I correctly predicted that there was a violation of human rights in MIHĂILESCU v. ROMANIA.

Information

  • Judgment date: 2019-12-03
  • Communication date: 2017-03-29
  • Application number(s): 32002/15
  • Country:   ROU
  • Relevant ECHR article(s): 3
  • Conclusion:
    Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading treatment) (Substantive aspect)
  • Result: Violation
    • SEE FINAL JUDGMENT

JURI Prediction

  • Probability: 0.62081
  • Prediction: Violation

  • Consistent


Legend

 In line with the court's judgment
 In opposition to the court's judgment
Darker color: higher probability
: In line with the court's judgment  
: In opposition to the court's judgment

Communication text used for prediction

The applicant, Mr Gabi-Ainăld Mihăilescu, is a Romanian national who was born in 1971 and is currently detained in Vaslui Prison.
The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows.
In 2012 the Bacău County Court convicted the applicant of human trafficking and sentenced him to ten years’ imprisonment.
Since his incarceration, the applicant has been placed in several different prisons.
On 29 October 2013 a medical commission issued a certificate attesting that the applicant had been classified as a person with a permanent, severe physical disability on account of his severe visual impairment.
The medical panel which examined the applicant at that time granted him the right to a personal care assistant.
The applicant contends that, in spite of this medical certificate, in Vaslui Prison he was not assigned a personal care assistant at weekends.
He submits that, because he had no personal assistant, he was dependent on the other inmates to assist him in his daily activities.
He only received assistance from inmates in the facility in exchange for cigarettes and money.
The inmates refused to help him unless they were paid.
The applicant complained before the post-sentencing judge about the lack of a personal care assistant at weekends.
He also complained about the fact that he was only assisted by a personal care assistant for eight hours per day.
The post-sentencing judge dismissed his complaint on 17 June 2015.
The applicant challenged that decision.
By a final decision of 13 August 2015 the Vaslui District Court dismissed the complaint, holding that the designated assistant had the right to rest, and that it was not possible to provide him with a second assistant for the rest of the time.
The court based its judgment on a decision delivered by the General Manager of the National Prisons Agency on 14 October 2011, according to which a prisoner was only entitled to be assisted by a personal care assistant for eight hours per day and forty hours per week.
COMPLAINT The applicant complains under Article 3 of the Convention about the lack of a personal care assistant at weekends and during sixteen hours on weekdays, which puts him in a difficult situation and humiliates him, as he has to rely on his cellmates.

Judgment