Information Note on the Court’s case-law 22

September 2000

Zhu v. the United Kingdom (dec.) - 36790/97

Decision 12.9.2000 [Section III]

Article 3

Inhuman treatment

Conditions of detention of person detained pending deportation: inadmissible

In March 1995, the applicant, a citizen of The People’s Republic of China, was stopped by immigration officers in possession of a forged Japanese passport. He was immedi ately placed in detention pursuant to the Immigration Act 1971. In September 1996, he was granted interim liberation. He complained about the conditions of his 18-month detention in prison: he alleged that he was locked in his cell for 18 to 19 hours a day and that on several occasions the prison officers forgot to let him out of his cell for meals; he also stated that he was assaulted by inmates and suffered verbal racial abuse. He further claimed that he was isolated as there was no other Mandarin Chinese speaker in the prison, except for a six-month period when another Mandarin Chinese speaker was detained;  he had significant communication problems and alleged that no interpreter was available. After a suicide attempt, he was placed in a cell without bla nkets. The Government disputed various aspects of the applicant’s contentions: they agreed that the applicant had no interpreter for six months, but maintained that thereafter he had access to one on a weekly basis;  they added that the ligature-free “suic ide watch” cell where he was placed after his suicide attempt was provided with a sleeping bag. A report of the authorities concerning, inter alia , the detention of persons awaiting deportation established that they were subjected to verbal abuse and intim idation in overcrowded prisons where they were detained together with convicted detainees.

Inadmissible under Article 3: The applicant, who was detained pending deportation, clearly had a difficult time in prison. It is undesirable for prisoners awaiting d eportation to be held in the same location as convicted prisoners. However, the prison authorities made efforts to alleviate the applicant’s situation. He was provided with an interpreter and special measures were taken after his suicide attempt to prevent any other attempt, thus taking due account of his suicidal tendencies. Moreover, the applicant did not complain about the authorities as such. Finally, it is not substantiated that the aggressive behaviour of the other inmates towards the applicant was su fficiently grave to render the conditions of his detention contrary to Article 3: manifestly ill-founded.

© Council of Europe/European Court of Human Rights This summary by the Registry does not bind the Court.

Click here for the Case-Law Information Notes