Communicated on 14 March 2016

FOURTH SECTION

Application no. 16680/14 Luis Fernando PEŇARANDA SOTO against Malta lodged on 1 April 2014

STATEMENT OF FACTS

The applicant, Mr Luis Fernando Peňaranda Soto, is a Costa Rican national, who was born in 1977 and is detained in Paola.

A. The circumstances of the case

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

The applicant is serving eight years ’ imprisonment at the Corradino Correctional Facility, Malta. The sentence was imposed on him by the Criminal Court on 14 March 2012 for drug related offences. The Criminal Court also ordered the applicant to pay a fine of 23,500 euros (EUR) as well as EUR 1,462.94 as court expert expenses which were to be converted into a further term of imprisonment in default of payment. He has been detained since 19 February 2010.

The applicant claimed that on 12 July 2013, between 2 pm and 3 pm, he was assaulted by another inmate during which the applicant lost consciousness and had his facial and leg bones fractured.

Disciplinary measures were taken by the prison chief officer who ordered that the applicant be put into solitary confinement. Thus, despite his condition, the applicant had to pack his belongings and walk towards the solitary confinement unit. The prison officer brought the applicant a pair of crutches to assist him walking.

The applicant alleges that he did not receive medical treatment before one or two hours after the incident had taken place. He then was kept in solitary confinement without assistance from the prison medical staff. The applicant was subsequently seen by a doctor, who referred him to the hospital where the applicant underwent surgery. A plaster cast was put around his leg. He was further informed that he might need to undergo surgery if his eyesight was damaged in connection with the injury of his facial bone.

Concerning the period of solitary confinement the applicant explains that he was placed in the second floor of the building and was not allowed to see anyone, nor use the common areas.

According to the applicant, the cell did not have adequate ventilation, the heat was unbearable and he could not drink cold water since he did not have access to the ground floor. Consequently he had to drink warm water and an occasional bottle of cold water (when his friend managed to sneak one). The applicant claims that he needed to drink water since he was taking antibiotics.

The heat and lack of ventilation caused the applicant, who suffers from asthma, to struggle when breathing. He complained that he had to go to the nursery for treatment of his injuries himself since nurses refused to go to his cell because of the unbearable heat. Thus, he had to use the staircase whilst still walking with crutches.

The applicant states that he was kept in the Isolation Unit for twenty-two days, and after five days he had become suicidal. Subsequently he was transferred to a unit that had fewer restrictions. However, the applicant was placed in the same unit as his aggressor. According to the applicant this put his physical integrity at risk since he could have been attacked again.

The applicant claims that following his confinement, he was not able to socialize with other inmates and that he was psychologically affected by the time spent under solitary confinement.

He notes that upon his release from confinement, he spent most of his time in his cell. On an unspecified date he asked to urgently see a psychologist, but was only able to speak to her after twenty-seven days. The psychologist referred the applicant to a psychiatrist who eventually prescribed medication. Nevertheless, the applicant refused to take such medication and claimed that the psychiatrist refused to help him. Nowadays, he refuses to consult the prison psychiatrist because he no longer trusts prison staff members and he does not want to be sent to a psychiatric hospital since he claims that the facilities there are worse than those in prison.

In a letter of 10 July 2014, the applicant alleged that he did not receive rehabilitative treatment for his fractures since the prison officials unilaterally decided to cancel such treatment.

In a subsequent letter of 11 May 2015, the applicant explained that his cell window is at a height of two meters and it is thus very difficult to open. It is also small and has three different levels of metal shutters, which prevent the entry of natural lighting. He notes that his cell lacks good ventilation - although there are two ventilators, one of them is clogged.

He alleges that the parts of the ceiling is falling apart with white and yellow dust causing him to experience breathing problems, since he suffers from asthma.

The applicant also alleges that water is not drinkable and that, therefore, he has to buy water with the little money that he owns.

The applicant alleges that foreign inmates are treated differently than the Maltese inmates since the former have to wait longer to have their petitions decided.

By a letter of 5 August 2015, the applicant alleges that the prison authorities refused to send his letters to the Court to dissuade him from pursuing his case before the Court. He was thus corresponding with the Court through another address.

B. Relevant domestic law

The relevant domestic law pertaining to this case can be found in Story and Others v. Malta (nos. 56854/13, 57005/13 and 57043/13 , §§ 49 ‑ 58, 29 October 2015).

COMPLAINTS

Invoking Articles 1 and 3 of the Convention, the applicant complains of the fact that the prison officers did not take enough measures to protect his life particularly in connection with lack of medical assistance when he was injured by another inmate. He further complains about having been put in solitary confinement after the said incident took place and for having been placed in the same unit as his aggressor. The applicant also complains about the conditions of his detention.

QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES

1. Did the applicant ’ s solitary confinement and the conditions of the applicant ’ s detention in the subsequent period, amount to inhuman and degrading treatment, contrary to Article 3 of the Convention (see Ramirez Sanchez v. France [GC], no. 59450/00, § 136, ECHR 2006 ‑ IX )?

2. Has the applicant been denied access to the necessary medical treatment while in prison, in breach of Article 3 of the Convention? The Government are invited to submit the relevant details in respect of the aggression suffered by the applicant, his medical condition then and throughout the subsequent period to date, as well as details concerning the relevant treatment. All the pertinent medical records and prescriptions in respect of the applicant should likewise be submitted (see Aleksanyan v. Russia , no. 46468/06 , § 147, 22 December 2008).

3. In connection with the placement of the applicant in the unit where he had suffered an aggression by other inmates, does this expose the applicant to treatment, contrary to Article 3 of the Convention? Did the prison authorities take all steps reasonably expected to prevent real and immediate risks to the applicant ’ s physical integrity, of which the authorities had or ought to have had knowledge (see Aleksejeva v. Latvia , no. 21780/07 , § 38, 3 July 2012) ?

4. Has there been any hindrance by the State in the present case with the effective exercise of the applicant ’ s right of petition, as guaranteed by Article 34 of the Convention? In particular, did the applicant have the opportunity to correspond with the Court without interference by the prison authorities, in line with Regulation 18 of the Prison Regulations (see Maksym v. Poland , no. 14450/02, § 31, 19 December 2006) ?