Preliminary objection dismissed (Article 35-1 - Exhaustion of domestic remedies);No violation of Article 14+8 - Prohibition of discrimination (Article 14 - Discrimination) (Article 8 - Right to respect for private and family life;Article 8-1 - Respect for family life)

The applicant was born in DATE and lives in the town of GPE .

The applicant married in DATE . The applicant and her husband were nominal but non - practising NORP at that time .

CARDINAL children , a boy and a girl , were born to DATE respectively .

It appears that the family lived at a house of the paternal grandparents in the village of ORG , PERSON of GPE .

Being upset with various difficulties in the relations with her husband who was a seaman and frequently away at sea , in DATE the applicant started associating with the GPE 's Witnesses .

NORP In DATE the mounting tensions between the spouses over the applicant 's religious interests resulted in the applicant 's decision to leave the matrimonial home together with the children . The applicant and children started living with the maternal grandparents .

NORP In DATE the applicant was baptised as a GPE 's Witness .

There appear to have been only occasional contacts between the applicant 's husband and the children DATE . As the applicant 's husband failed systematically to provide financial support for the upbringing of the children , in DATE the applicant filed in court a request for maintenance . On DATE the court ordered the husband to pay for the support of the children .

On DATE the children went to visit their paternal grandparents and on DATE the grandparents refused to return the children to the applicant . The applicant submits that she has had no regular access to the children since then .

On DATE the father filed a divorce petition in ORG of PERSON ( “ the ORG ” – ORG районный суд г. PERSON ) .

He also submitted that he was ready to provide the children with better living and moral conditions than the applicant , that the applicant had taken the children to religious meetings with a view to converting them to the faith of the Jehovah 's Witnesses , that the children had become irritable and did not want to return to their mother , and requested the court to grant him custody of both children .

NORP In response , the applicant accepted that the marriage had irretrievably broken down but contested the husband 's claim for custody .

At a preliminary hearing ORG ordered a report on the issue of custody of the children to be prepared by ORG attached to ORG of the town of PERSON ( “ the Custody and Guardianship Agency ” – Орган опеки и попечительства при PERSON района г. PERSON ) .

A letter of instruction dated DATE contained a request to report on the applicant 's living conditions and to give a conclusion concerning “ the possibility of leaving the children with her , having regard to the fact that [ the applicant ] attends [ meetings of ] the sect ' ORG ” .

On DATE an official , U. , drew up a report on the preliminary inquiry into [ the applicant 's ] living conditions . The report described the CARDINAL room flat measuring in total QUANTITY in which the applicant , her CARDINAL parents and CARDINAL brothers were living and then stated :

“ ... Additional information about [ the applicant 's ] family : [ the applicant ] attends [ meetings ] of the organisation ' Jehovah 's Witnesses ' ; members of the organisation sometimes meet at her home and study the relevant literature . [ The applicant 's ] parents are critical of her religion .

I deem it , in the interests of the minor children , to be more advisable for them to live with their father ... in the village of ORG , LOC . ”

On an unspecified date ORG added the report of DATE to the case - file .

On DATE , upon ORG request , ORG of the Town of Makhachkala ( “ the ORG ” – ORG районного г. Махачкалы ) submitted to the court observations ( заключение ) in which it advised that custody of the children should be granted to their father .

ORG reasoned as follows :

“ The Custody and Guardianship Agency attached to ORG of the town of PERSON established that [ the applicant ] resided in her parents ' house ... In DATE she had married Mr PERSON , from whom she bore CARDINAL minor children : PERSON , born in DATE , and PERSON , born in DATE .

The spouses resided in the village ORG of LOC . She worked in a neighbour village as a school teacher ; his work was related to sea trips .

As of DATE spouses PERSON facto interrupted their marital relations . The children started living with their mother in GPE .

Long before their divorce , [ the applicant ] began attending [ meetings of ] the religious organisation ' Jehovah 's Witnesses ' . Her attendance at [ these ] meetings which involved travelling [ to other towns ] was the reason for the discord and break - up of the family . Villagers and relatives spoke out against the conduct of [ the applicant ] .

When living with the children in GPE , contrary to her parents ' will , she did not refrain from regularly attending the meetings of the ' FAC ' . She began actively advocating the ideas of this organisation . Sometimes her fellow believers gather together at her parents ' home and they study the relevant literature . She would also take her children to the meetings . After attending these meetings , the children became shy and irritable , they perceived the surrounding world and natural phenomena in the way the ' GPE 's Witnesses ' teaching presents it ( the children were afraid of ORG whenever it rained , they called the [ applicant 's ] mother - in - law ' Satan ' , they would not attend their classmates ' birthdays or other celebrations because the religion did not permit this ) .

The children 's father ... was seriously concerned that the children 's association with their mother threatened their upbringing ; he was against their returning to PERSON .

The minor children are presently living with their father . [ The son ] is now getting good marks at [ school ] ...

On the basis of the aforementioned , considering the fact that the parents must provide each child with the possibility of growing healthy , physically and spiritually , and based on the interests of the minor children , the Custody and Guardianship Agency deems it advisable for the children to reside with their father . ”

On DATE ORG terminated the marriage between the applicant and her husband and granted custody of the children to their father .

ORG reasoned as follows :

“ ... [ The spouses ] married on DATE , then resided in different locations , and since DATE in a private house of GPE in the village of ORG of GPE of GPE .

[ They ] have children in marriage : Abdula , born on DATE , and PERSON , born on DATE .

In DATE , having gone to visit her parents , [ the applicant ] joined the organisation ' Jehovah 's Witnesses ' . The family began to have problems and since that time they have not been living together as husband and wife . The family has split apart . The court fixed them a period for reconciliation but the parties failed to reunite and have requested to terminate their marriage .

It follows that the family can not be preserved and the marriage should be dissolved .

From the submissions of [ the applicant ] and her mother ... it transpires that the members of the ' Jehovah 's Witnesses ' organisation come to the flat in which [ the applicant ] and her parents reside a few times DATE to conduct their activities . Furthermore , [ the applicant ] attends the DATE meetings of the ' GPE 's Witnesses ' .

[ The applicant 's mother ] was questioned in court and confirmed the fact that at the beginning her grandchildren had been very afraid of rain and wind and had been saying that a ' Worldwide Flood ' and an earthquake would take place . That is when [ the applicant 's mother ] learned that [ the applicant ] had been taking the children to meetings of the sect ' Jehovah 's Witnesses ' .

From the case - file documents and the parties ' submissions it transpires that at present [ the applicant 's husband ] resides , along with his parents , in the village of ORG in a CARDINAL - storey house . The household in fact belongs to him . For DATE he works at sea and the same amount of time he spends at home .

The children have been living with him and his parents .

According to a certificate of a ORG , [ the applicant 's son ] has excellent results at school .

[ The applicant ] works as a teacher and has good references .

From a report on [ her ] living conditions it transpires that a CARDINAL - room flat is occupied by the applicant , her parents and [ the applicant 's ] CARDINAL brothers .

The members of the ' Jehovah 's Witnesses ' organisation gather at the same place and study the relevant literature . According to a report on [ the applicant 's ] living conditions and the observations of ORG , ' the parents are obliged to provide their children with an opportunity to grow physically and spiritually healthy ; regard being had to the interests of [ the children ] , ORG considers it appropriate to grant custody [ of both children ] to their father ' .

The court too is of the view that , having regard to the fact that [ the children ] have been living with their father for DATE and have not yet attained DATE , and also in the interests [ of the children ] as defined by sections DATE and CARDINAL of the RF Family Code , that custody should be granted to their father ... ”

The applicant and her counsel appealed against the judgment of DATE to ORG ( “ the Supreme Court ” – PERSON коллегия по гражданским делам Верховного суда PERSON ) .

In her grounds of appeal she argued that the first - instance judgment was discriminatory in that it had been based on the applicant 's affiliation to the GPE 's Witnesses , that the first - instance court 's findings were perverse , unsustainable and misconstrued , that the court had failed to take account of all the factors which were relevant to the case according to LAW ( CARDINAL ) of LAW ( the father 's frequent absence owing to his work at sea , the applicant 's demonstrated pedagogical competence as a professional school teacher , a prior and recent history of both parents ' involvement in the upbringing of their children , the father 's allegedly immoral adulterous behaviour , etc . ) and that the court had acted on the presumption of the GPE 's Witnesses being a dangerous organisation .

The applicant also cited domestic jurisprudence in child custody cases and the judgment of DATE of ORG in the case of PERSON v. GPE .

On DATE ORG , sitting in a composition of CARDINAL professional judges , examined the applicant 's appeal and by CARDINAL votes to one rejected it as unfounded .

NORP In particular , the majority established the following :

“ ... In making the decision that the father should have custody of the children , the trial court came to the sound conclusion that this was in the best interests of the children . The court decision is based on the conclusion of ORG and the case circumstances established in court .

Thus the court established that the children 's mother ... who is a member of the GPE 's Witnesses organisation , took the children with her to the sect 's meetings , and involved them in associating with the sect 's members at their homes . She thereby violated the requirements of LAW , under which everyone is guaranteed freedom of conscience and religion . Under LAW ) of the LAW fundamental human rights are unalienable and belong to everyone at birth . The [ court ] finds irrelevant [ the applicant 's ] arguments that the court , by its decision , has deprived her of the right to educate her children because of her religion and membership of the GPE 's Witnesses organisation . Pursuant to LAW , [ the applicant 's ] exercise of her constitutional rights , including the right to practice any religion and her parental rights , must not impinge on the rights and freedoms of others or conflict with the interests of the children . The right of a parent to educate a child from whom he or she is living apart , is guaranteed by CARDINAL of LAW , which defines the procedure for a parent to exercise parental rights .

The court also established that [ the applicant 's husband 's ] financial status and housing conditions are better than those of [ the applicant ] . [ The applicant 's husband ] is employed , lives with his parents , and owns a CARDINAL - storey house with the necessary living conditions for the children . [ The paternal grandparents ] do not object to their grandchildren living with them . [ The applicant ] works as a history teacher in [ a school ] in GPE . She lives in her parents ' QUANTITY , CARDINAL - bedroom flat , along with her father , mother and CARDINAL brothers , born in DATE , DATE , and DATE .

The Custody and Guardianship Agency concluded that it was in the best interests of the children that they remain in the custody of their father ... [ The applicant 's ] argument , stated in her appeal , that the granting of custody to the father would have negative repercussions on the children 's emotional state in the future , was not substantiated . The argument that the religious organisation ORG has state registration , benefits society , and so forth , can not be taken into consideration since it is irrelevant to the matter being examined by the court . There are no reasons in [ the applicant 's ] appeal to reverse [ the first - instance judgment ] handed down in the case ... ”

The dissenting judge gave the following opinion :

“ ... I hold that the decision handed down by the first - instance court was subject to reversal owing to the failure to investigate the circumstances specified in section DATE ( CARDINAL ) of LAW . ”

The applicant 's subsequent attempts to seek reconsideration of the decisions in her case by way of supervisory review were unsuccessful .

All her respective requests were dismissed as unfounded .

The latest decision in this respect was taken by ORG on DATE .

The applicant alleged that her former husband had remarried and that his new wife had not attempted to assume the role or responsibilities of step - mother . In the absence of the father , who was frequently away at sea , the paternal grandmother had effectively become the sole carer .

The applicant further alleged that she was allowed to visit her children only occasionally and could never remain with them alone .

The Government submitted that , according to the information provided by the head of the PERSON local administration of GPE , the applicant 's children resided with their father and paternal grandparents in a CARDINAL - storey private house . They had all necessary facilities for the upbringing and education of the children . Their father had remarried and had had a third child . The applicant 's children had developed emotional ties with the third child .

Article CARDINAL of LAW of DATE reads :

“ Everyone shall be guaranteed the right to freedom of conscience , freedom of religion , including the right to profess , either alone or in community with others , any or no religion , to choose , have and disseminate religious or other convictions freely and to act according to them . ”

Section CARDINAL ( on the exercise of parental rights ) of LAW of the Russian Federation provides as follows :

“ CARDINAL . The place of the children 's residence , if the parents live apart , shall be established by an agreement between the parents .

In the absence of an agreement , the dispute between the parents shall be resolved in court , proceeding from the children 's interests and taking into account the children 's opinion . In doing so , the court shall take into account the child 's affection for each of his parents and for his brothers and sisters , the child 's age , the moral and other personal characteristics of the parents , the relations existing between each of the parents and the child , and the possibility of creating optimal conditions for the child 's upbringing and development ( the parent 's kind of activity and work regime , their material situation and family status , etc . ) . ”

Section CARDINAL ( on the exercise of parental rights by the parent residing separately from the child ) of the LAW provides as follows :

“ CARDINAL . NORP The parent residing separately from the child shall have the right to communicate with the child and to take part in his upbringing and in resolving the issue of the child 's education .

The parent with whom the child lives shall not prevent the child 's communication with the other parent , unless such communication damages the child 's physical and mental health or his moral development .

NORP The parents shall have the right to enter into a written agreement on the way the parent residing apart from the child may exercise his or her parental duties .

If the parents can not reach an agreement , the dispute shall be resolved in court with the participation of the guardianship and trusteeship body , upon the claim of the parents ( or CARDINAL of them ) .

In the event of failure to abide by the court decision , the measures stipulated by the civil procedural legislation shall be applied to the respective parent . In the case of persistent failure to comply with the court decision , the court shall have the right , upon the claim of the parent residing separately from the child to take a decision on passing the child over to that parent , proceeding from the child 's interests and taking into account the child 's opinion .

NORP The parent residing separately from the child shall have the right to obtain information on his or her child from the educational establishments and medical centres , from the institutions for the social protection of the population and from other similar institutions . The information may be refused only if the parent presents a threat to the child 's life and health . Refusal to provide information may be disputed in court . ”


Violation of Art. 3;Violation of Art. 5;Non-pecuniary damage - financial award;Costs and expenses award

The applicants were born in DATE and DATE respectively and live in GPE .

On DATE the applicants were in the PERSON neighbourhood , on their way to attend the funeral of CARDINAL prisoners who allegedly had been killed by the security forces . Police officers were arresting at random people in PERSON who were walking on the street , waiting at the bus stop or driving their cars . When the applicants arrived in the neighbourhood , they were beaten by police officers and they were subsequently arrested together with many others . This was a notorious incident that had attracted media and public attention .

Following their arrest , the applicants were taken to a bus where they were beaten and insulted . They were brought to FAC along with CARDINAL people who were arrested randomly . In the stadium they were again beaten and insulted . Their identity cards , money and valuables were seized by the police officers .

While the applicants were held in FAC their friends filed a petition with ORG requesting to have them brought before the competent public prosecutor . ORG rejected their request . The court stated in its written reply that the public prosecutors were entitled to authorise the prolongation of the detention period of suspects for DATE in respect of crimes committed by CARDINAL or more persons . Thus it concluded that it did not have jurisdiction to take any decision at this stage .

The applicants were released on DATE .

On DATE the applicants filed a complaint with the office of ORG concerning the treatment to which they were subjected when they were held by the police in FAC . They requested the public prosecutor to order their examination by a forensic expert . The prosecutor agreed to their request .

On DATE the applicants were examined by a doctor at ORG . According to the medical report the first applicant was suffering from bruising of QUANTITY in diameter on her right shoulder and shoulder blade , pain in her shoulders and neck , a bruise of QUANTITY in diameter on the right hip and marks of bruising on the exterior of her thigh . It was also noted that , before a final conclusion on her health situation was reached , the applicant had to be examined in a hospital as she had vaginal bleeding .

As regards the second applicant it was recorded in the medical report that he had a bruise of QUANTITY in diameter on the right shoulder , a bruise of QUANTITY in diameter on the right arm , a bruise of QUANTITY in diameter on his back and a bruising of QUANTITY in diameter on the left shoulder and around the shoulder - blade . He was also complaining of pain in his legs . The report concluded that the applicant would be unfit for work for DATE .

On DATE ORG decided to transfer the preliminary investigation file to LOC GPE in accordance with the law on the prosecution of civil servants . At a later stage the file was transferred to ORG .

On DATE the applicants , together with some others who had been arrested on DATE and allegedly subjected to ill - treatment by the police officers , filed a petition with ORG . They requested the prosecutor to initiate an investigation concerning their arbitrary arrest and the ill - treatment to which they had been subjected to . ORG transferred this request as well to ORG .

On DATE ORG issued a decision to commit the police officers for trial .

On DATE the applicants lodged an objection with ORG against the decision of ORG , arguing that the chief of police in LOC should have also been committed for trial together with the other police officers . On DATE ORG upheld the decision of ORG and rejected the objection concerning the prosecution of the chief of the police department .

On an unspecified date ORG filed a bill of indictment with ORG against the police officers who had allegedly ill - treated the complainants , including the applicants .

On an unspecified date ORG decided to transfer the case - file to ORG for security reasons . At a later stage ORG decided to transfer the case - file to ORG on the same grounds .

On DATE ORG held that there was a possibility that the applicants had suffered from the ill - treatment allegedly inflicted by the accused police officers and it therefore accepted the applicants ' request to intervene in the criminal proceedings . During the hearing the applicants gave a detailed account of the events of DATE .

On DATE a doctor at ORG drafted the final medical report concerning the first applicant . The doctor concluded that , considering the findings of the medical examination of DATE , she would be unfit for work for DATE .

On DATE ORG acquitted the police officers on the ground that there existed no evidence in the case file to identify which of the accused police officers were responsible for the alleged ill - treatment .

On DATE ORG quashed the decision of ORG , holding that LAW . DATE on suspension of proceedings and the execution of sentences regarding offences committed before DATE was applicable in this case .

According to the ORG , the applicants were not amongst the CARDINAL persons who were arrested and subsequently taken to FAC .

A description of the relevant domestic law at the material time can be found in GPE and Others v. GPE ( nos . LOC and MONEY , § § CARDINAL , DATE ) .


HAZAR, TEKTAS, BEKIROGLU, PEKOL, BOZKUS, TEKTAS, ATMAN, ISIK, AKSUCU, DOSTER, DEMIRHAN and SAHIN v. TURKEY

The applicants , whose names appear in the appendix , are NORP nationals . They were living in the city of ORG at the time giving rise to these applications . They are represented before the ORG by Mr GPE GPE , a lawyer practising in GPE .

The facts of the case , as submitted by the parties , may be summarised as follows .

On DATE , in the district of ORG , clashes occurred between security forces and ORG militants . The clashes started at TIME , just after the ORG militants had attacked the security forces . Thereafter all the policemen , the special teams and soldiers in ORG started to fire at random . The clashes lasted TIME . The security forces used heavy weapons , canons , tanks and CARDINAL helicopters . As a result of the clashes CARDINAL people died , CARDINAL people were wounded and CARDINAL shops and CARDINAL houses were destroyed .

Shortly after the beginning of the clashes the soldiers ordered the inhabitants of ORG to go to their homes . All the roads in and out of ORG were sealed off during the incident for security reasons . A curfew was then imposed with immediate effect . The curfew lasted until DATE .

In the meantime , it was broadcast on radio and television that ORG , General PERSON , had been shot dead by the ORG and that CARDINAL people had been killed , many people had been wounded and CARDINAL shops and houses had been destroyed in the raid by the ORG .

After the incidents , ORG opened an investigation into the deaths of CARDINAL people and injuries to CARDINAL others , as well as the destruction of property in the city . The security forces prepared an incident report and drew up a sketch map of the manner in which the clashes occurred .

ORG found that the events of DATE had begun at TIME when a group of ORG terrorists , who were hiding in the LOC on the side of the ORG road , opened fire on a police minibus belonging to ORG . Then the ORG militants , who were positioned in various central areas of ORG , opened fire with longrange weapons on ORG , ORG , ORG and public buildings . Brigadier General PERSON was shot dead while he was in the PERSON Headquarters’ garden . The clashes occurred shortly after the security forces’ response to the ORG attack . The clashes were intense TIME ORG noted the names of the people killed or injured as well as the number of buildings destroyed during the clashes . He further noted that CARDINAL people had been arrested after the clashes as a result of the investigation and that they had been transferred to ORG at ORG .

On DATE the ORG Governor , PERSON , and ORG , PERSON , arrived in ORG . PERSON addressed the public gathering and said , “ No one can oppose the ORG . We will crush those who do so ... It is a pity for those who died . ” PERSON , the ORG Governor , made a public announcement that people would be compensated for the damage they had suffered .

The Government also considered the ORG incidents a national disaster and promised to compensate the loss sustained by the victims of ORG from the disaster fund earmarked in the DATE budget .

On DATE ORG issued a decision of nonjurisdiction on the ground that the incidents fell within the jurisdiction of ORG . He sent the investigation file to ORG office at ORG in accordance with LAW no . CARDINAL .

In DATE the applicants all applied to ORG ( sulh hukuk mahkemesi ) for an assessment of the damage they suffered as a result of the clashes . The court appointed CARDINAL experts to determine their damage . The experts submitted damage assessment reports to the court . They concluded that CARDINAL shops and CARDINAL houses had been destroyed . They also indicated in their report the nature and the amount of the damage suffered by each of the applicants .

The nature of the destroyed property is set out in the appendix . The applicants preferred not to indicate to the ORG the amount of their damage , as assessed at the time , due to the high inflation rates in GPE which have distorted the original evaluations .

The criminal proceedings concerning the killing of people and the destruction of property in ORG are still pending before ORG office at ORG .

A description of the relevant domestic law may be found in the ORG and Others v. GPE judgment of DATE , Reports of Judgments and Decisions DATE , LAW DATE , the Menteş and Others v. GPE judgment of DATE , Reports CARDINAL , § § CARDINAL ; the PERSON and PERSON v. GPE judgment of DATE , Reports CARDINAL-II , § § DATE ; the GPE v. GPE judgment of CARDINAL DATE , Reports CARDINAL , § § DATE ; the PERSON v. GPE judgment of DATE , to be published in Reports of Judgments and Decisions .


CASE OF LORSE AND OTHERS v. THE NETHERLANDS

Violation of Art. 3 with regard to the first applicant;No violation of Art. 3 with regard to the other applicants;No violation of Art. 8;No violation of Art. 13;Non-pecuniary damage - financial award;Costs and expenses partial award - Convention proceedings

The first applicant is Mr PERSON , who was born in DATE . The second applicant , PERSON ORG ( born in DATE ) , is the wife of the first applicant . The third , fourth and fifth applicants , PERSON PERSON PERSON ( born in DATE ) , PERSON PERSON ( born in DATE ) and ORG junior ( born in DATE ) , are the children of the first and second applicants .

The sixth , seventh , eighth and ninth applicants , PERSON van PERSON ( born in DATE ) , PERSON PERSON ( born in DATE ) , PERSON ORG born in DATE ) and GPE PERSON ( born in DATE ) , are children of the first applicant born out of previous relationships .

The first applicant is currently serving a prison sentence in GPE . The other applicants are all resident in GPE , with the exception of the ninth applicant who resides in GPE .

The first applicant , hereinafter referred to as Mr Lorsé , was taken into police custody ( in verzekering gesteld ) on DATE and subsequently placed in detention on remand ( voorlopige hechtenis ) . He was initially detained in ordinary remand institutions ( huizen van bewaring ) .

Mr PERSON was convicted of drugs and firearms offences . He was sentenced at first instance to DATE imprisonment and a fine of MONEY ( NLG ) . On appeal the prison term was increased to CARDINAL years’ imprisonment , the fine remaining the same . His conviction and sentence became final on DATE when his appeal on points of law was rejected by ORG ( PERSON ) . He is now serving that sentence . He will be eligible for provisional release no sooner than DATE . It would appear that he has been sentenced in GPE to a DATE prison sentence for drugs - related crimes but that the proceedings there are still pending .

On DATE , while the criminal proceedings were still pending , Mr Lorsé handed his counsel a letter from the prison authorities from which it appeared that it was intended to place him ( Mr Lorsé ) in an extra security institution . On DATE Mr Lorsé was transferred to ORG ( PERSON Extra PERSON , “ TEBI ” ) , part of the PERSON Penitentiary Complex in FAC .

By a letter of CARDINAL DATE the Minister of ORG informed PERSON Lorsé that apart from the fact that he was suspected of very serious crimes , official information ( ambtsberichten ) was available from which it appeared that he was likely to use violence in an attempt to escape . Reference was made to the fact that he had already once managed to avoid being arrested , endangering human life in so doing . Reference was also made to the prison sentence awaiting him in GPE . In these circumstances it was considered that public order would be severely affected should Mr Lorsé manage to escape .

Mr PERSON was subsequently notified , by letters couched in similar terms and dated DATE , CARDINAL DATE , CARDINAL DATE , DATE , DATE , DATE and DATE , of the prolongation of his detention in the ORG and DATE following the rejection of his appeal on points of law on DATE in the Extra Security Institution ( Extra PERSON , “ ORG ” ) .

On a number of occasions Mr Lorsé made use of legal remedies to protest against his placement , and the prolongation of that placement , in the ORG . On DATE , for example , Mr Lorsé , through his counsel , lodged an appeal to ORG ( beroepscommissie ) of ORG ( Centrale PERSON ) against the decision of DATE to prolong his placement . In addition to stating that there was no factual justification for his continued detention in the ORG , he complained about the regime which he described as “ ill - befitting a state governed by the rule of law ” . Privacy was entirely lacking . Human contact with his wife and children was excessively restricted , any kind of intimacy with them being impossible . His psychological and physical health were affected , the symptoms being DATE headaches , shaking and loss of concentration , and he had had to seek the help of the prison psychologist . He referred to the findings of ORG for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman and Degrading Treatment or Punishment ( CPT – see below ) .

ORG gave its decision on DATE . It noted that there had been no new information since DATE which would tend to justify the fear that Mr PERSON might attempt to escape . Moreover , the remainder of his sentence had significantly decreased and that , together with the nature of the offences of which he had been convicted , reduced the prospect that public order would be affected if he did escape . Finally , his behaviour was reported to be good . In these circumstances any doubt should benefit Mr Lorsé . Accordingly , the competent authorities were ordered to reconsider their decision within DATE taking the decision of ORG into account .

On DATE a placement officer of ORG ( ORG – “ ORG ” ) recommended that Mr PERSON should remain in the ORG . Mr PERSON ’s situation was described as “ relatively stable ” , the fact that his prolonged detention in the ORG was becoming more and more of a burden to him being “ a normal reaction to a situation that [ was ] in many respects relatively extreme ( waarbij het feit dat een verblijf in de EBI steeds zwaarder gaat wegen een normale reactie is op een in veel opzichten betrekkelijk extreme situatie ) .

The Minister of ORG gave a new decision on DATE , again prolonging Mr PERSON ’s detention in the ORG . It was stated that a new decision had been made taking into account advice given by the governor of the PERSON penitentiary complex and the decision of ORG . In addition , reference was made to official information dated DATE from which it appeared that there was new and recent information to the effect that Mr Lorsé still constituted an increased security risk . The nature of this information was not disclosed but it was concluded that Mr PERSON was planning an escape with help from outside the institution and possibly involving the use of violence against persons . Reference was also made to the prison sentence which he would have to serve in GPE . Finally , the Minister was of the opinion that in view of inter alia the seriousness of Mr Lorsé ’s offences , public order would be seriously affected if PERSON managed to escape . Thus , although account had been taken of the decision of ORG , this latter decision could not prevail over the new official information .

Mr Lorsé ’s detention in the ORG was again extended on DATE , since official information of DATE and DATE indicated that he still posed an increased security risk . In its decision of DATE on Mr Lorsé ’s appeal against the prolongation of his placement in the ORG , ORG noted his arguments to the effect that his protracted stay in the ORG had negative effects not only on him but also on his relatives , and that he had referred to the present complaint lodged with the ORG . PERSON had also submitted the report of the psychiatrist PERSON ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) . ORG rejected the complaint , finding that in the absence of facts or circumstances militating against a continuation of Mr PERSON ’s detention in the ORG , the decision to prolong his placement was lawful and that , weighing up all the interests involved , it could not be considered unreasonable or unjust . ORG noted that it had taken into account the arguments raised by Mr Lorsé relating to his psychological condition .

By a letter dated DATE the Minister of ORG informed PERSON Lorsé of a further prolongation of his detention in the ORG . Reference was made to inter alia official information of DATE according to which Mr Lorsé still posed an increased security risk . There were indications that an attempt at escape would in all likelihood involve the help of co - detainees and/or persons outside the institution and the use of violence , inter alia through explosives , against persons .

On DATE Mr Lorsé lodged an appeal against the prolongation of his detention at the ORG with ORG , arguing that the official information of DATE had no basis in fact and further submitting that his continued detention at the ORG constituted a violation of LAW and CARDINAL of the Convention , not only with respect to himself but also with respect to his wife and children .

On DATE ORG rejected the appeal , finding that the risk that Mr Lorsé might escape was still too great to justify detaining him anywhere else than in a maximum security institution . It further considered that its task was to examine the decision to prolong Mr PERSON ’s detention in the ORG , and not the regime pertaining in that institution as such . For that reason , ORG declined to rule on the complaint under LAW . As to the complaint of a violation of LAW , ORG considered that the second paragraph of that provision allowed for an interference with the right to respect for private and family life as long as such interference was in accordance with the law and was necessary in a NORP society in the interest of , inter alia , the prevention of disorder and crime . ORG concluded once more that in the absence of facts or circumstances militating against a continuation of Mr PERSON ’s detention in the ORG , the decision to prolong his placement was lawful and that , weighing up all the interests involved , it could not be considered unreasonable or unjust .

Besides lodging appeals with ORG to contest the extension of his maximum security detention , Mr Lorsé , while still detained on remand , also applied for an interim injunction ( kort geding ) against the ORG on CARDINAL occasions , arguing that his placement in the ORG was unlawful . Both applications were rejected , in DATE and DATE respectively .

On DATE Mr PERSON was transferred from the ORG to a prison in GPE with a different regime . Of all prisoners who have been subjected to the maximum security regime in the GPE , PERSON PERSON was by far the longest - serving .

Mr PERSON ’s psychological condition was examined on a number of occasions . On DATE Mr V. , the head of ORG of the ORG , submitted an advisory opinion to the Minister of ORG concerning the prolongation of Mr Lorsé ’s placement at the ORG . His report of that date stated :

The ORG has previously reported on [ Mr Lorsé ] on DATE ... At that time it was reported that [ Mr Lorsé ] , who has been detained in the ORG since DATE , was finding it increasingly difficult to cope with his stay there . [ Mr Lorsé ] appeared to have reversed his day - night rhythm . [ Mr Lorsé ] had no contacts with the prison ’s medical and mental health care team . It was reported that , all in all , a picture was beginning to emerge of a man for whom the stay in the ORG was becoming increasingly difficult to bear , with adverse consequences for his functioning . It was advised that an attempt be made to restore contacts with the medical and health care team so that the reaction to a renewed perspective of a further long stay in the ORG might be monitored .

The report of DATE shows ups and downs with more pronounced and more frequent mood swings , especially lately . Apart from the long duration of the stay in the ORG and the lack of contact with the family , the changes in the composition of the [ ORG ] population also ... appear to play a role .

All in all , I am of the opinion that the stay in the ORG is increasingly difficult to bear for Mr Lorsé , and , barring concrete evidence regarding the likelihood of an escape attempt , that a transfer is to be preferred on psychosocial grounds alone . ”

On DATE Mr Lorsé was seen , in the ORG , by an independent psychiatrist , PERSON , at the request of his lawyer . Dr S. reported as follows :

“ I am unable to make a definite psychiatric diagnosis from a single psychiatric examination ; in particular , there are insufficient indications to diagnose a depression .

There are , nevertheless , a number of indications suggesting that [ Mr Lorsé ] is suffering under the protracted isolation ; he thus describes memory and orientation disorders as well as signs of depersonalisation which clearly point to that being the case .

[ Mr Lorsé ] is a man ... who has learned to survive through toughness . It is debatable whether the psychological carapace he has built up over DATE will be capable of withstanding the current extreme isolation , and it is , in my opinion , important therefore that a close eye be kept on him . Should he decompensate in a depressive sense – the risk of which is certainly not hypothetical – this will not be without danger : in such a situation a risk of suicidal actions is not to be underestimated . ”

On DATE , DATE after his transfer from the ORG , PERSON PERSON was seen by a different independent psychiatrist , PERSON , who had been requested by his lawyer to examine the psychological consequences of Mr PERSON ’s stay in the ORG . According to Dr C. , Mr PERSON was suffering from a moderately serious ( matig ernstig ) depression with endogenous features , moderately serious panic attacks and a conditioned avoidance response . Although PERSON was not found to be suicidal , he was troubled by nightmares relating mainly to suicide . He was also irritable and suffered regular panic attacks . CARDINAL of the reasons for this psychiatric condition was the fact that contact with his wife and children was seriously disrupted . He was incapable of working , either alone or with others , and his activity level was very much reduced . PERSON expressed the opinion that there was a causal link between the outward symptoms of the depression as well as the psychiatric disorders he found and PERSON long period of detention in the ORG . These disorders were becoming more marked now that PERSON Lorsé had more opportunities to have contacts with other people following his transfer from the ORG . His isolation in the ORG meant that his complaints were less visible to the outside world and he was in a better position there to fight against them . Now that he was receiving more attention , including some from social workers in the prison , there was a lowering of his resistance and fighting spirit against his helplessness and feelings of abandonment .

After PERSON report had been transmitted to the Government , they requested PERSON , a forensic psychiatrist employed by ORG of ORG , to examine Mr Lorsé in order to find out whether he was indeed suffering from the psychiatric disorders described by PERSON and , if so , whether these disorders were related to his detention in the ORG . Dr NORP saw Mr Lorsé twice , in DATE and DATE , and she noted in her report of CARDINAL DATE that during these meetings he had not displayed any symptoms of a disturbance of a depressive nature . She replied to the questions put by the ORG that at the time of her examination , Mr Lorsé was not suffering from a “ moderately serious depression ” . Although immediately after his transfer from the ORG he had had mild symptoms of an unspecified adjustment disorder , this was now in complete remission . PERSON acknowledged that this disorder was probably directly related to his prolonged detention in the ORG , but noted that most people who were detained in semi - isolation or maximum security facilities reacted in a similar manner . In PERSON opinion , Mr PERSON would have presented a similar profile if he had been detained in any other closed penal institution with rules similar to those in the ORG or semi - isolation facilities .

In a note dated DATE , the general practitioner of the third , fourth and fifth applicants described these children as being seriously traumatised as a result of the lack of contact with their father .

At the request of Mr Lorsé ’s lawyer , the probation services ( ORG ) issued an advisory report on DATE describing the situation of Mr PERSON ’s wife and their CARDINAL children ( i.e. the second to fifth applicants ) . Superficially , they seemed to have managed to cope with the problems they had faced in DATE . However , the very limited possibilities for contact with Mr Lorsé were causing problems . The fourth applicant had developed anorexia nervosa DATE previously . The second applicant felt unable to discuss relationship problems with her husband knowing that everything that was said would be recorded and could be used against her husband . In the report , the family was described as “ psychological wreckage ” ( psychisch wrakhout ) . The process which the CARDINAL children were going through in relation to their father was likened to a process of mourning . In conclusion , the probation services supported the appeal which Mr Lorsé had instituted against the prolongation of his placement in the ORG .

In an information report ( voorlichtingsrapport ) of DATE , again requested by Mr PERSON ’s lawyer , the probation services stated that the term “ psychological wreckage ” was still fully applicable to Mr Lorsé ’s family .

All GPE penal institutions fall into CARDINAL of CARDINAL security categories , ranging from very limited security ( FAC beperkt beveiligd ) to extra security ( extra beveiligd ) . The Minister of Justice lays down criteria according to which prisoners are to be selected for each such category ( LAW and DATE LAW beginselenwet ) .

The actual selection is carried out by a Ministry of Justice placement officer ( Article CARDINAL § § CARDINAL and CARDINAL of the DATE LAW ) .

NORP EBIs are intended for prisoners who , in descending order of importance ,

a ) are considered extremely likely to attempt to escape from closed penal institutions and who , if they succeed , pose an unacceptable risk to society in terms of again committing serious violent crimes ; or

b ) if they should escape , would pose an unacceptable risk to society in terms of severe disturbance of public order , the risk of escaping being , as such , of lesser importance .

A special ORG circular governs decisions to detain a prisoner in an extra security category institution or ORG ( ORG circular no . CARDINAL of DATE ) . In principle , placements in the ORG are made from an ordinary custodial institution . The governor of the custodial institution submits a proposal to the placement officer , giving reasons why the persons concerned should be detained in the ORG . Before submitting this proposal , the governor requests information about the person concerned from the secretary of a special ORG selection board , which comprises a representative of ORG , a psychologist and a representative of the board of governors of the ORG in FAC . The secretary having obtained such information from various sources , the governor then discusses his proposal with the detainee . Finally , he completes his report by adding the detainee ’s comments and any objections he may have , and submits his proposal to the selection board .

The placement officer considers the proposal , consults with the governor and interviews the detainee . He then draws up his own report on the governor ’s proposal and submits it to the selection board secretary . If the detainee is serving a long sentence or if a psychologist considers it necessary , it may be forwarded to ORG , which is responsible for issuing recommendations on the psychological aspects of the enforcement of custodial sentences and orders . The ORG is always consulted about first placements . The case is subsequently discussed by the selection board , chaired by the placement officer .

The decision to detain a prisoner in an ORG is reviewed DATE . The ORG governor must submit a behavioural report ( gedragsrapportage ) on the detainee at corresponding intervals . Prior to the decision to prolong the placement in the ORG , the detainee is interviewed by the placement officer . In all other respects the procedure is the same as the placement procedure .

Decisions as referred to above are nominally those of the Minister of ORG .

The DATE LAW and ORG ) apply in full to detainees in the ORG , giving them the same rights and obligations as detainees in ordinary institutions . A number of security measures is built into the regime , and detainees are under surveillance at all times outside their cells . These special arrangements are set out in the ORG house rules ( PERSON model huisregels ORG , CARDINAL DATE , CARDINAL/CARDINAL/DJ , Government Gazette DATE , no . CARDINAL ) . The following are features of the ORG regime :

– all contacts with the outside world are screened ; all correspondence and telephone calls ( twice a week for TIME ) are screened except for those with privileged contacts ; detainees must be separated from their visitors ( CARDINAL visit DATE for TIME ) by a transparent partition ( “ closed visits ” ) ; members of their immediate families , spouses and partners may visit once a month without such partition ( “ open visits ” ) , although physical contact is restricted to a handshake on arrival and departure ; visitors must submit to a search of their clothes ( frisking ) before an “ open ” visit ;

– only CARDINAL detainee at a time may come into contact with staff , and CARDINAL staff members must be present ; for this purpose , special corridors have been built leading to areas where group activities take place ; these areas are under camera surveillance or supervised by staff who are physically separated from inmates by a partition ;

– detainees may take part in sports at least twice DATE ; they may spend TIME a day outdoors and may also use the exercise yard at fixed times during recreation periods in their programme ; they are entitled to spend TIME a week engaging in group recreation ;

– CARDINAL people at a time may take part in group activities ;

– detainees who leave the premises must be handcuffed , for instance when going to court or for hospital treatment ; they may also be handcuffed inside the ORG , in areas where they might have access to objects with which they could injure staff or take hostages , for example when visiting the hairdresser ’s or the clinic , or when being escorted to “ open ” visits ;

– cells are periodically ( in practice : DATE ) subjected to a more thorough search ; at the same time or immediately afterwards the detainees are frisked and strip - searched ; the strip - search , which involves an external viewing of the body ’s orifices and crevices , including an anal inspection , is carried out in a closed room and , whenever possible , by a person of the detainee ’s own gender ;

– frisking and strip - searching also takes place

▪ on arrival in and release from the ORG

▪ before and after “ open ” visits

▪ after visits to the clinic , the dentist ’s surgery or the hairdresser ’s ;

– the ORG governor , or in urgent cases an ORG officer or employee , may decide that the detainee must be subjected to an internal body search if this is considered necessary to prevent the maintenance of good order or safety within the prison being endangered , or to protect the detainee ’s own health ; an internal body search is usually carried out by a doctor but he may also instruct a nurse to carry out the search .

If a prisoner wishes to contest the decision either to place him in the ORG or to prolong such placement , he could , at the time relevant to the present case , file an appeal to the CARDINAL - member ORG of ORG for ORG ( LAW ) . ORG , which was superseded by ORG on DATE , was constituted of members appointed and dismissed by LAW . Its duties included advising the Minister of ORG , at the latter ’s request or proprio motu , on matters concerning the application of policy and legal rules relating to the prison system ( Articles CARDINAL § § CARDINAL and CARDINAL sub CARDINAL of LAW DATE Beginselenwet gevangeniswezen ) . It also had other duties , including the hearing of appeals .

If ORG considered the appeal well - founded , it could instruct the Minister to make a new decision in which its own decision was to be taken into account , for which it could set a time - limit . It could also rule that its decision was to take the place of the decision appealed against , or confine itself to annulling the latter decision ( Article CARDINAL § § CARDINAL and CARDINAL taken together with LAW ) .

A number of persons detained in the ORG has in the past instituted interim injunction proceedings , sometimes together with close family members , in order to have the regime , or certain aspects of it , relaxed . However , in cases decided under domestic law it has been held that where pursuant to prison law an administrative remedy , with sufficient procedural safeguards , is available against a particular decision , there is no room for an injunction decision that is in conflict with a decision made in the administrative proceedings ( see , mutatis mutandis , ORG judgment of DATE , PERSON ( GPE Law Reports ) DATE , no . CARDINAL ; and the judgment of ORG ( Gerechtshof ) of GPE of DATE , case no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL KG , relating specifically to aspects of the ORG regime ) . In cases where such an administrative remedy was available and where detainees and family members instituted injunction proceedings jointly , it has been argued on behalf of the ORG that those family members should await the outcome of the administrative proceedings even if the family members themselves may not appear as parties to those proceedings . In the aforementioned judgment of ORG it was held that the interests of family members must be deemed to have been taken into account in the administrative proceedings .

In interim injunction proceedings instituted by an ORG detainee , his wife and one of his children , in which one of the points at issue was the ORG governor ’s refusal to allow the detainee to conduct telephone conversations in NORP , counsel for the ORG had argued on appeal that the request for an interim injunction should be declared inadmissible , since the detainee ’s complaint had already been dealt with by ORG . However , by judgment of DATE , ORG declared the appeal admissible because , ORG having ruled on the detainee ’s complaint by then , there was no longer an administrative procedure pending which had to be disposed of on penalty of his civil proceedings being declared inadmissible . ORG then proceeded to reject the request for an interim injunction since ORG in its decision had considered the decision of the ORG governor lawful and the proceedings before ORG were deemed to have sufficient procedural safeguards ( case no . QUANTITY , PERSON ( “ Interim Injunction Law Reports ” ) DATE , no . CARDINAL ) .

In a decision of CARDINAL DATE ( case no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL , GPE ( “ Sanctions ” ) DATE , Issue CARDINAL , no . CARDINAL ) , in proceedings lodged by CARDINAL detainees who argued that the maximum security regime was in violation of inter alia LAW , the President of ORG ordered the ORG to amend the regime in such a way that detainees be given more time to telephone their lawyers and that they be allowed visits from members of their immediate family without a glass partition and with a modicum of physical contact . Visiting regulations were subsequently changed in line with this judgment .

The ORG visited the GPE from CARDINAL until DATE . Its findings with regard to ORG ( PERSON Extra PERSON – Temporary Extra Security Institution ) and the ORG were the following ( ORG to ORG on the visit to the GPE carried out by ORG for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman and Degrading Treatment or Punishment ( ORG ) from DATE , ORG ( DATE ) CARDINAL , excerpt ) :

“ DATE . The FAC , which is located in a heavily - wooded area of FAC , began life in DATE as a prison for CARDINAL young offenders , and has since expanded to become one of the largest prison complexes in the GPE . At the time of the ORG ’s visit , it had a total capacity of CARDINAL places for young offenders and adult male prisoners .

The focus of the ORG ’s visit to the establishment was the national ‘ extra security institution’ ( unit CARDINAL ) , which provides CARDINAL places for prisoners who have been deemed likely to attempt to escape using violence ( CARDINAL places for remand prisoners and CARDINAL places for convicted inmates ) . The unit is located in CARDINAL distinct buildings : the CARDINAL ‘ temporary extra security institution’ ( Tijdelijk Extra PERSON ) opened in DATE and is physically located in CARDINAL wing of unit CARDINAL , while the CARDINAL , custom - built , ‘ extra security institution’ ( Extra PERSON ) was completed in DATE .

b. material conditions

The cells seen by the ORG ’s delegation in both ORG and ORG buildings were of a reasonable size for single occupancy ( TIME ) , appropriately furnished ( bed , chair , storage cupboard and table ) and equipped with a lavatory and wash basin .

In - cell artificial lighting was of a good standard in both buildings ; however , access to natural light was noticeably poorer in the ( T)EBI ( where the cell windows are partially obscured by frosted glass panels ) than in the ORG . The ventilation in the ( ORG cells also left something to be desired . A number of the ( ORG prisoners interviewed by the delegation complained about these shortcomings .

The ORG recommends that steps be taken to improve access to natural light in cells in the ( ORG . The visiting delegation was informed that work to improve the ventilation system in the ( ORG was due to begin in DATE ; the ORG would like to receive confirmation that this work has now been completed , together with details of the improvements involved .

More generally , while the ORG was located in bright and reasonably spacious LOC , ORG ( which is also known as the ‘ oud ORG or ‘ old ORG ) was a markedly more cramped facility . The ORG would like to be informed of whether the NORP authorities plan to close the ‘ temporary’ extra security institution in the foreseeable future .

c. regime

The ORG ’s views on the nature of the regime which should be offered to prisoners held in special security units were set out in detail in the report on its DATE visit to the GPE . In that context , the ORG welcomed the recommendation of ORG that any future ORG should have ‘ as normal a regime as PERSON .

In its DATE report , the ORG stressed that prisoners should enjoy a relatively relaxed regime ( able to mix freely with the small number of fellow prisoners in the unit ; allowed to move without restriction within what is likely to be a relatively small physical space ; granted a good deal of choice about activities , etc . ) by way of compensation for their severe custodial situation . Special efforts should be made to develop a good internal atmosphere within such units . The aim should be to build positive relations between staff and prisoners . This is in the interests not only of the humane treatment of the unit ’s occupants but also of the maintenance of effective control and security and of staff safety . The existence of a satisfactory programme of activities is just as important – if not more so – in a special detention unit as on normal location . It can do much to counter the deleterious effects upon a prisoner ’s personality of living in the bubble - like atmosphere of such a unit . The activities provided should be as diverse as possible ( education , sport , work of vocational value etc . ) As regards , in particular , work activities , it is clear that security considerations may preclude many types of work activities which are found on normal prison location . Nevertheless , this should not mean that only work of a tedious nature is provided for prisoners . In this respect , reference might be made to the suggestions set out in paragraph CARDINAL of the Explanatory Memorandum to Recommendation No . R(CARDINAL)CARDINAL of ORG .

The current regime in the ( ORG and ORG units is governed by a circular which was issued by ORG on DATE ( cf . document CARDINAL ) . According to the circular :

‘ The extra security institution ( ORG ) at ORG has a limited communication regime . A differentiation of regimes is referred to within the ORG , where a distinction is made between what is known as the A regime , where greater restrictions apply , and the B regime , with less extreme restrictions .

Groups of CARDINAL and a maximum of CARDINAL inmates take part in activities . Under the B regime , a maximum of CARDINAL inmates takes part in communal activities , while the maximum number is CARDINAL under the A regime . Communal activities involve only inmates from a single section .

For security reasons , staff in contact with inmates must always outnumber the inmates , or must even be completely separated from them physically by a transparent ( glass ) wall . Moreover , with a view to the safety of the staff concerned , in those cases covered by LAW , sub - sections CARDINAL , chapter III , of the internal regulations of ORG , inmates’ movements are restricted by handcuffs.’

The delegation found that , in practice , out - of - cell time in the ( ORG and ORG on DATE varied from a minimum of TIME ( of outdoor exercise ) to a maximum of CARDINAL ( of outdoor exercise / recreation and/or sport ) . Depending upon the regime in which an inmate had been placed ( A / B ) and the group to which they had been allocated , these activities would take place with CARDINAL other inmates .

The outdoor exercise yards in the ORG were of a reasonable size and a ‘ running strip’ was available for inmates who wished to engage in more strenuous physical activities . The exercise yards in the ( ORG were also large enough to enable prisoners to exert themselves physically ; however , their cage - like design rendered them rather oppressive facilities .

During recreation periods ( of TIME ) , inmates were allowed access to communal areas where they could associate with each other , cook and eat their own food , use a computer and/or play games including table tennis .

As regards facilities for sport , each of the CARDINAL units in the ORG was equipped with an impressive array of exercise equipment , located in a lofty glass atrium . However , inmates only had access to this equipment for CARDINAL or TIME sessions per week . Again , the equivalent facilities in ORG were of a lower standard . The ORG also had a large and well - equipped gymnasium but , at the time of the visit , it appeared that comparatively little use was being made of this facility .

There were no organised education activities . There was also no out - of - cell work ; some in - cell work was offered to inmates , but it was of a very unchallenging nature ( e.g. stringing plastic curtain hooks onto short rods ) .

All inmate activities within ORG and ORG were subject to a high level of staff surveillance ( which is perfectly understandable in a unit of this type ) ; however , direct contacts between staff and inmates were very limited ( staff and inmate usually being separated by armoured glass panels ) . This is not conducive to building positive relations between staff and prisoners . Contact with non - custodial staff – including medical staff DATE was also subject to a number of very significant restrictions ( ... ) .

It should also be noted that prisoners were regularly strip - searched ( a practice euphemistically referred to as ‘ visitatie’ ) . Such searches – which included anal inspections – were carried out at least once DATE on all prisoners , regardless of whether the persons concerned had had any contact with the outside world .

Concerning contact with the outside world , it should be noted that the house rules for ORG and ORG units provide that prisoners have the right to receive CARDINAL visit of TIME from family members and other persons approved in advance by prison management . In principle , visits took place under ‘ NORP conditions ( i.e. through an armoured glass panel in a visiting booth ) . Prisoners also had the right to request CARDINAL ‘ CARDINAL visit per month from family members ; however , physical contact during such visits was limited to a handshake on arrival and leaving . Prisoners and their families remained separated by a table equipped with a chest - high barrier and prison staff stood directly behind the prisoner throughout the visit . A number of inmates interviewed by the delegation indicated that , given the upsetting effects which these restrictions had had upon their families , they no longer requested ‘ PERSON visits .

To sum up , prisoners held in the ( ORG and ORG units were subject to a very impoverished regime . They spent too little time out of their cells ; when out of their cells they associated with only a small number of fellow inmates and their relations with staff and visitors were very limited ; consequently , they did not have adequate human contact . Further , the programme of activities was underdeveloped . This was particularly the case as regards education and work . However , even as regards sport , inmates had insufficient access to the very good facilities available . Moreover , certain aspects of the regime ( in particular , systematic strip - searching ) did not appear to respond to legitimate security needs , and are humiliating for prisoners .

DATE . The delegation ’s lengthy interviews with CARDINAL prisoners held in the ( T)EBI and ORG indicated that the regime as a whole was having harmful psychological consequences for those subjected to it . Indeed , the interviews revealed a consistent association of psychological symptoms which appeared to have been induced by the regime . The inmates concerned displayed the following symptom profile :

- feelings of helplessness , which took the form of a disturbance of normal identity and severe difficulty of projection into the future ; in certain cases , the loss of identity was associated with definite episodes of depersonalisation ;

- feelings of powerlessness , closely linked to helplessness , and leading to regression and excessive pre - occupation with bodily functions ;

- anger , the predominant emotion being one of rage ( clearly linked to feelings of powerlessness ) and directed against self ( with expressions of low esteem , lack of confidence and associated depressive symptoms ) and others ;

- communication difficulties , associated with the above - mentioned depersonalisation symptoms .

The delegation ’s concerns about the harmful psychological consequences of the regime were reinforced during its subsequent visit to the Dr S. van Mesdag Clinic , where it interviewed a number of patients who had previously been held in the ( ORG or ORG , in whom persistent psychological sequelae ( insomnia ; anxiety symptoms ; disturbance of identity ; emotional liability and psychosomatic symptoms ) were clearly present .

The ORG would add that it is aware that the psychologist employed in the ( ORG and ORG has publicly expressed the conviction that the regime has led to ‘ no significant harmful effects on ORG . However , this opinion has never been subject to any form of peer review or professional assessment . It should be added that the Psychiatric Adviser to ORG expressed a contrary view to the delegation , citing as an example a case of a prisoner who had developed a florid paranoid psychosis while held in the ( T)EBI .

In the light of all of the information at its disposal , the ORG has been led to conclude that the regime currently being applied in ORG and ORG could be considered to amount to inhuman treatment . To subject prisoners classified as dangerous to such a regime could well render them more dangerous still .

The facilities in the extra security institution are of a high standard . They are quite capable of offering a regime meeting the criteria set out in paragraph CARDINAL without jeopardising legitimate security concerns .

The ORG recommends that the regime currently applied in the extra security institution be revised in the light of the remarks set out in DATE . In particular , the existing group system , if not discarded , should at least be relaxed and inmates should be allowed more out - of - cell time and a broader range of activities . Further , the current searching policies should be reviewed in order to ensure that they are strictly necessary from a security standpoint . Similarly , current visiting arrangements should be reviewed ; the objective should be to have visits taking place under more open conditions .

Finally , the ORG recommends that the NORP authorities commission an independent study of the psychological state of current and former inmates of the extra security institution . ”

ORG responded in the following terms ( Interim report of ORG in response to the report of ORG for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman and Degrading Treatment or Punishment ( ORG ) on its visit to the GPE from DATE , ORG ( DATE ) CARDINAL , excerpt ) :

“ CARDINAL . ORG ( ( ORG ) at the FAC

Recommendations by the ORG

The ORG recommends that the regime currently applied in the extra security institution be revised in the light of the remarks set out in DATE . In particular , the existing group system , if not discarded , should at least be relaxed and inmates should be allowed more out - of - cell time and a broader range of activities . Further , the current searching policies should be reviewed in order to ensure that they are strictly necessary from a security standpoint . Similarly , current visiting arrangements should be reviewed ; the objective should be to have visits taking place under more open conditions ( paragraph DATE )

Response : The ( ORG houses prisoners who are deemed exceptionally likely to attempt to escape , either with help from outside or by violent means . Generally speaking , they fall into CARDINAL categories : prisoners believed to be members of criminal organisations ; prisoners serving sentences for manslaughter or murder ; and prisoners who have escaped from prison in the past either by taking staff hostage or by using firearms ( and perhaps with help from outside ) . Arrangements for the detention of such prisoners need to be based first and foremost on systematic , fail - safe security arrangements , though a humane regime should then be provided within that context . The task of the ORG , like any other prison , is to execute custodial sentences without disruption . The restrictions imposed on prisoners should be no more than are necessary to deprive them of their liberty . What distinguishes the ORG from other prisons is the nature of the restrictions required to achieve that purpose . They must be more severe because the prisoners present , by definition , an above - average risk of escape or disruption of the normal prison regime . In practice , this means that the purpose of ORG and ORG is to create a place and regime from which it is impossible to escape , even by taking staff hostage .

The regime in the ORG is the most severe anywhere in the GPE . For that reason , use of the institution is kept to a minimum and the decision to place prisoners there is taken and later reviewed at frequent intervals by a broad - based external committee . Despite the severity of the regime , prisoners in the ORG are offered sufficient out - of - cell time ( paragraph CARDINAL ) and have the opportunity to take part in recreational , sporting , musical , creative , educational and other activities . The range of activities on offer gives prisoners regular opportunities for human contact and the staff of the ORG deliberately strive to encourage such contact and participation in activities wherever possible . The small size of the unit ’s population ( paragraph CARDINAL ) is essential to the maintenance of order , security and control and to the prevention of escapes . It is true that there are special restrictions on contact with the outside world ( in the form of the glass partition separating prisoners from visitors ) , but the frequency of visits is the same as in a normal remand centre .

The arrangements for searches in the ( ORG and ORG are essential to ensure the safety of staff . They have been evaluated in the past , as part of the DATE assessment of the ORG , and it has been decided that prisoners should not be searched more often than strictly necessary . This means that prisoners are not always searched on return to their cells , but only if they have been out of sight of the warder who let them out .

Visits are organised in such a way as to permit visual , verbal and non - verbal contact while preventing direct physical contact . The special visiting arrangements are among the most important security measures to prevent escapes . If visits were more ‘ open’ and there were any chance of smuggling contraband into the prison , there would be little point in the existence of the ORG .

The ORG recommends that the NORP authorities commission an independent study of the psychological state of current and former inmates of the extra security institution ( paragraph CARDINAL )

Response : ORG intends to investigate the performance of the ORG in DATE . It will then consider instituting a further study of the impact of the ORG regime on the psychological state of inmates if the outcome of that investigation gives reason to do so . ”

The Ministry of Justice commissioned researchers of ORG to conduct a preliminary study of the ORG ’s policy on care for the mental well - being of detainees and of the feasibility of a main study of the psychological impact of a high security regime on the mental well - being of ( former ) inmates . On DATE a report entitled “ Care in and around the Maximum Security Prison ” ( Zorg in en om de Extra PERSON ) was issued by the researchers . It concluded that the concern expressed in policy documents for the mental well - being of detainees held in maximum security conditions was indeed evident in the day - to - DATE running of the ORG in that ORG personnel proved aware of the tension between security and humanity , and endeavoured to reduce this tension . It was further concluded in the report that a study of the psychological impact of a high security regime was feasible . The researchers nevertheless emphasised that they had examined neither the quality of the care for the mental well - being of the ORG detainees , the actual psychological condition of the detainees nor the effects which the regime was having on them .

The Minister of ORG has commissioned a follow - up study from the same researchers , involving monitoring day - night rhythm stress and other factors among maximum security detainees and a control group of detainees in semi - isolation . This study is set to be completed by DATE .