FIRST SECTION
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
CASE OF M.S. v. CROATIA (No. 2)
 
(Application no. 75450/12)
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
JUDGMENT
 
 
STRASBOURG
 
19 February 2015
 
 
FINAL
 
19/05/2015
 
This judgment has become final under Article 44 § 2 of the Convention. It may be subject to editorial revision. In the case of M.S. v. Croatia (No. 2),
The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting as a Chamber composed of:
 Isabelle Berro, President,
 Mirjana Lazarova Trajkovska,
 Julia Laffranque,
 Paulo Pinto de Albuquerque,
 Linos-Alexandre Sicilianos,
 Erik Møse,
 Ksenija Turković, judges,
and Søren Nielsen, Section Registrar,
Having deliberated in private on 27 January 2015,
Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
PROCEDURE
1. The case originated in an application (no. 75450/12) against the Republic of Croatia lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) by a Croatian national, Ms M.S. (“the applicant”), on 9 November 2012. The President of the Section acceded to the applicant’s request not to have her name disclosed (Rule 47 § 4 of the Rules of Court). 2. The Croatian Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Ms Š. Stažnik. 3. The applicant complained, in particular, that she had been unlawfully confined in a psychiatric hospital, and that she had been ill-treated there, in violation of Article 3 and Article 5 §§ 1 (e) and 4 of the Convention. 4. On 6 May 2013 the application was communicated to the Government. In addition, third-party comments were received jointly from the Centre for Disability Law and Policy at the National University of Ireland Galway (hereinafter: “the CDLP”) and the Association for Social Affirmation of People with Psychosocial Disabilities in Croatia (hereinafter: “SHINE”) (Article 36 § 2 of the Convention and Rule 44 § 3 of the Rules of Court). THE FACTS
I. THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE
5. The applicant was born in 1962 and lives in L. A. Background to the case
6. For several years the applicant had been under the supervision of, and had been receiving various types of financial assistance amounting to some 600 Croatian kunas (HRK) per month from, a local social care centre. 7. In June 2008, the applicant’s family doctor submitted to the social care centre a report on her medical treatment, stating as follows:
“With regard to your question concerning Ms M.S.’s state of health and treatment and my observations on her health problems ... I confirm that she has been my patient since March 2008. She is a person with polymorphic health issues, and, in terms of the somatic aspect of her state of health, abdominal sensations related to the gynaecological area (a gynaecologist has prescribed surgery, which the patient constantly refuses) and thereby related anaemia – of course, treated by an alternative therapy. Because of a number of other health issues (frequent headaches, lumbar pain) she has been sent for specialist examinations, which attested to a sufficiency of outpatient treatment, in the form of both medication and physiotherapy. Unfortunately, the patient has her own peculiar interpretation of her health issues, on which she insists, and therefore I consider that the best help for her would be psychological/psychiatric treatment. Of course, this requires her consent, which so far could not be obtained. The continuity of the treatment is additionally hampered by the patient’s change of her place of residence. Her visits to the doctor are random, and so are her wishes as to the scope and area of treatment. The particular difficulty in the medical treatment of Ms [M.]S. is related to her mental [state].”
8. On 26 June 2008 the social care centre instituted proceedings in the competent court for divesting the applicant of legal capacity, which was one of the issues giving rise to a case before the Court in M.S. v. Croatia (no. 36337/10, §§ 40-46, 25 April 2013). 9. Following an expert report of 19 August 2013 indicating that the applicant had been effectively engaged in psychiatric treatment, which had been progressing well, on 9 September 2013 the social care centre withdrew the request to divest her of legal capacity. B. Circumstances of the applicant’s confinement in a psychiatric hospital
10. On 29 October 2012 the applicant went to see her family doctor complaining of severe lower-back pain. Her doctor, after having examined her, called the emergency health service and sent the applicant for some further medical checks. 11. The doctor who received the applicant in the emergency service found that her general condition was good, that she was conscious and well oriented, but that she had difficulty moving. The doctor made a working diagnosis of lumbago and sent the applicant for further medical checks by a neurologist. 12. The neurologist in the emergency service examined the applicant on the same day and found that the information she was giving was incoherent and disproportionate to her pain, and that she had not been taking her medication. He made a diagnosis of back pain and anxiety disorder, and sent the applicant for a further examination by a psychiatrist. 13. The applicant was then examined by a psychiatrist in the emergency service who after interviewing her found that she was making fanciful and confusing allegations of persecution by various doctors. The psychiatrist made a diagnosis of acute psychotic disorder, systemic delusional disorder and delusional dysmorphic disorder, and prescribed hospitalisation. 14. The applicant was immediately admitted to the psychiatric clinic of the R. Clinical Hospital Centre (Klinički bolnički centar R., Klinika za psihijatriju; hereinafter: “the hospital”), a public health-care institution. The relevant parts of the admission record, in so far as legible, indicate as follows:
“Date of admission: 29.10.2012 Date and time of hospitalisation: 29.10.2012
... Admission diagnosis: ... anxiety disorder
... Patient’s attitude towards the examination: refused examination by a psychiatrist; requested a somatic examination
... Psychological condition: conscious and well oriented, suspicious ... tense in the psychomotor sense ... distanced, cold, with ideas of ... persecution, control ... Neurological condition: syndrome of back pain
... Patient’s attitude towards the hospitalisation: refuses
Consent: NO
... Physical intervention: physical restraint, tying to a bed
...”
15. In the evening of the same day, another doctor examined the applicant. The relevant part of the examination record reads:
“The patient was hospitalised after an examination by Dr [T.]L., and after having been treated in the [emergency ward] for persistant severe back pain (documentation in attachment). She was brought on a stretcher, tied down, maintaining conscience and orientation, negative, arguing, yelling, agitated, affectively dissolute, with a mind-flow disorder, substantively paranoid ideas. ... Diagnosis: Acute psychotic disorder F 23.2
Delusional disorder ... Fixation. Th. according to the list.”
16. According to the applicant, following her admission to hospital she was tied to a bed with four belts tightened around her ankles and wrists, and forcefully injected with a strong drug. She was kept in that position throughout the night and felt severe pain in her back. Her left leg was restrained in such a position that the belts caused her additional pain. The room was small and had no windows. The following morning the belts were removed and she was taken to another room in the psychiatric hospital. 17. According to the Government, following the applicant’s admission to hospital she was given the usual treatment for patients in a state of psychotic agitation and was then placed in an isolation room. The room had a direct connection with the adjacent staff room and was under constant video surveillance. The room measured 2.50 by 2.12 metres and the height of the ceiling was 3.15 metres. It was equipped only with one bed. It had a heating and air-conditioning system, as well as access to sanitary facilities. The belts used to restrain the applicant to the bed were specially adapted so as to avoid any injuries. 18. The Government further explained that the applicant had been tied to the bed in the isolation room from the time of her admission to hospital at 8.50 p.m. on 29 October 2012 until the next morning. She was then taken to a regular hospital room where she was again restrained until 12 noon. During that time her condition and all her needs were regularly monitored. After the initial period following the applicant’s admission to hospital until her release, she was not restrained again. 19. The available medical records concerning the physical restraint used on the applicant in the hospital show that this method was used in the period between 8.50 p.m. on 29 October 2012 until around 12 noon on 30 October 2012. The relevant medical record monitoring the applicant’s physical restraining, in so far as legible, reads as follows:
“29/30.10
–         brought by [the emergency service] on a stretcher ...
–         upon admission screaming, restive, kicking
–         came [to the emergency service] because of back pain
–         taken to the isolation box (hands and legs fixed), screaming, threatening, restive
...
–         psychotic, paranoid [ideas]
–         drunk water
–         complains of lower back pain
–         did not sleep well during the night, called [for assistance], drunk water (approximately one litre) ...
–         manipulative
–         did not sign the consent to hospitalisation, ...
30.10.2012
–           morning hygiene performed in the box
–           ... around 12 p.m. taken to the intensive care ward ... complains of back pain, unaware of her condition, paranoid ...”
C. Decisions on the applicant’s confinement
20. On 30 October 2012 the hospital informed the R. County Court (Županijski sud u R.) that the applicant had been involuntarily admitted for treatment on 29 October 2012, that she had refused further hospitalisation and that her mental condition prevented her from making a sound decision in that respect. 21. On the same day the R. County Court instituted proceedings for the applicant’s involuntary retention and appointed a legal-aid lawyer, P.R., to represent her. 22. On 31 October 2012 the judge conducting the proceedings visited the applicant in the hospital. The record of the visit in its entirety reads:
“[Number of the case file]
OFFICIAL NOTE
On 31 October 2012 the judge conducting the proceedings visited the respondent M.S. in hospital and interviewed her. She stated that because of back-pain problems on 29 October 2012 she had visited her family doctor in L., but then she had been placed in hospital by subterfuge. She alleged that she had learned that she and several other patients would be used for ‘practising’ by some foreign doctors. When asked by the judge she replied that her parents were not alive, that she was not married and did not have children, and that she had a sister living near her in L. During the conversation she stated that she had never been previously treated in a psychiatric hospital. In R., 31 October 2012
 
 [Signature]”
23. On the same day the judge provisionally extended the applicant’s involuntary retention until 6 November 2012. The judge also commissioned a psychiatric expert report concerning the applicant’s mental state and scheduled a hearing for 6 November 2012, to which he invited the applicant’s representative, P.R., and the expert. 24. At the hearing on 6 November 2012 the expert submitted a psychiatric report drawn up on 2 November 2012 whereby he found, based on the medical documentation relevant to the applicant’s admission to hospital and an interview with her, that she had manifested a psychotic disorder amounting to a serious mental illness. He also considered that the applicant’s release from the hospital could seriously endanger her health and that it was absolutely necessary to order her involuntary retention for a further month. The hearing lasted in total ten minutes. The applicant’s representative and the judge conducting the proceedings had no questions for the expert. 25. On the same day the R. County Court ordered the applicant’s involuntary retention in the hospital until 28 November 2012, with the following statement of reasons:
“On 30 October 2012 the [hospital] informed [this court] that the respondent had been involuntarily admitted to that institution. It submitted the relevant medical documentation as required under section 27 of the Protection of Individuals with Mental Disorders Act (Official Gazette nos. 11/1997, 27/1998, 128/1999 and 79/2002). When deciding on the necessity of the respondent’s involuntary retention and its duration, [this court] commissioned an expert report from Dr A.Č., a neuropsychiatrist from R.; examined the medical documentation; and the judge responsible for the case visited and interviewed the respondent in [the hospital]. Based on the examination of the respondent and the medical documentation, the expert found that she was demonstrating symptoms of a manifest psychotic disorder, that she had a serious mental disorder and that her release [from hospital] at this stage would seriously endanger her health. Thus the expert considered that the respondent absolutely needed treatment in a psychiatric hospital for the duration of a month ... The respondent’s representative had no objections to the expert report, and this court also considers that the report is adept and objective and in compliance with other documentation from the case file. Given that the conditions for the respondent’s involuntary retention in hospital have been met, within the meaning of sections 22(1) and 33(3) of the Protection of Individuals with Mental Disorders Act, it was decided as noted in the operative part of this decision.”
26. The decision was served on the applicant and her legal-aid representative, the hospital and the competent social care centre. 27. On 7 November 2012 the applicant lodged an appeal against the above decision before a three-judge panel of the R. County Court, arguing that there was no reason for her confinement in a psychiatric hospital. She also stressed that at the time of lodging the appeal she was under strong medication. 28. On 9 November 2012 the applicant’s sister, explaining that she was acting on behalf of the applicant because the applicant was under strong medication, lodged a further appeal before a three-judge panel of the R. County Court. She contended that the applicant had been suffering from serious back pain and because of that had visited her doctor. However, she had been forcefully taken to the psychiatric hospital. In the hospital she had been tied to a bed and had spent the entire night in agony because of the severe lower-back pain. Furthermore, she complained that nobody had ever explained to the applicant the relevant procedure and that she had realised only later that one of the persons who had visited her in the hospital was a judge. She also stressed that the legal aid lawyer had not visited the applicant during the proceedings. This appeal was signed by the applicant and her sister. 29. The applicant addressed a handwritten complaint to the director of the hospital and the director of the R. Clinical Hospital Centre, dated 8 November 2012, which was attached to the above appeal (see paragraph 28 above). She complained that she had been tied to a bed in the hospital without any reason and in violation of her human dignity. She also stressed that nobody had taken into account her lower-back pain problems, or explained to her the relevant procedure. She further contended that her legal aid lawyer had never visited her and that her internment in the hospital had been contrary to the relevant domestic law and had even raised issues of criminal responsibility. 30. The applicant’s complaint was never forwarded to the hospital’s director or any other competent hospital authority. 31. On 13 November 2012 a three-judge panel of the R. County Court dismissed the appeals as ill-founded, endorsing the findings of the first-instance court. The relevant part of the decision reads:
“It has been established in the case at issue that the respondent had lacked the capacity to make a critical assessment of her condition and illness and that she had been diagnosed with an acute psychotic disorder (F23.2) and systemic delusional disorder (F22.I.O.) Furthermore, it was established that the respondent had been tense in the psychomotor sense, affectively cold, dissociated, and that she had manifested a number of psychopathological conditions such as derealisation, depersonalisation, paranoid systemic ideas of persecution, pressure and control, that she had lacked the capacity to make a critical assessment of her condition, and that her release from hospital could seriously endanger her health. This court finds that this satisfies the requirements under section 22(1) of the Protection of Individuals with Mental Disorders Act, providing for the possibility of involuntary treatment. The above considerations, in particular the respondent’s state of health, as well as her appeal arguments, suggest that she is unable to make a critical assessment of her condition, and therefore this court considers that her release at this stage could seriously endanger her health. As to the arguments concerning the breach of the respondent’s rights and inadequate medical treatment, she is instructed to forward her complaints to the State Board for the Protection of Individuals with Mental Disorders within the Ministry of Health and the Hospital’s Ethical Board.”
32. This decision was served on the applicant and her sister, the applicant’s legal aid representative, the hospital and the competent social care centre. However, from the case file it does not appear that any further action was taken. 33. On 14 November 2012 the applicant sent a letter to the hospital’s director expressing her satisfaction with the hospital diet. 34. On 3 December 2012 the hospital informed the R. County Court that the applicant had been discharged from hospital on 29 November 2012. II. RELEVANT DOMESTIC LAW
A. Constitution
35. The relevant provisions of the Constitution of the Republic of Croatia (Ustav Republike Hrvatske, Official Gazette nos. 56/1990, 135/1997, 8/1998, 113/2000, 124/2000, 28/2001, 41/2001, 55/2001, 76/2010 and 85/2010) read as follows:
Article 23
“No one shall be subjected to any form of ill-treatment ...”
Article 25
“All detainees and convicted persons shall be treated in a humane manner and with respect for their dignity.”
Article 46
“Everyone has the right to submit objections and complaints, to give suggestions to the state and public authorities and to receive a reply in that respect.”
B. Protection of Individuals with Mental Disorders Act
36. The relevant provisions of the Protection of Individuals with Mental Disorders Act (Zakon o zaštiti osoba s duševnim smetnjama, Official Gazette nos. 11/1997, 27/1998, 128/1999 and 79/2002) provide:
V. Involuntary admission and involuntary retention in a psychiatric institution
Section 5
“(1)  The dignity of persons with mental disorders shall be protected and respected in all circumstances. (2)  Persons with mental disorders have the right to protection from any form of ill-treatment or degrading treatment.
...”
Section 6
“Psychiatrists and other health-care workers shall organise the treatment of persons with mental disorders, ensuring minimal restrictions to their rights and freedoms as well as minimising any measures causing them physical and psychological discomfort or diminishing their personal integrity and human dignity. Section 7
“In providing treatment to persons with mental disorders, psychiatrists and other health-care workers shall give priority to consensual cooperation and to respecting the wishes and needs of the persons with mental disorders over coercive measures.”
Section l0
“(1)  The involuntary confinement and involuntary retention of persons with mental disorders shall be subject to judicial scrutiny in accordance with the procedure specified in this Act.
...”
Section 11
“(1)  Any person with a mental disorder who is consensually or involuntarily retained in a psychiatric institution shall have the right to:
1.  be informed at the time of admission, or later at his or her request, of his or her rights and duties and the manner of securing those rights,
...
6.  submit complaints directly to the director of the psychiatric institution or head of department regarding the treatment methods, diagnosis, discharge from the institution and breach of his or her rights and freedoms;
7.  submit requests and, without any supervision and limitations, complaints, appeals and other legal remedies before the competent judicial and state authorities;
8.  consult at their own expense a doctor or a lawyer of their choice;
...”
Section 22
“(1)  A seriously mentally disturbed individual who, owing to his mental disturbance, seriously and directly endangers his own life, health or safety, or the life, health and safety of others, may be placed in a psychiatric hospital without his or her consent, in accordance with the procedure for involuntary admission as provided for in this Act.
...”
Section 23
“(1)  The individual referred to in section 22 shall be admitted to a psychiatric hospital ... based on a prescription of a doctor not employed in the hospital in question and who has examined the person personally and provided a relevant record thereof.
...”
Section 25
“(1)  The psychiatrist who admits a person under section 23 ... of this Act shall commence his or her diagnostic and therapeutic treatment immediately and based on such treatment, [the psychiatrist] shall, within seventy-two hours, assess whether there are reasons for involuntary admission provided for under section 22 of this Act.
...”
Section 26
“(1)  If the psychiatrist finds that the grounds for involuntary admission under section 22 of this Act have been met, he or she shall adopt a decision to that effect which must be reasoned and noted in the medical documentation. (2)  The psychiatrist shall inform the admitted person of that decision in an appropriate manner and explain the reasons for and objectives of the involuntary admission as well as the rights and duties of the person concerned under this Act.”
Section 27
“(1)  The psychiatric institution to which a person with mental disorders was involuntarily admitted under section 22 of this Act shall immediately, or within a maximum of twelve hours after the adoption of the decision on involuntary admission, directly or by means of electronic communication inform the [competent] County Court about the involuntary admission and shall forward [to that court] the records of the medical examination together with the reasons for the involuntary admission.
...”
Section 29
“(1)  The proceedings for the involuntary admission of a person with a mental disorder to a psychiatric institution shall be in the competence of a single judge of the [competent] County Court.
...”
Section 30
“(1)  When the County Court receives the notice on involuntary admission or otherwise learns of the involuntary admission, it shall ex officio institute the relevant proceedings and appoint a legal aid lawyer to represent the person concerned if he or she does not already have one. (2)  The judge referred to in section 29(1) of this Act shall immediately, or within a maximum of seventy-two hours after receiving the information about the involuntary admission, visit the person in the psychiatric institution and if the medical condition so allows, interview him or her. (3)  Within the time-limit under subsection (2), the judge shall extend the involuntary commitment, which cannot exceed eight days from the time of involuntary admission.
...”
Section 3l
“(1)  Before deciding on the involuntary retention or discharge of a person with mental disorders, the court shall obtain an expert report of a psychiatrist from the list of permanent court experts, who is not employed in the psychiatric institution where the person concerned is interned, to ascertain whether the involuntary confinement is absolutely necessary.
... (3)  After examining the person with a mental disorder, the psychiatrist referred to in subsection (1) shall submit a written opinion to the court. (4)  Before deciding on the involuntary retention or discharge of a person with mental disorders, the court may obtain information from the social care centre and other persons who could provide relevant information.”
Section 33
“(1)  Based on its findings the court shall issue a decision on whether the involuntarily admitted person will remain in the psychiatric institution or be discharged.
... (3)  In its decision the court shall determine the duration of the involuntary retention which may not exceed a period of thirty days from the time of the psychiatrist’s decision on the involuntary admission of the person with a mental disorder.”
Section 36
“... (2)  The decision [on involuntary retention] shall be served on the retained person, his or her legal representative, a close relative with whom he or she shares the same household, another authorised representative, the competent social care centre and the psychiatric institution where the person has been retained.”
Section 37
“(1)  An appeal may be lodged against a decision on involuntary retention before the County Court. (2)  An appeal may be lodged by any person referred to in section 36(2) of this Act.
...”
Section 38
“(1)  The appeal lodged under section 37(1) of this Act shall be decided by a three-judge panel of the County Court.
...”
VIII Use of physical force in the protection of persons with mental disorders
Section 54
“(1)  Physical force or seclusion to protect persons with mental disorders may be used in the psychiatric institution only when this is the only means to prevent the person concerned endangering the life or health of others or his or her own life and health or damaging valuable property. (2)  Physical force or seclusion under subsection (1) shall be used only to the extent and in a manner absolutely necessary to eliminate any danger caused by an attack by the person with mental disorders. (3)  The use of physical force or seclusion may last only for as long as necessary to achieve the purpose referred to in subsection (1).”
Section 56
“(1)  A psychiatrist shall make the decision on the use of physical force or seclusion referred to in section 54 of this Act and shall supervise its application.
...”
Section 57
“When placing a person with mental disorders in solitary confinement or using a straitjacket or other means of physical restraint against [such] a person, the continuous monitoring of his or her physical and mental condition shall be carried out by the hospital staff.”
Section 58
“(1)  If possible in the circumstances, the person concerned shall be cautioned before physical force is used. (2)  The reasons for using physical force, the means used and the measures taken, as well as the name of the person responsible for the decision on its use must be registered in the medical records.”
IX State Board for the Protection of Individuals with Mental Disorders and psychiatric institutions
Section 60
“(1)  The State Board for the Protection of Individuals with Mental Disorders shall be established within the Ministry of Health.
...”
Section 6l
“(1)  The State Board for the Protection of Individuals with Mental Disorders shall be competent for:
...
c)  supervising the procedure provided for in this Act and recommending to the psychiatric institution and the competent state body measures for the elimination of unlawful conduct,
d)  monitoring the observance of human rights and freedoms and dignity of persons with mental disorders,
e)  based on its own assessment or at the request of a third party, carrying out investigations of individual cases of involuntary admission to and involuntary retention in a psychiatric institution ...,
f)  receiving complaints from persons with mental disorders, their legal representatives, family members, other representatives, third parties or a social care centre and carrying out all necessary inquires and supervision,
...”
C. Patients’ Rights Act
37. The relevant part of the Patients’ Rights Act (Zakon o zaštiti prava pacijenata, Official Gazette nos. 169/2004 and 37/2008) provides:
III Local Boards for the Protection of Patients’ Rights
Section 30
“In securing and promoting patients’ rights, each local authority shall establish a Board for the Protection of Patients’ Rights (hereinafter: the Board).”
Scope of work of the Board
Section 33
“The Board shall perform the following tasks:
...
- monitor breaches of individual patients’ rights at local level,
...”
Section 36
“The Board shall notify the complainant within fifteen days of its activities concerning the complaint.”
Section 37
The Board shall have the right to access premises on which health care services are provided ... and to monitor the manner in which patients’ rights are secured. The Board shall prepare a report on the inspection under the first paragraph of this section, which shall be forwarded immediately, and at the latest within eight days, to the competent authority under the Health Care Act and the Sanitary Inspection Act, ..., the Medical Profession Act, the Dental Care Services Act, the Pharmacy Act, the Medical-biochemical Activities Act and the Nursing Act ... The body referred to in the second paragraph of this section must inform the Board of its activities ... When the body referred to in the second paragraph of this section, based on its activities, finds that there is a reasonable suspicion that the breach of the patients’ rights under this Act amounts to a minor offence or a criminal offence, it shall immediately, and at the latest thirty days following its inspection, ... institute minor offences proceedings or lodge a criminal complaint [before the competent authority]. “
IV Board for the Protection and Promotion of Patients’ Rights of the Ministry of Health
Section 38
“In securing social care that respects patients’ rights, in the context of the rights and duties of the Republic of Croatia in the sphere of heath care, the Minister [of Health] shall appoint a Board for the Protection and Promotion of Patients’ Rights of the Ministry of Health.
...”
Section 39
“The Board for the Protection and Promotion of Patients’ Rights of the Ministry of Health shall perform the following tasks:
- supervise the manner in which patients’ rights are secured under this Act,
...”
D. Heath Care Act
38. The relevant provisions of the Health Care Act (Zakon o zdravstvenoj zaštiti, Official Gazette nos. 150/2008, 71/2010, 139/2010, 22/2011, 84/2011, 154/2011, 12/2012, 35/2012 and 70/2012) read:
Section 23
“... Everyone has the right to seek, directly or in writing, the protection of his or her rights concerning the quality, content and type of health-care services provided, from the director of the health institution ... The director ... must act without delay following a complaint and notify the person concerned in writing within eight days of the measures he has taken. If the person is not satisfied with the measures that were taken, he or she may seek protection of his or her rights before the Minister, competent Chamber or competent court.”
Ethical board
Section 68
“The Ethical Board of a medical institution ensures that its activities are performed in compliance with the principles of medical ethics and deontology.
...”
Section 69
“The Ethical Board of a medical institution:
- monitors the implementation of ethical and deontological principles of health professions in the activities of the medical institution, ...”
XVII Supervision
Section 167
“Supervision of the work of medical institutions ... includes:
- internal supervision,
- expert supervision by the Chamber,
- health inspections.”
Health inspectorate
Section l7l
“Inspections of the implementation and enforcement of laws, other regulations and other acts in the field of health care as well as supervision of the activities of health institutions ... shall be carried out by the Ministry [of Health] - health inspectorate.
... In the event of professional errors by a health worker or the breach of principles of medical ethics and deontology, the health inspectorate shall transfer the case to the competent Chamber.”
Section 178
“The health inspectorate in particular:
...
2.  supervises the lawfulness of the work of health institutions ...
3.  examines submissions of legal and natural persons concerning supervision under the defined competencies, and notifies the complainant in writing of the actions taken.”
Section 179
“In the course of an inspection the inspectorate shall supervise in particular:
1. the manner in which patients are admitted, treated and discharged,
2. the application of means and methods for prevention, diagnosis, therapy, and rehabilitation,
...”
Section 180
“In course of the inspection referred to in section 179 of this Act the inspectorate shall have the following rights and obligations:
...
2.  to prohibit the application of measures and activities that are contrary to the law or other regulations;
...”
Section 185
“If the inspectorate has reason to believe that the violation of the law constitutes a criminal or minor offence, it shall, together with a decision under its competence, without delay and no later than l5 days after the inspection ... lodge a request to prosecute instituting minor offences proceedings or a criminal complaint instituting criminal proceedings.
...”
E. Medical Professions Act
39. The relevant provisions of the Medical Professions Act (Zakon o liječništvu, Official Gazette nos. 121/2003 and 117/2008) provide:
Professional supervision of doctors
Section 30
“The Croatian Medical Chamber supervises the work of doctors ... The performance of supervision under the first paragraph of this section is ... in particular based on:
- written and signed complaints from citizens,
- complaints received from the Minister of Health and other state authorities,
- permanent and occasional checks of the work of doctors.”
Cooperation between the Croatian Medical Chamber and the Ministry of Health inspectorate
Section 31
“In performing the supervision under section 30 of this Act, the Croatian Medical Chamber shall cooperate with the health inspectorate of the Ministry of Health.
...”
Disciplinary responsibility of doctors
Section 52
“Doctors shall be held responsible for disciplinary offences before the disciplinary bodies of the Croatian Medical Chamber.
...”
F. Criminal Code
40. The relevant provisions of the Criminal Code (Kazneni zakon, Official Gazette nos. 110/1997, 27/1998, 50/2000, 129/2000, 51/2001, 111/2003, 190/2003, 105/2004, 84/2005, 71/2006, 110/2007, 152/2008 and 57/2011) provide:
Article 8
“(1)  Criminal proceedings in respect of criminal offences shall be instituted by the State Attorney’s Office in the interest of the Republic of Croatia and its citizens.”
Unlawful deprivation of liberty
Article 124
“(1)  Whoever unlawfully detains another person, keeps him or her detained or otherwise deprives or limits his or her freedom of movement, shall be punished by a term of imprisonment of between three months and one year.
... (3)  If the offence under paragraphs 1 and 2 of this Article was committed ... in a cruel manner ..., the perpetrator shall be punished by a term of imprisonment of between three and ten years.”
Medical malpractice
Article 240
“(1)  A doctor or a dentist who, in rendering medical services, fails to apply measures for the protection of patients in accordance with the requirements of the medical profession or applies an obviously inadequate remedy or method of treatment, or in general acts carelessly, thus causing the deterioration of an illness or the impairment of a person’s health, shall be punished by a term of imprisonment of between three months and three years. (2)  The punishment provided under paragraph (1) of this Article shall be applied in respect of a medical professional who, in the performance of his or her activities, fails to apply measures for the protection of patients or acts contrary to the requirements of professional conduct ..., or otherwise acts carelessly, and thereby causes the deterioration of an illness or the impairment of a person’s health.
...”
G. Code of Criminal Procedure
41. The relevant provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Zakon o kaznenom postupku, Official Gazette nos. 110/1997, 27/1998, 58/1999, 112/1999, 58/2002 and 62/2003) at the material time provided:
Article 171
“(1)  All state bodies and legal entities shall report any criminal offence that is subject to official prosecution about which they have been informed or about which they have otherwise learned.
...”
Article 173
“(1)  Criminal complaints shall be submitted to the competent State Attorney in writing or orally.
... (3)  If a criminal complaint has been submitted before a court, the police or a State Attorney who is not competent to deal with the matter, they shall forward the criminal complaint to the competent State Attorney.”
H. Civil Obligations Act
42. The relevant part of the Civil Obligations Act (Zakon o obveznim odnosima, Official Gazette nos. 35/2005, 41/2008 and 125/2011), reads as follows:
Section 1046
“Damage is ... infringement of the right to respect for one’s personal dignity (non-pecuniary damage).”
Request to desist from a violating personal integrity
Section 1048
“Anyone may request a court or other competent authority to order the cessation of an activity which violates his or her personal integrity and the elimination of its consequences.”
I. Courts’ Rules
43. The relevant provision of the Courts’ Rules (Sudski poslovnik, Official Gazette nos. 158/2009, 03/2011, 34/2011, 100/2011, 123/2011, 138/2011, 38/2012, 111/2012, 39/2013 and 48/2013) provides:
Section 163
“Irregularities and omissions found when opening letters shall be noted next to the receipt stamp ... If the envelope contains a submission addressed to another court, body or legal entity, a relevant note shall be made next to the receipt note (such as “wrongly submitted”) and the submission shall be forwarded to whom it is addressed. ...”
J. Internal rules of the R. Clinical Hospital Centre on processing individual complaints
44. The relevant part of document no. JZK- SOPK-OP- 006.00 of the R. Clinical Hospital Centre, published in 2012, and available on the internet, provides:
“PURPOSE
The purpose of this document is to provide a comprehensive procedure for receipt, processing and responding to the complaints/objections of patients and employees of the R. Clinical Hospital Centre. RESPONSIBILITIES
The application and supervision of this [document] shall be the obligation of the Managing Board of the R. Clinical Hospital Centre. The directors of clinics and deputy directors for quality shall be tasked with the reception and handling of complaints. The deputy director for quality shall reply to complaints. PROCEDURE
1. Submission of a complaint/objection
Complaints shall be submitted in writing on a form provided for that purpose ... A person may also express his or her dissatisfaction orally. Submissions shall be made to the director of the clinic where the event at issue occurred. Every person has the right to submit a complaint/objection directly to:
...
- the competent court. 2. Procedure after the receipt of a complaint/objection
 
... The director of the clinic shall draft a report (Report on the complaint/objection) and submit it, together with the complaint, to the deputy director for quality. ...”
III. RELEVANT INTERNATIONAL MATERIAL
A. The United Nations
1. Principles for the Protection of Persons with Mental Illness and for the Improvement of Mental Health Care
45. The relevant provisions of the United Nations Principles for the Protection of Persons with Mental Illness and for the Improvement of Mental Health Care (A/RES/46/119, 17 December 1991) read:
Principle 1
Fundamental freedoms and basic rights
“... 2. All persons with a mental illness, or who are being treated as such persons, shall be treated with humanity and respect for the inherent dignity of the human person.”
Principle 9
Treatment
“1. Every patient shall have the right to be treated in the least restrictive environment and with the least restrictive or intrusive treatment appropriate to the patient’s health needs and the need to protect the physical safety of others.
... 3. Mental health care shall always be provided in accordance with applicable standards of ethics for mental health practitioners, including internationally accepted standards such as the Principles of Medical Ethics relevant to the role of health personnel, particularly physicians, in the protection of prisoners and detainees against torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, adopted by the United Nations General Assembly. Mental health knowledge and skills shall never be abused.
...”
Principle 11
Consent to treatment
“... 11. Physical restraint or involuntary seclusion of a patient shall not be employed except in accordance with the officially approved procedures of the mental health facility and only when it is the only means available to prevent immediate or imminent harm to the patient or others. It shall not be prolonged beyond the period which is strictly necessary for this purpose. All instances of physical restraint or involuntary seclusion, the reasons for them and their nature and extent shall be recorded in the patient’s medical record. A patient who is restrained or secluded shall be kept under humane conditions and be under the care and close and regular supervision of qualified members of the staff. A personal representative, if any and if relevant, shall be given prompt notice of any physical restraint or involuntary seclusion of the patient.
...”
Principle 12
Notice of rights
“1. A patient in a mental health facility shall be informed as soon as possible after admission, in a form and a language which the patient understands, of all his or her rights in accordance with the present Principles and under domestic law, and the information shall include an explanation of those rights and how to exercise them. 2. If and for so long as a patient is unable to understand such information, the rights of the patient shall be communicated to the personal representative, if any and if appropriate, and to the person or persons best able to represent the patient’s interests and willing to do so. 3. A patient who has the necessary capacity has the right to nominate a person who should be informed on his or her behalf, as well as a person to represent his or her interests to the authorities of the facility.”
Principle 16
Involuntary admission
“1. A person may be admitted involuntarily to a mental health facility as a patient or,) having already been admitted voluntarily as a patient, be retained as an involuntary patient in the mental health facility if, and only if, a qualified mental health practitioner authorized by law for that purpose determines, in accordance with principle 4 above, that that person has a mental illness and considers:
(a)  That, because of that mental illness, there is a serious likelihood of immediate or imminent harm to that person or to other persons; or
(b)  That, in the case of a person whose mental illness is severe and whose judgement is impaired, failure to admit or retain that person is likely to lead to a serious deterioration in his or her condition or will prevent the giving of appropriate treatment that can only be given by admission to a mental health facility in accordance with the principle of the least restrictive alternative. In the case referred to in subparagraph (b), a second such mental health practitioner, independent of the first, should be consulted where possible. If such consultation takes place, the involuntary admission or retention may not take place unless the second mental health practitioner concurs.”
Principle 18
Procedural safeguards
“1. The patient shall be entitled to choose and appoint a counsel to represent the patient as such, including representation in any complaint procedure or appeal. If the patient does not secure such services, a counsel shall be made available without payment by the patient to the extent that the patient lacks sufficient means to pay.
...”
Principle 21
Complaints
“Every patient and former patient shall have the right to make a complaint through procedures as specified by domestic law.”
2. Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities
46. The relevant part of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, A/RES/61/106, 24 January 2007 (hereinafter: the “CRDP”), ratified by Croatia on 15 August 2007, provides:
Article 13
Access to justice
“1. States Parties shall ensure effective access to justice for persons with disabilities on an equal basis with others, including through the provision of procedural and age-appropriate accommodations, in order to facilitate their effective role as direct and indirect participants, including as witnesses, in all legal proceedings, including at investigative and other preliminary stages. 2. In order to help to ensure effective access to justice for persons with disabilities, States Parties shall promote appropriate training for those working in the field of administration of justice, including police and prison staff.”
Article 14
Liberty and security of person
“1. States Parties shall ensure that persons with disabilities, on an equal basis with others:
(a)  Enjoy the right to liberty and security of person;
(b)  Are not deprived of their liberty unlawfully or arbitrarily, and that any deprivation of liberty is in conformity with the law, and that the existence of a disability shall in no case justify a deprivation of liberty. 2. States Parties shall ensure that if persons with disabilities are deprived of their liberty through any process, they are, on an equal basis with others, entitled to guarantees in accordance with international human rights law and shall be treated in compliance with the objectives and principles of the present Convention, including by provision of reasonable accommodation.”
Article 15
Freedom from torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment
“1. No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. In particular, no one shall be subjected without his or her free consent to medical or scientific experimentation. 2. States Parties shall take all effective legislative, administrative, judicial or other measures to prevent persons with disabilities, on an equal basis with others, from being subjected to torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.”
3. Practice of the United Nations Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities
47. The United Nations Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (“the CRPD”) in its “Concluding observations on the initial periodic report of Hungary (17-28 September 2012)”, CRPD/C/HUN/1, with regard to the application of Articles 14 and 15 of the CRPD, noted:
“Liberty and security of the person (art. 14)
28. The Committee recommends that the State party review provisions in legislation that allow for the deprivation of liberty on the basis of disability, including mental, psychosocial or intellectual disabilities, and adopt measures to ensure that health care services, including all mental health care services, are based on the free and informed consent of the person concerned. Freedom of torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment (art. 15)
...
30.  ... The Committee recommends that the State party implement the recommendation made by the Human Rights Committee in 2010 (CCPR/C/HUN/CO/5) to establish ‘an independent medical examination body mandated to examine alleged victims of torture and guarantee respect for human dignity during the conduct of medical examinations.’”
48. In its “Concluding observations on the initial report of Austria (2-13 September 2013)”, CRPD/C/AUT/1, the Committee stressed the following:
“Liberty and security of the person (art. 14)
29. The Committee is deeply concerned that Austrian law allows for a person to be confined against his or her will in a psychiatric institution if he or she has a psychosocial disability and is considered to be a danger to himself or herself or to others. The Committee is of the opinion that the legislation is in conflict with article 14 of the Convention because it allows a person to be deprived of liberty on the basis of actual or perceived disability. 30. The Committee urges the State party to take all necessary legislative, administrative and judicial measures to ensure that no one is detained against their will in any kind of mental health facility. It further urges the State party to develop de-institutionalization strategies based on the human rights model of disability. 31. The Committee also urges the State party to ensure that all mental health services are provided with the free and informed consent of the person concerned. It recommends that the State allocate more financial resources to persons with intellectual and psychosocial disabilities who require a high level of support, in order to ensure that there are sufficient community-based outpatient services to support persons with disabilities. Freedom from torture and cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment (art. 15)
32. The Committee notes with concern the continued use of net beds and other forms of non-consensual practices in the State party’s psychiatric hospitals and institutions where people with intellectual, mental and psychosocial disabilities are confined. 33. The Committee recommends that the State party abolish the use of net beds, restraints and other non-consensual practices with regard to persons with intellectual, mental and psychosocial disabilities in psychiatric hospitals and institutions. It further recommends that the State party continue to provide training to medical professionals and personnel in care and other similar institutions on the prevention of torture, cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, as provided for under the Convention.”
4. Special Rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment
49. In his report on the issues of abusive practices in health-care settings, A/HRC/22/53, of 1 February 2013, the Special Rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, Juan E. Méndez, made the following submission:
“2. Absolute ban on restraints and seclusion
63. The mandate has previously declared that there can be no therapeutic justification for the use of solitary confinement and prolonged restraint of persons with disabilities in psychiatric institutions; both prolonged seclusion and restraint may constitute torture and ill-treatment (A/63/175, paras. 55-56). The Special Rapporteur has addressed the issue of solitary confinement and stated that its imposition, of any duration, on persons with mental disabilities is cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment (A/66/268, paras. 67-68, 78). Moreover, any restraint on people with mental disabilities for even a short period of time may constitute torture and ill-treatment. It is essential that an absolute ban on all coercive and non-consensual measures, including restraint and solitary confinement of people with psychological or intellectual disabilities, should apply in all places of deprivation of liberty, including in psychiatric and social care institutions. The environment of patient powerlessness and abusive treatment of persons with disabilities in which restraint and seclusion is used can lead to other non-consensual treatment, such as forced medication and electroshock procedures. 3. Domestic legislation allowing forced interventions
64. The mandate continues to receive reports of the systematic use of forced interventions worldwide. Both this mandate and United Nations treaty bodies have established that involuntary treatment and other psychiatric interventions in health-care facilities are forms of torture and ill-treatment. Forced interventions, often wrongfully justified by theories of incapacity and therapeutic necessity inconsistent with the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, are legitimized under national laws, and may enjoy wide public support as being in the alleged ‘best interest’ of the person concerned. Nevertheless, to the extent that they inflict severe pain and suffering, they violate the absolute prohibition of torture and cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment (A/63/175, paras. 38, 40, 41). Concern for the autonomy and dignity of persons with disabilities leads the Special Rapporteur to urge revision of domestic legislation allowing for forced interventions.
... 5. Persons with disabilities
80. Persons with disabilities are particularly affected by forced medical interventions, and continue to be exposed to non-consensual medical practices (A/63/175, para. 40). ... V. Conclusions and recommendations
B. Recommendations
85. The Special Rapporteur calls upon all States to:
... (c)  Conduct prompt, impartial and thorough investigations into all allegations of torture and ill-treatment in health-care settings; where the evidence warrants it, prosecute and take action against perpetrators; and provide victims with effective remedy and redress, including measures of reparation, satisfaction and guarantees of non-repetition as well as restitution, compensation and rehabilitation;
... 4. Persons with psychosocial disabilities
89. The Special Rapporteur calls upon all States to:
(a)  Review the anti-torture framework in relation to persons with disabilities in line with the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities as authoritative guidance regarding their rights in the context of health-care;
(b)  Impose an absolute ban on all forced and non-consensual medical interventions against persons with disabilities, including the non-consensual administration of psychosurgery, electroshock and mind-altering drugs such as neuroleptics, the use of restraint and solitary confinement, for both long- and short-term application. The obligation to end forced psychiatric interventions based solely on grounds of disability is of immediate application and scarce financial resources cannot justify postponement of its implementation;
(c)  Replace forced treatment and commitment by services in the community. Such services must meet needs expressed by persons with disabilities and respect the autonomy, choices, dignity and privacy of the person concerned, with an emphasis on alternatives to the medical model of mental health, including peer support, awareness-raising and training of mental health-care and law enforcement personnel and others;
(d)  Revise the legal provisions that allow detention on mental health grounds or in mental health facilities, and any coercive interventions or treatments in the mental health setting without the free and informed consent by the person concerned. Legislation authorizing the institutionalization of persons with disabilities on the grounds of their disability without their free and informed consent must be abolished.”
B. Council of Europe
1. Council of Europe Parliamentary Assembly Recommendation 1235(1994) on psychiatry and human rights
50. The relevant part of Recommendation 1235(1994) on psychiatry and human rights of 12 April 1994 provides:
“i. Admission procedure and conditions:
a.  compulsory admission must be resorted to in exceptional cases only and must comply with the following criteria:
- there is a serious danger to the patient or to other persons;
- an additional criterion could be that of the patient’s treatment: if the absence of placement could lead to a deterioration or prevent the patient from receiving appropriate treatment;
b.  in the event of compulsory admission, the decision regarding placement in a psychiatric institution must be taken by a judge and the placement period must be specified ...
c.  there must be legal provision for an appeal to be lodged against the decision;
d.  a code of patients’ rights must be brought to the attention of patients on their arrival at a psychiatric institution;
...”
2. Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Dignity of the Human Being with regard to the Application of Biology and Medicine: Convention on Human Rights and Biomedicine
51. The Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Dignity of the Human Being with regard to the Application of Biology and Medicine: Convention on Human Rights and Biomedicine of 4 April 1997 (CETS 164, Oviedo Convention) in its relevant parts provides:
Article 1 – Purpose and object
Parties to this Convention shall protect the dignity and identity of all human beings and guarantee everyone, without discrimination, respect for their integrity and other rights and fundamental freedoms with regard to the application of biology and medicine.
... Chapter II – Consent
Article 5 – General rule
An intervention in the health field may only be carried out after the person concerned has given free and informed consent to it. This person shall beforehand be given appropriate information as to the purpose and nature of the intervention as well as on its consequences and risks. The person concerned may freely withdraw consent at any time. Article 6 – Protection of persons not able to consent
1. Subject to Articles 17 and 20 below, an intervention may only be carried out on a person who does not have the capacity to consent, for his or her direct benefit.
... 3. Where, according to law, an adult does not have the capacity to consent to an intervention because of a mental disability, a disease or for similar reasons, the intervention may only be carried out with the authorisation of his or her representative or an authority or a person or body provided for by law. The individual concerned shall as far as possible take part in the authorisation procedure. 4. The representative, the authority, the person or the body mentioned in paragraphs 2 and 3 above shall be given, under the same conditions, the information referred to in Article 5. 5. The authorisation referred to in paragraphs 2 and 3 above may be withdrawn at any time in the best interests of the person concerned. Article 7 – Protection of persons who have a mental disorder
Subject to protective conditions prescribed by law, including supervisory, control and appeal procedures, a person who has a mental disorder of a serious nature may be subjected, without his or her consent, to an intervention aimed at treating his or her mental disorder only where, without such treatment, serious harm is likely to result to his or her health. 3. Recommendation Rec(2004)10 of the Committee of Ministers to member States concerning the protection of the human rights and dignity of persons with mental disorders
52. The relevant parts of Recommendation Rec(2004)10 of the Committee of Ministers to member States concerning the protection of the human rights and dignity of persons with mental disorders of 22 September 2004 (hereinafter: “Rec(2004)10”) read as follows:
“Chapter III – Involuntary placement in psychiatric facilities, and involuntary treatment, for mental disorder
Article 17 – Criteria for involuntary placement
1. A person may be subject to involuntary placement only if all the following conditions are met:
i.  the person has a mental disorder;
ii.  the person’s condition represents a significant risk of serious harm to his or her health or to other persons;
iii.  the placement includes a therapeutic purpose;
iv.  no less restrictive means of providing appropriate care are available;
v.  the opinion of the person concerned has been taken into consideration. 2. The law may provide that exceptionally a person may be subject to involuntary placement, in accordance with the provisions of this chapter, for the minimum period necessary in order to determine whether he or she has a mental disorder that represents a significant risk of serious harm to his or her health or to others if:
i.  his or her behaviour is strongly suggestive of such a disorder;
ii.  his or her condition appears to represent such a risk;
iii.  there is no appropriate, less restrictive means of making this determination; and
iv.  the opinion of the person concerned has been taken into consideration. Article 18 – Criteria for involuntary treatment
A person may be subject to involuntary treatment only if all the following conditions are met:
i.  the person has a mental disorder;
ii.  the person’s condition represents a significant risk of serious harm to his or her health or to other persons;
iii.  no less intrusive means of providing appropriate care are available;
iv.  the opinion of the person concerned has been taken into consideration.
... Article 22 – Right to information
1. Persons subject to involuntary placement or involuntary treatment should be promptly informed, verbally and in writing, of their rights and of the remedies open to them. 2. They should be informed regularly and appropriately of the reasons for the decision and the criteria for its potential extension or termination. 3. The person’s representative, if any, should also be given the information. Chapter V – Specific situations
Article 27 – Seclusion and restraint
1. Seclusion or restraint should only be used in appropriate facilities, and in compliance with the principle of least restriction, to prevent imminent harm to the person concerned or others, and in proportion to the risks entailed. 2. Such measures should only be used under medical supervision, and should be appropriately documented. 3. In addition:
i.  the person subject to seclusion or restraint should be regularly monitored;
ii.  the reasons for, and duration of, such measures should be recorded in the person’s medical records and in a register.”
4. The Parliamentary Assembly Resolution 1642(2009) on Access to rights for people with disabilities and their full and active participation in society; reaffirmed by the Parliamentary Assembly Recommendation 1854 (2009) of 26 January 2009
53. The relevant part of the Parliamentary Assembly Resolution 1642(2009) on Access to rights for people with disabilities and their full and active participation in society reads:
“7. Firstly, the Assembly invites member states to guarantee that people with disabilities retain and exercise legal capacity on an equal basis with other members of society by:
7.1. ensuring that their right to make decisions is not limited or substituted by others, that measures concerning them are individually tailored to their needs and that they may be supported in their decision making by a support person; ...”
5. European Committee for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment
54. The European Committee for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (“the CPT”) visited Croatia from 19 to 27 September 2012. In Appendix III of its report CPT/Inf (2014) 9 of 18 March 2014 it reiterated the recommendations related to the use of measures of restraint in the psychiatric internment context, as provided in its report on the 2007 visit to Croatia (CPT/Inf (2008) 29). These recommendations read:
“120. In the CPT’s view, every psychiatric establishment should have a comprehensive, carefully developed, policy on restraint. The involvement and support of both staff and management in elaborating the policy is essential. Such a policy should make clear which means of restraint may be used, under what circumstances they may be applied, the practical means of their application, the supervision required and the action to be taken once the measure is terminated. Further, if resort is had to chemical restraint such as sedatives, antipsychotics, hypnotics and tranquillisers, they should be subjected to the same safeguards as mechanical restraints. In this context, guidelines on the use of restraint should include the following points:
• Regarding their appropriate use, means of restraint should only be used as a last resort to prevent the risk of harm to the individual or others and only when all other reasonable options would fail to satisfactorily contain that risk; they should never be used as a punishment or to compensate for shortages of trained staff.
• Any resort to means of restraint should always be either expressly ordered by a doctor or immediately brought to the attention of a doctor.
• Staff must be trained in the use of restraint. Such training should not only focus on instructing staff as to how to apply means of restraint but, equally importantly, should ensure that they understand the impact the use of restraint may have on a patient and that they know how to care for a restrained patient.
• The duration of the application of means of restraint should be for the shortest possible time. The prolongation of mechanical restraint should be exceptional and warrant a further review by a doctor.
• A patient subject to mechanical restraint should not be exposed to other patients.
• As regards supervision, whenever a patient is subjected to means of mechanical restraint, a trained member of staff should be continuously present in order to maintain the therapeutic alliance and to provide assistance. Such assistance may include escorting the patient to a toilet facility or helping him/her to drink/consume food.
• Every instance of the use of means of restraint - whether physical or chemical - of a patient must be recorded in a specific register established for that purpose, in addition to the individual’s file. The entry should include the times at which the measure began and ended, the circumstances of the case, the reasons for resorting to the measure, the name of the doctor who ordered or approved it, and an account of any injuries sustained by the person or staff. This will greatly facilitate both the management of such incidents and oversight into the extent of their occurrence.
• Once means of restraint have been removed, a debriefing of the patient should take place. This will provide an opportunity to explain the rationale behind the measure, thus reducing the psychological trauma of the experience as well as restoring the doctor-patient relationship. It also gives the patient an occasion to explain his/her emotions prior to the restraint, which may improve both the patient’s own and the staff’s understanding of his/her behaviour.”
C. European Union
55. In a study carried out in 2012 entitled “Involuntary placement and involuntary treatment of persons with mental health problems” (Luxembourg, Publication Office of the European Union 2012; hereinafter: the “Report”) the European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights (hereinafter: the “FRA”) observed the comparative legal framework and practices of EU member States. 56. As to the statutory criteria for involuntary placement and involuntary treatment, the FRA observed that the criterion of the presence of a mental health problem was provided for in all national legislations. Although that criterion was not sufficient in itself to justify involuntary placement and involuntary treatment, the national legislations differed as regards the other criteria required, particularly those established under Rec(2004)10 (see paragraph 52 above). 57. In particular, in twelve EU member States (Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, Cyprus, the Czech Republic, Germany, Estonia, Hungary, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta and the Netherlands), the existence of a significant risk of serious harm to oneself or others and a confirmed mental health problem are the two main conditions justifying involuntary placement. The need for a therapeutic purpose is not explicitly stipulated. In thirteen EU member States (Denmark, Greece, Finland, France, Ireland, Latvia, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia, Sweden and the United Kingdom) two criteria – the risk of harm and the need for treatment – are listed alongside having a mental health problem. In some legal frameworks, however, the need for treatment is not explicitly referred to, although it is more or less implied. In many of those EU member States, the legislation does not specify whether both criteria must be fulfilled or whether the fulfilment of only one of them is sufficient to justify involuntary placement. 58. As to the criterion for involuntary placement and involuntary treatment provided for in the vast majority of EU member States, linked to the harm that a person could cause to himself or herself or to others, the FRA observed from some earlier studies that while a definition of risk level in some EU member States required a specified level of danger, the thresholds defined in the legislation were often vague. 59. The FRA further found that the requirement that involuntary placement and involuntary treatment should be implemented when no alternatives were available was a criterion which should be met in a majority of EU countries before involuntary placement and involuntary treatment could be permitted. 60. As to the procedural issues related to involuntary placement and involuntary treatment, the FRA noted that the vast majority of EU member States’ legislation required the person’s presence at the hearing that would decide on the involuntary placement, and that only in some EU member States, the person might not be heard in a formal hearing. Furthermore, the FRA considered that the requirement of “proper legal support” was directly linked to effective access to justice, and noted that the vast majority of EU member States’ laws provided for free legal support either in certain circumstances or automatically. 61. Research carried out by the FRA in which a number of persons who had experienced or witnessed the use of seclusion and restraint were interviewed showed that the use of forcible restraint was perceived by those who had experienced it as “traumatic, impossible to forget and as, sometimes, causing physical injury”. Some respondents felt humiliated particularly concerning their need to use the toilet, and others highlighted their disappointment that other less restrictive methods had not been tried before resorting to restraint. In particular, one respondent who had spent time as a patient in psychiatric hospitals observed that restraint had been used as a means of dealing with distress or agitation, and some of the respondents linked the misuse of restraint and seclusion to a sense that staff were hostile to, rather than supportive of, patients. THE LAW
I. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 3 OF THE CONVENTION
62. The applicant complained that she had been ill-treated during her confinement in a psychiatric hospital and that there had been no effective investigation in that respect. She relied on Article 3 of the Convention, which reads:
“No one shall be subjected to torture or to inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.”
A. Admissibility
1. The parties’ submissions
(a)  The Government
63. The Government submitted that protection from ill-treatment in the psychiatric confinement context was primarily secured through the mechanism of individual complaints before the Local Boards and the State Board for the Protection of Patients’ Rights, as well as the State Board for the Protection of Individuals with Mental Disorders and the health inspectorate of the Ministry of Health. Each of those bodies was competent, and indeed obliged, to investigate allegations contained in the individual complaints. The way in which complaints were followed up thereafter depended on the specific competencies of the bodies at issue. Accordingly, the Local Boards and the State Board for the Protection of Patients’ Rights were obliged to inform the health inspectorate of the Ministry of Health of any irregularity they had found and the health inspectorate was obliged to respond within a period of thirty days. If the State Board for the Protection of Individuals with Mental Disorders was the body reporting an irregularity to the health inspectorate, the latter was also obliged to reply stating the appropriate measures it had taken. In any event, all of those bodies were obliged to inform the competent criminal justice authorities in the event of a suspicion that a criminal offence had been committed, and all were obliged to inform the complainant of their actions. 64. Furthermore, the health inspectorate of the Ministry of Health could not only have investigated the relevant complaints but could also have taken certain legal measures by prohibiting further unlawful actions, lodging disciplinary and criminal complaints, instituting minor offences proceedings, ordering further training of doctors and prohibiting further medical activities. All decisions of the health inspectorate were susceptible to an administrative action before the administrative courts and, if necessary, before the Constitutional Court (Ustavni sud Republike Hrvatske). 65. In those circumstances, the Government considered that the Croatian system of protection of involuntarily retained individuals provided for effective legal remedies which were accessible either by lodging complaints directly before the health inspectorate or through one of the boards for the protection of patients’ rights. The Government also pointed out that protection was secured through the ethical boards established within the health institutions. The Ethical Board of the R. Clinical Hospital Centre was thus obliged to examine the ethical and deontological issues of the treatment and the hospital director was obliged to examine individual complaints concerning the quality, substance and type of medical service provided. The Ethical Board was also competent to lodge disciplinary complaints before the Croatian Medical Chamber. 66. The Government considered that the applicant had failed to use any of those remedies. The only evidence she had submitted before the Court of her alleged complaints about the medical treatment had been a handwritten complaint addressed to the director of the hospital and the director of the R. Clinical Hospital Centre dated 8 November 2012. However, there was no evidence that the director of the hospital or the director of the R. Clinical Hospital Centre had ever received that document by any possible means. The only two documents which the applicant had submitted before the hospital authorities had been her appeal against the first-instance decision of the R. County Court on her involuntary retention and her comments on the hospital diet addressed to the hospital’s director (see paragraphs 27 and 33 above). Had the applicant complied with the detailed and publicly available internal procedure for lodging individual complaints before the authorities of the R. Clinical Hospital Centre, for which there were special forms and mailboxes for submitting such forms, her complaint would have been examined. However, she had failed to lodge such a complaint before the director of the R. Clinical Hospital Centre or any other State authority, such as the police, the State Attorney’s Office or the court conducting the proceedings concerning her internment in the psychiatric hospital. 67. Furthermore, the Government pointed out that the applicant could have lodged a civil action in the competent court for the infringement of her personal integrity, but she had not used that remedy. She could also have lodged criminal or minor offences complaints but she had failed to avail herself of that opportunity. (b)  The applicant
68. The applicant submitted that she had sent a letter to the director of the hospital and the director of the R. Clinical Hospital complaining of her ill-treatment in the hospital. It was a handwritten letter because that was the maximum she could have done at the time and in the circumstances in which she had found herself. Moreover, as she had never seen her lawyer, nobody had ever explained to her the relevant procedure. The applicant also considered that it had been for the authorities to inform the competent State Attorney and other social and health-care services of her case, but nobody had done that at the relevant time. 2. The Court’s assessment
69. The Court considers that the Government’s objection should be joined to the merits, since it is closely linked to the substance of the applicant’s complaint that the State had failed to conduct an effective investigation (see, for example, Mikheyev v. Russia, no. 77617/01, § 88, 26 January 2006). 70. The Court further notes that this complaint is not manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 of the Convention. Moreover, it is not inadmissible on any other grounds. It must therefore be declared admissible. B. Merits
1. Procedural aspect of Article 3 of the Convention
(a)  The parties’ submissions
(i)  The applicant
71. The applicant submitted, reiterating her arguments concerning the exhaustion of domestic remedies (see paragraph 68 above), that the State institutions in Croatia did not function properly, which was one of the reasons why no measures had been taken concerning her complaints of ill-treatment in the hospital. Moreover, the applicant pointed out that there was a questionnaire which every patient should have the possibility to submit on his or her release from hospital but which had never been given to her because the hospital had been afraid of what she might reveal. She stressed that the State institutions had been ignoring her complaints about her various other problems for years, and that she had lost any hope of their protecting her rights. She contended that in a situation in which she had been forcefully admitted to hospital and tied to a bed with restraining belts, and then involuntary retained for a further thirty days, the onus had been on the domestic authorities to examine her complaints properly. She had submitted the complaints in a handwritten letter because that was all she could have done in such circumstances. (ii)  The Government
72. The Government reiterated their arguments concerning the applicant’s failure to use the domestic remedies available (see paragraphs 63‑67 above). In the Government’s view, the only reason why there had been no investigation into the circumstances of the applicant’s case was because she had failed to bring her complaints before the domestic authorities, who, in those circumstances, had not been given an opportunity to reply to the applicant’s allegations. Furthermore, it was not true that the hospital had been obliged to provide the applicant with a questionnaire on her release; the onus had been on her to use such a method to complain during her stay in the hospital. The Government also pointed out that the competent social care centre had been duly informed of the applicant’s situation throughout the proceedings for her internment. (iii)  The third-party intervention
73. The CDLP and SHINE stressed that it was well established in the Court’s case-law that cases involving involuntary psychiatric internment called for increased vigilance in reviewing whether the Convention had been complied with. They also submitted that the requirement of a prompt and independent examination of allegations of ill-treatment in the psychiatric hospital context was implicit under the CRPD. (b)  The Court’s assessment
(i)  General principles
74. In the context of allegations of ill-treatment by the use of physical restraint against an applicant who was involuntary retained in a psychiatric hospital, the Court has held that Article 3 of the Convention required States to put in place effective criminal-law provisions to deter the commission of offences against personal integrity, backed up by law-enforcement machinery for the prevention, suppression and punishment of breaches of such provisions. The domestic legal system, and in particular the criminal law applicable in the circumstances of the case, must provide practical and effective protection of the rights guaranteed by Article 3. Wilful ill-treatment of persons who are within the control of agents of the State cannot be remedied exclusively through an award of compensation to the victim (see Bureš v. the Czech Republic, no. 37679/08, § 81, 18 October 2012). 75. Where an individual raises an arguable claim of ill-treatment under Article 3 of the Convention, the notion of an effective remedy entails, on the part of the State, a thorough and effective investigation capable of leading to the identification and punishment of those responsible (see Selmouni v. France [GC], no. 25803/94, § 79, ECHR 1999-V). The same applies to allegations of ill-treatment in the context of psychiatric internment where physical restraint has been used against the applicant (see Filip v. Romania (dec.), no. 41124/02, 8 December 2005, and Bureš, cited above, §§ 81 and 121). 76. Whatever the method of investigation, the authorities must act as soon as an official complaint has been lodged. Even when strictly speaking no complaint has been made, an investigation must be started if there are sufficiently clear indications that ill-treatment might have occurred (see, amongst many others, Members of the Gldani Congregation of Jehovah’s Witnesses and Others v. Georgia, no. 71156/01, § 97, 3 May 2007; Hajnal v. Serbia, no. 36937/06, §§ 96-97, 19 June 2012; Bureš, cited above, § 127; and Hassan v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 29750/09, § 62, ECHR 2014). The authorities must take into account the particularly vulnerable situation of victims and the fact that people who have been subjected to serious ill‑treatment will often be less ready or willing to make a complaint (see Batı and Others v. Turkey, nos. 33097/96 and 57834/00, § 133, ECHR 2004‑IV). This is of particular significance for patients confined in psychiatric hospitals whose position of inferiority and powerlessness calls for increased vigilance in reviewing whether the Convention has been complied with (see, inter alia, Herczegfalvy v. Austria, 24 September 1992, § 82, Series A no. 244). 77. The Court has established that for an investigation to be considered effective it must in particular be thorough. That means that the authorities must always make a serious attempt to find out what happened and should not rely on hasty or ill-founded conclusions to close their investigation or as the basis of their decisions (see Mikheyev, cited above, § 108). The investigation must be capable of leading to the establishment of the facts of the case and to the identification and punishment of those responsible. The authorities must have taken the reasonable steps available to them to secure the evidence concerning the incident, including, inter alia, eyewitness testimony, forensic evidence, and so on. Any deficiency in the investigation which undermines its ability to establish the cause of injuries or the identity of the persons responsible will risk falling foul of this standard (see Denis Vasilyev v. Russia, no. 32704/04, § 100, 17 December 2009). However, the obligation on the State is not to elucidate all the facts of the case but only those that are important for establishing the circumstances of the use of force and to determine whether official responsibility is engaged (see Anusca v. Moldova, no. 24034/07, § 40, 18 May 2010). (ii)  Application of these principles to the present case
78. The Court notes that the applicant’s handwritten letter dated 8 November 2012 addressed to the director of the hospital and the director of the R. Clinical Hospital contained allegations of her ill-treatment during her involuntary confinement in the hospital. In particular, the applicant alleged that she had been tied with restraining belts to a bed without any reason and in violation of her human dignity; that nobody had taken into account her lower-back pain problems; that nobody had ever explained to her the relevant procedure; and that her internment in the hospital had been contrary to the relevant domestic law and had even raised issues of criminal responsibility (see paragraph 29 above). 79. The applicant’s letter was attached to the appeal against the R. County Court’s decision on her involuntary retention until 28 November 2012 (see paragraph 25 above). The appeal was also lodged on 9 November 2012 by the applicant’s sister, who claimed that she was acting on behalf of the applicant who was at the time under strong medication, but it was signed by both the applicant and her sister. The appeal contained several allegations of the applicant’s ill-treatment in the hospital, in particular that she had been tied to a bed during the night, which had caused her severe pain related to her lower-back problems (see paragraph 28 above). 80. Those allegations were supported by medical documentation suggesting that the applicant had been diagnosed with lower-back pain problems (see paragraph 7 above), which was in fact the initial reason for her medical treatment at the relevant time (see paragraphs 10-12 above). In the Court’s view, the allegations thus raised an arguable claim of ill-treatment, giving rise to a requirement of an effective official investigation (compare Filip, cited above, § 49). 81. However, the applicant’s complaints, although sufficiently brought to the attention of the domestic authorities, notably the R. County Court, were never examined by that court or forwarded to the competent authorities for further investigation into the applicant’s allegations, even though a requirement for an ex officio investigation into her complaints was mandated by the relevant domestic law (see paragraph 82 below) and by the relevant Convention requirements (see paragraph 75 above). See further; Filip, cited above, §§ 48-49 – where, in the context of a psychiatric internment, the applicant brought the allegations of ill-treatment before the domestic authorities by complaining to the first instance court and the President of the Republic; Muradova v. Azerbaijan, no. 22684/05, § 123, 2 April 2009 – where the Court held that the applicant brought the matter of ill-treatment to the attention of the State authorities by producing evidence in the civil proceedings; Mađer v. Croatia, no. 56185/07, §§ 88-89, 21 June 2011 – where the applicant complied with his duty to inform the relevant national authorities of his alleged ill-treatment by complaining before the trial court and the Constitutional Court; Stanimirović v. Serbia, no. 26088/06, § 41, 18 October 2011 – where the obligation for an ex officio investigation arose after it was established during the trial against the applicant that he had been ill-treated; and J.L. v. Latvia, no. 23893/06, §§ 11-13 and 73, 17 April 2012 – where the applicant sufficiently informed the domestic authorities by complaining of ill-treatment in the remedies against his conviction in the criminal proceedings. 82. In this connection the Court observes that the applicant’s handwritten letter of 8 November 2012, after it was submitted to the R. County Court together with the appeal of 9 November 2012, formed part of the R. County Court’s case file. Therefore the Court cannot accept the Government’s argument that the applicant did not submit that letter to any of the domestic authorities (see paragraph 66 above). It was thus, even under the relevant domestic law (see paragraph 43 above; section 163 of the Court’s Rules), for the R. County Court to forward the letter to the competent domestic authorities, notably the State Attorney’s Office, the director of the hospital and the director of the R. Clinical Hospital to whom the letter was addressed, in order for them to carry out further investigations into the applicant’s allegations. 83. In these circumstances, the Court cannot but find that the domestic authorities were passive in the face of the applicant’s credible allegations of ill-treatment, failing to discharge their procedural obligation of an official effective investigation (compare Filip, cited above, § 49). 84. Lastly, as regards the Government’s arguments that the applicant did not lodge a civil action for damages (see paragraph 67 above), the Court has already indicated that the ill-treatment alleged by the applicant could not have been remedied exclusively through an award of compensation to the victim (see paragraph 74 above). Thus, by lodging and pursuing her complaint before the R. County Court in the circumstances identified above (see paragraphs 78- 83 above), the Court finds that the applicant was not required, under Article 35 § 1 of the Convention, to pursue that avenue (see Bureš, cited above, § 82).
85.

Article of the Convention at issue: Article 5
Outcome: violation