EUROPEAN COMMISSION OF HUMAN RIGHTS

Application No. 28524/95

Donald Peers

against

Greece

REPORT OF THE COMMISSION

(adopted on 4 June 1999)

I. INTRODUCTION

(paras. 1-26) ........................................................ 1

A. The application

(paras. 2-4) ..................................................... 1

B. The proceedings

(paras. 5-21) .................................................... 1

C. The present Report

(paras. 22-26) .................................................. 3

II. ESTABLISHMENT OF THE FACTS

(paras. 27-81) ....................................................... 4

A. Outline of events

(paras. 27-36) .................................................... 4

B. Oral evidence before the Commission’s Delegates

(paras. 37-71) .................................................. 5

C. Inspection of Koridallos prison

(paras. 72-79) ................................................. 10

D. Findings of the European Committee for the Prevention of Torture

and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment

(paras. 80-81) ................................................. 11

III. OPINION OF THE COMMISSION

(paras. 82-115) ..................................................... 15

A. Complaints declared admissible

(para. 82) ....................................................... 15

B. Points at issue

(para. 83) ..................................................... 15

C. As regards Article 3 of the Convention

(paras. 84-100) ................................................ 15

CONCLUSION

(para. 101) .................................................... 19

D. As regards Article 6 para. 2 of the Convention

(paras. 102-104) ............................................... 20             

CONCLUSION

(para. 105) .................................................... 20

E. As regards Article 8 of the Convention

(paras. 106-111) ............................................... 20

CONCLUSION

(para. 112) .................................................... 21

F. Recapitulation

(paras. 113-115) ............................................... 21

SEPARATE CONCURRING OPINION OF MR L. LOUCAIDES

JOINED BY MM E. BUSUTTIL, J.-C. SOYER, H. DANELIUS, F. MARTINEZ,

K. HERNDL AND R. NICOLINI .................................. 22

PARTIALLY DISSENTING OPINION OF MR M.P. PEL LONPÄÄ .............. 23

APPENDIX: DECISION OF THE COMMISSION AS TO THE

ADMISSIBILITY OF THE APPLICATION ................... 24

I. INTRODUCTION

A. The application

B. The proceedings

C. The present Report

MM S. TRECHSEL, President

E. BUSUTTIL

A.S. GÖZÜBÜYÜK

A. WEITZEL

J.-C. SOYER

H. DANELIUS

Mrs G.H. THUNE

MM F. MARTINEZ

C.L. ROZAKIS

Mrs J. LIDDY

MM L. LOUCAIDES

J.-C. GEUS

M.P. PELLONPÄÄ

B. MARXER

M.A. NOWICKI

Sir Nicolas BRATZA

MM I. BÉKÉS

D. ŠVÁBY

G. RESS

A. PERENIĆ

K. HERNDL

E. BIELIŪNAS

E.A. ALKEMA

M. VILA AMIGÓ

Mrs M. HION

MM R. NICOLINI

A. ARABADJIEV

(i) to establish the facts, and

(ii) to state an opinion as to whether the facts found disclose a breach by the State concerned of its obligations under the Convention.

II. ESTABLISHMENT OF THE FACTS

A. Outline of events

B. Oral evidence before the Commission’s Delegates

The applicant

Conditions of detention in the Alpha wing

Complaints concerning the entire period of the applicant's detention in Koridallos prison

Spiros Athanassopoulos

Vasiliki Fragathula

Petros Papadimitriou

C. Inspection of Koridallos prison

D. Findings of the European Committee for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (hereinafter the CPT)

“91 [2] . ...

Koridallos Prison for men was built to accommodate 480 prisoners in four separate blocks, each having 120 cells on three floors. On the first day of the delegation's visit, the establishment was holding 1410 prisoners, approximately 800 on remand and the remainder sentenced. The total prison staff complement was 170, of which some 110 were prison officers. Perimeter security was the responsibility of armed police.

95. In the following paragraphs, the CPT shall make a number of specific recommendations concerning the prison establishments visited by its delegation. However, it wishes to emphasise at the outset that the act of depriving someone of his liberty brings with it the responsibility for the State to detain him under conditions which respect the inherent dignity of the human person. The facts found during the course of the CPT's visit demonstrate that as a consequence of the present level of overcrowding in prisons, the Greek authorities are not in a position to fulfil that responsibility vis-à-vis many prisoners.

The CPT therefore recommends that a very high priority be given to measures to reduce overcrowding in the Greek prison system.

105. As already indicated (cf. paragraph 91), at the time of the delegation's visit to the Koridallos Prison for men the number of inmates amounted to almost three times the establishment's official capacity. A standard cell measured 9.5 m2 and was equipped inter alia with a screened asian-type toilet and a hand-basin. Originally designed for individual occupancy, the cells are just about large enough for two prisoners; with more than two, conditions become very cramped. In practice, only a handful of prisoners had their own cells; the majority of the cells were accommodating two or three prisoners, and a number were accommodating four. The level of overcrowding was somewhat lower in A wing (approximately 300 prisoners) than in B, C and D wings (each of which were accommodating 350 or more inmates).

The prisoner distribution chart indicated that three cells (one in C wing and two in D wing) were holding five prisoners. The delegation visited the relevant cell in C wing, in which it found five prisoners of Indian origin; they claimed to have been held under such conditions for some six weeks.

106. Inevitably, the high level of overcrowding had extremely negative repercussions upon the conditions of detention: living space was very poor, ventilation inadequate, and cell cleanliness and hygiene wanting. In many cells prisoners were to all intents and purposes confined to their beds, there being no room for other furniture. In some of the most over crowded cells, there were more prisoners than beds. Further, the toilet and washing facilities in certain cells were in need of repair.

Despite the overcrowding, prisoners apparently did have ready access to the shower facilities located in the basement of each wing. However, some of the shower cubicles were in a poor state of repair and decoration.

107. The negative aspects of the overcrowding were mitigated to some extent by reasonable out-of-cell time. Between 8.30 to 11.30 and 14.30 to sunset, inmates were allowed to circulate freely and associate with other prisoners within their detention wing and its courtyard; the wing courtyards were of a good size. It must be stressed, however, that the free circulation of prisoners in their detention wings could have undesirable effects in the absence of proper control by prison staff; with the manning levels at the time of the delegation's visit (3 to 4 prison staff on duty during the day in a wing accommodating some 350 prisoners), it is difficult to see how such control could be guaranteed (cf. also paragraph 96).

108. Activities in any meaningful sense of the term were scarce. There were only 236 work places (i.e. 1 work place for 6 prisoners), practically all in the area of general services (kitchen, laundry, cleaning, maintenance, stores, etc.); no workshops were in operation. However, a printing and bookbinding vocational training centre, with places for 30 prisoners, was due to open in 1993. The shortage of work places was particularly resented by many sentenced prisoners, as it prevented them from taking advantage of the system of earning remission through work.

No educational classes were available and the prison library was both small and ill-equipped. Further, there was no prison gymnasium and, as far as the delegation could ascertain, no organised sporting activities. However, the exercise yards were sufficiently large for certain games (e.g. volleyball), and arrangements were in hand to provide a separate weight-training area in each of the yards (at the time of the visit, a few prisoners did weight training in the wing basements).

To sum up, the vast majority of prisoners at the Koridallos Prison for men (including a majority of the sentenced prisoners) were offered no work or educational activities, and possibilities for sport were very limited. Most prisoners spent their day walking around their detention wing or courtyard, talking with fellow prisoners, or watching television in their cell. Such a monotonous and purposeless existence is quite inconsistent with the objective of social rehabilitation set out in the Greek Code of basic rules for the treatment of prisoners (cf. paragraph 94).

109. As regards material conditions of detention at the Koridallos Prison for men, the CPT recommends:

- that immediate steps be taken to ensure that no more than three prisoners are held per cell;

- that serious efforts be made to reduce as soon as possible the occupancy rate to two prisoners per cell (Naturally, the long-term objective should be to have one prisoner per cell, save for specific situations when it is not appropriate for a prisoner to be left alone);

- that every prisoner be provided with his own bed and mattress;

- that shower cubicles, toilets and washing facilities be restored to a good state of repair and maintained in a hygienic condition.

As regards out-of-cell activities, the CPT recommends:

- that current efforts to augment the number of work and vocational training places be intensified;

- that a thorough examination of the means of improving the prison's activity programmes in general (including education, sport and recreational activities) be undertaken without delay and that fuller programmes be progressively introduced as overcrowding is brought down.             

133. The segregation unit at Koridallos Mens Prison consisted of two groups of 10 cells, all of which were apparently used for both disciplinary confinement and other segregation purposes. The cells measured approximately 7 m2; they were equipped with a bed, but no other furniture (eg. table or chair). There was adequate ventilation and artificial lighting; however, access to natural light was, at best, mediocre. Each cell possessed an asian toilet, and some cells had a wash basin. The adjacent exercise yards measured approximately 40 m2. The whole unit required to be - and was being - redecorated.

134. No-one was being confined as a punishment at the time of the delegation's visit. A number of transvestite prisoners had been held in the unit for several months at their own request. Other prisoners were being held in the unit involuntarily, presumably under Rule 93 or 94 of the Code (the absence of a segregation unit register made it difficult to ascertain the precise grounds); certain of them appeared to have psychological or psychiatric problems.

The prisoners were allowed to move freely within the unit and exercise areas during much of the day, and they had TV sets and other personal possessions in their cells (though staff indicated that a prisoner undergoing disciplinary confinement would remain in his cell and would not be allowed personal possessions).

135. The conditions of detention in this segregation unit are on the whole acceptable for prisoners undergoing the disciplinary sanction of confinement in a special cell. However, the CPT considers that it would be desirable for the cells accommodating such prisoners to be fitted with a table and chair, if necessary fixed to the floor.

The CPT also recommends that all prisoners, including those confined to a special cell as a punishment, be allowed at least one hour of exercise in the open air everyday.

136. Conditions of detention in the unit are far less suitable for prisoners subject to segregation for non-disciplinary reasons, in particular if that measure is applied for a lengthy period.

As regards more particularly prisoners who are segregated because of personality disorders and/or for their own protection, the CPT invites the Greek authorities to explore the possibility of creating special units organised along community lines.

The unit is a totally unsuitable place in which to accommodate someone in need of psychiatric care. Neither the material environment nor the staff (ordinary prison officers) are appropriate. The CPT recommends that no such prisoner be placed in the unit. If, exceptionally, prisoners who are emotionally or psychologically disturbed have to be held temporarily in the segregation unit, they should be kept under close observation.

Further, the CPT recommends:

- that the cells in the unit used to accommodate prisoners segregated for a non-disciplinary reason be equipped in the same way as an ordinary prison cell;

- that the respective regimes applicable, on the one hand, to persons undergoing disciplinary confinement and, on the other hand, to persons held in the segregation unit for other reasons, be expressly laid down.”

III. OPINION OF THE COMMISSION

A. Complaints declared admissible

- the applicant’s complaint concerning the conditions of his detention in Koridallos prison

- the applicant’s complaint that the absence of a different regime for remand prisoners amounted to a violation of the right to be presumed innocent and

- the applicant’s complaints concerning the opening of letters addressed to him by the Commission.

B. Points at issue

- whether there has been a violation of Article 3 of the Convention;

- whether there has been a violation of Article 6 § 2 of the Convention; and

- whether there has been a violation of Article 8 of the Convention.

C. As regards Article 3 of the Convention

“No one shall be subjected to torture or to inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.”

Conditions of detention in Koridallos prisoners’ psychiatric hospital

Conditions of detention in the segregation unit of the Delta wing

Conditions of detention in the Alpha wing and applicant’s general complaints

CONCLUSION

D. As regards Article 6 para. 2 of the Convention

“Everyone charged with a criminal offence shall be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law.”

CONCLUSION

E. As regards Article 8 of the Convention

“1. Everyone has the right to respect for his private and family life, his home and his correspondence.

2. There shall be no interference by a public authority with the exercise of this right except such as is in accordance with the law and is necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security, public safety or the economic well-being of the country, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others.”

CONCLUSION

F. Recapitulation

M.-T. SCHOEPFER S. TRECHSEL

Secretary President

to the Commission of the Commission

(Or. English)

SEPARATE CONCURRING OPINION OF MR L. LOUCAIDES

JOINED BY MM E. BUSUTTIL, J.-C. SOYER, H. DANELIUS, F. MARTINEZ,

K. HERNDL AND R. NICOLINI

I agree with the majority that there has been a violation of Article 3 of the Convention in this case because of the conditions of detention of the applicant in the segregation unit of the Delta wing. However, I must specify that in my view the conditions of detention in question amounted to both inhuman and degrading treatment of the applicant. The concept of “degrading” treatment is autonomous and separate from that of “inhuman” treatment. The difference between the two concepts is not simply one of degree of suffering. In contrast with “inhuman” treatment, “degrading” treatment consists basically of a treatment which is humiliating and/or debasing. In my opinion, in the present case, the conditions of the detention of the applicant, as summarised in paragraph 96 of the report, in fact went beyond  degrading treatment. It is true that there were some elements of humiliating circumstances, such as the fact that the applicant had to use the toilet in the presence of another inmate. However, some other serious aspects of the treatment to which the applicant was subjected by the prison authorities and which were expressly taken into account by the Commission when finding a violation of Article 3 of the Convention, are more appropriately covered by the concept of inhuman treatment. Such are those conditions which must have caused severe physical and mental suffering to the applicant rather than humiliating or debasing him: confinement in a very small cell with no ventilation, no window or opening other than a peephole in the door in unbearably hot temperatures (“like ovens”) and in a stinking atmosphere and having to be present while the open toilet adjacent to his bed was being used by his cellmate.

(Or. English)

PARTIALLY DISSENTING OPINION OF MR M.P. PELLONPÄÄ

I voted against finding a violation of Article 3 of the Convention in this case.

As recalled by the majority, in order to fall within the scope of Article 3, treatment must attain a minimum level of severity, the assessment of which depends on all the circumstances of the case (para. 88 above).

The majority considers that the applicant was subjected to “degrading” treatment. This implies that the conditions in which he had to spend some two months in the segregation unit of the Delta wing did not reach the level of “inhuman” treatment”. I agree with the last mentioned conclusion. I, however, disagree with the majority’s characterisation of the conditions in question as degrading treatment.   

When considering whether a punishment or treatment is “degrading”, the Court has emphasised that it “will have regard to whether its object is to humiliate and debase the person concerned and whether, as far as the consequences are concerned, it adversely affected his or her personality in a manner incompatible with Article 3” (Eur. Court HR, Raninen v. Finland judgment of 16 December 1997, Reports 1997-VIII, pp. 2821-22, § 55).

Although the applicant has undoubtedly suffered from the heat and the other conditions, it has not been suggested that his personality was affected in a manner incompatible with Article 3. Nor is there any evidence or even allegation that the prison authorities had an intention of humiliating or debasing him. Indeed, according to his own testimony the applicant had not been ill-treated by any particular person (para. 41 above). The majority’s conclusion of degrading treatment thus seems to be based on the idea that the prison conditions in which the applicant had to spend the two-month period in question were as such contrary to Article 3.

I do not dispute that conditions in a prison or another institution under the control of the State may as such amount to a breach of Article 3. I, however, consider that the threshold of a violation is in those situations higher than in a situation where certain measures are applied with the intention of ill-treating or degrading a person.

I agree that the conditions in the segregation unit of the Delta wing were far from satisfactory. I also do not doubt that that the applicant may - especially during the night-time (cf. para. 95 above) - have faced situations which can be characterised as humiliating in the ordinary sense of the word. In the overall circumstances of the case this, however, does not in my view justify the conclusion that the applicant was subjected by the respondent State to degrading treatment within the meaning of Article 3.

[1] The term « former » refers to the text of the Convention before the entry into force of Protocol No. 11 on 1 November 1998.

[2] The original numbering of the paragraphs has been kept.