European Court of Human Rights
19 July 2012
Facts
The applicants were the sisters of Mr. Ketreb, a prisoner who suffered from psychotic disorders, namely borderline behavioural disorders and polydrug addiction. He was first placed in pre-trial detention and was sent to a disciplinary cell after a violent incident with the prison staff. During this period, he attempted to commit suicide twice. He was then convicted and was again sent to the disciplinary cell after being violent against other inmates and prison guards. After several other incidents in the disciplinary cell, he ended up committing suicide.
Complaint
The applicants complained that the authorities had not taken adequate measures to protect their brother’s life and that he had been subjected to a disciplinary sanction that was inappropriate for his mental state. They relied on Article 2 of the Convention.
Court’s ruling
The Court noted that Article 2 of the Convention imposes a positive obligation on States to take preventive measures to protect individuals from themselves and from others. The Court also emphasised that in the case of mentally ill detainees, their particular vulnerability must be taken into account. The Court examined whether the authorities knew or should have known that there was a real and immediate risk that the victim would commit suicide and, if so, whether they did everything that could reasonably be expected of them to prevent that risk. The Court found that in the present case, the authorities should have known that there was a risk that Mr. Ketreb would commit suicide, considering the fact that he was seeing a psychiatrist, that he had already made two suicide attempts and that in the days preceding his suicide he had been very agitated and violent, which showed a serious deterioration of his mental state. Finally, the Court considered that the decision to place him in the disciplinary cell was not preceded or accompanied by any specific medical advice. The Court concluded that the authorities had failed their positive obligation to protect his life and therefore there was a violation of Article 2 of the Convention.