ©dure est pendante depuis presque deux ans . Cette durÃ©e est certainement longue surtout si l'on considÃ¨re que la forme de procÃ©dure choisie est censÃ©e Ã¨tre .plus rapide que celle oÃ¹ l'instmction est dirigÃ©e par un juge d'instruction . Si elle se prolongeait, une telle durÃ©e pourrait mettre en doute le caractÃ¨re efficace de ce recours . La Commission considÃ¨re toutefois que, malgrÃ© cette longueur, la procÃ©dure doit Ã¨tre considÃ©rÃ©e comme une voie de recours Ã utiliser, conformÃ©ment Ã l'article 26 de la Convention, vu qu'elle est susceptible de porter remÃ¨de Ã la situation litigieuse . D'autre pan, d'aprÃ¨s l'article 30 du Code de procÃ©dure pÃ©nale . le requÃ©rant aurait pu introduire une action en dommages-intÃ©rÃ¨ts, six mois aprÃ¨s le dÃ©p8t de la plainte pÃ©nale, Ã©tant donnÃ© que l'action pÃ©nale n'avait pas Ã©tÃ© exercÃ©e dans ce mÃªme dÃ©lai . 7 . En effet, un traitement comme celui que le requÃ©rant prÃ©tend avoir subi est contraire au droit portugais . S'il est prouvÃ©, il comporte violation du droit pÃ©nal, e n - 202 -
particulier de l'article 293 du Code pÃ©nal, aux termes duquel =tout agent de police, chargÃ© de surveiller un dÃ©tenu et qui a fait preuve envers ce demier d'une rigueur illÃ©gitime, sera condamnÃ© Ã une peine d'emprisonnement pouvant aller jusqu'Ã six mois : si les actes commis par lui sont passibles de peines plus lourdes, il sera condamnÃ© Ã ces derniÃ©res Â» . Les articles 22 et 271 de la Constitution prÃ©voient aussi la responsabilitÃ© de l'Etat et de ses agents pour les actes ayant entraÃ®nÃ© violation des droits et libertÃ©s garantis, ce qui aurait permis au requÃ©rant, dÃ¨s le dÃ©but, d'introduire une action en dommages-intÃ©rÃ©ts contre l'Etat ou les agents de la police judiciaire . 8 . II est vrai que s'il Ã©tait Ã©tabli que les autoritÃ©s supÃ©rieures du Portugal avaient autorisÃ© ou tolÃ©rÃ© des componements du type de celui qui est dÃ©noncÃ© par lerequÃ©rant, ou omis de prendre des mesures raisonnables pour empÃªcher qu'ils ne se produisent ou ne se rÃ©pÃ¨tent, il ne saurait Ãªtre exigÃ© du requÃ©rant qu'il attende l'issue de la procÃ©dure susmentionnÃ©e . Il y a lieu, toutefois, de relever que dans le cas d'espÃ¨ce une telle allÃ©gation n'a pas Ã©tÃ© suffisamment Ã©tayÃ©e . Or, lorsque dans une requÃªte introduite en vertu de l'article 25, la question se pose de savoir si une voie de recours existante a Ã©tÃ© rendue inefficace du fait que les autoritÃ©s supÃ©rieures de l'Etat n'ont pas pris des mesures suffisantes pour se conformer aux obligations concrÃ¨tes dÃ©coulant de l'article 3 de la Convention, des allÃ©gations circonstanciÃ©es de cette omission doivent Ãªtre fournies avant que la Commission ne puisse dÃ©cider si le requÃ©rant est relevÃ© de l'obligation de se prÃ©valoir du recours en question (v . rnuratis mutandis . requÃ©te nÂ° 8462/79 . X . c/Royaume-Uni, D .R . 20, pp . 184, 191) . 9 . Dans ces circonstances, la Commission considÃ¨re que l'existence de circonstances relevant le requÃ©rant de l'obligation normale d'Ã©puiser les voies de recours internes, conformÃ©ment Ã l'anicle 26 de la Convention, n'a pas Ã©tÃ© Ã©tablie . Cette partie de la requÃªte est donc irrecevable, en application de l'article susmentionnÃ© et de l'article 27, par . 3 . de la Convention . 2 . Quant aux conditions de dÃ©tention des requÃ©rant s . . . . . . . . . .. . .. . ii . Quaru Ã !'assistance tnÃ©dicale des requÃ©rants lors de leur grÃ¨ve de la fai m 15 . Le requÃ©rant R . commenÃ§a sa grÃ¨ve de la faint le 22 mai 1982, le requÃ©rant S . le I^ juin . le requÃ©rant A . le 10 juin et la requÃ©rante C . le 20 juin . Ils n'ont Ã©tÃ© examinÃ©s pour la premiÃ¨re fois par une Ã©quipe ntÃ©dicale que le 16 juin 1982, alors que le requÃ©rant R . se trouvait dÃ©jÃ Ã son 26Â° jour de grÃ¨ve . 16 . Il est sans doute inquiÃ©tant qu'un laps de temps aussi long puisse s'Ãªtre Ã©coulÃ© sans que les requÃ©rants aient Ã©tÃ© surveillÃ©s mÃ©dicalement . Toutefois, la question qu'il importe de trancher est celle de savoir dans quelle mesure les autoritÃ©s nationales ont Ã©tÃ© responsables de cette situation . Or, Ã cet Ã©gard, il est important de releve r
que dÃ¨s qu'ils ont entamÃ© leur grÃ¨ve de la faim, les requÃ©rants se sont toitjours refusÃ©s Ã @tre examinÃ©s par le mÃ©decin de l'Ã©tablissement pÃ©nitentiaire . Ils ont mÃªme refusÃ© (les requÃ«rants R . et S .) d'Ã©trÃ© examinÃ©s par une Ã©quipe mÃ©dicale composÃ©e de trois mÃ©decins de l'hÃ´pital universitaire de Lisbonne, alors que l'un de ces derniers figurait dans une liste transmise par les requÃ©rants et contenant les mÃ©decins de leur choix . Cette situation ne fut dÃ©bloquÃ©e que le 16juin 1982, lorsque les autoritÃ©s pÃ©ni.17 tentiaires acceptÃ¨rent qu'un Ã©quipe mÃ©dicale, constituÃ©e d'un mÃ©decin dÃ©signÃ© par l'Ordre des mÃ©decins, du mÃ©decin de laprison et d'un mÃ©decin choisi par les requÃ©rants, ait accÃ¨s Ã ces derniers . Lors de ces premiersrapports mÃ©dicaux, cette Ã©quipe demanda l'hospitalisation-urgente des requÃ©rants . Les requÃ©rants R . etS ; furent trÃ¢nsfÃ©rÃ©s le 21 juin et le reqnÃ©rant A . le 30 juin .
18 . Ainsi que la Commission l'a dÃ©jÃ soulignÃ©, la Convention exige .que les autoritÃ©s pÃ©nitentiaires . eu Ã©gard .aux contingences ordinaires et raisonnables de l'emprisonnemem .exercent leur autoritÃ© de garde pour protÃ©ger la santÃ© et le bien-Ã©tre de tous les dÃ©tenus y compris ceux engagÃ©s dans une protestation, pour autant quÃ© les circonstances le .pertnettent'(v . requÃ©te nÂ° 8317/78, McFeeley et autres c/Royaunie- Uni . D .R . 20, .pp . 44, .138) . Dans des situations d'impasse grave, les autoritÃ©s publiquesne doivent passe retrancher dans une attitude inflexible .visant davantage Ã punir les contrevenants .Ã la discipline pÃ©nitentiaire qu'Ã rechercher les_ moyens de . sortir de l'impasse (requÃªte susmentionnÃ©e, loc . cit ., p . 143) . 19 . DÃ¢ns le cas d'espÃ¨ce,aussiregrÃ¨ttable .soit-il que les requÃ©rants n'aient pas bÃ©nÃ©ficiÃ© .pendant une longue pÃ©riode d'assistance mÃ©dicale lors de leur grÃ¨ve de la faim, il n'en demeure pas moins qu'ils ont Ã©tÃ© dans une large mesure responsable . En respectant le refus des requÃ©rants dese faire examinÃ©r par cer-sdectiuaon tains mÃ©decins dont la compÃ©tence ne saurait Ãªtre contestÃ©e, le Gouvernement a agi d'une maniÃ¨re dont les requÃ©rants ne peuvent pas se plaindre . Les circonstances spÃ©cifiques des affaires ne permeuent pas Ã la Comission de conclureque les autoritÃ©s portugaises ont fait prÃ©uve d'in0exibiillÃ© et laissÃ© la situation des requÃ©rants se dÃ©tÃ©riorer au point que ces ~derniers aient Ã©tÃ© victimes de traitÃ©rnents inhumains ou de tortures contraires Ã l'article 3 de la Convention .
- 20q -
Summary of the relevant facts 77re four applicants were active in an underground political organisation (Brigadas Revolucionarias) which, antong other things . arganised attacks on several banks to obtairt fitnds. Applicant S. . wâ¢ho was arrested in 1978, complained to the director of the Oporto police that he had been maltreated bv police officers . After an investigation the director discontinued the proceedings . The public prosecuror's depanment took up tlte case, but the judge held that there was insufficient evidence and in May 1982 discharged the police officers concerned. Th e public prosÃ©cutor's depanment appealed against this decision to the Oporto Coun of Appeal and the proceedings were still pending when the applicatiort was examined. Applicant R ., who was arrested in 1980, complained to the director of the Oporto police that he had been assaulted by a police officer. After an imÃ¦stigation the director discontinued dte proceedings. Th e applicaru lodged a complainr wâ¢ith the p rosecuting authorities, but the proceedings were again discorninued. 7he applicartt appealed agaiasr this decision (" reclama ( ao hierarquica ") . In Mav and lune 1982 . while in prison, one afrer the other the four applicants went on hunger strike to draw atrention to rlteir demands for an amnestv, to which Ihey believed they were entitled on the grounds that thev had committed political offences . Th e v r+ -ere vansferred m another prison where (her r+ere put under a s tr icter regime . Twâ¢o of lhem were then placed in a prison hospital .
To ensure that the press was not informed of their state of healtlt through official channals ordv, the applicants refused to be e .ramined by prison doctors and insisted on the presence of the doctor of their choice. After lengthy negotiations, the applicanrs u -ere e.ramined-the frrst ones in June 1982-bv a team composed of a doctor appointed bv the Medical Council . a prison doctor and a doctor of their choice . The state of three of them was deemed seriota. The applicarus ended their hunger strike on 3 julv 1982 .
THE LAW (Extracts ) 1 . As regards the alleged maltreatment of applicants S. and R . by police officer s I . These two applicants complain that they were ma)treated by officers of the Oporto police after being arrested by them . Applicant S . is-alleged to have been ntaltreated in April 1978 and applicant R . in December 1980 .
2 . They accordingly allege a violation of A rt icle 3 of the Convention, according to which " no one shall be subjected to tonure or to inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment" . . 3 . With regard to the complaint lodged by applicant S ., the Commission notes that the events of which he complains occurred before 9 November 1978, the date on which the Convention entered into force with respect to Port ugal . According to the generally recognised principles of imernational law, the Convention applies, as far as each Contracting Pa rt y is concerned, only to events occurring after its ent ry into force with respect to that Contracting Part y . It follows that this pa rt of the application falls outside the Commission's competence ratione remporis . 4 . With regard to the violation of the above-mentioned provision of .the Convention alleged by the applicant R ., the respondent Government submits that the applicant has not satisfied the requirement of exhaustion of domestic remedies (Article 26 of the Convention), since the proceedings instituted against the person responsible for the assault are still pending before the nationalcou rt s, and because the applicant could have brought a civil action .for damages either from the outset, or six months after submission of thecomplaint . The applicant, however, considers that the remedies to which the Government refers are not effective remedies since higher national authorities tolerate tretitment which is contra ry toArticle 3 and fail to prevent its recuirence . 5 . The Commission notes, first, that a fi rst complaint was submitted by the applicant to the director of the police and that the proceedings were discontinued by decision of the latter on I 1 August 1981 . Nevertheless, the applicant subsequently lodged a complaint in November 1981 with the prosecuting authorities a ttached to the Sintra Court whoâ¢ordered the institution of criminalproceedings against the personpresumed to be responsible for the assault . The public prosÃ©cutor did not - ask for a prelimina ry investigationby an investigating judge, but ordered that the criminal proceedings should take the form of a preliminary inqui ry ( "inquÃ©rito preliminar") under his own authority, as he was empowered to do by the provisions of Portuguese law for the trial of less serious-offences ( see A rt icles I and 2 of Legislative Decree 605/77, amended bÃ¿ Legislative Decree 377/77) . 6 . These proceedings have been pending for almost two years . That is certainly a long time,especially if one considers that the form of proceedings-chosen is supposed to be quicker than that of an investigation by an invÃ©stigating judge .If this period were prolonged it could put the effectiveness of the iemedy in doubt . The Commission considers, however, that, despite their length, these proceedings must be regarded as a remedy to be used in accordance with Anicle 26 of the Convention since they are a means of providing redress for the complaint . Furthermore .under Article 30 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the applicant could have brought an action for damagessix months after lodgingthe complaint with .the prosecuting authorities as criminal proceedingshad not been brought within that period .206-
7 . Treatment such as that which the applicant claims to have undergone is contrary to Portuguese law . If proved, it is a criminal offence, particularly under Anicle 293 of the Criminal Code, which reads : "Any police officer responsible for a prisoner's supervision who has shown unwarranted severity towards that prisoner shall be sentenced to up to six months' imprisonment : if the acts committed by him carry heavier penalties . he shall be sentenced accordingly" . Articles 22 and 271 of the Constitution also provide for the liability of the State and its servants for acts violating guaranteed rights and freedoms . This would have enabled the applicant to bring an action for damages against the State or the police officers from the outset . 8 . It is true that if it were established that the Portuguese authorities had authorised or tolerated conduct of the kind alleged by the applicant . or had failed to take reasonable steps to prevent it from occurring or recurring, the applicant could not be required to await the outcome of the above-mentioned proceedings . It should be noted, however, that such an allegation has not been adequately substantiated in the instant case . When, in an application under Anicle 25, the question arises of whether an existing remedy has been rendered ineffective by reason of a failure of the higher authorities of the State to take adequate steps to comply with the substantive obligations imposed by Article 3 of the Convention, there must be detailed allegations of such failure before the Commission can decide whether the applicant is absolved from the obligation of making use of the remedy in question (see, mutatis mutandis, Application No . 8462/79, X . v/the United Kingdom, D .R . 20 . pp . 184 and 187) . 9 . In these circumstances, the Commission considers that the existence of circumstances absolving the applicant from the normal duty to exhaust domestic remedies, in accordance with Article 26 of the Convention, has not been established . This part of the application is therefore inadmissible under the above-mentioned article and Article 27, para . 3 of the Convention . 2 . As regards the applicant's conditions of detentio n ii . Medical care oJrhe applicants during their hunger strike 15 . Applicant R . began his hunger strike on 22 May 1982, applicant S . on I June, applicant A . on 10 June and applicant C . on 20 June . They were not examined by a medical team until 16 June 1982, by which time applicant R . was on the 26th day of his hunger strike . 16 . It is cenainly disturbing that such a long tinie could have elapsed without the applicants being put under medical supervision . The question to be settled, however, is the extent to which the national authorities were responsible for his situation . In this connection, it is important to note that as soon as they began their hunger strike, the applicants always refused to be examined by the prison doctor . They even refused - 207 -
(applicants R . and S .) to be examined by a team composed of three doctors from the Lisbon University Hospital . although one of these appeared in a list supplied by the applicants stating the doctors of their choice . 17 . The deadlock was not resolved until 16 June 1982, when the prison authorities allowed the applicants to be visited by a team consisting of a doctor appointed by the Medical Council, the prison doctorand a doctor of their choice . In its first medical reports this team asked for the applicants to be hospitalised as a matter of urgency . Applicants R . and S . were transferred on 21 June and applicant A . on 30 June . 18 . As the Commission has already emphasised, the Convention requires that the prison authorities, with due regard to the ordinary and reasonable requirements of imprisonment, exercise their custodial authority to safeguard the health and wellbeing of all prisonersâincluding those engaged in protest, in so far Ã¢s that may be possible in the circumstances (see Application No . 8317/78, McFeeley and others v/ the United Kingdom, D .R . 20, pp . 44 and 81) . In situations of serious deadlock, the public authorities must not entrench themselves in an inflexible approach aimed more at punishing offenders against prison discipline than at exploring ways of resolving the deadlock (above-mentioned application, loc . cit ., p . 86) . 19 . In the instant case, regrettable as it may be that the applicants received no medical care for a long period during their hunger strike, the fact remainsthat they were themselves to alarge extent responsible for this situation . In respecting the applicants' refusal to be examined by certain doctors, whose competence could not be disputed, the Government acted in a manner about which the applicants cannot complain . The Commission is unablÃ© to conclude from the specific circumstances of these cases that the Portuguese authorities showed inflexibility and allowed theapplicants' situation to deteriorate to the extent that they were victims of inhuman treatment or torture violating Article 3 of the Convention .
- 208 -Origine de la décision Pays : Conseil de l'EuropeJuridiction : Cour européenne des droits de l'hommeFormation : Commission (plénière)Date de la décision : 15/03/1984Fonds documentaire : HUDOC Haut de page