JOINT CONCURRING OPINION OF JUDGES MOTOC AND BOÅ NJAK

In the present case we voted with the majority in finding that there has been no violation of Article 3, as we believe that the Court ’ s judgments should form a coherent body of law. Accordingly, we cannot help but take into account the fact that the Court recently dealt with similar complaints concerning the conditions of detention of prisoners in the same facility in Malta in the cases of Story and Others v. Malta (nos. 56854/13, 57005/13 and 57043/13, 29 October 2015), Yanez Pinon and Others v. Malta (nos. 71645/13, 7143/14 and 20342/15, 19 December 2017) and Peñaranda Soto v. Malta (no. 16680/14, 19 December 2017) . In all these cases the Court held that the overall conditions of detention did not reach the threshold of degrading treatment required to fall under the ambit of Article 3. Given that the facts of the present case are substantially similar, it would undermine the Court ’ s integrity if we were to reach an opposite conclusion here.

Nevertheless, we find the points raised by Judge Casadevall and Judges Pinto de Albuquerque, Ranzoni and Bošnjak in their respective dissenting opinions in Story , Yanez Pinon and Peñaranda Soto persuasive. We therefore agree that the cumulative effect of the inappropriate conditions of detention in the Corradino Correctional Facility, namely the unsatisfactory hygiene levels and the lack of heating and of potable water, among other aspects, reached an excessive level of hardship and amounted to degrading treatment.

Attention should also be drawn to the findings of the Council of Europe ’ s Committee for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (CPT) in relation to the conditions of detention in the same facility in Malta, and to its recommendations, in particular that the Maltese authorities take action to remedy the poor living conditions that prisoners must endure.

DISSENTING OPINION OF JUDGE PINTO DE ALBUQUERQUE

I dissent for the same reasons as in the separate opinions appended to Yanez Pinon and Others v. Malta (nos. 71645/13 and 2 others, 19 December 2017) and Penaranda Soto v. Malta ( no. 16680/14, 19 December 2017). As in the dissenting opinions expressed in those cases, I do not feel bound by the findings of the majority in Story and Others v. Malta ( nos. 56854/13 and 2 others, 29 October 2015 ) .

In these three cases the Court dealt with most of the issues raised in the present case, namely the state of the cells, the lighting and ventilation available, the heat in the summer and cold in the winter, hygiene and lack of a flushing toilet system, the availability of running water, hot water, as well as drinking water. Given the similarity of the complaints, as well as the submissions and documentary evidence provided by the parties, I cannot but come to the same conclusion that the conditions in Division 3 of the Corradino Correctional facility are inhuman and degrading.