PARTLY DISSENTING OPINION OF JUDGES LORENZEN AND VILLIGER

1. We regret that we cannot follow the views of the majority in respect of Article 3 of the Convention.

2. In the instant case, the only specific account of the conditions in which the applicant was detained was the account furnished by her (see paragraph 20 of the judgment ). However, in view of her vulnerable situation, she cannot be criticised for not providing documentary evidence – such as, for example, photographs – to support it. Similarly, given the nature of her allegations, it could not be expected from her to back them with medical certificates, since the conditions complained of were not such as to necessarily leave physical or mental scars detectable on medical examination. The applicant ' s allegations do not find direct corroboration in the CPT ' s report, since it refers to other establishments and does not make any general observations about the conditions in psychiatric hospitals in Bulgaria (see paragraph 31 of the judgment ) . However, the findings in that report can at least be used to establish, albeit indirectly, that the applicant ' s allegations cannot be discarded as prima facie untenable.

3. T he Government , on the other hand , had ample opportunity to investigate the conditions in which the applicant was detained, by, for instance, conducting an on ‑ site inspection and questioning the hospital staff or other witnesses (see, mutatis mutandis , Fedotov v. Russia , no. 5140/02, § 6 1 , 25 October 2005 ). However, despite a specific question by the Court, they only submitted a letter by the Ministry of Health, which contained merely the general statement that the conditions in the ward where the applicant was kept were in line with the applicable hygiene and safety requirements ( see paragraphs 22 and 35 of the judgment ) . Regrettably , t hey did not offer any explanation for their failure to submit further information in response to the Court ' s query . We therefore consider that the Court could have legitimately draw n inferences from their conduct (see Alver v. Estonia , no. 64812/01, § 52, 8 November 2005), and could have examine d the matter solely on the basis of the applicant ' s submissions (see Kostadinov v. Bulgaria , no. 55712/00, § 50 , 7 February 2008 , and Gavazov v. Bulgaria , no. 54659/00, § 97 , 6 March 2008 ).

4. To reach its definitive findings, the Court did not need to rely on the CPT ' s report, which , as noted in the judgment, relates to other establishments (contrast Iovchev v. Bulgaria , no. 41211/98, § 130 in limine , 2 February 2006, and Todor Todorov v. Bulgaria , no. 50765/99, § 47, 5 April 2007 ) and makes no general observations about the conditions in psychiatric hospitals in Bulgaria (contrast I.I. v. Bulgaria , no. 44082/98, §§ 37 and 71, 9 June 2005 ; Iovchev , cited above, 130 ; and Staykov v. Bulgaria , no. 49438/99, §§ 60 and 79 , 12 October 2006 ). The report of the Bulgarian Helsinki Committee, while containing specific findings in respect of the hospital in Radnevo, relates to a period which pre ‑ dates the applicant ' s stay there by almost two years (see paragraph 32 of the judgment ) and is thus also of limited evidentiary value. Nonetheless, it seems to confirm at least some of her allegations (see paragraph 33 of the judgment ).

5. The relevant principles for assessing conditions of detention under Article 3 have recently been summarised in paragraphs 52 to 57 of the Court ' s judgment in the case of Kostadinov (cited above ).

6. In the present case, the applicant was confined in the hospital in Radnevo for a period of fifty ‑ three days (see paragraphs 19 and 25 of the judgment ). During the last fifteen days of her stay there she could leave the ward where she was being kept, and even before that she was apparently not kept there all the time, as she was involved in a physical rehabilitation programme, as well as in work and art therapies (see paragraphs 20 and 21 of the judgment ).

7. We consider that the sanitary conditions in the ward where the applicant was kept, as described by her, fell foul of basic hygienic norms. We additionally observe that the ward was not properly lit or heated, and that the food provided to the applicant was scarce and of poor quality (see paragraph 20 of the judgment ). For us , such failures in respect of vulnerable individuals who are kept in custody primarily for the purpose of receiving appropriate medical treatment are intolerable.

8. We also note the applicant ' s assertions concerning the inadequate arrangements to prevent inter ‑ patient violence (see paragraph 20 of the judgment ). We consider that it is unacceptable for a psychiatric hospital to make it possible, though lack of appropriate arrangements and supervision, for mentally disturbed patients to subject each other, unchecked, to acts of violence.

9. Th o se elements, taken together, lead us to conclude that the distress and hardship endured by the applicant during her stay in the hospital amounted to degrading treatment, in breach of Article 3 of the Convention.

[1] . Equivalent to 1 . 01 euros (EUR)

[2] . Equivalent to EUR 0 . 71

[3] . Equivalent to EUR 0 . 55