Information Note on the Court’s case-law 58

November 2003

Henaf v. France - 65436/01

Judgment 27.11.2003 [Section I]

Article 3

Inhuman treatment

Conditions in which an elderly detainee was hospitalised: violation

Facts : While the applicant was serving a prison sentence, the prison medical service considered that he required an operation to his throat. The administration considered that there was no prima facie need for the applicant to be handcuffed and that he would be guarded by two police officers while in hospital. The applicant arrived at the hospital on the day before his operation and remained in handcuffs during the day. During the night, ho wever, he was shackled: a chain was attached to one of his ankles and to the bedpost. The applicant maintains that owing to the tension of the chain every movement was painful and that sleep was impossible. In the morning, the applicant stated that in such circumstances he preferred to postpone the operation until after he had been released from prison. He lodged a complaint against the two police officers responsible for guarding him while he was in hospital: he complained that he had been shackled to the hospital bed during the night before his operation. The security fixed by the investigating judge as a precondition to the investigation of his complaint was set at an amount which the applicant was unable to pay, owing to his inadequate resources. He appl ied for legal aid to pay the security. Legal aid was refused and as the sum payable was not deposited, the complaint was declared inadmissible.

Law: Preliminary objection (non-exhaustion) – The Court notes, in particular, that according to the evidence be fore it, the applicant’s complaint, together with an application to join in the proceedings as civil party, would probably be unsuccessful. Furthermore, in the matter of a complaint under Article 3, the applicant’s arguable allegations of ill-treatment wer e sufficiently serious to be capable of justifying an effective investigation apt to lead to the identification and punishment of those responsible.

The Court considers that the domestic authorities did not take the positive measures which the circumstanc es required to bring the matter to a conclusion. The Court considers that in the particular circumstances of this case, the remedy open to the applicant was not normally available and sufficient to allow him to obtain reparation of the violation which he a lleges. The objection is therefore rejected.

Article 3 – The applicant complains that he was shackled to the hospital bed. In this case, that amount to inhuman treatment. In the light of the applicant’s age (75 years), his state of health, the absence of a ntecedents giving rise to a serious fear of a risk to security, the prison governor’s written instructions that the applicant was to be given normal, and not special, supervision, the fact that he was admitted to hospital on the day before he was to have a n operation, the shackling of the applicant was disproportionate in the light of the requirements of security (to prevent the applicant from absconding or from committing suicide), a fortiori sincetwo police officers had been specially stationed outside hi s hospital ward.

Conclusion : violation (unanimous).

© Council of Europe/European Court of Human Rights This summary by the Registry does not bind the Court.

Click here for the Case-Law Information Notes