Communicated on 8 October 2020

Published on 26 October 2020

FIRST SECTION

Application no. 42627/20 Patrick PREUSCHOFF against Italy lodged on 21 September 2020

SUBJECT MATTER OF the CASE

The application concerns the continued detention in Regina Coeli prison (Rome) of an offender acquitted by reason of insanity and suffering from a severe psychiatric disorder, notwithstanding domestic courts ’ decisions imposing his placement in a specialized structure, and psychiatrists ’ reports underlying the incompatibility of detention with his state of mental health.

The applicant complains of the unlawfulness of his detention; of the conditions of his detention, inadequate for his mental health in the absence of specific treatment for his psychiatric issues; of the risk for his life deriving from the prolonged detention in inadequate conditions; of the absence of domestic remedies.

QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES

1. Have the authorities taken all necessary measures to protect the applicant ’ s right to life under Article 2 of the Convention? In particular, are the authorities doing all that can be required of them to prevent the applicant ’ s life from being avoidably put at risk (see Renolde v. France , no. 5608/05, § 80, ECHR 2008 (extracts))?

2. Has there been a breach of the applicant ’ s rights under Article 3 of the Convention?

In particular:

a) Did the applicant receive an adequate medical treatment during his detention in prison (see Strazimiri v. Albania , no. 34602/16, §§ 103-112, 21 January 2020)?

b) Were the applicant ’ s conditions of detention in conformity with the applicant ’ s state of health, and with the decision issued by the Rome tribunal on 24/08/2019 in proceedings no. 23621/19 RGNR, concerning the applicant ’ s placement in a REMS?

3. Has there been a breach of Article 5 § 1 of the Convention? In particular, was the applicant ’ s continued detention “in accordance with a procedure prescribed by law” within the meaning of Article 5 § 1 of the Convention?

4. Was there an available remedy for the purposes of Article 13 of the Convention, for the applicant to complain of the alleged violations of Articles 3 and 5 § 1?

5. Did the applicant have an effective compensatory remedy in respect of his complaint under Article 5 § 5 of the Convention?