EIT: Belgiassa rakenteellinen ongelma vankilassa olevien mielenterveyspotilaiden osalta; loukkaa EIS 5 ja 3 artiklaa7.9.2016 | Oikeusuutiset
Euroopan ihmisoikeustuomioistuin arvioi eilen antamassaan tuomiossa belgialaista järjestelmää, jossa rikoksesta tuomittuja mielenterveyspotilaita säilytetään vankilan mielenterveysosastolla. EIT ratkaisi asian ns. pilottijuttuna ja katsoi, että Belgian järjestelmä on rakanteellisesti puutteellinen. Belgialle annettiin kaksi vuotta aikaa saattaa järjestelmänsä ihmisoikeussopimuksen vaatimalle tasolle; täksi ajaksi muut vastaavanlaiset valitukset jätettiin lepäämään.
In [a] Chamber judgment in the case of W.D. v. Belgium (application no. 73548/13) the European Court of Human Rights held, unanimously, that there had been:
a violation of Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment) of the European Convention on Human Rights;
a violation of Article 5 § 1 (right to liberty and security); and
a violation of Article 5 § 4 (right to speedy review of the lawfulness of detention) and Article 13 (right to an effective remedy), in conjunction with Article 3
The case concerned a sex offender suffering from mental disorders who was detained indefinitely in a prison psychiatric wing.
The Court found in particular that W.D. had been subjected to degrading treatment by having been detained in a prison environment for more than nine years, without appropriate treatment for his mental condition and with no prospect of reintegrating into society; this had caused him particularly acute hardship and distress of an intensity exceeding the unavoidable level of suffering inherent in detention.
The Court also found that W.D.’s detention since 2006 in a facility ill-suited to his condition had broken the link required by Article 5 § 1 (e) of the Convention between the purpose and the practical conditions of detention, noting that the reason for W.D.’s detention in a prison psychiatric wing was the structural lack of alternatives.
Furthermore, the Court held that the Belgian system, as in operation at the time of the events, had not provided W.D. with an effective remedy in practice in respect of his Convention complaints – in other words, a remedy capable of affording redress for the situation of which he was the victim and preventing the continuation of the alleged violations.
The Court found, lastly, that W.D.’s situation had originated in a structural deficiency specific to the Belgian psychiatric detention system. In accordance with Article 46 (binding force and execution of judgments) of the Convention, the Court held that the State was required to organise its system for the psychiatric detention of offenders in such a way that the detainees’ dignity was respected. In particular, it encouraged the Belgian State to take action to reduce the number of offenders with mental disorders who were detained in prison psychiatric wings without receiving appropriate treatment.
The Court decided to apply the pilot-judgment procedure in the present case, giving the Government two years to remedy the general situation and adjourning proceedings in all similar cases for two years.
Koko lehdistötiedote, missä myös linkki koko tuomioon, löytyy täältä: here