Resolution CM/ ResDH ( 2016) 126 Execution of the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights

Mathew against the Netherlands

Application No.

Case

Judgment of

Final on

24919/03

MATHEW

29/09/2005

15/02/2006

(Adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 7 June 2016 at the 1259th meeting of the Ministers’ Deputies)

The Committee of Ministers, under the terms of Article 46, paragraph 2, of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, which provides that the Committee supervises the execution of final judgments of the European Court of Human Rights (hereinafter “the Convention” and “the Court”),

Having regard to the final judgment transmitted by the Court to the Committee in this case and to the violation established;

Recalling the respondent State’s obligation, under Article 46, paragraph 1, of the Convention, to abide by all final judgments in cases to which it has been a party and that this obligation entails, over and above the payment of any sums awarded by the Court, the adoption by the authorities of the respondent State, where required:

- of individual measures to put an end to violations established and erase their consequences so as to achieve as far as possible restitutio in integrum ; and

- of general measures preventing similar violations;

Having invited the government of the respondent State to inform the Committee of the measures taken to comply with the above-mentioned obligation;

Having examined the information provided by the government indicating the measures adopted in order to give effect to the judgment including the information provided regarding the payment of the just satisfaction awarded by the Court (see Appendix);

Having satisfied itself that all the measures required by Article 46, paragraph 1, have been adopted,

DECLARES that it has exercised its functions under Article 46, paragraph 2, of the Convention in this case and

DECIDES to close the examination thereof.

Appendix to Resolution CM/ ResDH ( 2016) 126

Information about the measures to comply with the judgment in the case of Mathew against the Netherlands

Introductory case summary

The case concerns the inhuman treatment suffered by the applicant on account of the poor conditions of his detention on remand in the Aruba Correctional Institution (KIA) (on one of a group of Caribbean islands known as the “Dutch Leewards ”), where he was detained from October 2001 until his release in April 2004.

The Court held that the applicant’s conditions of detention amounted to “inhuman treatment” in that he was “kept in solitary confinement for an excessive and unnecessarily protracted period, that he was kept for at least seven months in a cell that failed to offer adequate protection against the elements, and that the applicant was kept in a location from which he could not gain access to outdoor exercise and fresh air without unnecessary and avoidable physical suffering” (see § 217) (violation of Article 3) .

I. Payment of just satisfaction and individual measures

a) Details of just satisfaction

Pecuniary damage

Non-pecuniary damage

Costs and expenses

Total

-

10,000 euros

3,000 euros

13,000 euros

Paid on 11/05/2006

b) Individual measures

On 27 April 2004 the government informed the Court that the Governor of Aruba had decided to grant the applicant early release on the occasion of the Queen's official birthday on 30 April 2004. The applicant was indeed released on that date (see § 72 of the judgment).

In these circumstances, no other individual measure was considered necessary.

II. General measures

a) Improvement of the conditions of detention in KIA

The KIA has been renovated, as a result of which the disciplinary cells and the outdoor exercise area are now both situated on the ground floor and meet international standards. In addition, the necessary adjustments were made to the disciplinary cells (installation of an extra ventilation and a cell bell alert system). All disciplinary cells were equipped with beds and the exercise area has a bench. Moreover, following the publication on 29 January 2008 of the report of the European Committee for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman or Degreading Treatment ( CPT ) on its visit to Aruba in June 2007 (CPT/ Inf (2008) 2), the State Secretary of Internal Affairs and Kingdom Relations requested the Governor of Aruba to submit semi-annual reports concerning the measures taken to ensure that the problems in the prison system are resolved. The Netherlands will, if necessary, render assistance as stipulated in Article 36 of the Charter for the Kingdom of the Netherlands ( Statuut voor het Koninkrijk der Nederlanden ). The Aruban Ministry of Justice has also set up a Commission on the Supervision of Prison Cells and Treatment of Detainees to supervise the adjustment of the prisons and to deal with legal, individual and personnel aspects. Special attention was paid to training and expanding prison staff and police personnel.

The Minister of Justice also has a discretionary competence to transfer a prisoner to the Netherlands, upon request and on an individual basis, in case of pressing reasons of security or due to medical and/or psychiatric complications. Furthermore, a transfer is possible in case of an imminent breach of a provision of a treaty on international human rights. The penitentiary institutions of the Netherlands ( Dienst Justitiële Inrichtingen ) have also put both expertise and personnel at the disposal of Aruba.

Finally, it follows from the Netherlands’ responses (CPT/ Inf (2009) 7 and CPT/ Inf (2015) 28) to the latest CPT Reports on its visits to Aruba in June 2007 and May 2014 (CPT/ Inf (2008) 2 and CPT/ Inf (2015) 27), that the authorities, on the basis of the CPT’s recommendations took the following actions regarding conditions of detention in KIA (in so far as relevant for the execution of the present case):

They implemented the CPT’s recommendation to ensure that all KIA prisoners are guaranteed the care – including specialist care – required by their state of health , free-of-charge to prisoners who do not have the necessary resources to pay. The medical staff had been reinforced by one nurse and the recruitment of another nurse was under way. On 15 September 2008 IBA (Individual counselling for prisoners with psychological or psychiatric problems) became operational and the employment, in addition to the regular staff, of a nurse speciali s ed in dealing with psychiatric patients was envisaged. Further, KIA currently employs two medical doctors, one psychologist, and one social worker. There is now a psychiatrist who provides KIA with support when requested to do so. The ministry is exploring the financial scope for hiring a psychiatrist on a full-time basis. Moreover, since April 2015, every detainee is examined by the institution's medical doctor upon admission. The CPT’s recommendation that measures be taken with regard to the record drawn up after the medical examination of a prisoner – whether newly arrived or following a violent incident in prison – has been passed on to the KIA management for implementation.

Lastly, t he policy regarding disciplinary punishments has been adjusted. Measures are no longer imposed automatically but depend on the nature of the violation. All cases of placements in punishment cells are directly reported to the medical staff who visit these prisoners daily. If they consider continued solitary confinement a danger to the health of the prisoner, it is stopped.

As regards renovations/modifications and construction projects that need to be carried out, consultations are in progress with the multidisciplinary committee (consisting of engineers from the Department of Public Works, architects, and KIA's management team). Furthermore, an estimate was underway as regards the costs that would be involved in renovating the IBA unit. In addition, the governor is drafting an individual plan for each detainee as regards the CPT’s recommendation that IBA prisoners be transferred to alternative accommodation where their specific needs can better be met.

b) Publication and dissemination of the judgment

The European Court’s judgment was published in several law journals in the Ne therlands (NJCM-Bulletin 2006, No. 4, pp. 529-543; NJB 2005, N o. 45/46, pp. 2377-2378; and EHRC 2005, N o. 11, pp. 1084-1096).

III. Conclusions of the respondent S tate

The government considers that no individual measure is required, apart from the payment of the just satisfaction, and that the general measures adopted will prevent similar violations , and that the Netherlands have thus complied with their obligations under Article 46, paragraph 1, of the Convention.