Source: http://www.juricaf.org/arret/CONSEILDELEUROPE-COUREUROPEENNEDESDROITSDELHOMME-19780708-757276
Timestamp: 2017-04-30 07:51:26+00:00
Document Index: 319034067

Matched Legal Cases: ['arrêt ', "l'article 35", "l'article 138", "l'article 231", "l'article 146", "l'article 3", "l'article 6", "l'article 29", "l'article 27", "l'article 27", "l'article3", "l'article 6", "l'article 6", "l'article 6", "l'article 6", "l'article 3", "l'article 27", "l'article 2", "l'article 3", "l'article 3", "l'article 3", "l'article 27", "l'article 6", "l'article 6", "l'article 6", "l'article 6", "l'article 6", "l'article 6", "l'article 6", "l'article 6", "l'article 26", "l'article 6", "l'article 6", "l'article 6", "l'article 6", "l'article 27"]

ENSSLIN, BAADER et RASPE contre l'ALLEMAGNE
Page d'accueil > Résultats de la recherche ENSSLIN, BAADER et RASPE contre l'ALLEMAGNE
Type d'affaire : DecisionType de recours : Exception préliminaire rejetée (disparition de l'objet du litige) ; Violation de l'Art. 3 ; Satisfaction équitable non appliquéeNumérotation : Numéro d'arrêt : 7572/76Identifiant URN:LEX : urn:lex;coe;cour.europeenne.droits.homme;arret;1978-07-08;7572.76 Analyses : (Art. 6-1) DELAI RAISONNABLE, (Art. 6-1) DROITS ET OBLIGATIONS DE CARACTERE CIVILParties : Demandeurs : ENSSLIN, BAADER et RASPEDéfendeurs : l'ALLEMAGNETexte : APPLICATIONS/REQUÃTES NÂ° 7572/76, 7586/76 et 7587/76 I l oined/jointes l G . ENSSLIN, A . BAADER & J . RASP E v/the FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF GERMAN Y G . ENSSLIN, A . BAADER & J . RASPE c/RÃPUBLIQUE FÃDÃRALE D'ALLEMAGN E DECISION of 8 July 1978 on the admissibility of the applications DÃCISION du 8juillet 1978 sur la recevabilitÃ© des requÃªtes
Artic/e 3 of the Convention : Examination of the conditions of relative, sensory and social isolation in which dangerous detained persons are held and the consequences thereof for their physical and mental health . No objective indications, in rhe instant case, to suggest that the applicants' suicide was the result of their treatment in prison . Artic% 6, paragraph 1, of the Convention : Fair trial. al A virulent press campaign, particularly one instigated by an organ of the State, could be prejudicial to the fairness of a trial . One can not, however, require of either rhe press or the authorities that they refrain from making any statement on the dangerous character of an accused person when they are in possession of uncontested facts . b) Proceedings . which take place in part in the absence of the accused . Measure which may be considered as legitimate where the avowed intention of the accused is to prevent the trial's taking place, given that they were represented by counsel who remained in contact with them . A rticle 6, paragraph 1, of the Convention : Impartial Tribunaf. No appearance of partiality on the pa rt of the cou rt, a successful challenge having been made against the one judge whose impartiality was called into question . 6, paragraph 2, of the Convention : The principfe of the presumption of innocence is only binding upon the judge called upon to determine the charge .' -
â¢ The present decision waa taken earlier than the decision on the admissibility of Application
NÂ° 7986/77 IKrausa v . Swhaerlandl, published in D.R . 13 p . 73 .
-6q -
Artic% 6, paragraph 3, of the Convention : In order to determine whether the rights guaranteed by this paragraph have been respected, one must take into consideration the situation as a whole in which the defence was placed . Article 6, paragraph 3 Icl of the Convention : a) This provlsion does not guarantee to the accused the right to be present in person during each and every stade of the proceedings. b) Neither does it guarantee a right to an unlimited number of counsel . c) The State is entitled to regulate the appearance of counsel before courts and their obligation to respect certain principles of professional conduct . Article 25 of the Convention : the death of an applicant does not automaticafly extingutsh his action . Interest of successors in having the application pursued.
Article 26 of the Convention : a) When the alleged violation of the Convention results from the combined effect of a set of decisions and measures taken together, does the exhaustion of domestic remedies rule require that each decision or measure should have been submitted to available appeal procedures ? IQuestion not pursued) . b) No need to exhaust a remedy where the outcome could only be the repetition of an earlier decision. Articte 27, paragraph 1(b) of the Convention : Three similar applications coming from different applicants, one essentially the same as an apptication already examined by the Commission. The Commission decides to take no separate decision merely an account of that fact.
Article 3 de la Convention : Examen des conditions d'isolement relatif, sensoriel et social, de dÃ©tenus dangereux et de leurs consÃ©quences pour la santÃ© physique et mentale de ceux-ci . En l'espÃ©ce, absence d'indications objectives permettant de penser que le suicide des requÃ©rants aurait Ã©tÃ© la consÃ©quence de leur traitement en prison. Article 6, paragraphe 1, de la Convention : ProcÃ©s Ã©quitable. a) Une violente campagne de presse, surtout provoquÃ©e par un organe de l'Etat, pourrait nuire Ã l'Ã©quitÃ© d'un procÃ©s . Toutefois, on ne saurait exiger de la presse ni des autoritÃ©s qu'elles s'abstiennent de toute dÃ©claration sur le caractÃ©re dangereux d'un accusÃ©, lorsqu'el%s disposent d'informations non contestÃ©es .
b) ProcÃ©s se dÃ©roulant en partie hors la prÃ©sence des accusÃ©s . Mesure pouvant Ãªtre considÃ©rÃ©e comme lÃ©gitime vu l'intention avouÃ©e des accusÃ©s d'empÃ©cherle dÃ©roulement du procÃ©s et vu leur reprÃ©sentation par avocats, qui demeuraient en contact avec eux . Article 6, paragraphe 1, de ta Convention : Tribunal impartial. Aucune apparence de partialitÃ© du tribunal, celui des juges dont l'impartialitÃ© pouvait Ã©tre mise en doute ayant Ã©tÃ© rÃ©cusÃ© avec succÃ¨s . Article 6, paragraphe 2, de la Convention : Le principe de la prÃ©somprion d'innocence ne s'impose qu'au juge appelÃ© Ã statuer sur le bien-fondÃ© de l'accusation' . Article 6, paragraphe 3, de ta .Convention : Pour dÃ©terminer si les droits garantis par ce paragraphe ont Ã©tÃ© respectÃ©s, il faut prendre en considÃ©ration la siruation gÃ©nÃ©rale faire Ã©/a dÃ©fense . ' Article 6, paragraphe 3, titt . c, de la Convention :
a) Cette disposition ne garantit pas Ã© /'accusÃ© un droit d'Ã©tre lui-mÃªme prÃ©senr B tous les actes de la procÃ©dÃ»re . b) Elle nÃ© lui garantit pas non p/us un droit 8 une assistance numÃ©riquement illimitÃ©e. . cl L'Etat est en droit de rÃ©glementer la comparution des avocats devant les tribunaux et l'obligation pour eux de respecter certains principes dÃ©Ã´ntologiqties. Article 25 de la Convention : Le dÃ©cÃ©s d'un requÃ©rant n'Ã©teint pas automatiquement son action . IntÃ©rÃªt des ayants droit au maintien de la requÃ©te . Article 26 de la Convention : a) Lorsque la violation allÃ©guÃ©e de la Convention rÃ©sulte de la combinaison d'un ensemble de dÃ©cisions et de mesures, la rÃ¨gle de l'Ã©puisement des voies de recours internes exige-t-elle que chaque dÃ©cision ou mesure ait fait l'objet de tous les recours disponibles ? IQuestion non rÃ©so/ue. l b) N'apas Ã Ã©tre exercÃ© un recours dont .le rÃ©sultat ne saurait Ãªtre quÃ© la rÃ©pÃ©tition d'une dÃ©cision antÃ©rieure . â¢ . Article 27, paragraphe 1, titt . b, de la Convention : Cas oÃ¹, de trois requÃªtes semblables Ã©manant de requÃ©rants diffÃ©rents, l'une est essentiellÃ©ment la mÃ©me qu'une requÃªte prÃ©cÃ©demment examinÃ©e par la Cominr'ssion . La Commission renonce Ã prendre une dÃ©cision sÃ©parÃ©e de ce fait .
â¢ Le prPsente d&islon e dtA rendue evant la ddciaion sur la rÃ©uvabilitd tle la requhle NÂ° 7986/77 IKnuse c . Suinel, publide dans O.R. 13 p . 73 .
IEnglish : see p . 97 1
1 . Tels qu'ils rÃ©sultent des dÃ©clarations faites au nom des requÃ©rants ainsi que des documents versÃ©s au dossier, les faits de la cause peuvent se rÃ©sumer comme sui t La requÃ©rante Gudrun Ensslin est nÃ©e le 15 aoÃ»t 1940 . Elle est dÃ©cÃ©dÃ©e Ã la prison de Stammheim-Stutigart le 18 octobre 1977 . Son pÃ©re, M Helmut Ensslin, a fait connaÃ®tre le 30 novembre 1977 sa volontÃ© de voir aboutir la requÃªte . La cause de Mme Ensslin est prÃ©sentÃ©e IdÃ©fenduel devant la Commission par MaÃ®tre J .J . De FÃ©lice, avocat Ã la cour d'appel de Paris . Le requÃ©rant Andreas Baader est nÃ© le 6 mai 1943 . II est dÃ©cÃ©dÃ© le 18 octobre 1977 . Sa mÃ©re, Mme Nina Baader, a dÃ©clarÃ© vouloir maintenir cette requÃªte . La cause d'Andreas Baader est prÃ©sentÃ©e Ã la Commission par Maitre Bakker-Schut, avocat Ã Utrecht . Dans une requÃªte antÃ©rieure INÂ° 6166/73, Baader, Meins, Meinhof, Grundmann c/R .F .A .), dÃ©clarÃ©e irrecevable le 30 mai 1975 (D . Et R . NÂ° 2 p . 58), il s'Ã©tait dÃ©jA plaint des conditions de sa dÃ©tention . Le requÃ©rant Jan Carl Raspe est nÃ© le 24 juillet 1944 . II est Ã©galement dÃ©cÃ©dÃ© le 18 octobre 1977 . Sa soeur, Charlotte Raspe, a dÃ©clarÃ© vouloir maintenir la requÃªte . La cause est prÃ©sentÃ©e devant la Commission par Maitre M . Graindorge, avocat au barreau de Bruxelles . 2 . Lors de l'introduction de leurs requÃ©tes, les trois requÃ©rants Ã© taient dÃ©tenus Ã la prison de Stammheim-Stuttgart . II y a lieu de distinguer deux sÃ©ries de faits relatifs aux conditions de dÃ©tention (a), d'une part, Ã la procÃ©dure pÃ©nale menÃ©e contre eux Ibl, d'autre part . Les constatations et rapports relatifs Ã leur dÃ©cÃ©s feront l'objet d'une section distincte (c) .
A . Les conditions de dÃ©tentio n 3 . Les requÃ©rants ont Ã©tÃ© arr@tÃ©s Ã des dates diffÃ©rentes : A . Baader et C . Raspe, le 1^' juin 1972 ; G . Ensslin le 7 juin 1972 . Jusqu'aux 1^ novembre 1974 et 31 ao0t 1974, respectivement, Baader et Ensslin ont purgÃ©, le premier aux prisons de DÃ¼sseldorf puis Schwalmstadt, la seconde aux prisons d'Essen puis de Kiiln-ossendorf, une peine privative de libenÃ© que le tribunal rÃ©gional de Francfort leur avait infligÃ©e par jugement du 31 octobre 1968 .
DÃ¨s son arrestation, Carl Raspe fut placÃ© en dÃ©tention prÃ©ventive Ã la prison de KÃ´ln-Ossendorf . - 67 -
Les trois requÃ©rantsfurent transfÃ©rÃ©s Ã la prison de Stuttgart-Stammheim . en mai (Ensslin) et novembre 1974 (Baader-Raspe) . Fixation des modalitÃ©s de dÃ©tention 4 : Leurs conditions de dÃ©tention ont Ã©tÃ© fixÃ©es et modifiÃ©es par des dÃ©cisions du juge d'instruction prÃ©s la Cour FÃ©dÃ©rale de Justice et, plus tard, par la deuxiÃ©me chambre criminelle de la cour d'appel de Stuttgart, d'une part ; par des ordres de l'administration pÃ©nitentiaire, d'autre part . Ca2ctÃ©iistiques gÃ©nÃ©rales 5 . Elles ont Ã©tÃ© caractÃ©risÃ©es en permanence par la sÃ©paration des requÃ©rants d'avec les autres dÃ©tenus, leur exclusion de la vie sociale de la prison, le strict contrbje des contacts avec l'extÃ©rieur, le recours Ã des mesures part iculiÃ©res de sÃ©curitÃ© . Depuis la fin de l'annÃ©e 1974, les requÃ©rants ont ainsi Ã© tÃ© placÃ©s dans une section spÃ©ciale aÃ» septiÃ©me Ã©tage de l'Ã©tablissement de Stuttga rtStammheim . Outre les cellules, cette section comprenait des locaux pour le contact mutuel des dÃ©tenus, pour l'exercice physique et pour la conse rvation de leurs archives . Une cabine de contrÃ´le situÃ©e au bout du couloir permettait au personnel pÃ©nitentiaire de surveiller toute activitÃ© dans le couloir central . En outre, une cabine de contrBle situÃ©e en dehors de la section Ã© tait Ã©quipÃ©e d'un Ã©cran detÃ©lÃ©vision et d'une alarme acoustique . Ce systÃ©me utilisÃ© la nuit permettait aux-gardiens de contrÃ´ler les allÃ©es et venues dans le couloir central ; l'alarme acoustique se dÃ©clenchait en cas d'ouve rtÃ»redes grilles d'accÃ©s Ã la section Ã© taient suivies de fouilles corporelles des dÃ©tenus . Les .Lesvit avocats pouvaient, de leur cBtÃ©, Ã©tre*soumis Ã une fouille superficielle ; les piÃ©ceset objets qu'ils souhaitaient remettre aux dÃ©tenus devaient Ãªtre prÃ©alablÃ©ment soumis au jÃ»ge compÃ©tent . Les cellules des requÃ©rants Ã©taient en principe soumises Ã une fouill e
quotidienne jusqu'en juillet 1977, puis Ã trois fouilles par semaine . Ces contrÃ´les Ã©taient frÃ©quemment effectuÃ©s en leur absence, pendant le tÃ©mps ,de promenade . Vie quotidienne 6 . A l'intÃ©rieur de ce cadre, l'organisation de la vie quotidienne et les possibilitÃ©s de contacts des requÃ©rants entre eux ou avec d'autres personnes soupÃ§onnÃ©es d'actes de terrorisme, ainsi qÃ»e l'Ã©tendue des visites ont subi de frÃ©quentes modifications . A plusieurs reprises, en raison d'Ã©vÃ©nements exceptionnels, les requÃ©rants ont Ã©tÃ©,pour de courtes pÃ©riodes, privÃ©s de tout contact entreeux et avec le monde extÃ©rieur .
7 . Le droit de recevoir des visites et du courrier, initialement limitÃ© aux membres de la famille pour des raisons de sÃ©curitÃ© (dÃ©cision du juge d'instruction prÃ©s la Cour FÃ©dÃ©rale de Justice, en date du 12 juin 1972) fut ultÃ©rieurement Ã©tendu Ã d'autres personnes, Ã condition que l'objectif de la dÃ©tention n'en fOt pas compromis (dÃ©cision du juge d'instruction de la cour d'appel de Stuttgart, en date du 6 mai 1974) . Les rapports avec les avocats n'Ã©taient pas visÃ©s par ces dÃ©cisions . 8 . Le requÃ©rant Raspe, alors dÃ©tenu Ã la prison de KÃ´ln-Ossendorf, fut autorisÃ© Ã passer une heure par jour avec un autre dÃ©tenu (dÃ©cision du juge d'instruction du 5 mars 1973 ) , puis Ã effectuer la promenade avec un petit group de dÃ©tenus (dÃ©cision du mÃªme juge en date du 12 mars 1974) et enfin 9 effectuer la promenade avec les autres prisonniers en dÃ©tention provisoire, sans restriction (dÃ©cision du 6 mai 1974) . A la mÃªme Ã©poque, Ensslin fÃ»t autorisÃ©e 9 passer d'abord une heure par jour avec U . Meinhof (dÃ©cision du 4 fÃ©vrier 1974), puis quatre heures par jour, en plus de la promenade (dÃ©cision du 6 mai 1974) . Le 16 aoÃ»t 1974, la cour d'appel autorisa Ensslin et U . Meinhof Ã suivre ensemble des Ã©missions de tÃ©lÃ©vision et Ã participer aux activitÃ©s de quelques dÃ©tenues fÃ©minines . Elles ne firent pas usage de cette derniÃ©re facultÃ© . 9 . AprÃ¨s que les requÃ©rants aient tous Ã©tÃ© incarcÃ©rÃ©s Ã Stammheim, le prÃ©sident de la cour d'appel autorisa, le 2 dÃ©cembre 1974, Baader et Raspe Ã passer ensemble quatre heures par jour dans la mÃ©me cellule puis, le 21 janvier 1975, Ã suivre ensemble des Ã©missions de tÃ©lÃ©vision . A cette Ã©poque, la possibilitÃ© pour les trois requÃ©rants et U . Meinhof de se rÃ©unir leur Ã©tait refusÃ©e IdÃ©cision du prÃ©sident de la cour d'appel du 18 fÃ©vrier 1975) . 10 . La possibilitÃ© pour les dÃ©tenus du mPme sexe d'Ãªtre enfermÃ©s ensemble quatre heures par jour fut suspendue par la cour d'appel le 28 fÃ©vrier 1975, Ã la suite de l'enlÃ¨vement Ã Berlin du dÃ©putÃ© Lorenz . Partiellement rÃ©tablie le 23 avril, elle tut 8 nouveau suspendue le 9 mai 1975, suite Ã un attentat contre l'Ambassade de la RÃ©publique FÃ©dÃ©rale d'Allemagne Ã Stockholm . Elle fut rÃ©tablie sur la base de deux pÃ©riodes de quatre heures par semaine, Ã compter du 16 mai 1975 . Les requÃ©rants et U . Meinhof reÃ§urent en outre l'autorisation de se concerter durant une heure et demie pour prÃ©parer leur dÃ©fense, les audiences venant de dÃ©buter (dÃ©cision du prÃ©sident de la cour d'appel des 14 et 26 mai et 3 juin 1975) . La promenade par groupe de deux, Ã©galement suspendue depuis le 9 mai 1975, fut rÃ©tablie le 20 de ce mois . 11 . A la suite de rappons soumis Ã la cour d'appel, Ã sa demande, par di(fÃ©rents experts mÃ©dicaux (infra par . 18), la rÃ©union de deux dÃ©tenus du mÃªme sexe (Umschluss) fut autorisÃ©e de 8 h . Ã 16 h . deux jours par semaine (dÃ©cision du 26 aoÃ»t 1975), puis quotidiennement (dÃ©cision du 26 septembre 1975 ) . En outre, 9 compter de cette derniÃ©re date, les dÃ©tenus reÃ§urent l a
permission de se retrouver Ã quatre Ã raison de deux pÃ©riodes de deux heures par semaine (Zusammenschluss) . Donnant partiellement suite Ã des recommandations des expertsmÃ©dicaux relatives aux moyens d'amÃ©liorer la santÃ©et la condition physique des requÃ©rants, le prÃ©sident de la cour d'appel porta Ã une heure et demie le temps dela promenade quotidienne pour les requÃ©rants, Ã deux d'abord puis tous ensemble IdAcision des 15 octobre et 21 novembre 19751 . La rÃ©union des quatre dÃ©tenus fut autorisÃ©e quotidiennement pour une heure . La pratique du tennis de table Ã quatre les samedis et dimanches fut Ã©galement accordÃ©e . Baader et Raspe, d'une part, Ensslin et Meinhof, d'autre_part, reÃ§urent ou se virent confirmer l'autorisation d'effectuer la promenade en compagnie d'un groupe sÃ©lectionnÃ© de dÃ©tenus, sous rÃ©serve d'une fouille corporelle (dÃ©cision du 21 novembre 1975) . Ils ne firent pas usage de cette derniÃ©re possibilitÃ© . . . . Pour contraventions aux rÃ©glements de l'Ã©tablissement pÃ©nitentiair e .12 certaines"de ces possibilitÃ©s furent momentanÃ©ment retirÃ©es Ã l'un ou l'autre requÃ©rant . Baader fut ainsi temporairement privÃ© du bÃ©nÃ©fice du Zusammen -schlu,tandiqeRspvtrldoi'useartl tÃ©lÃ©vision IdÃ©cision du prÃ©sident de la cour d'appel des 25 fÃ©vrier et 19 aoÃ»t 1976) . 13 . En relation avec l'assassinat du Procureur GÃ©nÃ©ral Buback, le juge chargÃ© de la surveillance de-la dÃ©tention ordonna la suppression de radio et tÃ©lÃ©vision, de tous contadts extÃ©rieurs, y compris avec les avocats, et des rAunions des dÃ©tenus . Ces mesures temporaires prises le 7 avril 1977 furent rapportÃ©es le 12 du mois . 14 . Le 15 avril 1977, au Ã§ours d'une grÃ©ve de la soif entamÃ©e par les requÃ©rants, la courd'appel rejeta une demande de mise en .libertÃ© introduite en leur nom, au motif qu'ils ne se trouvaient pas en danger de mort . Le mÃªme jour, le prÃ©sident de la cour refusa une modification sensible des conditions de dÃ©tention et notamment les revendications suivantes : intÃ©gration des requÃ©rants parmi les autres prisonniers, exiension de l'Umschluss au-delÃ 16 h ., allongement du temps de visite des avocats et dispense de fouille de ceux-ci . A panir du 28.15 juin 1977, Ensslin fut autorisÃ©e Ã passer la nuit avec deu x autres membre de la RAF transfÃ©rÃ©s Ã Stammheim depuis mÃ¢i 1976 IJ . Schubert - J . M611er1 ou 1977 IVerena Becker, Sabine Schmitz) . A la mr'meÃ©poque, trois autres membres de la RAF furent transfÃ©rAs dans la section rÃ©servÃ©e aux requÃ©rants : Beer, Hoppe et Pohl . 16 . AprÃ©s de violents incidents ayant opposÃ© les 5 et 8 aoÃ»t 1977 les dÃ©tenus de la section spÃ©ciale et leÃ»rs gardiens, Beer, Hoppe et Pohl furent ramenÃ©s Ã Hambourg . Les contacts entre les requÃ©rants, suspendus le 7, furent rÃ©tablis le 12 aoOY.
Suppressibn de tous contacts 1 7 . Le 6 septembre 1977, lendemain de l'enlÃ©vement de M . Schleyer et de l' ;issassinat de quatre personnes de son entourage, le prÃ©sident de la cour d' ;ippel confirma les mesures prises par l'administration pÃ©nitentiaire : suppression de radio et tÃ©lÃ©vision ainsi que des pÃ©riodes de dÃ©tention camunune (Umschluss) et des rapports avec lout autre dÃ©tenu . Le 7 sepicnibre 1977, le Ministre fÃ©dÃ©ral de la Justice ordonna la suppression absolue tle tous contacts des dÃ©tenus entre eux et de tous contacts avec les avocats et le monde extÃ©rieur en gÃ©nÃ©ral . Le 2 octobre 1977, le Ministre fÃ©dÃ©ral de la Justice ordonna, en vertu d'une modification lÃ©gislative entrÃ©e en vigueur le mÃ¨me jour (Â« Kontaktsperregesetz Â») la suspension de tout contact des requÃ©rants entre eux et avec le monde extÃ©rieur, y compris le contact oral et Ã©crit avec les dÃ©fenseurs, conformÃ©ment aux articles 31 et 32 nouveaux de la loi portant introduction de la loi sur l'organisation judiciaire . Par dÃ©cision du 13 octobre 1977, la Cour fÃ©dÃ©rale de Justice Ã©dicta, Ã l'Ã©gard des requÃ©rant, la confirmation visÃ©e Ã l'article 35 de la loi prÃ©citÃ©e . Rapports relatifs Ã l'Ã©tat de santÃ© des requÃ©rants, ses causes, ses remÃ¨des 18 . Depuis leur arrivÃ©e Ã la prison de Stammheim, au cours du deuxiÃ©me semestre 1974, les requÃ©rants ont Ã©tÃ© placÃ©s sous le contÂ«fle mÃ©dlcal permanent du Docteur Henck, mÃ©decin-chef . Ils semblent cependant avoir refusÃ© tout examen approfondi par ce mÃ©decin (cf . ordonnance du 18 juillet 1975 du prÃ©sident de la cour d'appel) . Une premiÃ¨re sÃ©rie de rapports mÃ©dicaux fut Ã©tablie en septembreoctobre 1975 par les Docteurs Rasch, psychiatre, Mende, psychiatre, MÃ¼ller et Schrdder, spÃ©cialistes de mÃ©decine interne, en exÃ©cution d'ordonnances prises les 18 et 29 juillet 1975 par la cour d'appel de Stuttgart . Il s'agissait alors de dÃ©terminer si les requÃ©rants Ã©taient en Ã©tat de suivre les dÃ©bats judiciaires . En rÃ©ponse Ã plusieurs lettres du prÃ©sident de la cour, leur demandant de quelle maniÃ©re l'Ã©tat de santÃ© des dÃ©tenus pouvait Ãªtre amÃ©liorÃ©, ces mÃªmes mÃ©decins firent encore une sÃ©rie de suggestions, partiellement retenues par le tribunal, ainsi qu'il a Ã©tÃ© indiquÃ© plus haut (cf . paragraphe 11 ) . Les 6 et 8 avril 1977, Ã la demande du mÃ©decin-chef de la prison, de nouvelles constatations furent faites par les professeurs Rasch, MÃ¼ller et SchrÃ¼der . Tous ces rapports ont Ã©tÃ© versÃ©s au dossier . Les constatations, analyses et suggestions sont rÃ©sumÃ©es ci-aprÃ©s .
lil L'Ã©tat de santÃ©
En septembre 1975 19 . Les requÃ©rants sont dans un Ã©tat d'Ã©puisement physique et psychique (Dr . Mende) . Leur pression sanguine est basse . Leur poids reprÃ©sente environ 70 % du poids d'tine personne normalement constituÃ©e de mÃªme Ã¢ge et taille (Dr . MÃ¼llerl . A ces degrÃ©s divers, ils prÃ©sentent les symptÃ´mes suivants : troubles de la concentration, fatigue accentuÃ©e, difficultÃ©s d'expression ou d'articulation, rendement physique et mental rÃ©duit, instabilitÃ© ; diminution de la spontanÃ©itÃ©, de l'aptitude au contact, Ã©tat dÃ©pressif Isurtout : Dr . Rasch) . En avril 197 7 20 . L'Ã©volution nÃ©gative de la santÃ©, physique et mentale, est trÃ©s nette chez Ensslin .lopinion concordante des Drs . Rasch et MÃ¼ller-Schr6derl' : perte de poids, pression sanguine trÃ©s faible, vieillissement prÃ©coce, difficultÃ©s renforcÃ©es de l'expression et troubles de la coitcentration, troubles moteurs . La dÃ©tÃ©rioration de l'Ã©tat de Baader et RaspÃ© est sensible mais moins drÃ¢matique : diminution de l'activitÃ© et de la spontanÃ©itÃ©,rÃ©gression Ã©motionnelle, troubles d'articulation, hÃ©sitations du discours . Ils sont nÃ©anmoins aptes Ã la dÃ©tention .
li6 Les causes 21 . Les experts font dÃ©pendre l'Ã©tat de santÃ© des requÃ©rants d'un ensemble de facteurs et circonstances : conditions particuliÃ©res dÃ©leur dÃ©tention, durÃ©e de la dÃ©tention prÃ©ventive, grÃ¨ves de la faim, tension provoquÃ©e par l . . . L'importance eprocÃ¨stlavnÃ©derquts'amelrdÃ©fns accordÃ©e Ã ces facteurs varie selon les rapports . Les conditions particuliÃ¨res de dÃ©tentron 22 . II n'y a pas, Ã proprement parler, isolement sensoriel tel qu'il pÃ©ut Ãªtre provoquÃ© par une rÃ©duction considÃ©rable des stimulations des organes des sens . En revanche, les requÃ©rants sont soumis Ã un isolementsocial Ã©vident . La littÃ©rature pÃ©nologique et psychologique internationale indique que l'isolement peut Ã lui seul affecter gravement la constitution physique et psychique . Les troubles dÃ©cÃ©lÃ©s peuvent Ãªtre lessÃ»ivants ; apathie chronique, fatigue, fragilitÃ© Ã©motionnelle, troubles de la concentration, diminution des facultÃ©s mentales, troubles du systÃ©me neuro-vÃ©gÃ©tatif . L'ampleur exacte de ces phÃ©nomÃ©nes fait l'objet de controverses . Il n'existe pas, dans la littÃ©rature, d'examens ponant sur des situations comparables Ã celle des requÃ©rants IDr . Rasch) et permettant de mieux apprÃ©cier les effets d'ordre psychiatrique . Du point de vue de la mÃ©decine interne, ceniines analogies peuventÃ©tre trouvÃ©es dans les Ã©tudes de cas de personnes Ã¢gÃ©es et isolÃ©es, de personnes maintenues artificiellement en vie dans des unitÃ©s de soin s
intensifs, des dÃ©tenus de longue durÃ©e IDrs . MÃ¼ller et SchrÃ´der) . Certains experts indiquent cependant avoir personnellement peu d'expÃ©rience des effets physiques et psychiques d'une dÃ©tention normale IDrs . MÃ¼ller et Schr8derl . La durÃ©e de la dÃ©tention prÃ©ventive 23 . Le Dr . Mende considÃ¨re que la durÃ©e de la dÃ©tention prÃ©ventive influence l'Ã©tat de santÃ© des requÃ©rants de faÃ§on plus dÃ©cisive que leurs conditions d'isolement . Il relÃ©ve Ã cet Ã©gard que l'instauration et l'extension de l'a UmschlussÂ» n'avait eu, en 6-8 mois, pratiquement aucun effet positif (premier rapport au 15 septembre 19751 . Cette durÃ©e constitue Ã©galement un facteur imponant pour les Drs . MÃ¼ller et SchrÃ´der ldeuxiÃ©me rapport du 8 avril 19771 .
Les grÃ¨ves de la faim 24 . D'aprÃ©s les constatations officielles, consignÃ©es dans le rapport des Drs . MÃ¼ller et Schrbder (premier rapport du 17 septembre 19751, les requÃ©rants ont suivi des grÃ©ves de la faim du 13 septembre 1974 au 3 fÃ©vrier 1975 et deux fois six semaines en janvier/fÃ©vrier 1973 et mai/juin 1973 . Enfin, une grÃ¨ve de la faim entamÃ©e fin mars 1977 ne s'est achevÃ©e que fin aoÃ»t 1977 . Pour la majoritÃ© des experts, ces grÃ©ves ne constituent pas un facteur dÃ©cisif et, en tous cas, ne suffisent pas Ã expliquer l'Ã©tat d'Ã©puisement des requÃ©rants constatÃ© plusieurs mois aprÃ©s la fin de la grÃ©ve de fin 1974/dÃ©but 1975 . Les Drs . MÃ¼ller et SchrÃ´der indiquent sur ce point que, selon l'expÃ©rience de l'immÃ©diat aprÃ©s-guerre, six mois d'alimentation suffisante permetteni normalement de supprimer la grande majoritÃ© des troubles vÃ©gÃ©tatifs d'une sousalimentation, lorsque les conditions d'existence sont satisfaisantes . Il semble toutefois que la derniÃ©re grÃ©ve de la faim (fÃ©vrier-aoÃ»t 1977) ait dangereusement affaibli les requÃ©rants et surtout G . Ensslin . Le procÃ© s 25 . En gÃ©nÃ©ral, les experts considÃ©rent que la participation aux audiences, la prÃ©paration agressive de leur dÃ©fense, la perspective d'une condamnation ont provoquÃ© un Ã©tat de stress permanent, comparable toutefois Ã celui que peut subir toute personne dÃ©tenue Ã titre prÃ©ventif .
(iii) Les remÃ©des proposÃ©s 26 . II s'agit pour l'essentiel d'accroÃ®tre les possibilitÃ©s d'interaction sociale et d'exercice physique Dans l'Ã©tat d'Ã©puisement constatÃ©, l'utilisation de mÃ©dicaments ne peut jouer qu'un rÃ´le trÃ©s secondaire . 27 . D'une faÃ§on gÃ©nÃ©rale les mÃ©decins n'ont pas examinÃ© en dÃ©tail la possibilitÃ© d'une intÃ©gration pure et simple des requÃ©rants dans la vie normale de la prison, cette solution ayant Ã©tÃ© exclue dÃ©s le dÃ©part par les autoritÃ©s pÃ©nitentiaires pour des raisons de sÃ©curitÃ© . Ils ont jugÃ© les possibilitÃ© s
d'interactions sociales insuffisantes mais fait, Ã cet Ã©gard, des propositions diffÃ©rentes . Le Dr . Ehrhardt (qui n'a pas examinÃ© les requÃ©rants)doute de l'effet d'un accroissement des pÃ©riodes de vie en groupes de deux ou quatre (Umschluss, Zusammenschluss) . II n'est guÃ©re persuadÃ©, par ailleurs, qu'un Ã©largissement de ces groupes puisse influencer sensiblement l'Ã©tat de santÃ© . Les Drs . MÃ¼ller et Schrdder ont recommandÃ© l'extension du Zusammenschluss pour sortir de l'isolement . Ils semblent indiquer qu'il y a peu de diffÃ©rence entre un isolement absolu et un isolement Ã deux (rapport du 13 octobre 1975) . Le Dr . Mende a recommandÃ© la constitution d'un groupe minimal de 10-14 personnes (rapport du 29 octobre 1975) dans lequel les requÃ©rants pourraient Ã©tablir des rapports rÃ©guliers pourvu qu'ils abandonnent tout sentiment de mÃ©fiance . A dÃ©faut, les mesures existant Ã l'Ã©poque devaient Ãªtre complÃ©tÃ©es par une activitÃ© physique renforcÃ©e, des sÃ©ances de relaxation et des entretiens de psychothÃ©rapie . Le Dr . Rasch a estimÃ© que la seule possibilitÃ© rÃ©sidait dans la constitution d'un groupe de dÃ©tenus politiquement motivÃ©s (rapport du 7 novembre 1975) . Dans son rapport du 6 avril 1977, le Dr Rasch a rÃ©pÃ©tÃ© que les possibilitÃ©s d'interactions sociales Ã©taient toujours nettement insuffisantes . ~28 . Les mÃ©decins ont recommandÃ©au surplus un renforcement de l'actiyitÃ© physique, si possible en plein air, en tÃ¢chant de provoquer l'intÃ©r@t des requÃ©rants pour l'amÃ©lioration de leur Ã©tat de santÃ© . B . La procÃ©dure pÃ©nale
29 . Les requÃ©rants furent arrÃªtÃ©s en juin 1972 et inculpÃ©s d'avoir commis plusieurs assassinats ou tentatives d'assassinats au mois de mai 1972 Ã Francfort, Munich, Heidelberget Augsbourg . En vertu d'un accord entre les diffÃ©rents procureurs auprÃ¨s des Cours dans le ressort desquelles ces infractions avaierit Ã©tÃ© commises, l'affaire fut dÃ©fÃ©rÃ©e Ã la cour d'appel de Stuttgart et inscrite au rÃ´le de la 2^ chambre criminelle de cette juridiction . . Le4 fÃ©vrier 1974, Ã la suite d'un mouvement de personnel ayant touchÃ© plusieurs juges, le'juge Prinzig,'alors prÃ©sident de chambre du tribunal des mineurs, fut dÃ©signÃ© Ã la prÃ©sidence de la 2â¢ chambre criminelle, devant laquelle devait se dÃ©roulerâ¢ le procÃ¨s . 30 . Le 1- janvier1975 entra en vigueur une loi du 20 dÃ©cembre 1974 portant .complÃ©ment de la_1- loi amendant le code de procÃ©dure pÃ©nale . Les articles nouveaux ou modifiÃ©s concernant essentiellement la limitation du nombre de dÃ©fenseurs choisis (articlÃ© 137), Ã'exclusion du dÃ©fenseur en cas de Â« prÃ©somption grave Â» de complicitÃ© ou d'abus de contact avec l'accusÃ© en dÃ©tention larticle 138 (all ou lorsqu'il y a un Â« motif justifiÃ© Â» de redouter de sa part une atteinte Ã la sOretÃ© de l'Etat larticle 138 Ibl) . Le dÃ©fenseur exclu ne peut dÃ©fendre l'accusÃ© dans une autre procÃ©dure (article 138 lal) . _74_
En outre, aucun dÃ©fenseur ne peut assister plusieurs accusÃ©s (article 146) et les dÃ©bats peuvent se tenir dÃ©sormais en l'absence de l'accusÃ© s'il est constatÃ©, aprÃ©s avis d'un expert mÃ©dical, qu'il s'est mis Â« intentionnellement et de maniÃ©re coupable Â» dans un Ã©tat excluant sa participation aux dÃ©bats (article 231 lall ou encore s'il est expulsÃ© de la salle pour Â« comportement indisciplinÃ© Â» (article 231 (bll . 31 . Avant l'ouverture des audiences, les requÃ©rants furent privÃ©s de trois des quatre principaux avocats auxquels ils avaient confiÃ© leur dÃ©fense ; seul Maitre Schily put continuer Ã les reprÃ©senter. En effet, par ordonnance de la cour d'appel en date du 22 avril 1975, Maitre Croissant fut exclu dÃ©finitevement de la dÃ©fense d'A . Baader, en applicant de l'article 138 (a) nouveau du code de procÃ©dure pÃ©nale, parce qu'il Ã©tait soÃ¹pÃ§onnÃ© d'apporter son soutien Ã l'organisation criminelle dont faisait partie son client . . Le recours formÃ© contre cette ordonnance fut rejetÃ© le 20 mai 1975 par la Cour SuprÃªme FÃ©dÃ©rale 13^ chambre criminelle) . Par arrÃ©t du 4 juillet 1975, une chambre de trois juges de la Cour Constitutionnelle FÃ©dÃ©rale dÃ©cida de ne pas prendre en considÃ©ration le recours constitutionnel dÃ©posÃ© par MaÃ®tre Croissant . Dans des conditions analogues, Maitre Groenewold, puis MaÃ®tre Str6bele furent Ã©galement exclus de la dÃ©fense de Baader avant mÃªme l'ouverture des dÃ©bats (ordonnances des 2 et 13 mai 1975 de la cour d'appel, arrÃ©t du 26 aoÃ»t 1975 de la Cour SuprÃªme FÃ©dÃ©rale) . Par ordonnance du 3 juin 1975, la cour d'appel Ã©tablit que l'exclusion des avocats Str6bele . Groenewold et Croissant s'Ã©tendait aussi Ã© la dÃ©fense de Ensslin et Raspe . Les recours formÃ©s immÃ©diatement contre cette ordonnance furent rejetÃ©s le 22 octobre 1975 par la Cour fÃ©dÃ©rale de Justice . 32 . Les audiences dÃ©butÃ©rent le 21 mai 1975 . Rapidement toutefois les requÃ©rants ne se trouvÃ©rent pas en Ã©tat de suivre les dÃ©bats . Les dÃ©fenseurs requirent alors la constatation de l'incapacitÃ© des accusÃ©s d'assister aux audiences . Par ordonnances des 18 et 29 juillet 1975, quatre experts furent dÃ©signÃ©s par la cour d'appel . Dans leurs conclusions remises les 10, 15 et 17 septembre, ces mÃ©decins conclurent qu'il Ã©tait nÃ©cessaire de rÃ©duire la durÃ©e des audiences Ã trois heures par jour, au maximum . La cour n'estima pas pouvoir adopter un rythme de travail aussi lent . Le 30 septembre 1975, 40" jour d'audience, lorsqu'il ne devint plus possible aux requÃ©rants de suivre les dÃ©bats pendant plus de trois heures, la cour d'appel dÃ©cida la poursuite des dÃ©bats en leur absence, au motif que les accusÃ©s s'Ã©taient mis, de leur propre fait, dans un Ã©tat excluant leur participation aux dÃ©bats, au sens de l'article 231 nouveau du code pÃ©nal .
_75-
A l'appui de cette conclusion, la cour invoquait les grÃ©ves de la faimrÃ©pÃ©tÃ©es, le refus de toute thÃ©rapie administrÃ©e par les mÃ©decins de la . prison, les nuits de veille, le refus des accusÃ©s de rencontrer d'autres dÃ©tenus et, pour C . Raspe, de participer Ã leur promenade . Le recours immÃ©diat formÃ© contre cette ordonnance fut rejetÃ© par un arrÃ¨t du 22 octobre 1975 de la Cour SuprÃªme FÃ©dÃ©rale . Le 21 janvier 1976, la deuxiÃ©me chambre de la Cour Constitutionnelle FÃ©dÃ©rale rejeta le pou rv oi formÃ© contre cet arrÃ¨t, pour dÃ©faut manifeste de fondement . - . 33 . Le 4 novembre 1975 , se fondant sur l'article 146 nouveau du code dÃ© procÃ©dure pÃ©nale, la cour d'appel refusa d'agrÃ©er un nouvel avocat, Maitre . Spangenberg, . comme dÃ©fensÃ¨ur de Raspe, au motif qu'il avait dÃ©jÃ Ã©tÃ© commis pour la dÃ©fense d'un autre membre de la RAF, traduit devant le tribunal rÃ©gional de Kaiserslautern . En revanche, statuant Ã la reqÃ¹Ã©te du procureur fÃ©dÃ©ral, la : cour ordonna le 7 novembre la dÃ©signation de Maitre von Plottnitz comme avocat d'office de Raspe . Plus tard, la dÃ©signation d'office de Maitre Heldmann, Ã©ffectivÃ© .depuis le mois de juillet 1975, fut rapponÃ©e par la cour parce qu'il ne participait pa . de la procÃ©dure lordonnance du 13 janvier 1977) . saudÃ©rolemntgi 34 . Le procÃ©s se poursuivit en l'absence des accusÃ©s, reprÃ©sentÃ©s principalement Ã l'audience par leurs avocats commis d'office . Au cours du mois de juillet 1976, le juge Prinzig transmit au juge Mayer, membre de la 3â¢ chambre criminelle de la Cour SuprÃªme FÃ©dÃ©rale, compÃ©tente sur recours dans cette procÃ©dure, des photocopies de diverses parties du dossier pÃ©nal, que ce dernier transmit au rÃ©dacteur en chef d'un grand quotidien . La requÃªte en rÃ©cusation du juge Prinzig, dÃ©posÃ©e Ã la suite de cet incident, fut rejetÃ©e . Le juge Mayer, de son cÃ´tÃ©, fut mutÃ© Ã une autre chambre de .la Cour SuprÃªme FÃ©dÃ©rale . Fin janvier 1977, aprÃ©s 174 jours d'audience, il fut fait droit Ã la 85â¢ demande en rÃ©cusation du juge Priniig . Cejui-ci' fut remplacÃ© 8 lÃ prÃ©sidence de la chambre par le juge Foth . Parmi les principaux tÃ©moins de l'accusation figuraient d'ancien s membres du Groupe Baader-Meinhof . La cour d'appel Iefusa en revanche d'entendre des tÃ©moins citÃ©s par l a dÃ©fense pour expliciter le mobile politique des actes commis . Ainsi, le 4 mai 1976, la cour refusa d'eniendre les tÃ©moins Osborne, Agee, Thomas et Peck citÃ©s par la dÃ©fÃ©nsÃ© et prÃ©sents . ' 35 . AprÃ©s cent-quatrÃ©-vingt-onze jours d'audience, lesrequÃ©rants furent condamnÃ©s le 28 avril 1977 Ã la rÃ©clusion perpÃ©tuelle pour meurtres multiple s
et quinze ans de rÃ©clusion pour tentatives d'assassinat et constitution d'une association criminelle . Ils se sont alors pourvus en cassation devant la Cour fÃ©dÃ©rale de Justice, mais leur dÃ©cÃ©s a mis fin Ã cette procÃ©dure .
C . Le dÃ©cÃ¨s des requÃ©rants 36 . Les requÃ©rants sont dÃ©cÃ©dÃ©s le 18 octobre 1977 . Raspe, trouvÃ© gisant dans sa cellule Ã 7 h 41, est mort quelques instants aprÃ©s son admission en clinique . Baader et Ensslin furent trouvÃ©s morts dans leurs cellules respectives 98h07 . 37 . Le mÃªme jour, le tribunal cantonal de Stuttgart-Bad Canstatt se rendit sur les lieux, en prÃ©sence notamment d'avocats librement choisis par les requÃ©rants et d'experts Ã©trangers spÃ©cialistes de mÃ©decine lÃ©gale, pour procÃ©der aux premiÃ©res constatations relatives Ã la position et l'Ã©tat des corps de Baader et Ensslin . Dans la soirÃ©e, il fut procÃ©dÃ© aux autopsies . Les rapports Ã©tablis Ã ce moment furent complÃ©tÃ©s par des rapports d'examens toxicologiques et neuropathologiques . 38 . II ressort de ces documents que Baader est mort entre 0 h 15 et 2 h 15, d'un coup de feu tirÃ© Ã bout portant avec un pistolet trouvÃ© Ã son cÃ´tÃ©, ayant entraÃ®nÃ© une perforation du crÃ¢ne en un seul endroit . Aucune autre trace de violence n'a Ã©tÃ© dÃ©celÃ©e . Les blessures provoquÃ©es et les traces de sang et de poudre sur la main droite du requÃ©rant Â« permettent de conclure qu'il a attentÃ© Ã ses jours de ses propres mains Â» . Â« Aucun indice ne permet d'affirmer que Baader ail Ã©tÃ© placÃ© peu de temps avant sa mort dans un Ã©tat de trouble de conscience ou d'inconscience Ã l'aide de produits d'une grande efficacitÃ© . Â» Raspe est Ã©galement mort des suites d'un seul coup de feu, tirÃ© Ã bout portant, de droite Ã gauche, Ã©lÃ©ment favorable Ã l'hypothÃ¨se du suicide, Â« pour autant qu'il s'agisse d'un droitier Â» . Aucune autre trace de violence n'a Ã©tÃ© dÃ©celÃ©e . Les conclusions des analyses chimico-toxicologiques sont semblables Ã celles de Baader . Le corps de Ensslin fut trouvÃ© suspendu librement aux barreaux de sa fenÃªtre, accrochÃ© avec le cÃ¢ble Ã©lectrique de son tourne-disques . D'aprÃ©s les constatations faites, Â« rien ne s'oppose au fait que la situalion de pendaison constatÃ©e en l'espÃ¨ce ait Ã©tÃ© provoquÃ©e de la propre main de la personne concernÃ©e Â» . Il n'a Ã©tÃ© dÃ©celÃ©, par ailleurs, aucune trace de matiÃ©re active susceptible d'avoir influencÃ© l'activitÃ© mentale de la requÃ©rante . 39 . Lors d'un contrÃ´le criminalo-technique des cellules, effectuÃ© le 19 octobre 1977, un petit poste de radio en Ã©tai de marchÃ© fut trouvÃ© dans un v&tement de Raspe . Il a pu permettre Ã Raspe de connaÃ®tre l'Ã©chec du dÃ©tournement d'un avion de la Lufthansa dÃ©tournÃ© pour forcer leur libÃ©ration . Un systÃ¨me artisanal de communication tÃ©lÃ©phonique entre les cellules fu t
Ã©galement mis Ã jour . Les jours suivants, plusieurs cachettes furent dÃ©couvertes, de mÃªme qu'une autre arme et des cartouches . 40 . Un rappon Ã©tabli le 9 mars 1978 par une commission d'enquÃªte du Parlement de Baden-WÃ¼rttemberg a conclu au suicide des requÃ©rants . 41 . L'instruction judiciaire ouverte contre X . a, de son Ã§BtÃ©, Ã©tÃ© cl6turÃ©e par un non-lieu le 8 mai 1978, l'enquÃªte ayant Ã©tabli sans doute possible que les requÃ©rants s'Ã©taient suicidÃ©s .
GRIEF S 42 . Les requÃ©rants ont fait valoir qu'ils ont Ã©tÃ© soumis Ã des conditions exceptionnelles de dÃ©tention, leur ayant infligÃ© des souffrances physiques, psychiques et morales considÃ©rables, dont l'ampleur et les consÃ©quences sont attestÃ©es par des expertises mÃ©dicales faisant autoritÃ© : Ces conditions de dÃ©tention, et notamment l'isolement prolongÃ©, auraient'ainsi Ã©tÃ© constitutives de torture ou, Ã tout le moins, de traitement inhumain au sens de l'article 3 de la Convention . De par leur nature spÃ©cifique Ã©t leur durÃ©e, elles ne pouÂ«aient Ãªtre justifiÃ©es pour de prÃ©tendus motifs de sÃ©curitÃ© . Les requÃ©rants se sont plaints de n'avoir pas bÃ©nÃ©ficiÃ© d'un procÃ© s .43 Ã©quitable, devant un tribunal indÃ©peridant et impartial Ã©tabli par la loi, avec les garanties particuliÃ¨res que cela implique en matiÃ¨re pÃ©nale . Ils ont soutenu en particulier que : - la cour d'appel n'Ã©tait pas rÃ©guliÃ©rement constituÃ©e ; - les juges de cette cour ainsi qu'un juge fÃ©dÃ©ral n'Ã©taient pas indÃ©-
pendants et impa rt iaux ;
- le procÃ©s a Ã© tÃ© influencÃ© par une virulente campagne de presse et les dÃ©clarations des autoritÃ©s ; - la dÃ©fense a Ã© tÃ©,systÃ©matiqÃ»ement anÃ©antie ; dans ce but, la lÃ©gis. lation a Ã©tÃ© modifiÃ©e en cours de procÃ©s ; -' - ils n'ont pu se dÃ©fendre, ayant Ã© tÃ© Ã©cartÃ©s de l'audience qui se
poursuivit sans eux ni, poÃ¹r l'essentiel, dÃ©fenseurs de leur'choix ; - l'audition des tÃ©moins Ã charge a Ã©tÃ©considÃ©rablement limitÃ©e et la dÃ©fense n'a pu leur faire poser des questions importantes ; -78-
- leur condamnation repose largement sur l'utilisation irrÃ©guliÃ©re de dÃ©positions faites par des Â« tÃ©moins de la couronne n ; - de nombreux tÃ©moins Ã dÃ©charge n'ont pas Ã©tÃ© entendu s Ils ont allÃ©guÃ© Ã cet Ã©gard la violation de l'article 6 de la Convention dans son ensemble .
PROCEDURE DEVANT LA COMMISSIO N 44 . Bien que formellement introduites en juillet 1976, les requÃ©tes ne furent dÃ©veloppÃ©es que le 30 aoÃ»t 1977, dans un mÃ©moire unique . Le 12 octobre 1977, la Commission dÃ©cida d'en ajourner l'examen, en raison des circonstances du moment . Suite au dÃ©cÃ©s des requÃ©rants, le 17 octobre 1977, le PrÃ©sident de la Commission fit savoir au Gouvernement de la RÃ©publique FÃ©dÃ©rale d'Allemagne, contormÃ©ment aux articles 36, 14 et 28 du RÃ¨glement intÃ©rieur, qu'il considÃ©rait comme souhaitable dans l'intÃ©rÃ¨t du dÃ©roulement normal de la procÃ©dure que des dÃ©lÃ©guÃ©s de la Commission puissent visiter la prison de Stuttgart-Stammheim et y procÃ©der Ã toutes constatations qui pourraient s'avÃ©rer nÃ©cessaires pour un Ã©tablissement des faits . Avec l'accord du Gouvernement, deux dÃ©lÃ©guÃ©s se rendirent Ã Stuttgart les 19 et 20 octobre 1977 un bref compte rendu de leur visite fut adressÃ© aux parties . Le 12 dÃ©cembre 1977, la Commission dÃ©cida de joindre les trois requÃªtes, conformÃ©ment Ã l'article 29 de son RÃ©glement intÃ©rieur, d'en poursuivre l'examen et d'inviter le Gouvernement Ã soumettre par Ã©crit avant le 13 janvier 1978 des observations sur la recevabilitÃ© . Le mÃ©moire du Gouvernement, datÃ© du 17 janvier 1978, fut transmis aux conseils des requÃ©rants pour la prÃ©sentation d'observations en rÃ©ponse avant le 24 fÃ©vrier 1978 . Ce dÃ©lai fut prolongÃ© jusqu'au 10 avril 1978 . Le 3 mai 1978, la Commission a examinÃ© une demande d'ajournement de la cause jusqu'A la conclusion de l'enquÃªte judiciaire interne sur les circonstances du dÃ©cÃ©s des requÃ©rants . Elle dÃ©cida de ne pas y faire droit et de reporter au 10 juin 1978 l'Ã©chÃ©ance du dÃ©lai pour la prÃ©sentation des observations en rÃ©ponse . Elle informa les parties que les affaires seraient examinÃ©es au cours de sa session de juillet 1978, sur la base du dossier constituÃ© par elles Ã cette Ã©poque . Le 4 juillet 1978, en annexe Ã une lettre de MaÃ®tre Bakker-Schut sollicitant un nouveau report du dÃ©lai, la Commission a reÃ§u un bref commentaire des observations du Gouvernement du 17 janvier 1978, rÃ©digÃ© par MaÃ®tre Azzola dÃ©fenseur de G . Ensslin dans la procÃ©dure allemande .
fv. RÃSUMÃ DE L'ARGUMENTATION ÃCRITE DU GOUVERNEMEN T Au titre des articles 26 et 27, paragraphe 3, de la Conventio n 45 . Le Gouvernement a fait valoir que les requÃ©rants n'ont pas valablement Ã©puisÃ© les voies de recours internes, en ce qui concerne leurs allÃ©gations de tort ure et traitement inhumain larticle 3 de la Conventionl . Ils auraient invoquÃ© Ã tort un arrÃ©t de la Cour Constitutionnelle FÃ©dÃ©rale du 21 janvier1976 . En effet, cet arrÃªt statue uniquement sur la constitutionnalitÃ© de la poursuite des audiences en l'absence des accusÃ©s . La Cour n'a pasexaminÃ©laquÃ¨stion' de la torture ou de l'atteinte Ã l'intÃ©gritÃ© physique parce que celle-ci n'a pas Ã©tÃ© correctement soulevÃ©e . Les requÃ©rants avaientcertes attaquÃ© antÃ©rieurement jusque devant la Cour Constitutionnelle certains aspects de leur dÃ©tention, mais omis, Ã cet Ã©gard, de prÃ©senter leur requÃ¨te dans le dÃ©lai de six . ' mois S'agissant des griefs relatifs au dÃ©roulement du procÃ¨s (article 6 de la Convention), le Gouvernement a soutenu que lesrequÃ©rants avaient omis d'introduire leurs requÃªtes, dans le dÃ©lai de 6 mois Ã compter des arrÃ¨ts de la Cour Constitutionnelle FÃ©dÃ©rale concernant l'exclusionde certains dÃ©fenseurs et la limitÃ©tion du nombre de dÃ©fenseurs librement choisis ; qu'ils n'avaient pas Ã©puisÃ© les voies de recours relativement Ã la piÃ©tendue partialitÃ© du . tribunal ou Ã la mÃ©connaissance de la prÃ©somption d'innocence . â¢ Au titre de l'article 27, paragraphe7,de la CÃ´nventio n
46 . Le Gouvernement a soÃ»lignÃ© que la requÃªte d'A . Baader Ã©tait motivÃ©e en partie par des Ã©vÃ©nements dÃ©jÃ soumis Ã la Commission dans le cadre d'une prÃ©cÃ©dente requÃ¨te dÃ©clarÃ©e irrecevable le 30 mai 1975IRequÃ©te NÂ° 6166/73,` D . et R . 2 p . 58) . Dans ce sens elle devait Ãªtre considÃ©rie comme essentiellement la mÃ©me . ' Au titre de l'article 27, paragraphe 2, de la Convention
Griefs tirÃ©s dÃ© l'a rt icle 3 47 . Le Gouvernement a soutenu que les conditions de dÃ©tention imposÃ©e s aux requÃ©rants ne relevaient absolument pas des-traitements prohibÃ©s par . l'article3 de la Convention . .. . , , Il est vrai, a-i-il "admis ; qÃ»e les requÃ©rants ne sont pas traitÃ©sde l a mÃ©me faÃ§on que les dÃ©tenus Â« normaux Â», mais'cesconditions de dÃ©tention ont Ã©tÃ© provoquÃ©es par les requÃ©rants eux-mÃ©mes :Elles sont au reste-tempÃ©rÃ©es par de nombreux Â« privilÃ¨ges Â» . L'allÃ©gation d'isolement total n'est pas exacte . Ainsi qu'il rÃ©sulte des dÃ©cisions judiciaires versÃ©es au dossier, les requÃ©rants Ã©taient autorisÃ© s
- abstraction faite de la pÃ©riode de suspension de contact en septembre 1977 - Ã recevoir la visite de membres de leur famille et des dÃ©fenseurs, pratiquement sans restrictions . L'isolement des requÃ©rants des autres dÃ©tenus Ã©tait en partie motivÃ© par des considÃ©rations de sÃ©curitÃ©, en partie par le comportement des intÃ©ressÃ©s eux-mÃªmes qui considÃ©raient l'agitation et la rÃ©volte dans les Ã©tablissements pÃ©nitentiaires comme partie intÃ©grante de leur lutte subversive . L'ensemble des conditions de dÃ©tention appliquÃ©es en l'espÃ©ce Ã©taien t motivÃ©es par le caractÃ¨re particuliÃ©rement dangereux des intÃ©ressÃ©s . ConsidÃ©rÃ©es par rapport aux actes dÃ©lictueux commis par les requÃ©rants, aux attentats Ã la vie d'autrui et aux atteintes Ã© la sÃ©curitÃ©, les mesures prises Ã©taient appropriÃ©es et respectaient scrupuleusement les limites imposÃ©es par les droits fondamentaux et les lois d'une sociÃ©tÃ© dÃ©mocratique . 48 . Les expertises mÃ©dicales versÃ©es au dossier ne peuvent par ailleurs pas Ãªtre invoquÃ©es Ã l'appui de l'allÃ©gation des requÃ©rants selon laquelle ils auraient Ã©tÃ© exposÃ©s Ã la torture par isolement . Le Gouvernement a soulignÃ© Ã© cet Ã©gard que leur Ã©tat de santÃ© rÃ©sultait largement de grÃ©ves de la faim et partiellement de la soif dÃ©libÃ©rÃ©ment poursuivies jusqu'Ã un seuil d'Ã©puisement oÃ¹ le risque de mort constituait une menace et une tentative d'empÃªcher l'ouverture du procÃ©s . MÃªme le fait que les expens aient vu une causalitÃ© non prÃ©cisÃ©e en dÃ©tail entre l'Ã©tat physique et psychique des requÃ©rants et la longue durÃ©e de leur dÃ©tention, les conditions de dÃ©tention et les effets de fatigue provoquÃ©s par la procÃ©dure pÃ©nale, ne change rien Ã l'affaire . En effet, il s'agit lÃ de consÃ©quences que tout inculpÃ© en dÃ©tention prÃ©ventive et tout prisonnier doivent accepter . Mais en l'occurrence ce sont Ã©galement des circonstances dont les requÃ©rants eux-mÃ©mes sont responsables, par seulement comme une rÃ©action face Ã leurs actes dÃ©lictueux, mais aussi dans la mesure oÃ¹ la longue durÃ©e de la procÃ©dure d'enquÃªte et de la procÃ©dure pÃ©nale a Ã©tÃ© causÃ©e essentiellement par leur propre comportement au cours du procÃ©s . 49 . II convient d'indiquer ici que le Gouvernement a par ailleurs dÃ©veloppÃ© la thÃ©se selon laquelle les requÃ©rants ont eu recours au suicide comme un moyen de continuer la lutte . Citant diverses dÃ©clarations des requÃ©rants, il a mis en lumiÃ©re qu'il entrait dans la stratÃ©gie du groupe de faire passer un suicide prÃ©mÃ©ditÃ© pour un assassinat commis par des tiers, constituant ainsi un signal pour d'autres actions terroristes . Griefs tirÃ©s de l'article 6 50 . Le Gouvernement a soutenu que la saisine de la cour d'appel de Stuttga rt , la dÃ©signation de la chambre compÃ©tente et l'affectation des juges Ã cette chambre Ã© tait parfaitement conforme au code de procÃ©dure pÃ©nale e t
Ã la loi sur l'organisatidn judiciaire en sorte que l'affaire avait Ã©tÃ© examinÃ©e par un tribunal indÃ©peridant Ã©tabli par la loi (article 6, paragraphe 1) . 51 . . La mÃ©connaissance du principe de la prÃ©somption d'innocence ne peut par ailleurs Ãªtre invoquÃ©e Ã propos d'une campagne de presse ; la garantie de l'anicle 6, paragraphe 2 s'impose au juge appelÃ© Ã statuer sur l'accusation . Dans la mesure oÃ¹ cette campagne a pu Ãªtre alimentÃ©e par des dÃ©clarations officielles, le Gouvernement s'est rÃ©fÃ©rÃ© au devoir de l'Etat de prendre position vis-Ã©-vis des actions terroristes et d'informer le public des mesures prises Ã cet Ã©gard . 52 . La dÃ©cision prise par la cour d'appel de poursuivre les audiences en l'absence desaccusÃ©s ne heurte pas l'article 6, paragraphe 3 cl qui ne garantit pas Ã ceux-ci le droit d'Ãªtre personnellement prÃ©sents Ã tous les stades de la procÃ©dure . Selon le Gouvernement cette disposition se trouve respectÃ©e lorsque les accusÃ©s sont reprÃ©sentÃ©s par leur dÃ©fenseur . En l'espÃ©ce, la dÃ©cision de poursuivre les dÃ©bats en l'absence des requÃ©rants a Ã©tÃ© prise Ã juste titre,aprÃ©s que ceux-ci se fussent mis dÃ©libÃ©rÃ©ment hors d'Ã©tat d'assister aux audiences dans le but d'empÃªcher l'ouverture du procÃ¨s . 53 : Le Gouvernement a encore soulignÃ© que, selon la jurisprudence de la Commission elle-mÃªme, la garantie donnÃ©e par l'article 6, paragraphe 3 cl n'implique pas un droit absolu Ã l'admission de n'importe quel dÃ©fenseur ; elle ne vise qu'Ã assurer la dÃ©fense de l'accusÃ© par un dÃ©fenseur dans la mesure qui s'impose pour permettre une procÃ©dure Ã©quitable . En l'espÃ©ce, l'exclusion de certains dÃ©fenseurs a Ã©tÃ© dÃ©cidÃ©e parce qu'ils Ã©taient fÃ´rtement soupÃ§onnÃ©s de soutien Ã l'association criminelle des accusÃ©s. Cette mesure rentrait dans le cadre du pouvoir de l'Etat de limiter par dÃ©s rÃ©glementations le droit de comparution des avocats devant les tribunaux . Les requÃ©rarits ont cependant encore Ã©tÃ© reprÃ©sentÃ©s par une moyenne de 10 avocats . 54 . . Le Gouvernement a enfin rappelÃ© que la garantie de l'article 6, paragraphe 3 dl n'englobe pas le droit illimitÃ© pour l'accusÃ© de faire appel comme tÃ©moin Ã n'importe quelle personne voulue ni la possibilitÃ© d'Atendre l'audition des tÃ©moins .Ã des sujets ne pouvant aider la manifestation de la vÃ©ritÃ© . En l'espÃ©ce, la limitation .du droit des requÃ©rants d'interroger Ies tÃ©moins citÃ©s . par le ministÃ¨re public Ã des questions faisant l'objet de l'enquÃªte et la non-audition des tÃ©moins Ã dÃ©charge Osborne ; Agee, Thomas et Peck Ã©taient conformes Ã cette disposition . . . . Le Gouvernement a rÃ©tutÃ© l'allÃ©gation selon laquelle divers tÃ©moins auraient reÃ§u des pots-de-vin de l'accusation . 55 . II a conclu au rejet de l'ensemble des griefs pour dÃ©faut manifeste de fondement .
-82-.
EN DROIT A. 1 . Les requÃ©rants sont dÃ©cÃ©dÃ©s au cours de l'instance devant la Commission . Leurs requÃªtes ne se trouvent toutefois pas automatiquement Ã©teintes de ce fait (cf . dÃ©cision sur requÃªte NÂ° 6166/73 c/R .F .A . ; D . & R . 2, p . 66) . Leurs ayant-droits respectifs ont indiquÃ© Ã la Commission leur volontÃ© de voir les requÃ¨tes maintenues au r61e, tant au nom de leur parent dÃ©cÃ©dÃ© qu'en leur nom propre . Ils justifient d'un intÃ©rÃ¨t suffisant Ã cet effet . 2 . Les requÃ©rants se sont plaints d'avoir Ã©tÃ© soumis dÃ©libÃ©rÃ©ment et sans possibilitÃ© de justification Ã des conditions exceptionnelles de dÃ©tention qui leur ont causÃ© des souffrances physiques et psychiques considÃ©rables . Ils ont allÃ©guÃ© Ã cet Ã©gard la violation de l'article 3 de la Convention ainsi libellÃ© : Â« Nul ne peut 0tre soumis Ã la torture ni Ã des peines ou traitements inhumains ou dÃ©gradants Â» . 3 . Le Gouvernement a objectÃ© en premier lieu que, dans la mesure oÃ¹ A . Baader s'est plaint de sa dÃ©tention antÃ©rieurement au 30 mai 1975, sa requÃªte a le mÃªme objet que sa requÃ©te NÂ° 6166/73 dÃ©clarÃ©e irrecevable Ã cette date pour dÃ©faut manifeste de fondement . Elle devrait donc @tre rejetÃ©e aux termes de l'article 27, paragraphe 1 b) . La Commission estime toutefois qu'aucune dÃ©cision distincte n'est nÃ©cessaire Ã ce stade puisque les griefs de Baader sont identiques Ã ceux de G . Ensslin et C . Raspe et visent . pour l'essentiel, les modalitÃ©s de la dÃ©tention Ã l'Ã©tablissement de StuttgartStammheim Ã partir de dÃ©cembre 1974 . Dans le raisonnement ci-aprÃ¨s aucune distinction ne sera faite entre les trois requÃªtes . 4 Le Gouvernement a encore soulevÃ© l'exception de non-Ã©puisement des voies de recours internes en faisant valoir que les requÃ©rants n'avaient pas valablement invoquÃ© devant la Cour constitutionnelle fÃ©dÃ©rale l'atteinte Ã leur intÃ©gritÃ© physique, ni fait Ã©tat de mauvais traitements (articles 2, paragraphe2 et 104, paragraphe 1 de la Loi fondamentale) . La Commission ne saurait ignorer Ã ce propos que l'allÃ©gation de torture ou traitement inhumain est fondÃ©e sur la combinaison d'un ensemble de dÃ©cisions ou mesures judiciaires et administratives, nombre d'entre elles, prises isolÃ©ment, ne pouvant Ãªtre soumises avec quelque chance de succÃ©s Ã la censure de cette haute juridiction . A deux reprises, il est vrai, les requÃ©rants ont omis de se pourvoir devant la Cour constitutionnelle contre des dÃ©cisions concernant la substance mÃªme de la question dÃ©fÃ©rÃ©e Ã la Commission (ArrÃªts de la cour d'appel du 15 avril 1977, rejetant une mise en libertÃ© provisoire ainsi qu'une modification sensible du rÃ©gime de dÃ©tention) . Auparavant, ils avaient toutefois invoquÃ© devant cette cour la violation de l'article 2, paragraphe 2 de la Loi fondamentale par l'ordonnance de la cour d'appel du 30 septembre 1975 dÃ©cidant la poursuite des audiences en leur absence . Arguant que la cour d'appel avai t
lÃ©gitimÃ© les conditions particuliÃ©res de leur dÃ©tention aprÃ©s en avoir pourtant constatÃ© les graves rÃ©percussions sur leur Ã©tat de santÃ©, ils avaient soutenu que l'ordonnance reconnaissait ainsi Ã l'Etat le droit de maltraiter certains prisonniers . Dans son arrÃªt de rejet du 21 janvier 1976, la Cour constitutionnelle fÃ©dÃ©rale estima que l'argumentation n'Ã©tait paspertinente . . Avec le Gouvernement, on peut douter que les requÃ©rants aient ainsi valablement Ã©puisÃ© les voies de recours internes, le pourvoi constitutionnel n'ayant eu pour seul objet direct que la constitutionnalitÃ© de la poursuite des audiences en l'absence des accusÃ©s . La Commission estime toutefois superflu d'approfondir cette question, les requÃªtes se heurtent en toute hypothÃ©se Ã un autre motif d'irrecevabilitÃ©, ainsi que l'indiquent les dÃ©veloppements suivants . 5 . Les requÃ©rants ont sans doute Ã©tÃ© soumis Ã un rÃ©gime exceptionnel de dÃ©tention, caractÃ©risÃ© pÃ¢r leur expulsion de la collectivitÃ© carcÃ©rale et leur placement dans un quartier de sÃ©curitÃ© . Le Gouvernemeni fÃ©dÃ©ral a explicitÃ© les exigences de sÃ»retÃ© ayant prÃ©sidÃ© Ã l'Ã©laboration d'un tel rÃ©gime : les requÃ©rants Ã©taient dangereux ; ils avaient fait usage d'armes Ã feu lors de leur arrestation ; Baader avait Ã©tÃ© antÃ©rieurement libÃ©rÃ© par les armes ; Ã plusieurs reprises, des actions armÃ©es ont Ã©tÃ© mises sur pied par des membres de la fraction armÃ©e rouge poÃ»r provoquer leur libÃ©ralion ; il existait des indices qu'ils auraierit eux-mÃªmes contribuÃ© Ã ces actions (cf . aussi, dÃ©cision sur requÃªte NÂ° 6166/73, D . & R . 2, p . 66) . La Commission est convaincue qu'il existait en l'espÃ©cedes raisons impÃ©rieuses de soumettreles requÃ©rants Ã un rÃ©gime plus directement fondÃ© sur des mesures de sÃ©curitÃ© . L'exclusion d'un dÃ©tenu de la collectivitÃ© carcÃ©rale ne constitue pas en elle-mÃªme une forme de traitement inhumain . Dans de nombreux Etats parties Ã la Convention existent des rÃ©gimes de plus grande sÃ©curitÃ© Ã l'Ã©gard des dÃ©tenusdangereux . DestinÃ©s Ã prÃ©venir les risques d'Ã©vasion, d'agression ou de perturbation de la collectivitÃ© des dÃ©tenus, voire Ã protÃ©ger un prisonnier de ses co-dÃ©tinus, ces rÃ©gimes (isolement strict, .a removal of association Â», dispersion dans des unitÃ©s particuliÃ©res trÃ©s restreintes . .-.1 ont comme base la mise Ã l'Ã©cart de la communautÃ© pÃ©nitentiaire accompagnÃ©e d'un ienforcement des contrÃ´les . La Commission a dÃ©jÃ Ã©tÃ© confrontÃ©e Ã un certain nombre d'isolement s de ce .type (cf . DÃ©cisions sur requÃªtes NÂ° 1392/62 c/R .F .A ., Rec . 17, p . 1 ; NÂ° 5006/71 c/R .U ., Rec . 39, p . 91 ; NÂ° 2749/66 c/R .U ., Ann . X, p . 382 ; NÂ° 6038 /73 c/R .F .A ., Rec . 44, p . 155 . ;NÂ° 4448/70 Â« DeuxiÃ©me Affaire grecque Â» Rec . 34, P 70) . A cette occasion, elle a indiquÃ© que l'isolement cellulaire prolongÃ© n'Ã©tait guÃ©re-souhaitable, surtout lorsque la personne est en dÃ©tention prÃ©ventive (cf . DÃ©cision sur requÃªte NÂ° 6038/73 c/R .F .A ., Rec . 44, p . 115) . Toutefois, pour apprÃ©cier si une telle mesure peut, dans un cas particulier, tomber sous le coup de l'article 3 de la Convention, il y a lie u
d'avoir Ã©gard aux conditions particuliÃ©res, Ã la rigueur de la mesure, Ã sa durÃ©e, Ã l'objectif poursuivi ainsi qu'aux effets sur la personne concernÃ©e . Sans doute un isolement sensoriel doublÃ© d'un isolement social absolus peut-il aboutir Ã une destruction de la personnalitÃ© ; il constitue ainsi une forme de traitement inhumain que ne sauraient justifier les exigences de sÃ©curitÃ©, l'interdiction de torture ou de traitement inhumain inscrit Ã l'article 3 de la Convention ayant un caractÃ©re absolu (cf . Rapport de la Commission sur requÃªte NÂ° 5310/71, Irlande c/Royaume-Uni ; Opinion, page 3791 . 6 . Lors de l'introduction de leurs requÃªtes, Baader, Ensslin et Raspe se trouvaient depuis plus d'un an et demi Ã la prison de Stuttgart-Stammheim ; ils y sont demeurÃ©s jusqu'Ã© leur dÃ©cÃ©s . Aucun Ã©lÃ©ment ne permet de penser qu'ils y aient Ã©tÃ© soumis Ã un isolement sensoriel provoquÃ© par une rÃ©duction substantielle des stimulations des organes des sens . Ainsi que les DÃ©lÃ©guÃ©s de la Commission ont pu le constater lors de leur visite des cellules les 19 et 20 octobre 1977, celles-ci Ã©taient bien Ã©clairÃ©es par des fenÃªtres ouvrables de l'intÃ©rieur ; les murs Ã©taient largement recouverts de livres et d'affiches . Les cellules n'Ã©taient pas dotÃ©es d'une isolation acoustiques vers l'intÃ©rieur ou l'extÃ©rieur : deux personnes enfermÃ©es de part et d'autre du couloir central pouvaient dialoguer Ã voix haute . Les requÃ©rants avaient pratiquement en permanence la disposition d'un poste de radio, puis de tÃ©lÃ©vision et d'un tourne-disque . Ils pouvaient se promener quotidiennement Ã l'air libre dans un grand prÃ©au et faire des exercices physiques . 7 . Les requÃ©rants n'Ã©taient pas davantage soumis Ã une surveillance Â« discrÃ©te Â» et permanente . Sous doute Ã©taient-ils ouvertement surveillÃ©s par des gardiens durant les quelques heures passÃ©es ensemble dans le couloir central, toutes les portes de cellules Ã©tant ouvertes . Mais aucune camÃ©ra de tÃ©lÃ©vision n'Ã©tait installÃ©e dans les cellules et la plupart des judas des portes avaient Ã©tÃ© obturÃ©s de l'intÃ©rieur . 8 . En revanche, les requÃ©rants ont Ã©tÃ© soumis Ã un isolement social relatif . Exclus des activitÃ©s sociales de la prison, ils n'avaient pas de contacts avec d'autres dÃ©tenus . Leurs possibilitÃ©s d'interactions sociales Ã© taient ainsi sensiblement limitÃ©es . On ne saurait toutefois parler Ã leurs propos de vÃ©ritable isolement cellulaire . Sous rÃ©serve de brÃ©ves pÃ©riodes, ils ont pu recevoir de trÃ©s nombreuses visites de leurs dÃ©fenseurs et de leur famille . Sur l'avis du mÃ©decin de la prison et d'experts commis par la Cour ainsi qu'Ã la suite de leurs grÃ©ves de la faim, les possibilitÃ©s de contact entre eux n'ont cessÃ© d'Ã©tre Ã© tendues, voire Ã© largies Ã d'autres membres de la Fraction ArmÃ©e Rouge . L'autorisation de rencontrer d'autres dÃ©tenus au cours de la promenade ou d'autres activitÃ©s leur a mÃªme Ã©tÃ© accordÃ©e . Ils dÃ©cidÃ¨rent de n'en pas faire usage . A cinq reprises seulement depuis leur admission Ã Stammheim, les requÃ©rants ont Ã©tÃ© privÃ©s de tous contacts entre eux et, dans deux cas, de contacts avec l'extÃ©rieur ; ces restrictions s'appliquÃ©rent pour des pÃ©riodes de cinq jours Ã deux mois . -
9 . Les expertises mÃ©dicales versÃ©es au dossier ne permettent pas d'Ã©tablir avec prÃ©cision l'effet spÃ©cifique de cet isolement relalif Ã leur santÃ© physique et mentale, par rapport Ã d'autres facteurs tels la durÃ©e de la dÃ©tention, les grÃ©ves de la faim, la tension provoquÃ©e par la prÃ©paration du procÃ©s . Certaines Ã©tudes gÃ©nÃ©ralesont mis en lumiÃ©re l'apparition au bout d'une pÃ©riode de quatre Ã© six ans de dÃ©tention Â« ordinaire n d'un syndrome rÃ©versible aux caractÃ©ristiques essentielles suivantes, proches de . celles observÃ©es chez les requÃ©rants :Â« troubles Ã©motifs, troubles de la comprÃ©hension et du jugement, modification du comportement se traduisant par une rÃ©gression vers l'infantilisme et troubles affectant les relations sociales Â» (Conseil de l'Europe - ComitÃ© europÃ©en pour les problÃ¨mes criminels - Rapport GÃ©nÃ©ral sur le traitement des dÃ©tenus en dÃ©tentionde longue durÃ©e, p . 8) . 10 . II est exact quÃ© certains accroissements des possibilitÃ©s d'interactions sociales n'ont Ã©tÃ© dÃ©cidÃ©s qu'Ã la suite de grÃ©ves de la faim . Eu Ã©gard Ã l'ensemble des circonstances de la cause, et en particulier, la rÃ©vision constante des modalitÃ©s de dÃ©tention par les autoritÃ©s de la RÃ©publique FÃ©dÃ©rale d'Allemagne et le comportement des intÃ©ressÃ©s eux-mÃ©mes, refusant notamment certaines possibilitÃ©s de contact qui leur Ã©taient offerts, les requÃ©rantsne peuvent toutefois Ãªtre considÃ©rÃ©s comme ayant Ã©tÃ© dÃ©libÃ©rÃ©ment soumis Ã un ensemble desoÃ»ffrances physiques ou morales destinÃ©es 8 les punir, Ã dÃ©truire leur personnalitÃ© ou Ã briser leur rÃ©sistance (cf . Cour eur . DH ., Affaire Irlande c/Royaume-Uni, arrÃªt du 18 janvier 1978, par . 167 ; voir aussi article 1 de la DÃ©claration relative Ala proteclion contre la torture contenue dans la RÃ©solution 3452 IXXXI de l'AssemblÃ©e GAnÃ©rale des Nations Unies) . Le rÃ©gime spÃ©cial qui leur a Ã©tÃ© imposÃ© n'avait donc pas le caractÃ©re d'un traitement inhumain ou dÃ©gradant . 11 . Les circonstances du dÃ©cÃ©s des requÃ©rants sont-elles de nature Ã . remettre en cause cette conclusion ? . Bien qu'il ne fasse pas en lui-mÃªme l'objet de la requÃªte, on peut s e
demander si le dÃ©cÃ©sdes requÃ©rants a pu nÃ©anrrioins Ãªtre la suite des traitements dont ils se sont plaints .des constatations mÃ©dicales effectuÃ©es pa r .S'apuynisrlemb une Ã©quipe internationale de mÃ©decins lÃ©gistes et sur les premiÃ¨resconclusions de l'enquÃªte judiciaire (supra par . 36 Ã 41), le Gouvernerrient a prÃ©sentÃ© le dÃ©cÃ©s comme un suicide . Les conseils des requÃ©rants n'ont prÃ©sentÃ© aucun argument contre cette thÃ©se, mÃ©me si l'un d'eux s'est dit persuadÃ© qu'il s'agissait d ;un assassinat . . 12 . Dans certains cas, la mort en prison d'une personne qui a prÃ©tenduy avoir Ã©tÃ© soumise Ã la torture ou Ã des violences physiques ou psychiques peut Ã©tre considÃ©rÃ©e comme l'aboutissement de ces mauvais traitements, notamment lorsque l'isolement du dÃ©tenu systÃ©matiquement organisÃ© e t
maintenu a pu inÃ©luctablement le pousser Ã attenter Ã ses jours . Dans le prÃ©sent cas il n'y a aucune indication objective en ce sens . Il s'ensuit que, dans la mesure oÃ¹ elles se fondaient sur l'article 3 de la Convention, les requÃªtes sont manifestement mal fondÃ©es au sens de l'article 27, paragraphe 2, de la Convention .
B. 13 . Les requÃ©rants ont Ã©galement prÃ©sentÃ© une sÃ©rie de griefs relatifs Ã la prÃ©paration et au dÃ©roulement de leur procÃ¨s . 14 . La Commission n'ignore pas que, suite Ã leur dÃ©cÃ©s en cours d'instance, la procÃ©dure est close devant les tribunaux internes (cf . Kleinknecht, Strafprozessordnung - Commentaire sub . article 206 al ; Ldwe - Rosenberg, Die Strafprozessordnung und das Gerichtsverfassungsgesetz - Grosskomentar Erster 8and p . 102) . La Commission estime cependant qu'elle n'est pas automatiquement dessaisie pour autant de la situation dÃ©noncÃ©e par les requÃ©rants et leurs hÃ©ritiers, dans la mesure oÃ¹ celle-ci aurait pu affecter certains droits fondamentaux reconnus Ã tout accusÃ© . Elle observe d'ailleurs que les intÃ©ressÃ©s ont pu taire valoir leurs principaux griefs devant la Cour Constitutionnelle FÃ©dÃ©rale avant mÃªme l'issue de leur procÃ©s en premiÃ¨re instance . Il appartient dÃ¨s lors Ã la Commission d'examiner les griefs des requÃ©rants qui concernent les droits fondamentaux de tout accusÃ©, garantis par l'article 6 de la Convention indÃ©pendamment de l'issue du procÃ©s, Ã l'exclusion des griefs visant le recueil des preuves et la formation de l'intime conviction du juge, dÃ©sormais sans pertinence . 15 . Les requÃ©rants ont fait valoir que l'ouverture du procÃ©s avait Ã©tÃ© prÃ©cÃ©dÃ©e d'une excitation de l'opinion publique par voie de presse, tolÃ©rÃ©e sinon directement organisÃ©e par les pouvoirs publics . Les requÃ©rants auraient ainsi Ã©tÃ© traitÃ©s de n bandits n, Â« criminels Â», Â« bandes de meurtriers Â» . . . au mÃ©pris de l'article 6, paragraphe 2 qui garantit la prÃ©somption d'innocence et de l'article 6 , paragraphe 1 qui reconnait Ã tout accusÃ© le droit Ã un procÃ©s Ã©quitable . La Commission a dÃ©jÃ© admis, il est vrai, que dans certains cas une virulente campagne de presse pouvait nuire Ã l'Ã©quitÃ© du procÃ©s (cf . DÃ©c . sur requÃ©tes NÂ° 1476/62 c/Autriche - Rec . 11, p . 31 ; NÂ° 3444/67 c/NorvÃ©ge Ann . 13, p . 302) et engager la responsabilitÃ© de l'Etat, notamment lorsqu'elle a Ã©tÃ© provoquÃ©e par l'un de ses organes (cf . a contrario, DÃ©c . sur requÃªte NÂ° 2291/64, Rec . 24, p . 20) . Elle observe toutefois que l'on ne saurait attendre de la presse, voire des autoritÃ©s responsables de la politique criminelle, qu'elles s'abstiennent d e
toute dÃ©claration non sur la culpabilitÃ© des accusÃ©s mais sur leur caractÃ©re dangereux lorsqu'elles disposent d'Ã©lÃ©ments d'information non contestÃ©s Icondamnations antÃ©rieures, usage d'armes Ã feu lors de l'arrestation, IibAration forcÃ©e de Baader, etc . . .l . Les mesures exceptionnelles de sÃ©curitÃ© entourant le procÃ©s Ã©taient certes de nature Ã nourrir la conviction de l'opinion que les requÃ©rants Ã©taient des criminels . Ces mesures et les dÃ©clarations des autoritÃ©s rÃ©pondaient cependant aux actes et dÃ©clarations des requÃ©rants et aulres membres de la Fraction ArmÃ©e Rouge et ne visaient pas Ã crÃ©er artificiellement un climat dÃ©favorable aux accusÃ©s traduits d'ailleurs devant des juges professionnels et non devant un jury, par essence plus influenÃ§able . On ne saurait y voir, dans ces circonstances, une atteinte Ã l'Ã©quitÃ© du procÃ©s, ni au principe de la prÃ©somption d'innocence, qui ne s'impose directement qu'au juge appelÃ© Ã statuer sur le bien-fondÃ© de l'accusation (cf . Rapport de la Commission sur requÃªte NÂ° 788/60, Autriche c/Italie, Opinion par . 179, Ann . 6, p . 782) . Les requÃ©rants ont allÃ©guÃ© par ailleurs que la cour d'appel n'Ã©tait pas .16 un tribunal Â« rÃ©gulier, indÃ©pendant et obiectlf Â» . Ils n'ont toutefois fourni aucune indication permettant de mettre en doute la compÃ©tence du tribunal, la rÃ©gularitÃ© de l'attribution de la cause Ã la deuxiÃ©me chambre criminelle, ou de la dÃ©signation de son prÃ©sident . Ils n'ont pas davantage prÃ©sentÃ© d'argument donnant Ã penser que ce magistrat ait reÃ§u des instructions du MinistÃ¨re de la Justice du Land ou des autoritÃ©s fÃ©dÃ©rales, en sorte que l'accusation n'aurait pas Ã©tÃ© examinÃ©e par un tribunal indÃ©pendant Ã©tabli par la loi au sens de l'article 6, paragraphe 1 de la Convention . II est vrai que l'impartialitÃ© du juge Prinzig a pu Ãªtre mise en doute : celui-ci a toutefois Ã©tÃ© rÃ©cusÃ© avec succÃ©s . 17 . Les requÃ©rants ont Ã©galement mis en cause leslimitations apportÃ©es par la loi au nombre de dÃ©fenseurs dont ils pouvaient se faire assister ainsi que l'exclusion de certains d'entre eux . Ces restrictions auraient portÃ© atteinte aux droits garantis Ã tout accusÃ© par l'article 6, paragraphe 3 b) et cl, Â« de disposer des facilitÃ©s nÃ©cessaires Ã la prÃ©paration de sa dÃ©fense Â» et Â« d'avoir l'assistance d'un dÃ©fenseur de'son choix Â» . 18 . Le Gouvernement Ã objectÃ© que les requÃªtes Ã©taient tardivesA cet Ã©gard et devaient &tre rejetÃ©es en application des articles 26 et 27, paragraphe 3 . La dÃ©cision de la Cour Constitutionnelle FÃ©dÃ©rale rejelant les recours relatifs Ã la limitation du nombre de dÃ©fenseurs librement choisis, introduite par la loi du 20 dÃ©cembre 1974, datÃ© du 11 mars 1975 .' Celles concernant l'exclusion .des avocats Croissant et Groenewold datent des 4 juillet et 18 septembre 1975, tandis que les requ@tes devant la Commission ne furent introduites qu'en juillet 1976 . On ne saurait toutefois ignorer que l'interdiction de dispenser .de plus de trois dÃ©fenseurs choisis rÃ©sulte d'une loi qui n'a pas cessÃ© de sortir ses effets tout au long du procÃ¨s ; que les requÃ©rants ont encore attaquÃ© jusque devant la Cour SuprÃªme l'exclusio n
d'autres avocats, sans devoir Ã nouveau porter la question devant la Cour Constitutionnelle FÃ©dÃ©rale, le rÃ©sultat ne pouvant en Ãªtre que Â« la rÃ©pÃ©tition d'une dÃ©cision dÃ©jÃ rendue Â» (ArrÃªt de la Cour Permanente dans l'Affaire Chemin de Fer Panevezys-Saldutiskis - SÃ©rie A/B NÂ° 76, p . 18) . Les griefs ne sauraient dÃ©s lors Ã¨tre considÃ©rÃ©s comme tardifs . 19 . En disposant que l'accusÃ© peut avoir l'assistance Â« d'un dÃ©fenseur de son choix Â», l'article 6, paragraphe 3 c) n'ouvre pas un droit Ã une assistance numÃ©riquement illimitÃ©e . MÃ©me si sa version anglaise est plus indÃ©finie 1Â« to defend himself . . . through legal assistance of his own choosing n), cette disposition a pour objet d'assurer le respect effectif du contradictoire en accordant Ã l'accusÃ©, pour autant que de besoin, le soutien d'un professionnel indÃ©pendant . En limitant Ã trois le nombre d'avocats librement choisis par les accusÃ©s, sans prÃ©judice de l'adjonction d'office d'autres dÃ©fenseurs commis par le tribunal, combinaison propre au systÃ©me procÃ©dural allemand, les autoritÃ©s de la RÃ©publique FÃ©dÃ©rale d'Allemagne n'ont dÃ©s lors pas portÃ© atteinte au droit garanti par cette disposition . 20 . Le refus d'agrÃ©er un dÃ©fenseur ou son exclusion paraÃ®t plus dÃ©licat, tant dans son principe que dans ses effets . Il s'agit en effet d'une mesure qui peut intimider d'autres dÃ©fenseurs potentiels ou jeter le discrÃ©dit sur la dÃ©fense en gÃ©nÃ©ral ; la succession des dÃ©fenseurs peut, par ailleurs, Ptre nuisible Ã la prÃ©sentation de la cause et rendre plus alÃ©atoire le rÃ´le de Â« tÃ©moin vigilant de la rÃ©gularitÃ© du procÃ¨s Â» qui revient Ã l'avocat . La Commission a cependant dÃ©jÃ eu l'occasion d'indiquer que le droit de se dÃ©fendre avec l'assistance du dÃ©fenseur de son choix, garanti par l'article 6, paragraphe 3 c), n'est pas un droit absolu ; il est limitÃ© par le droit de l'Etat de rÃ©glementer la comparution des avocats devant les tribunaux (DÃ©c . sur requÃªte NÂ° 722/60 - Annuaire V, p . 107) et l'obligation qui s'impose aux dÃ©fenseurs de ne pas transgresser certrains principes dÃ©ontologiques . En l'espÃ¨ce, certains avocats ont Ã©tÃ© exclus de la dÃ©fense parce qu'ils Ã©taient fortement soupÃ§onnÃ©s de soutien Ã l'association criminelle des accusÃ©s Il ne s'agissait pas d'une simple mesure d'ordre prise par le tribunal, puisque ces avocats font Ã l'heure actuelle l'objet de procÃ©dures pÃ©nales devant les tribunaux . Leur exclusion n'a pas mis fin Ã une dÃ©fense effective des requÃ©rants puisque ceux-ci ont encore Ã©tÃ© reprÃ©sentÃ©s par une moyenne de dix dÃ©fenseurs, certains, comme Me Schily et Haldeman ayant Ã©tÃ© choisis par eux . Un examen des faits ne permet, dÃ©s lors, de dÃ©celer, dans la prÃ©sente affaire, aucune apparence de violation des droits et libertÃ©s garantis par les dispositions prÃ©citÃ©es . 21 . Les requÃ©rants se sont plaints encore de la poursuite des dÃ©bats en leur absence . Ils ont allÃ©guÃ© Ã cet Ã©gard la violation de l'article 6, paragraphe 3 c), de la Convention, dÃ©jÃ citÃ© . Suite Ã l'introduction de leurs requÃªtes moins d e
six mois aprÃ©s le rejet, le 21 janvier 1976, de leur pourvoi constitutionnel, ils ont clairement satisfait sur ce point aux conditions de l'article 26 de la Convention . ' La Commission rappelle que les droits garantis par l'article 6, paragraphe 3, sont ceux de l'accusÃ© et de la dÃ©fense en gÃ©nÃ©ral Icf .'DÃ©cision sur la requÃ¨te NÂ° 3852/68 c/Royaume-Uni, Rec . 32, p . 38) . Pour dÃ©terminer si ces droits ont Ã©tÃ© respectÃ©s, il ne suffit pas d'envisager la situation faite-Ã l'accusÃ© lui-mÃ¨me, mais il faut prendre en considÃ©ration l'ensemble de la situation faite Ã la dÃ©fenselcf . DÃ©cision sur requÃªte NÂ° 524/59 c/Autriche, Ann . 3, p . 222) . L'article 6, paragraphe 3 c) interditqu'une procÃ©dure pÃ©nale se dÃ©roule sans que la dÃ©fense ait eu la possibilitÃ© de faire valoir ses arguments de faÃ§on adÃ©quate . Il ne garantit toutefois pas Ã l'accusÃ© le droit d'Ãªtre prÃ©sent lui-mÃªme en toutes circonstances Icf . notamment les dÃ©cisions sur les requÃªtes NÂ° 2676/65 c/Autriche, Rec . 23, p . 31 et NÂ° 2645/65 c/Autriche, Rec . 23, p . 31) . Tant dans sa version anglaise que dans sa version franÃ§aise, la Convention dÃ©finit en effet clairement le droit garanti par cette disposition comme une alternative entre deux solutions, de nature Ã assurer le respect du contradictoire : Il convientde noter ici que durant tout le dÃ©roulement du procÃ¨s, du 29 mai 1975 au 28 avril 1977,lÃ¨s requÃ©rants purent recevoir des visites pratiquement illimitÃ©Ã©s de leurs dÃ©fenseurs afin de prÃ©parer leur dÃ©fense . Il ne saurait dÃ©s lors Ãªtre question dans la prÃ©sente affaire d'une quelconque violation de l'aiticle 6, paragraphe 3 c) Ã ce propos . 22 . Le grief des requÃ©rants doit cependant encore Ã©tre examinÃ© au regard du principe gÃ©nÃ©ral du procÃ©s Ã©quitable dont l'article 6, paragraphe 3 n'Ã©numÃ¨re pas tous les Ã©lÃ©ments (voir parmi d'autres, .Rapport de la Commission dans l'Affaire NÂ° 343/57, Nielsen c/Danemark, Opinion par . 52, Ann . 4, p . 548) . En matiÃ©re pÃ©nale, la comparution personnelle de l'accusÃ© et son audition par le juge doivent normalement contribuer Ã un examen Ã©quitable de la cause (cf . DÃ©cision sur requÃ¨te NÂ° 1169/61 c/R .F .A ., Rec . 13 ;p . 1) . Pour apprÃ©cier en l'espÃ©ce si la poursuite du procÃ©s en I'absence des accusÃ©s, non leur exclusion, a pu porter atteinte au droit garanti par l'article 6, paragraphe 1, il y a lieu toutefois de tÃ©nir compte des circonstances particuliÃ©res de la cause ainsi que de l'exigence que justice soit rÃ©ndue et ce, dans un dÃ©lai raisonnable . La dÃ©cision litigieuse fut prise au 40^ jour d'un procÃ¨s qui en a durÃ© 191 . Par la suite, les requÃ©rants ontencore assistÃ© de faÃ§on intermittente au dÃ©roulement de la procÃ©dure, au moins jusqu'au 8 mai 1976, date du dÃ©cÃ¨s d'U . Meinhof ; quel qu'ait Ã©tÃ© leur refus de dialogue judiciaire classique, ils ont pu y exposer leurs motivations et conceptions et critiquer la lÃ©gitimation du systÃ¨me appelÃ© Ã lesjuger, axes essentiels de leur propre dÃ©fense .
La dÃ©cision a Ã©tÃ© motivÃ©e par leur incapacitÃ©, mÃ©dicalement constatÃ©e, d'assister aux dÃ©bats plus de 3 heures par jour et ce pour une pÃ©riode de six mois au moins . Elle fait Ã©tat de dÃ©clarations des accusÃ©s dÃ©notant leur volontÃ© de rendre impossible l'ouverture du procÃ¨s, notamment par le recours Ã des grÃ©ves de la faim . Dans ces conditions, le juge a pu lÃ©gitimement faire usage du seul moyen dont il disposait pour Ã©viter l'enlisement de la procÃ©dure, sans supprimer pour autant l'Ã©galitÃ© des armes assurÃ©e par la prÃ©sence des avocats et leurs possibilitÃ©s pratiquement illimitÃ©es de contacts avec leurs clients . A la lumiÃ¨re de l'ensemble des Ã©lÃ©ments rappelÃ©s ci-dessus, la poursuite des audiences en l'absence des accusÃ©s ne saurait ainsi Ãªtre considÃ©rÃ©e comme ayant pu porter atteinte aux droits et libertÃ©s garantis par la Convention, en particulier par les dispositions prÃ©citÃ©es . 23 . La Commission conclut que les divers griefs soulevÃ©s par les requÃ©rants n'ont fait apparaÃ¯tre aucune violation de l'article 6 de la Convention . Il s'ensuit que cette deuxiÃ©me partie des requÃªtes est, elle aussi, manifestement mal fondÃ©e au sens de l'article 27, paragraphe 2, de la Convention .
Par ces motifs, la Commissio n DÃCLARE LES REQUETES IRRECEVABLES .
THEFACT S 1 . The facts of the case, as contained in the statements made on behalf of the applicants and in the documents filed, may be summarised as follows : The applicant Gudrun Ensslin was born on 15 August 1940 She died in Stammheim-Stuttgart Prison on 18 October 1977 . Her father, Mr Helmut Ensslin, stated on 30 November 1977 his wish that the application should be maintained . The case of G . Ensslin is presented (defended) before the Commission by Mr J .J . De FÃ©lice, a barrister pracusing at the Paris Court of Appeal . The applicant Andreas Baader was born on 6 May 1943 . He died on 18 Qctober 1977 . His mother, Mrs Nina Baader, has stated her wish to maintai n
this application . The case of Andreas Baader is presented to the Commission by Mr Bakker-Schut, a barrister practising in Utrecht . Baader had previously complained about the conditions of his detention in an earlier application (No . 6166/73, Baader, Meins, Meinhof, Grundmann v . the Federal Republic of Germanyl, declared inadmissible on 30 May 1975 ID B R 2, p . 58) . ThÃ© applicant Jan Carl Raspe was born on 24 July 1944 . He also died on 18 October 1977 . His sister, Charlotte Raspe, has stated her wish to maintain the application . This case is presented before the Commission by Mr Graindorge, barrister at the Brussels Bar . 2 . At the time when their applications were lodged, .the three applicants were detained in Stammheim-Stuttgart prison . A distinction . must be drawn between two series of facts relaling lal to the conditions of detention and Ibl to the -criminal proceedings against ihem . The findings and reports relative to their deaths will be the subject of a separate section Icl .
A . Conditions of detentio n 3 . The applicants were arrested on different dates A . Baader and C . Raspe on 1 June 1972 ; G . Ensslin on 7 June 1972 . Until 1 November and 31 August 1974 respectively, Baader and Ensslin were serving terms of imprisonment, the former at DÃ¼sseldorf and subsequently Schwalmstadt prisons, the latter at Essen and subsequently KolnOssendorf prisons, passed upon them by the Regional Court of Frankfurt in a judgment of 31 October 1968 . From the time of his arrest, Carl Raspe was detained on remand at Koln-Ossendorf prison . The three applicants were transferred to Stammheim-Stuttgart Prison in May IEnsslinl and November 1974 (Baader and Raspe) .
Dererminarion of derention arrangement s The conditions of their detention were laid down and modified, on the 4 one hand, by decisions of the investigating judge at the Federal Court of Justice and subsequently by the Second Criminal Chamber of the Stuttgart Court of Appeal, and on the other hand in orders issued by the prison administration . General characrerktics 5 . Permanent features of these conditions were the separation of th e applicants from the other prisoners, their exclusion from the social life of the prison, strict supervision of contacts with ihe outside world, and recourse to special security measures .
From the end of 1974 onwards, the applicants were placed in a special section on the 7th floor of Stammheim-Stuttgart Prison . Apart from the cells, this section contained rooms for contacts among the prisoners, for the taking of physical exercise and for storing their files . A control cabin at the end of the corridor enabled the prison staff to monitor all activity in the central corridor . In addition, a control cabin outside the section was equipped with a television screen and a sound alarm . This system, used at night, enabled the wards to monitor comings and goings in the central corridor ; the sound alarm was triggered if any of the grilles giving access to the section was opened . Visits were followed by body searches of the prisoners . Lawyers, for their part, could be subjected to a superficial search , the papers and items they wished to hand to the prisoners had to be first submitted to the competent judicial officer . In principal, the applicants' cells were searched daily until July 1977 , and subsequently three times a week . These checks were frequently carried out in their absence, during exercise periods .
Everyday life 6 . Within this framework, the orqanisation of everyday life and the opportunities given to the applicants for contact among themselves or with other suspected terrorists, and the extent of visits, were modified frequently . On several occasions, by reason of exceptional events, the applicants were deprived for short periods of all contact with each other and with the outside world . 7 . The right to receive visits and mail, initially restricted to members of the family for security reasons (decision of the investigating judge at the Federal Court of Justice, dated 12 June 19721, was subsequently extended to other persons, on condition that the purpose of the detention was not jeopardised Idecision of the investigating judge at the Stuttga rt Court of Appeal, dated 6 May 19741 . Relations with the lawyers were not affected by these decisions . 6 . The applicant Raspe, then held at Kdln-Ossendorf Prison, was authorised to spend one hour each day with another prisoner ldecision of the investigating judge of 5 March 1973) and subsequently to take exercise with a small group of prisoners ( decision of the same judge of 12 March 1974), and finally to take exercise with the other prisoners detained on remand, without restriction (decision of 6 May 19741 . At the same time, Ensslin was authorised to spend, first, one hour pe r day with U . Meinhof (decision of 4 February 1974) and subsequently four hours per day, in addition to exercise (decision of 6 May 1974) . O n
16 August 1974, the Appeal Court gave permissionfor Ensslinand U . Meinhof to .watch televisiontogether and take part in the activitiesof a few women prisoners Theydid not avail themselves of the latterfacility , After all the applicants had been imprisoned in Stammheim, the .9 .President-ol .the Appeal Court, on 2 December 1974, authorised Baader and Raspe to spend four .hours per day together in the same cell, and subsequently on 21 January 1975, to,watch television together . At that time, perrnission was refused for the three applicants and U . Meinhof to meet (decision of th ). . â¢ePrsidntofhApalCur18Feby975 10 . The opportunity for prisoners ofthe same sex to be confined together for four hours per daÃ¿ was suspended by the AppealCourt on28 February 1975, following the kidnapping of the Member of Parliament, Mr Lorenz, in Berlin . This facility was partially restored on 23 April, and again suspended on 9 May 1975, following an attack on the Stockholm Embassy of the Federal Republic of Germany . h was restored on the'basis of two four-hÃ´ur periods per week from 16 May 1975 onwards . Meinhof received authorisation to .Inadito,heplcsandU consult together for one hour and a half in order toprepÃ¢retheir defence ,thearingsvjutbe(dcisonfhPret Apa ) . Exercise in twos, which was alsÃ´lCourtf14and26My3Jue1975 suspended from 9 May 1975, - was . restored on the 20th of the same month . 11 . On the same basis of reports submitted to thÃ©Appeal Court atits request by various medical experts (see infra, section 18 ) , permission was given for two prisoners of the same sex to meet IUmschluss) from 8 a .m . to 4 p .m .two days each week (decision of 26th August 1975), and subsequently every day (decision of 26 September 1975) .In addition ; frÃ´rri the latter date onwards, the prlsoners received permission to meet as a group of foÃ»r fo rtwo-hupeidsack(Zumenshl) . Acting partly on the medical experts' recommendations regarding way s of improving the health and - physical condition of the applicants, the President of the Appeal Court increased to, one-and-a-half hours the daily exÃ©rcise time accorded to the applicants, first in twos andsÃ¼bsequently all together ( decisions of 15 October and 21 November 1975 ) . : Permission was given for all four prisoners to meet for one hour each day . Permission for all _fourto,playtable tennis together on Saturdays andSundays . was also granted . Permission was .granted or confirmed for Baader and Raspe, on the one hand . and Ensslin and Meinhof on the other, to take exercise in the company of a selected group of prisoners, subject to a physical search (decision of 21 November 1975)i They did not avail themselves of thelatter possibility ' '
12 . Some of these facilities were withdrawn at times from one or other applicant for infringements of the prison rules . For example, Baader was temporarily deprived of the facility of Zusamrnensch/uss, while Raspe was deprived of the right to listen to the radio and watch television (decisions of the President of the Appeal Coun of 25 February and 19 August 1976) . 13 . In connection with the murder of Mr Buback, Chief Public Prosecutor, the judge responsible for supervising the detention ordered the withdrawal of radio and television and the discontinuation of all outside contacts, including those with the lawyers, and meetings of prisoners . These temporary measures, taken on 7 April 1977, were rescinded on 12 April . 14 . On 15 April 1977, during a thirst strike on the part of the applicants, the Appeal Court rejected a request for release submitted on their behalf, on the grounds that their lives were not in danger . On the same day the President of the Court refused a substantial change in the condilions of detention, and in particular the following demands : integration of the applicants with the other prisoners, extension of Umschluss beyond 4 p .m ., extension of lawyers' visiting time, and exemption of the latter from search . 15 . From 28 June 1977 onwards, Ensslin was authorised to spend the night with two other members of the RAF ("Red Army Fraclion") who had been transferred to Stammheim since May 1976 (J . Schubert and J . Mbllerl or 1977 (Verena Becker, Sabine Schmitzl . During the same period, three other members of the RAF : Beer, Hoppe and Pohl, were transferred to the section reserved for the applicants . 16 . After violence had occurred on 5 and 8 August 1977 between the inmates of the special section and their warders, Beer, Hoppe and Pohl were taken back to Hamburg . Contacts between the applicants, discontinued on 7 August, were restored on 12 August . Removal of all contact 17 . On 6 September 1977, the day after the kidnapping of Mr Schleyer and the murder of four persons accompanying him, the President of the Appeal Court confirmed the measures taken by the prison administration : removal of radio and television and suppression of periods of common detention IUmschlussl and of relations with all other prisoners . On 7 September 1977, the Federal Minisler of Justice ordered the absolute suppression of all contact among the prisoners and of all contact with their lawyers and the outside world in general . On 2 October 1977, under a legislative amendment which had entered into force on the same day (Kontaktsperregesetz), the Federal Minister of Justice ordered the suspension of all contacts of the applicants with each other and with the outside world, including oral and written contacts wit h
their defence counsel, in accordance with the new Sections 31 and 32 of the law introducing the Act on the Organisation of the Judiciary . Ãn a decision of 13 October 1977, the Federal Court of Justice issued the confirmation referred to in . Section 35 of the above-mentioned law, with respect to the applicants . Reports on the applicanr's state of hea/th, its causes and remedies 18 . From the time of their arrival at Stammheim prison during the second half of 1974, the applicants were under the full-time medical supervision of Dr Henck, the senior doctor . However, they appear to have refused any thorough examination by that doctor (cf . the order of 18 July 1975 issued by the President of the Appeal Court) . A first series of medical reports was drawn up in September/October 1975 by Dr Rasch, psychiatrist, Dr Mende, Psychiatrist, and Dr MÃ¼ller and Dr Schrbder, specialists in internal medicine, in accordance with orders issued on 18 and 29 July 1975 by the Stuttgart Appeal Court . The purpose at that time was to decide whether the applicants were fit to attend the trial . In reply to several letters from the President of the Coun, enquiring in what way the prisoners' health might be improved, these same doctors submitted a further series of suggestions, which were in part followed up by the court, as stated above (cf . paragraph 11) . On 6 and 8 April 1977, at the request of the senior prison doctor, further particulars were noted by Dr Rasch, Dr MÃ¼ller and Dr Schr&der . All these reports were placed on the file . The findings, analyses and suggestions are summarised below . lil State of health
In September 197 5 19 . The applicants are in a state of physical and mental exhaustion (Dr Mende) . Their blood pressure is low . Their weight is about 70% of that of a normally healthy person of the same age and build (Dr MÃ¼ller) . They present the following symptoms in varying degrees : problems of concentration, marked fatigue, difficulties of expression or articulation, reduced physical and mentÃ¢l perforrnance, instability, diminished spontaneity and ability to make contacts, depression (especially noted by Dr Rasch) . In April 197 7 20 . The decline in both physical and mental health is very pronounced in Ensslin (concurring opinion by Dr Rasch, Dr MÃ¼ller and Dr Schrdder) : loss of weight, very low blood pressure, premature ageing, severer difficulties of expression and lack of concentration, motor disturbances . The deterioration in the condition of Baader and Raspe is perceptiblÃ©, though less spectacular decrease in activity and spontaneity, . emotional, regression, problems of articulation, hesitancy in speech . They are nevertheless fit for detention .
Ilil The causes 21 . the experts ascribe the applicants' state of health to a series of factors and circumstances : the particular conditions of their imprisonment, the length of the detention on remand, hunger strikes, tension generated by the trial and the applicants' wish to defend themselves, etc . The importance attached to these different factors varies from one report to another . The panicular conditions of imprisonmen t 22 . There is no sensory isolation strictly speaking, such as can be brought about by a substantial reduction in stimulation of the sensory organs . On the other hand, the applicants are subjected to evident social isolation . The international literature on criminology and psychology indicates that isolation can be sufficient in itself gravely to impair physical and mental health . The following conditions may be diagnosed : chronic apathy, fatigue, emotional instability, difficulties of concentration, diminution of mental faculties, disorders of the neuro-vegetative system . Opinions differ on the precise scale of these phenomena . There are no reports in the literature of situations comparable to that of the applicants (Dr Rasch), affording a better assessment of the psychiatric effects . From the standpoint of internal medicine, certain analogies can be found in case-studies of elderly and isolated persons, persons kept alive artificially in intensive care units, and long-term prisoners (Dr MÃ¼ller and Dr Schrdder) . However, certain experts state that they have little personal experience of the physical and mental effects of normal imprisonment (Dr MÃ¼ller and Dr Schriider) . The length of detention on remand 23 . Dr Mende considers that the length of the detention on remand has a more decisive influence on the applicants' state of health than the conditions of their isolation . He points out in this connection that the introduction and extension of the Umsch/uss arrangement produced virtually no positive effect over 6 to 8 months (first report on 15 September 1975) . The length of the detention on remand is also regarded as an important factor by Dr MÃ¼ller and Dr Schrbder (second report of 8 April 1977) . Hunger strike 24 . According to the official findings, recorded in the report by Dr MÃ¼ller and Dr Schrdder (first report of 17 September 1975), the applicants went on hunger strike from 13 September 1974 to 3 February 1975 and for two sixweeks periods in January/February 1973 and May/June 1973 . Finally, a hunger strike which began at the end of March 1977 did not finish until the end of August 1977 . In the opinion of the majority of the experts, thes e
hunger strikes do not constitute a decisive factor and, in any event, are not sufficient to explain the state of exhaustion of the applicants observed several months after the end of the hunger strike in late 1874/early 1975 . In this connection, Dr MÃ¼ller and Dr Schrbder state that experience of the immediate post-war period indicates that six months of adequate nourishment will normally eliminate theâ¢great majority of vegetative disorders caÃ»sed by under-nourishment when living conditions are satisfactory . However, the last hunger strike (February to August 1977) seems to have dangerously weakened the applicants, and especially G . Ensslin . The trial 25 . Generally speaking, the experts consider that attendance at the hearings, the aggressive preparation of their defence, and the prospect of conviction gave rise to a permanent state of siress, albeit comparable to that which any person deiained on remand may undergo . lÃ¼il The remedies propose d 26 The main aim is to increase the opportunities for social intercourse and physical exercise . In the state of exhaustion diagnosed, ihe use of medicines can play no more than a very secondary part . Generally speaking, the doctors did not examine in detail the possibilit y .27 of purely and simply integrating the applicants into normal prison life, this arrangement having been precluded from the outset by the prison authorities . for security reasons . They considered the opportunities for social intercourse insufficient, but made different proposals in this respect . Dr Ehrhardt (who did not examine the applicants) is doubtful about the effect of extending the periods of communal life in groups of two or four . (Umschluss, Zusammenschluss) . Nor is he really convinced that an increase in the size of the groups can significantly affect the applicants' health . Dr MÃ¼ller and Dr Schriider recommended extending the Zusammenschluss in order to overcome the isolation . They appear to take the view that there is little difference ;between absolute isolation and isolation in pairs (report of 13 October 1975) . Dr Mende recommended the constitution of a minimum group of 10 to 14persons (report of 29 October 1975) in .which the applicants could establish .regular relationships provided they discard any feelings of mistrust . Failing this, the measures in force at the time ought to be supplemented by more physical activity, relaxation sessions and psycho-therapeutic talks . Dr Rasch thought the only possibility was to constitute a group of politically motivated prisoners (repÃ´rt of 7 NovembÃ©r 1975) . In his report of 6 April 1977, Dr Rasch' repeated that the opportunities for social intercourse were still quite inadequate .28 . The doctors also recommended increased physical ectivity, if possible in the open air, and efforts .to get the applicants interested in improving their state of health .
B . The criminal proceedings 29 . The applicants were arrested in June 1972 and charged with several murders committed in May 1972 in Frankfurt, Munich, Heidelberg and Augsburg . Under an agreement between the different prosecutors at the courts within whose areas these offences had been committed, the case was removed to the Stuttgart Appeal Court and placed on the register of the 2nd Criminal Chamber of that Court . On 4 February 1974, following staff movements involving several judges, Judge Prinzig, then President of the Juvenile Division of the Court, was appointed President of the 2nd Criminal Chamber, before which the trial was to take place . On 1 January 1975, an Act of 20 December 1974 supplementing the 1st Act amending the Code of Criminal Procedure entered into force . The new or amended clauses are mainly concerned with the limit on the number of defence lawyers chosen ISection 137), and exclusion of defence counsel in cases of "serious presumption" of complicity or abuse of contact with the accused on remand ISection 138 (a)) or where there are "justified grounds" for fearing that the defence counsel is a threat to the security of the State (Section 138 (b ) l . A defence counsel who has been excluded cannot defend the accused in other proceedings lSection 138 (a)) . Further, no defence counsel can assist several accused persons (Section 146), and the trial can henceforth take place in the absence of the accused if it is found, on the evidence of a medical expert, that he has "deliberately and culpablÃ¿" brought himself to a state which precludes his attendance at the hearings (Section 231 (a)l, or if he is removed from the courtroom for "undisciplined behaviour" (Section 231 (b)) . 31 . Before the hearings opened, the applicants were deprived of the services of three of the four principal lawyers to whom they had entrusted their defence ; only Mr Schily was able to continue representing them . By an order of the Appeal Court of 22 April 1975, Mr Croissant was permanently debarred from defending A . Baader, under the new Section 138 lal of the Code of Criminal Procedure, because he was suspected of supporting the criminal organisation to which his client belonged . The appeal against this order was rejected on 20 May 1975 by the Federal Supreme Court (3rd Criminal Chamber) . In a judgment of 4 July 1975, a chamber of three judges of the Federal Constitutional Court decided not to consider the constitutional appeal lodged by Mr Croissant .
In similar circumstances, Mr Groenewold and subsequently Mr Striibele were also debarred from defending Baader, even before the hearings bega n
(orders of 2 and13 May 1975 of the Appeal Court, judgment of 26 August 1975 of the Federal Supreme Court) . By order of 3 June 1975, the Appeal Court ruled that the exclusion of the lawyers Str6bele, Groenewold and Croissant also extended to the defence of Ensslin and Raspe . The appeals immediately lodged against this order were rejected on 22 October 1975 by the Federal Court of Justice .
32 . The hearings opened on 21 May 1975 . After a short time, however, the applicants were incapable of following the discussion . Defence counsel then sought a ruling that the accused were unfit to attend the hearings . Four experts wÃ©re appointed by the Appeal Couri by orders of 18 and 29 July 1975 In their conclusions submitted on 10, 15 and 17 September, these doctors concluded that it was necessary to reduce the length of the hearings to a maximum of three hours each day . The Court did not think it possible to adopt so slow a schedule of work . On 30 September 1975, the 40th day of the hearing, when it becam e impossible for, the applicants to follow the discussion for more than three hours, the Appeal Court decided to"continuethe hearing in their absence, on the ground that the accused had by their own actions brought themselves to a state precluding their attendance at the hearings, within the meaning of the new Section 231 of the Criminal Code . In support of this conclusion, the Court referred to the repeated hunge r strikes, the refusal of any therapy administered by the prison doctors, the sleepless nights, the refusal of the accusÃ©d to meet other prisoners and, in the case of C . Raspe, to take exercise with them . The immediate appeal lodged against this order was rejected by a judgment of 22 October 1975 of the Federal Supreme Court . On 21 January 1976, the 2nd Chamber of the Federal Constitutional Court rejected the further appeal against that judgment as being manifestly illfounded . On 4 November 1975, on the basis of the new Section 146 of the Cod e .3 of Criminal Procedure, the Appeal Court'refused to approve a new lawyer, Mr Spangenberg, as defence counsel for Raspe, on the ground that he had already been appointed defence counsel for another member of the RAF due to appear before the Regional Court of Kaiserslautern . On the other hand, on an application by thÃ© Federal Public ProsÃ©cutor, the Court ordered Mr von Plottnitz to be appointed ex officio as Raspe's lawyer on 7 November . Later, the ex officio appointment of Mr Heldmann, which had been effective since July 1975, was revoked by the Court because he was not participating in the regular dourse of the proceedings (order of 13 January 19771 .
- 100 _
34 . The trial continued in the absence of the accused, principally represented at the hearings by their lawyers appointed ex officio . During the monih of July 1976, Judge Prinzig sent to Judge Mayer, a member of the 3rd Criminal Chamber of the Federal Supreme Court . with appeal jurisdiction in these proceedings, photocopies of various parts of the criminal file, which Judge Meyer passedon to the editor of a major daily newspaper . The challenge of Judge Prinzig, submitted as a result of this incident , was rejected . Judge Mayer, for his parf, was transferred to another chamber of the Federal Supreme Court . At the end of January 1977, after 174 days oi hearings, the 85t h challenge of Judge Pinzig was accepted . He was replaced as President of the Chamber by Judge Foth . Among the main witnesses for the prosecution were former members of the Baader-MÃ©inhof group . On the other hand, the Appeal Court refused to hear witnesses called by the defence to explain the political motives of the acis committed . For example, on 4 May 1976 the Court refused to hear thÃ© witnessÃ©s Osborne, Agee, Thomas and Peck, summoned by the deience and present in court . 35 . After 191 days' hearings, the applicants were sentenced on 28 April 1977 to penal servilude for life for multiple murder and to 15 years' penal servitude for attempted murder and the constitution of a criminal association . They submltted pleas of nullity to the Federal Courl of Justice, but these proceedings were terminated by their deaths . C The deaths of the applicant s 36 . The applicants died on 18 October 1977, Raspe, who was found lying in his cell at 7 .41 a .m ., died afew moments after being admitted to hospital . Baader and Ensslin were found dead in their own cells at 8 .07 a .m . On the same day, the Regional Court of Stuttgart-Bad Canstatt visiled 37 the prison, in the presence inter alia of lawyers freely chosen by the applicants and foreign forensic experts, in order to conduct the initial observations regarding the position and condition of the bodies of Baader and Ensslin The post-mortem examinations were carried out that evening . The reporis drawn up at that time were supplemented by the reports of toxicological and neuropathological examinations . It emerges from those documents that Baader died between 0 .15 and 38 2 .15 a .m . from a shot fired at point-blank range from a pistol found at his side, perforaiing ihe skull at one point only . No other sign of violence wa s
discovered .The woundscaused, and thetraces of blood and gunpowder on the applicant's right hand, " permit of the conclusion that he took his own life" . "There is no evidence tosupport an assertion that Baader, shortly before hisdeath, had been brought to a state of disturbed consciousness or of unconsciousness by means of highly effective producfs" . . ., - -Raspe also died as the result of a single shot, fired at point-blank range, from right to left, a factor which tends to support the assumption ofsuicide " provided he is rlght-handed" . No other trace of violence was discovered . The results of the chemical/toxicologicaj analyses are slmilar to those-of Baader . Ensslin's bodywas fÃ´und hanging from the,bars of her window by the electric cable from her record player . According to the findings, "thereis nothing to suggest that the hanging dlscovered inthiscase was not brought about by the hand of the person concerned" . Further,no trace of any activ esObtanclikyohveswftdapjicn'smetlro a discovered . . ' ' . A technical_forensic examination of the cells carried-out .39 on 19 October 1977 revealed a small radio in working order in an item of clothing belonging to Raspe . .It may have enabled Raspe-to learn .ofthi= failure of the highjacking of a Lufthansa aircraft, carried out in order to . obtain their release . An improvised systÃ©m of telephone communicatiori between the cells was also disclosed . On the followingdÃ©ysseveral hiding places were discovered, as was another weapon arid ammunition . In its report of 9 March 1978, a commission of.40 Ã©nquiry set up by th e Baden-WÃrtemberg Parliament concludÃ©d that the applicants had committed suicide . ~ ' . - - 41 . The judicial investigation against a person or persons unknown was droppÃ©d on$ May 1978, the enquiries having Ãªstablished beyond any doub thaeplicnsdomteuic
42 The applicants argued that they were subject to exceptional conditions of detention, causing them to undergo considerable physical, psychologica nlandmetsufrig,hcalendosqu fwhicarÃ©tesd authoritative medicaPreports . These conditions of detention, and in particula r
prolonged isolation, had been tantamount to torture or, at the very ieast, to inhuman treatment within the meaning of Article 3 of the Convention . By their specific nature and duration, they could not be justified on alleged grounds of security . 43 . The applicants complained that they did not have a fair trial before an independeni and impartial tribunal established by law, with the particular safeguards which that implies in criminal matters . In particular, they maintained that : - the Appeal Court was not properly constitute d - the judges at the court, and a federal judge, were not independent and impartial ; - the trial was influenced by a virulent press campaign and the statements by the authorities ; - the defence was systematically annihilated ; to that end, the legislation was amended in the course of the trial ; - ihey were unable to defend themselves, having been removed from th e hearing, which continued without them and, to all intents and purposes, without defence counsel of their choosing ; - the hearing of witnesses for the prosecution was considerably restricted, and the defence was unable to put important queslions to them ; - their conviction derives largely from the improper use of depositions made by accomplices ; - many witnesses for the defence were not called . In this connection, they alleged a violation of Article 6 of the Convention as a whole .
PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE COMMISSIO N 44 . Although formally lodged in July 1976, the applications were not presented in detail until 30 August 1977, in a single memorial .
On 12 October 1977, the Commission decided to postpone its examination of them by reason of the circumstances obtaining at that tim e Following the death of the applicants on 17 October 1977, the President of the Commission informed the Government of the Federa l
Republic of Germany under Rules 36 . 14 and 28 of the Rules of Procedure, that he thought it desirable, in the interests of the proper conduct of the proceedings, that a Commission's delegation should be enabled to visit Stuttgart-Stammheim prison and make any observations which might prove necessary in order to establish the facts . With the Government's agreement, two delegates travÃ©lled to Stuttgart on 19 and 20 October 1977 ; a brief ~ report of their visit was sent to the parties . On 12 December 1977, the Commission decided to join the three applications in accordance with Rule 29 of its Rules of Procedure, to continue their examination and to invite the Government to submit its observations on admissibility in writing by 13 January 1978 . The Government's memorial of 17 January 1978 was communicated to the applicants' lawyers, who were requested to submit their observations in reply by 24 February 1978 . That time-limit was extended until 10 April 1978 . On 3 May 1978, the Commission examined a request for adjourment of the case until the internal judicial inquiry into the Ã§ircumstances of the applicants' deaths was completed It decided not to accede to this request and to postpone until 10 June 1978 the deadline for submission of observations in reply . It informed the parties that the cases would be examined in the course of its session in July 1978 , on the basis of the file assembled by them at that time . On 4 July 1978 , appended to a letter from Mr Bakker-Schut asking for a further postponement of the deadline, the Commission received a brief commentary on the Government's observations of 17 January 1978,' drawn up by Mr Azzola, defence counsel for G . Ensslin in the German proceedings .
IV . SUMMARY OF THE WRITTEN ARGUMENTS OF THE GOVERNMENT Articles 26 and 27 (3) of the Convenrio n 45 . The Government contended that the applicants hÃ¢d not properly exhausted domestic remedies in respect of their allegations of to rt ure and inhuman treatment (Article 3 of the .Convention) . They had wrongly relied upon a judgment of the Federal Constitutional Court of 21 January 1976 . That Judgment contained a ruling only on the constitutionality of the continuation ot a trial in the absence of the accused . The Court did not examine the question of torture or violation of physical integrity because that question was not correctly raised . The applicants .had admittedly complained of certain aspects of their detention previously, going as far as the Constitutlonal Court, but they had failed in this connection to present their applications within .the six months' time-limit .-104_
Regarding their complaints in connection with . the conduct of the trial IArticle 6 of the Convention), the Government maintained thatâ¢ the applicants had failed to submit their applications within the period of six months from the judgments of the Federal Constitutional Court concerning the exclusion of certain defence lawyers and the limitation on the number of defence lawyers freely chosen ; that they had not exhausted domestic remedies regarding the alleged bias of the Court and its disregard of the presumption of innocence . Article 27 f 11 of the Conventio n 46 . The Government emphasised that the application by A . Baader was in part motivated by events already referred to the Commission in the context of an earlier application, declared inadmissible on 30 May 1975 (Application No . 6146/73, D . 8 R . 2, page 58) . In that respect .-it should be regarded as essentially the same .
Article 27 121 of the Convention Complaints based on Article 3 47 . The Government maintained that the conditions of detention to which the applicants were subjected certainly did not fall within the categories of treatment prohibited under Article 3 of the Convention . It admitted that the applicants were not treated in the same way as "normal" prisoners, but the conditions of their imprisonment were brought about be the applicants themselves . Moreover, they were tempered by numerous " privileges" . The allegation of total isolation was incorrect . As was apparent from the court decisions contained in the file, the applicants were authorised-apart from the period when contacts were suspended in September 1977-to receive visits by members of their families and by their defence lawyers, practically without restriction . The segregation of the applicants from the other prisoners was in part motivated by considerations of security, and in part by the behaviour of the applicants themselves, who regarded agitation and unrest in prisons as an integral part of their subversive campaign . As a whole the conditions of detention applied in this case were motivated by the particularly dangerous character of the prisoners concerned . Considered in relation to the offences committed by the applicants, to their attempts on the lives of others and their attacks onsecurity, the measures taken were appropriate and'scrupulously respected the limits'imposed by fundamental rights and the laws of a democratic society .
48 Futher, the medical reports-contained in ihe file could not be invoked in support' of the Ã¢pplicants'- allegation that they were subjected to torture thrbugh isolationThe GovernrrmÃ©nt emphasised in this connection that their state of health wasâ¢dargelythe result ofâ¢hungerstrikes, and partly thirst strikes, deliberately continued untilthe brink-of exhaustion was reached, when the :risk of deaih constituted a threat andâ¢anattempt to prevent the trial from starting : Even the fact that theexperts saw a causal link, not explainedin detail, between the physical and psycholigical state of the applicants and the long period of their imprisonment, the conditions of detention and the effects of fatigue produced by the criminal proceedings, changed nothing . For these were consequÃ©nces - which every person detained on- remand and every convicted prisoner must .accept . In the,casein point, however, they- were circumstances for which the applicants themselves were responsible, not only as a reaction to the offences they had committed, but~also in so far as the great length of the investigatory proceedings and of the crimina l`oprocedingswa tlyhersufiwnbhavur-dgteil 49 It should be noted at this point that the GovÃ©rnment alsodeveloped ihe argument that the applicants resorted to suicideas a-means of continuing the struggle . Quoting various statements bÃ¿ the appllcants, the GÃ´vernment explained thai it was pari of the 'group's strategy to-pass 6ff premiditated suicide as murder committed by third parties ; thus giving the signalforother terrorist acts . Complaints based on Artic% 6 50 . The Government maintained that the referral-of the case"to the Stuttgart Appeal Court, the designation of the competent chamber and the appointment of judges to that chamber were perfectly in conformity wnh . the Code of Criminal Procedure and the Act on the-0rganisation of the Judiciary, and consequently the case had beenexamined by an independent tribunal established by law (Article 6 1111 . . . , 51 . Further, disregard of the principle of presumption -o( -innocence could not be invoked in respect of a press campaign . the guarantee securÃ©d by Article 6 121 devolved upon ihe court'called upon to try thÃ©charge : fo .the extent that the campaign may have been fuelled by official staiements, the Government referred to the duty of the State to adopt a'siance on terrorist acts and to inform the public of the steps taken with regard to them . 52 . The decision taken by the Appeal Court to continue the hearings in the absence of the accused did ~not 'violate Article 6 131 Icl, which did not guarantee'to the accused ihe right to be personally present at all stages o f
the procedure . According to the Government, this provision is satisfied if the accused are represented by their defence counsel . In the case in point, the decision to continue the hearings in the absence of the applicants was correctly taken after the latter had deliberately rendered themselves unfit to attend the hearings with the aim of preventing the trial from beginning . 53 . The Government also emphasised that, according to the case-law of the Commission itself, the guarantee secured by Article 6 1311c1 does not imply an absolute right to the assistance of any defence counsel : it is merely designed to ensure that the accused is defended by counsel to the extent required for the purpose of a fair trial . In the case in point, the decision to exclude certain defence lawyers was taken because they were strongly suspected of supporting the criminal association of the accused . This measure fell within the scope of the State's power to issue regulations restricting the right of lawyers to appear before the courts . Nonetheless, the applicants were still represented by an average of ten lawyers . 54 Lastly, the Government pointed out that the guarantee secured by Article 61311d1 does not embrace the unlimited right of the accused to call any person he wished as a witness, nor the possibility of calling witnesses on subjects which cannot help to elucidate the truth . In the case in point, the limitation of the applicants' right to question the witnesses called by the prosecution on questions within the scope of the investigations, and the fact that the witnesses for the defence Osborne, Agee, Thomas and Peck were not called, were in conformity with this provision . The Government refuted the allegation that various witnesses had been bribed by the prosecution . 55 . In conclusion, it called for rejection of all the complaints as being illfounded .
A. 1 . The applicants died in the course of the proceedings before the Commission . However, that fact does not automatically dispose of their applications (cf . Decision on Application No . 6166/73 against Federal Republic of Germany ; D . 6 R . 2, p . 66) . Their respective legal successors have notified the Commission of their wish that the applications be kept on the list, both on behalf of their deceased relatives and on their own behalf . They adduce evidence of sufficient interest for that purpose . - 107-
2 . The applicants complained that they were subjected, deliberately and without any possiblejustification, to exceptional conditions of detention which caused them considerable physical and psychological suffering . They alleged in this connection a violation of Article 3 of the Convention, which reads :"No one shall be subjected to torture or to inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment . " 3 . The Government have replied, first, that in so iar as' A . Baader complained of his detention prior to 30 May 1975, the subject of his application is the same as that of his Application No . 6166/73, declared inadmissible on that date as being manifestly ill-founded . It should therefore be rejected in accordance with Article 27 I111b1 . However, the Commission considers that no decision is called for at this stage, since Baader's complaints are identical to those of G . Ensslin and C . Raspe, and are mainly concerned with the detention arrangements made at Stuttgart-Stammheim prison from December 1974 onwards . No distinction will be made between the three applications in the reasoning which follows . The Government also submitted that domestic remediesâ¢ had not been . .4 exhausted, arguing that the applicants had not properly raised before the Federal Constitutional Court the question of assault on their physical intÃ©grity, nor complained of ill-treatment ISections 2 (2) and 104 111 of'the Basic Lawl . The Commission cannot overlook in this connection the fact that the allegation of torture or inhuman treatment is based on the combination of a series of judicial and administrative decisions and measures many of which, if taken in isolation, could not be submitted with any prospect of success to adjudication by that exalted tribunal . On two occasions, it is true, the applicants omitted to appeal to the Constitutional Court against decisions connected with the very substance of the question referred to the Commission (judgments of the Appeal Court of 15 April 1977 rejecting a request for provisional release and a substantial change in the detention arrangementsl . . Previously, however, they had complained to that Court that Section 2 121 of the Basic Law was violated by the order of the Appeal Court of 30 September 1975 that the hearings should be continued in their absence . Arguing that the Appeal Court had legitimised the particular conditions of their detention despite having previously noted the grave repercussions of those conditions on their state of health, they had maintained that the order thus recognised the State's right to maltreat certain prisoners . In its judgment rejecting the complaint on 21 January 1976, the Federal Constitutional Court ruled that the argument was not relevant . Asthe Government argues, it is open to doubt whether the applicants properly exhausted domestic remedies, the only immediate subject of th e
constitutional appeal having been the constitutionality of continuing the hearings in the absence of the accused . However, the Commission considers any fuller consideration of this matter superfluous, since in any event the applications are inadmissible for another reason, as is explained in the following sÃ©ctions . 5 . The applicants were certainly subjected to exceptional detention arrangements, characterised by their exclusion from the prison community and Iheir confinement to a security area . The Federal Government has explained the security requirements which governed the devising of these arrangements ; the applicants were dangerous ; they had used firearms at the time of their arresl ; Baader had previously been released by the use of weapons ; members of the Red Army Fraction had repeatedly organised armed attacks in order to bring about their release ; there were indications that they had themselves contributed to those attacks Icf also Decision on Application No . 6166/73, D . & R . 2, p . 66) . The Commission is convinced that in this particular case there were pressing reasons for subjecting the applicants to arrangements more directly based on security measures . The segregation of a prisoner from the prison community does not in itself constitute a form of inhuman treatment . In many States Parties to the Convention, more stringent security arrangements exist for dangerous prisoners . These arrangements Istrict isolation, removal of association, dispersal in special, very small units etc .l, which are intended to prevent the risk of escape, attack or disturbance of the prison community, or even to protect a prisoner from his fellow-prisoners, are based on separation from the prison community together with tighter controls . The Commission has already been confronted with a number of such cases of isolation Icf . Decisions on Applications No . 1392/62 v . FRG, Coll . 17, p . 1 ; No 5006/71 v UK, Coll . 39, p . 91 ; No . 2749/66 v . UK, Yearbook X, p . 382 ; No . 6038/73 v . FRG, Coll . 44, p 155 ; No . 4448/70 "Second Greek Case", Coll . 34, p . 70) . It has stated that prolonged solitary confinement is undesirable, especially where the person is detained on remand Icf . Decision on Application No . 6038/73 v . FRG, Coll . 44, p . 115) . However, in assessing whether such a measure may fall within the ambit of Article 3 of the Convention in a given case, regard must be had to the particular conditions, the stringency of the measure, its duration, the objective pursued and its effects on the person concerned . Complete sensory isolation coupled with complete social isolation can no doubt ultimately destroy the personality ; thus it constitutes a form of inhuman treatment which cannot be justified by the requirements of security, the prohibition on torture and inhuman treatment contained in Article 3 of the Conventio n
_1pg_
being absolute in character (cf . the Report of the Commission on Application No . 5310/71, Ireland v . the United Kingdom ; Opinion, p . 3791 . 6 . At the time when their applications were lodged, . Baader, Ensslin and Raspe had been in Stuttgart-Stammheim Prison for more than one and a half years ; they remained there until their deaths . There is no evidence to suggest that they were sublected there to sensory isolation brought about by a substantial reduc[ion in stimulation of the sensory organs . As the Commission's delegates observed in the course of their inspection . of the cells on 19 and 20 October 1977, the latter were well-lit by windows which could be opened from inside ; the walls were largely covered with books and posters . The cells were not sound-proofed either from the inside or from the outside : two persons confined on opposite sides of the central corridor could talk to each other by raising their voices . The applicants had the use of a radio, and later of a television set and a record-player, practically the whole time . They were able to take daily walks in the open air in a large field and to do physical exercise . Nor were the .7 applicants subjected to permanent "secret" surveillance . They were of course openly watched by the warders during the few hours spent together in the central corridor, with all the cell doors open . But no television cameras were installed in thÃ© cells and the majoritÃ¿ of spy-holes in the doors had been closed from the inside . 8 . On the other hand, the applicants were subjected to a degree of social isolation . They were excluded from the social activities of the prison and had no contact with other prisoners . Thus their opportunities for social intercourse were substantially limited . However, it is not possible to speak of real solitary confinement in their case . With the exception of short periods, they were able to receive very many visits from their defence lawyers and families . On recommendations by the prison doctor and experts appointed by the Court, and lollowing their hunger strikes, the opportunities for contacts among themselves were constanily extended, and even enlarged to other members of the Red Army Fraction . They were even given permission to meet other prisoners in the course of the exercise or other activities . They decided not to avail themselves of that possibility . Only on five occasions since their admission to Stammheim were the applicants deprived of all contact with each other and, in two cases, of contact with the outside world ; these restrictions were in force for periods of between five days and two months . 9 The medical reports contained in the file do not make it 'possible to establish accurately the specific effect of this isolation in relation to their physical and mental health, as compÃ¢red with other factors such as th e
duration of the detention, the hunger strikes and the tension caused by preparations for the trial . Some general studies have pointed to the appearance, at the end of a period of four to six years' "ordinary" imprisonment, of a reversible syndrome with the following essential characteristics, similar to those observed in the applicants :"emotional disturbances, disturbances in comprehension and ability to think, infantile regressive changes in the mode of life, and difficulty in making social contacts" (Council of Europe, European Committee on Crime Problems, General Report of Treatment of Long-Term Prisoners, p . 8) . 10 . It is true that some of the decisions to increase the opportunities for social intercourse were not taken until after hunger strikes . However, having regard to the overall circumstances of the case, and in particular the continuous review of the detention arrangements by the authorities of the Federal Republic of Germany and the behaviour of the applicants themselves, particularly their rejection of certain opportunities for contact open to them, the applicants cannot be deemed to have been deliberately subjected to a range of physical or mental suffering designed to punish them, to destroy their personality or to break down their resistance (see European Court of Human Rights, case of Ireland against United Kingdom, judgment of 18 January 1978, para . 167 ; see also Article 1 of the Declaration on protection against torture contained in Resolution 3452 (XXX) of the United Nations General Assembly) . The special arrangements imposed upon them were therefore not in the nature of inhuman or degrading treatment . 11 . Are the circumstances of the applicants' deaths such as to cast doubt on that conclusion ? Although they are not in themselves the subject of the application, the question arises whether the applicants' deaths may nevertheless have been the consequence of the treatment of which they complained . On the basis of all the findings of an international team of forensic medical experts and the initial conclusions of the judicial inquiry (see supra, sections 36-41), the Government presented the deaths as suicides . The applicants' counsel have not submitted any counter-argument to this, although one of them stated he was convinced that murder had been committed . 12 . In some cases, the death in prison of a person who has claimed to have been subject to torture or physical or mental violence there may be regarded Ã¢s the outcome of that ill-treatment, particularly where the systematically organised and enforced isolation of the prisoner may have driven him inexorably to take his own lite . In the present case, there is no objective indication along those lines
. - 111 -
It follows that, insofar as they were based on Article 3 of the Convention, the applications are manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 27 (2) of the Convention .
B. 13 . The applicants also submitted a series of complaints relating to the representation and conduct of their trial . The Commission is aware that as a result of their deaths in ihe course o f 14 ihe trial, the proceedings in the domestic courts are terminated (cf . Kleinknecht, Strafprozessordnung -commentary on Section 206 a : Lbwe - Rosenberg, Die Strafprozessordnung und das Gerichtsverfassungsgesetz - Grosskomentar Erster Band, p . 102) . The Commission considers that it is not thereby automatically deprive d of jurisdiction in relation to the situation denounced by the applicants and their successors,in so far as it might have affected certain fundamental rights secured io all accused persons . It observes, moreover, that : the applicants were able to submit their principal complaints to the Federaj Constitutional Court even before the end of their trial at first instance . It is therefore incumbent on the Commission to examine the applicants' complaints concerning the fundamental rights of every accused person, guaranteed by Article 6 of the Convention irrespective of the outcome of the trial, excluding complaints concerning ihe admission of evidence and tha formation of the judge's own convietions, which are now wiihout relevance . 15 The applicants alleged that the stan of the trial had been preceded by the arousal of a public opinion by a press campaign tolerated-if not organised-by the public authorities The applicants had been described as "bandits", "criminals", "gangs of murderers" etc ., in disregard of Article 6 121 which guarantees the presumption of innocence, and of Article 111 which secures to every accused person the right to a fair trial .It is true that the Commission has already accepted that in some cases a virulent press campaign can adversily affect the fairness of the trial (cf . Decisions on Applications No . 1476/62 against Austria, Coll . 11, p . 31 ; No . 3444/67 against Norway, Yearbook 13, p . 302) and involve the StatÃ© s responsibility, panicularly where it is sparked off by one of the State's organs (cf . a contrario, Decision on Application No . 2291/64, p : 20) . It observes however that the press, and even the authorities responsible for crime policy, cannot be expected to refrain from all statements, not about the guilt of the accused persons but about their dangerous character wher e - 112 -
uncontested information is available to them (previous convictions, use of firearms on arrest, liberation of Baader by force etc .) . The exceptional security measures surrounding the trial were admittedly such as to foster the public conviction that the applicants were criminals . These measures and the statements made by the authorities, were however a response to the acts and declarations of the applicants and other members . of the Red Army Fraction and were not designed to create artificially a climate of opinion unfavourable to the accused, who were moreover tried by professional judges and not by a jury, which by its nature is more easily influenced . In these circumstances, it is impossible to perceive any impairment of the fairness of the trial or of the principle of presumption of innocence, which is a direct obligation only on the court trying the charge (cf . the report of the Commission on Application No . 788/60, Austria against Italy, Opinion para . 179 . Yearbook 6, p . 782) . 16 . The applicants further alleged that the appeal court was not a "properly constituted, independent and objectivÃ©' tribunal . However, they failed to adduce any particulars such as to cast doubt on the court's jurisdiction, the propriety of the referral of the case to the second criminal chamber, or the appointment of its president . Nor did they present any argument suggesting that the latter judge had received instructions from the Ministry of Justice of the Land or from the federal authorities such that the charge had not examined by an independent tribunal established by law within the meaning of Article 6 ( 1) of the Convention . It is true that the impartiality of Judge Prinzig was called into question ; however, he was objected to successfully . 17 The applicants also complained of the limits placed by law on the number of defence lawyers on whose assistance they could call and the exclusion of certain of those lawyers . These restrictions allegedly violated the rights guaranteed to every accused person by Article 6 (3) (b) and (c), "to have adequate . . .facilities for the preparation of his defence" and "to defend himself . . .through legal assistance of his own choosing" . The Government raised the objection that the applications were out of time in this respect and should be rejected in accordance with Article 26 and 27 ( 3) . The decision of the Federal Constitutional Court to reject the appeals relating to the limit on the number of defence lawyers freely chosen, introduced by the Act of 20 December 1974, was taken on 11 March 1975 . The decisions concerning the exclusion of the lawyers Croissant and Groenewold are dated 4 July and 18 September 1975, whereas the applications before the Commission were not submitted until July 1976 . It cannot be overlooked, however, that the restriction to a maximum of three chosen defence lawyers derives from a law the effects of which were constantly apparent throughout the trial ; and that the applicants again objected to th e - 113 -
exclusion of other lawyers, even going as far as the Supreme Constitutional Court, since the outcome could only be "the repetition of a decision already taken" (Judgment of the Permanent Court in the Panevezys-Saldutiskis Railway Case - Series A/B No 76 p . 18) . Consequently, the applications cannot be regarded as out of time . By stipulating that the accused may have legal assistance of his ow .19 6 (3) (c) does not secure the right to an unlimited numbenchdosig,Artle r of defence lawydrs Even if the English version is more indefinite ("to defend himself . . .through legal assistance of his own choosing"), the purpose of this provision is to ensure that both sides of the case are actÃ»ally heard by giving the accused, as necessary, the assistance of an independent professional . By limiting the numbÃ©r of lawyers freely chosen by the accused to three, without prejudice to the ex officio addition of other defence council appointed by the Court, an arrangement peculiar to the German procedural system, the authorities of the Federal Republic of Germany therefore did not violate the right secured by this provision . 20 . Refusal to accept, or the exclusion of, a defence is a more difficult question, both in its principle and its effects . It is a measure which may intimidate other potential defence counsel or cast discredit on the defence in general ; further, a succession of defence lawyers,may be damaging to the presentation of the case and introduce greater uncertainty .into the barrister's role as "the watchdog of procedural regularity" . However, the Commission has already had occasion to rule that the right to defend one's case with the assistance of the defence counsel of one's choice, secured in Article 6 (3) (c), is not an absolute right : it is limited by the State's- right to make the appearance of barristers before the courts subject to regulations (Decision on Application No . 722/60 - Yearbook 5, p . 107) and the obligation on defence counsel not to transgress certain principles of professional ethics . In the case in point, certain barristers were excluded from the defÃ©nce because they were strongly suspected of supporting the criminal association of the accused . This was not simply a measure taken by the Court in the interests of procedural order, since the lawyers in question are currently the subject of criminal proceedings before the courts . Their exclusion did rSot end the effectiveâ¢defence of the applicants, since they were still represented by an average of ten defence counsel, some of them, like Mr Schily and Mr Haldman, having been chosen by them . Thus the examination of the facts does not reveal any apparent violation, in the present case, of the rights and freedoms secured by the above-mentioned provisions . 21 The ap licants further complained of the continuation of the proce ding s in their absence . In this connection, they alleged a violation of Article 6(3) (c ) - 114 -
of the Convention, already cited . Their applications having been lodged lessthan six months after the rejection of their constitutional appeal on 21 January 1976, they have clearly satisfied the requirements of Article 26 of the Convention on this point . The Commission points out again that the rights .secured by Article 6(3) are those of the accused and the defence in general (cf . Decision on Application No 3852/68 against the United Kingdom, Coll . 32, p . 38) . In order to determine whether these rights were respected, itis not sufficient to consider the situation in which the accused himself is placed : consideration must also be given to the situation in which the defence as a whole is placed fcf . Decision on Application No . 524/59 against Austria, Yearbook 3, p . 2221 . Under Article 6 131(c), a criminal trial may not take place without the defence having the opportunity to present its arguments adequately . However, this provision does not secure to the accused the right to be present in person in all circumstances (cf . in particular the decisions on Applications No . 2676/65 against Austria, Coll 23, p . 31 and No . 2645/65 against Austria, Coll . 28, p . 43) . In both the English and French versions, the Convention clearly defines the right guaranteed by this provision as an alternative between two arrangements designed to ensure that'both sides of the case are heard It should be noted here that throughout the course of the trial, from 29 May 1975 until 28 April 1977, the applicants were able to receive practically unlimited numbers of visits from their defence counsel in order to prepare their defence . In this case, consequently, there can be no question of any violation of Article 6 131 (c) in this respect . 22 . However, the applicants' complaint must be examined with regard to the general principle of a fair trial, not all respects of which are set forth in Article 6 ( 3) (see inrer alla, the Commission's report in Application No . 343/57, Nielsen against Danmark . Opinion paragraph 52, Yearbook 4, p . 548) . In criminal cases, for the accused to appear personally and be heard by the judge should normally contribute to a fair examination of the case (cf . Decision on Application No . 1169/61 against the Federal Republic of Germany, Coll . 13, p . 1) . In order to determine, in the case in point, whether the continuation of the trial when accused were absent (though not excluded) may have infringed the right secured by Article 6(1 ) , account must however be taken of the particular circumstances of the case and of the requirement that justice be done, and be done within a reasonable time . The decision at issue was taken on the 40th day of a trial which lasted 191 days . Subsequently, the applicants again attended the proceedings intermittently, at least unti l - 115 -
8 May . 1976, the date oi U . Meinhof's dÃ©aih ; whatever 1heir *reason for refusing the traditional form oi judicial exchange, they were able to explain iheir motives and attitudes and to criticise the legitimacy of the system established to try them, these being the main lines of their own defence . TherÃ©ason for the decision was their-mÃ©dically attested -unfitness t oatendhrigsfmoetanhurscdy,ifoveapi least six months . It refers to statements bÃ¿ ihe accused indicative of their wish to make it impossible ior the trial to begin, particularly by Ã¯ecourse to hunger strikes . In the circumstances, the .judge was able legitimately to make use of the only means at his disposal for preventing the proceedings from grinding to a hah, without however placing the defence at any disadvantage, their lawyers being present and having practically unlimited opportunities for contact with their clients . In the light of all the factors recapitulated above, the continuation o ogfthearins bceofthauslnerfobdmt have infringed the rights and freedoms guarantÃ©ed by the Convention, . and particularly by the above-mentioned piovisions . ' 23 The Commission concludes that the various complaintsraised by .the applicants have revealed no .violation of Article 6 of the ConvÃ©ntion . It follows that this second part of the applications is likewise'rimanifes tl y ill-founded within the meaning of Article 27 (2) of the Conventio n For these reasons, the Commissio n DECLARES THESE APPLICATIONS INADMISSIBL E
- 116 -Origine de la décision Pays : Conseil de l'EuropeJuridiction : Cour européenne des droits de l'hommeFormation : Cour (chambre)Date de la décision : 08/07/1978Fonds documentaire : HUDOC Haut de page