Source: http://www.juricaf.org/arret/CONSEILDELEUROPE-COUREUROPEENNEDESDROITSDELHOMME-19770512-684074
Timestamp: 2017-01-18 16:20:29+00:00
Document Index: 32539052

Matched Legal Cases: ['arrêt ', '§ 2', "l'article 3", "l'article 1", "l'article 42", '§ 2', "l'article 3", "l'article 42", '§ 2', 'in fine', "l'article 3", "l'article 27", '§ 2', "l'article 147", "l'article 27", "l'article 141", "l'article 3", "l'article 3", "l'article 3", "l'article 3", "l'article 3", "l'article 3", "l'article 3", "l'article 141", "l'article 141", "l'article 3", "l'article 3", "l'article 6", "l'article 6", "l'article 27", "l'article 3", "l'article 27", "l'article 3", "l'article 3", "l'article 26", "l'article 26", "l'article 3"]

Type d'affaire : DécisionType de recours : Partiellement recevable ; partiellement irrecevableNumérotation : Numéro d'arrêt : 6840/74Identifiant URN:LEX : urn:lex;coe;cour.europeenne.droits.homme;arret;1977-05-12;6840.74 Analyses : (Art. 14) DISCRIMINATION, (Art. 9-1) LIBERTE DE RELIGIONParties : Demandeurs : X.Défendeurs : ROYAUME-UNITexte : APPLICATION/REQUÃTE NÂ° 6840/74 X . v/the UNITED KINGDO M X . c/ROYAUME-UN I DECISION of 12 May 1977 on the admissibility of the application DÃCISION du 12 mai 1977 sur la recevabilitÃ© de la requÃªt e
Article 3 of the Convention : Living conditions of a mental patient committed to hospital. Complaint declared admissible . Article 6, paragraph 2 of the Convention : Does not apply to proceedings before a Mental Health Review Tribunal, called upon to give advice to the Central Admintstration on the continued detention of a mental patient. Article 26 of the Convention : Exhaustion of domestic remedies. al The fact of being a mental patient or lack of legal knowledge not regarded as factors absolving an applicant from the duty to exhausr remedies . b) Case concerning living conditions of a mental patient committed to hospital claim for compensation under the law of tort not, in the particular case, a remedy which had to be exhausted.
Article 3 de la Convention : Conditions de vie d'un malade mental internÃ© . Grief dÃ©clarÃ© recevable 6, paragraphe 2, de la Convention : Inapplicable Ã© une procÃ©dure devan t .Article une commission psychiatrique de rÃ©examen (Mental Health Review Tribunal) appelÃ©e Ã donner un prÃ©avis Ã l'Administration sur le maintien en dÃ©tention d'un malade mental. Articfe 26 de ta Convention : Epuisement des voies de recours internes . al Etat de malade mental et ignorance du droit non retenus comme motifs de dispense d'Ã©puiser les voies de recours internes . b) SÃ¢gissant des conditions de vie d'un malade mental internÃ©, une demande en dommages-intÃ©rÃ©ts pour acte illicite (Law of tortl ne constitue pas, en t'espÃ©ce, un recours qu'il Ã© tait nÃ©cessaire d'exercer .
(JranGais : voir p . 21 )
The applicant was born in 1950 and is of Irish nationality . He originally represented himself before the Commission but is now represented by Mr G ., barrister of the New York bar, of the Legal and Welfare Rights Service of MIND Ithe National Association for Mental Healthl, London . The facts of the case, as originally presented by him, may be summarised as follows On 15 January 1973 the applicant was convicted of the burglary of a small sum of money . He had previously been extradited from Ireland to the United Kingdom on charges of arson and burglary . The arson charge was dropped . On conviction he was committed to Broadmoor Hospital under Sections 60 and 65 of the Menial Health Act 1959 . He has been detained there since . The applicant's case was reviewed by a Mental Health Review Tribunal and in April 1974 he was informed that the Home Secretary, in the light of the Tribunal's advice, was not prepared to authorise his discharge . According to the applicant, a member of the tribunal said at the hearing that he had been guilty of the charge of arson which had been dropped in 1973 . The applicant suggested that ii was likely that this reduced his chance of release . He stated that it was also suggested that he might strike and kill someone, whereas it had been some two or three years since he had last used any form of violence . In May 1974 a fire occurred in the house in which the applicant was detained at Broadmoor . The applicant stated that he was questioned by the police after the fire and transferred to Monmouth House, which was recognised as a punishment block and where certain privileges were limited He also stated that he was accused of starting the fire but that he did not do so . He alleged that he was locked up by himself for five weeks afterwards in a dirty cell with a mattress on a stone or concrete floor . He alleged ihat the ventilation was inadequate, that his food was inadequate, that he was in his pyjamas and had no covering for his feet By letter of 24 March 1976 the applicant also stated that he had now been moved to a different house and had been placed on a drug which caused restlessness and irritability, but which the doctor refused to take him off . The applicant stated that he wrote several times to the Department of Health and Social Security concerning his detention in Monmouth House . He received a reply dated 10 September 1974 stating that enquiries had produced no evidence to show that he had suffered any injustice .
Complaints The applicant complained that it was said at the hearing before the Menta l Health Review Tribunal that he had been guilty of a charge of arson which ha d
previously been dropped . He alleged the violation of Art . 6 121 . He also complained that it was suggested that he might use violence . He further complained of having been wrongly accused of starting a fire in Broadmoor and of having been confined to a cell for five weeks thereafter and detained in a house recognised as a punishment block . He complained in particular of the conditions of his detention in the cell which he alleged contravened Art . 3 . Finally the applicant complained in March 1976 of drug treatment he was then receiving . The applicant invoked Arts . 3, 6, 8 and 13 of the Convention and Art . 1 of Protocol No . 1 .
PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE COMMISSIO N The Commission examined the admissibility of the application on 21 May 1976 and decided that, in accordance with Rule 42 (2) Ibl of its Rules of Procedure, notice should be given to the Government of the United Kingdom of the application and that they should be invited to submit their observations in writing on the admissibility under Art . 3 of the Convention of the applicant's complaints as to the alleged conditions of his detention in a cell in Monmouth House only . The Commission did not consider that any observations were required on the remaining complaints made by the applicant . The respondent Government submitted their observations on 16 July 1976 and the observations of the applicant in reply were received on 9 August 1976 . The Commission again considered the admissibility of the application on 6 and 7 October 1976 and took various procedural decisions . Thereafter the respondent Government indicated that they wished to submit further observations on admissibility . A Memorandum containing these observations was submitted on 4 February 1977 . Thereafter the applicant submitted comments in reply, which were received on 25 February 1977 . On 4 March 1977 the Commission decided, in accordance with Rule 42 (2 ) in /ine of its Rules of Procedure to invite the parties to appear before it in order to make oral submissions on the admissibility and merits of this part ot the application . It decided to hear at the same time submissions on the admissibility and merits of three other applications against the United Kingdom (Nos . 6870/75, 6998/75 and 7099/75) . Application No . 6870/75' raised complaints to some extent connected with those made in the present case . The hearing before the Commission took place on 11 and 12 May 1977
See p . 37 .
THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE PARTIE S 1
Initial Written Observations on Admissibility
a) Observations of the respondent Government The respondent Government first submitted details of the domestic law under which the applicant was detained in Broadmoor Hospital and under which the hospital was constituted . They also submitted details of the practice followed when a serious incident, which might give rise to criminal charges, occurred within a mental hospital . They staled that an investigation took place and the police might be called in to assist . If the enquiry resulted in sufficient evidence being available, criminal charges might be brought in court against a patient . No proceedings, whether criminal or disciplinary, took place within the hospital and the hospital authorities had no legal power nor was it their practice to impose any punishment on a patient as a result of the enquiry . The findings of the enquiry might however result in a decision by the doctors in charge to alter the form of treatment of a patient . The respondent Government then dealt with the facts of the applicant's case . They stated that he had been convicted of burglary on 15 January 1973 . Two psychiatrists had given evidence that he was suffering from a psychopathic disorder and the court had made an order under SS 60 and 65 of the Mental Health Act 1959 authorising his detention in Broadmoor Hospital . He had been admitted on 8 February 1973 . The Government stated that on 7 May 1974 a lire had occurred in the hÃ´spital resulting in extensive damage Arson had been suspected and the police had been invited to conduct an investigation . The applicant had been one of a number of patients in the vicinity at the time and had come under suspicion, which had - been particularly strong since in April he had written a letter threatening to start a fire at the hospital . In view of this, whilst police enquiries were proceeding, it had been thought appropriate, for the protection of the hospital, staff and patients, to transfer the applicant to the most secure environment in the hospital and, in the interest of easier nursing, to nurse him in a single room . On 7 May he had been moved to a single room in another .ward with a much higher degree of nursing supervision . This had not been intended tÃ´ be, or communicated to the applicant as, a form of punishment . It had been a more secure form of treatment Due to lack of evidence no charges had been â¢ brought as a result of the police investigatibn . The room into which the applicant had been moved would not have been of as good a standard as his previous accommodation but was no better or .worse than other single rooms in that part of the hospital . It had a synthetic floor . The applicant had had two mattresses piled on top of one another, two pillows with pillow cases and four blankets . A bed had not been provided since his doctor considered there was a potential danger of self injury . The room was cleane d
daily by nursing staff, food % was delivered from a heated trolley and was the same as that supplied to otherpatients in the ward . The room had been adequately - heated and ventilated having regard to the time of yea r Whilst in the single room the applicant had been under medication and therefore .considered a"bed .patient" and dressed in pyjamas and dressing gown . .Because of the risk of self injury his eating utensils had been restricted to a spoon . â¢ Although not at first allowed full association with other patients he had been regularly visited by, and able to communicate with, nursing staff . He had been allowed associationâ¢with other patients on a gradual basis and by 10 June was tconsidered to have i recovered sufficiently to be allowed full association . The , respondent Government then dealt with the question of admissibility of ithe application . They submitted that the applicant had been moved to a single - room,not as a punishment, but so that he could have the benefit ot a higher tdegree :of nursing supervision whilst he was in a disturbed state . This had been - considered necessary for 0 e protection of the hospital staff, patients and the applicant himself . Whilstless attractive than the accommodation he had pre.viouslyoccupied, its condition had contained no element of degrading treatment . ,The fact .that the applicant had had no bed and had been clothed in pyjamas and dressing .gown was explained by the facts that there was thought to be a risk of :his , injuring himself and that he was under medication . It had not been intended rto :be , or regarded by the hospital staff as degrading treatment . Treatment carried - ourfor the protection ofmental patients or other persons without any intention to ,degrade did not constitute degrading treatment within Art . 3 of the Convention and nothing in the conditions of the applicant's detention had amounted objectively to degrading treatment . rFor these reasons the complaint was incompatible with the provisions ot Ihe ~Conveniion and manifestly ill-founded and was therefore inadmissible under ~Art . 27d21 of the Convention . !bl â¢Observations of the applicant in repl y ~The applicant's observations in reply were in the following terms " :111 I was on no medication when locked in a room . i(2) Those rooms are never cleaned by staff . (3) The floor was made of stone or concrete . '(4) I was in no way disturbed, and had no intentions of causing injury to myself or .any other person . â¢ ( 5)The room'had double doors and there was no proper window, only a shutter, with a tiny grill in it about seven or eight feet above the ground . Itwas therefore not the same as the other rooms .
( 6) I was put in that room after being questioned by the police, and saw no doctor until some time after I was put in a room . (7) I had no dressing gown to wear in the room, nor any covering for m y feet, only a pair of pyjamas to wear . 181 The 'heated food trolley' is very often not plugged in and therefore the meals are often cold . ( 9) Room patients do not get a choice of diet, and are given the worst of the iwo diets . (10) Portions of food given to room patients are much smaller than those given to other patients . 1111 It was not possible for me to communicate with the staff, as there was no means of doing so . 1121 I was not taken out of the room gradually, but immediately after a visit from the National Council for Civil Liberties . "
2 Supplementary Written Observations on Admissibilit y a) Supplementary observations of the respondent Government The Government accepted that the applicant had not been receiving medication at the relevant time However medical treatment as defined in S .147 of the Mental Health Act 1959 included nursing and care and training under medical supervision . It was maintained that rooms were cleaned daily by staff . The floor of the room had been of a"concrete type" composition . It was not concrete though it looked and felt similar . Patients were confined to single rooms if it was felt they might present a hazard to themselves or others . Two additional factors taken into account had been a long-standing practice whereby patients subject to police investigations were separated from others and the disruption and increased overcrowding caused by the fire . Other patients thought the applicant responsible for the fire and some had expressed hostility towards him . It was considered to be in the interests of the safety of other patients and the applicant that he should be moved to a single room . The room in question had double doors . It was 10'3" long by 6'6" wide by 12' high . There was a window 2' by 2'6" with a shutter about 8' from the floor and a ventilator grill in the same wall . There was a similar room next door to it . Other single rooms were about the same size . Due to the fire single rooms and dormitory space had been at a premium . The applicant had been moved to the single room on 7 May 1974 . Hospital records showed that he had been seen by two consultant psychiatrists, Dr . A . o 14MaydDr . B on 14 June He had attended the hospital medical centre o nn
5 June . He had also been seen frequently by Dr B ., but in accordance with normal practice these brief interviews had not been recorded . Dressing gown, socks and slippers were kept in a locker outside the room for use when the patient left it Meals were served from a pre-heated trolley . Patients in single rooms had an advance choice of two main courses and received the same size of portions as others . Nursing notes from 7 May 1974 onwards showed that the applicant had had daily communication with nursing staff . He had been taken out of the room for bathing etc . from 8 May, and for exercise etc for periods of twenty minutes and upwards from 14 May onwards . The Government submitted that under the common law of England everyone owed a duty of care to other persons with whom he came in contact . Failure to observe the necessary standard gave rise to the tort of negligence . A duty of care had been held to exist in the case of physicians and nurses towards their patients . Hospital authorities were answerable in court for the condition of their premises and any lack of care on the part of their staff . The applicant would thus have the right to sue for damages for negligence or breach of duty in respect of the conditions in his room if he could show that the ventilation, food, clothing or furniture were clearly inadequate in his particular case . He had not done so The Government therefore submitted, alternatively to their other submissions, that the application was inadmissible under Art . 27 131 of the Convention for nonexhaustion of domestic remedies . b) Supplementary observations of the applicant in reply The applicant submitted that to be locked in a room with a concrete floor, a mattress and two dirty pots was not medical treatment . He denied that the hospital staff cleaned the room . The applicant asked what right the staff had, since Broadmoor was a hospital, to lock a person up, regardless of the fact that a police investigation was taking place . The only hostility had been from staff . When he had been let out of the room no patient showed any hostility . He asked why he had not seen a doctor until 14 May and who had decided that he should be locked up on 7 May . He had not seen Dr B . until just before he was let out of the room and denied that he had had other interviews with him . There had been one dressing gown on the ward at the relevant time . Patients were only given it when they went into the doctor's office . The heated food trolley had not been plugged in and in various respects the food given to patients in single rooms had been inferior to that given to others . The only communication wlth nursing staff had been when they gave him meals, switched the lights and fan on and off at a fast rate and shouted threats and insults through the slit in the wall . The applicant accepted that he had had a bath once a week but stated that due to the state of the room he could have done with a bath every day . The applicant stated that no one had told him he had a right to a court hearing, although he had asked for a trial . It was necessary under S .141 of the
Mental Health Act to apply for permission to take court action . In order to prove a case, evidence must be produced . The only way to get a member of staff at Broadmoor to give evidence was to subpoena him . To do this one must apply to a court but one was not allowed to take court action until evidence had been produced .
3 . Oral Submissions a) Oral submissions of the respondent Government il Domestic Remedies The Government submitted that if there was negligent treatment of a patient, the Secretary of State was liable for damages for the discomfort suffered . Funhermore, a declaration could be obtained against the Crown to the effect that the conditions contravened the laws of tort . By long established practice the Crown treated a declaration as equivalent to an injunction (a remedy not available against it) . Damages would be awarded for loss of the pleasures or amenities of life in addition to damages for pain or suffering or loss of earning power . The Secretary of State would be vicariously liable for the negligence of his servants, such as the hospital cleaning staff . Matters such as those complained of by the applicant could sound in damages for physical discomfort, quite apart from any question of mental distress . It was true that normally the measure of damages for physical discomfort would be small because it would be of limited duration and there would be no permanent injury The applicant's allegations concerning his detention in a cell with inadequate food were capable of sounding in damages for loss of the pleasures or amenities of life . Furthermore, whilst the Government were aware of no case in the law of tort which established that damages for mental distress alone were recoverable, damages could be secured in the law of contract for mental distress which was the direct and inevitable consequence of the conduct corimplained of . The present tendency was to assimilate the position in relation to damages under the law of contract to those under the law of tort . There was no logical reason why such damages could not also be obtained in the law of tort . The jurisprudence of the Court and Commission indicated that a high standard of conduct had to be allegÃ©d to amount to contravention of Art 3 . If mental distress was suffered as a result of such conduct, there was a strong probability that damages could be obtained even if that were the only head of damage suffered . In any event other heads of damage could be recoverÃ©d and declaratory relief could be obtained . If the conduct complained of by the applicant fell for consideration under Art . 3, which in the Government's submission it did not, it would sound in damages . The applicant had not attempted to exhaust the available remedies . It was enough that the possibility of a remedy existed, the outcome of which could not be predicted with certainty . Mere doubt as to th e
existence and prospects of success of a remedy did not absolve an applicant from exhausting it . The national courts must have had the opportunity of ruling on the matter before any appeal to the Commission IApplication No . 1661/62, X and Y v . Belgium, Yearbook VI, p. 360, Collection of Decisions 10, p . 20 ; Eur. Court H . R ., HanrJyside Case, Judgment of 27 December 1976, Series A, No . 24, para 481 . In reply to the applicant's submissions on the matter the Government submitted that difficulties in bringing proceedings were not as great as had been indicated . The very ability of the applicant to bring his application and obtain access to his legal adviser, showed this . If the conduct complained of amounted to a contravention of Art . 3, it would not be the case either that it would be uneconomic to bring proceedings or that an application for legal aid would be dismissed as a trifling matter . The applicant argued that the Government's submission as to the law of damages was controversial . This was not so . Whilst there was no direct precedent for a claim of this precise nature, such a claim was clearly not one where it could be said that there was no reasonable cause of action . The Government submitted that the applicant's complaints under Art . 3 were therefore inadmissible for non-exhaustion of domestic remedies .
ii l The issues under Art . 3 The Government first referred to the Commission's approach to Art . 3 in the Greek case, which was, they submitted, a proper one . The whole sense of Art . 3 was to confine itself to matters which were gross . If this approach were adopted, the proper view was that the applicant's complaints were manifestly ill-founded . The Government referred to a photograph of the room occupied by the applicant . He had not been placed in the room as a punishment . The decision to place him there had been taken personally by the Physician Superintendent of the hospital in the light of his background . On 7 May 1974 there had been a serious fire causing extensive damage . Rightly or wrongly the prime suspect for causing this damage had been the applicant . The doctors concerned had to ensure that there would be no repetition . They had to take into account that on 19 April 1974 the applicant had written a letter indicating that he was losing patience and had referred to burning the place down and doing in a few of the staff . There had been an accommodation problem as a result of the fire . Eighty patients had been displaced . There had been a combination of reasons why the applicant had been put in the room . First there had been the danger of repetition . Second there had been the question of his condition . It had been thought desirable for his own treatment that he should go there . Thirdly other patients were likely to be displeased if they thought the applicant responsible for their being caused additional discomfort . The room itselt was used otherwise than for purposes of this sort . It was used where there could be dangers of anti-social conduct and it did not have a
bed since, if a person was in the condition which it was suspected the applicant might be in, it was necessary that materials which could be used as weapons should not be available . The Government asked the Commission to bear in mind the short time spell for which the applicant had been in the room and the fact that, although this was in issue, he had been seen regularly by doctors . In addition the applicant had not been confined in the room, as he described . He had been allowed out progressively . It was the procedure for a patient who was isolated for any reason in a single room to be provided with newspapers, writing paper etc . Without going into detail at this stage of proceedings, the Government did not accept the applicant's contentions as to what had occurred . The Government invited the Commission to adopt the same approach in relation to the applicant's complaint as it had done to the allegations concerning solitary confinement pending sentence and transfer to Broadmoor in Application No . 6870/75 and to declare the applicant's complaints manifestly ill-founded . In reply to the applicant's submissions, the Government submitted that, except on the question of medication, there was no direct inconsistency between what had been said in their initial and later submissions, although there had been differences in the way the matter was expressed . The same sort of criticism could be made about the applicant's submissions . The complaint that excreta had been in the chamber pot when he entered the room had first been made in a letter of 2 May 1977 . Numerous earlier letters written by the applicant had not referred to I . There were also inconsistencies in the letter of 2 May 1977 . It had been alleged that he had not been able to clean the pots for two days yet the letter also contained an allegation that for the first three days he had spent 24 hours a day in the room except for a minute and a half to empty the chamber pot . b) Oral submissions of the appfican t il lnrroductory The applicant had been convicted of stealing a few shillings from a gas meter, although his criminal record was more significant than in the other cases beinp dealt with and he had had some record of violence . He had been detained for over four years and if treated solely by reason of his offence he would have been released long previously . Evidence given to the Butler Committee by the Broadmoor psychologists themselves, suggested that there was no better basis for predicting potential dangerousness in the case of mentally abnormal offenders than there was in the case of mentally normal offender s
ii) Domestic remedies The applicant submitted that in English law it was necessary, before damages could be recovered for mental distress, first to show that physical injury or a manifestable physical or mental illness had been suffered . Damages for loss of amenities of life would only be awarded where the loss had been caused b y
physical injury . Mere physical discomfort would not, it was submitted, be a ground of damages without an accompanying physical injury . The applicant, confined in the room, had had no idea that he could sue . He had not seen anyone outside the hospital until the NCCL gave him legal advice . Even they had not seen that there would be a domestic remedy but had made a severe complaint to the Secretary of State about the conditions . The day after their visit the applicant had been released from confinement . Even if they had recommended a declaratory aclion it would have been to no avail since the damage had been done . Practical difficulties would arise if a patient in a closed institution were to try to bring an action of the kind pointed to by the Government . An applicant was not required to exhaust a remedy if, in view of the consistent case law of the national courts, this remedy had no reasonable chance of success . In the present case there would be no reasonable chance of success because of practical difficulties . The applicant had no financial means and would have to apply for legal aid . This would only be granted by the Law Society if there was a reasonable chance of success . When reaching its decision it would look to see whether reasonable damages would be available . The allegations of the applicant would not give rise to a significant amount of damages . The Law Society would also have to look at the grounds of the case . It would be the applicant's word against that of the hospital and he could not recover documents to confirm his allegations . Finally a patient in Broadmoor was in a closed institution without access to information or understanding that he could bring an action, or how he could do so . The Government had not raised the matter in their original observations Their novel argument about physical discomfort had been put forward by a team of lawyers to try to think of any theoretical possibility of raising an action . It was unlikely that a patient would understand he could do so . Furthermore, a patient would have to apply to the High Court under S .141 of the 1959 Act for permission to bring his action, and would have to show on affidavit evidence, without being able to present his full case, that there was substantial ground to show that the person to be proceeded against had acted in bad faith or without reasonable care . Experience in other cases, where the remedy was clearer than in the present case, showed that it was a futile exercise first to get legal aid, then to obtain permission under S .141, and then to prove the case in court, all to obtain a small sum of damages . The applicant therefore submitted that it was theoretically impossible to obtain a remedy since mental distress alone would not give rise to a cause of action and in any event it would be a futile effort . iiil The issues under An . 3 The applicant had been accused of starting a fire . However it was understood that several other patients had been in the position where they could hav e
done so . The prosecutor's decision, after a full review ; had been that there was insufficient evidence to suggest that the applicant had done so and he denied it . It would be wrong to assume that the applicant had been responsible . If it was contended that the applicant had been put in the room to prevent future fires, that would not explain either why he had been denied access to his clothing and possessions or the allegations about sanitary conditions and ventilation . There were difficulties in investigating the facts of the case and the Government had not answered the applicant's allegations inany specific detail . The measurements of the room were not in dispute . The applicant had been detained there almost 24 hours per day at the beginning and about 23 hours per day at the end of his detention . There was no chair or other place for him to sit down . It was unlike any normal room, since height was the largest dimension . There was very little space where the applicant could walk . The walls were featureless and the window too high to look out of : There was little if any natural light . It was one of only two rooms with large double doors . There was one ventilator controlled from the outside . It produced a routine and significantly loud noise . It was therefore very infrequently used . The applicant had had no control over the lighting and complained that constant light from a single unshaded source became difficult for him to cope with . There was no dispute about the turniture . There had been two foam mattresses about 3" thick, two pillows and four blankets and no other furniture . There was also no dispute that the applicant had been dressed in pyjamas and had no covering for his feet . There was some dispute as to whether the food was sufficient or heated, although it was not suggested that this would have amounted to a gross humiliation or injustice as the other matters did . It was agreed that the room had no toilet facilities except for two plastic chamber pots which the applicant was allowed to empty himself each morning . There was disagreement as to whether toilet paper was always available . The applicant had been able to wash for several minutes each morning and have a bath once a week . There was significant dispute as to the sanitation in the room and the number of times it was cleaned, the adequacy of the cleaning and the person who cleaned it . There was dispute as to whether stale excreta was present in the room when the applicant first entered it . There was also some small dispute as to the amount of exercise and association with patients and staff the applicant had been able to enjo y On the undisputed facts the Commission might find there had been a violation of Art 3 If it did not, it would be necessary to look more carefully at the facts in disagreement . There had been inconsistencies in the submissions of the respondent Government . This suggested that careful records had not been kept and that it was difficult to establish the facts . The Government had originally referred to the ventilation as "adequate" . However the file of documents they had produced on Broadmoor Hospital before the hearing referred to it as "poor" . Thi s
observation was reinforced by the National Council for Civil Liberties, who had sent two representatives to visit the applicant in his room and had criticised the ventilation in their complaint to the Secretary of State . There was also some disagreement as to the type of floor . The Government had initially stated that the applicant was wearing a dressing gown but later said that dressing gown, socks and slippers were kept outside the room for use when the patient left . It was under dispute whether the applicant had access to these when he left the room . He alleged that he had not been allowed access to the locker at all times . The applicant alleged that he had had no exercise during the tirst two weeks . There appeared to be no record to verify or deny this . He also alleged that he had been allowed therealter to exercise for an hour at a time every two and sometimes three days . Apart from the time he had spent in the washroom and exercise yard he had been isolated from other patient s The applicant alleged that the room had only been cleaned after the first fortnight and then perhaps two or three times thereafter . He alleged that this had merely been a quick sweeping of the room by a fellow patient and that no soap and water had been used to clean the smell of urine and excrement from the room . There was also dispute as to the question of treatment, namely whether the applicant had been put in the room for purposes of treatment and whether there had been any treatment . The Government's earlier and later submissions were inconsistent on the question of medication . There was also dispute on the question of whether the applicant was likely to injure himself, since he had no history of sell injurious behaviour, and dispute as to whether he was disturbed . An independent psychiatrist had stated that it would be unlikely to put a person in a room for such a period because of the fact that he was disturbed and still not give him any medication to calm the disturbance . It was significant that the Government stated that it was a standing hospital practice to separate patients in this way . It was perhaps more an automatic response than one carefully considered because of the question of treatment . Finally there did not appear to be any recorded medical interview of the applicant until at least a week after he had been put In the room There would thus be some question as to the medical evidence available to indicate that the applicant was disturbed when put into the room . Commenting on the Government's submissions the applicant's representative submitted that even if lack of accommodation might have led to the applicant being put in a single room for thenight, this did not mean that he had to be detained there for 23 to 24 hours per day . No psychiatric or other advice suggested that five weeks in isolation of this kind would provide a remedy for disturbance and, if anything, such treatmen would make a patient more disturbed . The preponderance of psychiatric evidence would suggest that the detention would not have been justified on any therapeutic basis . As to the alleged inconsistencies in the applicant's statements concerning the sanitation ,
the position had been, the applicant alleged, that he had had less than two minutes to empty the pots and had thus only had time to empty them out and not to clean them .
THE LA W 1 . The Commission has first considered the complaints made by the applicant in his original application concerning the proceedings before the Mental Health Review Tribunal . The applicant complained that during these proceedings it was said that he had been guilty of a charge of arson which had been dropped and that it was suggested that he might use violence . The applicant alleged the violation of Art . 6 121 of the Convention, which is in the following terms : "Everyone charged with a criminal offence shall be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law . " However the Commission observes that in the proceedings before the Mental Health Review Tribunal the applicant was not charged with arson, violence or any other crime . The function of the tribunal in these proceedings was to give advice to the Secretary of State concerning the applicant's continued detention . It was therefore concerned only with the modalities of the execution of the applicant's sentence . The Commission also observes that the charge of arson which had previously been made against the applicant had been dropped . It follows in the Commission's opinion that Art . 6 (2) had no application in relation to the proceedings in question and this part of the application is therefore incompatible with ihe provisions of the Convention ratione mareriae and must be considered inadmissible under Art . 27 (2) of the Convention . 2 . The Commission has next considered the complaint made by the applicant in March 1976 concerning the drug treatment he was then receiving . The applicant complained that he had been placed on a drug causing him restlessness and irritability and that his doctor refused to take him off this drug . The Commission has considered this complaint in the light of Art . 3 of the Convention which prohibits inhuman or degrading treatment . However there is no indication that this treatment consisted of anything other than proper medical treatment and the Commission finds therefore that this part of the application is manifestly illfounded within the meaning of Art . 27 121 of the Convention . 3 . Finally the Commission has considered the applicant's remaining complaints, on which the parties' observations on admissibility have been obtained, in connection with the conditions in which he was detained in a single room or cell in Monmouth House during a period of some five weeks in May and June 1974 . The respondent Government having denied that the circumstances of the applicant's detention during this period involved any violation of his rights under Art . 3 . They have submitted that this part of the application is manifestly ill-founded .
They have also submitted that this part of the application is inadmissible under Arts . 26 and 27 (3 ) of the Convention, on the ground that the applicant has not exhausted the available domestic remedies . They have submitted that if the matters complained of fall within the category of conduct prohibited by Art . 3, which they deny, remedies would be available to the applicant . It would be open to him to institute proceedings for damages or for a declaration that the conditions he complained of contravened the law of tort . The applicant, on the other hand, has denied that any remedy is available to him . He has submitted that before damages can be recovered it is necessary to show that physical injury or illness has been suffered . He has submitted that there would also be no reasonable prospect of success in civil proceedings, in particular because of practical difficulties arising from his situation as a detained mental patient without linancial means . The Commission recalls that it has previously held that in order to comply with the requirements of Art . 26 of the Convention an applicant is obliged to make "normal use" of remedies "likely to be effective and adequate" to remedy the matters of which he complains (See : Application No. 788/60, Ausrria v. Italy, Yearbook 1V, p . 172 ; Application No . 4330/69, Simon-Herold v . Austria, Yearbook X/V, p . 352 ; Application Nos . 5577- 5583/72, Donnelly and others v . United Kingdom, Decisions and Reports 4, p .4 at p .64) . The European Court of Human Rights has held that Art . 26 demands the use only of such remedies as are " . . . sufficient, that is to say capable of providing redress for (the) complaints" ISee e .g . The Vagrancy Cases, Series A, No . 12, p . 33, para . 60) . At the same time the Commission has consistently held that the mere existence of doubts as to the prospects of success of a given remedy does not absolve an applicant from exhausting it, since it is for the domestic courts to determine the matter in the first instance (See e .g . Application No . 7121 60, Retimag v. the Federal Republic of Germany, Yearbook IV, p . 384, Collection of Decisions 8, p . 29 ; Applicarion No . 1661162, X and Y v . Belgium, Yearbook Vl, p . 360, Collection of Decisions 10, p . I. The Commission does not regard the applicant's position as a mental patient or his lack of legal knowledge as factors absolving him from his duty to exhaust remedies . However it has considered the effectiveness and sufficiency of the available remedies in the light of the above case-law . The Commission first observes that the applicant does not allege that he has suffered injury, illness or material loss as a result of the matters he complains of . The respondent Government have accepted that there is no direct precedent in the English law of tort for an award of damages in such circumstances . They have submitted that damages could nevertheless in principle be recoverable for physical discomfort, loss of the amenities of life and mental distress . The applicant has referred to a number of authorities in English law to the effect that mental distress alone is not a permissible head of damages under the English law of tort . He has also submitted that loss of amenities of life or mere physica l
discomfort would likewise not in themselves give rise to an award of damages in the absence of some manifestable Injury or illness . Having considered the parties' submissions, the Commission is not satisfied that in the present state of the English law of tort the applicant could reasonably expect to recover damages on proof of his allegations unless there were to be a change or at least a material development in the existing case-law . In these circumstances it does not consider that the applicant was obliged to institute and pursue proceedings for damages in order to fulfi3 his obligation to make "normal use" of the remedies "likely to be effective and adequate" or "capable of providing redress for his complaints" . Furthermore even if it might have been possible for the applicant to have sought a declaration that the conditions of his detention contravened the laws of tort, such a remedy would not have been capable of providing redress for the applicant's complaints ex post facto . Given the likely length of declaratory proceedings and the duration of the applicant's detention in the conditions complained of, the Commission does not consider that this was a remedy which he was obliged to exhaust either . The Commission finds for these reasons that this part of the applciation cannot be rejected on the ground of non-exhaustion of domestic remedies . It remains to be considered whether the applicant's complaints are manifestly ill-founded, as the respondent Government have submitted . The Commission first observes that there is some dispute between the parties on various questions of fact relating to the conditions in which the applicant was detained at the relevant time and the reasons for his detention in the single room or cell . No determination of the disputed facts can be made at the present stage of the case on the basis of the parties' submissions alon e The Commission considers that the applicant's account of the conditions of his detention during the relevant period and of the surrounding circumstances raises a substantial question as to whether he was subjected to treatment or punishment in violation of Art . 3 of the Convention and that this question cannot be resolved without an investigation into and determination of the relevant facts . This part of the application cannot therefore be sald to be manifestly ill-founded in the present state of the file and no other ground of inadmissibility has been established . It must therefore be declared admissible .
For these reasons, the Commissio n DECLARES ADMISSIBLE and retains, without prejudging the merits, the applicant's complaints concerning his detention in a single room or cell in May and June 1974 ;
2 . DECLARES INADMISSIBLE ihe remainder of the application .
(TRADUCTION ) EN FAI T Le requÃ©rant, nÃ© en 1950, est de nationalitÃ© irlandaise . Il a d'abord dÃ©fendu lui-mÃªme sa cause devant la Commission, mais il est maintenant reprÃ©sentÃ© par Me G ., avocat au barreau de New-York, du Service des affaires juridiques et sociales de MIND (Association nationale pour la santÃ© mentale), Londres . Les faits de la cause, tels qu'il les a prÃ©sentÃ©s Ã l'origine, peuvent se rÃ©sumer comme suit : Le 15 janvier 1973, le requÃ©rant a Ã©tÃ© convaincu d'avoir commis un cambriolage portant sur une petite somme . PrÃ©cÃ©demment, il avait Ã©tÃ© extradÃ© d'Irlande au Royaume-Uni pour incendie volontaire et cambriolage . L'accusation d'incendie avait Ã©tÃ© abandonnÃ©e . AprÃ¨s avoir Ã©tÃ© reconnu coupable, il a Ã©tÃ© admis Ã l'hÃ´pital de Broadmoor en vertu des articles 60 et 65 de la loi de 1959 sur les malades mentaux (Mental Health Act, 19591 . II s'y trouve encore . Son a(faire a Ã©tÃ© rÃ©examinÃ©e par une commission psychiatrique de rÃ©examen (Mental Health Review Tribunal) et en avril 1974 il a Ã©tÃ© informÃ© que le Ministre de l'IntÃ©rieur, sur l'avis de cette commission, n'Ã©tait pas disposÃ© Ã autoriser son Ã©largissement . D'aprÃ©s le requÃ©rant, un membre de cette commission aurait dit Ã l'audience qu'il Ã©tait coupable d'incendie volontaire, alors que ce chef d'accusation avait Ã©tÃ© abandonnÃ© en 1973 . Le requÃ©rant Ã estimÃ© que ses chances de libÃ©ration en avaient Ã©tÃ© probablement rÃ©duites . Il semble, selon lui, qu'il a Ã©tÃ© considÃ©rÃ© comme capable de coups et blessures et de meurtre, alors que depuis deux ou trois ans il n'a exercÃ© aucune espÃ©ce de violence . En mai 1974, un incendie a Ã©clatÃ© dans le pavillon oÃ¹ le requÃ©rant Ã©tait dÃ©tenu Ã Broadmoor . Le requÃ©rant a dÃ©clarÃ© avoir Ã©tÃ© interrogÃ© par la police aprÃ©s l'incendie et transfÃ©rÃ© Ã Monmouth House, Ã©tablissement gÃ©nÃ©ralement considÃ©rÃ© comme une maison disciplinaire oÃ¹ certains droits sont limitÃ©s . Il a aussi dÃ©clarÃ© qu'il avait Ã©tÃ© accusÃ© d'avoir mis le feu, mais se dÃ©fend de l'avoir fait . Il affirme avoir ensuite Ã©tÃ© enfermÃ© seul pendant cinq semaines dans une cellule sale avec un matelas posÃ© sur un sol en pierre ou en bÃ©ton . La nourriture et l'aÃ©ration auraient Ã©tÃ© insuffisantes, il aurait dÃ» rester en pyjama et n'aurait pas eu de couverture pour les pieds . Par lettre du 24 mars 1976, le requÃ©rant a fait savoir qu'il avait Ã©tÃ© transfÃ©r Ã© dans un autre pavillon et qu'on lui adminis(rait un mÃ©dicament qui le rÃ©ndait anxieux et irritable mais que le mÃ©decin avait refusÃ© de lui supprimer . Le requÃ©rant affirme avoir Ã©crit plusieurs fois au MinistÃ©re de la SantÃ© publique et de la SÃ©curitÃ© sociale Ã propos de sa dÃ©tention Ã Monmouth House . Il a reÃ§u une rÃ©ponse datÃ©e du 10 septembre 1974 indiquant que les enquÃªtes ouvertes Ã ce sujet n'avaient rÃ©vÃ©lÃ© aucune injustice Ã son Ã©gard .
Les griefs Le requÃ©rant se plaint qu'Ã l'audience devant la commission psychiatrique de rÃ©examen, il a Ã©tÃ© dit qu'il s'Ã©tait rendu coupable d'incendie volontaire alors que ce chef d'accusation avait Ã©tÃ© abandonnÃ© . Il a allÃ©guÃ© la violation de l'anicle 6, Â§ 2 . Il se plaint aussi d'avoir Ã©tÃ© soupÃ§onnÃ© de vouloir exercer des violences . Il se plaint encore d'avoir Ã©tÃ© accusÃ© Ã tort d'incendie volontaire Ã Broadmoor et d'avoir Ã©tÃ© ensuite placÃ© dans une cellule pendant cinq semaines et dÃ©tenu dans un local dont le caractÃ¨re punitif est reconnu . Il se plaint en particulier des conditions de sa dÃ©tention dans cette cellule, qui selon lui contrevenaient Ã l'article 3 . Enfin, le requÃ©rant s'est plaint en mars 1976 du traitement mÃ©dicamenteux qu'il recevai t Le requÃ©rant a invoquÃ© les articles 3, 6, 8 et 13 de la Convention et l'article 1
du Protocole additionnel .
PROC Ã DURE DEVANT LA COMMISSIO N La Commission a examinÃ© la recevabilitÃ© de la requÃªte le 21 mai 1976 et dÃ©cidÃ©, conformÃ©ment Ã l'article 42, Â§ 2 Ibl de son RÃ©glement intÃ©rieur, que la requÃ©te serait portÃ©e Ã la connaissance du Gouvernement du Royaume-Uni et que celui-ci serait invitÃ© Ã prÃ©senter par Ã©crit ses observations sur la recevabilitÃ©, sous l'angle de l'article 3 de la Convention, des seuls griefs du requÃ©rant relatifs aux conditions de sa dÃ©tention cellulaire Ã Monmouth House . La Commission n'a pas considÃ©rÃ© que des observations fussent nÃ©cessaires sur les autres griefs formulÃ©s par le requÃ©rant . Le Gouvernement dÃ©fendeur a soumis ses observations le 16 juillet 1976 et les observations du requÃ©rant en rÃ©ponse ont Ã©tÃ© reÃ§ues le 9 aoÃ»t 1976 . La Commission a ensuite examinÃ© la recevabilitÃ© de la requÃªte les 6 et 7 octobre 1976 et pris plusieurs dÃ©cisions de procÃ©dure . Ensuite, le Gouvernement dÃ©fendeur a indiquÃ© qu'il souhaitait soumettre de nouvelles observations sur la recevabilitÃ© . Un mÃ©moire contenant ces observations a Ã©tÃ© prÃ©sentÃ© le 4 fÃ©vrier 1977 ; aprÃ¨s quoi le requÃ©rant a soumis des commentaires en rÃ©ponse, qui ont Ã©tÃ© reÃ§us le 25 fÃ©vrier 1977 . Le 4 mars 1977, la Commission a dÃ©cidÃ©, conformÃ©ment Ã l'article 42, Â§ 2 in fine de son RÃ©glement intÃ©rieur, d'inviter les parties Ã comparaPtre devant elle pour prÃ©senter oralement leur argumentation sur la recevabilitÃ© et sur le fond de cette partie de la requÃªte . Elle a dÃ©cidÃ© d'entendre en mÃªme temps des exposÃ©s sur la recevabiGtÃ© et sur le fond de trois autres requÃªtes introduites contre le Royaume-Uni INos . 6870/75, 6998/75 et 7099/75) . La requÃªte NÂ° 6870/75 ' Voir page 37 .
comporte des griefs prÃ©sentant une certaine connexitÃ© avec ceux qui sont formulÃ©s dans la prÃ©sente affaire . L'audience devant la Commission a eu lieu les 11 et 12 mai 1977 .
ARGUMENTATION DES PARTIE S PremiÃ©res observations Ã©crites sur la recevabilit Ã© a . Observations du Gouvernement dÃ©fendeur
Le Gouvernement dÃ©fendeur a d'abord dÃ©crit les dispositions du droit interne rÃ©gissant l'internement du requÃ©rant Ã l'hÃ´pital de Broadmoor et le statut de cet hÃ´pital . Il a aussi expliquÃ© la pratique suivie lorsqu'un incident grave, risquant de donner lieu Ã des poursuites pÃ©nales, se produit dans un hÃ´pital psychiatrique . Une enquÃªte a lieu et la police peut Ãªtre appelÃ©e Ã intervenir . Si l'enquÃªte apporte des preuves suffisantes, des poursuites pÃ©nales peuvent Ã©tre intentÃ©es contre un malade . Aucune procÃ©dure, ni pÃ©nale ni disciplinaire, n'a lieu dans l'enceinte de l'hÃ´pital et les autoritÃ©s hospitaliÃ©res n'ont ni le pouvoir juridique ni l'habitude d'imposer une punition Ã un malade Ã la suite de l'enquÃ©te . Les conclusions de l'enquÃªte peuvent toutefois entraPner une dAcision des mÃ©decins responsables modifiant la forme de traitement d'un malade . Le Gouvernement dÃ©fendeur s'est ensuite attachÃ© aux faits de la cause . Il a dÃ©clarÃ© que le requArant a Ã©tÃ© reconnu coupable de cambriolage le 15 janvier 1973 . Deux psychiatres avaient dÃ©clarÃ© qu'il souffrait de troubles psychopathiques et, en vertu des articles 60 et 65 de la loi de 1959 sur les malades mentaux, le tribunal a rendu une ordonnance autorisant sa dÃ©tention Ã l'hÃ´pital de Broadmoor . Il y a Ã©tÃ© admis le 8 fÃ©vrier 1973 . Le Gouvernement a exposÃ© que le 7 mai 1974 un incendie s'est dÃ©clarÃ© Ã l'hÃ´pital, causant de graves dÃ©gÃ¢ts . La malveillance ayant Ã©tÃ© soupÃ§onnÃ©e, la police fut appelÃ©e Ã mener une enquÃ©te . Le requÃ©rant, qui Ã©tait l'un des malades se :trouvant Ã proximitÃ© des lieux au moment des Ã©vÃ©nements, a Ã©tÃ© soupÃ§onnÃ©, d'autant plus qu'en avril il avait Ã©crit une lettre menaÃ§ant de mettre le feu Ã l'hÃ´pital . En raison de celÃ , au cours mÃªme de l'enquÃªte de police, il a apparu convenable, pour la protection de l'hÃ´pital, du personnel et des malades, de transfÃ©rer le requÃ©rant dans la partie la plus sÃ»re de l'hÃ´pital et, pour faciliter son traitement, de le soigner dans une piÃ¨ce d'isolement . Le 7 mai, il a Ã©tÃ© transfÃ©rÃ© dans un~secteur de haute sÃ©curitÃ© et placÃ© Ã l'isolement pour rendre les soins plus faciles : . Cette mesure n'Ã©tait pas conÃ§ue et n'a pas Ã©tÃ© prÃ©sentÃ©e au requÃ©rant comme,une forme .de punition . Elle devait apporter plus de sÃ©curitÃ© au traitement . FÃ¢ute : de preuve, aucune accusation n'a Ã©tÃ© portÃ©e Ã la suite de l'enquÃ¨te de police .
La piÃ©ce dans laquelle le requÃ©rant a Ã©tÃ© transfÃ©rÃ© n'Ã©tait pas aussi confortable que son logement prÃ©cÃ©dent, mais elle n'Ã©tait ni pire ni meilleure que d'autres piÃ©ces d'isolement dans cette partie de l'hÃ´pital . Elle comportait un sol revÃªtu de matÃ©riau synthÃ©tique . Le requÃ©rant avait deux matelas placÃ©s l'un sur l'autre, deux oreillers avec taies et quatre couvertures . Il n'y avait pas de lit parce que son mÃ©decin avait estimÃ© qu'il risquait de se blesser . La piÃ©ce Ã©tait nettoyÃ©e tous les jours par le personnel et la nourriture, apportÃ©e sur un chariot chauffÃ©, Ã©tait la mÃªme que celle des malades du mÃ©me service . La piÃ©ce Ã©tait bien chauffAe et aÃ©rÃ©e compte tenu de la saison . Dans la piÃ©ce d'isolement, le requÃ©rant Ã©tait soumis Ã une mÃ©dication et, de ce fait, considÃ©rÃ© comme alitÃ© et habillÃ© en pyjama et en robe de chambre . Par crainte qu'il ne se blesse, on ne lui avait donnÃ© qu'une cuiller en guise de couvert . Au dÃ©but, il ne lui a pas Ã©tÃ© permis d'avoir des contacts normaux avec les autres malades, mais il a reÃ§u rÃ©guliÃ©rement la visite du personnel soignant avec lequel il a pu communiquer . Il a pu progressivement entrer en contact avec d'autres malades et, le 10 juin, on a jugÃ© qu'il s'Ã©tait suffisamment rÃ©tabli pour avoir des contacts normaux avec les autres . Le Gouvernement dÃ©fendeur a ensuite abordÃ© la question de la recevabilitÃ© de la requÃªte . Il a expliquÃ© que le requÃ©rant avait Ã©tÃ© mis dans une piÃ©ce d'isolement, non pas Ã titre punitif, mais pour qu'il puisse bÃ©nÃ©ficier d'une meilleure surveillance des soignants tant qu'il prÃ©sentait des troubles . La chose a paru nÃ©cessaire pour la protection du personnel hospitalier, des malades et du requÃ©rant lui-mÃ¨me Quoique moins agrÃ©able que dans le logement qu'il occupait prÃ©cÃ©demment, son mode de vie ne comportait aucun Ã©lÃ©ment de traitement dÃ©gradant . Le fait que le requÃ©rant n'ait pas eu de lit et qu'il ait Ã©tÃ© habillÃ© en pyjama et en robe de chambre s'explique par la crainte de le voir se blesser lui-mÃ¨me et par la mÃ©dication Ã laquelle il Ã©tait soumis . Ce fait n'a pas Ã©tÃ© conÃ§u ni considÃ©rÃ© par le personnel hospitalier comme un traitement dÃ©gradant . Le traitement appliquÃ© pour la protection des malades mentaux ou d'autres personnes sans intention de les dÃ©grader ne constitue pas un traitement dÃ©gradant au sens de l'article 3 de la Convention et rien dans les conditions de dÃ©tention du requÃ©rant n'Ã©quivalait objectivement Ã un traitement dÃ©gradant . Le Gouvernement conclut donc que la requÃªte est incompatible avec les dispositions de la Convention et manifestement mal fondÃ©e et, par consÃ©quent, qu'elle est irrecevable en vertu de l'article 27, Â§ 2 de la Convention .
b . Observations du requÃ©rant en rÃ©pons e Les observations du requÃ©rant en rÃ©ponse sont ainsi conÃ§ues : Â« 1 . Je n'Ã©tais pas soumis Ã une mÃ©dication lorsque j'Ã©tais enfermÃ© dans une piÃ¨ce . 2 . Ces piÃ¨ces ne sont jamais nettoyÃ©es par le personnel . 3 . Le sol est en pierre ou en bÃ©ton .
4 . Je n'Ã©tais nullement aliÃ©nÃ© et je n'avais pas l'intention de me blesser ou de blesser autrui . 5 . La piÃ©ce avait des portes doubles et ne possÃ©dait pas de vÃ©ritables fenÃ©tres, mais simplement un volet avec une petite grille Ã environ 2 mÃ¨tres Ã 2,50 mÃ¨tres au-dessus du sol . Les conditions n'Ã©taient donc pas les mÃªmes que dans les autres piÃ¨ces . 6 . J'ai Ã©tÃ© placÃ© dans cette piÃ©ce aprÃ©s avoir Ã©tÃ© interrogÃ© par la police et je n'ai pas vu de mÃ©decin pendant un certain temps aprÃ¨s mon entrÃ©e dans cette piÃ¨ce . 7 . Je n'avais pas de robe de chambre dans cette piÃ©ce ni de couverture pour les pieds, simplement un pyjama . 8 . Le Â« chariot chauffÃ© Â», trÃ©s souvent, n'est pas branchÃ©, si bien que les repas sont froids . 9 . Les malades en cellule n'ont pas le choix entre plusieurs rÃ©gimes et on leur donne le plus mauvais des deux rÃ©gimes . 10 . Les portions donnÃ©es aux malades en cellule sont beaucoup plus petites que celles qu'on donne aux autres . 11 . Je n'ai pas pu communiquer avec le personnel car il n'y avait pas moyen de le faire . 12 On ne m'a pas donnÃ© des permissions progressives de sortir de la cellule, mais on m'en a fait sortir immÃ©diatement aprÃ©s une visite du National Council for Civil Liberties . n
2 . Observations Ã©crites complÃ©mentaires sur la recevabilit Ã© a . Observations complÃ©mentaires du Gouvernement dÃ©fendeu r Le Gouvernement a reconnu que le requÃ©rant n'avait pas reÃ§u de mÃ©dication au moment indiquÃ©, mais un traitement mÃ©dical dÃ©fini Ã l'article 147 de la loi de 1959 sur les malades mentaux, comprenant un traitement et des soins et une Ã©ducation sous surveillance mÃ©dicale . Les piÃ©ces Ã©taient bien nettoyÃ©es tous les jours par le personnel . Le sol de la piÃ©ce Ã©tait du type bÃ©ton, mais ce n'Ã©tait pas du bÃ©ton, bien qu'il en ait donnÃ© l'apparence et la sensation . Les malades sont placÃ©s dans des piÃ©ces d'isolement s'il apparaÃ®t qu'ils prÃ©sentent un risque pour eux-mÃªmes ou pour d'autres . Deux autres Ã©lÃ©ments sont Ã considÃ©rer : d'une part il est d'usage de sÃ©parer des autres les malades soumis Ã une enquÃªte de police, d'autre part l'incendie a obligÃ© Ã une autre rÃ©partition des malades et a aggravÃ© le surpeuplement . Certains malades ont attribuÃ© au requÃ©rant la responsabilitÃ© de l'incendie et quelques-uns ont manifestÃ© de l'hostilitÃ© Ã son Ã©gard . Il a Ã©tÃ© jugÃ© bon pour la sÃ©curitÃ© des autres malades et du requÃ©rant lui-mÃªme qu'il soit transfÃ©rÃ© dans une piÃ©ce d'isolement .
Cette piÃ©ce a des portes doubles . Elle mesure 3,10 mÃ©tres de long sur 2 mÃ©tres de large et 3,60 mÃ©tres de haut . Elle a une fenÃªtre de 60 x 75 cm munie d'un volet et situÃ©e Ã environ 2,40 mÃ¨lres du sol ainsi qu'une grille de ventilateur dans le mÃªme mur . Il y a une piÃ¨ce semblable Ã cÃ´tÃ© . Les aulres piÃ©ces d'isolement ont Ã peu prÃ©s les mÃªmes dimensions . En raison de l'incendie, les piÃ©ces d'isolement et les dortoirs Ã©taient devenus rares . Le requÃ©rant a Ã©tÃ© transfÃ©rÃ© dans la piÃ¨ce d'isolement le 7 mai 1974 . Les registres de l'hÃ´pital indiquent qu'il a Ã©tÃ© examinÃ© par deux psychiatres consultants, le Dr . A . le 14 mai et le Dr . B . le 14 juin . Il est allÃ© au centre mÃ©dical hospitalier le 5 juin . Il a aussi Ã©tÃ© examinÃ© frÃ©quemment par le Dr . B ., mais, conformÃ©ment Ã l'usage, ces brefs entretiens n'ont pas Ã©tÃ© enregistrÃ©s . Une robe de chambre, des chaussettes et des pantoufles se trouvaient dans une armoire en dehors de la piÃ©ce pour que le malade puisse les prendre quand il la quittait . Les repas Ã©taient servis sur un chariot chauffÃ© . Les malades des piÃ©ces d'isolemeni peuvent choisir d'avance entre deux menus principaux et ils reÃ§oivent la mÃªme portion que les autres . Les notes de soins montrent Ã partir du 7 mai 1974 que le requÃ©rant a communiquÃ© quotidiennement avec le personnel soignant . A partir du 8 mai, il a quittÃ© la piÃ¨ce pour pouvoir se baigner et prendre de l'exercice pendant vingt minutes puis, Ã partir du 14 mai, pendant un temps de plus en plus long . Le Gouvernement souligne qu'en vertu du droit coutumier anglais, toute personne se doit de traiter avec sollicitude les autrespersonnes avec lesquelles elle entre en contact . L'inobservation de cette rÃ©gle constilue un dÃ©lit de nÃ©gligence . Le devoir de sollicitude est tenu pour acquis dans le cas des mÃ©decins et des infirmiers Ã l'Ã©gard de leurs malades . Les autoritÃ©s hospitaliÃ©res peuvent avoir Ã rÃ©pondre devant les tribunaux de l'Ã©tat de leurs locaux et d'un manque de soin de la part de leur personnel . Le requÃ©rant aurait donc eu le droit de rÃ©clamer des dommages-intÃ©rPts pour nÃ©gligence ou pour manquement aux devoirs en ce qui concerne sa cellule s'il avait pu prouver que l'aÃ©ration, l'alimentation, l'habillement ou l'ameublement Ã©taient manifestement insuffisants dans son cas . Il ne l'a pas fait . Le Gouvernement soutient par consÃ©quent, parallÃ¨lement Ã ses autres arguments, que la requÃªte est irrecevable en vertu de l'article 27 131 de la Convention pour non-Ã©puisement des voies de recours internes .
b . Observations complÃ©mentaires du requÃ©rant en rÃ©pons e Le requÃ©rant maintient que l'isolement dans une piÃ¨ce ayant un sol en bÃ©ton, un matelas et deux pots sales ne constitue pas un traitemenY mÃ©dical . Il nie que le personnel hospitalier ait nettoyÃ© la piÃ¨ce . Le requÃ©rant a demandÃ© de quel droit, puisque Broadmoor est un hÃ´pital, le personnel peut enfermer une personne sans tenir compte de ce qu'une enquÃªte de police est en cours . Seul le personnel lui a tÃ©moignÃ© de l'hostilitÃ© . Lorsqu'il a quittÃ© la piÃ©ce, aucun malade n'a montrÃ© d'hostilitÃ© Ã son Ã©gard .
Il se demande pourquoi il n'a pas vu de mÃ©decin avant le 14 mai et qui a dÃ©cidÃ© de l'enfermer le 7 mai . Il n'a vu le Dr . B . que juste avant de quitter la piÃ©ce et il nie qu'il ait eu d'autres entretiens avec lui . Il n'y avait pas, Ã l'Ã©poque, de robe de chambre dans ce secteur de l'hÃ´pital . Les malades n'en recevaient une que lorsqu'ils allaient dans le bureau du mÃ©decin . Le chariot chauffÃ© n'Ã©tait pas branchÃ© et les malades des piÃ©ces d'isolement recevaient une nourriture Ã bien des Ã©gards moins bonne que les autres . Le seul contact avec le personnel soignant avait lieu lorsque celui-ci apportait les repas, allumait et Ã©teignait rapidement les lumiÃ¨res et les ventilateurs et criait des menaces et des insultes par la fente du mur . Le requÃ©rant a reconnu qu'il avait pris un bain une fois par semaine, mais il a dÃ©clarÃ© qu'en raison de l'Ã©tai de la piÃ©ce, il aurait pu prendre un bain tous les jours . Le requÃ©rant a dÃ©clarÃ© que personne ne lui avait dit qu'il avait droit Ã Ãªtre entendu par un tribunal, bien qu'il ait demandÃ© un procÃ©s . En vertu de l'article 141 de la loi sur les malades mentaux, il est nÃ©cessaire de demander une autorisation pour engager une action en justice . Pour dÃ©fendre sa cause, il faut produire des preuves . Le seul moyen de taire tÃ©moigner un membre du personnel de Broadmoor est de le citer en justice . Pour cela, il faut s'adresser Ã un tribunal, mais il n'est pas permis d'engager une action en justice avant d'avoir produit des preuves . 3 . Argumentation prÃ©sentÃ©e Ã l'audienc e a . Argumentation du Gouvernement dÃ©fendeu r
i) Voies de recours internes Le Gouvernement a soutenu qu'en cas de nÃ©gligence dans le traitement d'un malade, le SecrÃ©taire d'Etat Ã©tait tenu Ã des dommages-intÃ©rÃ©ts pour le prÃ©judice subi . En outre, il est possible de se retourner contre la Couronne pour obtenir une dÃ©cision dÃ©claratoire selon laquelle le traitement qui vous a Ã©tÃ© rÃ©servÃ© tombe sous le coup du droit relatif aux actes illicites . La Couronne a coutume de traiter une telle dÃ©cision dÃ©claratoire comme une injonction (qu'on ne peut pas obtenir contre elle) . Des dommages-intÃ©rÃ©ts sont accordÃ©s pour perte d'agrÃ©ment ou de commoditÃ© en plus du pretium do/oris ou de l'indemnitÃ© pour perte de capacitÃ© de travall . Le SecrÃ©taire d'Etat, par dÃ©lÃ©gation, est responsable de la nÃ©gligence de ses subordonnÃ©s, par exemple des agents hospitaliers de nettoyage . Les plaintes comme celles du requÃ©rant peuvent donner lieu Ã des dommages-intÃ©rÃªts pour inconfort physique, mise Ã part toute question de dÃ©sarroi mental . Normalement, cependant, les dommages-intÃ©rÃ©ts accordÃ©s pour inconfort physique sont peu Ã©levÃ©s quand la durÃ©e est courte et qu'il n'y a pas de dommage permanent . Les allÃ©gations du requÃ©rant concernant sa dÃ©tention dans une cellule avec une alimentation insuffisante peuvent donner lieu Ã des dommages-intÃ©rÃªts pour perte d'agrÃ©ment ou de commoditÃ© . En outre, quoique l e
Gouvernement ne voie rien qui puisse constituer un acte illicite donnant lieu Ã des dommages-intÃ©rÃ©ts pour dÃ©sarroi mental, des dommages-intÃ©rÃ©ts auraient pu, en vertu du droit relatif aux contrats, Ãªtre accordÃ©s pour dÃ©sarroi mental rÃ©sultant directement et inÃ©vitablement de la conduite incriminÃ©e . La tendance actuelle est de rapprocher le droit sur la responsabilitÃ© contractuelle du droit concernant les actes illicites . Il n'y a aucune raison logique qui s'opposerait Ã l'octroi de ces dommages-intÃ©rÃªts en vertu du droit concernant les actes illicites . La jurisprudence de la Cour et de la Commission montre que la conduite incriminÃ©e doit Ãªtre grave pour contrevenir Ã l'article 3 . Si le dÃ©sarroi men(al rÃ©sulte de cette conduite, il est fort probable que des dommages-intÃ©rÃªts pourraient Ãªtre accordÃ©s, mÃ©me si le prÃ©judice ne porte que sur ce point . En tout cas, des dommages-intÃ©rÃªts pourraient Ãªtre obtenus pour d'autres chefs et un jugement dÃ©claratoire pourrait l'Ã¨tre aussi . Si la conduite incriminÃ©e par le requÃ©rant tombait sous le coup de l'article 3, ce qui n'est pas le cas selon le Gouvernement, elle donnerait lieu Ã des dommages-intÃ©rÃ©ts . Le requÃ©rant n'a pas essayÃ© d'Ã©puiser les voies de recours disponibles . Il suffit que la possibilitÃ© d'un recours existe, mÃªme si son rÃ©sultat n'est pas certain . Le seul fait qu'il existe un doute quant Ã l'existence et aux chances de succÃ¨s d'une voie de recours ne dispense pas un requÃ©rant de l'Ã©puiser . Les tribunaux nationaux doivent pouvoir connaÃ®tre du cas avant qu'une requÃªte ne soit introduite devant la Commission (RequÃªte NÂ° 1661/62, X . et Y . contre Belgique, Annuaire VI, page 361, Recueil de DÃ©cisions 10, p . 20 ; Cour europÃ©enne des Droits de l'Homme, Affaire Handyside, ArrÃªt du 27 dÃ©cembre 1976, SÃ©rie A NÂ° 24, paragraphe 48) . En rÃ©ponse Ã l'argumentation du requÃ©rant sur ce point, le Gouvernement a fait valoir que la difficultÃ© d'introduire une action n'est pas aussi grande que le requÃ©rant l'a indiquÃ© . Le fait mÃªme que le requÃ©rant ait pu introduire la prÃ©sente requÃ©te et ait pu se faire assister par un avocat le montre . Si la conduite incriminÃ©e contrevient Ã l'article 3, il n'est pas exact de dire qu'il serait peu Ã©conomique d'introduire une action ni qu'une demande d'assistance judiciaire serait considÃ©rÃ©e comme une affaire nÃ©gligeable et rejetÃ©e . Le requÃ©rant a prÃ©tendu que l'argumentation du Gouvernement relative au droit sur les dommages-intÃ©rÃ©ts est controversÃ©e . Ce n'est pas exact . Certes, il n'y a pas de prÃ©cÃ©dent direct d'une plainte de cette nature, mais une telle plainte n'est pas de celles dont on pourrait dire qu'elles ne prÃ©sentent pas de chances raisonnables . Le Gouvernement en conclut que les griefs du requÃ©rant relatifs Ã l'article 3 sont irrecevables pour non-Ã©puisement des voies de recours internes . ii) Les questions relatives Ã l'article 3 Le Gouvernement a d'abord rappelÃ© le point de vue de la Commission sur l'article 3 dans l'Alfaire grecque, point de vue qu'il approuve . Le sens gÃ©nÃ©ral de l'article 3 indique que la portÃ©e de cet article doit Ãªtre limitÃ©e aux affaires graves . Dans cette optique, les griefs du requÃ©rant sont manifestement mal fondÃ©s .
Le Gouvernement, commentant une photographie de la piÃ©ce occupÃ©e par le requÃ©rant, affirme que celui-ci n'y avait pas Ã©tÃ© placÃ© Ã titre punitif . La dÃ©cision de l'y mettre a Ã©tÃ© prise personnellement par le mÃ©decin-chef de l'hÃ´pital en raison de ses antÃ©cÃ©dents . Le 7 mai 1974 un grave incendie a Ã©clatÃ©, qui a causÃ© de gros dÃ©gÃ©ts . A tort ou Ã raison, le principal suspect Ã©tait le requÃ©rant . Les mÃ©decins devaient faire en sorte que cet acte ne se rÃ©pÃ¨te pas . Ils ont dÃ» tenir compte de ce que, le 19 avril 1974, le requÃ©rant avait Ã©crit une lettre indiquant qu'il perdait patience et qu'il songeait Ã incendier les lieux et Ã faire un sort Ã certains des agents . L'incendie a crÃ©Ã© des difficultÃ©s de logement . Quatre-vingts malades ont Ã©tÃ© dÃ©placÃ©s . C'est une conjugaison de plusieurs motifs qui explique que le requÃ©rant ait Ã©tÃ© placÃ© dans cette piÃ©ce . Il y avait d'abord le risque de rÃ©pÃ©tition du dÃ©lit . Il se posait ensuite la question de l'Ã©tat du requÃ©rant . Il est apparu souhaitable pour son traitement qu'il soit dans cette piÃ©ce . En troisiÃ©me lieu, d'autres malades risquaient d'Ãªtre mÃ©contents s'ils jugeaient le requÃ©rant responsable de leur surcroÃ®t d'inconfort . La piÃ¨ce elle-mÃ«me a servi Ã d'autres usages que celui-ci . Elle a servi lorsqu'il y a eu danger de comportement antisocial et elle ne comportait pas de lit parce que, dans l'Ã©tat oÃ¹ le requÃ©rant paraissait Ãªtre, une personne aurait pu se servir de ses Ã©lÃ©ments comme d'armes . Le Gouvernement a demandÃ© Ã la Commission de prendre en considÃ©ration la briÃ¨vetÃ© de la pÃ©riode que le requÃ©rant a passÃ©e dans cette piÃ¨ce et le fait que, malgrÃ© la situation, il a Ã©tÃ© rÃ©guliÃ©rement visitÃ© par les mAdecins . En outre, le requÃ©rant n'a pas Ã©tÃ© confinÃ© dans cette piÃ¨ce comme il l'a dit . Il a eu des autorisalions progressives d'en sortir . L'usage veut qu'un malade isolÃ© dans une piÃ¨ce pour un motif quelconque reÃ§oive les journaux, du papier Ã lettres, etc . . Sans entrer dans les dÃ©tails Ã ce point de la procÃ©dure, le Gouvernement n'accepte pas la version des Ã©vÃ©nements prÃ©sentÃ©e par le requÃ©rant . Le Gouvernement a invitÃ© la Commission Ã adopter, envers le grief du requÃ©rant, l'attitude qu'elle a dÃ©jÃ© adoptÃ©e envers les allÃ©gations concernant l'isolement avant condamnation et le transfert Ã Broadmoor dans la requ@te NÂ° 6870/75 et Ã dÃ©clarer les griefs du requÃ©rant manifestement mal fondÃ©s . En rÃ©ponse Ã l'argumentation du requÃ©rant, le Gouvernement estime n'avoir pas fait de dÃ©clarations contradictoires, sauf sur la question de la mÃ©dication, dans son argumentation initiale et dans son argumentation ultÃ©rieure, bien qu'il y ait eu des diffÃ©rences dans la maniÃ¨re dont les choses ont Ã©tÃ© exprimÃ©es . Le m&me type de critique pourrait Ãªtre adressÃ© Ã l'argumentation du requÃ©rant . C'est dans une lettre du 2 mai 1977 qu'il s'est plaint pour la premiÃ©re fois d'avoir dÃ©couvert des excrÃ©ments dans le vase de nuit en entrant dans la piÃ©ce . De nombreuses lettres antÃ©rieures du requÃ©rant n'y avaient pas fait allusion . Il y a aussi des incohÃ©rences dans sa lettre du 2 mai 1977 . II y soutient qu'il n'a pas pu nettoyer les vases pendant deux jours, mais il soutient aussi que les trois premiers jours il a passÃ© 24 heures sur 24 dans la piÃ¨ce, sauf une minute et demie pour vider le vase de nuit .
b . Argumentation du requÃ©ran t
il Introductio n Le requÃ©rant a Ã©tÃ© convaincu d'avoir volÃ© quelques shillings dans un compteur Ã gaz, mais ses antÃ©cÃ©dents judiciaires sont plus graves et il a quelques violences Ã son passif . Il a passÃ© plus de quatre ans en prison et, s'il avait Ã©tÃ© traitÃ© uniquement pour l'infraction commise, il aurait Ã©tÃ© relÃ©chÃ© longtemps avant . Les tÃ©moignanges apportÃ©s Ã la Commission Butler par les psychologues de Broadmoor ont indiquÃ© qu'il n'existait pas de moyen plus sÃ»r pour prÃ©dire le caractÃ¨re dangereux des dÃ©linquants mentalement anormaux que pour celui des dÃ©linquants mentalement normaux . ii) Voies de recours interne s Le requÃ©rant soutient qu'en droit anglais il faut, si l'on veut toucher des dommages-intÃ©rÃªts pour dÃ©sarroi mental, prouver qu'une lÃ©sion physique ou une maladie physique ou mentale visible a Ã©tÃ© contractÃ©e . Les dommages-intÃ©rÃ©ts pour pene d'agrÃ©ment ne sont accordÃ©s que si cette perte a Ã©tÃ© causÃ©e par une lÃ©sion physique . Le simple inconfort physique, selon lui, ne donne pas lieu Ã des dommages-intÃ©rÃªts s'il ne s'accompagne pas d'une lÃ©sion physique . Le requÃ©rant, isolÃ© dans la piÃ©ce, ne savait pas qu'il pouvait intenter une action . Il n'a vu personne en dehors de l'hÃ´pital avant que le NCCL lui donne des conseils juridiques . Cet organisme n'a pas vu lui-mÃªme qu'il y avait une voie de recours interne, mais il s'est plaint vivement au SecrÃ©taire d'Etat des conditions d'internement . Le lendemain de sa visite, le requÃ©rant a Ã©tÃ© libÃ©rÃ© de son isolement . MÃ©me si cet organe avait recommandÃ© une action tendant Ã un jugement dÃ©claratoire, celle-ci n'aurait servi Ã rien puisque le prÃ©judice Ã©tait commis . Des difficultÃ©s pratiques apparaissent lorsqu'un malade en institution fermÃ©e veut intenter une action comme celle que mentionne le Gouvernement . Un requÃ©rant n'est pas tenu d'exercer un recours si, en l'Ã©tat de la jurisprudence des tribunaux nationaux, cette voie de recours n'a pas raisonnablement une chance de succÃ¨s . En l'occurrence, elle n'en aurait pas eu en raison de difficultÃ©s pratiques . Le requÃ©rant n'avait pas de moyens financiers et il aurait dÃ» demander l'assistance judiciaire, qui ne lui aurait Ã©tÃ© accordÃ©e par la Law Society que s'il y avait eu raisonnablement une chance de succÃ¨s . Pour prendre sa dÃ©cision, cette sociÃ©tÃ© aurait examinÃ© si l'on pouvait raisonnablement s'attendre Ã l'octroi de dommages-intÃ©rÃ©ts . Les faits allÃ©guÃ©s par le requÃ©rant n'auraient pas donnÃ© lieu Ã un montant apprÃ©ciable de dommages-intÃ©rÃ©ts . La Law Society aurait aussi dÃ¹ examiner les moyens de preuve . La parole du requÃ©rant aurait Ã©tÃ© mise en parallÃ¨le avec celle de l'hÃ´pital et le requÃ©rant n'aurait pas pu se procurer de documents pour confirmer ses allÃ©gations . Enfin, un malade de Broadmoor se trouve dans une institution fermÃ©e, oÃ¹ il ne peut pas accÃ©der Ã des informations ou Ã des indications sur ses possibilitÃ©s et ses moyens d'intenter une action .
Le Gouvernement n'a pas soulevÃ© cette question dans ses observations initiales . Son nouvel argument relatif Ã l'inconfort physique a Ã©tÃ© avancÃ© par une Ã©quipe d'avocats dans un effort d'envisager toutes les possibilitÃ©s thÃ©oriques d'actionenjustice . Il Ã©tait peu probable qu'un malade puisse concevoir qu'il avait Ã faire de mÃ©me . Au surplus, un malade, doit, en vertu de l'article 141 de la loi de 1959, demander Ã la High Court la permission d'intenter une action et il doit produire ses moyens de preuve sous forme de dÃ©clarations, sans pouvoir prÃ©senter l'ensemble de son affaire . Ces dÃ©clarations doivent montrer Ã suffisance que la personne devant Ãªtre incriminÃ©e a agi de mauvaise foi ou nÃ©gligÃ© d'apporter des soins raisonnables . Des affaires prÃ©cÃ©dentes, oÃ¹ les chances du recours Ã© taient plus claires que dans l'affaire prÃ©sente, ont montrÃ© qu'il Ã© tait vain de demander d'abord l'assistance judiciaire, puis d'obtenir la permission prÃ©vue par l'article 141, et d'avoir gain de cause au tribunal pour obtenir finalement de faibles dommagesintÃ©rÃ©ts . Par consÃ©quent, le requÃ©rant a soutenu qu'il Ã©tait thÃ©oriquement impossible de disposer d'une voie de recours puisque le dÃ©sarroi mental Ã lui seul ne justifierait pas une action et que de toute faÃ§on ce serait un effort inutile . iiil Questions relatives Ã l'article 3 Le requÃ©rant a Ã©tÃ© accusÃ© d'avoir provoquÃ© un incendie . Or, il est apparu que plusieurs autres malades s'Ã©taient trouvÃ©s en des endroits oÃ¹ ils auraient aussi pu le faire . AprÃ¨s un examen dÃ©taillÃ©, le procureur a dÃ©cidÃ© qu'il n'y avait pas de preuves suffisantes que le requÃ©rant ait commis cet acte . Le requÃ©rant nie l'avoir commis . Il serait faux de penser que le requÃ©rant ait Ã©tÃ© responsable . En affirmant que le requÃ©rant a Ã©tÃ© placÃ© dans la piÃ¨ce pour Ã©viter d'autres incendies, on n'explique ni pourquoi on l'a privÃ© de ses vÃªtements et de ses avoirs ni pourquoi le requÃ©rant s'est plaint des conditions sanitaires et de l'aÃ©ration . L'enquÃªte sur les faits s'est heurtÃ©e Ã des difficultÃ©s et le Gouvernement n'a pas rÃ©pondu en dÃ©tail aux allÃ©gations du requÃ©rant . Les dimensions de la piÃ¨ce ne sont pas contestÃ©es . Le requÃ©rant y a Ã©tÃ© dÃ©tenu presque 24 heures sur 24 au dÃ©but et environ 23 heures par jour Ã la fin de sa dÃ©tention . Il n'y avait ni chaise ni endroit oÃ¹ il puisse s'asseoir . La piÃ©ce n'Ã©tait pas semblable aux piÃ©ces normales puisque la hauteur reprÃ©sentait la plus grande dimension . Il y avait trÃ©s peu d'espace oÃ¹ le requÃ©rant puisse marcher . Les murs Ã©taient nus et la fenÃ©tre trop haut placÃ©e pour offrir un champ de vision . Il y avait peu ou pas de lumiÃ¨re naturelle . C'est l'une des deux seules piÃ©ces qui aient de grandes doubles portes . Il y avait un ventilateur actionnÃ© de l'extÃ©rieur . Comme il produisait un bruit rÃ©gulier et fort, il Ã©tait assez rarement en service . Le requÃ©rant ne pouvait pas modifier l'Ã©clairage et il s'est plaint d'une lumiÃ©re constante provenant d'une source non tamisÃ©e qu'il pouvait difficilement supporter . L'ameublement n'a pas fait l'objet de contestations . Il y avait deux matelas mousse d'environ 7,5 centi-
mÃ©tres d'Ã©paisseur, deux oreillers et quatre couvertures, mais pas d'autres meubles . Il n'est pas contestÃ© non plus que le requÃ©rant ait Ã©tÃ© habillÃ© d'un pyjama et n'ait pas eu de couverture pour les pieds . Le point de savoir si la nourriture Ã©tait suffisante ou chaude a Ã©tÃ© quelque peu contestÃ©, mais il n'a pas Ã©tÃ© dit qu'il en rÃ©suhÃ¢t une humiliation ou une injustice grave comme sur les autres points . Il a Ã©tÃ© reconnu que la piÃ¨ce n'avait pas de toilettes, si ce n'est deux vases de nuit en plastique, que le requÃ©rant Ã©tait autorisÃ© Ã vider lui-mÃ¨me chaque matin . Il y a eu dÃ©saccord sur le point de savoir s'il y avait toujours du papier de toilette disponible . Le requÃ©rant a pu se laver plusieurs minutes chaque matin et prendre un bain une fois par semaine . Le dÃ©saccord est important sur la question du confort sanitaire dans la piÃ©ce, sur le nombre de nettoyages, sur la qualitÃ© de nettoyage et sur la personne qui y procÃ©de . Il y a eu litige sur le point de savoir si des excrÃ©ments croupis se trouvaient dans la piÃ¨ce lorsque le requÃ©rant y est entrÃ© . Il y a eu aussi quelque lÃ©ger diffÃ©rend sur le point de savoir dans quelle mesure le requÃ©rant a pu prendre de l'exercice et avoir des contacts avec des malades et le personnel . Sur les faits non litigieux, la Commission estimera peut-Ã¨tre qu'il y a eu violation de l'article 3 . Si non, il faudra examiner de plus prÃ¨s les faits litigieux . Il y a eu des contradictions dans l'argumentation du Gouvernement dÃ©fendeur . Celui-ci a dÃ©clarÃ© qu'aucun registre n'avait Ã©tÃ© soigneusement tenu et qu'il Ã©tait difficile d'Ã©tablir les faits . Au dÃ©but, le Gouvernement avait jugÃ© l'aÃ©ration Â« suffisante'Â» . Or, les documents concernant l'hÃ´pital de Broadmoor qu'il a produits avant l'audience la qualifient de Â« mauvaise Â» . Cette constatation est corroborÃ©e par le National Council for Civil Liberties qui a envoyÃ© deux reprÃ©sentants voir le requÃ©rant dans sa cellule et a critiquÃ© l'aÃ©ration dans sa plainte adressÃ©e au SecrÃ©taire d'Etat . Il y a eu aussi quelques dÃ©saccords sur le type de sol . Le Gouvernement a d'abord dÃ©clarÃ© que le requÃ©rant portait une robe de chambre, mais ensuite que la robe de chambre, les chaussettes et les pantoufles Ã©taient Ã l'extÃ©rieur de la piÃ©ce pour qu'il puisse les prendre quand il la quittait . Il y a eu contestation sur le point de savoir si le requÃ©rant avait accÃ©s Ã ces objets quand il quittait la piÃ©ce . Lui-mÃªme a assurÃ© qu'il n'avait pas constamment accÃ¨s Ã l'armoire . Le requÃ©rant a allÃ©guÃ© qu'il n'avait pas pu prendre d'exercice durant les deux premiÃ©res semaines . Il ne semble pas qu'il y ait de registre permettant de le confirmer ou de l'infirmer . Il a aussi allÃ©guÃ© qu'il avait pu ensuite prendre de l'exercice pendant une heure d'affilÃ©e tous les deux et parfois tous les trois jours . En dehors du temps passÃ© dans la salle d'eau et dans la cour, il a Ã©tÃ© isolÃ© des autres malades . Le requÃ©rant a allÃ©guÃ© que la piÃ©ce n'a Ã©tÃ© nettoyÃ©e qu'au bout des quinze premiers jours et ensuite peut-Ãªtre deux ou trois fois . Ce nettoyage a simplement consistÃ© en un rapide balayage de la piÃ©ce par un autre malade sans aucun recours au savon ou Ã l'eau pour dÃ©barrasser la piÃ©ce de ses odeurs d'urine et d'excrÃ©ments .
La question du traitement et en particulier celle de savoir si le requÃ©rant a Ã©tÃ© mis dans cette cellule en vue de son traitement et si un traitement a Ã©tÃ© appliquÃ© a aussi Ã©tÃ© controversÃ©e . L'argumentation initiale et l'argumentation ultÃ©rieure du Gouvernement sont contradictoires sur la question de la mÃ©dication . Il y a aussi litige sur le point de savoir si le requÃ©rant risquait de se blesser, puisqu'il ne s'Ã©tait jamais blessÃ© lui-mÃ©me auparavant, et sur le point de savoir s'il Ã©tait agitÃ© . Un psychiatre indÃ©pendant a dÃ©clarÃ© qu'on ne mettait gÃ©nÃ©ralement pas quelqu'un dans une piÃ©ce aussi longtemps sous prÃ©texte qu'il Ã©tait agitÃ© sans lui donner des mÃ©dicaments pour calmer cette agitation . Il est significatif que le Gouvernement a dÃ©clarÃ© que la pratique constante de l'hÃ´pital consistait Ã sÃ©parer ainsi les malades . Cette rÃ©ponse est peut-Ãªtre plus automatique que mÃ»rement rÃ©flÃ©chie, en raison de la question du traitement . Enfin, il ne semble pas qu'il y ait trace d'un examen mÃ©dical du requÃ©rant avant qu'au moins une semaine se soit Ã©coulÃ©e depuis son isolement dans la cellule . On peut donc s'interroger sur les preuves mÃ©dicales dont on dispose pour dire que le requÃ©rant Ã©tait agitÃ© lorsqu'il a Ã©tÃ© mis dans cette piÃ¨ce . Commentant l'argumentation du Gouvernement, le reprÃ©sentant du requÃ©rant a fait valoir que mÃªme si la pÃ©nurie de logements avait entrainÃ© l'isolement du requÃ©rant dans une cellule pour la nuit, il ne devait pas y@tre dÃ©tenu 23 Ã 24 heures par jour . Aucun argument psychiatrique ou autre ne permet de dire que 5 semaines d'un tel isolement soient un remÃ©de Ã l'agitation et un tel traitement ne pourrait qu'aggraver encore les troubles d'un malade . Les observations psychiatriques montrent dans l'ensemble que la dÃ©tention n'aurait pas Ã©tÃ© justifiÃ©e par des raisons thÃ©rapeutiques . En ce qui concerne les dÃ©clarations prÃ©tendOment contradictoires du requÃ©rant sur l'Ã©tat sanitaire, celui-ci maintient qu'il disposait de moins de deux minutes pour vider les vases et qu'il avait donc juste assez de temps pour les vider, mais non pour les nettoyer .
EN DROI T 1 . La Commission examinera tout d'abord les griefs formulÃ©s par le requÃ©rant dans sa requÃªte initiale, concernant la procÃ©dure devant la commission psychiatrique de rÃ©examen . Le requÃ©rant s'est plaint qu'au cours de cette procÃ©dure il a Ã©tÃ© dit qu'il avait commis un incendie volontaire, bien que cette accusation ait Ã©tÃ© abandonnÃ©e, et qu'il ait Ã©tÃ© avancÃ© qu'il risquait d'avoir un comportement violent . Le requÃ©rant a allÃ©guÃ© la violation de l'article 6, par . 2, de la Convention, ainsi conÃ§u : Â« Toute personne accusÃ©e d'une infraction est prÃ©sumÃ©e innocente jusqu'Ã ce que sa culpabilitÃ© ait Ã©tÃ© lÃ©galement Ã©tablie Â» Toutefois, la Commission constate que dans la procÃ©dure devant la commission psychiatrique de rÃ©examen, le requÃ©rant n'a pas Ã©tÃ© accusÃ© d'incendie volontaire, de violences ou d'un autre dÃ©lit . La fonction de la commission de rÃ©examen dans cette procÃ©dure Ã©tait de fournir un avis au SecrÃ©taire d'Etat sur l e
maintien du requÃ©rant en dÃ©tention . Elle n'avait Ã s'occuper que des modalitÃ©s d'exÃ©cution de la sentence infligÃ©e au requÃ©rant . La Commission constate aussi que l'accusation d'incendie volontaire prÃ©cÃ©demment formulÃ©e contre le requÃ©rant a Ã©tÃ© abandonnÃ©e . Il suit, de l'avis de la Commission, que l'article 6, par . 2, ne s'applique pas Ã la procÃ©dure en question et que cette partie de la requÃªte est donc incompatible avec les dispositions de la Convention ratione materiae et doit Ãªtre considÃ©rÃ©e comme irrecevable en vertu de l'article 27, par . 2, de la Convention . 2 . La Commission examinera ensuite le grief formulÃ© par le requÃ©rant en mars 1976 Ã propos du traitement thÃ©rapeutique qu'il recevait alors . Le requÃ©rant s'est plaint d'avoir dÃ» absorber un mÃ©dicament qui lui causait inquiÃ©tude et irritabilitÃ© et que son mÃ©decin ait refusÃ© d'interrompre ce traitement . La Commission envisage ce grief Ã la lumiÃ©re de l'article 3 de la Convention, qui interdit les traitements inhumains ou dÃ©gradants . Toutefois, rien n'indique que ce traitement ait Ã©tÃ© autre chose qu'un traitement mÃ©dlcal convenable et la Commission estime par consÃ©quent que cette partie de la requÃ©te est manifestement mal fondÃ©e au sens de l'article 27, par . 2 . 3 . La Commission examinera enfin les autres griefs du requÃ©rant, au sujet desquels elle a reÃ§u les observations des parties sur la recevabilitÃ© et qui portent sur les conditions dans lesquelles il a Ã©tÃ© dÃ©tenu dans une piÃ¨ce ou une cellule Ã Monmouth House pendant environ 5 semaines en mai et juin 1974 . Le Gouvernement dÃ©fendeur a niÃ© que les conditions de la dÃ©tention du requÃ©rant pendant cette pÃ©riode aient constituÃ© une violation des droits que lui garantit l'article 3 . II a estimÃ© que cette panie de la requi'te Ã©tait manifestement mal fondÃ©e . Il a Ã©galement soutenu que cette partie de la requÃªte Ã©tait irrecevable en vertu des articles 26 et 27, par . 3, de la Convention du fait que le requÃ©rant n'avait pas Ã©puisÃ© les voies de recours internes . Il a fait valoir que si les faits dÃ©noncÃ©s par le requÃ©rant Ã©taient de ceux qui sont interdits par l'article 3, quod non, le requÃ©rant aurait eu des recours Ã sa disposition Il lui Ã©tait loisible d'engager une action tendant Ã des dommages-intÃ©rÃ©ts ou Ã un jugement dÃ©claratoire selon lequel les conditions incriminÃ©es Ã©taient contraires au droit concernant les actes illicites . De son c6tÃ©, le requÃ©rant a contestÃ© qu'il ait eu un tel recours Ã sa disposition . Il a fait valoir que pour se voir allouer des dommages-intÃ©rÃ¨ts, il faut prouver qu'on a subi une lÃ©sion ou une affection physique . II a soutenu qu'une action au civil n'aurait eu vraisemblablement aucune perspective de succÃ©s, en particulier Ã cause des difficultÃ©s pratiques rÃ©sultant de sa situation de malad . emntaldÃ©uprivemoynsfacr La Commission rappelle qu'elle a dÃ©jÃ dÃ©clarÃ© que pour satisfaire aux exigences de l'article 26 de la Convention, un requÃ©rant est tenu de Â« faire un usage normal des recours vraisemblablement efficaces et suffisants n pour porter remÃ©de Ã des griefs (Voir ~ RequÃªte NÂ° 788/60, Autriche contre /talie, Annuaire 4 p . 173 ; RequÃªte NÂ° 43301 69, Simon-Nerold contre Autriche, Annuaire 14 p . 353 ;
RequÃªtes NÂ° 5577-55E3/72, Donnelly et autres contre Royaume-Uni, DÃ©cisions et Rapports 4, page 4, voir P. 64) . La Cour europÃ©enne des Droits de l'Homme a estimÃ© que l'article 26 n'exige que l'exercice des recours qui sont Â« adÃ©quats, c'est-Ã -dire de nature Ã porter remÃ©de aux griefs Â» IVoir par exemple les Affaires de vagabondage, SÃ©rie A NÂ° 12, p . 33 paragraphe 601 . D'autre part, la Commission a toujours estimÃ© que le seul fait qu'il existe des doutes sur les perspectives de succÃ©s d'une voie de recours dÃ©terminÃ©e ne dispense pas un requÃ©rant d'en faire usage car il appartient aux tribunaux nationaux de statuer en premier lieu (voir par exemple RequÃ©re NÂ° 712/60, Retimag contre RÃ©publique FÃ©dÃ©rale d'Allemagne, Annuaire 4 p . 385, Recueil de DÃ©clsions 8, p. 29 ; RequÃªte NÂ° 1661/62, X et Y contre Be/gique, Annuaire 6 p . 361, Recueil de DÃ©cisrons 10, p . 20) . La Commission ne considÃ©re pas l'Ã©tat de malade mental, qui est celui du requÃ©rant, ni son manque de connaissances juridiques comme des Ã©lÃ©ments qui le dispensent de son obligation d'Ã©puiser les voies de recours . Toutefois, elle a examinÃ© si les recours disponibles Ã©taient efficaces et suffisants au regard de la jurisprudence citÃ©e . La Commission constate d'abord que le requÃ©rant n'a pas prÃ©tendu avoir subi une lÃ©sion, une maladie ou une perte matÃ©rielle en raison des faits dont il se plaint . Le Gouvernement dÃ©fendeur a reconnu que l'octroi de dommages-intÃ©rÃ©ts dans de telles circonstances Ã©tait sans prÃ©cÃ©dent direct dans le droit anglais sur les actes illicites . Il a soutenu que, nÃ©anmoins, des dommages-intÃ©rÃ©ts auraient pu en principe Ãªtre accordÃ©s pour inconfort physique, perte d'agrÃ©ment et dÃ©sarroi mental . Le requÃ©rant a citÃ© plusieurs autoritÃ©s en matiÃ©re de droit anglais indiquant que le dÃ©sarroi mental Ã lui seul ne peut pas donner lieu Ã dommagesintÃ©rÃ©ts en droit anglais sur les actes illicites . Il a soutenu que la perte d'agrÃ©ment ou le simple inconfort physique n'auraient vraisemblablement pas donnÃ© lieu, par eux-mÃ©mes, Ã l'octroi de dommages-intÃ©rÃ©ts en l'absence d'une lÃ©sion ou d'une maladie susceptible d'Ãªtre dÃ»ment constatÃ©e . AprÃ©s examen des thÃ¨ses des parties, la Commission n'est pas convaincue qu'en l'Ã©tat actuel du droit anglais sur les actes illicites, le requÃ©rant aurait pu raisonnablement espÃ©rer des dommages-intÃ©rÃ©ts s'il avait pu prouver ses allÃ©gations, Ã moins d'un changement ou du moins d'une Ã©volution substantielle de la jurisprudence actuelle . Dans ces conditions, elle ne considÃ©re pas que le requÃ©rant ait Ã©tÃ© tenu d'engager et de poursuivre une action en dommages-intÃ©rÃ©ts pour satisfaire Ã son obligation Â« de faire un usage normal des recours vraisemblablement efficaces et suffisants Â» ou Â« de nature Ã porter remÃ¨de Ã ses griefs Â» . En outre, mEme si le requÃ©rant avait pu demander un jugement dÃ©claratoire indiquant que les conditions de sa dÃ©tention contrevenaient au droit sur les actes illicites, un tel recours n'aurait pas pu porter remÃ©de Ã ses griefs ex post /acto . Etant donnÃ© la durÃ©e probable de la procÃ©dure tendant Ã un jugement dÃ©claratoire et la durÃ©e de la dÃ©tention du requÃ©rant dans les conditions incriminÃ©es, la Commission ne considÃ¨re pas que ce fÃ»t IA un recours qu'il ait Ã©tÃ© tenu d'Ã©puiser .
Par ces motifs, la Commission estime que cette partie de la requÃªte ne peut pas Ãªtre rejetÃ©e pour non-Ã©puisement des voies de recours internes . Il reste Ã examiner si les griefs du requÃ©rant sont manifestement mal fondÃ©s, ainsi que le Gouvernement dÃ©fendeur l'a soutenu . La Commission constate d'abord qu'il y a controverse entre les parties sur diverses questions de fait touchant aux conditions dans lesquelles le requÃ©rant a Ã©tÃ© dÃ©tenu Ã l'Ã©poque visÃ©e et sur les motifs de sa dÃ©tention dans la piÃ©ce ou cellule d'isolement . Il n'est pas possible en l'Ã©tat actuel de la procÃ©dure de statuer sur les faits contestÃ©s en prenant pour seule base les allÃ©gations des parties . La Commission estime que le rÃ©cit fait par le requÃ©rant des conditions de sa dÃ©tention pendant la pÃ©riode considÃ©rÃ©e et des circonstances qui l'ont entourÃ©e pose une question dÃ©licate sur le point de savoir s'il a Ã©tÃ© soumis Ã un traitement ou Ã une punition en violation de l'article 3 de la Convention et que cette question ne peut pas Ãªtre tranchÃ©e sans un examen et un constat des faits . Cette partie de la requÃªte ne peut donc pas Ã©tre considÃ©rÃ©e comme manifestement mal fondÃ©e en l'Ã©tat actuel du dossier et aucun autre motif d'irrecevabilitÃ© n'a Ã©tÃ© Ã©tabli . Elle doit donc Ãªtre dÃ©clarÃ©e recevable .
Par ces motifs, la Commissio n DECLARE RECEVABLE et retient, sans prÃ©juger du fond, les griefs du requÃ©rant concernant sa dÃ©tention dans une piÃ¨ce ou cellule d'isolement en mai et juin 1974 ; 2 . DÃCLARE LA REOUETE IRRECEVABLE pour le surplus .
- 36 -Origine de la décision Pays : Conseil de l'EuropeJuridiction : Cour européenne des droits de l'hommeFormation : Commission (plénière)Date de la décision : 12/05/1977Fonds documentaire : HUDOC Haut de page