AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF

                      Application No. 21221/93

                      by L.J.

                      against Finland

      The European Commission of Human Rights (First Chamber) sitting

in private on 28 June 1995, the following members being present:

           Mr.   C.L. ROZAKIS, President

           Mrs.  J. LIDDY

           MM.   E. BUSUTTIL

                 A.S. GÖZÜBÜYÜK

                 M.P. PELLONPÄÄ

                 B. MARXER

                 G.B. REFFI

                 B. CONFORTI

                 N. BRATZA

                 I. BÉKÉS

                 E. KONSTANTINOV

                 G. RESS

                 A. PERENIC

                 C. BÎRSAN

           Mrs.  S. DOLLÉ, Acting 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 13 December 1992

by L.J. against Finland and registered on 21 January 1993 under file

No. 21221/93;

      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 1949 and currently

serving a prison sentence in the Helsinki Central Prison. He is

represented by Mr. Kari Aarrevuo, a lawyer in Helsinki.

      The facts, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as

follows.

I.    Particular circumstances of the case

1.    Background

      Since 1965 the applicant has been convicted of a number of

violent and other offences, for which reason he was classified as a

dangerous recidivist and incarcerated in preventive detention for about

ten years up to 18 September 1989, when he was released on parole.

2.    The criminal proceedings against the applicant

      (a)  The case of attempted manslaughter

      In 1991 the applicant and E. were charged with attempted

manslaughter committed on 1 February 1991. In the alternative, E. was

charged with having aided and abetted the applicant in the offence.

      On 22 April 1991 the City Court (raastuvanoikeus, rådstuvurätten)

of Helsinki acquitted the applicant of the charges for attempted

manslaughter, but convicted him of certain other offences. E. was

acquitted of all charges.

      The prosecution appealed to the Court of Appeal (hovioikeus,

hovrätten) of Helsinki. Following a further oral hearing, the Court of

Appeal, on 19 March 1992, convicted the applicant of, among other

offences, attempted manslaughter committed without his having been in

possession of his full senses. It furthermore convicted E. of having

aided and abetted the applicant in the offence.

      The Court of Appeal considered that the various statements made

by the victim, F., did not suffice for concluding that the applicant

had been the perpetrator of the attempted manslaughter. However, it

also took into account, among other evidence, statements made by E. and

W. as well as the results of an analysis by the Central Forensic

Laboratory of gunpowder collected from the sleeves of the applicant's

jacket. The Court of Appeal also found that the applicant had been

unable to state his whereabouts on the day of the crime in a convincing

manner. For instance, at the Court of Appeal's hearing he had modified

his account of the means of transportation which he had claimed to have

used on that day.

      The Court of Appeal sentenced the applicant to about six years'

imprisonment. It also authorised the revocation of his release on

parole from an institution for preventive detention.

      On 22 June 1992 the Supreme Court (korkein oikeus, högsta

domstolen) refused the applicant leave to appeal.

      The applicant was assisted by counsel throughout the proceedings.

      (b)  The murder case

      On 4 June 1992 the City Court of Helsinki convicted the applicant

of, among other offences, murder committed without his having been in

possession of his full senses. He was sentenced to eleven years'

imprisonment. The City Court based the applicant's conviction on the

statements of a number of witnesses, who had been accompanying the

applicant at some point during the day of the crime, as well as on an

autopsy report.

      The City Court also authorised the applicant's incarceration as

a dangerous recidivist.

      The applicant's appeal to the Court of Appeal of Helsinki was

rejected on 29 October 1992 without any further oral hearing having

been held. Leave to appeal was refused by the Supreme Court on

8 February 1993.

      The applicant was assisted by counsel throughout the

proceedings.

      In January 1993 the applicant's counsel was informed by the

police that certain share certificates believed to have been stolen

from the murder victim at the time of the offence had been found by the

victim's mother. The applicant's counsel was unable to obtain

information as to when this finding had been reported to the police.

3.    The applicant's incarceration as a dangerous recidivist

      On 27 April 1993 the Prison Court (vankilaoikeus, fängelse-

domstolen), basing itself on the Court of Appeal's judgment of

19 March 1992, with immediate effect revoked the applicant's release

on parole from an institution for preventive detention, considering

that the conditions for his incarceration as a dangerous recidivist

were fulfilled.

      On 19 October 1993 the Prison Court, basing itself on the Court

of Appeal's judgment of 29 October 1992, considered that the conditions

for the applicant's incarceration as a dangerous recidivist were again

fulfilled.

4.    The applicant's prison conditions

      On 13 January 1994 the applicant was transferred to the semi-open

ward in the Central Prison of Riihimäki. According to the applicant,

this was tantamount to placement in solitary confinement. He was no

longer authorised to work or carry out any hobby activities. He was

only allowed to exercise during one hour per day. He claims that his

de facto solitary confinement was ordered because he had complained

about having received a salary lower than that paid to ordinary

prisoners.

      On 28 January 1994 the applicant was transferred to the

isolation ward of the Helsinki Central Prison. He was authorised to

associate with three fellow prisoners for three hours a day. He had no

right to carry out hobby activities. His cell was allegedly located

mainly underground and due to insufficient insulation the temperature

in the cell was low in the wintertime.

5.    Facts established by the European Committee for the Prevention

      of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment

      On 1 April 1993 the above-stated Committee ("the CPT"), an organ

of the Council of Europe, issued its report following its visit in

May 1992 to, inter alia, the Helsinki Central Prison. The CPT found,

inter alia, that the material conditions of detention in the isolation

unit were poor and that the regime in that unit did not provide

sufficient mental and physical stimulation (paras. 71-72). Generally,

the CPT was struck by the poor general state of repair of the prison

(para. 83).

      The CPT's report was followed by an interim report in reply by

the Finnish Government of 26 August 1993 and a further follow-up report

of 18 February 1994 (for extracts from the CPT's and the Government's

reports, see the Appendix).

II.   Relevant domestic law

1.    The incarceration of dangerous recidivists

      The 1953 Act on the Incarceration of Dangerous Recidivists (laki

317/53 vaarallisten rikoksenuusijain eristämisestä, lag 317/53 om

internering av farliga återfallsförbrytare, "the 1953 Act") is

applicable to an offender convicted of certain offences, attempted

offences or complicity in offences involving aggravated violence or

constituting a particular danger to the life and health of others and

provided the offender is sentenced to at least two years' imprisonment.

The convicting and sentencing court may authorise the Prison Court to

order the offender's incarceration in an institution for preventive

detention, if, during a period of ten years preceding the offence at

issue, he has committed another offence of an extremely violent

character or an offence involving a particular danger to the life and

health of others and provided he is clearly to be considered as

particularly dangerous to the life and health of others. Such an

offender is considered as a dangerous recidivist (section 1, as amended

by Acts nos. 303/71, 491/71 and 702/91).

      If the Prison Court decides to incarcerate a dangerous

recidivist, he shall immediately be transferred to an institution for

preventive detention in order to serve his imprisonment. The Prison

Court shall reconsider its incarceration order, if the placement of the

recidivist in such an institution is found to be clearly unnecessary

in the light of new information (section 5, subsection 1; section 9,

subsection 1, as amended by Act no. 303/71, and subsection 2).

      If an incarcerated recidivist is sentenced to a further prison

sentence, the enforcement of his total period of imprisonment shall

continue to take place in an institution for preventive detention

(section 13, subsection 1, as amended by Act no. 702/91). An

incarcerated recidivist shall be released on parole only upon having

served his total term of imprisonment, unless the Prison Court still

considers him dangerous to the life or health of others in accordance

with section 1 of the 1953 Act. If he is not released on parole, the

matter shall be re-examined by the Prison Court at least every six

months (sections 14 and 15 of the 1953 Act, both as amended by Act

no. 303/71).

2.    The Prison Court

      The Prison Court shall consist of the Director-General for the

Prison Administration of the Ministry of Justice (oikeusministeriön

vankeinhoito-osasto, justitieministeriets fångvårdsavdelning) or his

Deputy and of four other members appointed by the President of the

Republic for a period of five years. Two of these four members shall

have judicial experience and one of them shall be a physician

experienced in psychiatry. The President and the Vice President of the

Prison Court shall be appointed by the President of the Republic among

the lawyer members of the Court. Members shall swear a judicial oath

(section 5, subsections 2-4 of the 1953 Act).

      As regards the grounds for disqualifying a member and the Prison

Court's deliberations, the provisions of the Code of Judicial Procedure

(Oikeudenkäymiskaari, Rättegångs Balken) relating to courts of appeal

shall be applicable, mutatis mutandis (section 6, subsection 1).

3.    Institutions for preventive detention

      The institution for preventive detention is either a separate

institution or part of another penitentiary (section 10). In view of

the small number of incarcerated recidivists no separate institution

currently exists (circular letter of 2 June 1988 issued by the

Department for Prison Administration). The recidivists shall be grouped

according to their special features and their need for treatment

(section 11, subsection 1 of the 1953 Act). An incarcerated recidivist

shall have the right to enjoy, at his own expense, better food and more

comfort than that normally available in the institution, provided this

would not jeopardise prison order or his safe placement (section 12,

subsection 1).

      Pursuant to the 1971 Decree on the Institution for Preventive

Detention (asetus 448/71 pakkolaitoksesta, förording 448/71 om

tvångsinrättning), such an institution shall have a semi-open, an open

and a closed ward (section 2). The recidivist shall initially be placed

in a semi-open ward, but shall be transferred to an open ward as soon

as he can be expected to adjust to the order and the conditions there

and provided his transfer would not jeopardise his safe placement. The

Prison Court may transfer him to a semi-open ward, if this is

considered necessary for his own security, his safe placement or if,

for some other reason, he cannot adjust to the order and the conditions

in an open ward. A recidivist who refuses to comply with the order or

the conditions in a semi-open ward may be transferred to a closed ward.

In the case of an emergency his transfer can be ordered by the Prison

Board (vankilan johtokunta, fängelsets direktion) and shall be

immediately reviewed by the Prison Court. A recidivist shall not be

kept in a closed ward longer than necessary. His placement there shall

be reviewed by the Prison Court at least every three months (sections

3 and 4). Placement in a specific ward is not subject to appeal.

       A recidivist placed in an open or a semi-open ward shall either

be placed in a single cell or share his cell with other incarcerated

prisoners, consideration being given, as far as possible, to his own

wishes. Unless the Governor of the institution, for particular reasons,

decides otherwise, the recidivist shall be permitted to work with the

other incarcerated prisoners and also to associate with them during his

spare time (section 6).

      A recidivist placed in a closed ward shall have a single cell.

With the Governor's permission he may work and, for particular reasons,

also associate with other incarcerated prisoners during his spare time

(section 8).

      In addition to what is prescribed in the 1971 Decree, chapters 2

and 3 of the 1889 Decree on the Enforcement of Punishments (asetus

39/1889 rangaistusten täytäntöönpanosta, förordning 39/1889 om

verkställighet af straff) shall also be applicable to institutions for

preventive detention and to recidivists placed in such institutions

(section 13, subsection 2 of the 1971 Decree, as amended by Decree

no. 449/75).

      According to the 1889 Decree, a prisoner may be isolated for

security reasons (chapter 3, section 9 of the 1889 Decree, as amended

by Act no. 128/87), for investigatory reasons (chapter 2, section 10c,

subsection 1 of the 1889 Decree, as amended by Act no. 612/74) or for

disciplinary reasons (chapter 2, section 10a of the 1889 Decree, as

amended by Act no. 612/74).

4.    Right to a re-hearing before a court of appeal

      Under chapter 26, section 8 of the Code of Judicial Procedure a

judgment of a court of a lower instance as regards the charges brought

against an accused cannot be amended following a re-evaluation of the

evidence without a re-hearing having been held, unless the sentence

imposed by a court of appeal amounts only to fines or unless a

re-hearing would clearly be unnecessary. In the last-mentioned

assessment special regard shall be had to the interests of the accused.

COMPLAINTS

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

of a breach of the presumption of innocence in the above-mentioned two

sets of criminal proceedings brought against him. He considers that he

was wrongly convicted because he had published a book criticising the

Finnish system of justice.

a.    As regards his conviction of attempted manslaughter, the

applicant submits, more particularly, that it was based merely on the

statement by himself and E., who was himself a co-accused in the case,

as well as on mere circumstantial evidence.

b.    In regard to the second set of criminal proceedings the applicant

considers, more particularly, that his conviction of murder was

principally based on the statements made by R., a witness invoked by

the prosecution who had initially been arrested as a co-suspect. The

applicant also suspects that certain evidence supporting the defence

was omitted from the material presented by the prosecution. The police

investigation which he requested for the purpose of clarifying whether

such evidence existed was concluded only after the Supreme Court's had

refused him leave to appeal. The applicant finally also complains about

the lack of an oral hearing before the Court of Appeal.

2.    The applicant furthermore complains that his incarceration as a

dangerous recidivist has not been ordered by a "court" or "tribunal"

within the meaning of Articles 5 and 6 of the Convention, respectively.

He refers to the close connection between the Prison Court and the

Department of Prison Administration. He also complains under Article 13

of the Convention about the lack of an effective remedy against his

incarceration as ordered by the Prison Court.

3.    The applicant finally complains that his incarceration as a

dangerous recidivist is an inhuman and discriminatory form of

punishment, considering the following elements as a whole. The duration

of the incarceration is indefinite, given the Prison Court's

possibility of prolonging his incarceration after he has served the

total term of imprisonment based on the sentences imposed by the

ordinary courts. His everyday conditions have allegedly been

arbitrarily decided by the prison authorities. The incarceration has

also resulted in a certain degree of solitude. Moreover, he has to wear

a prison uniform different from that worn by prisoners who have not

been incarcerated as dangerous recidivists. His right to work in the

prison as well as his freedom of movement within the prison area have

also been more restricted in comparison with other prisoners, or has

been non-existent. He suspects that his incarceration has been ordered

as a result of his criticism notably of the Director of the Prison

Department and a justice of the Supreme Court. The applicant states

that the first-mentioned official is a member of the Prison Court and

that the Supreme Court justice acts as President thereof. The applicant

invokes Article 3 of the Convention as well as Article 14 in

conjunction with Articles 3 and 9.

THE LAW

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

Convention of a breach of the presumption of innocence in the two sets

of criminal proceedings against him.

      The Commission has examined this complaint under Article 6

paras. 1, 2 and 3 (Art. 6-1, 6-2, 6-3) which, in so far as they are

relevant, read as follows:

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

      against him, everyone is entitled to a fair and public

      hearing ... by [a] ... tribunal ...

      2.   Everyone charged with a criminal offence shall be

      presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law.

      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;

      ...

      d.   to examine or have examined witnesses against him and

      to obtain the attendance and examination of witnesses on

      his behalf under the same conditions as witnesses against

      him; ..."

      As the requirements of Article 6 para. 3 (Art. 6-3) represent

particular aspects of the right to a fair trial guaranteed in Article

6 para. 1 (Art. 6-1), the Commission has examined the application from

the point of view of these two provisions taken together (e.g., Eur.

Court H.R., Lüdi judgment of 15 June 1992, Series A no. 238, p. 20,

para. 43), also bearing in mind the presumption of innocence guaranteed

by Article 6 para. 2 (Art. 6-2).

      Before turning to the respective sets of criminal proceedings at

issue, the Commission recalls that it is normally not competent to deal

with a complaint alleging that errors of law and fact have been

committed by domestic courts. An exception could only be made where the

Commission considers that such errors might have involved a possible

violation of any of the rights and freedoms set out in the Convention

or one of its Protocols, for instance in that a judgment has no legal

justification and thereby violates a party's right to receive a fair

trial (cf. Eur. Court H.R., De Moor judgment of 23 June 1994, Series

A no. 292-A, p. 18, para. 55; No. 7987/77, Dec. 13.12.79, D.R. 18

pp. 31, 45). As a general rule, however, it is for the domestic courts

to assess the evidence before them, in particular since they have the

benefit of hearing witnesses and assessing their credibility

(e.g., Eur. Court H.R., Klaas judgment of 22 September 1993, Series A

no. 269-A, pp. 17-18, paras. 29-30). The Commission's task is to

ascertain whether the proceedings, considered as a whole, including the

way in which evidence was taken and submitted, were fair (e.g., the

above-mentioned Lüdi judgment, loc.cit.). It follows that the

Commission cannot examine whether or not the applicant was guilty or

innocent of the offences of which he was convicted.

a.    As regards the first set of criminal proceedings against the

applicant, the Commission observes, more particularly, that his

conviction was based on an assessment of a significant amount of

corroborative circumstantial and forensic evidence. The material

submitted to the Commission does not call the findings of the Court of

Appeal into question. The Commission furthermore notes that the

applicant was assisted by counsel throughout the domestic proceedings

and finds no indication that he was at any time prevented from

questioning the witnesses appearing before the Court of Appeal or

otherwise challenging the evidence invoked by the prosecution.

      Having assessed all elements of this set of proceedings, in

particular as regards the way in which evidence was taken and

submitted, the Commission finds no indication that the applicant was

denied a fair trial within the meaning of Article 6 paras. 1 and 3 of

the Convention or that the presumption of innocence guaranteed by

Article 6 para. 2 (Art. 6-2) was breached.

b.    As regards the second set of criminal proceedings against the

applicant, the Commission observes that his conviction of murder was

based on an assessment of a significant amount of testimonial and

forensic evidence. The material submitted to the Commission does not

call the findings of the City Court and the Court of Appeal into

question. The Commission furthermore notes that the applicant was

assisted by counsel throughout the domestic proceedings and finds no

indication that he was at any time prevented from questioning the

witnesses appearing before the City Court or otherwise challenging the

evidence invoked by the prosecution.

      The Commission futhermore finds no indication that evidence

supporting the defence and available at the relevant time was omitted

from the material presented by the prosecution. Nor can it find that

the police investigation requested by the applicant for the purpose of

clarifying whether certain further evidence existed was deliberately

delayed to his detriment. In addition, there is no indication that the

applicant has been prevented from requesting a re-opening of the

proceedings with reference to any fresh evidence allegedly supporting

the defense.

      As finally regards the lack of an oral hearing before the Court

of Appeal, the Commission recalls Finland's reservation to Article 6

(Art. 6) which reads, in so far as relevant, as follows:

      "For the time being, Finland cannot guarantee a right to an

      oral hearing in so far as the current Finnish laws do not

      provide such a right. This applies to:

      1. proceedings before the Courts of Appeal ... in

      accordance with chapter 26 [section] 7 ..., of the Code of

      Judicial Procedure ..."

      The Commission observes that under chapter 26, section 8 of the

Code of Judicial Procedure a judgment of a court of a lower instance

as regards the charges brought against an accused cannot be amended

following a re-evaluation of the evidence without a re-hearing having

been held, unless the sentence imposed by a court of appeal amounts

only to fines or unless a re-hearing would clearly be unnecessary. In

the applicant's case the City Court's judgment of 4 June 1992 was not

amended and he was thus not entitled to a re-hearing under Finnish law.

In the light of Finland's reservation and this fact the Commission

therefore considers that this aspect of the complaint raises no issue

under Article 6 (Art. 6).

      Having assessed all elements of this set of proceedings, in

particular as regards the way in which evidence was taken and

submitted, and taking into account Finland's reservation, the

Commission finds no indication that the applicant was denied a fair

trial within the meaning of Article 6 paras. 1 and 3 (Art. 6-1, 6-3)

of the Convention or that the presumption of innocence guaranteed by

Article 6 para. 2 (Art. 6-2) was breached.

c.    It follows that this complaint must as a whole be rejected as

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

(Art. 27-2) of the Convention.

2.    The applicant furthermore complains that his incarceration as a

dangerous recidivist has not been ordered by a "court" or "tribunal"

within the meaning of Articles 5 (Art. 5) and 6 (Art. 6) of the

Convention, respectively. He also complains under Article 13 (Art. 13)

of the Convention about the lack of an effective remedy against his

incarceration by the Prison Court.

a.    The Commission considers that the complaint concerning the status

of the body ordering the applicant's incarceration falls to be examined

under Article 5 para. 1 (a) (Art. 5-1-a) of the Convention. This

provision reads as follows:

      "Everyone has the right to liberty and security of person.

      No one shall be deprived of his liberty save in the

      following cases and in accordance with a procedure

      prescribed by law:

      a. the lawful detention of a person after conviction by a

      competent court; ..."

      The Commission recalls that in order for detention after

conviction to be lawful within the meaning of Article 5 para. 1 (a)

(Art. 5-1-a) of the Convention, it must result from, follow and depend

upon, or occur by virtue of a "conviction by a competent court". In

short, there must be a sufficient causal connection between the

conviction and the deprivation of liberty at issue (Eur. Court H.R.,

Weeks judgment of 2 March 1987, Series A no. 114, p. 23, para. 42).

      The Commission observes that the applicant's present imprisonment

is based on a number of convictions by ordinary courts, whose

competence within the meaning of Article 5 para. 1 (a) (Art. 5-1-a) has

not been challenged by him. On the basis of those convictions and the

sentences imposed on the applicant the ordinary courts went on to

authorise his incarceration as a dangerous recidivist in an institution

for preventive detention.

      It is true that under section 15 of the 1953 Act the Prison Court

may order that the applicant should remain in preventive detention once

he has served his full prison term. There is no indication, however,

that such an order has been issued at present. In these circumstances

the Commission considers that the decisions of the Prison Court which

the applicant now complains of relate merely to the implementation of

his present term of imprisonment as based on the sentences imposed by

the ordinary courts. Accordingly, there is, at least for the time

being, a sufficient causal connection between the applicant's

convictions and his incarceration as a dangerous recidivist. This

aspect of the complaint therefore discloses no appearance of a

violation of Article 5 (Art. 5) of the Convention.

b.    The Commission finds no separate issue under Article 13 (Art. 13)

of the Convention.

c.    It follows that this complaint must as a whole be rejected as

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

(Art. 27-2) of the Convention.

3.    The applicant finally complains that his incarceration as a

dangerous recidivist is an inhuman and discriminatory form of

punishment, considering a number of elements referred to by him. He

invokes Article 3 (Art. 3) of the Convention as well as Article 14 in

conjunction with Articles 3 and 9 (Art. 14+3+9).

a.    The Commission has first examined the complaint under Article 3

(Art. 3) of the Convention which reads as follows:

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

      degrading treatment or punishment."

      The Commission recalls that ill-treatment must attain a minimum

level of severity if it is to fall within the scope of Article 3

(Art. 3). The assessment of this minimum is relative and must take

account of all the circumstances of the case, including the duration

of the treatment, its physical and mental effects and, in some cases,

the sex, age and state of health of the person subjected to it (e.g.,

Eur. Court H.R., Ireland v. the United Kingdom judgment of 18 January

1978, Series A no. 25, p. 65, para. 162). In order for a punishment to

be in breach of Article 3, the humiliation or debasement involved must

attain a particular level and must in any event be other than the usual

element of humiliation associated with imprisonment after a criminal

conviction. Such an examination is also relative and depends on all the

circumstances of the case and, in particular, on the nature and context

of the punishment itself and the manner and method of its execution

(Eur. Court H.R., Tyrer judgment of 25 April 1978, Series A no. 26,

p. 15, para. 30).

      The Commission observes that as a dangerous recidivist the

applicant is not eligible to be released on parole before he has served

his total term of imprisonment as imposed by the ordinary courts. The

Commission recalls, however, that a lengthy prison sentence or a

combination of prison sentences does not in itself raise any issue

under Article 3 (Art. 3) of the Convention, nor does the Convention

secure any right to be released on parole (No. 14610/89, Dec. 7.91,

D.R. 71 pp. 168-221, at p. 191). The Commission cannot therefore find

that the Prison Court's discretionary power of prolonging the

applicant's incarceration after he has served his present prison terms

could, at least not at present, raise an issue under Article 3

(Art. 3).

      The Commission furthermore recalls that the segregation of a

prisoner from the prison community does not in itself constitute a form

of inhuman or degrading treatment. Whilst prolonged removal of a person

from association with others is undesirable, the question whether such

a measure is contrary to Article 3 (Art. 3) of the Convention depends

on the particular conditions of its application, including its

stringency, duration and purpose, as well as its effects on the person

concerned. The removal of a prisoner from association with fellow

inmates for security, disciplinary or protective reasons does not

normally amount to inhuman treatment or punishment (cf., e.g., Bouajila

v. Switzerland, Comm. Report 1.7.93, paras. 102-104, to be published;

Dhoest v. Belgium, Comm. Report 14.5.87, paras. 116-118, D.R. 55 pp.

5-50, at pp. 20-21, with further references, and the above-mentioned

No. 14610/89, pp. 190-191, with further references).

      The Commission finds no substantiation of the applicant's

complaint that his prison conditions, including his isolation, have

been arbitrarily decided. In assessing the applicant's everyday

conditions the Commission has also had regard to the CPT's report of

1 April 1993, as well as the respondent Government's interim and

follow-up reports concerning the relevant ward of the Helsinki Central

Prison (see the Appendix). It considers, however, that the fact that

one of the applicant's cells was located partly underground is not

sufficient to raise an issue under Article 3 (Art. 3) (see

No. 20560/92, Dec. 30.8.94, not published).

      Finally, the Commission observes that under section 12 of the

1953 Act the applicant, having been classified as a dangerous

recidivist, has the right to enjoy, at his own expense, better food and

more comfort than that normally available, provided this would not

jeopardise prison order or his safe placement.

      Having made an overall assessment of the elements inherent in the

applicant's incarceration as well as of his everyday prison conditions,

the Commission concludes that they do not disclose any appearance of

a violation of Article 3 (Art. 3) of the Convention.

b.    The Commission has next examined the complaint under Article 14

of the Convention in conjunction with Article 3 (Art.14+3). Article 14

(Art. 14) reads as follows:

      "The enjoyment of the rights and freedoms set forth in this

      Convention shall be secured without discrimination on any

      ground such as sex, race, colour, language, religion,

      political or other opinion, national or social origin,

      association with a national minority, property, birth or

      other status."

      The Commission accepts that the applicant, having been classified

as a dangerous recidivist, has been treated differently from ordinary

prisoners. However, because of this classification, he is not in a

situation comparable to that of ordinary prisoners. Accordingly, there

is no appearance of any violation of Article 14 in conjunction with

Article 3 (Art. 14+3).

c.    The applicant also alleges that his incarceration discriminates

against him on account of his opinions as expressed in a book. The

Commission has examined this complaint under Article 14 of the

Convention in conjunction with Article 10 para. 1 (Art. 14+10-1) which,

in so far as relevant, reads as follows:

      "Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. This

      right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to ...

      impart information and ideas without interference by public

      authority ...".

      The Commission recalls at the outset that the applicant's

incarceration has been ordered by the Prison Court on the basis of

judgments authorising such a measure. These authorisations have been

issued in view of his recidivism. The Commission finds no indication

that the applicant's incarceration is discriminatory on account of his

personal opinions. Accordingly, there is no appearance of any violation

of Article 14 in conjunction with Article 10 (Art. 14+10) either.

d.    It follows that this complaint must as a whole 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.

      Acting Secretary                            President

    to the First Chamber                    of the First Chamber

         (S. DOLLÉ)                            (C.L. ROZAKIS)

                               APPENDIX

      EXTRACTS FROM THE REPORT OF THE EUROPEAN COMMITTEE FOR THE

PREVENTION OF TORTURE AND INHUMAN OR DEGRADING TREATMENT OR

                 PUNISHMENT ("THE CPT") OF 1 APRIL 1993

      [As regards solitary confinement, notably in the Helsinki Central

      Prison; pp. 28-31:]

      "...

      69.  Reference has already been made to the large number of

      prisoners in Helsinki Central Prison who had requested to be

      placed in solitary confinement... . The prisoners concerned were

      accommodated in the isolation unit of the prison, which also

      housed those who had been placed in non-voluntary solitary

      confinement (including prisoners classified as dangerous

      recidivists - cf. paragraph 77) and inmates undergoing the

      disciplinary penalty of cellular confinement.

      The CPT has serious reservations about both the material

      conditions in this unit and the regime applied to prisoners

      placed there for non-disciplinary reasons.

      70.  The isolation unit was located in the 'day cells' wing in

      the prison. Most of the cells contained only a platform bed and

      a lavatory - both made of concrete. Four of the cells had been

      converted to accommodate prisoners thought to be especially

      dangerous and likely to be held in solitary confinement for

      extended periods. Material conditions in those cells were of a

      slightly higher standard. None of the cells possessed any storage

      space, with the result that the limited range of personal

      possessions allowed to prisoners tended to be left strewn on the

      floor.

      Many of the cells were in an unhygienic condition and some were

      extremely dirty. The condition of the in-cell lavatories also

      left a great deal to be desired. In this respect, it should be

      noted that the lavatories could only be flushed from outside the

      cell and prisoners alleged that their requests for this to be

      done were frequently ignored by the staff.

      71.  In short, the material conditions of detention in the

      isolation unit at Helsinki Central Prison were poor.

      ...

      72.  The delegation [of the CPT] discussed the regime provided

      in the isolation unit with staff and prisoners there. It emerged

      that the inmates' activities consisted of reading and writing in

      their cells, together with one hour of outdoor exercise each day,

      when they might be allowed to associate with the other prisoners

      from the unit. No work was available, even in the cells, and no

      group association or sporting activities were provided. To sum

      up, the vast majority of prisoners spent their time alone in

      their cells, with little to occupy them. Given the extended

      periods for which persons may be held under voluntary or

      non-voluntary segregation, the regime which was offered to them

      cannot be regarded as acceptable.

      73.  It is generally acknowledged 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. The

      delegation found that the regime applied in the solitary

      confinement unit in Helsinki Central Prison did not provide such

      stimulation.

      ...

      77.  Finally, reference should be made to the small number of

      [dangerous recidivists] (nine at the time of the visit) subject

      to the terms of [the 1953 Act]. ...

      78.  The delegation was informed that such prisoners were often

      held for very long periods under a solitary confinement-type

      regime. ..."

      [With regard to the material conditions of detention in the

      Helsinki Central Prison; p. 32:]

      79.  "[The prison] provided accommodation for inmates in two

      areas, referred to as the 'day cells' and 'night cells' sections.

      ... The ground floor of the 'day cells' east wing contained the

      isolation unit ... . The prison was not overcrowded and prisoners

      lived one to a cell throughout the establishment.

      80.  Most of the cells were of a reasonable size (up to 9 m2),

      acceptably furnished (bed, table, chair, wardrobe and bookshelf)

      and benefited from adequate lighting and sanitation. However, it

      would be preferable for sanitation facilities to be partitioned

      off from the living areas in the cells.

      ...

      83.  ...   [G]enerally, the delegation was struck by the poor

      general state of repair of the prison; further, some areas were

      extremely dirty.

      ..."

                                 ****

  EXTRACTS FROM THE RESPONSE OF THE FINNISH GOVERNMENT TO THE REPORT

OF THE CPT  (DATED 26 AUGUST 1993)

      [With regard to solitary confinement; pp. 34-35:]

      "... The isolation unit of Helsinki Central Prison is located in

      the section of day cells east where renovations will begin in

      1994. The cells used for solitary confinement will have to be

      rebuilt to meet reasonable standards for the accommodation of

      prisoners. ...

      The Prison Administration Department will during the current year

      issue new instructions on the application of chapter 3, section

      9 of [the 1889 Decree] concerning solitary confinement, taking

      into account the recommendation by the CPT for informing the

      prisoner in writing of the reasons for solitary confinement.

      The prisoner is heard before any decision is taken on solitary

      confinement. ..."

      [With regard to the Helsinki Central Prison; pp. 45-47:]

      "... The building which houses the cells at Helsinki Central

      Prison will be fully renovated in the years to come. ... The

      areas to be rebuilt will be fitted with central heating and

      automatic ventilation. Most of the cells will be fitted with

      toilets and wash-basins, some also with a shower. The furniture

      will be: bed, chair, desk, bookshelf, two lockers and notice

      board. The technical equipment will be: central heating, hot and

      cold water, automatic ventilation, fire alarm, call system,

      receiver for PA system, tv antenna, overhead light, and

      reading-lamp.

      ...

      [p. 75:]

      "... Renovation of the part of Helsinki Central Prison with

      isolation cells will begin next year. The CPT's comment can be

      accommodated in that process. ..."

                                 ****

    EXTRACTS FROM THE FOLLOW-UP REPORT OF THE FINNISH GOVERNMENT IN

RESPONSE TO THE REPORT OF THE CPT (DATED 18 FEBRUARY 1994)

      [With regard to the conditions of detention in the Helsinki

      Central Prison; pp. 14-18:]

      "... In Helsinki Central Prison, the renovation of day cells west

      was completed recently. ...

      The isolation unit is located in the day cells east where

      renovation will begin in 1994. The CPT's recommendations will be

      taken into account in the renovation of the cells of the

      isolation unit. Some day cells north are being repaired to house

      a temporary isolation unit. The cells used for solitary

      confinement as a disciplinary measure have been furnished as

      recommended by the CPT.

      ...

      Instructions, regarding solitary confinement, on the application

      of chapter 3 section 9 of [the 1889 Decree] are being revised to

      accommodate the CPT's recommendation for informing prisoners in

      writing of the reasons for solitary confinement.

      ..."