PLENARY

                      AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF

                      Application No. 17525/90

                      by Mark DELAZARUS

                      against the United Kingdom

      The European Commission of Human Rights sitting in private on

16 February 1993, the following members being present:

           MM.   S. TRECHSEL, Acting President

                 J.A. FROWEIN

                 F. ERMACORA

                 G. JÖRUNDSSON

                 A. WEITZEL

                 J.-C. SOYER

                 H.G. SCHERMERS

                 H. DANELIUS

           Mrs.  G. H. THUNE

           Sir   Basil HALL

           MM.   F. MARTINEZ

                 C.L. ROZAKIS

           Mrs.  J. LIDDY

           MM.   J.-C. GEUS

                 M.P. PELLONPÄÄ

                 B. MARXER

                 G.B. REFFI

                 Mr. H.C. KRÜGER, Secretary to the Commission

      Having regard to Article 25 of the Convention for the Protection

of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms;

      Having regard to the application introduced on 8 January 1990 by

Mark DELAZARUS against the United Kingdom and registered on 5 December

1990 under file No. 17525/90;

      Having regard to:

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

      Commission;

                                 - i -                       17525/90

-     the observations submitted by the respondent Government on

      7 February 1992 and the observations submitted by the applicant

      on 29 April 1992 and 20 January 1992;

-     the hearing of the parties on 16 February 1993;

      Having deliberated;

      Decides as follows:

THE FACTS

      The applicant is a citizen of the United Kingdom, born in 1968,

who at the time of lodging his application was detained in HM Prison

Swaleside, Kent.  He is represented before the Commission by Mr. T.

Bancroft, Solicitor with Messrs. John Copland & Son, Solicitors,

Sheerness, Kent.

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

be summarised as follows:

A.    The particular circumstances of the case

      On 13 June 1989 the applicant was convicted at Southwark Crown

Court of wounding with intent to cause grievous bodily harm and assault

on a police officer.  He had several previous convictions for criminal

offences and was sentenced to 3 years 3 months' imprisonment.  He was

received at HM Prison Wandsworth on 13 June 1989.

      On 25 August 1989 the applicant was involved in a serious

incident in the prison.  It was alleged that, armed with a razor blade

embedded in a pencil, he attempted to take a female probation officer

hostage.  The attempt failed due to the intervention of another

prisoner.  The applicant was placed in the Segregation Unit overnight

on the authority of the prison Governor.  The following day, he was

charged before the Governor with a disciplinary offence contrary to

Prison Rule 47(22).  The Governor had before him a written statement

from the probation officer giving a full account of the incident.  He

also had before him two statements by prison officers, neither of whom

had witnessed the incident.  One officer had overheard an incriminating

conversation between the applicant and another prisoner shortly after

the incident and the other had come on the scene shortly after the

incident and found the weapon used.  Given the serious nature of the

allegation, the Governor adjourned the disciplinary charge and referred

the matter to the police with a view to prosecution in the criminal

courts.  On 23 September 1989 the police informed the Governor that

they did not intend to prosecute the applicant.  The Governor therefore

re-opened the disciplinary proceedings and decided to refer the matter

to the prison Board of Visitors, on the grounds that the charge was

sufficiently serious that if the applicant were found guilty, his

powers of punishment would be insufficient.

      The Board of Visitors considered the matter on 4 October 1989.

At this hearing the applicant applied for and was granted legal

representation.  The hearing was therefore adjourned to a date to be

fixed in order for the applicant and the Governor to instruct their

legal representatives.  On 28 November the Governor's legal

representative advised him that there was insufficient evidence to

proceed with the charge, as the probation officer concerned was not

prepared to give evidence, apparently because she felt her position of

independence within the prison would be compromised by being seen to

give evidence against a prisoner on behalf of the Governor.  It appears

that the prisoner witness to the incident was also unwilling to give

evidence against a fellow prisoner.  In those circumstances, the

Governor was advised to offer no evidence.  The adjourned hearing of

the charge before the Board of Visitors was therefore arranged for

30 November 1989.  The Governor offered no evidence against the

applicant and the Board of Visitors formally dismissed the charge.

      The applicant was also the subject of separate disciplinary

proceedings relating to another incident of violence shortly before the

alleged hostage-taking incident.  He was charged with assaulting a

prison officer by head-butting him in the chest on 17 August 1989.

This charge was dealt with by the Board of Visitors on 14 September.

The applicant pleaded guilty and was awarded 56 days' loss of

remission.

      The applicant was located in the Segregation Unit at HM Prison

Wandsworth from 25 August 1989 (the date of the alleged hostage-taking

incident) until 5 December 1989 (5 days after his case was dismissed

by the Board of Visitors).  The segregation was initially authorised

by the Governor pursuant to Prison Rule 48(2), which authorises the

segregation of prisoners, who are to be charged with an offence against

discipline, pending adjudication.  Although this power would arguably

permit segregation until the final determination of a disciplinary

charge (i.e. in this case the Board of Visitors' hearing on 30 November

1989) internal prison guidance states that the power should normally

only be used pending the Governor's initial hearing (i.e. in this case

26 August 1989).

      From 26 August, the applicant's segregation was authorised under

Prison Rule 43 which permits removal from association where it appears

desirable to the Governor for the maintenance of good order or

discipline.  At the relevant time Rule 43 provided that the Governor's

decision on segregation was to be authorised by a member of the Board

of Visitors within 24 hours.  Internal guidance provided that authority

could initially be obtained by telephone.  Although there is no

evidence that such authority was given in this case, it was normal

practice at HM Prison Wandsworth at the time to obtain such authority.

Written authorisation from a member of the Board of Visitors was

obtained on 31 August 1989.  Minutes of the Board of Visitors' meetings

reveal that the applicant's continued segregation pursuant to Rule 43

was authorised by them at their meetings on 21 September, 19 October

and 16 November 1989.

      The solicitors representing the applicant in the disciplinary

proceedings (Messrs. Birnbergs) wrote to the Governor on 2 November

1989 querying the need for the applicant's continued segregation under

Rule 48(2).  The Governor replied on 7 November giving the impression

that the applicant was still being segregated under that Rule because

of the serious nature of the charge against him.  He also stated that

efforts were being made to transfer the applicant to another prison

where he could be on normal location, but more closely supervised than

was possible at HM Prison Wandsworth outside the Segregation Unit.

Efforts by the prison authorities to transfer the applicant to an

alternative prison were not successful.

      The applicant also contacted his Member of Parliament, Mr. David

Evennett, about the fact and conditions of his segregation.

Mr. Evennett wrote to the Governor on 15 November and received an

erroneous reply dated 1 December 1989 giving the date of commencement

of segregation as 18 September (rather than 25 August) and giving the

impression that disciplinary proceedings were still pending, whereas

they had in fact been dismissed the previous day.  Again the reason for

the applicant's segregation was expressed to be the seriousness of the

allegation against him in pending disciplinary proceedings.

      Whilst the applicant was removed from association in the

Segregation Unit he was not allowed to communicate or associate with

any other inmates in the prison.  As a result he was locked in a single

cell for 23 hours a day with two 30 minute exercise breaks in an

individual pen, the size of a tennis court.

      He left his cell on at least three occasions a day in order to

empty his chamberpot, as there was no in-cell sanitation.  However, if

he rang his cell bell he could also leave his cell on other occasions

during the day to use the toilet facilities if staff were available.

He took a shower and collected a change of clothing once a week.  A

change of socks and underpants was provided twice a week.  The

applicant had frequent contact with prison officers and was visited in

his cell each day by the Governor and at least weekly by a member of

the Board of Visitors.  He could have attended religious services on

a weekly basis and in fact attended twice during the period of which

complaint is made.  A Roman catholic and an Anglican chaplain also

visited the Unit frequently.  The applicant saw and spoke to both of

them.  He was able to send and receive letters on the same basis as

prisoners on normal location.  He sent 33 letters in the relevant

period and received 32 replies.

      His situation differed from those who were in the Segregation

Unit serving a sentence of cellular confinement in that he was able to

receive visits from friends and relatives.  Between 25 August and

2 December 1989 the applicant received seven visits outside his cell

of approximately 40 minutes each from his family.  He received a

further four visits from probation officers and two visits from his

solicitor during this period.  He had access to newspapers, books and

his own radio.  Prison records also disclose that he had a personal

stereo in his cell from 12 October 1989 onwards.  His cell would have

contained a bed, mattress, chair and table.

      A doctor visited the Segregation Unit each day.  Had the

applicant requested to see the doctor, that request would have been

granted.  The applicant was examined or seen by a medical officer five

times during his location in the Unit. There is no record of any

complaint that his physical or mental health was being adversely

affected by the conditions of his imprisonment.

      The applicant complained to the prison authorities about his

removal from association with other prisoners and, in particular, the

prohibition on talking to other inmates in the exercise yard.

      On 18 January 1990 the Home Secretary replied to the applicant's

petition in the following terms:

      "The Secretary of State has fully considered your petition but

      can find no grounds for taking any action in regard to it.

      Inmates on exercise at HMP Wandsworth are not prevented from

      talking to each other.  However, it is not permitted to talk to

      inmates on other exercise yards, those in-cell on wings

      overlooking the exercise yard or those in-cell on punishment."

      A more detailed response was provided by the Chairman of the

prison's Board of Visitors in a letter to the applicant dated

24 January 1990:

      "I can assure you that at no time were you prevented from seeing

      the full panel of the Board of Visitors.  I saw you most weeks

      while you were in the Segregation Unit and also did a member of

      my Board.  When you raised any problem I dealt with it to your

      satisfaction at the time.

      You were not permitted to talk while on exercise for two reasons,

      namely because you were shouting to inmates on other floors and

      also for your own good to prevent you from speaking to two

      inmates who were trying to persuade you to act against good order

      and discipline.

      Prisoners are kept in the Segregation Unit while awaiting

      adjudications on a serious charge partly so that they are

      prevented from influencing witnesses and partly for their own

      safety..."

      Guidance is issued by the Home Secretary to those responsible for

day-to-day administration of the prison service about the segregation

of prisoners.  This guidance suggests that the fact and the reasons for

a prisoner's segregation should be recorded on his personal record and

on the adjudication sheet relating to dsiciplinary charges.  However

neither of these documents record the fact of the applicant's

segregation or the reasons for it.  The guidance further states that

both Governors and Boards of Visitors should be particularly careful

to consider whether segregation for a long period is continuing to

serve the purpose for which it was originally intended and whether the

risks of placing the prisoner on normal location have receded.  While

there is no documentary evidence that this guidance was complied with,

the applicant was visited by the Governor of the prison each day and

by a member of the Board of Visitors on average twice each week during

his stay in the Segregation Unit.

      In April 1989 the Chief Inspector of Prisons visited Wandsworth.

In his report of June 1989 he made various criticisms of the regime and

conditions in that prison, including the fact that some officers were

wearing unofficial badges and had slashed the peaks of their caps,

which may have had racist overtones.  In his concluding recommendations

he commented that the regime at Wandworth "does not meet basic

standards of humanity and propriety; urgent steps should be taken to

improve the regime, which cannot be described as helping inmates to

lead law-abiding and useful lives in custody".

      A further report in part criticising the conditions at Wandsworth

Prison was made in March 1991 by the European Committee for the

Prevention of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment.

The Committee concluded "that the conditions of detentions ... were

very poor ...  There was a pernicious combination of overcrowding,

inadequate regime activities, lack of integral sanitation and poor

hygiene.  In short, the overall environment in which the prisoners had

to lead their lives amounted, in the CPT's opinion, to inhuman and

degrading treatment."

      The applicant modified his application to the Commission to

embrace the criticisms made in these two reports and the parties

provided the following further information on the subject:

      The applicant was on his own in a cell measuring three by two

metres with a high ceiling.  (Prior to his segregation he had also been

located in a single cell.)  It had a window which the applicant could

open.  There was a reinforced cardboard table and chair and a metal

framed bed, the bedding of which was taken out of the cell during the

day.  The cell was lit by an electric light which could be turned on

and off by the applicant.  There were cockroaches in the Segregation

Unit and a pest control firm visited it twice to deal with them.  The

applicant was allowed to keep personal possessions in his cell such as

writing materials, drawing books and photographs.  He received the

normal basic pay of £1-£1.10 per week for non-working prisoners and

could place orders for personal items, such as batteries for his radio

and stereo, at the canteen.  He had full access to the prison

complaints system.

      The applicant alleges that the cell was cold, only being heated

by a water pipe.  Although he saw no racist insignia being worn by the

prison officers with whom he came into contact, he claims to have felt

racist contempt towards him in their general attitude by reason of his

Asian looks.  Following the report of the Chief Inspector of Prisons,

prison staff were forbidden to wear any unofficial insignia in

September 1989.

      A medical officer was available at all times if needed.  However

access to the dentist was difficult due to Wandsworth's overcrowding

at the time.  It may be that the applicant was unable to get a dental

appointment.

      The Government informed the Commission that a considerable

rebuilding scheme is underway at Wansworth Prison which will include

in-cell toilets.

B.    The relevant domestic law and practice

      The treatment of convicted prisoners is governed by the Prison

Rules of 1964, as amended, made under the Prison Act 1952.  These Rules

are supplemented by Standing Orders and Circular Instructions made by

the Secretary of State which set out the detailed practice to be

followed in applying the Rules.

      Disciplinary proceedings

      Prison Rule 47 sets out prisoners' offences against discipline.

These include assault, detaining a person against his will,

intentionally endangering the health or personal safety of others, and

attempting to commit any offence.  Rule 48 provides (in part) that any

disciplinary offence is to be charged as soon as possible, and in any

event within 48 hours, and that each charge is to be inquired into, in

the first instance by the Governor.  Rule 50 sets out the punishments

available to the Governor where he decides to deal with the matter

himself.  Rule 51 provides that where the Governor decides that, if the

prisoner were found guilty, the punishments available to him would be

inadequate given the nature and circumstances of the offence, he may

refer the charge to the Board of Visitors.

      Standing Order 3D provides that, where a prisoner is suspected

of a serious offence against the criminal law, the Governor should

adjourn the disciplinary charge after the initial hearing under Rule

48 and refer the matter to the police.  If the Crown Prosecution

Service subsequently decide not to prosecute, the Governor should

proceed with the adjourned hearing and decide whether to refer the

matter to the Board of Visitors.

      Board of Visitors

      The Board of Visitors of each prison is an independent body

appointed by the Secretary of State under Prison Rule 92.  Boards

currently exercise a disciplinary function under Rule 52 in cases

referred to them by the Governor.  They may hold hearings on

disciplinary charges and may grant adjournments and grant legal

representation to prisoners appearing before them.  On finding a

prisoner guilty they may impose a range of punishments.  Boards of

Visitors have other functions under Prison Rules 92 to 97 which include

satisfying themselves as to the treatment of prisoners, hearing any

complaint or request a prisoner wishes to make and enquiring into any

report made to them that a prisoner's mental or physical health is

likely to be injuriously affected by any conditions of his

imprisonment.

      Segregation

      The Governor has power to segregate a prisoner pursuant to Prison

Rule 48(2).  This Rule provides:  "A prisoner who is to be charged with

an offence against discipline may be kept apart from other prisoners

pending adjudication".  This Rule is supplemented by Circular

Instruction 25/1989 which states that segregation pending adjudication

under Prison Rule 48(2) is only appropriate up until the Governor's

initial hearing.  After that time, if segregation is necessary, it must

be authorised under Prison Rule 43.  The Circular Instruction provides

that "Governors and Board Members should be particularly careful to

consider whether segregation for a long period, for example pending a

Board of Visitors' hearing, is continuing to serve the purpose for

which it was originally intended and whether the risks of placing the

prisoner on normal location (of collusion or intimidation for

instance), have receded."  This advice is reinforced by paragraph 4.16

of The Manual on Adjudications issued to Governors and Boards of

Visitors which advises Boards to consider whether continued segregation

is necessary on adjourning a hearing and reminds those involved that

the decision to continue segregation should be noted on both the record

of the adjudication and the prisoner's personal record.

      The Governor also has a power to segregate prisoners pursuant to

Prison Rule 43 which at the relevant time provided as follows:

      "(1) Where it appears desirable, for the maintenance of good

      order or discipline or in his own interests, that a prisoner

      should not associate with other prisoners, either generally or

      for particular purposes, the Governor may arrange for the

      prisoner's removal from association accordingly.

      (2)  A prisoner shall not be removed under this Rule for a period

      of more than 24 hours without the authority of a member of the

      Board of Visitors, or of the Secretary of State.  An authority

      given under this paragraph shall be for a period not exceeding

      one month, but may be renewed from month to month.

      (3)  The Governor may arrange at his discretion for such a

      prisoner as aforesaid to resume association with other prisoners,

      and shall do so if in any case the medical officer so advises on

      medical grounds."

      During the period of the applicant's segregation, Prison Rule 43

was supplemented by Circular Instruction 15/1974.  This Circular

Instruction makes it clear at paragraph 8 that authority for

segregation for longer than 24 hours must be obtained from a member of

the Board of Visitors or the Secretary of State.  Telephone

authorisation is acceptable but written confirmation should be obtained

within a further 24 hours.  A copy of the authorisation is to be placed

with the prisoner's personal record which should be annotated with the

fact of and reasons for his segregation.  The Circular Instruction

further states:  "It is important that an adequate description of the

reasons for segregation should be given.  It is not sufficient merely

to record ... 'for good order and discipline'.  Some account of the

circumstances is required."  Paragraph 9 of the Circular Instruction

provides that continued authority for segregation under Rule 43 beyond

one month should be recorded on the prisoner's personal record and

countersigned by a member of the Board of Visitors.

      The Government concede that there was some uncertainty as to

which Prison Rule was relied upon to justify the applicant's period of

segregation.  The formal authorisations indicate that Rule 43 was

relied on, but the correspondence from the Governor and Board of

Visitors suggest that they had Rule 48 in mind.  The Government accept

that a more detailed record should have been kept of the reasons for

segregating the applicant at the relevant time and that the decisions

to segregate him, whilst justified on the facts, may have been

procedurally flawed.

      Association with other prisoners

      Prison Rule 27 provides that, subject to specified exceptions,

all prisoners not engaged in outdoor work are to be given one hour's

exercise each day.  The nature of the facilities available for exercise

varies between one institution and another and each prison has internal

regulations about the taking of exercise.  There is no general

prohibition on speaking during exercise.  Local rules at HM Prison

Wandsworth may have been interpreted in the past as prohibiting those

exercising from speaking to those in other exercise yards.  The Area

Manager for that prison has now made it clear that inmates may speak

to each other on exercise (whether or not in the same yard) provided

their behaviour is not disruptive or abusive.

      Remedies available to prisoners

      Prisoners with grievances about the place of their detention or

its conditions have various remedies available to them.  They may

complain to the Governor or the Board of Visitors within the prison

both of whom have a statutory duty to consider speedily requests and

complaints made to them.  At the relevant time, prisoners could also

petition the Secretary of State directly or enlist the aid of their

Member of Parliament.  In appropriate cases, prisoners can also seek

legal redress in the United Kingdom courts.  Prisoners are entitled to

obtain advice from independent lawyers.  Free legal aid is available

for litigation, subject to the legal aid authorities being satisfied

as to the applicant's means and the merits of his case.  Legal redress

may be sought in an action in tort or by way of judicial review.

COMPLAINTS

      The applicant's complaint is that segregation of the kind he has

experienced constitutes inhuman and degrading treatment contrary to

Article 3 of the Convention. He contends that the refusal to allow him

to associate or communicate with other inmates was in breach of this

provision.  This complaint under Article 3 was modified during the

proceedings before the Commission to include his general conditions of

detention.  He also complains that his treatment by the prison

disciplinary system was in breach of Article 6 para. 1 of the

Convention.  This was borne out by the allegedly extensive delay in the

proceedings without any evidence being brought against him ultimately.

Finally he complains that his removal from association with other

prisoners was in breach of Article 11 of the Convention.

PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE COMMISSION

      The application was introduced on 8 January 1990 and registered

on 5 December 1990.  After a preliminary examination of the case by the

Rapporteur, the Commission considered the admissibility of the

application on 2 September 1991.  It decided, pursuant to Rule 48

para. 2 (b) of the Rules of Procedure, to give notice of the

application to the respondent Government and to invite the parties to

submit their written observations on admissibility and merits.  The

Government's observations were submitted on 7 February 1992, after two

extensions of the time limit fixed for this purpose.  The Commission

granted the applicant legal aid on 21 February 1992.  The applicant

replied on 29 April 1992.  In his reply the applicant abandoned a

complaint that the disciplinary proceedings were in breach of Article

6 para. 3 (b) of the Convention.

      On 31 August 1992 the Commission decided to hold a hearing of the

parties on the applicant's complaint under Article 3 of the Convention.

On 20 January 1993 the applicant's representative submitted a pre-

hearing brief and documents. The hearing was held on 16 February 1993.

The applicant was represented by Mr.T Bancroft, Solicitor.  The

Government were represented by their Agent, Mrs.D. Brookes, Mr.J.

Eadie, Counsel, and Ms.R. Davies and Mr.E. Tullett, as advisers.

THE LAW

1.    The applicant's principal complaint is that his removal from

association with other prisoners for 14 weeks pending disciplinary

proceedings against him constituted a violation of Article 3 (Art. 3)

of the Convention, which provides as follows:

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

      treatment or punishment."

      The applicant concedes that the prison authorities did not act

improperly by segregating him initially and in referring his alleged

involvement in the hostage-taking incident to the police.  However once

the police had declined to prosecute the applicant, it was not right

to then pursue disciplinary proceedings, given that the burden of proof

would  have been the same for either a criminal or disciplinary

prosecution.  He submits that the Board of Visitors are not competent

to deal with these kinds of serious allegations.  In the circumstances

the applicant claims that the Board of Visitors should have dismissed

the disciplinary charge against him on or before 4 October 1989 and

that the extensive delay for another two months was unjustified.

      During that time the applicant alleges that he was segregated

from other prisoners without the requisite legal authority, in total

disregard of the Secretary of State's guidelines and the applicant's

human rights.  If those guidelines had been followed the deprivation

suffered by the applicant would not have happened.  He contends that

being left in a cell 23 hours a day with a chamberpot, and having to

empty it, is in itself degrading treatment contrary to Article 3

(Art. 3) of the Convention.  Association with other prisoners, friends

and equals cannot be compared to association with prison professionals.

He claims that the conditions of his segregation taken as a whole, as

well as the poor general conditions in Wandsworth Prison, caused him

very considerable distress and suffering which he managed to bear with

fortitude without any significant damage to his physical and mental

health.  He contends that he would have had no prospect of successfully

suing the prison authorities in negligence or applying for judicial

review, and without such prospects of success legal aid would not have

been forthcoming.  Finally, he submits that his segregation for so long

was unjustifiable, for on the facts less strong measures would have

been appropriate, such as transfer to another prison.  Overall, the

treatment he received whilst segregated was inhuman and degrading

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

      The Government refute the applicant's claims.  First they contend

that the applicant has not exhausted domestic remedies by way of an

application for judicial review.  Secondly they submit that the

applicant's segregation did not cause him suffering contrary to Article

3 (Art. 3) of the Convention.  Having regard to the justifiable

circumstances which led to his removal from association with other

prisoners, the human contact he had with professionnal advisers, the

Board of Visitors and his family, the many letters he wrote and

received, the access he had to books, newspapers radio and stereo, the

absence of any evidence that his health suffered in any way, the

Government take the view that the applicant's allegations are without

foundation.  They also state that there is no evidence of any racist

discrimination against the applicant.

      The Commission does not find it necessary to decide whether the

applicant has exhausted domestic remedies in accordance with Article

26 (Art. 26) of the Convention, as the applicant's complaints are

otherwise inadmissible for the reasons elaborated below.

      The Commission refers to its case-law 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 from

association with others is undesirable, whether such a measure falls

within the ambit of 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

(No. 10263/83, R. v. Denmark, Dec. 11.3.85, D.R. 41 p. 149, at p. 153

with further references).

      The Court has held 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, in the nature of things,

relative ..." (Eur. Court H.R., Ireland v. the United Kingdom judgment

of 18 January 1978, Series A no. 25, p. 65, para. 164).  As regards

degrading treatment the Court was of the view that "in order for a

punishment to be 'degrading' and in breach of Article 3 (Art. 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.  An

examination of such matters, being relative, "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).  Thus the gravity and absolute prohibition on ill-

treatment in breach of Article 3 (Art. 3) have led the Convention

organs to set the Article 3 threshold at very serious and severe ill-

treatment.

      The Commission notes that the applicant was prevented from

communicating with other prisoners pending investigation of serious

disciplinary charges against him for attempting to kidnap a probation

officer.  Even though the charges were subsequently withdrawn, there

is nothing in the case-file to suggest that an investigation was not

necessary or that the purpose behind the applicant's removal from

association was not legitimate.  The applicant himself concedes this.

Moreover the applicant does not allege that his segregation had any

effect on his physical or mental health.  His segregation did not

amount to complete sensory and social isolation which could have

undermined his personality.  He received several visits from relatives,

the prison chaplains, his solicitor and probation officers, as well as

regularly daily contact with the prison officers.  He could also read

books and newspapers, listen to the radio and his personal stereo, and

write and receive letters. There is no evidence to substantiate his

feeling that the prison officers were dealing with him in a racially

discriminatory manner.

      The Commission also notes that the general conditions of

detention at Wandsworth Prison were strongly criticised by the

Government's own Chief Inspector of Prisons and by the European

Committee for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading

Treatment or Punishment.  The applicant subsequently modified his

complaint under Article 3 (Art. 3) of the Convention to encompass these

criticisms.  The Commission does not doubt that the conditions in

Wandsworth Prison, involving overcrowding, a lack of activity, a lack

of integral sanitations and poor hygiene, were extremely unsatisfactory

and that they were in urgent need of improvement.  The Government

recognise this and informed the Commission of a rebuilding scheme to

include in-cell sanitation.  This is to be welcomed.  However, the

Commission is only competent to deal with the case it has before it,

not the general situation of prisoners at Wandsworth.  The applicant

in the present case cannot complain of overcrowding because throughout

his stay at Wandsworth he was in a single cell.  This fact must have

reduced the difficulties created by the lack of integral sanitation in

the cell.  Moreover the poor general conditions are not the basis of

the applicant's main complaint about his removal from association from

other prisoners.

      Having regard to the circumstances of the present case as a

whole, the Commission finds that the treatment the applicant received

during the 14 weeks in which he was removed from association with other

prisoners did not amount to the severe ill-treatment proscribed by

Article 3 (Art. 3) of the Convention.

      It follows that this part of the application is manifestly

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

Convention.

2.    The applicant next complains of a breach of Article 6 para. 1

(Art. 6-1) of the Convention, the relevant part of which provides as

follows:

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

      everyone is entitled to a fair and public hearing within a

      reasonable time by an independent and impartial tribunal

      established by law ..."

      He submits that once it was decided not to prosecute him in the

criminal courts, on or about 23 September 1989, all proceedings against

him should have been immediately discontinued.  The fact that they were

not discontinued for over two months constitutes extensive delay within

the meaning of Article 6 (Art. 6).  The argument that the matter was

proceeding before the Board of Visitors between 23 September 1989 and

5 December 1989 is flawed since in this particular instance the Board

of Visitors was not a competent court within the meaning of

Article 6 (Art. 6).

      The Commission did not seek the Government's observations on this

aspect of the applicant's claim, but the Government anyway deny that

any issue arises under Article 6 para. 1 (Art. 6-1) of the Convention

in the present case.

      The Commission recalls the constant case-law of the Convention

organs that in principle Article 6 (Art. 6) of the Convention does not

apply to disciplinary proceedings, unless, having regard to the

autonomy of the concept "criminal charge", a disciplinary offence

belongs, by its very nature and the degree of severity of the penalty,

to the criminal sphere (Eur. Court H.R., Engel and Others judgment of

8 June 1976, Series A no. 22, pp. 33-35, paras. 80-82, and Campbell and

Fell judgment of 28 June 1984, Series A no. 80, pp. 34-38, paras. 66-

73).

      The Commission notes that the circumstances which gave rise to

the disciplinary proceedings in the present case - allegations of the

applicant's involvement in taking a probation officer hostage - could

have been the subject of both criminal and prison disciplinary

proceedings.  Criminal proceedings were not initiated by the police,

but the applicant risked a heavy disciplinary penalty of substantial

loss of remission of his sentence if the disciplinary case had been

proved against him.  It is, therefore, arguable in the circumstances

that Article 6 para. 1 (Art. 6-1) of the Convention was applicable to

the proceedings before the Board of Visitors as, in substance, the

disciplinary charge against the applicant amounted to a criminal charge

within the meaning of this Convention provision.

      As to compliance with Article 6 para. 1 (Art. 6-1) of the

Convention, the applicant's principal complaint concerns the length of

the disciplinary proceedings against him.  However, the Commission

considers that the 14 week period in which the police and prison

authorities investigated the case consecutively, but then discontinued

it, was not unduly lengthy in the circumstances.  The Commission also

notes that it was not until early October 1989 that the applicant

applied for and was granted legal representation for the disciplinary

proceedings.  Thereafter the legal representatives of both parties, the

applicant and the prison Governor, needed time to take instructions.

The Commission concludes that the present case discloses no appearance

of a violation of Article 6 (Art. 6) of the Convention.

      It follows that this part of the application is also manifestly

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

Convention.

3.    Finally, the applicant complains that his removal from

association with other prisoners constituted a breach of Article 11

(Art. 11) of the Convention, the relevant part of which reads as

follows:

      "1. Everyone has the right to freedom of peaceful assembly and

      to freedom of association with others, including the right to

      form and join trade unions for the protection of his interests.

      2.  No restrictions shall be placed on the exercise of these

      rights other than such as are prescribed by law and are necessary

      in a democratic society ... for the prevention of disorder or

      crime ..."

      He contends that if the authorities were concerned that his

association with other prisoners might have hampered the investigation

of evidence for the disciplinary proceedings, then he should have been

transferred to another prison where association would have been

possible.  His removal from association had no justification under the

second paragraph of Article 11 (Art. 11).

      The Commission did not seek the Government's observations on this

aspect of the applicant's claim, but the Government submit that the

applicant's complaints about association with other prisoners do not

fall within the ambit of Article 11 (Art. 11) of the Convention.

      The Commission refers to the language of Article 11 (Art. 11)

which suggests that the concept of freedom of association, of which the

right to form and join trade unions is a special aspect, is concerned

with the right to form or be affiliated with a group or organisation

pursuing particular aims.  It does not concern the right of prisoners

to share the company of other prisoners or to "associate" with other

prisoners in this sense (No. 8317/78, McFeeley and Others v. the United

Kingdom, D.R. 20 p. 44, at pp. 97-98, paras. 112-115).  Consequently

the Commission agrees with the Government and concludes that this

complaint must be rejected under Article 27 para. 2 (Art. 27-2) as

being incompatible ratione materiae with the provisions of the

Convention.

      For these reasons, the Commission by a majority

      DECLARES THE APPLICATION INADMISSIBLE.

  Secretary to the Commission        Acting President of the Commission

         (H.C. KRÜGER)                          (S. TRECHSEL)