I correctly predicted that there was a violation of human rights in NIORT v. ITALY.

Information

• Judgment date: 2025-03-27
• Communication date: 2023-07-10
• Application number(s): 4217/23
• Country:   ITA
• Relevant ECHR article(s): 3, 5, 5-1-a, 5-5, 8, 8-1
• Conclusion:
  Remainder inadmissible (Art. 35) Admissibility criteria
  (Art 35-1) Four-month period (former six-month)
  (Art. 35-3-a) Manifestly ill-founded
  (Art. 35-3-a) Ratione materiae
  Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Effective investigation) (Procedural aspect)
  Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Civil proceedings
  Article 6-1 - Access to court
  Reasonable time)
  Violation of Article 38 - Examination of the case - {general} (Article 38 - Obligation to furnish all necessary facilities)
  Non-pecuniary damage - award (Article 41 - Non-pecuniary damage
  Just satisfaction)
• Result: Violation
SEE FINAL JUDGMENT

JURI Prediction

• Probability: 0.902491
• Prediction: Violation

• Consistent

Communication text used for prediction

Published on 28 August 2023 The application concerns the continued detention in prison of the applicant, who suffers from a borderline and antisocial personality disorder and is recognised as 100 % disabled.
The applicant was subject to several criminal proceedings and convicted for crimes including manslaughter, causing bodily harm and kidnapping.
In some cases, the domestic courts found that the applicant was acting in a state of diminished responsibility but that his mental capacity was not entirely impaired (vizio parziale di mente); in other cases, he was acquitted on the grounds of insanity.
The applicant has been detained almost continuously since 2016 in various prisons.
Lastly, on 7 June 2023, he has been transferred from the Cagliari Prison to the Turin Prison, where he is currently held.
During his detention he has attempted suicide several times and the last attempt occurred on 28 December 2022.
He has also repeatedly made self-harming and aggressive gestures.
According to the reports issued by the prison medical service, the applicant receives regular psychiatric support and pharmacological treatment.
In 2019 a court-appointed expert pointed out that the detention in prison had aggravated the applicant’s mental disorder.
Furthermore, a report issued in 2020 by the prison educators stated that the applicant’s mental health was incompatible with detention in prison.
All the applicant’s requests for replacing detention in prison with alternative measures and complaints of inadequate medical treatment were rejected by the domestic courts.
On 22 November 2022, the Cagliari Court responsible for the execution of sentences (tribunale di sorveglianza) noted that the current detention regime was “absolutely inadequate and incompatible with the applicant’s state of mental health” and asked the prison administration (dipartimento dell’amministrazione penitenziaria ; “DAP”) to transfer him to a more adequate criminal institution (istituto di pena).
Such indication was subsequently reiterated by the judge responsible for the execution of sentences (magistrato di sorveglianza) on 18 January 2023.
The applicant complains, under Articles 3 and 8 of the Convention, that his state of mental health is incompatible with detention in prison and that he does not receive adequate treatment for his disorder.
He further complains, under Article 5 § 1 of the Convention, of his continued detention notwithstanding his inability to understand the aims of the penalty and, under Article 5 § 5, of the absence of compensation for his allegedly unlawful detention.
Lastly, he complains under Article 6 of the Convention of the non-execution of the decisions ordering his transfer to an institution more adapted to his need.
QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.
Taking into account the applicant’s state of mental health and his multiple suicide attempts, has there been a breach of Article 3 of the Convention?
In particular: (a) was the applicant’s detention in prison compatible with his state of mental health (see Epure v. Romania, no.
73731/17, § 74, 11 May 2021 and Bamouhammad v. Belgium, no.
47687/13, § 120-123, 17 November 2015); (b) did the domestic authorities adequately examine the applicant’s state of mental health and ensure a comprehensive therapeutic strategy (see Rooman v. Belgium [GC], no.
18052/11, §§ 146-147, 31 January 2019 and Strazimiri v. Albania, no.
34602/16, § 103, 21 January 2020)?
2.
Has there been a breach of Article 5 § 1 of the Convention?
In particular, taking into account the applicant’s state of mental health, was he able to understand the aims of the penalty, as required by Article 5 § 1 (a) of the Convention (see Sy v. Italy, no.
11791/20, § 122, 24 January 2022)?
3.
Did the applicant have an effective and enforceable right to compensation for his allegedly unlawful detention, in breach of Article 5 § 1, as required by Article 5 § 5 of the Convention?
4.
Has there been a breach of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention as regards the implementation of the decisions issued on 22 November 2022 and 18 January 2023?
5.
Has there been a violation of the applicant’s right to respect for his private life, contrary to Article 8 of the Convention, on account of the alleged lack of an adequate therapeutic and educational treatment?
The Government are further requested to submit: - the final report of the psychiatric observation carried out in February 2021; - an updated independent medical report addressing the following issues: (i) the applicant’s state of mental health; (ii) the treatment he has received in prison; (iii) the compatibility of his state of health with the current detention regime; and (iv) his capacity to understand the aims of the penalty; - information on the measures taken by the DAP to implement the decisions issued on 22 November 2022 and 18 January 2023.
Published on 28 August 2023 The application concerns the continued detention in prison of the applicant, who suffers from a borderline and antisocial personality disorder and is recognised as 100 % disabled.
The applicant was subject to several criminal proceedings and convicted for crimes including manslaughter, causing bodily harm and kidnapping.
In some cases, the domestic courts found that the applicant was acting in a state of diminished responsibility but that his mental capacity was not entirely impaired (vizio parziale di mente); in other cases, he was acquitted on the grounds of insanity.
The applicant has been detained almost continuously since 2016 in various prisons.
Lastly, on 7 June 2023, he has been transferred from the Cagliari Prison to the Turin Prison, where he is currently held.
During his detention he has attempted suicide several times and the last attempt occurred on 28 December 2022.
He has also repeatedly made self-harming and aggressive gestures.
According to the reports issued by the prison medical service, the applicant receives regular psychiatric support and pharmacological treatment.
In 2019 a court-appointed expert pointed out that the detention in prison had aggravated the applicant’s mental disorder.
Furthermore, a report issued in 2020 by the prison educators stated that the applicant’s mental health was incompatible with detention in prison.
All the applicant’s requests for replacing detention in prison with alternative measures and complaints of inadequate medical treatment were rejected by the domestic courts.
On 22 November 2022, the Cagliari Court responsible for the execution of sentences (tribunale di sorveglianza) noted that the current detention regime was “absolutely inadequate and incompatible with the applicant’s state of mental health” and asked the prison administration (dipartimento dell’amministrazione penitenziaria ; “DAP”) to transfer him to a more adequate criminal institution (istituto di pena).
Such indication was subsequently reiterated by the judge responsible for the execution of sentences (magistrato di sorveglianza) on 18 January 2023.
The applicant complains, under Articles 3 and 8 of the Convention, that his state of mental health is incompatible with detention in prison and that he does not receive adequate treatment for his disorder.
He further complains, under Article 5 § 1 of the Convention, of his continued detention notwithstanding his inability to understand the aims of the penalty and, under Article 5 § 5, of the absence of compensation for his allegedly unlawful detention.
Lastly, he complains under Article 6 of the Convention of the non-execution of the decisions ordering his transfer to an institution more adapted to his need.