AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF

                      Application No. 28524/95

                      by Donald PEERS

                      against Greece

      The European Commission of Human Rights (First Chamber) sitting

in private on 21 May 1998, the following members being present:

           MM    M.P. PELLONPÄÄ, President

                 N. BRATZA

                 E. BUSUTTIL

                 A. WEITZEL

                 C.L. ROZAKIS

           Mrs   J. LIDDY

           MM    L. LOUCAIDES

                 B. MARXER

                 B. CONFORTI

                 I. BÉKÉS

                 G. RESS

                 A. PERENIC

                 C. BÎRSAN

                 K. HERNDL

                 M. VILA AMIGÓ

           Mrs   M. HION

           Mr    R. NICOLINI

           Mrs   M.F. BUQUICCHIO, Secretary to the Chamber

      Having regard to Article 25 of the Convention for the Protection

of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms;

      Having regard to the application introduced on 9 October 1994 by

Donald PEERS against Greece and registered on 12 September 1995 under

file No. 28524/95;

      Having regard to:

-     the reports provided for in Rule 47 of the Rules of Procedure of

      the Commission;

-     the observations submitted by the respondent Government on

      27 November 1996 and the observations in reply submitted by the

      applicant on 4 August 1997;

-     the Commission's decision of 16 September 1997 to request

      supplementary observations;

-     the supplementary observations submitted by the respondent

      Government on 8 October 1997 and the observations in reply

      submitted by the applicant on 10 February 1998;

      Having deliberated;

      Decides as follows:

THE FACTS

      The applicant is a British national, born in 1949. He is

currently detained in Agias prison in Canea, Greece. In the proceedings

before the Commission he is represented by Mrs Rozy Spartali-Aretaki,

a lawyer practising in Canea.

      The facts of the case, as they have been submitted by the

parties, may be summarised as follows:

A.    Particular circumstances of the case

      On 19 August 1994 the applicant, who had been treated for heroin

addiction in the United Kingdom, was arrested at Athens airport for

drug-related offences. His money was seized.

      The applicant claims that the police also seized a quantity of

methadone - a medically prescribed substance for heroin addicts in the

United Kingdom - he had with him. He also claims that, as he was

suffering from withdrawal symptoms, he asked to see a doctor; he was

asked to sign a statement first; although he applicant agreed, no

medical assistance was given to him. According to the applicant, a

police officer acted as an interpreter during his questioning at Athens

airport.

      The applicant was subsequently transferred to the Central Police

Headquarters of Athens in Alexandras avenue where he was detained until

24 August 1994.

      The applicant gives the following account of what happened to him

there. As he was suffering from withdrawal symptoms, the applicant made

repeated requests for medical assistance. However, none was given to

him. He was taken before three different judicial officers. He was not

legally represented. Although he was assisted by an interpreter, his

services were inadequate. As a result of this and his medical

condition, he could not follow the proceedings which were very brief.

The charges were not notified to him in writing. Following his third

appearance before a judicial officer, four days after his arrest, he

was taken to a hospital where he was given an injection and a pill. he

was returned to the Police Headquarters and fell into deep sleep. At

one stage he woke up and realised that his property was being ransacked

by two fellow detainees. The next morning he was given another pill.

      On 24 August 1994 the applicant was transferred to Koridallos

prison and was admitted in the prison's psychiatric unit. In a

certificate dated 25 July 1995 a psychiatrist of this unit states that,

when the applicant was admitted, he was in a comatose state.

      The applicant gives the following account of what happened during

his stay in the psychiatric unit. He was held in the segregation unit

for several days in a single cell in the beginning and then together

with eight to ten other persons. The cells contained nothing but beds.

He was given a mattress and two blankets. The meals "were served on the

floor". He was given medication which he found excessive. At a certain

stage he was taken to the main psychiatric unit. In a letter dated

9 October 1994 the applicant claims that this happened "after he had

been examined by a doctor". In a letter dated 5 December 1994 he claims

that, while in the segregation unit, he was never examined by a doctor.

He spent one night in the main psychiatric unit in a cell with five

others. The cell was very noisy because each inmate had his own

television set and radio. At this stage he was given back certain

clothing items he had with him when he arrived in Koridallos prison.

It appears that some other personal property items, including a

rechargeable portable shaving razor, were kept by the prison

authorities. On at least two occasions -in a letter dated 9 October

1994 and a letter dated 25 August 1996 - the applicant claims that he

never signed for these items. In a letter dated 1 December 1995 the

applicant makes reference to property kept by the prison authorities

for which he had signed and which had been recorded.

      On 30 August 1994 the applicant was examined by a doctor who,

according to the applicant, spoke English. The applicant claims that

he asked for his medication to be reduced and to be discharged from the

psychiatric unit. The doctor discharged him, having certified that he

was a user of drugs. The applicant was immediately taken to Koridallos

prison proper.

      The applicant makes the following claims which concern his entire

period of detention there from 30 August 1994 until September 1996. The

only things that prisoners were provided with were a mattress, two

blankets and eating utensils. No pillows, sheets or towels were

officially supplied. Prisoners were expected to procure for themselves

toilet paper, toothpaste, other "toiletries" and writing paper.

Prisoners received two meals per day (in addition to breakfast), except

for Sunday when only one mid-day meal was served. There was no

information as to the prison rules and routine in English. All notices

were in Greek. The only persons who would speak English were a social

worker and a doctor. The library, which was in any event destroyed

during the riot of November 1995,  had no books on the Greek legal and

penitentiary system in English. All requests, including those for

medical assistance, had to be submitted in Greek. Whenever he tried to

submit a request in writing in English it was ignored. The

announcements on the loudspeakers were also made in Greek. Moreover,

all vocational and educational training was conducted in Greek. The

only manner in which he could study Greek was by listening to one set

of language tapes available in the prison library.

      It appears that the applicant initially requested to be kept "in

a quiet cell". As a result, he was placed in the segregation unit in

the "Delta" section of Koridallos prison.

      The applicant gives the following description of the conditions

of detention in the segregation unit. In his cell there was room for

two beds and an asian-type toilet. There was only one window in the

ceiling which did not allow any natural light in because the glass was

opaque and dirty. However, "a little rainfall" would pass through

because the glass was cracked in some places. In summer the cell became

"unbearably hot" at midday, when prisoners had to stay in for some

hours. In winter the cell was not heated and became very cold. There

was electrical light but it was so high up that he could not read. At

one stage it was left on all night. The ventilation was inadequate.

Exercise could be taken in two adjoining courtyards.

      The applicant also claims that, while in the segregation unit,

he could not hear the loudspeakers. He was allowed only one telephone

call per week between 9:00 and 10:30 on Monday morning. He could not

reach "his embassy or lawyer" at the time. It appears that telephone

calls could be made also in the evening, but were again often limited

to one per day. When he spoke with his embassy, he was informed that

no legal aid could be obtained before the trial hearing. He continued

consulting a psychiatrist who did not speak English adequately. He was

given anti-depressants, sedatives and sleeping pills.

      The applicant further claims that he was offered the possibility

of leaving the segregation unit but refused because he did not want to

be placed in the drug offenders wing, the "Delta" wing.

      At a certain stage, the applicant was moved from the segregation

unit to the "Alpha" wing. He claims that he continued consulting the

psychiatrist. As his condition had improved, he was only given sleeping

pills.

      As no distinction is in principle made between remand prisoners

and convicts in Koridallos prison, the applicant was subjected to the

same conditions of detention until his transfer to Tirintha prison in

September 1996.

      The applicant gives the following account of what happened in the

"Alpha wing" after he left the segregation unit:

-     He was detained in cells which were four metres to three metres

or five metres to three metres. The cells had "open" "asian-type"

toilets and, as a result, he had "no toilet privacy". There was also

a sink in each cell. However, there was no hot water. The walls were

"very occasionally" freshly painted. In the winter the cells were only

heated for a few hours every day. In the summer they became very hot,

since there was very little ventilation. However, in a letter dated

25 August 1996 the applicant claims that, during especially hot

periods, the doors were left open for some hours at mid-day and for one

or two hours in the evening, depending on the number of members of

staff present. There were no chairs or wardrobes. Most of the time, he

shared a cell with two other persons. Only for a very short period of

time, coinciding with the preparation by a social worker of a report

dated 30 August 1996, did he share a cell with only one person. One

night he had to share the cell with four other persons, although there

were only three beds.

-     Food was often served cold "in the most insanitary manner

possible". Although food was prepared in the prison's kitchens, there

were four additional cookers in each wing where prisoners could cook

extra food they bought or received. These cookers were shared by three

hundred and fifty persons. Not all four of them were always functioning

and, as a result, prisoners had to wait up to an hour in order to use

them.

-     There were ten showers in the basement, without curtains. Hot

water was available only a few hours a day. Clothes washing and drying

facilities did not exist and prisoners have to wash their clothes in

the showers. The queues for the showers were very long.

-     The prison buildings were unpainted and damp. There were some

areas in the prison where there was no glass in the windows. However,

in a letter dated 25 August 1996 the applicant stated that a

refurbishing of the prions buildings was underway. No provision was

made for activities. There was only one table tennis and some weight

lifting equipment in the basement.

-     There were four telephones in each wing for three hundred and

fifty persons. Not all four were always functioning. This allowed for

one and a half minute telephone communications on average per day per

prisoner. He applicant had to wait for up to an hour to use the

telephone. Prisoners could only receive visits from family members, two

per week for those in detention on remand and one for convicts. These

lasted approximately twenty minutes. The prisoners were separated from

the visitors by glass panels. He did not have any family in Greece.

Visits from friends were authorised by the prison director on a

discretionary basis and he was allowed a visit from a friend only once.

No home leave was granted to foreign prisoners.

-     There was no possibility of work for remand prisoners.

      Further to an order by the investigating judge, the applicant was

examined by an expert-psychiatrist. On 5 September 1994 the latter

opined that the applicant was not a drug-addict.

      On 18 January 1995 the applicant asked Dr P, the psychiatrist of

Koridallos prison, for a medical report. On 23 January 1995 Dr P

certified that the applicant was receiving psychiatric treatment as

from 24 August 1994. On 30 August 1994 he was diagnosed as a user of

drugs. As from 9 September 1994 he was being treated for anxiety and

depression. The applicant had produced to Dr P a letter by a British

psychiatrist to the effect that he was a heroin addict.

      The applicant claims that on 27 January 1995 he wrote to the

Minister of Justice in English to protest about the situation in

Koridallos prison, but has received no reply. He also claims that he

raised the issue of his missing property with three different judicial

officers who visited Koridallos prison, two from Piraeus and the last

one from Athens. None of these officers spoke English adequately. The

last request was submitted in writing in Greek, the applicant having

been assisted in this connection by a friend. He has received no reply

so far.

      On 2 March 1995 the organisation "Over 18" certified that the

applicant had asked to be admitted to their programmes which he had

been following for two months; he was trying seriously to overcome his

addiction to drugs.

      On 1 June 1995 the psychiatric clinic of Eginitio Hospital issued

a certificate to be used in court to the effect that the applicant had

reported to them that he was a drug addict and was suffering from

withdrawal symptoms. On 25 July 1995 the applicant applied to the

psychiatric unit of Koridallos prison for another medical certificate.

Such a certificate was issued on the same day and confirmed what Dr P

had stated on 23 January 1995.

      On 28 July 1995 the applicant was tried at first instance by the

three-member Court of Appeal (trimeles efetio) of Athens for drug-

related offences. He claims that until then he had not been notified

of the charges. He was represented by counsel provided to him by the

representative of a drug-addiction therapy programme. Since he did not

speak Greek, he was assisted by an interpreter. The court, having read

the expert opinion of 5 September 1994 and some of the above-mentioned

medical certificates, considered that he was a drug addict; as such he

had repeatedly engaged in drug-trafficking, something which had become

a professional activity, and had to be found guilty. However, the

applicant, being a drug-addict, could not be found guilty of possession

of drugs. The court sentenced the applicant to thirteen years'

imprisonment and a fine of 5,000,000 drachmas. However, it ordered that

he should recover the money which had been seized from him at the time

of his arrest. The applicant claims that he was never served with any

of the court documents in English.

      The applicant appealed and a hearing was fixed for

3 November 1997. After his conviction the applicant was allowed to work

as a cleaner on an unremunerated basis.

      In November 1995 there was a riot in Koridallos prison in the

course of which some property items which the applicant had surrendered

on his admission were destroyed. The prison library was also destroyed.

      The applicant claims that some time before January 1996 he

applied for release into a drug-addiction therapy unit but his

application was refused. He claims that at that time all therapy groups

had been cancelled; only pills were given. It appears, however, that

by August 1996 group therapy had resumed.

      On 30 August 1996 a social worker reported to the director of

Koridallos prison that there could be no connection between the delay

in the examination of the applicant's appeal and his application to the

Commission. She also stated that the money which had been seized from

the applicant would be returned to him after the examination of his

appeal; the applicant had been informed accordingly. According to the

social worker, the applicant, after his conviction, shared the cell

with only one convict. Letters sent by the applicant were not opened.

Letters sent to the applicant by the European Commission of Human

Rights were opened by a prison officer in front of the applicant.

Foreigners who did not speak Greek could not participate in the

vocational training courses organised in Koridallos prison. A programme

for learning Greek used to be available in the prison library but was

destroyed during the riots. However, it was the intention of the social

office to replace it in due course. According to the Penitentiary Code,

remand prisoners did not have the right to work. However, the

applicant, after his conviction, started working as a cleaner. Almost

immediately after his arrival in Koridallos prison the applicant

started being treated by Dr P, a psychiatrist. He continued to

participate in the awareness and self-help therapeutical programmes for

foreign prisoners of two organisations, "Drug-Addicts Anonymous" and

"Over 18". He was also being taken care of on an individual basis by

a psychologist-member of "Drug-Addicts Anonymous". Finally, since his

arrival in Koridallos prison, the applicant's case was being followed

by the prison's social service. The personal property items the

applicant had surrendered upon his arrival in Koridallos prison had

been stored in a specially designated place but were destroyed by other

inmates during the riot of November 1995. It was true that no

distinctions were made between remand prisoners and convicts. The

applicant did not have the free assistance of an interpreter when he

appeared before the investigating judge after his arrest. However, the

social service of the prison had arranged for the applicant to have the

free assistance of a lawyer and an interpreter when he appeared before

the first instance court. First instance court decisions were not

notified to the prisoners concerned. However, the applicant could have

asked the social service of the prison for a copy. The social service

would have then contacted a charitable organisation. It could have also

arranged for its translation by the competent service of the Ministry

of Foreign Affairs at the expense of a charitable organisation.

      In September 1996 the applicant was transferred from Koridallos

to Tirintha prison. According to a letter by the director of Tirintha

prion dated 20 November 1996, this was done "to ensure better

conditions of detention for the applicant". From Tirintha prison the

applicant was transferred at his request to Agias prison.

      The outcome of the applicant's appeal is not known.

B.    Relevant domestic law and practice

      Article 74 of the Code of Criminal Procedure provides as follows:

      "Petitions and statements by detained accused persons are

      submitted in writing and are handed over to the director of the

      prison where the accused is detained; a report is drafted; then

      they are registered in a special book and are transmitted to the

      competent authority immediately ..."

      Article 5 of the Penitentiary Code provides as follows:

      "2.  Whenever a member of staff commits an illegal act against

      a prisoner or violates his/her rights, the prisoner has the right

      to complain in writing and without delay to the superior

      penitentiary authority and, subsequently, to the court which

      supervises the execution of the sentence.

      3.   The prison director must transmit any petition or letter

      addressed by a prisoner to a public authority without delay and

      without being informed of its content ..."

      Article 121 para. 1 of the Penitentiary Code provides that the

duties of the judge which supervises the execution of the sentence are

provisionally discharged by the public prosecutor of the first instance

criminal court (isangeleas plimmeliodikon) of the place of detention,

while the duties of the court which supervises the execution of the

sentence are provisionally discharged by the first instance criminal

court (plimmeliodikio) of the place of detention sitting in camera.

      The Government have submitted copies of the following documents:

-     a decision by a public prosecutor not to institute criminal

      proceedings against prison officers for causing bodily harm to

      a foreign inmate; the criminal complaint which the prisoner in

      question had lodged in Greek;

-     two letters by Patras prison transmitting to the public

      prosecutor criminal complaints lodged by two inmates against the

      director of the prison, a social worker and another member of

      staff;

-     a letter by the Ministry of Justice asking the public prosecutor

      of the Court of Appeal of Piraeus to inquire into complaints of

      anonymous prisoners in Koridallos - which concerned the duties

      assigned to some inmates - and to report back as soon as

      possible; a letter by the public prosecutor of the first instance

      criminal court of Piraeus informing the public prosecutor of the

      Court of Appeal of Piraeus that no further action was to be taken

      on the complaint ; a letter by the public prosecutor of the Court

      of Appeal of Piraeus informing the Ministry of Justice of the

      same;

-     a letter by the Ministry of Justice asking a public prosecutor

      to inquire into a complaint an inmate had lodged with the

      Ministry about corruption by the director and a social worker of

      a prison hospital; a letter by the public prosecutor transmitting

      to the Ministry of Justice her decision that no further action

      should be taken;

-     a letter by the Ministry of Justice transmitting to a public

      prosecutor a letter by an inmate who claimed to have information

      concerning terrorist organisations; a letter by the public

      prosecutor to the Ministry of Justice to the effect that he had

      questioned the inmate in question who had only very vague

      information to provide and was probably seeking to be transferred

      to a prison in Athens;

-     a letter by the Ministry of Justice to Koridallos and Patras

      prisons transmitting an inmate's complaint about his transfer

      from the first prison to the second;

-     a letter by the Ministry of Justice asking a public prosecutor

      to discuss with a prisoner a matter he had raised in a letter

      addressed to the Ministry; a letter by the public prosecutor

      informing the Ministry of Justice that he had met the prisoner

      in question who wanted to discuss the merits of a criminal case

      against him and that he had advised him to submit his arguments

      to the competent criminal court; he had also advised him that he

      did not have the right to install a telephone in prison at his

      own expense;

-     a letter by the Ministry of Justice asking the public prosecutor

      of Piraeus to inquire into two prisoners' complaints about the

      staff of the psychiatric wing of Koridallos prison; a letter by

      the public prosecutor informing the Ministry that he had met the

      prisoners who did not want, however, to name the persons

      concerned;

-     a letter by the Ministry of Justice asking a public prosecutor

      to meet a foreign prisoner who had complained in Greek about

      procedural irregularities at his trial; a letter by the public

      prosecutor to the Ministry to the effect that he had met the

      prisoner in question and had informed him of his right of appeal;

-     a letter by the Ministry of Justice asking a public prosecutor

      to meet a prisoner; a letter by the prison transmitting a letter

      by the prisoner in question to the Ministry of Justice;  a letter

      by the prosecutor informing the Ministry of Justice that he had

      met the prisoner in question and another prisoner and had

      discussed with them the question of the date of their trial;

-     a letter by the Ministry of Justice asking the public prosecutor

      of Amfissa to inquire into a complaint submitted by a prisoner

      in Larissa that the  authorities of Amfissa prison would not

      allow him to talk on the phone with his brother who was detained

      in Amfissa; a letter by the public prosecutor informing the

      Ministry of Justice that the complaints were unsubstantiated;

-     a letter by the Ministry of Justice asking the public prosecutor

      for an inquiry into complaints by an inmate that he had been set

      up, being falsely accused of drug-trafficking in prison; a letter

      by the public prosecutor informing the Ministry of Justice that

      the allegations were unsubstantiated; the public prosecutor's

      decision not to take further action;

-     a letter by the Ministry of Justice asking a public prosecutor

      for an inquiry into allegations that an inmate was not being

      given work; a letter by the prosecutor to the effect that the

      applicant was being given work whenever such work was available

      and whenever it was his turn;

-     a letter by the Ministry of Justice asking a public prosecutor

      to inquire into complaints contained in a letter by a prisoner

      in Koridallos about access to the telephone; a letter by

      Koridallos prison transmitting the above-mentioned letter to the

      Ministry with comments on the substance of the inmate's

      complaints; a letter by the public prosecutor informing the

      Ministry of Justice that he had visited the prison, heard the

      applicant's complaints, given the necessary instructions to the

      prison authorities for the problem to be resolved and decided not

      to take further action;

-     a letter by the Ministry of Justice asking a public prosecutor

      to inquire into a complaint by a foreign prisoner in Greek about

      threats by prison officers;

-     a letter by the Ministry of Justice dated 23 March 1994 asking

      the public prosecutor of Amfissa to inquire into complaints by

      prisoners held in the Amfissa prisoners' hospital. The complaints

      concerned overcrowding, the state of disrepair of the rooms, the

      lack of central heating and colour television, the quality of the

      food and water, the unavailability of medical care and the

      limited access to the telephone; a letter by the prosecutor dated

      21 April 1994 informing the Ministry that extra funds had been

      requested from the Ministry for the refurbishment of the rooms,

      that the staff were not in any manner responsible through their

      intended actions or negligence for the excessive number of

      prisoners per room, that the food, heating, medical care and

      access to telephone were adequate, that the water was the same

      as that used by the rest of the population of Amfissa, that the

      Ministry had not provided any colour televisions and that the

      prisoners were, in any event, allowed to use their own;

-     a letter by the Ministry of Justice asking the public prosecutor

      to inquire into the unspecified complaints of a prisoner and the

      prosecutor's answer that a case-file had been opened in this

      connection by an inquiring magistrate;

-     a letter by the Ministry of Justice transmitting a prisoner's

      letter to a public prosecutor for information and for any action

      which might be appropriate; a letter by the prison authorities

      transmitting the above-mentioned prisoner's letter to the

      Ministry unopened; the letter in question by which the prisoner

      complained about extensive corruption in the prison and informed

      the Minister of an impending uprising.

      Article 105 of the law introducing the Civil Code provides for

the award of compensation to persons who sustain losses as a result of

something done or omitted by an organ of the state in the exercise of

the powers invested in it, except where the legal rule which has been

breached serves to protect the general interest.

      Article 101 para. 3 of the Code of Criminal Procedure provides

that the investigating judge is under an obligation to appoint legal

counsel ex officio, if such a request is expressly submitted by the

accused.

COMPLAINTS

1.    The applicant complains of the conditions of his detention in

Koridallos prison. He invokes Article 3 of the Convention. He also

invokes Article 6 para. 2 of the Convention in that, whilst in

detention on remand, he had been subjected to the same regime as

convicts.

2.    The applicant complains under Article 6 of the Convention of the

length of the proceedings against him. He also complains, invoking the

same provision, that he had to arrange himself through the drug-therapy

group for an interpreter at first instance and that, being currently

unrepresented, he cannot obtain a copy of the first instance decision

and does not have access to the case-file for the preparation of his

appeal. In addition, he claims that he was discriminated against by the

first instance court in the following manner. Although national law

provides for lower sentences in the cases of drug-addicts, the domestic

court refused to apply the relevant provision because the applicant was

certified as a drug-addict by a United Kingdom, as opposed to a Greek,

authority. In his observations of 4 August 1997 the applicant also

complained under Article 6 para. 3 (b) and (c) of the Convention that

he did not have a lawyer at the pre-trial stage.

3.    The applicant further complains that, although he is a drug-

addict, he does not receive adequate medical treatment. He does not

invoke any provisions of the Convention in this connection.

4.    The applicant complains under Article 8 of the Convention that

letters sent by the Commission's Secretariat are being opened by the

prison administration not always in front of him. Some letters,

including letters that have been mailed for him from outside the

prison, have been lost.

5.    The applicant complains under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 that

the money which was confiscated during his arrest has not been returned

to him in breach of the order of the first instance criminal court and

that the property which he surrendered when being admitted in

Koridallos prison was destroyed during the riots.

6.    The applicant complains that he is hindered in the effective

exercise of his right of petition, in breach of the last sentence of

Article 25 para. 1 of the Convention. He claims that the delays in the

hearing of his appeal are the result of the application he has lodged

with the Commission.

PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE COMMISSION

      The application was introduced on 9 October 1994 and registered

on 12 September 1995.

      On 27 June 1996 the Commission (Second Chamber) decided to

communicate the application to the respondent Government.

      The Government's written observations were submitted on

27 November 1996, after an extension of the time-limit fixed for that

purpose. The applicant replied on 4 August 1997.

      On 16 September 1997 the First Chamber of the Commission, to

which the case was transferred, decided to request supplementary

observations.

      The Government's written observations were submitted on

8 October 1997. The applicant replied on 10 February 1998, after an

extension of the time-limit fixed for that purpose.

      On 21 January 1997 the Commission (First Chamber) granted the

applicant legal aid.

THE LAW

1.    The applicant complains under Article 3 (Art. 3) of the

Convention of the conditions of his detention in Koridallos prison. He

also complains under Article 6 para. 2 (Art. 6-2) of the Convention

that, whilst in detention on remand, he had been subjected to the same

regime as convicts.

      Article 3 (Art. 3) of the Convention provides as follows:

      "No one shall be subjected to torture or to inhuman or degrading

      treatment or punishment."

      Article 6 para. 2 (Art. 6-2) of the Convention provides as

follows:

      "Everyone charged with a criminal offence shall be presumed

      innocent until proved guilty according to law."

      The Government argue that the applicant has not exhausted

domestic remedies. They submit that he should have used the

possibilities for complaining under Article 5 of the Penitentiary Code

by addressing himself to the public prosecutor of the first instance

criminal court (isangeleas plimmeliodikon) of Athens. If he had not

obtained redress, he could have challenged the decision of the

prosecutor before the local first instance criminal court which would

have examined the case in camera (simvulio plimmeliodikon).

      The Government stress that prisons, including Koridallos prison,

are regularly visited by prosecutors. They have submitted extracts from

the prosecutors' duty roll to support their contention. The Government

also submit that prisoners in Greece are free to correspond with all

judicial and political authorities. They have submitted in this

connection copies of a number of complaints addressed by prisoners to

the Ministry of Justice. The Government contend that these complaints

were lodged under Article 5 of the Penitentiary Code. They have also

submitted copies of complaints addressed to other authorities. The

Government state that prisoners' complaints are examined by prosecutors

who are independent judicial officers and who have the right to

institute criminal proceedings.

      The Government further submit that national law contains a number

of criminal and civil law provisions which protect the dignity,

physical integrity and personality of all citizens. Whenever an agent

of the State illegally violates a person's right, he or she is

punished, usually by a disciplinary penalty, and the State pays

compensation.

      According to the Government, there was nothing preventing the

applicant from lodging a complaint in English. In any event, he could

have asked for the assistance of his embassy or of one of the

charitable organisations with which he was in contact. Similarly he

could have inquired about his rights.

      However, the Government stress that the above-mentioned remedies

concern illegal acts committed against prisoners by prison staff, i.e.

violations of criminal or disciplinary provisions. They do not concern

the lack of "luxurious life conditions in prison" or more general

complaints relating to the administration, maintenance or enlargement

of prisons. Complaints concerning the improvement of life conditions

in prisons are examined by the Ministry of Justice on the basis of

"more general administrative and political considerations".

      In any event, the Government submit that the complaints are

manifestly ill-founded. The conditions in Koridallos prison are in

general normal and human. Human dignity is respected and the special

needs of the applicant were catered for. The European Committee for the

Prevention of Torture has found the conditions in the segregation unit

of Koridallos prison acceptable. Following his conviction, the

applicant shared a cell with only one other inmate and worked.

Moreover, the Government question the applicant's creditworthiness.

They refer in this connection to the fact that the applicant never

raised his complaints with the domestic authorities. However, in the

Government's view, "this is not the only indication" that the applicant

is untrustworthy. No further details are provided.

      The applicant submits that a complaint under Article 5 of the

Penitentiary Code is not an effective remedy. The law does not specify

the competence of the organs mentioned in that provision, the procedure

they should follow, the nature of the decisions they may adopt and the

kind of reparation they can afford. In any event, the applicant does

not complain of "illegal acts or violations of his rights" as these

concepts are understood in Greek law.

      Moreover, the applicant argues that, even assuming that this was

an effective remedy, he did not have access to it. He was never

informed of his rights, something which was in any event impossible

since he could not communicate with the prison staff due to linguistic

problems. Since his money had been confiscated he could not engage the

services of a lawyer and there is no possibility of obtaining legal aid

for complaining about prison conditions. Complaints lodged in English

were not answered by the authorities. This is evidenced by the fate of

the letter the applicant sent to the Ministry of Justice on 27 January

1995. All the complaints produced by the Government before the

Commission, including those by foreign prisoners, are in Greek. The

applicant could not ask another person to draft a complaint for him.

This would have resulted in the prison's staff's having knowledge of

the complaint and might have entailed adverse consequences for the

applicant.

      The applicant points out that very few of the letters of

complaint produced as evidence by the Government emanate from

Koridallos prison, which moreover is not regularly visited by

prosecutors. In any event, the Government have not produced evidence

of any complaints which had positive results for the complainants.

      As regards the substance of the complaints the applicant submits

that subjecting remand prisoners to the same regime as convicts is in

breach of national law and Recommendation No. R(87)3 of the Committee

of Ministers of the Council of Europe. He also stresses the lack of any

possibility of communication with the prison staff due to linguistic

problems, the impossibility of submitting any requests in a language

other than Greek and the absence of any information concerning life in

prison in English. Finally, he submits that the conditions in

Koridallos prison are degrading since prisoners cannot keep clean and

warm, have very limited contact with the outside world due to the

scarcity of telephones and lack entertainment and physical exercise.

      The Commission must first examine the Government's contention

that the applicant has not exhausted domestic remedies. The Commission

recalls in this connection that, according to the Court's case-law, it

is incumbent on the Government claiming non-exhaustion to satisfy the

Convention organs that the remedy was an effective one available in

theory and in practice at the relevant time, that is to say, that it

was accessible, was one which was capable of providing redress in

respect of the applicant's complaints and offered reasonable prospects

of success. However, once this burden of proof has been satisfied it

falls to the applicant to establish that the remedy advanced by the

Government was in fact exhausted or was for some reason inadequate and

ineffective in the particular circumstances of the case or that there

existed special circumstances absolving him or her from the requirement

(Eur. Court HR, Mentes and others v. Turkey judgment of

28 November 1997, to be published in Reports 1997, para. 57).

      The Commission will first consider whether the applicant should

have lodged a complaint under Article 5 of the Penitentiary Code. The

Commission notes that complaints under this provision must be first

addressed to the superior penitentiary authority. The Government submit

that, in the circumstances of the case, this would be the local public

prosecutor. The applicant, however, argues that a complaint under

Article 5 of the Penitentiary Code cannot be considered to be an

effective remedy because, inter alia, the law does not specify the

nature of the decisions that can be adopted under this provision and

the kind of reparation that can be afforded. The Commission has

examined the evidence produced by the Government concerning the

practice under Article 5 of the Penitentiary Code. The Commission

considers that the Government have not submitted anything which could

establish that the prosecutor's powers in this connection extend beyond

the institution of criminal proceedings in cases where criminal law has

been breached.

      In any event, the Commission notes that the Government accept

that the procedure under Article 5 of the Penitentiary Code, which

concerns "illegal acts or violations of a prisoner's rights", would not

provide a remedy in respect of complaints relating to the general

administration or facilities in a prison. This view is confirmed by the

manner in which the prosecutor reacted in the only case invoked by the

Government which concerned complaints about the general conditions of

detention, namely the case of the Amfissa prisoners' hospital in

respect of which the Ministry of Justice requested an inquiry on

23 March 1994. However, what the applicant complains about in the

present case is precisely the general conditions in Koridallos prison.

The Commission, therefore, considers that complaining to the Public

Prosecutor under Article 5 of the Penitentiary Code was not, in the

circumstances of the case, a remedy which was capable of providing

redress in respect of the applicant's above-mentioned complaints. It

follows that this was not a remedy which had to be exhausted.

      The Commission considers that the same holds true in respect of

a complaint under the same provision to the Ministry of Justice since,

as the Government accept, such a complaint would have been examined on

the basis of more general administrative and political considerations.

      The Commission notes that the Government also make indirect

reference to two other remedies, lodging a criminal complaint and suing

under the Civil Code for damages. However, the Commission has already

considered, first, that the prosecutor's powers under Article 5 of the

Penitentiary Code do not extend beyond the institution of criminal

proceedings in cases where criminal law has been breached and,

secondly, that a complaint to the prosecutor under this provision is

not an effective remedy in the circumstances of the case. The same

conclusion must, therefore, be reached in respect of a criminal

complaint. As regards the possibility of suing for damages the

Commission recalls that in No. 14986/89 it considered that under Greek

law this did not constitute an effective remedy in respect of

complaints under Article 3 (Art. 3) of the Convention concerning

general conditions of detention (Dec. 3.7.91, D.R. 70, p. 240). The

Commission does not consider that it should depart from this case-law

in the present case. The Commission notes in this connection that the

success of an action in tort would depend on the applicant's showing

that he was subjected to treatment which was illegal under domestic

law. However, the Government argue in the context of Article 5 of the

Penitentiary Code that it was impossible for the applicant to argue

that the conditions of his detention amounted to an "illegal act or a

violation of his rights". It follows that none of the remedies

suggested by the Government was effective in the circumstances of the

case. The Commission, therefore, considers that the application cannot

be rejected under Article 26 (Art. 26) of the Convention for failure

to exhaust domestic remedies.

      Moreover, the Commission has had regard to the parties' other

observations. It considers that this part of the application raises

serious questions of fact and law which are of such complexity that

their determination should depend on an examination of the merits. This

part of the application cannot, therefore, be regarded as being

manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 27 para. 2

(Art. 27-2) of the Convention, and no other ground for declaring it

inadmissible has been established.

2.    The applicant complains under Article 6 para. 1 (Art. 6-1) of the

Convention of the fairness of the proceedings against him. He refers

in this connection to the question of the interpreter at first

instance, his lack of access to the case-file, to the failure to

communicate certain documents to him and to discrimination in

sentencing. Finally, he complains under Article 6 para. 3 (b) and (c)

(Art. 6-3-b, 6-3-c) of the Convention that he did not have a lawyer at

the pre-trial stage.

      Article 6 (Art. 6) of the Convention provides as relevant:

      "1.  In the determination of ... any criminal charge against

      him, everyone is entitled to a fair ... hearing ... by a ...

      tribunal ...

      ...

      3.   Everyone charged with a criminal offence has the following

      minimum rights:

           ...

           b.    to have adequate time and facilities for the

      preparation of his defence;

           c.    to defend himself in person or through legal

      assistance of his own choosing or, if he has not sufficient means

      to pay for legal assistance, to be given it free when the

      interests of justice so require ..."

      The Commission recalls that, according to the Convention organs'

case-law, the question of whether a trial is in conformity with the

requirements of Article 6 (Art. 6) must be considered on the basis of

an examination of the proceedings as whole and not one isolated aspect.

This principle holds true for the specific guarantees of paragraph 3

as well as for the concept of fair trial in paragraph 1 (No. 11069/84,

Dec. 7.9.89, D.R. 62, p. 5). However, the Convention organs have

accepted that the requirements of paragraph 3 (c) of Article 6

(Art. 6-3-c) could be relevant in pre-trial proceedings insofar as the

fairness of the trial is likely to be prejudiced by an initial failure

to comply with them (Eur. court HR, Imbrioscia v. Switzerland judgment

of 2 November 1993, Series A no. 275, p. 13, para. 36).

      The Commission notes that the applicant complains of lack of

legal assistance at the pre-trial stage. However, Article 100 para. 3

of the Code of Criminal Procedure provides that the investigating judge

is under an obligation to appoint legal counsel ex officio, if such a

request is expressly submitted by the accused. The applicant did not

submit such a request and, as result, did not provide domestic

authorities with an opportunity to prevent the violation complained of,

as he was in principle required to do under Article 26 (Art. 26) of the

Convention (Eur. Court HR, Cardot v. France judgment of 19 March 1991,

Series A no. 200, p. 19, para. 36). Although the applicant claims that

he had not been informed of his right to do so, the Commission

considers that this does not exempt him from the obligation to exhaust

domestic remedies in this connection. During all the material time the

applicant was in contact with the social service of the prison which

provided him with appropriate practical advice.

      The Commission, therefore, considers that the applicant has not

exhausted domestic remedies in connection with his complaint about lack

of legal assistance at the pre-trial stage. This part of the

application must be, therefore, rejected under Article 27 para. 3

(Art. 27-3) of the Convention.

3.    As regards the applicant's remaining complaints about the

fairness of the proceedings, the Commission notes that, although the

applicant was expressly invited to inform the Commission of further

developments in his case when the application was registered, he has

failed to inform the Commission of the outcome of his appeal. In these

circumstances, the Commission considers that it cannot determine

whether the method of appointment of the interpreter at the first

instance hearing, the alleged lack of access to the case-file, the

alleged failure of the authorities to communicate certain documents to

the applicant and the alleged discrimination in sentencing affected the

fairness of the trial as a whole. The Commission finds, therefore, that

the applicant cannot yet claim to be a victim of a violation of his

rights under Article 6 para. 1 (Art. 6-1) of the Convention in

connection with the above complaints (cf. mutatis mutandis No. 31195/9,

Dec. 27.2.97, D.R. 88-A, p. 169).

      It follows that this part of the application is premature and

must be rejected as manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of

Article 27 para. 2 (Art. 27-2) of the Convention.

4.    The applicant complains under Article 6 para. 1 (Art. 6-1) of the

length of the proceedings against him.

      Article 6 para. 1 (Art. 6-1) of the Convention guarantees for

everyone the right to a hearing within a reasonable time in the

determination of a criminal charge against him.

      The Commission notes that the period to be taken into

consideration started on 19 August 1994 when the applicant was

arrested. The Commission considers that until 3 November 1997, when the

applicant appeal would have been heard, the proceedings had not been

unreasonable in length. Moreover, the Commission notes that the

applicant has failed to provide any information about his appeal

hearing, although he had been expressly invited to do so when the

application was registered. It follows that he has failed to

substantiate his complaint insofar as the period after 3 November 1997

is concerned.

      In the light of all the above, the Commission considers that this

part of the application is manifestly ill-founded within the meaning

of Article 27 para. 2 (Art. 27-2) of the Convention.

5.    The applicant complains that, although he is a drug-addict, he

does not receive adequate medical treatment.

      The Government submit that the applicant has not exhausted

domestic remedies. The applicant claims that domestic remedies were not

accessible to him.

      The Commission recalls that it has considered that lodging a

criminal complaint with the public prosecutor with a view to joining

the proceedings as partie civile and asking for damages is in principle

an effective remedy under Greek law for complaints of this nature

(No. 21300/93, Dec. 10.4.96, D.R. 85-A, p. 47). The applicant has not

lodged such a complaint. Moreover, for the reasons set out above, the

Commission considers that the alleged lack of information about his

procedural rights does not absolve the applicant from exhausting

domestic remedies in this connection.

      It follows that this part of the application must be rejected

under Article 27 para. 3 (Art. 27-3) of the Convention.

6.    The applicant complains under Article 8 (Art. 8) of the

Convention that some of the letters he has addressed to the Commission,

including letters that have been mailed for him from outside the

prison, have been lost.

      Article 8 (Art. 8) of the Convention provides as relevant:

      "1.  Everyone has the right to respect for 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."

      The Commission notes that the applicant has not instituted any

civil or criminal proceedings in this connection. As a result, he has

failed to exhaust domestic remedies.

      It follows that this part of the application must be rejected

under Article 27 para. 3 (Art. 27-3) of the Convention.

7.    The applicant complains under Article 8 (Art. 8) of the

Convention that letters sent to him by the Commission's Secretariat are

being opened by the prison administration not always in front of him.

      The Government argue that the applicant has not exhausted

domestic remedies. They accept, however, that letters by the Commission

are opened in front of prisoners for security reasons. They are not,

however, read and in this manner the constitutional rights of prisoners

are respected. In any event, the Government contend that letters

addressed by the Commission to the applicant have never been opened.

      The applicant claims that he did not have to exhaust domestic

remedies and refers to the arguments mentioned above in connection with

his other complaints.

      The Commission notes that the Government accept that opening

letters addressed by the Commission to prisoners in front of the latter

is not against domestic law or the Constitution. Moreover, they do not

refer to any court decisions adopting a different interpretation of

national law or the Constitution from that proposed by the Government.

In these circumstances, the Commission considers that it cannot be

accepted that there were any effective remedies for the applicant to

exhaust.

      Having had regards to the parties' other observations, the

Commission considers that this part of the application raises serious

questions of fact and law which are of such complexity that their

determination should depend on an examination of the merits. This part

of the application cannot, therefore, be regarded as being manifestly

ill-founded within the meaning of Article 27 para. 2 (Art. 27-2) of the

Convention, and no other ground for declaring it inadmissible has been

established.

8.    The applicant complains under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1

(P1-1) that the money which was confiscated during his arrest has not

been returned to him and that the property which he surrendered when

being admitted in Koridallos prison was destroyed during the riots.

      The Commission recalls that the money which was confiscated

during his arrest has not been returned to him because he has appealed

against the first instance court decision which ordered that this money

should be returned to him. Moreover, the applicant has not instituted

any civil or criminal proceedings in connection with the property which

was destroyed during the riots.

      It follows that the applicant has not exhausted domestic remedies

and this part of the applicant must be rejected under Article 27

para. 3 (Art. 27-3) of the Convention.

9.    The applicant complains that he is hindered in the effective

exercise of his right of petition, in breach of the last sentence of

Article 25 para. 1 (Art. 25-1) of the Convention. He claims that the

delays in the hearing of his appeal are the result of the application

he has lodged with the Commission.

      Having examined all the circumstances of the present case, the

Commission considers that no action need to be taken in respect of this

complaint.

      For these reasons, the Commission, unanimously,

      DECLARES ADMISSIBLE, without prejudging the merits of the case,

      the applicant's complaints concerning the general conditions of

      his detention in Koridallos prison and the opening of letters

      addressed to him by the Commission;

      DECLARES INADMISSIBLE the remainder of the application;

      DECIDES THAT NO ACTION NEED BE TAKEN IN CONNECTION WITH THE

      ALLEGED INTERFERENCE IN THE EXERCISE OF THE APPLICANT'S RIGHT OF

      INDIVIDUAL PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 25 OF THE CONVENTION.

  M.F. BUQUICCHIO                              M.P. PELLONPÄÄ

     Secretary                                    President

to the First Chamber                        of the First Chamber