On DATE a warehouseman found QUANTITY of cocaine hidden in a consignment of green papaya fruits from GPE , ordered by the applicant . The discovery was reported to the police , who on DATE interviewed the applicant . He denied having any knowledge of the cocaine and explained that he had ordered the fruits because he contemplated developing a health product made from the seeds .

On DATE at FAC when the applicant was about to emigrate to GPE he was arrested and charged with drug trafficking .

On DATE ORG in GPE ( PERSON ) decided with reference to section CARDINAL , subsection CARDINAL ( iii ) and section CARDINALa of the Administration of Justice Act ( Retsplejeloven ) that the applicant be detained on remand and in solitary confinement . The time limit was fixed at DATE with regard to the solitary confinement and at DATE as concerns the pre - trial detention . ORG referred notably to the facts that a person , PERSON , whom the applicant had known as CARDINAL of his acquaintances for DATE had been arrested in the same case , that ORG had picked up a load of papaya fruits shortly after the applicant 's consignment of papaya fruits had been delivered to him , that cooffenders were assumed still to be at large , that further investigation was required in the case , and that the applicant had taken up residence in GPE after the commencement of the case .

On appeal to ORG of Eastern Denmark , the decision was upheld on DATE on the grounds stated by ORG .

During a police interview on DATE the applicant stated that in DATE he had been contacted by a NORP papaya fruit farmer , called ORG , in search of a business partner in GPE . ORG had found the applicant via a friend , ORG , whom the applicant knew from the GPE . Accordingly , the applicant had contacted ORG in order to obtain his assistance with the importation .

On DATE ORG extended the solitary confinement until DATE . It appears from the court record that the applicant 's counsel had confirmed in writing that the applicant had consented to this extension without appearing in court .

NORP The detention on remand in solitary confinement was prolonged by ORG on DATE , upheld on appeal on DATE by ORG , which found among other things that no reasonable explanation of the applicant 's importation of papaya fruits had been brought to light , and that the applicant 's importation of the fruits seemed to constitute the link between PERSON and the cocaine .

The applicant 's pre - trial detention in solitary confinement was prolonged anew by ORG on DATE and DATE . The applicant appealed against the latter decision to ORG , and submitted in this connection his diary , which contained notes as to ORG and ORG on DATE and DATE . The applicant explained that ORG and ORG had been supposed to come to GPE on DATE , but that they had never showed up . On DATE the High Court confirmed ORG decision of DATE on the following grounds :

“ ... Despite the new information in [ the applicant 's ] diary book notes , his importation of papaya fruits is still found to constitute the link between [ PL ] , also charged , and the discovery of the cocaine . This is supported by the telephone call made by [ the applicant ] on DATE [ to ORG ] . Therefore , the reasons for continued detention on remand under LAW , LAW ( i ) and ( iii ) , and for continued solitary confinement are still justified as stated in ORG order of DATE . ”

The pre - trial detention in solitary confinement was further extended as follows ; by ORG on DATE , upheld on appeal by the High ORG on DATE ; by ORG on DATE , upheld on appeal by ORG on DATE ; by ORG on DATE ; on DATE ; DATE ; DATE ; CARDINAL DATE ; DATE .

PL admitted to cocaine smuggling on DATE . In addition , he stated that the applicant had participated , but under the belief that the smuggling concerned diamonds . Having been confronted with this statement , during an interview with the police on CARDINAL DATE the applicant explained that he and ORG had actually planned to smuggle diamonds in the papaya fruits . After the papaya fruits had been delivered on DATE , ORG had informed the applicant that the diamonds had arrived safely and that ORG had sold them for a profit amounting to CARDINAL NORP kroner ( DKK ) . When the applicant had been confronted by the police and the press with the discovery of the cocaine , he had panicked and decided to emigrate to GPE . The applicant admitted that his previous explanation about ORG and ORG , and the notes in his diary had been fabricated , and made up by him and PERSON before their arrest as a “ cover story ” .

On DATE and CARDINAL DATE , ORG upheld the applicant 's pretrial detention in solitary confinement on the basis of submitted letters containing the applicant 's and his counsel 's consent . At a court hearing before ORG on DATE , the applicant and counsel were present and objected to the continued confinement . ORG decided as follows :

“ ... the court finds it necessary under LAW a of LAW to maintain the solitary confinement in view of the prosecutor 's information on the divergences between particular [ the applicant 's ] and the detained PL 's statements as to whether the QUANTITY persons had had discussions in relation to the smuggling of cocaine in connection with the agreement between them on smuggling from GPE . Despite the duration of the pretrial detention , the court finds that the solitary confinement must be maintained at least until the examination in court has been carried out , and it should be noted that the examination has been fixed for CARDINAL and DATE . ”

On appeal , on DATE the decision was upheld by the High ORG

At the court hearing before ORG on DATE the applicant confirmed the explanation he had given on DATE and ORG lifted the solitary confinement . Nevertheless , the applicant remained voluntarily in solitary confinement until DATE .

During the period when the applicant was detained in solitary confinement he was placed in LOC ( Vestre Fængsel ) . The cells there have an area of QUANTITY . They are furnished with a bed , a table , a chair , a lamp , a bookcase , a cupboard , a radio , a television set , a refrigerator / freezing compartment , a duvet , a pillow , a mirror , a sink , bed linen , a tea - towel and a towel . There is a window in each cell placed in a high of QUANTITY above the floor . The flooring in the cell is terrazzo / cement .

Being detained on remand in solitary confinement in LOC , the applicant was totally excluded from association with other inmates . He followed the DATE routine in the so - called segregation wing and could use the fitness room , borrow various games , occupy himself with various hobby activities such as painting and borrow books once DATE , buy goods in the shop , including newspapers , and receive tuition , including school tuition . He was allowed to CARDINAL DATE exercise periods ( TIME and TIME ) , each lasting TIME , but it was up to him to decide whether to make use of the outdoor exercise option .

Visits from the applicant 's family and friends were only allowed under supervision . The applicant 's mother visited the applicant twice in the period from DATE until DATE . Thereafter , during a shorter period , the applicant refused to receive visitors . From DATE she visited him DATE for TIME . It appears that in the beginning friends came along with her , CARDINAL persons at a time , but that the police limited the visits to QUANTITY persons at a time in order to be able to check that the conversations did not concern the charge against the applicant . Since DATE , the applicant 's father along with a cousin visited the applicant DATE .

The applicant 's counsel came to visit the applicant approximately once a week . It appears from the case - file that counsel sent herbal medicine to the applicant a couple of times . Also , it appears that on CARDINAL occasion the prison staff asked the prison management to consider limiting the visits from counsel because these seemed to be more frequent and last a lot longer than usual counsel visits . The prison management discussed the matter with counsel , but no restrictions were imposed .

NORP Moreover , during the segregation period , the applicant was questioned by police officers investigating the case , notably by CARDINAL named ORG . Also , on several occasions the applicant was brought before the court in connection with extensions of the time limits for the pre - trial detention and solitary confinement and court hearings . On these occasions , he had contact with police officers as well as his counsel , the judge and the public prosecutor .

The applicant had contact with the prison staff on numerous occasions DATE , including when food was dispensed , when food boxes were collected afterwards , when he opted for outdoor exercise , when he bathed and when he chose to use the fitness room .

In DATE until DATE , the applicant received roughly CARDINAL lessons in LANGUAGE and LANGUAGE from one of the prison teachers , thus once a week and for TIME .

In addition , the applicant visited the prison chaplain once DATE for TIME in the latter 's office .

Furthermore , during the period from DATE until DATE , the applicant had contact CARDINAL times with a welfare worker , it appears for the last time , on DATE , when the applicant stated that being in solitary confinement ( voluntarily since DATE ) was getting him down so much that he would probably choose to leave it . Furthermore , he stated that he had no immediate problems with which the social worker or ORG service ( GPE ) could assist him . Instead , he talked about the problems that the case had caused him , including the fact that he felt betrayed by people whom he thought were good friends .

In the same period , the applicant was treated by a dentist a couple of times and by a physiotherapist CARDINAL times .

During the applicant 's detention on remand in solitary confinement from DATE until DATE medical inspections were carried out CARDINAL times by a doctor .

From the prison medical journals submitted it appeared , among other things , that the applicant from CARDINAL DATE , DATE of his arrest , at TIME until DATE TIME was placed in an observation cell , as he had stated that he suffered from claustrophobia and had said that he was contemplating suicide . During this period he was observed CARDINAL times by the prison staff and twice by nurses . He was given a sleeping pill for that night ( and for the following nights during DATE ) .

On DATE a doctor attended the applicant and refused to prolong the prescription for sleeping pills . The doctor established that the applicant had no complaints of claustrophobia and advised him to do “ physical exercise ” to achieve natural fatigue instead of chemical , tablet - induced sleep .

At DATE the applicant went on a hunger strike , although he drank fruit juices . In this connection the applicant was monitored every day on CARDINAL , DATE and DATE by nurses and doctors .

On DATE the applicant told a doctor that he was determined to starve himself to death . The prison doctor informed him of the relevant NORP regulation , which prescribes respect for the desires of mentally competent persons , even the desire to die . The doctor found the applicant mentally capable and not abnormal for the purposes of taking this decision . The doctor received and accepted the applicant 's refusal of medical intervention ( artificial feeding at any future potentially fatal weakening of the applicant 's health ) . The doctor furthermore found the applicant physically normal and without any acetone smell ( usual occurrence at fasts ) . The doctor prescribed him a sleeping pill for TIME . According to the prison rules , the doctor also requested a psychiatric assessment of the applicant – a requirement when inmates go on hunger strike even if no signs of mental disorder are found .

DATE , on DATE the applicant informed a doctor that he was drinking but that he expected to be dead within DATE . The doctor found the applicant normal and without any signs of dehydration . As to the applicant 's mental health , the doctor waited for the psychiatric examination , which was scheduled to take place on DATE . The latter concluded :

“ Visit to a DATE male , charged with Article PERSON LAW ( straffeloven ) ] , of which , according to him , he is innocent . He is now carrying out a hunger strike , as a protest against his perception that the press and others have convicted him in advance , and he is fully aware of the consequences of such an act and is at present writing farewell letters , his will , etc . Diagnosis : situational reaction . ”

Due to the applicant 's decision to continue his hunger strike , the prison doctor ordered that DATE he be checked by a doctor , be weighed and have his urine checked for ketonic substances which may occur during fasting . The applicant decided to start eating again at DATE .

Once , in DATE an ORG scanning was carried out , notably to check the applicant for epilepsy .

On CARDINAL DATE a doctor attended the applicant because he complained of continuous pain in his lower back . The doctor ordered that he be given an extra mattress and referred him to a physiotherapist .

On DATE the applicant decided to leave the solitary confinement he had volunteered for since CARDINAL DATE . Moreover , having volunteered for kitchen duty , he was attended to by a doctor , as the chief consultant of ORG had stated that inmates with indications of for instance mental disorders or significantly deviating conduct were not accepted for kitchen duty .

During the applicant 's detention on remand in solitary confinement from DATE until DATE medical inspections were carried out CARDINAL times by a nurse .

After the solitary confinement had been lifted on DATE , the applicant 's detention on remand was prolonged several times by the courts until DATE , when the High Court sitting with a jury acquitted the applicant of the drug offences . However , on the basis of the applicant 's confession he was convicted of aggravated tax fraud and sentenced to DATE imprisonment and an additional fine of DKK CARDINAL ( or in the alternative DATE imprisonment ) .

By a ORG judgment of DATE , a co - accused , MP , who in the meantime had been extradited from the GPE , and ORG were convicted of the cocaine smuggling .

On DATE , the applicant claimed compensation for pecuniary and non - pecuniary damage pursuant to LAW of ORG for having been detained from DATE until DATE . The total claim for compensation amounted to more than DKK CARDINAL , thereof DKK CARDINAL for injury to his feelings and reputation . In support of the latter counsel referred to the unusually long , unjustified pre - trial detention , the massive press attention given to the case , to the fact that the applicant was a well - known person and that the case therefore had been unusually and extraordinarily insulting to him . The prosecution first considered the claim , and then in DATE it was brought before ORG .

In a letter of DATE counsel stated that she also wished to invoke LAW and for this purpose she requested that a report be procured from ORG ( Retspsykiatrisk ORG ) concerning the applicant 's mental state of health during and after his detention on remand . On DATE ORG complied with his request , and the report was submitted on DATE stating , inter alia :

“ The subject is a now CARDINAL-year - old male , who had never exhibited any signs of a mental disorder until DATE . From his early youth and until DATE he was a successful competition swimmer . As from DATE he was self - employed in a business which he ran successfully until his arrest in DATE . Until his arrest he seems always to have functioned well . He has never abused any drugs or alcohol .

During this examination he was found of normal to good intelligence . There is no basis for assuming that he suffers from epilepsy or any other organic brain disease . [ The applicant ] states having delusions of persecution and that he suffers from megalomania , and he appears distrustful and on guard . His perception of reality is lacking to such an extent that he can be characterised as psychotic . A final clarification of his illness can not be made , but most likely he suffers from a paranoid psychosis . Since his release , probably due to his psychotic condition , the [ applicant 's ] way of living has been affected by a considerable and vagrant travel activity , which to some degree has been characterised by a lacking capability to maintain human contacts , to make bond or to root himself in localities .

On the basis of the information available it must be assumed that [ the applicant 's ] mental suffering coincided with the period when he was detained on remand in solitary confinement . Moreover , taking into account [ the applicant 's ] distinct personality and mental vulnerability , it is probable that the out - break and the progress of [ his ] illness are causally linked to the fact that he was solitary confined during a longer period ” .

In addition , statements of CARDINAL March and CARDINAL DATE from ORG ( PERSON ) were submitted before ORG . In the former it was stated inter alia :

“ ... ORG states that until DATE [ the applicant ] did not seem to exhibit any signs of a mental disorder or personality disorder . He is of good intelligence .

During his prolonged pre - trial detention and solitary confinement in the period from DATE until DATE , he developed a psychosis , characterised particularly by failing perception of reality and grandeur . It is difficult to fix the exact time when the psychosis developed during the pre - trial detention . At a psychiatric visit on DATE no psychosis - like symptoms were found , but a “ situational reaction ” and a hunger strike . During the forensic psychiatric examination - completed in DATE - he was found both by clinical psychiatric testing and by psychological testing to be psychotic , probably suffering from a paranoid psychosis ( mental disorder with delusions ) .

In ORG view it is very difficult to establish [ the exact cause for the applicant 's mental illness ] , but it is reasonable to assume that the considerable and long lasting mental strain which the case involved , presumably in conjunction with a distinct personality characterised by sensitivity and vulnerability significantly influenced the progress of the mental illness . The solitary confinement was a particular and severe mental strain , but also other circumstances like the charge and the subsequent indictment may have contributed to the progress of the applicant 's mental disorder . ”

In the latter the ORG supplemented :

“ ... The ORG finds it substantiated that the main diagnosis is paranoid schizophrenic and not a post traumatic stress reaction , as the condition is a psychosis - like condition . But heavy mental strain is one of the prerequisites both for development of [ the applicant 's ] psychosis and for the development of a posttraumatic stress reaction , and in addition to the psychotic symptoms [ the applicant ] exhibits symptoms which are characteristic of a post - traumatic stress reaction ( irritability , concentration difficulties , sleeping difficulties , nightmares , depressive tendencies with suicidal thoughts ) .

... the ORG can not assess or make any statement as to whether the mental disorder is permanent . ”

Moreover , an assessment of CARDINAL DATE by ORG ) was submitted as to the applicant 's degree of disablement and loss of working capacity as a result of his mental illness . ORG estimated that the degree of the applicant 's disablement amounted to PERCENT and that he had lost CARDINAL of his working capacity .

During the proceedings before ORG , the applicant and CARDINAL witnesses were heard . The witnesses testified about their knowledge of the applicant 's income , businesses and possessions , and about their observations of the applicant before , during and after the criminal proceedings . None of the doctors or the nurses that had carried out the medical inspections of the applicant during his pre - trial detention in solitary confinement were heard or summoned before ORG . With regard to his behaviour during this period i.e. from CARDINAL DATE until CARDINAL DATE the following witnesses testified in so far as relevant :

The applicant 's mother stated , among other things , that she felt that it was worst for the applicant during the detention period when he was also solitary confined . Thereafter , he became more human and spoke more coherently . During the solitary confinement he wrote some letters with weird contents , including a letter with incomprehensible presentation of how the universe works . She had talked with counsel about getting a psychologist in from outside , but it was too difficult to cope with and nothing came of it . She would describe the difference in the applicant 's behaviour before and after by saying that he used to be dynamic , committed and extrovert but had become grumpy and inaccessible .

The applicant 's cousin stated , among other things , that the applicant seemed deeply unhappy and preoccupied . Often he was just listening . He had also changed appearance , having grown a big beard and lost weight . The applicant became better as time passed , as if he had found some peace .

The prison chaplain stated , among other things , that the applicant moved with great care around the grounds and walked practically sideways along the wall . He moved like a person who had done no exercise and seemed timid . The applicant needed exercise , both physically and mentally . He had a great feeling of powerlessness . The applicant seemed different than other inmates , like a stranger in that he could both think and talk and was not already broken . The chaplain found that in general persons detained in solitary confinement lose their concentration . This was also the case as regards the applicant . The applicant cheered up and felt stimulated by the visits to the chaplain and it had been difficult to end the consultations as the applicant kept finding new subjects and knew which subjects were interesting to the chaplain .

The prison teacher stated , among other things , that the applicant from DATE seemed desperate . Subsequently he appeared resigned . On his index card of DATE , the teacher had noted that the applicant got more and more depressed . The applicants ' physical condition worsened , he got careless about himself , both concerning clothing and hygiene . The applicant read a lot , although he encountered difficulties in concentrating .

Police officer ORG , who investigated the case against the applicant and regularly kept visits to the applicant under surveillance , stated among other things , that the applicant 's mental state appeared the same , whether questioned in the presence of his counsel or receiving visits . At some time the applicant turned his sports jersey the wrong side out as he did not wish to be like everybody else . He wanted to be a loner .

During the proceedings before ORG the applicant raised his claim for compensation to DKK CARDINAL . By judgment of DATE ORG granted the applicant compensation in the amount of ORG CARDINAL,CARDINAL and stated inter alia :

“ ... Having regard to the findings on the evidence in ORG verdict of CARDINAL DATE , and to the evidence produced during these proceedings , the court finds it established that an agreement had been concluded between ORG and MP on the smuggling of cocaine from GPE to GPE so that the cocaine was to be hidden in a consignment of papaya fruits . Accordingly , in GPE MP placed the cocaine in a pallet with green papaya fruits to be imported by the firm ... , from which [ the applicant ] had ordered the fruits . However , PL had tricked [ the applicant ] into establishing ... a health firm , and ordering the papaya fruits via this firm by stating that the import of green papaya fruits was to cover smuggling of diamonds , although to PL cocaine was involved . After the arrival [ of the papaya fruits ] complications arose whereby the smuggled cocaine was discovered .

[ The applicant ] had taken initiatives as to the potential commercial exploitation of green papaya fruits for health products , etc .

The court finds that [ the applicant ] has exhibited considerable contributory negligence by embarking on an agreement with ORG on the smuggling of diamonds from GPE . He knew that PERSON was a trained gemmologist , but their acquaintance was of recent date and his efforts to ensure that PERSON 's criminal intention was limited to diamond smuggling were poor . PERSON 's statement to the effect that at some time he briefly remarked to [ the applicant ] that he had previously tried to smuggle cocaine is contested by [ the applicant ] and no decisive weight has been attached to it in this assessment of the evidence .

... On the evidence [ before it ] the court finds that [ the applicant ] started establishing [ the health firm ] to be in charge of the import of papaya fruits etc . after having agreed with ORG to assist in smuggling diamonds from GPE hidden in consignments of papaya fruits . According to the evidence it can not be excluded that [ the applicant ] also intended to obtain a commercial profit from [ the health firm ] . However , having regard to the applicant 's knowledge of the discovery of the cocaine and to the police interviews in general , the court finds that [ the applicant ] should have realised that the investigation theory of the police was that [ his established health firm ] was only a cover for the import of cocaine , and that any profit from the sale of health products made from papaya fruits was quite immaterial . Furthermore , the court notes that [ the applicant 's ] rather experimental / impulsive way of starting up his firm was suited to strengthen this assumption by the police , and that the applicant should have realised this .

After the police had found the cocaine and after the press publicity on DATE , but before his own arrest , [ the applicant ] chose together with ORG to agree on a false statement about the background of his import of papaya fruits , ... [ the story about ORG and ORG ] supported by construed diary notes . [ The applicant ] maintains that he asked PERSON repeatedly at this stage whether PERSON had anything to do with the cocaine . Despite PERSON 's denials [ the applicant ] should have suspected serious mischief at least at this stage .

[ The applicant ] was arrested on DATE . He did not change his statement until DATE , when during an interview [ with the police ] he told about the planned diamond smuggling . This statement was repeated at the hearings before the court on CARDINAL and DATE and then maintained . The solitary confinement was terminated at the court hearing on DATE .

... accordingly , the court finds that [ the applicant ] has exhibited contributory negligence by way of his suspicious conduct / failure to clear himself of suspicion , partly by having embarked on the alleged smuggling of diamonds and taking relevant steps , having construed and made use of a false cover story and having failed to explain the true facts of the case until DATE , whereby he must also have realised that with this course of events in DATE he himself had considerably contributed to causing doubts about the correctness of his present statement , cf . in this respect [ the ORG decision of DATE as to the continued pre - trial detention ] .

The court finds that the contributory negligence exhibited by [ the applicant ] therefore entails that he has basically forfeited the right to compensation for the harm inflicted on him by the arrest and the pre - trial detention ...

In accordance with the opinion of ORG the court finds that the applicant did not show any signs of mental disorder or personal disorder [ before his arrest ] , but that during the prolonged pre - trial detention and solitary confinement he developed a psychosis , particularly characterised by a failing perception of reality , delusions of reference as well as delusions of persecution and of grandeur . It is impossible to fix the exact time when the psychosis developed during the pre - trial detention as no psychosis - like symptoms were found at a psychiatric visit on DATE , but a “ situational reaction ” and a hunger strike , whereas in the forensic psychiatric examination - completed in DATE - [ the applicant ] was found psychotic , probably suffering from a paranoid psychosis ( mental disorder with delusions ) ...

Particularly concerning LAW and the basis of responsibility in general :

... generally , any kind of deprivation of liberty constitutes a strain on the person involved . Such a strain manifests itself even more with regard to pre - trial detention in solitary confinement , which entails complete exclusion from association with other inmates , and visits only to a limited extent and subject to surveillance . In some cases this strain may , for a particular individual , prove to have consequences beyond what is generally foreseeable and predictable by the legislator owing to that individual 's mental preparedness and life situation in general .

It must be presumed that the legislator considers solitary confinement necessary for the sake of the investigation , particularly in grave criminal cases committed by a group of persons acting in a more organised way , in which the clearing up to a great extent depends on the persons ' lack of opportunities to harmonise their statements mutually and with others .

In order to balance the interests of the detainee against the interest of the society in prosecuting crimes , the legislator has laid down provisions on solitary confinement cf . sections CARDINALa to CARDINALc of ORG . Thus , the use of totally solitary confinement is limited to a continuous period of DATE [ except for ] cases , where the charge concerns an offence being punishable under the law by imprisonment for DATE or more , which are not subject to any restriction in time . The charge against [ the applicant ] for drug offences under LAW satisfies this condition . Under section CARDINALb , the courts must check whether the purpose of the solitary confinement can be fulfilled by less radical measures , and they must ensure that the measure is not disproportionate to the importance of the case and the sanction that may be expected if the person charged is found guilty . Furthermore , under this provision the court must “ take into account the special potential strain on the person charged owing to his youth , or physical or mental weakness ” when it orders solitary confinement .

In the opinion of the court , the legislator has thus realised that solitary confinement may at worst result in an unintended harmful effect owing to the mental weakness of the person charged . This is attempted countered by imposing a duty on ORG staff ( kriminalforsorgens personale ) , including the prison doctor , to be aware of any danger signals , according to which psychiatric monitoring may prove relevant .

The question of medical monitoring may be raised by everybody who is in contact with the detainee , including counsel , as well as the detainee himself and the prison staff . If so , the judge responsible for a continuation of the pre - trial detention in solitary confinement must decide whether the interest of society in prosecution must give way for the mental wellbeing of the person charged , with particular regard to the risk of permanent mental harm .

It is a matter for the courts to check and apply the provisions of the law compared with general principles of law , including the principles expressed in LAW ... as incorporated into NORP law by LAW . CARDINAL of CARDINAL DATE .

LAW sets out that “ no one shall be subjected to torture or to inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment ” . LAW provides for the situations in which a person may exceptionally be deprived of his liberty .

[ The applicant 's ] detention on remand was ordered due to the risk of influencing others and the risk of evasion , and solitary confinement was imposed in addition due to the risk of influencing others .

's health . In addition to the specific elements of the case , the court has taken into account the assessments made by ORG , ORG of ORG ( CCPR ) , ORG ( CAT ) , and ORG ) on the conditions of solitary confinement in GPE as well as national deliberations , most recently report ( betænkning ) No . DATE on pretrial detention in solitary confinement ...

The court finds that the pre - trial detention in solitary confinement and the subsequent ordinary pre - trial detention did not involve any violation of LAW by virtue of its duration , form or conditions , as seen in relation to the nature of the suspected offence . The same applies as to the effect of the imprisonment on [ the applicant 's ] health .

However , the court finds that the detention on remand in solitary confinement has had a mental consequential effect to [ the detriment of the applicant and that it ] occurred under such circumstances as to trigger liability for the Government [ for the following reason ] .

It must be assumed , even without the establishment of committed human errors e.g. by failing monitoring , that incidents may occur , where the detained subsequently are found to have developed psychiatric damage , which to a significant extent has been caused by the pre - trial detention [ as opposed to normal predictable mental aftereffects ] , and which may be entailed by the usual administrative rates fixed to cover non - pecuniary damage .

In the present case , having regard to the medical statements , the court finds it established that [ the applicant ] suffers from a paranoid psychosis ( mental disorder with delusions ) and a traumatic strain - reaction , and that the detention on remand to a very significant extent caused this .

The public authorities have a special duty of solicitude for detainees , which entails liability to compensation should they fail to comply with this duty . With regard to solitary confinement the court finds that a strengthened degree of culpability must be employed towards the public authorities .

It may be difficult for the surroundings to recognise in particular a paranoid psychosis . However , having regard to the information provided by [ the applicant ] about his claustrophobia and his contemplation of suicide , which resulted in his placement in an observation cell , the court finds that [ the applicant ] , maybe already at the time of the arrest , behaved in such a way that could and should have caused a closer observance in the period to follow , than were actually performed of [ the applicant 's ] mental development , in any case subsequent to [ the applicant 's ] hunger strike in DATE . The court finds that the authorities carry the burden of proof that the [ above ] circumstances have had no influence on the psychiatric damage incurred . Thus , the court finds that it can not be excluded that the mental damage to a significant extent could have been avoided or reduced by a more thorough observation , and that the courts [ had such an observation been carried out ] would have had an opportunity for balancing the risk of ( permanent ) damage against the interest of the investigation cf . section ORG . ”

Both the applicant and the prosecution appealed against ORG judgment of DATE to ORG of Eastern GPE .

Before the High Court a letter of CARDINAL DATE was submitted containing an account of the nurses ' monitoring of the applicant during his pretrial detention in solitary confinement during the period from DATE until DATE . Thus , as to the CARDINAL medical inspections which had been carried out by nurses the head of nursing stated inter alia :

“ . It does not appear at any time from the nurses ' report books summarising the visits that the nurses suspected that [ the applicant ] was developing a paranoid psychosis . Considering the nurses ' background both in the prison service and the psychiatric system , one would expect that the nurses who made these visits would have observed it , if [ the applicant ] had been developing a psychosis - like condition . It should be added that the nurses ' visits in the south wing [ where the applicant was placed ] were performed by the “ permanent nurses ” of the south wing , who were [ therefore ] able to monitor any changes in [ the applicant 's ] mental condition . ”

NORP The head of nursing also testified before ORG and explained the routines and observations of the prison nurses , including that the applicant gave cause for discussion only once at the nurses ' morning conferences , namely when he was on his hunger strike . Otherwise , he was considered “ nice and talkative ”

A similar account was made as to the doctors ' monitoring of the applicant , i.e. CARDINAL medical examinations carried out by doctors in the relevant period . In a letter of DATE the chief consultant of ORG ( PERSON ) , a specialist of internal medicine and medical gastroenterology concluded inter alia :

“ that [ the applicant ] was not at any time found to be mentally ill to a major extent corresponding to the otherwise obvious and probable harmful effect of the solitary confinement ordered by the courts ;

that at no time [ the applicant ] was found to be borderline psychotic , not to mention psychotic ( thus not suffering from a paranoid psychosis either ) ;

that the psychiatrist 's assessment of [ the applicant ] on DATE was carried out for administrative reasons only in connection with [ the applicant 's ] short - term refusal to eat , which had caused no complications ( it was not a total fast as [ the applicant ] drank juice ) . The psychiatric assessment was not carried out due to an uncertainty on the prison doctor 's behalf as to [ the applicant 's ] mental state , [ since ] neither the ordinary prison doctor nor , in particular , the psychiatrist had found [ the applicant 's mental state ] very remarkable or even mentally threatened . [ Instead ] the psychiatrist made the said administrative assessment to make doubly sure that [ the applicant ] was found competent [ to cope with the situation ] concerning his refusal to eat . ”

The chief consultant did not question that the applicant was found to be psychotic during the period of psychiatric observation from DATE until DATE , but underlined that the applicant had not been found to be significantly mentally ill , borderline psychotic or psychotic during the period of detention from DATE until DATE . None of the highly qualified and welltrained doctors and nurses attending the applicant during that period had noted any signs of mental disorder in the applicant . He pointed out that the said doctors and nurses had plenty of experience with examining inmates held in solitary confinement and that they knew what telltale signs of oncoming or existing mental disorder to look for when examining such inmates . Accordingly , in the chief consultant 's opinion , it could not established that the mental disorder , found when examining the applicant DATE after the determination of his detention , actually began during his detention at FAC .

NORP The chief consultant also provided a general account on visits and assessments of detainees . He mentioned that such may take place at counsel 's request . In this respect the letter stated as follows :

“ Concerning [ the applicant ] it should be noted in this connection that the doctors [ of ORG ] have received no inquiries during the said detention period from [ the applicant 's ] prosecutor or CARDINAL counsel , apart from the letter of DATE from [ the applicant 's ] first counsel and the letter of DATE from [ the applicant 's ] second counsel .

In the letter of DATE [ the first counsel ] stated that he found the applicant very depressed , and he asked that doctors attend to [ the applicant ] . No letter of reply was sent to [ the first counsel ] since he had not requested such , and since he had stated in the letter that he had not notified [ the applicant ] that he had written the said letter ( all other things being equal , a reply would require [ the applicant 's ] specific consent and thus indicate to [ the applicant ] that his counsel had sent a letter without his consent ) , but the most important reason for not sending a reply was the fact that [ the applicant ] had not been found depressed in connection with a medical assessment , including the psychiatric assessment made on DATE . If the latter had been the case , a letter of reply would have been forwarded to counsel nevertheless , possibly even without [ the applicant 's ] specific ( informed ) consent , and ... also from the prison doctor to the judicial instances via ORG .

In the letter of DATE [ the second counsel ] asked that herbal medicine ... be given to [ the applicant ] .

Otherwise , [ the CARDINAL counsel ] have not given notice orally , by telephone or in writing about any deviant state observed as to [ the applicant ] . [ It should be noted in this respect that notably [ the second counsel ] and the doctors [ of ORG ] are in regular good contact concerning the inmates ' state of health and particular complex matters related thereto , also in relation to court measures , such as solitary confinement ] . The doctors [ of ORG ] are pleased to receive notices from everybody ( including school teachers , ministers of religion etc . within and outside [ ORG ] , not to mention the applicant ) regardless of the nature of the notices and the information since , all other things being equal , such notices give the doctors better possibilities of performing their work of ensuring the best possible conditions for the inmates ' health subject to the terms ordered by the courts . “

NORP The chief consultant was heard as a witness before ORG . He explained in more general terms the routines of the prison doctors and the attention focused on inmates held in solitary confinement for long periods and he gave further description of some of the findings noted in the medical record sheet relating to the applicant .

The applicant 's case was discussed at the DATE conferences between the doctors . The witness himself never saw the applicant . There were no signs that the applicant was characterised by incipient isolation syndrome . The symptoms of this syndrome are difficulties of concentrating , sleeping trouble , disturbed perception of time and space , disturbed interpretation of sensory impulses , depression , possibly with self destruction and thought of low self - esteem , fits of anxiety , lack of interests in surroundings . This may develop into a borderline psychosis , the symptoms being delusions / paranoia , feeling of unreality and into an actual psychosis . When he suspects incipient isolation syndrome , he writes to the prison management about it with a view to forward it to the counsel and the prosecutor . In DATE , for example , the witness wrote such letters in thirtytwo cases . He did not know exactly how many letters like that he wrote in DATE , but he has not changed practise in this respect since DATE .

As to the notes in the medical record of CARDINAL DATE , when the applicant was on hunger strike , the chief consultant specified that doctors always assess whether a person is mentally competent and understands the consequences of a hunger strike and that all doctors have psychiatric training . He would rather call the applicant 's hunger strike a refusal to eat , since he drank plenty of water and juice , which contains calories and nourishment . According to LAW ) , a doctor is not allowed to interrupt a competent person 's hunger strike by force . He may try to procure consent to treatment when the person becomes weak . The applicant granted no such consent . ORG may be used against mentally ill persons .

As to the psychiatric attendance on DATE the witness stated inter alia that the applicant was found to suffer from a situational reaction such as many new detainees do . It is not uncommon in LOC that inmates state their intention of going on hunger strike . The applicant was not in any bodily danger , but might in time become mentally endangered . Thus , the close observation of the applicant continued .

NORP The Director of ORG gave his account before ORG of the monitoring of the applicant during the latter 's pre - trial detention and period of solitary confinement . In a letter of DATE he stated , among other things :

“ For the purpose of this account the prison management has procured information on [ the applicant 's ] stay in the prison from the chief consultant , the head of nursing , the welfare worker , supervisory staff [ at the applicant 's unit ] and from his workplace in the prison .

Supervisory staff in the south wing [ which monitored the applicant during his entire period in solitary confinement ] stated that despite the solitary confinement he functioned well , knew how to structure his everyday life and occupy himself , and he did not in any way appear mentally conspicuous .

At no time did the staff find any reason to contact the health staff to obtain a psychiatric assessment , which is otherwise an initiative very frequently taken by staff .

The principal officer of the west wing [ to which the applicant was transferred after the solitary confinement ] and the staff in the kitchen where he worked have stated the same .

[ The applicant 's ] welfare worker who regularly talked with him during his entire detention has also stated the same .

With reference to the comments of the court [ in connection with the compensation proceedings ] decisive importance must be attached , however , to the question whether these assessments are supported by the doctors ' monitoring of [ the applicant ] .

The chief consultant has provided the appended statement on the case . For details please refer to this assessment .

It appears from the chief consultant 's statement that during his entire period of detention [ the applicant ] has been extremely carefully monitored and assessed by doctors .

Visits by doctors , including psychiatrists , may be carried out at the request of the health staff of ORG , but may also be carried out at the request of staff , counsel or the prosecutor . In [ the applicant 's ] case , counsel only once requested a visit from a doctor [ i.e. the first counsel in his letter of DATE ] , which had , however , already been made by a psychiatrist in connection with the hunger strike , cf . below .

During all visits , doctors and nurses of ORG have their attention directed at signs of psychoses , both obvious signs and minute signs . They are , of course , particular attentive to such signs in a case of solitary confinement , which is in itself a stressful measure .

If , in connection with a visit , a doctor finds even the slightest suspicion that the inmate is or may possibly be on his way to become mentally ill , a statement to that effect is given to counsel and the prosecutor .

This was not done in [ the applicant 's ] case , as there was never at any time any suspicion of a mental illness .

The reason why [ the applicant ] was attended to by a psychiatrist on DATE at the initiative of ORG was not that a mental illness was suspected , but solely that the internal guidelines prescribe this when inmates go on hunger strike . Anyway , no psychopathological characters were found at the examination , but a situational reaction ... Particularly referring to the chief consultant 's statement , ORG repudiate that [ the applicant ] has been subjected to failure of health monitoring . During his entire stay , [ the applicant ] was regularly visited by doctors and nurses , and these visits have not given any rise to any suspicion of mental disorders ... ”

Moreover , by letter of CARDINAL DATE the Director of ORG gave his account of the monitoring of the applicant during the latter 's pre - trial detention and solitary confinement . The letter read inter alia :

“ After the passing of the judgment in the compensation proceedings on DATE I have had conversations with the following persons about [ the applicant 's ] stay in ORG :

DW , then social worker in the east unit , states that [ the applicant ] was an intelligent and interesting young man . During his stay [ the applicant ] started painting . He read a lot . His behaviour was not conspicuous . He seemed present during conversations . He was bitter and angry with the police and felt unjustly treated . These thoughts did not seem pathological to DW .

ORG , prison officer , ... , who knew [ the applicant ] during his entire stay in the south wing , stated that he painted , was active and seemed to function well . He was good - humoured to be with and was given a rather free rein . He was always ready with a gay remark . He was considered by all staff as a person who functioned well and was not conspicuous . He knew how to establish an everyday life . He felt unjustly treated by the system and thought that solitary confinement in general could be considered as some kind of torture .

ORG , prison officer , ... , who also monitored [ the applicant ] in the south wing , stated that he was not pathologically conspicuous . He was quite ordinary to talk to . In the circumstances he managed the solitary confinement incredibly well .

JEL ... who was the foreman in the kitchen where [ the applicant ] worked after the solitary confinement , stated that he did not seem mentally conspicuous or affected by the long solitary confinement .

ORG , principal officer , west wing , stated that [ the applicant ] functioned well during his stay in the west wing after the solitary confinement and did not seem affected by the solitary confinement . ”

Additional statements from ORG and ORG were submitted on CARDINAL DATE and CARDINAL DATE respectively , and the applicant and several witnesses were heard .

By judgment of CARDINAL DATE ORG granted the applicant compensation in the amount of ORG covering as follows :

non - pecuniary damage DKK CARDINAL

ORG lost earnings DKK CARDINAL

loss of working capacity DKK CARDINAL

disablement CARDINAL DKK CARDINAL

DATE . The High Court found that the applicant 's mental illness was caused or mainly caused by the solitary confinement , but pointed out that on the basis of the medical statements before it , it was not possible to establish when the mental disorder broke out or how it had progressed . On the material before it , the court found it established that during his detention the applicant had been treated in a proper manner . Thus , having regard to the reason for the solitary confinement and the treatment of the applicant during this period , the court found that in spite of the duration of the solitary confinement and its serious effects on the applicant 's mental health , LAW could not be considered breached .

The court found that compensation for non - pecuniary damage was justified pursuant to section CARDINALa § CARDINAL of ORG for the deprivation of liberty exceeding the sentence laid down in the verdict of DATE . However , according to section CARDINALa § CARDINAL of the said LAW the applicant was found to a considerable extent to have given rise to the measures himself , due to so - called “ own fault ” , in the period DATE until DATE , when the applicant made the statement to the police as to his participation in diamonds smuggling . Accordingly , a sum of DKK CARDINAL was found to be reasonable . Also , the compensation for lost earnings was reduced due to “ own fault ” .

The amounts for disablement and loss of working capacity were calculated on the basis of LAW ( Erstatningsansvarsloven ) , and the information on the applicant 's previous yearly income . Since no exact moment of injury could be established the court chose CARDINAL DATE as the starting point . Considering that it was common knowledge to the authorities that solitary confinement entails a risk of disturbing the mental health , and taking into account the extraordinary and severe damage , which the long lasting detention in segregation caused the applicant , the court found no reason to reduce these amounts on the “ own fault ” considerations .

Finally , ORG decided that the ORG should pay all the legal costs before ORG as well as before ORG .

Having been granted leave to appeal , before ORG ( Højesteret ) the applicant claimed compensation in the amount of DKK CARDINAL for pecuniary and non - pecuniary damage . By judgment of CARDINAL DATE ORG reduced the amount to be paid in compensation to ORG , covering as follows :

non - pecuniary damage DKK CARDINAL

lost earnings DKK CARDINAL

loss of working capacity DKK CARDINAL

disablement DKK CARDINAL

ORG agreed unanimously with ORG that the solitary confinement was the main reason for the applicant 's mental suffering . Also , noting that there was no reason to assume that the applicant had not been treated in a proper manner during his detention on remand , it confirmed ORG finding that the case disclosed no appearance of a violation of LAW .

NORP Moreover , ORG upheld ORG finding that to a significant extent the applicant himself gave rise to measures taken against him , and pointed out that the applicant 's explanations during the criminal proceedings did not leave an impression of being provided by someone who lacked ability to act rationally .

As to the amounts regarding compensation for disablement and loss of working capacity ORG confirmed that it was common knowledge that solitary confinement entails a risk of disturbing the mental health . On the other hand it found that the applicant could not have foreseen , by his conduct and the measures to which he was consequently subjected , that accordingly he would be induced a permanent mental disorder causing loss of working capacity and disablement . Therefore , ORG endorsed that the amounts covering compensation for disablement and loss of working should not be reduced on “ own fault ” considerations .

DATE . As to the applicant 's claim covered by LAW , LAW cf . LAW , the majority of ORG ( CARDINAL judges ) stated :

“ We find that by participating in the papaya project and by his attitude shown during part of the detention period , notably by having actively opposed the investigation of the case , [ the applicant ] is thereby excluded from obtaining compensation for these claims pursuant to LAW , LAW . ”

A minority of CARDINAL judges stated :

“ When assessing the ' own fault ' shown by [ the applicant ] , regard must be had to the difficult situation he was facing and to the severity of the measure [ he was subjected to ] , thus in our view [ own fault ] should not influence the compensation to be awarded to cover lost earnings as to the period after CARDINAL DATE or non - pecuniary damage as to the period after CARDINAL DATE . The case contains no such special circumstances , which can justify a deviation from the administrative rates fixed to cover nonpecuniary damage .

Otherwise agreeing with ORG reasoning concerning each of the claims we find that the applicant , in addition to compensation for loss of working capacity and disablement , be granted DKK CARDINAL covering lost earnings and DKK CARDINAL covering non - pecuniary damage . ”

ORG decided that the applicant pay legal fees in the amount of DKK CARDINAL inclusive GPE .

The relevant provisions of ORG read as follows at the relevant time :

Section CARDINAL

A suspect ( en sigtet ) may be detained on remand when there is a reasonable ground for suspecting that he has committed an offence which is subject to public prosecution , provided that under the law the offence may result in imprisonment for DATE and DATE or more , and

( i ) according to information received concerning the suspect 's situation , there are specific reasons for assuming that he will evade prosecution or execution of judgment , or

( ii ) according to information received concerning the suspect 's situation , there is specific reason to fear that , if at large , he will commit a new offence of the nature described above , or

NORP ...

Detention on remand may not be imposed if the offence can be expected to result in a fine or in light imprisonment ( hæfte ) or if the deprivation of liberty will be disproportionate to the interference with the suspect 's situation , the importance of the case and the sanction expected if the suspect is found guilty .

Section CARDINALa

At the request of the police the court may decide that a detained shall be totally or partially excluded from association with other inmates ( solitary confinement ) if

( i ) the detention on remand was decided pursuant to LAW , Subsection CARDINAL ( iii ) , and

( ii ) the purpose of the detention on remand requires solitary confinement in order to prevent the suspect from influencing co - suspects though other inmates or from influencing others by threats or in another similar way .

Totally solitary confinement may not be imposed for a continuous period of DATE unless the charge relates to an offence which , under the law , may result in imprisonment for DATE or more .

Section CARDINALb

Solitary confinement may not be initiated or continued if the purpose thereof can be fulfilled by less radical measures or if the measure is disproportionate to the importance of the case and the sanction to be expected if the suspect is found guilty . Decisions on solitary confinement must also take into account the special potential strain on the suspect owing to his youth or physical or mental weakness .

Section CARDINALa

Any person who has been arrested or held in custody as part of a criminal prosecution is entitled to compensation for the damage suffered thereby if the charges are withdrawn or the accused is acquitted ...

Even if the conditions for granting compensation under subsection CARDINAL are not satisfied , compensation may be granted if the deprivation of liberty can not be considered proportionate to the outcome of the prosecution , or if it is found unreasonable for other particular grounds .

The compensation may be reduced or refused , if the person charged has given rise to the measures himself .

The ORG visited GPE from DATE . With regard to solitary confinement it found inter alia the following ( ORG ( CARDINAL ) CARDINAL ) :

... at FAC the ORG 's delegation was able to observe at first hand the practice of the solitary confinement of remand prisoners ordered by judicial decision . Numerous allegations were made as regards the adverse effects of such confinement . The ORG wishes to underline that , in certain circumstances , solitary confinement could amount to inhuman and degrading treatment , and that in any event all forms of solitary confinement should be as short as possible . The question of solitary confinement is currently being examined by the NORP authorities . The ORG , for its part , has formulated several recommendations designed to strengthen the protection of prisoners in this area . Emphasis is placed in particular on the importance of the respect of the principle of proportionality between the requirements of the investigation and placement in solitary confinement ( a measure which can have very harmful consequences for the persons concerned ) , of an effective periodic judicial review of the solitary confinement , and of the proper medical examination of a prisoner subject to such a measure .

The ORG also visited GPE from CARDINAL DATE to CARDINAL October CARDINAL . Its findings with regard to solitary confinement , and the condition of FAC were the following ( ORG ( CARDINAL ) CARDINAL ) :

Solitary confinement of remand prisoners by court order

In the course of its ongoing dialogue with the NORP authorities , the ORG has stressed that all forms of solitary confinement without appropriate mental and physical stimulation are likely in the long term to have damaging effects , resulting in deterioration of mental faculties and social abilities . It has paid particular attention to the solitary confinement of remand prisoners by court order , which can continue for extended periods .

The NORP authorities have long recognised the importance of this subject and , in DATE , the Minister of ORG commissioned a research project to examine " any possible harmful effects of being remanded in custody in solitary confinement " . The results of that research were published , in a report entitled " Remand in Custody and Mental Health " , in DATE .

The research team found that : " ... remand in custody in solitary confinement versus non - solitary confinement involves the risk of harmful effects on mental health " and that " ... there is a greater probability that those in solitary confinement develop mental problems and are transferred to prison hospitals for mental reasons than those who are not placed in solitary confinement " . ( cf . page CARDINAL of document ORG ( CARDINAL ) CARDINAL ) However , researchers found no proven link between the length of judicially - ordered solitary confinement and prisoners ' mental health .

The report concludes that : " ... the harmful effects of solitary confinement are not in general such as to result in abnormalities in the cognitive functions , e.g. concentration and memory " . ( cf . page CARDINAL of document ORG ( CARDINAL ) CARDINAL ) .

ORG is currently examining the findings of " Remand in Custody and ORG " , with a view to re - assessing the rules governing placement in judicially ordered solitary confinement . In addition , the same research team is producing a follow - up study , which is to be published in the form of a supplementary report .

The ORG welcomes the fact that the mental health of prisoners in judicially ordered solitary confinement has been the subject of a study . However , it feels bound to point out that , during its DATE visit , a considerable number of doctors , lawyers , prison staff and other persons who have frequent contact with such inmates expressed considerable surprise at the study 's principal conclusion . In their experience , prisoners subjected to lengthy periods of judicially ordered solitary confinement frequently exhibited lapses in concentration , memory loss and impaired social skills . These observations were borne out by the ORG 's own findings during its second periodic visit . Many prisoners subject to judicially ordered solitary confinement complained of symptoms including anxiety , depression , inability to concentrate , irregular sleeping patterns , nausea and persistent headaches . In CARDINAL particular case , the delegation 's psychiatric expert was of the opinion that symptoms such as impairment of concentration , depressive mood and suicidal thoughts could be attributed to the inmate 's lengthy placement in solitary confinement .

In short , notwithstanding the principal conclusion of " Remand in Custody and ORG " , the ORG considers that there remain serious grounds for concern about the effects upon remand prisoners ' mental health of being placed in judicially - ordered solitary confinement for prolonged periods .

In addition to stressing that all forms of solitary confinement should be as short as possible , the ORG 's DATE report recommended that the NORP authorities take steps to ensure that remand prisoners were only placed in solitary confinement in exceptional circumstances which were strictly limited to the actual requirements of the case . It also recommended that there be an effective judicial review of placements in solitary confinement and that , where a placement was prolonged , the reasons for such prolongation be set out in writing ( cf . paragraph CARDINAL of document ORG ( CARDINAL ) CARDINAL ) .

In their response , the NORP authorities asserted that NORP law was already in accordance with these recommendations and cited a steady fall in the number of remand prisoners being placed in judicially - ordered solitary confinement .

The ORG welcomes the above - mentioned fall . However , the information gathered during the second periodic visit would suggest that - at least in respect of certain types of cases ( serious drugs offences , crimes of violence etc . ) - the balance between the legitimate requirements of a criminal investigation and the potentially harmful effects of imposing solitary confinement is still not being struck in an appropriate way . As an example , senior police officers , prosecutors and judges with whom the delegation spoke agreed that it would be extremely unusual were solitary confinement not to be sought ( and granted ) in a case brought under LAW of ORG ( which deals with serious drugs offences ) . It is also noteworthy that a detailed examination of the court transcript of a randomly - selected LAW case showed that no specific reasons had been given by the judge for imposing solitary confinement ; instead , he had simply cited the statute which authorised him to grant the prosecutor 's request .

Furthermore , although it is true that the statistical information which has been supplied by the NORP authorities shows a downward trend in the number of placements in solitary confinement , it also indicates that the average length of solitary confinement has increased . Indeed , in the course of the DATE visit , the ORG 's delegation met a number of prisoners who had been subject to judicially ordered solitary confinement for long periods of time ( one for DATE , CARDINAL for DATE and CARDINAL for DATE or more ) .

In the light of the information set out above , the ORG considers that further action is required to ensure that the safeguards in NORP law concerning the placement of remand prisoners in solitary confinement are rendered fully effective in practice . The ORG recommends that steps be taken to ensure that : - prosecutors are reminded that they should only seek a placement in solitary confinement when this is strictly necessary in the interests of a particular criminal investigation ; - on every occasion when the question of whether to impose or prolong solitary confinement is raised before a court , the reasoned grounds for the decision which results are recorded in writing ; - prisoners are systematically informed in straightforward language of the reasons for their placement in judicially - ordered solitary confinement ; - in the context of each periodic review of the necessity to continue remand in custody , the necessity to continue a placement in solitary confinement is fully considered as a separate issue , bearing in mind the general principle that all placements in solitary confinement should be as short as possible . ORG also invites the NORP authorities to consider introducing a maximum limit on the total period for which a remand prisoner may be placed in solitary confinement .

The effect upon remand prisoners of being placed in judicially ordered solitary confinement can be exacerbated by the imposition of prohibitions / restrictions upon their letters and visits . The imposition of such restrictions lies within the sole discretion of the police ( although a prisoner may appeal to a court against the imposition of restrictions ) . In the course of its second visit , the delegation found that the police rarely if ever sought to prohibit letters or visits ; however , it was common for remand prisoners ' letters to be monitored and their visits supervised . In its report on the first visit , the ORG recommended that the police be given clear instructions on the circumstances in which such prohibitions / restrictions might be imposed and required to state the reasons in writing for any such measures . This recommendation has not been implemented by the NORP authorities , who consider that ORG already provides sufficient safeguards in this respect .

In the view of the ORG , the current system of police - imposed restrictions upon letters and visits still does not adequately ensure that the measures adopted in a given case will be strictly proportionate to the needs of the criminal investigation involved . Accordingly , the ORG recommends that the NORP authorities take steps to implement its DATE recommendation on this subject without further delay . The ORG also recommends that , in the context of each periodic review by a court of the necessity to continue remand in custody , the question of the necessity for the police to continue to impose particular restrictions upon a remand prisoner 's visits and letters be considered as a separate issue .

As regards the question of activities for remand prisoners placed in judicially - ordered solitary confinement , the ORG was pleased to note that ORG fully agrees with the ORG 's view that persons in solitary confinement should be provided with access to purposeful activities and appropriate human contact in order to counteract the effects of being placed in solitary confinement ( cf . page CARDINAL of document ORG ( CARDINAL ) CARDINAL ) . During the second periodic visit , the delegation noted that efforts were being made to achieve this objective in the establishments visited . The ORG recommends that the NORP authorities pursue their efforts in this respect .

Conditions of detention in general

... b. the Western Prison in GPE

i. introduction

Since the ORG 's first visit to FAC in DATE , the establishment has become the reception facility for all of ORG ( a role previously filled by ORG , cf . paragraph CARDINAL , above ) ; FAC now has a turnover of CARDINAL inmates per year . With an official capacity of CARDINAL , on DATE visit the establishment was holding CARDINAL inmates . ( As compared to CARDINAL ( with an official capacity of CARDINAL ) at the time of the first periodic visit ) ...

ORG replied inter alia as follows :

According to the existing NORP legislation , only the courts can decide whether a suspect may be placed in solitary confinement and that such a decision requires that certain conditions are met , i.e. that the suspect is remanded in custody because he or she must be prevented from influencing other suspects through other inmates or in any other way . Total isolation was only possible for a maximum period of DATE unless the person involved was charged with a criminal offence punishable by DATE imprisonment or more . Furthermore , the principle of proportionality must be observed – hence , if the purpose of the solitary confinement may be achieved through other means of less vital importance , or if the solitary confinement is disproportionate to the importance of the case and the legal consequences to be expected if the suspect is found guilty , solitary confinement must not be used . When deciding this matter , the judge must also take into account the strain , which solitary confinement may put upon the suspect due to the suspect 's young age or mental or physical weakness . The ORG also pointed out that the number of persons kept in solitary confinement was decreasing significantly over DATE and that the conditions to be met in order to keep someone in solitary confinement were among the strictest in LOC ;

Only the courts can decide to detain a suspect in solitary confinement and the courts ' decisions regarding this issue must explain in detail the reasons for this decision ;

The staff of ORG has been instructed to inform the prison doctor / nurse in all cases where a prisoner wishes to get medical attention . The prison doctor will specifically look not only for somatic inmates but also psychiatric problems when examining an inmate . It is always possible for the doctor to inform the prison management and in certain cases also the public prosecutor , the inmate 's counsel and the courts of whether and to what extent a psychopathological symptom ascertained must be deemed to have been caused or worsened by solitary confinement and what the inmate 's prognosis must be deemed to be under continued solitary confinement . Such medical information will form part of the considerations of the courts when deciding whether solitary confinement is proportionate in the case in question ;

ORG contains specific provisions concerning prohibitions / restrictions of the prisoners ' correspondence and visits , and a prisoner who is subjected to such restrictions has a right to request that the decisions be brought before a court .


Preliminary objection rejected (six month period);Preliminary objection rejected (non-exhaustion of domestic remedies);No violation of Art. 5-1

ORG On DATE PERSON was arrested in transit at FAC while in possession of QUANTITY of cannabis which he had purchased in GPE ( GPE ) for MONEY . He was detained pending trial in FAC , GPE .

ORG On DATE ORG , sitting as a first - instance criminal court with CARDINAL judges ( PERSON efetio kakourgimaton ) , held as follows ( in judgment no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL ) :

" The ORG finds the defendant guilty of having deliberately and as a drug addict ( a ) purchased in GPE , GPE , on DATE approximately QUANTITY of NORP hemp from persons unknown for the sum of MONEY ( b ) brought the said cannabis from GPE ( GPE ) to GPE by plane on DATE , ( c ) imported it into GPE on DATE and ( d ) had it in his possession , wrapped in the lining of an anorak , at FAC on DATE . The stratagems the defendant used to hide and transport this cannabis , the ease with which he travelled on several occasions to GPE , GPE and other eastern countries and obtained cannabis in GPE , the connections which he has in that country , his knowledge of how strict customs security measures are in different countries , his previous convictions for drug - related offences , and the large quantity of cannabis he purchased for resale , show him to be particularly dangerous . "

It sentenced him to DATE imprisonment and a fine of MONEY . In addition , it suspended his civic rights for DATE and ordered that he be permanently prohibited from re - entering the territory after his release . Lastly , it ordered his placement in an appropriate centre to receive treatment for his drug addiction ( under LAW no . DATE - see paragraph CARDINAL below ) .

ORG On DATE , on an appeal by the applicant , ORG sitting with CARDINAL judges ( Pentameles efetio ) upheld the judgment of the court of first instance ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) but reduced the sentence to CARDINAL years’ imprisonment and a fine of MONEY ( judgment no . DATE ) . It also ordered " the defendant ’s placement in an appropriate prison or in a ORG hospital where he can receive treatment for drug addiction " .

However , PERSON was never admitted to any such institution ; he served his sentence in FAC .

In a letter of CARDINAL DATE the public prosecutor notified the governor of ORG of ORG decision and indicated that the part of the judgment dealing with the applicant ’s placement in a prison with medical facilities did not apply as no such institutions existed . However , he added that he would contact the governor if such an institution opened before PERSON finished serving his sentence .

ORG While detained at FAC the applicant made CARDINAL applications to ORG ( PERSON plimmeliodikio ) to be released on licence ; CARDINAL of them were made before ORG sitting with CARDINAL judges had delivered its judgment ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) .

ORG In his first application , made on DATE , PERSON maintained that he had been cured and had ceased to be at all dependent on drugs during his long stay in prison and after medical treatment . He also stated that he had a wife and family , that he owned a profitable farm in GPE and that he was determined not to reoffend in future . He requested his release on licence under LAW no . DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) .

In a decision ( no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL ) of CARDINAL DATE ORG dismissed the application .

It began by noting that it was objectively impossible to admit drug addicts to treatment centres as no such centres existed .

It added :

" It is apparent from sections DATE of Law no . DATE ... that a person who has been convicted under that PERSON and has been found to be a drug addict must be placed in an appropriate prison or in a ORG hospital for special treatment . The placement can not last for DATE . During the period of treatment , the convicted person is examined periodically in order to establish whether he has been cured or whether the placement must continue . Periodic reviews begin after DATE and are carried out by the court either of its own motion or on an application by the prosecution . If the court ... considers - after studying the relevant expert ’s report - that the accused has been cured , it orders his discharge from the centre ; if the term of imprisonment to which he has been sentenced is longer than the period of treatment , the prisoner is returned to prison to serve the remainder of his sentence . In that case , if the court considers that there is no serious reason why the prisoner should serve the remainder of his sentence , it orders his release on licence . ... Persons who have become habitual users of drugs and are unable to give up the use of them voluntarily - in other words ` drug addicts’ - are patients and are treated as such under LAW . It is to be noted that the NORP legislation in force ... does not use the scientifically accepted term of ` drug addict’ but the expression ` user of narcotic substances subject to special treatment’ ( section CARDINAL ( CARDINAL ) of PERSON no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL ) ... The release on licence of persons convicted under LAW should not be confused with the discharge of convicted drug addicts under the provisions of LAW no . DATE . In the first case the aim pursued is solely that of rehabilitation , whereas in the second case it is also therapeutic ... For an application to this end by a convicted person to be admissible it is a prerequisite that ( a ) he has been placed in a centre to receive treatment for drug addiction and ( b ) he has spent DATE in such a centre and is considered cured ... A problem arises where a convicted person has never been admitted to such a centre . In that case , section CARDINAL does not apply , because the procedural requirement will not have been satisfied . Such a person is deprived of his right to make such an application , which will accordingly be inadmissible . This is not affected by his alleged recovery in prison while serving his sentence . The fact that the prison psychiatrist has certified that he has been cured is of no avail . On the other hand , it raises serious questions and doubts as to the objectiveness of the findings in the psychiatric reports made during the investigation and taken into account by the relevant courts . Although these persons are described as ‘ drug addicts’ ... in these reports , within DATE they are regarded as ‘ completely ORG after non - existent treatment and merely taking aspirin or ORG .

Besides , the essential requirements for an application to be admissible are that the convicted person has made a full recovery and that there is no serious reason why he should serve the remainder of his sentence . ... In order to make a finding that there is a ‘ serious reason’ , it is necessary to have regard to the criteria laid down in Article CARDINAL para . CARDINAL of LAW . It appears from the case file that the applicant does not satisfy the essential conditions laid down by law , in particular as regards his complete cure . In view of his antecedents ... and character , it is unlikely that the applicant will lead an honest life on leaving prison as he shows a marked tendency to commit drug - related offences . "

ORG On DATE the applicant made a second application for release on licence , in which he essentially repeated the same arguments as he had put forward in the first ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) .

On DATE ORG dismissed the application ( in decision no . DATE ) in the following terms :

" The court is not convinced either from the documentary evidence or from the applicant prisoner ’s personal attendance before it that he is totally cured of his dependence on drugs . He has not been admitted to an appropriate treatment centre and the treatment in FAC is insufficient to cure him of an addiction acquired over a very long period of drug use . In addition , no prison psychiatrist ’s certificate as to the progress of his treatment has been produced ... "

ORG On DATE the applicant made a third application , supported by psychiatric certificates of his recovery . He sought to benefit from the provisions of section CARDINAL of Law no . DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) .

At the hearing he admitted that he had " been taking drugs " since DATE and had even taken heroin in the past . However , he said that he had managed to cure himself of his drug addiction whilst in prison , where conditions were not conducive , and added that , if his imprisonment were to continue , his condition would get worse .

In a decision ( no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL ) of CARDINAL DATE ORG reached the following conclusions :

" The prison doctor ’s diagnosis is not sufficient to prove that the applicant has recovered . The latter ’s application is inadmissible since he has not been admitted to an appropriate prison similar to the psychiatric clinic at FAC . Furthermore , at the time of the application the applicant had served DATE , DATE and DATE of his sentence and there is a serious reason for his serving the remainder , especially as his criminal record shows that in DATE he was sentenced by ORG to CARDINAL GPE imprisonment for a drug - related offence . "

ORG In a letter of CARDINAL DATE the Minister of ORG , replying to an application by PERSON to be placed in a treatment centre for drug addicts , informed him that there was no such centre inside the prison .

ORG On DATE the applicant made a fourth application for his release on licence , relying on Articles CARDINAL and CARDINAL of LAW ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) . He said that he had served CARDINAL of his sentence and had been of exemplary conduct throughout his time in prison . He was no longer addicted to drugs and was therefore no longer a danger to society ; his continued detention would be harmful to him and could no longer be justified .

On DATE ORG ( Symvoulio plimmeliodikon ) of ORG granted his application . It found that he had already served DATE and DATE of his sentence - that is to say CARDINAL of the sentence imposed and CARDINAL DATE ( Article CARDINAL of LAW ) - and that during his time in prison he had been of good conduct , had shown repentance , had complied with prison regulations and had not incurred any disciplinary penalties .

ORG The relevant provisions of LAW . DATE are as follows :

" ( CARDINAL ) The prevention of pharmaceutical dependence on narcotic substances within the meaning of LAW shall be organised at CARDINAL levels :

( a ) preventive information ;

( b ) treatment ;

( c ) reintegration into society .

( CARDINAL ) For the purposes of implementing this programme , there shall be set up by joint decisions , published in ORG , of ORG and the Minister competent in each given case :

( a ) ...

( b ) special drug - addiction units and prisons with medical facilities ;

( c ) ... "

" ( CARDINAL ) A term of imprisonment of DATE and a fine of CARDINAL drachmas shall be imposed on anyone who :

( a ) imports or exports drugs or causes them to transit through GPE ;

( b ) sells or buys drugs or makes them available in any way whatsoever to third parties or acts as an intermediary or stores drugs or puts drugs into storage ;

( g ) possesses or transports drugs in any manner and by any means whatsoever , either on NORP territory or alongside or across territorial waters or in NORP airspace ; ... "

" Anyone who commits any of the offences referred to in DATE , DATE and CARDINAL shall be liable to life imprisonment if he is a reoffender or if he acts by way of occupation or habitually or if he has acted with a view to causing minors to use drugs or if the circumstances in which the offences were committed show him to be particularly dangerous . "

" ( CARDINAL ) Anyone who solely for their own use obtains or possesses by any means whatsoever a small quantity of drugs or uses drugs shall be liable to imprisonment . The sentence shall be served in a special prison with medical facilities .

" ( CARDINAL ) Persons who have become habitual users of drugs and can not give up the use of them voluntarily shall receive special treatment in accordance with the provisions of this PERSON .

( CARDINAL ) The court shall determine whether the conditions referred to in the preceding subsection are met in the case of the accused or convicted person after an examination at a specialist treatment centre for drug addicts ...

( CARDINAL ) An offender to whom all the conditions set out in subsection ( CARDINAL ) apply shall , if found guilty of

( a ) the offence under LAW ( CARDINAL ) , not be punished , but will be subject to the application mutatis mutandis of the provisions of the second paragraph of section CARDINAL ( CARDINAL ) of this PERSON ;

( b ) the offences referred to in DATE , DATE or DATE , be liable to CARDINAL months’ imprisonment and a fine of CARDINAL ; ...

( c ) the acts referred to in section CARDINAL , be liable to a maximum of CARDINAL years’ imprisonment and a fine of MONEY . "

" ( CARDINAL ) Any offender in respect of whom the conditions set out in LAW ( CARDINAL ) and ( CARDINAL ) of this PERSON are met and who has been detained pending trial in accordance with LAW or who has been convicted of any offence whatsoever shall be placed in an appropriate prison with medical facilities . If he is held not to be criminally responsible under LAW , he shall be placed in a ORG hospital . In both cases he shall be subject to a special treatment programme determined by ORG .

( CARDINAL ) Where a person is sentenced to a term of imprisonment , any time spent in hospital shall be reckoned as time served in prison . "

" ( CARDINAL ) If an offender ’s period of hospitalisation under LAW DATE , which is the minimum period of treatment , the head of the institution in which he has been placed shall at DATE make a report on the progress of his treatment to the public prosecutor at ORG for the place where the sentence or preventive measure is to be carried out and shall indicate whether the convicted person should remain in the institution . On the basis of this report ORG , sitting with CARDINAL judges , shall decide whether detention should continue . The court , which may also order an expert ’s report under LAW ( CARDINAL ) , shall make a final decision whether detention in hospital should continue .

( CARDINAL ) If a person detained in a hospital has recovered and was found not to be criminally responsible under LAW , the court shall order his release on an application by the public prosecutor . If part of his sentence remains to be served , the court shall decide whether there is a serious reason why he should serve the remainder , but otherwise shall order his release on licence . The conditions attached to his release may concern his way of life , and in particular his place of residence , and include an obligation to attend the clinic , special drug - addiction centre or general hospital nearest to his place of residence whenever requested to do so for the purposes of checking that the conditions are being complied with ...

( CARDINAL ) If the person detained is not released under the preceding subsection , the court shall decide at DATE , on application by the detained person himself , the director of the institution in which he is detained or the public prosecutor , whether he should be released .

Articles CARDINAL para . CARDINAL and CARDINAL of the Criminal Code provide :

" Anyone who has been sentenced to a term of imprisonment may , after serving CARDINAL of his sentence and in any event DATE or , in the case of a life sentence , DATE , be released on licence in accordance with the following provisions . "

" ( CARDINAL ) A prisoner shall only be released on licence if he has been of good conduct while serving his sentence , has performed as far as possible his obligations towards the victim ... and if his antecedents , his personal and social circumstances in general and his character ... give cause for hope that he will lead an honest life in the future .

( CARDINAL ) The prisoner may be required to comply with certain obligations relating to his way of life and in particular his place of residence . These obligations may at any time be withdrawn or varied on application by the prisoner .

ORG LAW provides :

" Doubts as to the nature or length of the sentence Any doubt or objection as to the execution of the judgment or as to the nature or length of the sentence shall be decided by ORG for the district where the sentence is to be served . The public prosecutor or the convicted person may appeal to ORG on points of law against such a decision . "

ORG In a circular of CARDINAL DATE the Minister of Justice informed the public prosecutors at the courts of appeal and the courts of first instance and prison governors that there were no prisons with medical facilities in GPE as mentioned in section CARDINAL of Law no . DATE . Consequently , it was not possible to implement court orders directing that drug addicts be placed in such prisons under that section .