Cour européenne des droits de l’Homme
5 décembre 2019
Facts
Mr. J.M, the applicant, was a prisoner who suffered violence from the prison staff. He wanted to be transferred to a prison closer to his family and scarified his forearm in front of a guard. He was taken to a doctor who refused to put him in a psychiatric unit although he had requested it. He refused to go back to his cell and because of his violent behaviour he was transferred to the disciplinary ward. During this transfer he was injured in the shoulder and the eye by the prison staff. The applicant, who wanted to smoke but did not have a cigarette, set fire to some papers in his cell. The guards intervened with a fire hose and pointed it towards Mr. J.M, who got soaked. He was then transferred to another prison, and according to him, the prison staff was violent, he was also handcuffed and almost naked.
Complaint
The applicant alleged a violation of Article 3 of the Convention on account of inhuman and degrading treatment and disproportionate use of force against him by the prison staff. He also complained about the lack of independence and effectiveness of the criminal investigation that was carried out after he filed a formal complaint.
Court’s ruling
According to the Court, it was not disputed that the prison officers used force against the applicant on several occasions. The Court did not deny that Mr. J.M was virulent but emphasised the fact that he was in a state of mental distress and extreme vulnerability at that time.
In addition, the Court found that the use of force against him was not necessary to control him and ensure safety, and therefore concluded that the applicant was subjected to inhuman and degrading treatment, contrary to Article 3 of the Convention. Regarding the procedural aspect, the Court noted that although investigations were carried out promptly after the applicant filed a complaint, these did not lead to the identification and punishment of the officers responsible for the ill-treatment.
The Court found that the applicant did not benefit from an effective investigation. For example, the investigators applied different criteria when evaluating the testimonies of the prisoner and of the officers, and no medical expertise was carried out to establish the origin of the strangulation mark found on the applicant’s body.
The Court concluded that there was a violation of Article 3 of the Convention, in both its material and procedural aspects.