Communicated on 7 April 2020 Published on 15 July 2020

FIRST SECTION

Application no. 11791/20 Giacomo Seydou SY against Italy lodged on 4 March 2020

SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE

The application concerns the continued detention on remand in a common ward of Rebibbia prison (Rome) of a drug addict suffering from a severe psychiatric disorder, notwithstanding domestic courts ’ decisions revoking his detention on remand and imposing his placement in a specialized structure, and expert reports underlying the incompatibility of detention with his state of mental health.

The applicant complains of the unlawfulness of his prolonged detention; of the conditions of his detention, inadequate for his mental health in the absence of specific treatment for his psychiatric issues; of the absence of domestic remedies and of non-enforcement of domestic courts ’ decisions ordering his placement outside prison.

QUESTIONS

1. 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 Rebibbia prison ( Rooman v. Belgium [GC], §§146-147; 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 Tivoli tribunal on 4.2.19 in proceedings n. 1513/2018 R.G., concerning the applicant ’ s placement in a psychiatric ward or specialized external structure?

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

3. Has there been a breach of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention as of the implementation of the judgement issued by the Rome court of appeal on 20.5.19, in proceedings n. 2159/19 R.G.?

4. Was there an available remedy for the purposes of article 13 of the Convention, for the applicant to complain of the alleged vio lations 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?