Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading treatment;Inhuman treatment) (Substantive aspect);Respondent State to take measures of a general character (Article 46-2 - Measures of a general character);Pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage - award

Alvina Gyulumyan;Corneliu Bîrsan;Egbert Myjer;Ineta Ziemele;Josep Casadevall;Kristina Pardalos;Luis López Guerra;Nona Tsotsoria

The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE .

On DATE the ORG sentenced the applicant to DATE and CARDINAL months’ imprisonment . The decision became final on DATE with the decision of ORG and ORG .

The applicant was arrested on DATE . He remained in prison until his release on probation on CARDINAL DATE . He served his sentence as follows :

- from DATE to DATE in FAC ;

- from CARDINAL to CARDINAL DATE in ORG ;

- from DATE to DATE in FAC ;

- from DATE to DATE in ORG ;

- from DATE to CARDINAL DATE in PERSON ;

- from DATE to CARDINAL DATE in FAC ;

- from DATE to DATE in PERSON ;

- from DATE to DATE in FAC ;

- from DATE to DATE in ORG ;

- from DATE to DATE in PERSON ;

- from DATE to DATE in ORG ;

- from DATE to DATE in FAC ;

- from DATE to CARDINAL DATE in LOC ;

- from DATE to DATE in FAC ;

- from DATE to DATE in ORG ;

- from DATE to CARDINAL DATE in FAC ;

- from DATE to CARDINAL DATE in LOC ;

- from DATE to DATE in FAC ;

- from DATE in ORG ;

- from DATE to CARDINAL DATE in Ploieşti Prison ;

- from DATE to CARDINAL DATE in LOC ;

- from DATE to CARDINAL DATE in FAC ;

- from DATE to CARDINAL DATE in ORG ;

- from DATE in FAC ;

- from DATE to CARDINAL DATE in ORG ;

- from DATE to DATE in ORG ;

- from DATE in ORG ;

- from DATE to CARDINAL DATE in FAC ;

- from DATE to DATE in FAC ;

- from DATE to DATE in FAC ;

- from DATE in ORG ;

- from DATE to CARDINAL DATE in FAC ;

- from DATE to DATE in FAC ;

- from DATE to CARDINAL DATE in FAC ;

- from DATE to CARDINAL DATE in FAC ;

- from DATE to CARDINAL DATE in PERSON and FAC .

The exact circumstances of the applicant ’s detention are in dispute between the parties .

In respect of all the establishments in which he had been detained , the applicant alleged that he had been kept in overcrowded cells , in poor conditions of hygiene , that the food had been poor , and that he did not enjoy enough out - of - cell time and appropriate activities .

He also referred to the information provided in the ORG and ORG - CH reports and to the conditions of detention already established by the ORG in its previous judgments with respect to each of the detention facilities where he was detained , alleging that he had experienced the same conditions .

NORP The material conditions in LOC throughout the periods when he was detained there DATE and DATE , were described by the applicant as follows .

The cells were overcrowded and he often had to share an QUANTITY wide bed with another inmate . He shared cells equipped with CARDINAL beds with CARDINAL detainees : in cell no . CARDINAL ( formerly no . CARDINAL ) there were CARDINAL beds for CARDINAL inmates ; in cell no . DATE ( formerly no . CARDINAL ) there were CARDINAL beds for CARDINAL inmates ; in cell no . CARDINAL ( formerly no . CARDINAL ) there were CARDINAL beds for CARDINAL inmates ; and in cell no . CARDINAL ( formerly no . CARDINAL ) there were QUANTITY beds for CARDINAL inmates .

The above information makes it possible to calculate the personal space available to each detainee and is consistent with the information submitted by the ORG and ORG ( “ ORG ” ) and with the ORG reports on the surface of cells and the occupancy rate . For instance , in DATE there were CARDINAL detainees in FAC , whereas the legal capacity of the prison was CARDINAL places . In terms of the minimum space of QUANTITY per person recommended by the ORG , the prison should have housed CARDINAL inmates . The applicant referred to the ORG ’s findings that the main problem of Ploieşti Prison was overcrowding , with CARDINAL CARDINAL square metres of personal space per detainee .

There were only bunk beds , and the top bed was QUANTITY high . There were no tables in the cells and there was no dining room , so detainees had their meals and other activities ( writing , playing chess , and so on ) in bed . Cells had CARDINAL window , which was QUANTITY wide and QUANTITY high .

Cells were infested with insects , and the bed linen was unclean and lice - infested .

There were CARDINAL or CARDINAL sinks to a cell , providing cold water only .

Access to communal showers with hot water was allowed only once DATE .

The applicant alleged a lack of activities outside the cell during his stay in FAC . He referred also to the ORG findings that the lack of DATE activities in that prison was another major problem .

The applicant alleged that the cells in ORG were overcrowded too , so he had to share a bed with another inmate . In the cell he occupied , no . DATE , there were CARDINAL beds for CARDINAL inmates .

The sinks in the cell did not have hot water and there were CARDINAL toilets for all CARDINAL prisoners .

The material conditions in LOC and its FAC throughout his detention there DATE , were described by the applicant as follows .

There was overcrowding in LOC and detainees had QUANTITY per person .

There were no chairs in the cell , and the metal bunk beds were designed so that detainees were not able to sit up straight on the lower bed .

Lavatories in the cells had deteriorated ceilings and walls and hot water was available only once a week for TIME .

NORP Moreover , during an unspecified period in DATE the water was cut off TIME and TIME , a situation due , according to a statement made by the head of logistics at FAC , to a general water shortage .

As a result of these conditions , the applicant was unable to maintain a proper standard of corporal hygiene .

The material conditions which the applicant experienced during his periods of detention in PERSON and its hospital from DATE until his release in DATE were described by the applicant as follows .

Overcrowding was general and severe throughout the prison and the personal space per detainee was extremely limited : cells with a surface of QUANTITY were accommodating CARDINAL prisoners , and cells with a surface of QUANTITY housed CARDINAL prisoners . There were several rows of bunk beds . The applicant often had to share a bed with another inmate ; in cell no . CARDINAL , for instance , there were CARDINAL beds for CARDINAL inmates , and in cell no . CARDINAL there were CARDINAL beds for CARDINAL inmates .

The above information makes it possible to calculate the personal space available to each detainee and is consistent with the information submitted by the ORG and ORG ( “ ORG ” ) on the surface of cells and the occupancy rate . DATE the personal space available to detainees , according to the DATE information recorded in the official registers , varied from QUANTITY in DATE to QUANTITY in DATE and QUANTITY from DATE to DATE . During DATE , only in DATE did the applicant have personal space exceeding QUANTITY , that is , QUANTITY , to be precise .

The sanitary facilities were poor , the toilets had no water supply and the sinks in the cells had no hot water .

Cells were often dirty and the bed linen was old , worn and often unclean .

Sanitary conditions were very poor , there were cockroaches , rats , lice and bedbugs in the prison ; the applicant was even bitten by a rat in DATE , for which he was given a vaccination .

There were hardly any out - of - cell activities .

The Government submitted CARDINAL pages with general information on the legal framework and conditions of detention in prisons in GPE , and part of the applicant ’s administrative file in detention .

With regard to overcrowding , they submitted that the overcrowding problem had been solved in DATE , save in Ploieşti Prison , where it had been solved only in DATE . The Government provided information submitted by the ORG concerning the number of beds available in each prison and the number of detainees accommodated DATE . It shows that in the prisons of PERSON , PERSON and PERSON , the number of beds has exceeded the number of prisoners since DATE . In LOC the number of beds has exceeded the number of detainees since DATE .

The Government submitted nonetheless that it was not always possible to determine the precise cells where the applicant had been detained , as prison records were regularly destroyed after a certain time .

Detainees were responsible for cleaning the cells and were accordingly provided with the necessary cleaning products . The other parts of the prisons were cleaned twice a DATE or whenever necessary , specialised companies were in charge of disinfesting the LOC DATE or whenever necessary and the bed sheets were changed once DATE .

It was the legal right of detainees to be provided with the necessary products for their personal hygiene .

DATE and DATE substantial investments were made to modernise the prisons . In each prison there was a committee in charge of supervising the condition of the buildings and cells and ordering repairs whenever necessary . These committees functioned or function according to orders nos . CARDINAL/CARDINAL , DATE and CARDINAL of ORG ( GDP ) within ORG , and order no . ORG of the Director General of ORG .

As a result of the entry into force of Law no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL , the domestic legislation concerning detention facilities now complied with ORG recommendations on lighting , heating , ventilation , sanitary installations and furniture in prisons .

NORP In all prisons the quality of drinking water was checked regularly , as required by Law no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL , Government Decision no . FAC and Order no . CARDINAL of the GDP ’s Director General . Cut - offs were purely accidental or limited in time . As for the food , the quantity and quality were set according to the categories of detainees , as prescribed by Order no . CARDINAL of the Minister of ORG .

For an ordinary , male , non - working detainee , the standard was set by “ Norm no . CARDINAL ” at CARDINAL calories per day , from a diet consisting of starch , pork meat , vegetables of the Apiaceae family , biscuits , tinned vegetables , margarine , oil , marmalade , QUANTITY of salted cheese , onion and garlic , sugar and various spices . Other kinds of meat , fresh vegetables and dairy products , as well as eggs and fruit , dried or fresh , were reserved for particular categories of detainees , such as pregnant women and their babies and sick detainees during their stay in a hospital .

Before the adoption of PERSON no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL , prisoners were entitled to CARDINAL shower per week and they could have their bed sheets changed once every fortnight .

Law no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL improved this situation , providing for detainees to have a shower at least twice DATE and , since all prisons now had a laundry service , bed sheets were changed DATE .

All prisons had a central heating system and cells were heated in DATE with warmers . The Minister of ORG ’s Order no . CARDINAL/C/CARDINAL laid down clear rules regulating the heating of prisons according to their geographical location . In DATE , according to an order of the GDP ’s Director General , cell doors had to be kept open and sustained efforts were made to allow detainees to spend as much time outside the cell as possible .

The Government made specific submissions in respect of the following detention facilities in which the applicant was detained :

The Government had no information concerning the dimensions of the cells , the number of beds and the available space .

There was no refectory room in FAC , so prisoners had their meals in their cells , where tables were part of the furniture .

Air circulation was possible through the cell windows .

Each cell had CARDINAL sinks with cold water . Before DATE , prisoners were allowed to shower once DATE . After the entry into force of PERSON no . CARDINAL , they were entitled to QUANTITY showers DATE .

As to outside activities , before DATE the applicant was entitled to a daily TIME walk . Law no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL increased the duration of the DATE walk , and the new norm depended on the detention regime ( open , semi - open and closed ) .

Moreover , the applicant had taken part in many out - of - cell activities which , before PERSON no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL entered into force , were available DATE to detainees in each cell . After DATE , only prisoners with an open or semi - open regime were entitled to daily activities .

As regards the severe overcrowding in FAC , the Director of ORG had taken effective measures in DATE to diminish the number of prisoners admitted to prison .

Cells contained beds , a table , a bench , a coat hanger , a stand for a TV set and a TV set .

A sanitary annex was equipped with sinks , shower , and toilets .

Each cell and sanitary annex had windows , which let in air and natural light .

Detention cell no . DATE , where the applicant alleged that he had been detained , had CARDINAL beds and CARDINAL prisoners .

The number of detainees did not exceed the number of beds . The cell , with a surface of QUANTITY and a window measuring QUANTITY , contained CARDINAL beds , a table , a bench , a coat hanger and a stand for a TV set . QUANTITY store room with a QUANTITY window was attached to the cell .

A sanitary annex measuring QUANTITY was attached to the cell , equipped with CARDINAL sinks , CARDINAL shower , a toilet , and a window measuring QUANTITY .

In DATE , the cells were heated to QUANTITY . Hot and cold water was available permanently . Until DATE , detainees were allowed to use the shower DATE , and thereafter twice a DATE . However , in DATE , to save money , there were restrictions on the use of cold water .

The applicant was involved in many activities outside the cell , such as building wooden ships ( from DATE ) , writing articles for CARDINAL prison newspapers , attending religious activities ( from DATE ) and a special programme to prevent HIV infection and the consumption of illicit drugs , and he frequently used the prison library .

The applicant also received psychological assistance for his problems .

NORP The prison records indicating the cells occupied by the applicant from DATE had been destroyed .

In DATE and DATE the applicant had occupied cells no . CARDINAL , which measured QUANTITY , and no . CARDINAL , measuring QUANTITY . CARDINAL persons had been held with him at a time .

In DATE and DATE the applicant had occupied cell no . CARDINAL , measuring QUANTITY . CARDINAL persons had been held with him at a time , although no exact details were available .

The applicant had also occupied the following cells in DATE and DATE :

- nos . CARDINAL and ORG , each measuring QUANTITY and shared with CARDINAL other persons ;

- no . CARDINAL , measuring QUANTITY , with CARDINAL other persons ;

- no . ORG , measuring QUANTITY , with CARDINAL other persons .

All the cells had good air circulation and natural light coming from CARDINAL windows , in the cell , the sanitary group and the store room .

Sanitary groups in the cells were disinfected DATE , cells were whitewashed whenever necessary , and rat extermination and treatment with insecticide were carried out at least once DATE .

Detainees were allowed to use the showers DATE , on DATE and DATE .

Cold water was available permanently , and in DATE a water purification system was introduced for drinking water .

As for outside activities , before DATE the applicant was entitled to a daily TIME walk . Law no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL increased that to TIME a day .

Moreover , the applicant took part in many out - of - cell activities , such as sanitary , legal , moral and religious activities . He was also free to participate in activities focusing on family life and the prevention of HIV infection , sports and intellectual competitions , and maintaining a pro - active attitude to social activities .

DATE . Both the applicant and the respondent Government relied mainly on documents from the applicant ’s prison medical file . They each interpreted the information in the documents differently , however .

The applicant alleged that while in detention he had developed various diseases as a result of the poor conditions . He alleged a lack of adequate treatment by the prison doctor and a lack of medicines .

The applicant ’s medical record drawn up when he was placed in detention on DATE made no reference to any disease save for hepatitis which he had developed DATE .

The applicant claimed that DATE he developed numerous dental problems , which became very serious for lack of proper treatment and monitoring .

On DATE the applicant was seen by a prison dentist , who diagnosed an abscess .

He claimed that in DATE he had had several teeth extracted , but this was not recorded in his medical file .

From DATE , while in Ploieşti Prison , the applicant was issued with a series of medical records which referred to his dental health .

In DATE , for example , he received medical treatment with antibiotics and pain killers for toothache and regular headaches .

On DATE , in reply to his request to see a dentist , the applicant was informed by FAC that the prison dentist was on maternity leave . As a consequence , only emergencies were taken to ORG . His case was not an emergency .

On DATE , FAC informed the ORG that the applicant had personality disorders and problems affecting his nose , but that he did not have any dental problems requiring emergency treatment .

On DATE he was diagnosed with occipital neuralgia ( PERSON ’s neuralgia ) , for which treatment was recommended .

DATE and DATE the applicant sent numerous letters to the ORG about his dental problems .

DATE . On CARDINAL May and CARDINAL DATE the ORG informed the applicant by letter that Ploieşti Prison had no dentist and that he would be sent to see the dentist at FAC for urgent dental treatment only . The applicant was never sent to FAC for dental treatment .

On DATE , the applicant having requested a stay of execution of his sentence on health grounds , an official medical report issued by ORG diagnosed the applicant as having occipital neuralgia which could be treated within the prison system . No treatment was prescribed for his neuralgia and no mention was made of his dental problems .

On DATE the applicant was informed by the ORG that he had been diagnosed with “ partial edentulism ” ( loss of teeth ) and that the dental prosthesis he had been recommended could be manufactured within the prison dentistry system , but only when he could afford to pay for it .

On DATE the partial edentulism diagnosis was confirmed by ORG , which also diagnosed chronic periodontitis and recommended further dental extraction . On DATE the applicant was hospitalised because of his frontal and lateral edentulism and a tooth was extracted ; further monitoring was recommended .

NORP The applicant ’s medical record indicated chronic periodontitis on the following dates : CARDINAL , DATE and DATE , DATE , DATE , DATE , and CARDINAL DATE , and DATE and DATE , but there is no mention of any treatment prescribed for this ailment .

In DATE the applicant complained on numerous occasions ( in DATE , DATE , DATE and DATE ) that he was not receiving appropriate medical treatment . In reply , based on information provided by FAC , the ORG informed him that he was receiving appropriate treatment .

On DATE and CARDINAL DATE the applicant submitted the same complaint to ORG . He provided details of his condition ( a swollen neck and clearly visible injuries on his neck , sharp pains in the ears and blood in his saliva ) , and indicated that he had not been seen by a doctor .

The applicant was hospitalised in ORG from DATE and was treated with antibiotics and pain killers . A medical letter of CARDINAL DATE indicated that the applicant was suffering from multiple and complicated dental caries , chronic generalised periodontitis requiring treatment , frontal edentulism , neuralgia of the superior laryngeal nerve , nasal septal deviation , chronic rhinitis and occipital neuralgia requiring treatment . Special diet , antibiotics and treatment of the applicant ’s dental problems were further recommended .

On DATE the ORG confirmed that the applicant had swollen glands and nodules in the mouth , but denied any link between these symptoms and the applicant ’s dental problems , alleging that the latter had been treated .

The applicant had several teeth extracted DATE and DATE .

A medical report of DATE indicated that the applicant was suffering from chronic periodontitis . No treatment was prescribed .

On DATE the applicant was able to consult a neurologist , who found that his migraine had worsened in terms of intensity and frequency .

On DATE the applicant was examined at ORG where he was diagnosed with chronic pharyngitis and dental radicular remains .

The applicant ’s medical record in ORG mentioned migraine on DATE ; no treatment was mentioned .

On CARDINAL DATE the applicant ’s medical file indicated that the applicant had lost CARDINAL teeth and that little remained of CARDINAL other teeth .

DATE and DATE the applicant was hospitalised at FAC , where he was diagnosed with duodenal ulcer , chronic hepatitis , chronic migraine , biliary dyskinesia and urinary tract infection . He was not examined by the dentist , who was on leave .

On DATE the administration of ORG indicated in a letter to ORG that the applicant was not known to have any chronic diseases .

On DATE , while in FAC , the applicant demanded proper treatment for his dental problems , including dentures , and said that he was ready to bear the cost of the treatment .

On DATE ORG informed the applicant , in reply to his renewed request for a dental prosthesis that he had to pay PERCENT of its price .

In DATE the applicant reiterated his request for urgent treatment and informed the authorities that he was finally in a position to pay the necessary costs .

On DATE he was allowed to start the treatment for his dental problems at his own expense in the private practice of PERSON in the city of Ploieşti , with appointments and treatment ( including a prosthesis ) on CARDINAL , DATE , DATE and DATE , CARDINAL , DATE , DATE and DATE , CARDINAL , DATE and DATE , and CARDINAL , DATE and DATE . During the appointments he was under prison escort . The medical findings and the treatment prescribed were recorded in health reports which were included in his prison medical file .

The applicant submitted to the ORG a copy of the medical report following his first appointment , on DATE , from which it appears that he had caries and needed a prosthesis .

By DATE the applicant had lost CARDINAL teeth .

The Government submitted that while in LOC the applicant was diagnosed with tooth abscesses , partial edentulism , gum inflammation and chronic periodontitis .

He was examined , diagnosed and/or underwent treatment as follows :

- tooth abscesses , on CARDINAL , DATE , DATE and DATE , on CARDINAL and DATE and on DATE ;

- tooth pain , facial and tooth neuralgia , on DATE , CARDINAL DATE , CARDINAL DATE , DATE and DATE ;

- periodontal inflammation , on DATE ;

- chronic periodontitis , on CARDINAL DATE and DATE and DATE ;

- tooth extraction , on DATE ;

- vital dental pulp extirpation , on DATE ; and

- coronary obturation of CARDINAL root canal , on DATE .

For all these problems he received appropriate treatment with antibiotics , vitamins , anti - inflammatory drugs and pain killers .

While in ORG , the applicant was examined and diagnosed with periodontal abscess on DATE and with vestibular abscess on DATE , for which he received antibiotic treatment .

He also underwent the following surgery : CARDINAL vital dental pulp extirpations on DATE , coronary obturation on DATE , root canal obturation on DATE , as well as CARDINAL dental extractions , on DATE and DATE .

On DATE the applicant was taken to ORG in GPE , where no disease “ requiring emergency surgery ” was detected .

The Government submitted a letter of CARDINAL DATE from the Director of ORG , in which the Director indicated that , upon examination of the applicant ’s prison medical file , it appeared that the applicant had received treatment for his dental problems from DATE until DATE . He admitted that it did not emerge from that file that any therapy plan had been conceived in respect of the applicant ’s dental problems . Lastly , the letter indicated that from CARDINAL DATE the applicant had been consulting a private dentist in Ploieşti to have a prosthesis made .

Lastly , the ORG submitted an undated medical record concerning the applicant from which it appears that he was provided with an estimate of the costs of a dental prosthesis by the private practice of Dr ORG , where he had been treated DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) .

In DATE and DATE the applicant made numerous complaints on the basis of Government Ordinance no . MONEY ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) concerning the poor conditions of his detention , including the lack of beds and living space , and inadequate medical treatment .

For instance , on DATE the applicant lodged a complaint with ORG , complaining of overcrowding , a poor diet and lack of appropriate medical care .

This complaint was eventually dismissed by a final judgment of ORG on DATE , which found that “ the conditions of detention complained of exist in all prisons and can not therefore be considered as an action or a failure imputable to the prison administration and therefore contrary to the legal provisions ” .

Following the entry into force of Law no . CARDINAL on the execution of sentences ( see paragraph QUANTITY below ) , the applicant lodged a complaint with the delegate judge concerning the conditions of his detention , and in particular , poor hygiene , lack of personal space , lack of dental examinations and appropriate medical treatment in general , and inappropriate and insufficient food .

On DATE the delegate judge dismissed the complaint on the grounds that the conditions of detention in FAC were not contrary to the requirements of either the domestic law or ORG instruments , that ORG had not had a dentist since DATE and that therefore detainees were taken for consultation in limited numbers to ORG , and that in any event , PERCENT of the prison population in GPE had dental problems . The applicant was also informed that he would be taken to see a dentist at LOC on DATE .

The applicant ’s appeal against this decision was dismissed on DATE .

On the basis of LAW , in conjunction with LAW ) , the applicant made several requests for a stay of execution of his sentence , in order to work and earn the money he needed for his family and to afford proper medical treatment for himself .

His request made in DATE was eventually dismissed by ORG on DATE , despite a favourable recommendation by ORG .

Another request , made in DATE , was dismissed on DATE by ORG , and a request made in DATE was eventually dismissed by ORG on DATE .

The applicant also lodged a criminal complaint against ORG , the general practitioner at FAC , alleging that he was left without appropriate medical care for his various ailments , such as dental and eye diseases , headaches , stomach ulcer , sinusitis and cervical spinal cord compression .

On DATE the military prosecutor in charge of the investigation took a statement from the doctor , who declared that the applicant had no chronic or acute disease that required emergency treatment . DATE , the prosecutor decided not to open proceedings against the doctor . The applicant ’s appeal against that decision was dismissed on DATE by a higher - ranking prosecutor as having been lodged out of time .

The applicant lodged a complaint against the ORG decisions with ORG , which dismissed it on DATE . This decision was upheld by ORG ( ORG ) on DATE .

Articles CARDINAL and CARDINAL of the Civil Code provide that any person who has suffered damage can seek redress by bringing a civil action against the person who intentionally or negligently caused that damage .

Excerpts from the relevant provisions of Law no . CARDINAL , on the execution of sentences , concerning the rights of detainees are described in DATE and CARDINAL of the PERSON judgment ( see ORG v. GPE , no . MONEY , CARDINAL DATE ) .

Law no . CARDINAL was replaced by Emergency Ordinance no . CARDINAL ( “ LAW ” ) on the rights of prisoners , adopted by the Government on DATE and ratified by ORG on DATE . The ORG stated , in section CARDINAL , that prisoners had the right to bring legal proceedings before a court concerning measures taken by prison authorities in connection with their rights provided for by law . The court could either cancel the impugned measure or reject the complaint .

Emergency Ordinance no . CARDINAL was repealed on DATE by PERSON no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL on the execution of sentences , which in its LAW provides for a similar appeal to be lodged with a judge delegated by the court of appeal to supervise the observance of the ORG rights . The delegate judge ’s decisions can be appealed against to a court . The delegate judge and the court can either cancel the impugned measure or reject the complaint .

Law no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL also stipulates that sentences must be executed in conditions compatible with respect for human dignity , and that each detainee must be provided with a bed , that cells must have natural light , that detainees must wear civilian clothes when serving their sentences , and that if they do not have any , these should be provided free of charge by the prison authorities .

No provision deals with the structural quality of the place of detention or how much space detainees should have .

Order No . CARDINAL of the Minister of Justice , of CARDINAL DATE , concerning compulsory minimum standards in prison facilities , entered into force on DATE . According to this order , the minimum living space was set at QUANTITY per person ( QUANTITY per person ) for prisoners assigned to the open and semi - open prison regime , and QUANTITY per person for other categories of prisoners , including minors and remand prisoners .

Joint Order No . CARDINAL/C/CARDINAL/CARDINAL of the Ministers of Justice and ORG , of DATE , concerning health insurance for detained persons provided , inter alia , that only detainees who lacked financial resources and had lost PERCENT of their chewing ability while in detention were entitled to a free prosthesis . In other cases , detainees had to bear part of the cost of the prosthesis .

On DATE the Ministers of Justice and ORG issued a new Joint Order No . CARDINAL/CARDINAL/CARDINAL concerning health insurance for detained persons . According to this order , detained persons are entitled in all cases to free medical assistance from a special budget at the disposal of ORG .

The Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners , adopted by ORG on ORG and the Treatment of Offenders , held in GPE in DATE , and approved by ORG by its resolutions CARDINAL C ( XXIV ) , of CARDINAL DATE , and CARDINAL ( LXII ) , of CARDINAL DATE , provide , in particular , as follows :

“ CARDINAL . All accommodation provided for the use of prisoners and in particular all sleeping accommodation shall meet all requirements of health , due regard being paid to climatic conditions and particularly to cubic content of air , minimum floor space , lighting , heating and ventilation ...

In all places where prisoners are required to live or work ,

( a ) The windows shall be large enough to enable the prisoners to read or work by natural light , and shall be so constructed that they can allow the entrance of fresh air whether or not there is artificial ventilation ;

( b ) PERSON light shall be provided sufficient for the prisoners to read or work without injury to eyesight .

The sanitary installations shall be adequate to enable every prisoner to comply with the needs of nature when necessary and in a clean and decent manner .

Adequate bathing and shower installations shall be provided so that every prisoner may be enabled and required to have a bath or shower , at a temperature suitable to the climate , as frequently as necessary for general hygiene according to DATE and geographical region , but at least once a week in a temperate climate .

All parts of an institution regularly used by prisoners shall be properly maintained and kept scrupulously clean at all times .

Prisoners shall be required to keep their persons clean , and to this end they shall be provided with water and with such toilet articles as are necessary for health and cleanliness ...

Every prisoner shall , in accordance with local or national standards , be provided with a separate bed , and with separate and sufficient bedding which shall be clean when issued , kept in good order and changed often enough to ensure its cleanliness .

( CARDINAL ) Every prisoner shall be provided by the administration at the usual TIME with food of nutritional value adequate for health and strength , of wholesome quality and well prepared and served .

( CARDINAL ) Drinking water shall be available to every prisoner whenever he needs it .

( CARDINAL ) Every prisoner who is not employed in outdoor work shall have TIME of suitable exercise in the open air DATE if the weather permits .

( CARDINAL ) The transport of prisoners in conveyances with inadequate ventilation or light , or in any way which would subject them to unnecessary physical hardship , shall be prohibited ... ”

The relevant extracts from the General Reports prepared by ORG for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment ( ORG ) read as follows :

“ CARDINAL . Overcrowding is an issue of direct relevance to the ORG ’s mandate . All the services and activities within a prison will be adversely affected if it is required to cater for more prisoners than it was designed to accommodate ; the overall quality of life in the establishment will be lowered , perhaps significantly . Moreover , the level of overcrowding in a prison , or in a particular part of it , might be such as to be in itself inhuman or degrading from a physical standpoint .

A satisfactory programme of activities ( work , education , sport , etc . ) is of crucial importance for the well - being of prisoners ... [ P]risoners can not simply be left to languish for DATE , possibly DATE , locked up in their cells , and this regardless of how good material conditions might be within the cells . The ORG considers that CARDINAL should aim at ensuring that prisoners in remand establishments are able to spend a reasonable part of DATE ( TIME or more ) outside their cells , engaged in purposeful activity of a varied nature ...

Specific mention should be made of outdoor exercise . The requirement that prisoners be allowed TIME of exercise in the open air every day is widely accepted as a basic safeguard ... It is also axiomatic that outdoor exercise facilities should be reasonably spacious and whenever possible offer shelter from inclement weather ...

Ready access to proper toilet facilities and the maintenance of good standards of hygiene are essential components of a humane environment ...

The ORG would add that it is particularly concerned when it finds a combination of overcrowding , poor regime activities and inadequate access to toilet / washing facilities in the same establishment . The cumulative effect of such conditions can prove extremely detrimental to prisoners . ”

“ CARDINAL . Health care services for persons deprived of their liberty is a subject of direct relevance to the ORG ’s mandate . An inadequate level of health care can lead rapidly to situations falling within the scope of the term " inhuman and degrading treatment " . Further , the health care service in a given establishment can potentially play an important role in combating the infliction of ill - treatment , both in that establishment and elsewhere ( in particular in police establishments ) . Moreover , it is well placed to make a positive impact on the overall quality of life in the establishment within which it operates ...

While in custody , prisoners should be able to have access to a doctor at any time , irrespective of their detention regime [ ... ] The health care service should be so organised as to enable requests to consult a doctor to be met without undue delay .

Prisoners should be able to approach the health care service on a confidential basis , for example , by means of a message in a sealed envelope . Further , prison officers should not seek to screen requests to consult a doctor .

A prison ’s health care service should at least be able to provide regular out - patient consultations and emergency treatment ( of course , in addition there may often be a hospital - type unit with beds ) . The services of a qualified dentist should be available to every prisoner . Further , prison doctors should be able to call upon the services of specialists .

As regards emergency treatment , a doctor should always be on call . Further , someone competent to provide first aid should always be present on prison LOC , preferably someone with a recognised nursing qualification .

Out - patient treatment should be supervised , as appropriate , by health care staff ; in many cases it is not sufficient for the provision of follow - up care to depend upon the initiative being taken by the prisoner .

The direct support of a fully - equipped hospital service should be available , in either a civil or prison hospital ...

A prison health care service should be able to provide medical treatment and nursing care , as well as appropriate diets , physiotherapy , rehabilitation or any other necessary special facility , in conditions comparable to those enjoyed by patients in the outside community . Provision in terms of medical , nursing and technical staff , as well as LOC , installations and equipment , should be geared accordingly ...

A medical file should be compiled for each patient , containing diagnostic information as well as an ongoing record of the patient ’s evolution and of any special examinations he has undergone . In the event of a transfer , the file should be forwarded to the doctors in the receiving establishment .

Further , DATE registers should be kept by health care teams , in which particular incidents relating to the patients should be mentioned . Such registers are useful in that they provide an overall view of the health care situation in the prison , at the same time as highlighting specific problems which may arise ...

It lies with prison health care services - as appropriate acting in conjunction with other authorities - to supervise catering arrangements ( quantity , quality , preparation and distribution of food ) and conditions of hygiene ( cleanliness of clothing and bedding ; access to running water ; sanitary installations ) as well as the heating , lighting and ventilation of cells . Work and outdoor exercise arrangements should also be taken into consideration .

Insalubrity , overcrowding , prolonged isolation and inactivity may necessitate either medical assistance for an individual prisoner or general medical action vis - à - vis the responsible authority . ”

As the ORG pointed out in DATE ORG , prison overcrowding is an issue of direct relevance to the ORG ’s mandate ( cf . ORG ( CARDINAL ) CARDINAL , paragraph CARDINAL ) . An overcrowded prison entails cramped and unhygienic accommodation ; a constant lack of privacy ( even when performing such basic tasks as using a sanitary facility ) ; reduced out - of - cell activities , due to demand outstripping the staff and facilities available ; overburdened health - care services ; increased tension and hence more violence between prisoners and between prisoners and staff . This list is far from exhaustive .

The ORG has been led to conclude on CARDINAL occasion that the adverse effects of overcrowding have resulted in inhuman and degrading conditions of detention ... ”

“ CARDINAL . The phenomenon of prison overcrowding continues to blight penitentiary systems across LOC and seriously undermines attempts to improve conditions of detention . The negative effects of prison overcrowding have already been highlighted in previous ORG ...

In a number of countries visited by the ORG , particularly in central and eastern LOC , inmate accommodation often consists of large capacity dormitories which contain all or most of the facilities used by prisoners on a DATE basis , such as sleeping and living areas as well as sanitary facilities . The ORG has objections to the very principle of such accommodation arrangements in closed prisons and those objections are reinforced when , as is frequently the case , the dormitories in question are found to hold prisoners under extremely cramped and insalubrious conditions ... Large - capacity dormitories inevitably imply a lack of privacy for prisoners in their everyday lives ... All these problems are exacerbated when the numbers held go beyond a reasonable occupancy level ; further , in such a situation the excessive burden on communal facilities such as washbasins or lavatories and the insufficient ventilation for so many persons will often lead to deplorable conditions .

The ORG frequently encounters devices , such as metal shutters , slats , or plates fitted to cell windows , which deprive prisoners of access to natural light and prevent fresh air from entering the accommodation . They are a particularly common feature of establishments holding pre - trial prisoners . The ORG fully accepts that specific security measures designed to prevent the risk of collusion and/or criminal activities may well be required in respect of certain prisoners ... [ E]ven when such measures are required , they should never involve depriving the prisoners concerned of natural light and fresh air . The latter are basic elements of life which every prisoner is entitled to enjoy ; moreover , the absence of these elements generates conditions favourable to the spread of diseases and in particular tuberculosis ... ”

Concerning overcrowding , the ORG indicates the following in the document named “ ORG standards ” ( ORG ( DATE ) CARDINAL ) :

“ CARDINAL . The ORG would add that it is particularly concerned when it finds a combination of overcrowding , poor regime activities and inadequate access to toilet / washing facilities in the same establishment . The cumulative effect of such conditions can prove extremely detrimental to prisoners .... ”

On DATE ORG Recommendation No . R ( CARDINAL ) CARDINAL concerning prison overcrowding and prison population inflation , which provides in particular as follows :

“ Considering that prison overcrowding and prison population growth represent a major challenge to prison administrations and the criminal justice system as a whole , both in terms of human rights and of the efficient management of penal institutions ;

Considering that the efficient management of the prison population is contingent on such matters as the overall crime situation , priorities in crime control , the range of penalties available on the law books , the severity of the sentences imposed , the frequency of use of community sanctions and measures , the use of pre - trial detention , the effectiveness and efficiency of criminal justice agencies and not least public attitudes towards crime and punishment ...

Recommends that governments of member states :

- take all appropriate measures , when reviewing their legislation and practice in relation to prison overcrowding and prison population inflation , to apply the principles set out in the appendix to this recommendation ...

I. Basic principles

Deprivation of liberty should be regarded as a sanction or measure of last resort and should therefore be provided for only , where the seriousness of the offence would make any other sanction or measure clearly inadequate .

NORP The extension of the prison estate should rather be an exceptional measure , as it is generally unlikely to offer a lasting solution to the problem of overcrowding . Countries whose prison capacity may be sufficient in overall terms but poorly adapted to local needs should try to achieve a more rational distribution of prison capacity ...

II . Coping with a shortage of prison places

NORP In order to avoid excessive levels of overcrowding a maximum capacity for penal institutions should be set .

Where conditions of overcrowding occur , special emphasis should be placed on the precepts of human dignity , the commitment of prison administrations to apply humane and positive treatment , the full recognition of staff roles and effective modern management approaches . In conformity with ORG , particular attention should be paid to the amount of space available to prisoners , to hygiene and sanitation , to the provision of sufficient and suitably prepared and presented food , to prisoners’ health care and to the opportunity for outdoor exercise .

NORP In order to counteract some of the negative consequences of prison overcrowding , contacts of inmates with their families should be facilitated to the extent possible and maximum use of support from the community should be made ... ”

On DATE ORG Recommendation Rec(CARDINAL)CARDINAL to member GPE on ORG , which replaced Recommendation No . R ( CARDINAL ) CARDINAL on ORG accounting for the developments which had occurred in penal policy , sentencing practice and the overall management of prisons in LOC . The amended NORP Prison Rules lay down the following relevant guidelines :

“ CARDINAL . All persons deprived of their liberty shall be treated with respect for their human rights .

Persons deprived of their liberty retain all rights that are not lawfully taken away by the decision sentencing them or remanding them in custody .

Restrictions placed on persons deprived of their liberty shall be the minimum necessary and proportionate to the legitimate objective for which they are imposed .

Prison conditions that infringe ORG human rights are not justified by lack of resources .

ORG apply to persons who have been remanded in custody by a judicial authority or who have been deprived of their liberty following conviction . ”

“ CARDINAL . The accommodation provided for prisoners , and in particular all sleeping accommodation , shall respect human dignity and , as far as possible , privacy , and meet the requirements of health and hygiene , due regard being paid to climatic conditions and especially to floor space , cubic content of air , lighting , heating and ventilation .

In all buildings where prisoners are required to live , work or congregate :

a. the windows shall be large enough to enable the prisoners to read or work by natural light in normal conditions and shall allow the entrance of fresh air except where there is an adequate air conditioning system ;

b. artificial light shall satisfy recognised technical standards ; and

c. there shall be an alarm system that enables prisoners to contact the staff without delay .

National law shall provide mechanisms for ensuring that these minimum requirements are not breached by the overcrowding of prisons .

Prisoners shall normally be accommodated during TIME in individual cells except where it is preferable for them to share sleeping accommodation .

Prisoners shall have ready access to sanitary facilities that are hygienic and respect privacy .

Adequate facilities shall be provided so that every prisoner may have a bath or shower , at a temperature suitable to the climate , if possible DATE but at least twice DATE ( or more frequently if necessary ) in the interest of general hygiene .

Prisoners shall be provided with a nutritious diet that takes into account their age , health , physical condition , religion , culture and the nature of their work .

There shall be CARDINAL meals a day with reasonable intervals between them .

Clean drinking water shall be available to prisoners at all times .

Every prisoner shall be provided with the opportunity of TIME of exercise every day in the open air , if the weather permits .

When the weather is inclement alternative arrangements shall be made to allow prisoners to exercise . ”

“ CARDINAL ORG services in prison shall be organised in close relation with the general health administration of the community or nation .

CARDINAL ORG policy in prisons shall be integrated into , and compatible with , national health policy .

CARDINAL Prisoners shall have access to the health services available in the country without discrimination on the grounds of their legal situation .

CARDINAL ORG services in prison shall seek to detect and treat physical or mental illnesses or defects from which prisoners may suffer .

CARDINAL NORP All necessary medical , surgical and psychiatric services including those available in the community shall be provided to the prisoner for that purpose .

CARDINAL Every prison shall have the services of CARDINAL qualified general medical practitioner .

CARDINAL Arrangements shall be made to ensure at all times that a qualified medical practitioner is available without delay in cases of urgency .

CARDINAL.CARDINAL Where prisons do not have a full - time medical practitioner , a part - time medical practitioner shall visit regularly .

CARDINAL Every prison shall have personnel suitably trained in health care .

CARDINAL NORP The services of qualified dentists and opticians shall be available to every prisoner .

CARDINAL NORP The medical practitioner or a qualified nurse reporting to such a medical practitioner shall see every prisoner as soon as possible after admission , and shall examine them unless this is obviously unnecessary .

CARDINAL The medical practitioner or a qualified nurse reporting to such a medical practitioner shall examine the prisoner if requested at release , and shall otherwise examine prisoners whenever necessary .

CARDINAL When examining a prisoner the medical practitioner or a qualified nurse reporting to such a medical practitioner shall pay particular attention to :

a. observing the normal rules of medical confidentiality ;

b. diagnosing physical or mental illness and taking all measures necessary for its treatment and for the continuation of existing medical treatment ;

c. recording and reporting to the relevant authorities any sign or indication that prisoners may have been treated violently ;

d. dealing with withdrawal symptoms resulting from use of drugs , medication or alcohol ;

e. identifying any psychological or other stress brought on by the fact of deprivation of liberty ;

PERSON isolating prisoners suspected of infectious or contagious conditions for the period of infection and providing them with proper treatment ;

g. ensuring that prisoners carrying the HIV virus are not isolated for that reason alone ;

h. noting physical or mental defects that might impede resettlement after release ;

i. determining the fitness of each prisoner to work and to exercise ; and

PERSON making arrangements with community agencies for the continuation of any necessary medical and psychiatric treatment after release , if prisoners give their consent to such arrangements .

CARDINAL NORP The medical practitioner shall have the care of the physical and mental health of the prisoners and shall see , under the conditions and with a frequency consistent with health care standards in the community , all sick prisoners , all who report illness or injury and any prisoner to whom attention is specially directed .

CARDINAL NORP The medical practitioner or a qualified nurse reporting to such a medical practitioner shall pay particular attention to the health of prisoners held under conditions of solitary confinement , shall visit such prisoners DATE , and shall provide them with prompt medical assistance and treatment at the request of such prisoners or the prison staff .

CARDINAL NORP The medical practitioner shall report to the director whenever it is considered that a prisoner ’s physical or mental health is being put seriously at risk by continued imprisonment or by any condition of imprisonment , including conditions of solitary confinement .

The medical practitioner or other competent authority shall regularly inspect , collect information by other means if appropriate , and advise the director upon :

a. the quantity , quality , preparation and serving of food and water ;

b. the hygiene and cleanliness of the institution and prisoners ;

c. the sanitation , heating , lighting and ventilation of the institution ; and

d. the suitability and cleanliness of the ORG clothing and bedding .

CARDINAL NORP The director shall consider the reports and advice that the medical practitioner or other competent authority submits according to LAW and DATE and , when in agreement with the recommendations made , shall take immediate steps to implement them .

CARDINAL If the recommendations of the medical practitioner are not within the director ’s competence or if the director does not agree with them , the director shall immediately submit the advice of the medical practitioner and a personal report to higher authority .

CARDINAL Sick prisoners who require specialist treatment shall be transferred to specialised institutions or to civil hospitals , when such treatment is not available in prison .

CARDINAL Where a prison service has its own hospital facilities , they shall be adequately staffed and equipped to provide the prisoners referred to them with appropriate care and treatment . ”

The ORG visited GPE in DATE , DATE , DATE , DATE , DATE , DATE , DATE , DATE and DATE and carried out periodic visits to various detention establishments , including the prisons of GPE , GPE - PERSON and its hospital , PERSON , GPE , PERSON , PERSON and Ploieşti .

Overcrowding of prisons and lack of reasonable hygiene facilities at the national level were constantly highlighted by the ORG , which also concluded that in the light of the deplorable material conditions of detention in some of the cells of the establishments visited , the conditions of detention could be qualified as inhuman and degrading .

In the report published on DATE ( ORG ( DATE ) CARDINAL ) following a visit from DATE to a number of detention facilities , including the prisons of GPE - Jilava , PERSON , GPE and Ploieşti , the ORG found that severe overcrowding and lack of reasonable hygiene facilities remained a constant problem , not only in the establishments visited but at national level , and that this had remained the case since its first visit to GPE in DATE .

Moreover , the ORG found in respect of the prisons visited , in particular the prisons of Bacău and Ploieşti , a lack of access to natural light , bad air ventilation , particularly dirty mattresses , lack of activities outside the cells , bad quality food and poor hygiene in the kitchens , and widespread nonobservance of the daily TIME walk . The conditions in BucharestJilava Prison , in particular the section for dangerous detainees , were qualified as appalling by the ORG , which noted that the prison administration itself had acknowledged that material conditions of detention throughout the prison were extremely poor . The ORG declared itself particularly concerned about the constant lack of beds and the fact that in all the prisons visited the personal space per detainee was CARDINAL square metres and sometimes even QUANTITY . While welcoming the changes introduced in domestic legislation providing for personal space of QUANTITY for each prisoner , the ORG recommended , inter alia , that necessary measures be taken to ensure compliance with this requirement . The ORG found the GPE access to medical treatment to be insufficient , including with respect to dental care : lack of adequate staff , long waiting periods for consultation , inadequate consultation procedures . The ORG formulated a number of recommendations , including increased use of the possibility to grant , in due time , a stay of execution for health reasons .

NORP In a report following his visit to GPE in DATE the Commissioner for Human Rights made the following comments on the situation in prisons :

“ CARDINAL . However , the prison service is facing serious problems , in particular the dilapidation of many of the prisons and , above all , chronic overcrowding . [ ... ] Thus the overall occupancy level for prisons is PERCENT and there is a manifest shortage of beds . My visit to PERSON prison , which has an occupancy level of PERCENT and where CARDINAL prisoners are regularly held in cells designed for CARDINAL , clearly illustrated the situation . I was all the more concerned to learn that some prisons had even higher occupancy levels , rising to PERCENT .

Being aware of the problem , the authorities keep the highest rates of overcrowding for open prisons , where the prisoners work during DATE and are therefore not continually faced with the acute lack of space . However , this solution can not be other than very temporary . The fact that several prisoners received pardons during my visit demonstrates that changes in prison policy are both possible and expected . Given that , for economic reasons , there are no plans to build new prisons at the moment I would urge the authorities to develop a system of alternative penalties , effective management of release on parole and a judicial policy requiring moderation in the use of detention . I welcome the efforts of ORG in this direction and invite it to complete these reforms as soon as possible [ ... ] . ”

In his follow - up report on GPE ( DATE ) on the assessment of the progress made in implementing his earlier recommendations , published on DATE , ORG for Human Rights made the following comments on the situation in prisons :

“ CARDINAL . In spite of the efforts made to improve prisons , recent studies carried out by the NORP authorities show that the situation remains difficult . In DATE , out of CARDINAL prisons , CARDINAL had very good conditions , CARDINAL had good conditions , CARDINAL had satisfactory conditions and CARDINAL had particularly difficult conditions , including PERSON prison , near GPE , which was visited by the members of ORG .

Prison over - population continues to be a persistent problem in GPE , although the number of prisoners has fallen from CARDINAL in DATE to CARDINAL at DATE . On average , the rate of overpopulation has fallen significantly and is now at an acceptable level of PERCENT . However , certain prisons still have an intolerable overpopulation [ In particular PERSON prison , which had a rate of overpopulation of PERCENT on DATE ] . From a general point of view , living conditions in prison have improved but still require further improvement , owing in particular to the lack of resources allocated to them .

As well as the lack of means , there is a manifest lack of prison staff . GPE has on average CARDINAL warder for CARDINAL prisoners , and even CARDINAL for CARDINAL prisoners in certain prisons , whereas the average in LOC is closer to CARDINAL warder for CARDINAL prisoners . That shortage means that warders on duty have to increase their working time and are reduced to a purely supervisory role , and it may have negative consequences on their actions or interventions . Lastly , the lack of staff represents a significant obstacle to the normalisation of prison life and exacerbates the shortage of equipment and the problems associated with overpopulation , and severely limits work towards reintegration .

Nonetheless , a significant process of modernisation has been initiated . Among the objectives of the Strategy for the reform of the judicial system DATE , mention should be made of the intention to build new prisons and to modernise CARDINAL centres . Over DATE , CARDINAL new places were created .

In this process for the improvement of living conditions in prisons , mention may be made of the modernisation of the young offenders’ centre in GPE and the creation of the centres in GPE and PERSON , the construction at NORP prison of a hospital specialising in surgery , and the provision of hot and cold water and installation of central heating in all prisons . Also noteworthy , finally , is the transparency of ORG , which publishes detailed statistics on the prison situation on its internet site .

As regards alternatives to detention , the new Criminal Code , adopted in DATE introduced the possibility of an open or semi - open prison regime for petty offences . It also provides for options other than imprisonment for young offenders and offers wider possibilities for the application of penalties .

The Commissioner ’s team visited PERSON and NORP prisons , both near GPE . These CARDINAL prisons to a large extent reflect the situation in prisons in GPE at the time of the visit .

At the time of the visit , ORG prison had CARDINAL prisoners , including CARDINAL minors , for CARDINAL places . The different wings of ORG prison have recently been renovated and provide reasonable living conditions . However , a problem of overcrowding affected the women ’s section , where CARDINAL women were being held in cells with CARDINAL beds . There are CARDINAL reasons for this overcrowding . First , women ’s prison sections are rare in the GPE area and prisoners wish to or must remain in ORG ( in order to be near their families , or because the proceedings are still pending , etc . ) ; and , second , the women ’s wing was reduced by CARDINAL in order to build the new prison hospital .

Rahova prison hospital admits and treats prisoners from the whole country . It has a very modern operating facility and the latest generation of medical equipment . As the Director of the Prison Administration states , the construction of this facility required a significant but essential financial effort , as prison medicine was incomplete and inappropriate . Prisoners are now able to receive proper care , sometimes in better conditions than in some civil hospitals .

By comparison with the positive example found in ORG , PERSON prison appeared , at the time of the visit , to be in an alarming situation . Essentially a transit prison and a preventive detention prison , it had CARDINAL prisoners for CARDINAL places , and was CARDINAL of the most overcrowded prisons in GPE . Conditions were deplorable from any point of view , as the Director of NORP Prisons acknowledged . All the installations were obsolete , the windows incapable of keeping out the cold and the furniture from another era . Over - population meant that in some cases CARDINAL prisoners had to live in cells designed for CARDINAL or CARDINAL prisoners .

Conclusions

NORP The Commissioner emphasises the efforts made and the investments carried out to improve prison conditions and welcomes the adoption of new alternative measures . There is a clear intention to increase available prison places in order to reduce prison overpopulation . The programme of bringing prisons into line with the standards of ORG must be continued . However , significant difficulties remain and an urgent solution must be envisaged for the most obsolete and the most overcrowded prisons , such as PERSON prison . ”


Angelika Nußberger;Dean Spielmann;Elisabet Fura;Isabelle Berro-Lefèvre;Mykhaylo Buromenskiy

The applicants , husband and wife , were born in DATE and DATE respectively and live in GPE .

At QUANTITY on DATE ORG , the wife of PERSON ( the applicants’ son ) and PERSON , a family acquaintance , informed the police that PERSON had committed suicide by hanging himself in the bathroom in his flat .

Having arrived at ORG flat , the police examined the scene of the incident and drew up a report , noting that by the time of their arrival PERSON ’s body was lying on the bathroom floor , fully dressed in outdoor clothes without any recent damage to them . He had no visible injuries , except strangulation marks on his neck and an abrasion on his hand . The strangulation marks were uneven ( CARDINAL on the right side and CARDINAL on the left ) and particularly visible on the front of the neck . A self - tightening loop of grey synthetic cord was found near the body and another fragment of analogous cord was tied to the middle of a horizontal water supply pipe QUANTITY above the floor . The flat was in good order and no signs of any struggle could be found either on the body or anywhere in the flat . Following the examination , the police took away the cord .

On DATE the police also took written statements from GPE ( the family acquaintance ) and PERSON ( a neighbour whose telephone had been used to call the police ) . PERSON told the police that he knew PERSON and his family and lived in the neighbourhood . At QUANTITY N.K. ( ORG wife ) had rung his door and requested his help in breaking into her locked bathroom . She explained that her husband had come home drunk at TIME , had locked himself in the bathroom and had been crying loudly . She had attempted to break the door open with an axe , but to no avail . PERSON had then followed ORG to her flat , broken open the bathroom door with a chisel , and had seen PERSON suspended by his neck from the pipe . PERSON and PERSON had cut the cord and had placed ORG body on the floor . They had called the police and an ambulance and had attempted to resuscitate PERSON However , PERSON had already died . PERSON ( the neighbour ) stated to the police that at TIME had asked him to call an ambulance , as her husband had hung himself . He had entered the flat at ORG ’s invitation and had seen the body already placed on the floor .

Also on DATE , an autopsy of PERSON ’s body took place . According to the resulting findings , he died of mechanical asphyxia caused by hanging .

On DATE further results of the forensic examination of PERSON ’s body were received , according to which PERSON had been moderately intoxicated by alcohol ( PERCENT ) at the time of his death . The expert report stated that there had been no other injuries or abnormalities on his body .

On DATE PERSON ( PERSON wife ) stated that shortly before his death her husband had shared with her that he had a lover , who had fallen pregnant , and that he was worried about the debt owed by his father to company S. On DATE of the incident , he had come home at TIME with FAC . , an acquaintance . They had both been rather drunk . After a little while , ORG , GPE and PERSON ( their DATE daughter ) had accompanied D.Sh . out and had returned home . The daughter had gone to bed , while PERSON and PERSON had been drinking coffee in the kitchen until TIME At some point in time , they had been interrupted by a visit from ORG , another acquaintance , who had been looking for FAC . , and , having learned that he had already gone , ORG had left immediately . Subsequently , PERSON had gone to the bathroom . Worried about his long absence , ORG had called for him and had received no answer . She had attempted to break into the bathroom with a kitchen axe , but had been unsuccessful . Thinking that PERSON may have fallen asleep , she had gone to get the help of PERSON , who lived nearby and who was well respected by her husband .

On DATE the investigative department of ORG in PERSON ( “ ORG Office ” ) decided not to institute criminal proceedings into the circumstances of PERSON ’s death , having found it sufficiently established that he had deliberately taken his own life .

On DATE the applicants appealed to ORG requesting further investigation . They noted , in particular , that they had suspected ORG , allegedly their son ’s wife ’s lover and who had visited the family shortly before PERSON ’s death , of having strangled PERSON , potentially in connection with a property dispute between the spouses , who had been planning to divorce . They drew the prosecutor ’s attention to certain facts which appeared peculiar to them : in particular , PERSON ’s being dressed in a jacket after having allegedly been home for TIME ; contradictory evidence as to the existence of an abrasion ( possibly from the cord ) on PERSON ’s hand ; and the failure of the investigative authorities to examine the cord and to take away the axe and the chisel . Subsequently , on many occasions throughout the investigation , the applicants continued to suggest that PERSON could have been intentionally strangled with the cord and then placed in the bathroom , the hanging being imitated . Alternatively , he could have been poisoned by narcotic or psychotropic substances and incited to commit suicide . They alleged that the persons potentially implicated in the murder included his wife , her parents , and her lover ( FAC ) and subsequently GPE , a neighbour who had been on bad terms with PERSON

On DATE ORG ( “ ORG Office ” ) quashed the decision of DATE and ordered additional inquiry . It reprimanded ORG , in particular , for not having served the applicants with its decision of CARDINAL DATE and not letting them access the inquiry materials . They further instructed the investigators , in particular , to question : the applicants in order to verify the probability of the applicants’ assertions concerning the murder being correct ; the CARDINAL acquaintances , who visited the family before PERSON ’s death ( PERSON . and ORG ) ; relatives of ORG ; and CARDINAL neighbours who had acted as lay witnesses during the examination of the scene of the incident .

On DATE a new decision not to institute criminal proceedings was taken , the text of which did not reflect whether ORG Office ’s instructions had been carried out .

On DATE ORG annulled this decision , having found that the investigation had been perfunctory . On DATE it further addressed a letter to ORG , noting that the case - file documents had not been kept in order , as required by the applicable document processing rules , which also stipulated procedures regarding stitching and numbering . In addition , it gave detailed instructions as to further investigative actions to be taken . It ordered , in particular , that : the cord be examined and where PERSON had taken it from be determined ; PERSON ’s colleagues be questioned concerning his moods and affairs ; his wife ’s allegations about his involvement with his father ’s alleged debts and his alleged lover ’s pregnancy be investigated ; why PERSON had been wearing a jacket be determined ; and whether PERSON wife and ORG had had a love affair and whether this could have played a role in PERSON ’s death be assessed .

On DATE ORG took a fresh decision not to institute criminal proceedings . It noted , in particular , that PERSON wife had stated during additional questioning of her that she had never had an affair with ORG and that there had been no conflicts in the family in this respect , while PERSON wearing of a jacket was explained by his regular habit of dining in outdoor clothes . The prosecutor ’s office further referred to a statement of ORG minor daughter ( PERSON ) confirming that FAC , who had indeed visited them during TIME , had left the flat long before her father ’s death . In addition , it found that the first applicant had not had financial problems involving his son in any way .

On DATE ORG annulled this decision , having found that its instructions had not been duly carried out .

On DATE the investigator , PERSON , reported to ORG that it had not been possible to examine the cord , as , contrary to his expectations , for unexplained reasons it was absent from the safe and could not be found anywhere .

On DATE a fresh decision refusing to institute criminal proceedings was taken .

On DATE the applicants appealed to court . They noted that the investigation had failed to examine whether the pipe had contained any friction marks attesting to the suspension of a heavy , jerking body from it and whether the bathroom door could have been locked from the outside after the dead body had been placed within it . It had further failed to reconcile contradictions between various data concerning an abrasion on PERSON hand . In addition , the applicants alleged that their granddaughter had initially told them that FAC ( ORG ’s alleged lover ) and PERSON ( a neighbour , with whom PERSON had allegedly been on bad terms ) had been in their house shortly before PERSON ’s death , and that she had heard sounds of an argument , followed by a cry and then the sound of running water .

On DATE the applicants amended their appeal , submitting that they had been unable to present full arguments earlier , having been denied access to the case file . They further pinpointed various contradictions between ORG ’s , ORG , ORG and Y.M. ’s statements and suggested that they had earlier seen a cord , similar to that by which PERSON had been strangled , near ORG ’s car . They further noted that the case file had not contained their son ’s wife ’s and their granddaughter ’s statements which had been given shortly after the incident , and that the investigation had baselessly affirmed that there were no traces of narcotic or psychotropic substances in PERSON ’s blood , while in fact this point had never been examined . They further contended that the information concerning an abrasion on PERSON ’s hand , together with the finding that there were CARDINAL strangulation marks on CARDINAL side and CARDINAL on the other side of PERSON ’s neck , could signify that PERSON had attempted to defend himself from an intruder trying to strangle him . The applicants also alleged that they had been called on the phone and threatened by strangers , and that the people involved in their son ’s death could have included his wife , her lover and her parents , and PERSON ( a neighbour ) .

On DATE ORG in PERSON annulled the decision of DATE . It noted , in particular , that ORG had failed to examine all relevant facts and collect evidence in accordance with the instructions of ORG , and it remitted the case for additional inquiry .

On DATE ORG took a fresh decision not to institute criminal proceedings , relying , in essence , on the same arguments as in the previous decisions .

On DATE the ORG annulled this decision , noting that no additional actions had been carried out .

Following this decision , in DATE the investigative authorities carried out additional questioning of various witnesses , including PERSON daughter ( PERSON ) , who confirmed her mother ’s statements , and PERSON ( the acquaintance , who helped to open the bathroom door and take PERSON off the pipe ) , who noted that when he had entered the bathroom , PERSON had been suspended from the pipe , his legs QUANTITY above the floor .

On DATE , DATE and DATE ORG took fresh decisions not to institute criminal proceedings , all of them subsequently being quashed .

On DATE ORG annulled the lastmentioned decision , having found that the investigation was incomplete . In particular , it noted that there were still contradictory sources of evidence with regard to the hand injury . The case was transferred to ORG for further handling .

On DATE ORG again decided not to institute criminal proceedings . However , the applicants continued to lodge various complaints with the authorities , including complaints that they had been unlawfully denied access to the case file and that the investigation had failed to properly examine an audio - recording of a conversation they had had with their granddaughter and to incorporate it into the body of evidence .

NORP In response to their complaints , some additional actions were carried out , including : a request that PERSON wife to allow the re - examination of her home , which she refused on the basis that she had already renovated the bathroom ; and an additional questioning of the medical expert , who had recorded that PERSON had not had any injuries on his hand . The authorities further noted that the questioning of another expert witness involved was no longer possible , as that expert witness had died .

On DATE ORG refused an application by the applicants for reopening of the investigation , having informed them , in particular , that no statements by PERSON wife and daugther were missing from the case file , as they had first been questioned on DATE and DATE respectively . It also noted that in accordance with LAW of DATE , the cord had been deliberately destroyed .

The applicants appealed to the courts .

On DATE the Ordzhonikidzevskiy ORG in GPE quashed the preceding decision not to institute criminal proceedings . It noted , in particular , that the investigation had been onesided ; the authorities focusing entirely on whether the explanation of suicide was probable . There had been no comprehensive and coherent analysis of the probability or improbability of the ORG allegation of imitated hanging preceded by intentional strangling . In particular , the investigative authorities had failed to establish the manner of PERSON ’s hanging and had not reconciled various contradictions in the evidence in this respect . Information which had not been uncovered included details of the position of PERSON ’s body ; the capacity of the water supply pipe to withstand the weight of his body being suspended from it , particularly with regard being had to its sudden jerk from the bathtub edge ; PERSON ’s technical ability to prepare and complete the hanging , given the level of alcohol in his blood ; and the nature and origins of the abrasion on his hand . The court also noted that the authorities had negligently failed to take away and examine the chisel and the axe .

On DATE TIME . , CARDINAL of the lay witnesses who had signed the report of the examination of the scene on DATE , refused to report for questioning , alleging , in particular , that he was very ill and could no longer recall the relevant details .

On DATE a fresh decision not to institute criminal proceedings was taken .

On DATE the ORG quashed the decision , having found that its previous instructions had remained largely not followed and that the manner of PERSON hanging had not been established .

On DATE a new decision not to institute criminal proceedings was taken . As noted in that decision , it had been no longer possible to examine relevant physical evidence , as the bathroom had been renovated and such objects as the axe , the chisel , and the cord had not been available . However , regard being had to the available materials , particularly to the witness statements , it was found that it would not have been possible to place a strangled body into the bathroom and lock the door from the outside . Rather than jumping from the bathtub edge , PERSON had either leaned against it or touched the floor with his feet , his incomplete hanging explaining the distribution of his weight , which would have been able to be supported by the water supply pipe . His alcohol intoxication being moderate , he ought not to have lost his judgment to the point of not being able to hang himself .

On DATE the ORG rejected the first applicant ’s appeal against this decision , having noted that he had lodged it outside the statutory time - limit without having a valid justification for his failure to meet the deadline . In any event , the court held that the investigative authorities had used up all the means reasonably available to them to examine the situation and that it was not likely that any further investigation would bring new results or secure evidence in support of the ORG allegation that PERSON could have been murdered .

NORP The parties did not inform the ORG whether this decision was appealed any further .

The relevant provisions of the LAW and LAW can be found in the judgment in the case of PERSON v. GPE ( no . CARDINAL , § § DATE , DATE ) .


Isabelle Berro-Lefèvre;Karel Jungwiert;Mark Villiger;Mykhaylo Buromenskiy;Peer Lorenzen;Rait Maruste;Renate Jaeger

The applicant , ORG , is a NORP national who was born in DATE and lives in GPE , GPE region , GPE . ORG ( “ the Government ” ) were represented by their Agent , PERSON .

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

By decree of CARDINAL DATE the Kryvyy Rig City Executive Committee ordered all the buildings in the specified area , including the applicant ’s house , to be demolished . ORG also transferred the titles to the plots of land under these buildings and adjacent thereto to FAC ( “ the Company ” ) , a publicly owned company at that time .

In the period DATE the Company , which by that time had been reorganised into a joint stock company PERCENT of whose shares belonged to the ORG ( ORG “ LOC гірничо-збагачувальний комбінат ” ) , implemented the above decree and demolished the applicant ’s house .

On DATE ORG ( Господарський суд ORG області , “ the ORG ” ) instituted insolvency proceedings against the Company .

By a judgment of DATE the NORP ORG of Kryvyy Rig ( ORG районний суд м. ORG ; “ the ORG ” ) allowed the applicant ’s claim for damages and awarded her the total amount of CARDINAL NORP hryvnias ( ORG ) ( MONEY ( ORG ) at the material time ) , to be paid by ORG .

By order of CARDINAL DATE the Cabinet of Ministers of GPE approved the privatisation of the Company and instructed the relevant authorities to make the necessary arrangements . By DATE , according to the Government , the ORG ’s share in the ORG had been sold .

On DATE , after the judgment had become final , ORG instituted enforcement proceedings .

On DATE ORG suspended the enforcement proceedings in view of the insolvency proceedings pending against the Company before ORG .

Subsequently the insolvency proceedings against the Company were terminated and reopened , and ORG resumed and suspended the enforcement proceedings accordingly . Apparently , the applicant did not try to register as a creditor in any of the insolvency proceedings against the debtor Company .

On DATE ORG adopted an amicable agreement between the creditors and the Company , under which the creditors’ claims against the Company , including the claims of those who were not registered in the insolvency proceedings but sought payment of the debts within the enforcement proceedings only , were deemed to be paid off . Accordingly , the insolvency proceedings against the Company were terminated .

On DATE ORG terminated the enforcement proceedings relating to the judgment in the applicant ’s favour , referring to the amicable agreement adopted on DATE .

On DATE the applicant challenged the bailiff ’s decision of CARDINAL DATE before ORG . On DATE the court dismissed her complaint as time - barred . The applicant did not appeal against the latter decision .

On DATE ORG terminated the amicable agreement because of the ORG ’s failure to comply with its terms , and resumed the insolvency proceedings against the Company .

On DATE the applicant instituted proceedings in ORG against ORG , challenging the decision of DATE . On DATE the court dismissed the applicant ’s claim because of the applicant ’s repeated failure to appear before the court . The applicant did not appeal against the latter decision .

On DATE ORG , having resumed the enforcement proceedings , suspended them in view of the insolvency proceedings against the Company .

The judgment of DATE remains unenforced .

The relevant domestic law on enforcement proceedings is summarised in the case of ORG v. GPE ( no . PERSON , § § DATE , DATE ) .

The relevant provisions of the Restoration of Solvency and LAW of DATE are summarised in the case of ORG v. GPE ( no . CARDINAL , § § DATE , DATE ) . In addition , the LAW defines a creditor as “ a legal or natural person who has a pecuniary claim against the debtor which is corroborated by documents in accordance with the prescribed procedure ” .