Lexploria

AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF

Application No. 26618/95

by Martti JARONEN

against Finland

The European Commission of Human Rights (First Chamber) sitting

in private on 9 April 1997, the following members being present:

Mrs. J. LIDDY, President

MM. M.P. PELLONPÄÄ

E. BUSUTTIL

A. WEITZEL

C.L. ROZAKIS

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 5 July 1994 by

Martti JARONEN against Finland and registered on 3 March 1995 under

file No. 26618/95;

Having regard to the information provided by the Government on

11 August 1995 and the applicant's comments in reply of

26 September 1995;

Having regard to the report provided for in Rule 47 of the Rules

of Procedure of the Commission;

Having deliberated;

Decides as follows:

THE FACTS

The applicant is a Finnish citizen, born in 1946. He is a

building worker residing at Rautalampi.

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

summarised as follows.

The applicant served a prison sentence from January 1993 to

September 1994. Most of it was served in the Central Prison of Sukeva.

According to the applicant, he was not allowed to leave his cell for

exercise and certain other purposes. On about twenty occasions he was

allegedly refused meals. In the County Prison of Northern Carelia he

was allegedly assaulted by fellow prisoners.

According to the Government, the applicant was placed on the

safety ward of the Central Prison of Sukeva at his own request due to

his difficulties in getting along with fellow prisoners. This placement

implied that he was unable to participate in the normal prison

activities in the company of fellow prisoners. However, according to

the daily programme of the security ward he was entitled to one hour's

exercise outdoors and a shower.

The applicant was placed on the security ward from February to

March 1993 and from August 1993 to September 1994, i.e. a period of

some fifteen months.

In July 1993 the applicant complained to the Police Department

of Joensuu about thefts of certain of his possessions, suspecting

certain prison guards. This investigation was apparently closed. He

also complained to the Prison Administration of the Ministry of Justice

(oikeusministeriön vankeinhoito-osasto, justitieministeriets

fångvårdsavdelning) about, among other things, the refusal of meals and

the suspected stopping of a letter addressed to the Commission.

In a decision of 15 November 1993 the Director General of the

National Prison Administration stated, as regards the alleged refusal

of meals, that it was the duty of the guard serving the meals into the

cells to ensure that every prisoner received his meal.

On 29 November 1993 the Director General of the National Prison

Administration refused the applicant's request to be transferred from

the Sukeva Central Prison.

On 16 December 1993 the Director General of the National Prison

Administration stated that, as a rule, letters to, for instance, the

Commission were neither screened nor stopped. On the other hand, since

such letters were not registered anywhere by the prison officials,

their fate could not subsequently be verified.

While placed on the security ward of the Central Prison of Sukeva

in August 1994 the applicant was ordered to be transferred to a

prisoners' labour colony at Käyrä. The decision was withdrawn following

his own objections to the transfer.

In a decision of 16 February 1995 the Director General of the

National Prison Administration found no evidence in support of the

applicant's allegation that he had not been served a sufficient amount

of food.

COMPLAINTS

1. The applicant complains under Article 3 of the Convention that

he was subjected to inhuman treatment during his imprisonment. He was

allegedly assaulted by fellow prisoners, not having been offered

sufficient protection by the prison guards. Instead of being

transferred to another prison he was isolated on a security ward. He

was allegedly refused meals because he had been complaining about his

treatment. Because of his complaints he was allegedly also threatened

with detention in the mental hospital for prisoners.

2. The applicant also complains that a letter which he addressed to

the Commission in 1993 was stopped by the prison authorities. He

invokes no particular Convention provision in this respect.

PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE COMMISSION

The application was introduced on 5 July 1994 and registered on

3 March 1995.

On 11 July 1995 the Rapporteur of the Commission decided, in

accordance with Rule 47 para. 2 (a) of the Rules of Procedure, to

request certain factual information from the respondent Government.

This information was submitted on 11 August 1995. On 26 September 1995

the applicant submitted comments in reply.

THE LAW

1. The Commission recalls that under Article 26 (Art. 26) of the

Convention it may only deal with a matter after all domestic remedies

have been exhausted, according to the generally recognised rules of

international law, and within a period of six months from the date on

which the final decision was taken.

The application was introduced on 5 July 1994. Insofar as it

concerns isolated incidents which took place more than six months

earlier and were examined by the Prison Administration in decisions

preceding 5 January 1994, an examination of the application does not

disclose the existence of any special circumstances which might have

interrupted or suspended the running of the six months' period.

It follows that in these respects the application has been

introduced out of time and must be rejected under Article 27 para. 3

(Art. 27-3) of the Convention.

2. Insofar as the application concerns the applicant's overall

treatment during his imprisonment lasting until September 1994, the

Commission recalls that the assessment of the minimum level of severity

of treatment contrary to Article 3 (Art. 3) of the Convention is

relative and must take account of all the circumstances of the case,

such as the duration of the treatment, its physical or mental effects

and, in some cases, the sex, age and state of health of the victim,

etc. (see, e.g., Eur. Court HR, Ireland v. the United Kingdom judgment

of 18 January 1978, Series A no. 25, p. 65, para. 162).

In the present case the Commission finds no indication that the

implementation of the applicant's prison sentence amounted to treatment

proscribed by Article 3 (Art. 3) of the Convention.

It follows that in this respect the application must be rejected

as being manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 27

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

For these reasons, the Commission, unanimously,

DECLARES THE APPLICATION INADMISSIBLE.

M.F. BUQUICCHIO J. LIDDY

Secretary President

to the First Chamber of the First Chamber

Menu

JARONEN v. FINLAND

JARONEN v. FINLAND

LEXI