Detained in a special prison cell, naked in the cold and with constant light for 17 days! Inhuman and degrading treatment

JUDGMENT

Vukušić v. Croatia 14.11.2023 (app. no. 37522/16)

see here

SUMMARY

The applicant, mentally disturbed, was kept in a so-called “rubber cell” (gumenjara) in prison for two periods in 2012 and for a total of 17 days. This detention was imposed to prevent him from self-harming. According to the Court, persons in detention are in a vulnerable position and the authorities have a duty to protect them. Deprivation of liberty must not subject the person to distress or hardship that goes beyond the inevitable level of suffering inherent in prison detention.

The ECtHR considered that the prolonged placement of the applicant naked in a specially closed cell, with cold and constantly switched on lights for a total period of 17 days amounted to inhuman and degrading treatment. It also found that in the Zagreb prison, the applicant had less than 3 square metres of personal space for at least 152 days and held that Article 3 ECHR was also violated on this ground.

The Court awarded the applicant EUR 15,000 for non-material damage and EUR 4,000 for costs.

PROVISION

Article 3

PRINCIPAL FACTS

The applicant was detained in Zagreb Prison between 28 May and 29 June 2011, and then again between 21 February 2012 and 27 March 2013. All cells that he stayed in in that prison measured 19.53 sq.m. and were shared by three to seven inmates at various times. The cells also had a sanitary facility of 1.57 sq.m. partitioned from the rest of the cell by a 180 cm high wall.

Between 29 June 2011 and 21 February 2012, the applicant was detained in Split Prison. From 29 June 2011 until 13 July 2011, he stayed in a cell measuring 27.74 sq.m. including sanitary facilities with another seven to nine inmates. From 14 July 2011 until 8 January 2012, he stayed in a cell measuring 17.64 sq.m. including sanitary facilities with four to five other inmates.

Throughout his detention, the applicant committed a number of disciplinary offences, and his behaviour was frequently assessed as “unsatisfactory” by the prison authorities.

According to the applicant, he had started a hunger strike because he wished to be transferred to Zagreb Prison. At around 5 p.m. on 18 January 2012 he was beaten up by the prison guards, as a result of which he lost consciousness and had hit his head on the floor. He was eventually taken to hospital where a head scan showed that he had a haematoma on his head and a concussion. The applicant subsequently stated that the said incident may have happened on 19 or 20 January 2012.

According to the Government, on 20 January 2012 at 3.50 p.m. the prison guards found the applicant in the bathroom of his cell, undressed, in front of a shattered mirror, which he claimed to have broken in order to harm himself and threatened suicide. His three cell inmates confirmed that he had previously asked them for a razor and that he had fallen on the floor. The prison guards then forcibly removed the applicant from the cell, while he continued yelling threats and requesting to be transferred to Zagreb. The applicant was then taken to hospital where he was diagnosed with a head contusion, after which he was returned to prison.

In a handwritten note drafted on 20 January 2012, the applicant stated that he had refused food for the second day in a row because he had wished to be transferred to another prison closer to his family and that, while being forcibly transferred from one cell to another on that day, he had lost consciousness and hit his head on the floor.

On 20 January 2012 at 3.55 p.m., with a view to preventing further injuries to himself and harassment of other inmates, the prison governor ordered that the applicant be placed in a specially secured cell without dangerous items, so-called “rubber cell” (“gumenjara”) for 48 hours.

According to the applicant, the specially secured cell was extremely dirty with faeces, the light was on at all times so that he could not sleep, and he was held there completely naked. It was wintertime, there was no heating, and the ventilation was on the entire time, so that he was shivering. Since he had irregular access to the sanitary facilities, he was forced to urinate and defecate on himself.

According to the Government, the cell was regularly cleaned by the inmates, but the applicant refused to clean after himself. The cell also had floor heating and was also heated from above from the floor heating of the upper floor. During the nights the guards checked on the applicant several times and took him to use the sanitary facilities whenever necessary. He was also regularly seen by a doctor, although he frequently refused examination.

Due to the applicant’s lack of cooperation with the authorities and further threats of self-harm, his confinement in the specially secured cell was prolonged every 48 hours until 31 January 2012, when he was taken to the Zagreb Prison Hospital.

After returning to Split Prison on 16 February 2012, the applicant was placed in a regular cell. After he refused dinner and swallowed two batteries and a piece of a remote control, he was taken to hospital where he refused examination.

On 17 February 2012, after the applicant again threatened with swallowing further objects, he was again placed in the specially secured cell, naked and with the lights turned on constantly, this time with his hands and legs restrained by handcuffs and belts. The applicant claims that he could not sleep at all due to the light and his swollen hands and position of his arms. The restraining measure was regularly prolonged every 12 hours until 20 February 2012 and his placement in the special cell was prolonged until 21 February 2012, when the applicant was transferred to Zagreb Prison.

In September 2012 the applicant filed a criminal complaint alleging that the Split Prison guards had committed various criminal acts against him, mainly by putting him in the “rubber cell” and keeping him there in appalling conditions for an inordinate amount of time. He also sought that security footage be obtained from the prison in order to “ensure evidence of criminal acts committed by the Split Prison staff”. Having conducted criminal inquiries, on 6 December 2012 the Split State Attorney’s Office dismissed his complaint.

The applicant also filed several complaints concerning his prison conditions with various authorities, to no avail.

On 26 April 2013 the applicant lodged a civil action against the State claiming damages for his poor conditions of detention and for the “torture” he had been subject to by the prison guards on 18 January 2012. By a judgment dated 22 May 2015, the Zagreb Municipal Civil Court (Općinski građanski sud u Zagrebu) dismissed his claim as ill-founded, among other things because the applicant had failed to attend the court hearing to which he had been summoned to give his statement as well as he had failed to prove the occurrence of any damage.

His appeal against that judgment was dismissed by the Zagreb County Court (Županijski sud u Zagrebu) on 15 March 2016 and his subsequent constitutional complaint was dismissed on 9 October 2018 by the Constitutional Court (Ustavni sud Republike Hrvatske). The latter decision was served on the applicant’s lawyer on 1 February 2019.

THE DECISION OF THE COURT…

1. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 3 OF THE CONVENTION ON ACCOUNT OF DETENTION IN A SPECIALLY SECURED CELL

The Court notes that the present case does not concern a classic situation of solitary confinement, but rather the applicant’s placement in a specially secured cell devoid of dangerous items allegedly in order to prevent him from harming himself or others. The Court observes that the applicant was held in such a cell for two non-consecutive periods: first for twelve days in January 2012 and then for five days in February 2012, the second time with handcuffs and belts restraining his hands and ankles.

The Court further notes that specially secured cells devoid of dangerous items are special rooms, padded with rubber or other soft material aimed at preventing self-harm. The placement in such cells was at the material time regulated by section 135 of the Execution of Criminal Sanctions Act, listing it as one of security measures in prison. Section 136(8) of the Execution of Criminal Sanctions Act further provided that placement in such a secured cell was allowed for a maximum of 48 hours, although admittedly, it did not specify how much time, if any, needed to pass between two consecutive decisions on placement therein.

The Government sought to argue that the applicant’s placement in the specially secured cell had been justified because there had been a real danger that he might act violently and harm himself or others.

However, while the Court can accept that, on the one hand, placement of an agitated prisoner in a cell without dangerous items may be a suitable solution to allow such a prisoner to calm down, it cannot see how such a purpose could justify prolonged periods of stay in such special cells , in particular in the below described conditions.

The Court thus considers that, although there may have initially been valid reasons to place the applicant in a specially secured room in order to prevent him from self-harm, his stays in that cell for prolonged periods of time – 12 and 5 days, respectively – indicate that the purpose of his stay had been punitive and cannot be justified by reasons submitted by the Government.

As regards the conditions in the specially secured cell, although the Government disagreed with the applicant’s description of freezing temperature by submitting that the cell had an installed heating, they did not dispute his allegations that he had been placed there naked or that the lights had remained on at all times preventing him from sleeping. The Court has already held that to deprive an inmate of clothing was capable of arousing feelings of fear, anguish and inferiority capable of humiliating and debasing him (see Hellig v. Germany, no. 20999/05, § 56, 7 July 2011). The foregoing must have thus further exacerbated the applicant’s already vulnerable situation.

Finally, the Court agrees with the CPT that restraining the applicant’s hands and ankles in the specially secured cell for four days does not appear to have been necessary since he had already been placed in a space devoid of dangerous items preventing self-harm. Moreover, the restraining measure also appears to have been applied contrary to section 138(2) of the Execution of Criminal Sanctions Act, which allowed for handcuffing of an inmate as a security measure for a period not exceeding twelve hours within a 24-hour period.

In view of the foregoing, the Court considers that the applicant’s prolonged placement in the specially secured cell in the described conditions for a total period of 17 days amounted to inhuman and degrading treatment.

There has accordingly been a violation of Article 3 of the Convention on that account.

2. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 3 OF THE CONVENTION ON ACCOUNT OF PRISON CONDITIONS

The Court refers to the principles established in its case‑law regarding inadequate conditions of detention (see, for instance, Muršić v. Croatia [GC], no. 7334/13, §§ 96‑101, 20 October 2016). It reiterates in particular that a serious lack of space in a prison cell weighs heavily as a factor to be taken into account for the purpose of establishing whether the detention conditions described were “degrading” from the point of view of Article 3 and may disclose a violation, both alone or taken together with other shortcomings.

The Court notes that in Zagreb Prison the applicant had less than 3 sq. m of personal space for at least 152 days out of his 432-day detention there. The same holds true as regards at least part of his stay in Split Prison, where he was detained for 193 days.

The Court has previously found violations in respect of issues similar to those in the present case. Having examined all the material submitted to it, the Court has not found any fact or argument capable of persuading it to reach a different conclusion on the merits of this complaint in the present case.

There has accordingly been a violation of Article 3 of the Convention as regards the applicant’s conditions of detention in Zagreb Prison and Split Prison.

Just satisfaction: The Court awarded €15,000 for non pecuniary damage and €4,000 for costs