Communicated on 3 June 2016

SECOND SECTION

Application no. 70465/14 A.T . against Estonia lodged on 2 December 2014

STATEMENT OF FACTS

The applicant, Mr A .T. , is an Estonian national, who was born in 1977. He is currently serving a life sentence in X Prison, Estonia.

The circumstances of the case

The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows.

1. The incident on 11 February 2012

On 11 February 2012 the following incident was recorded by the surveillance cameras in prison. The applicant entered the cell of a fellow prisoner and exited two minutes later. One minute later the other prisoner was seen exiting his cell, moving towards the barred doors of the cell block. His side was visibly bloody. One minute later the prisoner was let out of the cell block by a prison officer and the medical staff were called.

The applicant was interrogated and admitted that the injured prisoner had taunted him and been condescending towards him at 7:55 p.m. on the previous day, and that the applicant had decided to punish him. On the morning of 11 February 2012, the applicant had taken a pair of hairdresser ’ s scissors from his workplace and had split them in two in his cell. Around 11:10 a.m., after receiving a telephone call, the applicant had arrived back in the cell block, had taken one of the scissor blades from his cell and had gone to the victim ’ s cell where he stabbed the victim multiple times in the stomach, back and arms when the victim tried to defend himself. The applicant had then dropped the blade in the victim ’ s cell and returned to his own cell.

2. Decision of 13 February 2012 on the application of additional security measures

(a) the Decision

On 13 February 2012 the prison administration decided to impose additional security measures on the applicant.

The decision was reasoned and took account of the stabbing incident of 11 February 2012 as well as of the applicant ’ s history of aggressive, violent and unpredictable behaviour. The authorities noted that the applicant was dangerous and lacking in self-control: they deemed it highly probable that he would use physical violence again and that he thus posed a threat to other prisoners. The prison authorities weighed the situation of the applicant against their obligation to ensure the health and safety of all persons employed and detained in the prison, and deemed it more proportionate to ensure the security of all persons through imposing additional security measures on the applicant, instead of increasing security measures in the entire unit where the applicant was detained. The authorities noted that they could not accept attacks by prisoners on other prisoners and that they had to take preventive measures to protect the life and health of others. Considering that the applicant was negative and aggressive towards other prisoners as well as his emotional instability and violent nature demonstrated by the incident of 11 February 2012, the authorities held that they had a duty to impose additional security measures on the applicant.

These measures were listed as follows:

1) placement in an isolated, locked cell to better monitor the prisoner and prevent contact with other prisoners towards whom he might become violent;

2) restriction of his freedom of movement and communication inside the prison to prevent contact with other prisoners whose health the applicant might endanger;

3) prohibition from using the prison ’ s sports facilities, as it was not possible to ensure the restrictions on the prisoner ’ s freedom of movement and communication when escorting him to these facilities; and

4) the use of handcuffs whenever the prisoner was taken outside of his cell.

According to the applicant he was prohibited from participating in organised recreational activities and other social events, and could not take part in “family days”, although he is married and has three minor children. It appears that the applicant was allowed one hour of exercise daily in the outdoor exercise yard.

(b) Proceedings in respect of the Decision of 13 February 2012 (the first court proceedings)

On 4 April 2012 the applicant filed a complaint with Administrative Court to annul the Decision of 13 February 2012 because it was unlawful and contrary to Article 3 of the Convention.

It appears that on 4 February 2013 the Administrative Court adopted a decision to return the complaint to the applicant for failure to pay the state fee.

2. Decisions of 10 August 2012 on prolonging additional security measures

(a) the Decisions

On 10 August 2012 the prison administration decided to prolong the application of additional security measures.

In the first decision the authorities listed the five convictions of the applicant before his current conviction and sentencing to life imprisonment. They noted that the applicant had been convicted and given a life sentence in 2001 for the murder of two persons and the attempted manslaughter of another. The authorities also provided a detailed summary of incidents involving unlawful activity, disruptive behaviour and insubordination, violence or the threat of violence on the part of the applicant while in prison, as well as of the disciplinary or criminal proceedings which ensued. They further listed a total of 25 prior decisions to apply additional security measures with respect to the applicant that had been taken since 2003.

The prison authorities held that it was not possible to discontinue the additional security measures in the interests of the lives and health of other persons in the prison. In addition to the previous arguments, they relied on the fact that on 30 May 2012 the applicant had threatened violence against a prison officer. They also relied on a detailed summary of the applicant ’ s risk profile. The authorities reiterated their position that they considered it more proportionate to guarantee security by isolating the person who may use physical violence against his fellow prisoners instead of locking all of the cells in the unit.

The decision noted that the applicant had not submitted any reasons or explanations to the prison why the additional security measures should be discontinued.

The following additional security measures were imposed:

1) placement in an isolated locked cell to better monitor the prisoner and prevent contact with other prisoners against whom he might become violent;

2) restriction of his freedom of movement and communication inside the prison to prevent contact with other prisoners whose health the applicant might endanger; and

3) prohibition from using the prison ’ s sports facilities, as it was not possible to ensure the restrictions on the prisoner ’ s freedom of movement and communication while escorting him to these facilities.

The use of handcuffs outside of the applicant ’ s prison cell was at first erroneously not prolonged, but the decision was amended by another decision adopted the same day to include this measure. The exact nature of this measure was amended to require that the applicant was to be handcuffed before any person entered his cell, regardless of whether he was to be escorted outside of his cell or not.

The measures were subject to review within not less than six months after communication of the decision to the applicant.

(b) Proceedings in respect of the Decisions of 10 August 2012 (the second court proceedings)

On 30 September 2012 the applicant filed a complaint with the Administrative Court to annul the Decisions of 10 August 2012 on prolonging additional security measures because they were unlawful and contradicted the requirements of Article 3 of the Convention.

There is no dispute that a hearing was held on 17 January 2013. On 31 January 2013 the Administrative Court adopted a judgment to deny the applicant ’ s petition to annul the Decisions of 10 August 2012.

On 2 March 2013 the applicant submitted an appeal with the Court of Appeal in which it requested that the judgment of the Administrative Court be quashed and that the Decisions of 10 August 2012 be declared unlawful, as it was no longer necessary to annul the Decisions which had ceased to have effect six months after they were adopted.

On 8 April 2013 the Court of Appeal satisfied the applicant ’ s claim to requalify the proceedings from annulment proceedings to proceedings for the determination of unlawfulness.

On 9 January 2014 the Court of Appeal adopted a decision to join the cases in the second and the third administrative court proceedings (see below).

On 28 February 2014 the Court of Appeal adopted a judgment in which it denied the applicant ’ s appeal against the judgment of the Administrative Court in the second court proceedings . It also made a decision regarding the judgment of the Administrative Court of 4 October 2013 in the third court proceedings.

On 1 April 2014 the applicant filed an appeal against the judgment of the Court of Appeal in the aforementioned joined administrative court proceedings with the Supreme Court.

On 5 June 2014 the Supreme Court denied the applicant leave to appeal.

3. Decision of 15 February 2013 on prolonging additional security measures

(a) the Decision

On 15 February 2013 the prison administration decided to prolong the application of additional security measures.

In addition to the previous arguments, they relied on the security department ’ s information obtained from other prisoners that the applicant had attempted to obtain prohibited items through other prisoners so he could “settle accounts” with persons with whom he had had conflicts, once the additional security measures were discontinued. They also relied on a new assessment of the risk posed by the applicant dated 26 September 2012 in which it was confirmed that the applicant was highly dangerous both for the prison officers and other prisoners in prison, and for the general public in society as a whole.

The following additional security measures were imposed:

1) placement in an isolated locked cell to better monitor the prisoner and prevent contact with other prisoners against whom he might become violent;

2) restriction of his freedom of movement and communication inside the prison to prevent contact with other prisoners whose health the applicant might endanger;

3) prohibition from using the prison ’ s sports facilities, as it was not possible to ensure the restrictions on the prisoner ’ s freedom of movement and communication when escorting him to these facilities; and

4) the placement of handcuffs on the prisoner before any prison officer enters the cell, regardless of whether the prisoner is to be escorted outside of the cell.

The decision was subject to review within not less than six months after notification of the decision to the applicant.

(b) Proceedings in respect of Decision of 15 February 2013 (the third court proceedings)

On 7 April 2013 the applicant filed a complaint with the Administrative Court to annul the Decision of 15 February 2013 on prolonging additional security measures because it was unlawful and contradicted the requirements of Article 3 of the Convention.

On 4 October 2013 the Administrative Court issued a judgment to deny the applicant ’ s request to annul the Decision and to initiate constitutional review proceedings in respect of the Imprisonment Act.

On 5 November 2013 the applicant filed an appeal with the Court of Appeal against the judgment of the Administrative Court and requested the cou rt to quash the judgment of the Administrative Court and annul the Decision on prolonging additional security measures and to initiate constitutional review proceedings.

As noted above, on 9 January 2014 the Court of Appeal adopted a decision to join administrative cases in the second and the third proceedings.

On 28 February 2014 the Court of Appeal adopted a judgment in which it reversed the judgment of the Administrative Court of 4 October 2013 in the third administrative case in part. The court of appeal held that the first instance court should have found the Decision of X Prison of 15 February 2013 unlawful with regard to the period 10 February–14 February 2013, since X Prison had been obliged to review its Decisions of 10 August 2012 on prolonging additional security measures within six months.

On 01 April 2014 the applicant filed an appeal against the judgment of the Court of Appeal in the aforementioned joined administrative case with the Supreme Court.

On 5 June 2014 the Supreme Court denied the applicant leave to appeal.

COMPLAINT

The applicant complains under Article 3 of the Convention that the conditions of his detention under the additional security measures, in particular the use of handcuffs at all times when he was outside of his cell and his being prohibited from using the prison sports facilities and exercising, the restriction on his movement and communication with others and prohibition from participating in social and family events, amounted to inhuman and degrading treatment.

QUESTION TO THE PARTIES

1. Did the conditions of the applicant ’ s detention, in particular the use of handcuffs at all times when he was outside of his cell or any other person was in his cell, the restrictions on his movement and communication with others within the prison, and the restrictions on his participation in social and family events, amount to inhuman or degrading treatment within the meaning of Article 3 of the Convention?

The Government are invited to provide a detailed description of the applicant ’ s out-of-cell activities during the period from 10 August 2012 – 15 August 2013 (including whether he was able to exercise outdoors, whether he was able to have contact with other prisoners when he exercised and when he watched television in a separate room, whether and from whom (family, lawyers, etc.) he had short- and long-term visits; and whether he attended school), as well as relevant supporting documents.