AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF

                      Application No. 21780/93

                      by T. V.

                      against Finland

      The European Commission of Human Rights (First Chamber) sitting in

private on 2 March 1994, the following members being present:

           MM.   A. WEITZEL, President

                 F. ERMACORA

                 E. BUSUTTIL

                 A.S. GÖZÜBÜYÜK

           Mrs.  J. LIDDY

           MM.   M.P. PELLONPÄÄ

                 B. MARXER

                 G.B. REFFI

                 B. CONFORTI

                 N. BRATZA

                 I. BÉKÉS

                 E. KONSTANTINOV

           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 11 February 1993 by

T. V. against Finland and registered on 29 April 1993 under file No.

21780/93;

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

Procedure of the Commission;

      Having regard to :

-     the observations submitted by the respondent Government on 26 August

      1993 and the observations in reply submitted by the applicant on 17

      October 1993;

-     the information submitted by the respondent Government on

      16 February 1994 and the comments in reply submitted by the

      applicant on 24 February 1994;

      Having deliberated;

      Decides as follows:

THE FACTS

      The applicant is a Finnish citizen born in 1948 and currently

serving a prison sentence at the Central Prison of Turku. He is

represented by Mr. Markku Fredman, a lawyer practising in Helsinki.

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

summarised as follows.

Particular circumstances of the case

      (a)  The initial disclosure of the applicant's HIV-positivity

      In 1990 the applicant was charged with, inter alia, manslaughter and

desecration of a corpse through sexual intercourse. At the first hearing

before the City Court (raastuvanoikeus, rådstuvurätten) of Helsinki on

1 March 1990 both the applicant and the lawyer of the victim requested

that the proceedings take place behind closed doors and that the

documents in the case be ordered to be kept confidential. The City Court

ordered that the proceedings be conducted behind closed doors and that

the documents be kept confidential, but only until the end of the

proceedings before the City Court.

      At the City Court's request an opinion on the applicant's mental

state was submitted in November 1990, indicating, inter alia, that he was

carrying the HIV-virus. The applicant requested that the opinion not be

attached to the minutes of the City Court, but be added to the documents.

The City Court decided, however, to attach the opinion to its minutes.

It thereby became public in connection with its judgment of

29 November 1990, whereby it convicted the applicant and sentenced him

to nine years', one month's and twenty days' imprisonment.

      The applicant appealed against his conviction to the Court of Appeal

(hovioikeus, hovrätten) of Helsinki, but not against the City Court's

failure to order the opinion on his mental state to be kept confidential

nor against the refusal to include it in the documents only.

      On 4 April 1991 the Court of Appeal rejected the applicant's appeal.

He then requested leave to appeal, again without challenging the failure

to order the opinion on his mental state to be kept confidential or the

refusal to include it in the documents only.

      On 24 July 1991 the Supreme Court (korkein oikeus, högsta domstolen)

refused leave to appeal.

      In her decision of 22 December 1992 the Deputy Parliamentary

Ombudsman (eduskunnan apulaisoikeusasiamies, riksdagens biträdande

justitieombudsman) considered that the including of the applicant's HIV-

positivity in the opinion on his mental state could not be considered

necessary, as his HIV-positivity had not affected his criminal

responsibility.

      (b)  The applicant's stay in the Turku Central Prison from

           22 August 1991 to 23 March 1993

      As from 22 August 1991 the applicant was placed in the Central

Prison of Turku. The applicant visited medical clinics outside this

prison at least on 19 and 21 August, 2 and 30 September, 7 October,

25 November and 9 December 1992 and 13 January as well as 7, 8 and

9 September 1993. As he was accompanied by one or several guards, he was

refused permission to have medical consultations in private at the

clinics.

      In response to a petition by the applicant the Department for Prison

Administration of the Ministry of Justice (oikeusministeriön

vankeinhoito-osasto, justitieministeriets fångvårdsavdelning) on

17 January 1992 assured the applicant that information regarding his

HIV-positivity was not being disclosed to third parties. The Department

pointed out that during every visit to clinics outside the Central Prison

of Turku the applicant had been accompanied by the same guard, who had

not even been allowed to inform other guards of the applicant's disease.

      In response to a further petition by the applicant the Department

for Prison Administration on 2 March 1992 considered that the applicant

could be properly treated in the prison and by paying visits to clinics

outside the prison area. Thus, there was no reason to transfer him

outside the prison for permanent treatment.

      On 27 April 1992 the applicant was, at his own request, placed in

the isolation ward of the Western wing of the prison. This ward is

primarily intended for prisoners serving a disciplinary punishment.

Prisoners requesting a solitary cell are not placed in this ward, unless

the Chief Warden gives his approval. Only a few prisoners are

occasionally placed in this section. The ward has been renovated and is

more attractive than the unrenovated section with day cells in the

Northern wing, where prisoners requesting placement in a solitary cell

are usually placed. The door to the applicant's cell was always locked.

The cell had a toilet and a window, but no wash basin. He was, however,

permitted to shower every day. The applicant was only permitted to leave

his cell for a reason such as exercising, seeing an prison official,

bathing, taking a shower or for the distribution of food. He was not

permitted to associate with fellow prisoners on the common premises or

otherwise participate in leisure time activities, but could attend

religious services. One hour was reserved for daily exercise.

      On 16 July 1992 the applicant was transferred within the isolation

ward to the so-called security cell in order to provide better

conditions. The cell is equipped with a security gate, a  toilet, a wash

basin and a bigger window. The cell door could, under certain conditions,

be left open. Otherwise the normal conditions at the isolation ward

applied.

      In response to further petitions by the applicant the Department for

Prison Administration on 27 and 28 July and 25 August 1992 found that his

treatment was being implemented according to the instructions given by

the University Hospital of Turku. His transfer was therefore considered

unnecessary.

      On 6 September 1992 the applicant lodged a further petition with the

Department for Prison Administration, complaining, inter alia, of lack

of adequate facilities to have his hair cut. In its decision of

19 October 1992 the Department found no reason to take further measures,

as the Central Prison of Turku had informed the Department that such

facilities would be arranged.

      In response to a further petition by the applicant the Department

for Prison Administration reiterated its view that the applicant's

treatment in the Central Prison of Turku had been adequate.

      (c)  The applicant's stay in the Prisoners' Hospital from 23 March

           to 10 May 1993

      On 23 March 1993 the applicant was transferred to the Prisoners'

Hospital at Hämeenlinna, where he was, at his own request, placed in a

separate room intended for patients needing special care. His request was

based on his strong suspicions that his illness would otherwise be

disclosed to fellow patients. The room has its own toilet and shower.

      In a medical report of 25 March 1993 the applicant was found to be

somewhat paranoid, largely preoccupied with other prisoners learning

about his illness. The report did not conclude that he was in need of any

specific treatment and indicated that the applicant had consented to

surveillance staff being informed of his disease. Such consent only

applies to the staff of the Prison Hospital and does not entitle staff

to inform staff at another institution.

      On 20 April 1993 the applicant was transferred to a regular patient

room, which had a toilet, but no wash basin. The applicant had access to

a common shower.

       No special restrictions were imposed on the applicant in the

hospital.

      The Prison Hospital employs prisoners for cleaning work including

changing linens soiled with blood and other secretions. To this end,

prisoners are provided with and advised to use protective gloves. They

are not informed of the patients' state of health.

      Up to the spring of 1993 the Prisoners' Hospital would indicate

diseases communicable through blood with a yellow triangle in the patient

card. Staff members surveying prisoners' state of health could thereby

know which prisoners suffered from such a disease and ensure that laundry

and equipment relating to a such a prisoner be treated separately.

      According to the Government, the triangles were only indicated in

the binders with the patient cards and not accessible to the patients

themselves. According to the applicant, his patient card could

occasionally be seen by anyone in the hospital corridors.

      As from spring of 1993 any prisoner carrying a disease communicable

through blood receives a special laundry bag and is requested to put any

laundry soiled with blood or other secretions into this. Such laundry is

washed separately.

      The hospital guards are being warned of diseases communicable

through blood and indicate such diseases with a yellow triangle in their

personal patient cards.

      (d)  The applicant's present stay in the Central Prison of Turku

      On 10 May 1993 the applicant was transferred to the Central Prison

of Turku, where he was, at his own request, placed in the previously

mentioned security cell in the isolation ward. The reason for the

transfer to Turku was his need to undergo further examinations at the

University Hospital of Turku.

      In her decision of 18 August 1993 the Deputy Parliamentary Ombudsman

found no reason to criticise the applicant's treatment in the Central

Prison of Turku and the Prisoners' Hospital.

      According to an indication in the applicant's file valid up to

15 September 1993, the applicant had once made an attempt to escape.

Following a petition by the applicant the Prison Governor on

15 September 1993 nullified the indication as erroneous.

      According to a medical report of 9 September 1993 the applicant's

disease appears to have reached the final stage of AIDS.

      (e)  Clothing practice

      During his visits to clinics outside the Central Prison of Turku the

applicant wore the regular, brown two-piece prison outfit with a grey

collar. There exists no special prison outfit for visits outside the

prison area, but generally a well-kept prison outfit is reserved for such

occasions. The guard escorting the applicant during the visits wore a

uniform.

      In her decision of 25 January 1991 the Deputy Parliamentary

Ombudsman considered that the applicant's obligation to wear prison

clothes while visiting medical clinics outside the prison area could be

based on domestic law and a circular letter issued by the Department for

Prison Administration.

      (f)  The handling of the applicant's correspondence

      When receiving letters with a cover note the applicant acknowledges

receipt of it in writing and the acknowledgement is added to his file.

Letters arriving without a cover note are not being registered.

      Letters sent by the applicant are not being registered.

Relevant domestic law and regulations of lower rank

      (a)  Publicity of documents

      According to the 1951 Act on the Publicity of Official Documents

(laki 83/51 yleisten asiakirjain julkisuudesta; lag 83/51 om allmänna

handlingars offentlighet, hereinafter "the 1951 Act") official documents

are public (Chapter 1, Section 1). They include, inter alia, documents

drawn up and issued by an authority as well as documents submitted to an

authority and which are still in that authority's possession (Section 2,

para. 1).

      Everyone shall have access to a public, official document (Section

6, as amended by Act no. 739/88). An exception is made, inter alia, for

medical and similar reports, which are accessible to the public only

following the consent of the person they relate to

(Chapter 3, Section 17). Documents may also be regarded as confidential

as a result of the obligation of a civil servant to observe secrecy (see

below).

      (b)  Publicity of court proceedings

      The publicity of court proceedings is governed by the 1984 Act on

the Publicity of Court Proceedings (laki 945/84 oikeudenkäynnin

julkisuudesta, lag 945/84 om offentlighet vid rättegång).

      The court may, at the request of a party or for another weighty

reason, decide to hold an oral hearing either entirely or partly in the

absence of the public (Section 5). The publicity of documents submitted

in the course of court proceedings is normally governed by the 1951 Act.

However, if an oral hearing has been entirely or partly held in the

absence of the public or if, during such a hearing, a document or

information which should be kept confidential has been submitted, the

court may decide that the documents in the case be kept confidential for

up to forty years (Section 9, subsections 1 and 2).

      No separate appeal lies against a decision made under the 1984 Act

(Section 11).

      (c)  The obligation of prison staff to observe secrecy

      The obligation of prison staff to observe secrecy is prescribed in

the Civil Servants Act (valtion virkamieslaki 755/86,

statstjänstemannalag 755/86). A civil servant may not without permission

disclose information which he has received knowledge of in office and

which is, inter alia, prescribed or ordered to be kept confidential or

which concerns a person's state of health (Chapter 5, Section 23).

      Under the 1986 Decree on the Prison Administration (asetus 134/86

vankeinhoitolaitoksesta, förordning 134/86 om fångvårdsväsendet,

hereinafter "the 1986 Decree") a prison staff member shall not disclose

such information to prisoners which could, inter alia, jeopardise a

private interest. Moreover, he may not without a valid reason disclose

information regarding, inter alia, a prisoner to others, not even to

another civil servant who does not need the information in his office

(Chapter 2, Section 32, paras. 1 and 6).

      (d)  Treatment of prisoners

      Under the 1975 Decree on the Treatment of Prisoners (vankein-

hoitoasetus 431/75, fångvårdsförordning 431/75, hereinafter "the 1975

Decree") prisoners shall be treated fairly and with respect for their

dignity (Chapter 1, Section 5, subsection 1 as well as Section 31, para.

2 of the 1986 Decree).

      Under the 1889 Decree on the Enforcement of Punishments (asetus

39/1889 rangaistusten täytäntöönpanosta, förordning 39/1889 om

verkställighet af straff, hereinafter "the 1889 Decree") prisoners shall

be placed inter alia with regard to their state of health (Chapter 3,

Section 2) either in individual cells or in a cell with several

prisoners, if possible having regard to their own wishes. A prisoner may

be kept separately from other prisoners (Section 3, as amended by Act no.

128/87).

      Under a circular letter issued by the Department for Prison

Administration on 26 March 1980 a prisoner may, if not for disciplinary

reasons, only be placed in solitary confinement for his own protection,

if he fears living with fellow prisoners or if he puts forward another

acceptable reason for his request. Such a prisoner shall primarily be

placed in another section than the isolation ward. His conditions in

isolation shall interfere as little as possible with his physical and

mental health. As regards the surveillance of his physical and mental

health, the same rules apply as for prisoners placed in isolation for

disciplinary reasons.

      (e)  Prison clothing

      A prisoner shall be allowed to wear his own clothes, if these are

in a good condition and provided no apparent risk of him escaping could

be caused thereby (Chapter 2, Section 7 of the 1889 Decree). If a

prisoner is to appear before a court he shall, whenever necessary, be

provided with suitable clothes clearly distinguishable from his prison

clothes. He may, however, also be provided with such clothes for other

visits outside the prison area (Chapter 4, Section 12 of the 1975

Decree).

      Detailed instructions on a prisoner's clothing are to be found in

circular letters issued by the Prison Department of the Ministry of

Justice.

      (f)  The handling of prisoners' correspondence

      According to the Constitution Act (Suomen hallitusmuoto 94/19,

Regeringsform för Finland 94/19) there shall be no interference with the

right of a Finnish citizen to respect for his correspondence, unless

exceptions are made by law (Chapter 2, Section 12).

      A prisoner's correspondence may be screened (Chapter 2, Section 9

of the 1889 Decree and Chapter 9, Section 49 of the 1975 Decree).

However, according to a directive of 26 February 1991 issued by the

Department for Prison Administration a prisoner's correspondence inter

alia with the European Commission of Human Rights shall not be screened.

This prohibition has been upheld in a subsequent directive of

2 November 1992.

      (g)  Remedies under domestic law against acts of civil servants

      According to Chapter 10, Section 93, subsection 2 of the

Constitution Act, anyone who has suffered an infringement of his rights,

or damage, through an illegal act or negligence on the part of a civil

servant, is entitled to demand that the civil servant be convicted and

held liable for damages, or to report him for the purposes of having

charges brought against him. Under the Tort Liability Act (vahingon-

korvauslaki 412/74, skadeståndslag 412/74) damage proceedings may also

be instituted against the State for actions taken by civil servants

(Chapters 3 and 4).

      A prisoner may complain of his treatment to the Prison Governor or

the Prison Board (vankilan johtokunta, fängelsedirektion) and of their

decisions to the Department for Prison Administration. He can also turn

to the Parliamentary Ombudsman, whose special obligation is to supervise

compliance with the law in prisons.

COMPLAINTS

      The applicant complains under Articles 3 and 8 of the Convention of

the degrading implementation of his prison sentence. He alleges

      (a) that his HIV-positivity was disclosed due to the City Court's

failure to order the opinion on his mental state to be kept confidential;

      (b)  that the decision of the Deputy Ombudsman had the effect of

further disclosing his HIV-positivity to the public (this complaint

having been made in the applicant's observations of 17 October 1993);

      (c) that staff members of the Central Prison of Turku and the

Prisoners' Hospital have been informed of his HIV-positivity and that

they have further disclosed, and continue to disclose, such information

to others;

      (d) that he has received inadequate treatment in general, having

been forced to request placement in isolation and, in particular, that

he has received inadequate medical treatment;

      (e) that he has been refused permission to have private

consultations with doctors when visiting the clinics outside the prison

area;

      (f) that he has been forced to wear normal prison clothes while

visiting medical clinics outside the Central Prison of Turku and the

Prisoners' Mental Hospital; and

      (g) that letters from the Commission have been screened by prison

officials.

      In his observations of 17 October 1993 relating to the allegedly

inadequate, other than medical, treatment the applicant further refers

to the lack of adequate facilities enabling him to have his hair cut in

the Central Prison of Turku. Allegedly, the prison employs no barber,

with the effect that the prisoners cut each other's hair. This often

results in scars and the scissors are not always properly washed. As the

applicant does not wish to subject his fellow prisoners to the risk of

being contaminated by HIV, he is being forced to cut his hair himself.

PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE COMMISSION

      The application was introduced on 11 February 1993 and registered

on 29 April 1993.

      On 30 June 1993 the Commission decided to bring the application to

the notice of the Government and to invite them to submit written

observations on the admissibility and merits of the case, with the

exception of the applicant's complaint under Article 3 of the Convention

as far as relating to his allegedly inadequate medical treatment and the

refusal to allow him to have medical consultations in private during his

visits to clinics outside the prison area.

      The Government's observations were submitted on 26 August 1993 and

the applicant's comments in reply on 17 October 1993.

      On 7 September 1993 the Commission granted the applicant legal

aid.

      On 27 January 1994 the Government were requested to submit certain

further factual information pertaining to elements of the applicant's

observations in reply. This information was submitted on 16 February 1994

and the applicant's comments in reply on 24 February 1994.

THE LAW

      The applicant complains under Articles 3 and 8 (Art. 3, 8) of the

Convention of the degrading implementation of his prison sentence. He

alleges

      (a) that his HIV-positivity was disclosed due to the City Court's

failure to order the opinion on his mental state to be kept confidential;

      (b)  that the decision of the Deputy Ombudsman had the effect of

further disclosing his HIV-positivity to the public (this complaint

having been made in the applicant's observations of 17 October 1993);

      (c) that staff members of the Central Prison of Turku and the

Prisoners' Hospital have been informed of his HIV-positivity and that

they have further disclosed, and continue to disclose, such information

to others;

      (d) that he has received inadequate treatment in general, having

been forced to request placement in isolation, and, in particular, that

he has received inadequate medical treatment;

      (e) that he has been refused permission to have private

consultations with doctors when visiting medical clinics outside the

prison area;

      (f) that he has been forced to wear normal prison clothes while

visiting medical clinics outside the prison area; and

      (g) that letters from the Commission have been screened by prison

officials.

      In his observations of 17 October 1993 relating to the allegedly

inadequate treatment in general the applicant further refers to the lack

of adequate facilities enabling him to have his hair cut in the Central

Prison of Turku.

      The Commission has examined the complaints separately and, as

regards the various aspects relating to the applicant's treatment, also

together.

      (a)  The initial disclosure of the applicant's HIV-positivity

      As regards the City Court's failure to order the opinion on the

applicant's mental state to be kept confidential, the Government argue

that the applicant has not complied with the six months' time limit

prescribed by Article 26 (Art. 26) of the Convention. Should the

Commission not  consider the City Court's failure as an instantaneous

act, they argue that domestic remedies have not been exhausted. The

applicant never requested that the opinion be kept secret, but merely

asked that it be attached to the City Court's documents, to which public

access would have been possible on request. Once disclosed by the City

Court, the opinion on the applicant's mental state would, admittedly,

have remained public at least up to the Court of Appeal's judgment.

However, as criminal proceedings against a detainee have to be conducted

speedily, the disclosure of opinion could have been of a limited

duration, had the applicant's appeal against the disclosure been

successful. This remedy was therefore an effective and sufficient one.

      In the further alternative, the Government consider the complaint

manifestly ill-founded. They admit that the disclosure of the opinion on

the applicant's mental state interfered with his right to respect for his

privacy as guaranteed by Article 8 para. 1 (Art. 8-1) of the Convention,

but argue that it was justified under para. 2 of the provision. The

disclosure was lawful under the Act on the Publicity of Court Proceedings

and aimed at preventing crime. Admittedly, the inclusion of the

applicant's HIV-positivity in the opinion on his mental state was not

necessary as far as the opinion assessed whether he should be considered

to bear criminal responsibility for his offence. The mental examination

was, however, a means of making a total evaluation of the applicant and

the report thereby inevitably included also other information. The

Government finally emphasise the need for public control of court

proceedings and conclude that the disclosure of the opinion on the

applicant's mental state was proportional to the aim pursued and

necessary in a democratic society.

      The applicant argues that the City Court's disclosure of the opinion

on his mental state, including his HIV-positivity, created a continuing

situation due to the subsequent and ongoing disclosure of his disease.

Although he has told only one of his prison guards about his HIV-

positivity, many persons in the Central Prison of Turku are allegedly

informed of it. As he cannot himself decide on his care, more and more

people are obtaining information about his HIV-positivity.

      The applicant further refutes the Government's non-exhaustion

argument. The City Court was bound by the Convention and under domestic

law it had to consider ex officio whether to order that the documents in

the applicant's case be kept confidential. Once the City Court had failed

to do so, the opinion on his mental state became public. A subsequent

appeal could not have repaired the damage which had already occurred.

      The applicant finally maintains that the City Court's failure to

order the opinion on his mental state to be kept confidential was not

justified under Article 8 para. 2 (Art. 8-2), as the indication of his

HIV-positivity was irrelevant in the assessment of his criminal

responsibility. Reference is made to the Deputy Ombudsman's decision of

22 December 1992.

      Even assuming that the applicant has exhausted domestic remedies in

regard to the present complaint, the Commission recalls that under

Article 26 (art. (Art. 26) of the Convention it may only deal with a

matter within a period of six months from the date on which the final

decision was taken. Assuming that the Supreme Court's refusal to grant

the applicant leave to appeal constitutes that final decision, the

Commission observes that it dates back to 24 July 1991, while the

complaint before the Commission was lodged only on 11 February 1993, that

is more than six months later.

      It follows that this complaint must be rejected under Article 27

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

      (b)  The further disclosure of the applicant's HIV-positivity in

           the Deputy Ombudsman's decision

      With reference to Article 26 (Art. 26) of the Convention the

Commission again considers that it is not required to decide whether or

not the further disclosure of the applicant's HIV-positivity in the

Deputy Ombudsman's decision of 22 December 1992 discloses any appearance

of a violation of the Convention. The Commission observes that this

complaint was lodged on 17 October 1993, that is more than six months

later.

      It follows that this complaint must also be rejected under Article

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

      (c)  The access to information regarding the applicant's

           HIV-positivity and the alleged further disclosure of such

           information

      The Government submit that the complaint is manifestly ill-founded

as unsubstantiated. The staff has observed strict professional secrecy

in regard to the applicant's disease. The use of warning triangles in the

Prisoners' Hospital was based on medical considerations and formed part

of normal institutional practice when treating patients with diseases

communicable through blood. The triangles could not be seen by patients.

Moreover, there is no indication that the applicant's illness would be

common knowledge among the applicant's previous or present fellow

prisoners or guards.

      The applicant refutes the Government's argument that staff involved

in his treatment have not, and do not, reveal his HIV-positivity to

others. Allegedly, his patient card with the warning triangle could

occasionally be seen by anyone in the corridors of the Prisoners'

Hospital. If the triangle had not been visible, the applicant would not

himself have become aware of its existence.

      The applicant further underlines that the obligation of a civil

servant to observe secrecy also applies with regard to other civil

servants. Thus, a prison guard is not allowed to inform another guard of

the reasons for accompanying a prisoner to hospital. He further refers

to his visits to the clinic at the University Hospital of Turku from 7

to 9 September 1993. On 7 and 8 September, respectively, he was

accompanied by different pairs of guards of the Central Prison of Turku

and only on 9 September by his regular guard. At least the guards who

accompanied him during the first visit would have overheard his

conversation with the doctor. He therefore refused to talk to the doctor

under those circumstances.

      The Commission has considered the complaint under Article 8

(Art. 8) of the Convention, which reads as follows:

      "1.  Everyone has the right to respect for his private and family

      life, his home and his correspondence.

      2.   There shall be no interference by a public authority with the

      exercise of this right except such as is in accordance with the law

      and is necessary in a democratic society in the interests of

      national security, public safety or the economic well-being of the

      country, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection

      of health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and

      freedoms of others."

      The Commission considers that access by prison and medical staff to

information regarding the applicant's HIV-positivity constitutes an

interference with his right to respect for his private life. The

Commission finds no indication, however, that staff have unlawfully

gained access to such information. A legitimate aim of such access is the

protection of the rights and freedoms of others. The Commission finally

considers it justified that staff dealing with the applicant receive

information about a disease of his which is communicable through blood.

The access was, and is, therefore proportionate to the aim pursued and

can be regarded as necessary in a democratic society.

      The Commission finds no substantiation of the applicant's allegation

that staff members have disclosed, and continue to disclose, information

regarding his HIV-positivity to others.

      It follows that the complaint must be rejected as being manifestly

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

Convention.

      (d)  The allegedly inadequate treatment of the applicant

      The Government submit that the complaint regarding the alleged

inadequate treatment in general due to the applicant's isolation is

inadmissible either for non-exhaustion of domestic remedies or as being

manifestly ill-founded. No complaints to the prison authorities have been

made by the applicant. His placement in isolation has consistently been

based on his own wishes. He has not specified the alleged incidents which

allegedly led him to request placement in the Prison Mental Hospital and

the isolation ward of the Central Prison of Turku, nor has he reported

any such incidents to the prison staff. His fear of his disease being

disclosed has been deemed to be a psychological symptom.  In any case,

the compliance with the applicant's requests to be placed in isolation

shows that regard has been had to his safety. His everyday conditions in

the prison institutions were, and continue to be, satisfactory and also

comply with the Council of Europe's Prison Rules of 1987.

      As regards the allegedly inadequate facilities for the cutting of

the applicant's hair in the Central Prison of Turku, the Government

submit that the prison does employ a prisoner as barber for the other

prisoners. However, as from 1991 the applicant has preferred to cut his

hair himself and does not appear to regard this situation as problematic.

      The applicant argues that a petition to the prison authorities does

not constitute a remedy under Article 26 (Art. 26) of the Convention in

regard to the present complaint. He further maintains that, although he

did request to be placed in isolation, he was forced to make this request

as a result of the circumstances in the Central Prison of Turku. He

emphasises his efforts to minimise the risk of fellow prisoners being

contaminated by the HIV-virus and contends that the penitentiaries where

he has been placed during his disease are not properly prepared to

accommodate and treat prisoners with this disease. Reference is further

made to the 1993 Report by the European Committee for the Prevention of

Torture and Inhuman and Degrading Treatment or Punishment, which

questions the conditions of prisoners placed in solitary confinement at

their own request (Report of the Committee 1.4.93, pp. 28-32).

      As regards the allegedly inadequate facilities for the cutting of

his hair in the Central Prison of Turku, the applicant in his

observations of 24 February 1994 questions the reliability of the

Government's submissions. Because of a rash on his scalp he does not wish

to subject the prison barber to the risk of being contaminated by the

HIV-virus. Although even special arrangements could draw strangers'

attention to his HIV-positivity, no such measures have been proposed.

      The Commission need not resolve the question whether effective

domestic remedies have been exhausted, as the complaint as a whole is

manifestly ill-founded for the following reasons.

      The Commission has considered the complaint under Article 8

(Art. 8) of the Convention. It finds, however, that the applicant's

initial complaint of allegedly inadequate treatment has remained

unsubstantiated. As far as the complaint relates to his alleged

impossibility to have his hair cut, the Commission observes that the

Central Prison of Turku appears to employ a barber, whose services the

applicant does not wish to avail himself of. Rather, he appears to prefer

to cut his own hair. This arrangement is not creating any serious

inconvenience to him. The Commission therefore finds no disclosure of any

appearance of a violation of Article 8 (Art. 8).

      In these circumstances, the complaint must be rejected as being

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

(Art. 27-2) of the Convention.

      (e)  The refusal of medical consultations in private during the

           applicant's visits outside the prison area

      The Commission has considered the complaint under the above-quoted

Article 8 (Art. 8) of the Convention. It finds no indication that the

refusal was, and is, not in accordance with domestic law, given that it

must be considered an inherent part of the implementation of the

applicant's prison sentence. The refusal must further be considered to

aim at the prevention of disorder and crime and to be necessary in a

democratic society to this end. Accordingly, the refusal is justified

under paragraph 2 of Article 8 (Art. 8-2).

      It follows that this complaint must also be rejected as being

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

(Art. 27-2) of the Convention.

      (f)  The applicant's obligation to wear prison clothes while

           visiting medical clinics outside the prison area

      The Government submit that the applicant's obligation may be

considered as an interference with his right to respect for his private

life, as enshrined in Article 8 (Art. 8). This interference is, however,

justified under Article 8 para. 2 (Art. 8-2). The clothing rule has a

legal basis in the 1889 Decree, the circular letter by the National

Prison Administration issued by virtue of that Decree as well as in the

1975 Decree. The prison clothes permit the applicant's identification as

a prisoner, but not as the carrier of any specific disease. The prison

rules have not been applied to the applicant because of his HIV-

positivity. The legitimate grounds for the rules are primarily public

safety and prevention of crime and disorder. The interference with the

applicant's rights is necessary in a democratic society. The applicant

is serving a sentence for a violent offence, and according to prison

records he has once attempted to escape. The behaviour of prisoners who

are likely to attempt to escape in such situations has proven

unpredictable. Also the possibility of impulsive reactions must be

considered. Visiting clinics outside the prison area has been discovered

to be particularly risky, as it is quite possible for a prisoner to

disappear into a crowd, unless he is wearing clothes easily recognisable

by guards. The outfit worn by the applicant have no conspicuous details

such as numbers or letters. Thus, a lay person cannot identify him as a

prisoner. Moreover, the medical staff obtain knowledge of his status as

a prisoner through his medical records.

      The applicant emphasises the frequency of his visits to clinics

outside the prison area. He refutes the Government's statement that he

once attempted to escape and refers to the subsequent deletion of the

indication in his file. He does not have the slightest reason to attempt

to escape during a visit, as he is constantly in need of medication and

medical assistance. No distinction has been made between the applicant

and other prisoners in this respect.

      The Commission has examined this complaint under the above-quoted

Article 8 (Art. 8) of the Convention. It considers that the applicant's

obligation to wear prison clothes during his visits to the clinics

constitutes an interference with his right to respect for his private

life as guaranteed by paragraph 1 of Article 8 (Art. 8-1).

      As regards the justification of his obligation, the Commission first

observes that during the period complained of the applicant has been and

is being detained as a person lawfully convicted of offences. Moreover,

domestic law gives no absolute right to a prisoner to use plain clothes

outside the prison area. The applicant's obligation was therefore, and

continues to be, in accordance with the law.

      The Commission further considers that the refusals had, and continue

to have, the legitimate aim of protecting the interests of public safety

and preventing public disorder and crime (cf., concerning the obligation

to wear a prison uniform within a prison, No. 8231/78, Dec. 6.3.82, D.R.

28 pp. 5, 30).

      The Commission finally observes that Section 12 of the 1975 Decree

leaves a certain discretion to the prison authorities when deciding

whether to grant a prisoner's request for permission to wear plain

clothes. In the consideration of such a request various elements may be

taken into account, such as the prisoner's mental state and the premises

to be visited by the prisoner. Having regard to the particular

circumstances of the present case, the Commission cannot find that the

refusal to grant the applicant permission to wear plain clothes was in

any way arbitrary. It must therefore be considered to fall within the

margin of appreciation afforded to the Contracting States under Article

8 (Art. 8). The Commission therefore concludes that the applicant's

obligation was proportionate to the aim pursued and can be regarded as

necessary in a democratic society. In conclusion, the refusals were, and

in the circumstances at present continue to be, justified under para. 2

of Article 8 (Art. 8-2).

      It follows that this complaint must also be rejected as being

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

(Art. 27-2) of the Convention.

      (g)  The alleged screening of the applicant's correspondence

      The Government submit that domestic remedies have not been exhausted

in regard to this complaint. The applicant has not complained of the

alleged screening to the prison authorities or the Parliamentary

Ombudsman, nor has he lodged any report with the police or taken any

other legal steps against the prison officials or the State.

      Should the Commission consider the domestic remedies to have been

exhausted, the Government consider the complaint manifestly ill-founded.

The Government refer to the prohibition of screening prisoners'

correspondence with the Commission as well as to an investigation carried

out in the course of the Commission proceedings which found no evidence

in support of the applicant's contention. The applicant has further been

able properly to use his right under Article 25 (Art. 25) of the

Convention to lodge and pursue his application before the Commission.

      The applicant contends that correspondence with the Commission has

been interfered with. The fact that the officials suspected of having

opened letters have not admitted having done so, cannot be of any

significant importance.

      (aa) The Commission has considered this complaint under Article 8

(Art. 8) of the Convention and Article 25 para. 1 (Art. 25-1),

respectively.

      The Commission has first considered the complaint under Article 8

(Art. 8) of the Convention. Regardless of whether or not the applicant

has exhausted domestic remedies, the Commission cannot find any

substantiation in support of his contention that his correspondence with

the Commission has been screened.

      It follows that the this aspect of the complaint must be rejected

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

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

      (bb) The Commission has next considered the complaint under Article

25 para. 1 (Art. 25-1) of the Convention, which reads, in its relevant

parts, as follows:

      "1.  The Commission may receive petitions ... from any person,...

      claiming to be the victim of a violation by one of the High

      Contracting Parties of the rights set forth in this Convention,...

      provided that the High Contracting Party against which the complaint

      has been lodged has declared that it recognises the competence of

      the Commission to receive such petitions. Those of the High

      Contracting Parties who have made such a declaration undertake not

      to hinder in any way the effective exercise of this right."

      The Commission recalls that Article 25 para. 1 (Art. 25-1) of the

Convention imposes an obligation on the Contracting States not to

interfere with the right of the individual effectively to present and

pursue his application before the Commission. Such an obligation confers

upon the applicant a right of a procedural nature distinguishable from

the substantive rights set out under Section I of the Convention or under

its Protocols. It flows from the very essence of this right that it must

be open to individuals to complain of alleged infringements of it in the

proceedings before the Commission. In this respect the Convention must

be interpreted as guaranteeing rights which are practical and effective

as opposed to theoretical and illusory (Eur. Court H.R., Cruz Varas and

Others judgment of 20 March 1991, Series A no. 201, pp. 35-36, para. 99).

      Referring to its conclusion in regard to the complaint as considered

under Article 8 (Art. 8), the Commission cannot find any evidence showing

that the applicant has been hindered in the exercise of his right of

petition. No action is therefore called for in regard to the complaint

as considered under Article 25 (Art. 25) of the Convention.

      (h)  Overall assessment of the applicant's conditions

      The Commission has next proceeded to an overall assessment of the

established conditions during the applicant's imprisonment, having regard

to the requirements of 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 the notion of inhuman and degrading

treatment, as prohibited by Article 3 (Art. 3), covers at least such

treatment as deliberately causes severe suffering, mental or physical.

The treatment may be said to be degrading if it grossly humiliates an

individual before others or drives him to act against his will or

conscience (the Greek case, Comm. Report 5.11.69, Yearbook 12 p. 186;

Ireland v. the United Kingdom, Comm. Report 25.1.76, Eur. Court H.R.,

Series B no. 23-I, p. 388). Ill-treatment must, however, 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; it depends on 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. (Eur. Court H.R., Case of Ireland v. the

United Kingdom, judgment of 18 January 1978, Series A no. 25, p. 65,

para. 162).

      The Commission concludes that the established conditions of the

applicant's imprisonment did not, and do not, even as an aggregate

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

      Referring to its above findings as far as the application has been

examined under Article 8 (Art. 8) of the Convention, the Commission

further concludes that the established conditions of the applicant did

not, and do not, even as an aggregate constitute a violation of that

provision.

      In these circumstances, the application must also in this respect

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; and

      DECIDES TO TAKE NO ACTION with regard to the application as

      partly examined under Article 25 (Art. 25) of the Convention.

Secretary to the First Chamber       President of the First Chamber

      (M.F. BUQUICCHIO)                      (A. WEITZEL)