The conditions of detention of a severely disabled prisoner found to be contrary to the Convention

JUDGMENT:

Helhal v. France 19.02.2015 (no. 10401/12)

see here

SUMMARY:

The case concerned the compatibility of a disabled prisoner’s state of health with his continuing detention and the arrangements for his care in prison. The Court found in particular that, although the applicant’s continuing detention did not in itself constitute inhuman or degrading treatment in the light of his disability, the inadequacy of the physical rehabilitation treatment provided to him and the fact that the prison premises were not adapted to his disability amounted to a breach of Article 3 of the Convention.

PROVISION

Article 3

PRINCIPAL FACTS

The applicant, Mohammed Helhal, is an Algerian national who was born in 1972. He is currently
serving a 30-year prison sentence for murder, attempted murder and assault. He has been detained
since September 2014 in Poitiers-Vivonne Prison.

On 28 March 2006, while he was in prison in Nancy, Mr Helhal fell several metres while trying to
escape. He sustained a fractured spine resulting in paraplegia of the lower limbs and urinary and
faecal incontinence. Following the accident he was transferred to prisons in Mulhouse, Metz,
Fresnes and, in 2009, to Uzerche Prison.

On 12 August 2010 Mr Helhal applied to the Tulle judge responsible for the execution of sentences
to have his sentence suspended on medical grounds. He argued that the prison premises, and
especially the sanitary facilities, were not adapted to his disability, which left him confined to a
wheelchair, that the physiotherapy he had received was inadequate and that he had to be assisted
by another prisoner designated to help him, placing him in a humiliating position in relation to his
fellow prisoners. On 3 February 2011 the Limoges court responsible for the execution of sentences
rejected his application, taking into account the concurring opinions of the two medical experts it
had appointed, and held that the applicant’s condition was compatible in the long term with his
imprisonment. However, the court observed that Uzerche Prison, where Mr Helhal was being held at
the time, was not adapted to his disability and that there were other establishments, in particular
Fresnes and Roanne prisons, that would be better equipped to receive him. The applicant appealed
against the judgment. On 3 March 2011 the Limoges Court of Appeal upheld the first-instance
judgment. An appeal on points of law lodged by the applicant was dismissed by the Court of
Cassation on 31 August 2011.

THE DECISION OF THE COURT 

Article 3

The Court first reiterated the content of the State’s duty of care towards sick prisoners as
established by its case-law. The State had to be satisfied that prisoners were fit to serve their
sentences, provide them with the necessary treatment and adapt the overall conditions of detention
to individual prisoners’ state of health.

Regarding the applicant’s continuing detention, the Court agreed with the domestic courts that Mr
Helhal’s fitness to serve his sentence had not been called into question. His disability had been taken
into account in refusing his request for a suspension of his sentence, a decision which had also been
based on two concurring medical expert opinions. The Court therefore concluded that Mr Helhal’s
continuing detention was not in itself contrary to Article 3.

However, as to the quality of the treatment, the Court considered that the national authorities had
not done everything that could be expected of them to provide Mr Helhal with the rehabilitation
treatment he needed. In particular, he had had no physiotherapy sessions at all between 2009 and
2012 and just one short session a week since then. The Court added that the mere fact that
Mr Helhal had been reluctant to seek a transfer to Roanne Prison could not be invoked by the
national authorities to justify their failure to take action.

Lastly, with regard to the conditions of detention, the Court took the view that the assistance in
washing himself provided to Mr Helhal by a fellow inmate in the absence of showers suitable for
persons of reduced mobility did not suffice to fulfil the State’s obligations with regard to health and
safety.

In conclusion, the Court held that, while Mr Helhal’s continuing detention was not in breach of
Article 3, the non-existent or inadequate treatment and the need for him to be assisted by a fellow
inmate in order to take a shower had subjected him to a level of suffering exceeding that inherent in
detention, and therefore amounted to a violation of Article 3.

Just satisfaction (Article 41)

The Court held that France was to pay the applicant 7,000 euros (EUR) in respect of non-pecuniary
damage and EUR 4,000 in respect of costs and expenses(echrcaselaw.com editing). 


ECHRCaseLaw
Close Popup

Χρησιμοποιούμε cookies για να σας προσφέρουμε καλύτερη εμπειρία στο διαδίκτυο. Συμφωνώντας, αποδέχεστε τη χρήση των cookies σύμφωνα με την Πολιτική Cookies.

Close Popup
Privacy Settings saved!
Ρυθμίσεις Απορρήτου

Όταν επισκέπτεστε μία ιστοσελίδα, μπορεί να λάβει κάποιες βασικές πληροφορίες από τον browser σας, κατά βάση υπό τη μορφή cookies. Εδώ μπορείτε να ρυθμίσετε τη συγκατάθεσή σας σε όλα αυτά.

These cookies allow us to count visits and traffic sources, so we can measure and improve the performance of our site.

Google Analytics
We track anonymized user information to improve our website.
  • _ga
  • _gid
  • _gat

Απορρίψη όλων των υπηρεσιών
Save
Δέχομαι όλες τις υπηρεσίες