Prevent individual detainees from appealing before the ECtHR for their inhuman conditions of detention.

JUDGMENT 

Peňaranda Soto v. Malta 19.12.2017 (no. 16680/14)

Yanez Pinon κand others v. Malta 19.12.2017 (no.  71645/13, 7143/14 και 20342/15).

SUMMARY 

Allegations of inhuman conditions of detention. Bad lighting, lack of drinking water, absence of ventilation and presence of insects. Absence of medical surveillance. The Court did not diagnose inhuman or degrading treatment. Infringement of the right to an individual appeal, since the prison authorities did not send the letters of one of the detainees to the European Court of Human Rights in order to prevent him from appealing before it.

PROVISIONS 

Article 3

Article 34

PRINCIPAL FACTS 

Both cases concerned conditions of detention and access to medical care in the Corradino Correctional Facility in Malta.

The applicant in the first case, Luis Fernando Peňaranda Soto, is a Costa Rican national who was born in 1977. The applicants in the second case are: Miguel Angel Yanez Pinon, a Mexican national; Mana Owusu, a Ghanian national; and Jose Luis Del Rosario, a Dutch national. They were born in 1963, 1976, and 1961 respectively. They are or were all detained in the Corradino Correctional Facility following criminal convictions, mostly for drug-related offences. Mr Peňaranda Soto was detained in the facility from 2010 but released in 2016 under an amnesty. Mr Yanez Pinon was also released in 2016 after serving a 13-year sentence. The other two applicants have been in detention since 2012 (Mr Owusu) and 2010 (Mr Del Rosario).
Relying on Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment) of the European Convention on Human Rights, they all complained about the conditions of their cells, which they alleged were poorly lit and ventilated, too hot in the summer and not equipped with running or drinking water.

Mr Peňaranda Soto, the applicant in the first case, made a number of other claims under Article 3 about the conditions of his detention, alleging that he had been kept in solitary confinement for two weeks in July 2013 after being assaulted by another prisoner. He claimed in particular that he had been made to wait for two hours before being given any medical assistance following the assault and that, although he had then been taken to hospital and treated for a broken ankle and a head injury, there had been a delay in providing him with crutches afterwards and nurses had refused to visit him in solitary confinement. He further alleged that there had been subsequent failures in providing him with psychiatric treatment, physiotherapy for his ankle and follow-up appointments for his head injury.

The Government denied that Mr Peňaranda Soto had been placed in solitary confinement, submitting that he had been held in a cell near the guard room for his own safety before being transferred a few weeks later to another cell. It also submitted that various tests had been carried out and treatment provided immediately following the assault, and that a number of follow-up appointments at the hospital had been on record. Furthermore, when Mr Peňaranda Soto requested psychological help in 2014 he was seen regularly by a psychologist until his release.
The applicants in the second case also made a number of additional claims about the facility’s conditions, including that it was infested with rats and cockroaches, did not provide adequate food or clothing, had an asbestos problem and tolerated passive smoking. All three applicants also made complaints about inadequate medical care for various ailments: Mr Yanez Pinon for not being referred to a psychiatrist despite his requests; Mr Owusu for headaches and delayed referral to an ophthalmologist; and Mr Del Rosario for not receiving treatment for his arthritis or being provided with tablets to treat a migraine.

One of the applicants in the second case, Mr Owusu, brought domestic proceedings to complain about these conditions of detention. His complaint was however dismissed in June 2016 for failure to submit evidence to prove his case.

According to the Government, pest control was carried out in the facility on a regular basis and the food was adequate. It also submitted photographs of various dishes served at the facility and stated that the dust in the prison was not from asbestos but was from Maltese limestone used to build the prison walls. The applicants were regularly seen by doctors and prescribed the relevant medicine.

In general, the Government contended that all four applicants were held in individual cells which were unlocked for up to ten hours per day, and even in the highest security unit (where the first applicant had been held) for a few hours per day, allowing them to move freely around common areas and access the exercise yards.

Lastly, Mr Peňaranda Soto alleged under Article 34 (right of individual petition) that the prison authorities had failed to forward his letters to the European Court of Human Rights and that this had been in order to dissuade him from pursuing his case.

THE DECISION OF THE COURT

No violation of Article 3 – in both cases

Violation of Article 34 – in respect of Peňaranda Soto Just satisfaction: 3,000 euros (EUR) to Mr Peňaranda Soto for non-pecuniary damage (echrcaselaw.com editing).