7.  The applicant was born in 1955 and lives in Cusco (Peru). At the material time he was living in Zurich. 8.  On 6 April 1995 the applicant’s wife was found dead. The applicant who, according to the toxicological examinations that he subsequently underwent, was under the influence of alcohol and cocaine, had stabbed his wife 49 times. He had also cut off her head and thrown it out of the window of the flat where the incident had taken place. 9.  At an unknown date the applicant was charged with his wife’s murder. 10.  On 16 May 1995 the public prosecutor for the district of Zurich asked the psychiatric clinic of the University of Zurich (Psychiatrische Universitätsklinik Zürich) to carry out a psychiatric assessment of the applicant. 11.  On 10 October 1995 Doctor R., a psychiatrist, issued his report. He found that the applicant had been suffering for several years from chronic paranoid schizophrenia and had a drug addiction. He took the view that the offence had been directly related to his illness and drug abuse. He concluded that at the material time the applicant had not been criminally responsible for his actions. In view of the serious danger he represented for public safety, Dr R. recommended his confinement. 12.  On 31 May 1996 the District Court of Zurich found, having regard to the evidence before it, that the applicant had killed his wife and that he had been totally lacking in criminal responsibility for his actions at the material time. The court thus ordered his confinement within the meaning of Article 43 of the Criminal Code as then in force. 13.  The applicant was placed in confinement from 29 August 1996 onwards at Pöschwies Prison in Regensdorf (Canton of Zurich). 14.  His discharge was refused on 14 July 1997, 29 July 1998, 24 September 1999 and 17 August 2000. 15.  On 7 June 2001, at the request of the Probation and Sentence-enforcement Service of the Canton of Zurich (Bewährungs- und Vollzugsdienste des Kantons Zürich), the applicant’s mental health was examined by a head doctor and an assistant doctor of the Cantonal Psychiatric Clinic of Rheinau (Kantonale Psychiatrische Klinik Rheinau), who drew up a second psychiatric report. 16.  The expert psychiatrists observed that the applicant had not encountered any particular difficulties in the custodial facility where he had been held since 1997. In the prison he had successively worked as a bookbinder, in the dispensary, as a gardener and lastly as a cook. The experts took note of the fact that, according to a psychological report of 5 June 1998, the applicant had not displayed any awareness of his illness and no capacity for introspection. As regards his mental health, the experts concluded that he was suffering from chronic paranoid schizophrenia and that in the “not very stimulating” atmosphere of the prison, “the positive symptoms of the illness had become less noticeable”, even though he “still display[ed] a delirious interpretation of the details of his offence”. His situation had thus changed little since his psychiatric assessment in 1995. In view of the lack of treatment, the experts took the view that “no indication c[ould] be given as regards alternative arrangements for the enforcement of the measure or the possibility of discharge on probation”. 17.  On 14 January 2002, 23 September 2002 and 21 August 2003, the Judicial Enforcements Office of the Canton of Zurich (Justizvollzug des Kantons Zurich) refused the applicant’s discharge on probation. The applicant challenged the decision of 23 September 2002 before the Administrative Court of the Canton of Zurich (Verwaltungsgericht des Kantons Zurich), which dismissed his appeal on 4 December 2002. 18.  On 23 March 2004 the Psychiatry and Psychology Service of the Judicial Enforcements Office issued an annual therapy report, signed by two psychologists, one of whom had treated the applicant. The report confirmed the findings of the psychiatric assessment carried out in 2001 and indicated an unfavourable legal prognosis on account of the applicant’s personality and the impossibility of treating his residual psychotic symptoms. The applicant continued, in particular, to deny that he was ill and refused to follow the medical treatment that had been prescribed for him. The psychologists concluded that the conditions for his discharge on probation were not satisfied. At the end of their report they indicated that they had discussed the report with the applicant and had given him a copy. 19.  On 24 June 2004, after hearing the applicant in person in an interview of 6 May 2004, the Judicial Enforcements Office of the Canton of Zurich refused his discharge on probation. It based its decision on a report of the Pöschwies Prison administration of 27 April 2004, on the annual report of 23 March 2004, and on the psychiatric assessment of 2001. 20.  Assisted by a lawyer, the applicant appealed to the Directorate of Justice and Internal Affairs of the Canton of Zurich, arguing that a fresh expert’s assessment was necessary. He applied for legal aid. The Directorate of Justice and Internal Affairs dismissed his application in a decision of 28 September 2004. He was exempted from paying administrative costs, but was denied the free assistance of a lawyer, on the ground that his appeal was devoid of any prospect of success, as his discharge on probation had already been refused several times and there had been no change in the meantime. 21.  The applicant lodged an appeal with the Administrative Tribunal of the Canton of Zurich. Once again, he submitted that the verification of the need for his confinement had to be based on a fresh psychiatric assessment by a neutral doctor. He also sought free legal assistance and requested a hearing, submitting as follows:
“It is is essential that the person concerned should have access to a court and the opportunity to be heard either in person or, where necessary, through some form of representation, failing which he [cannot be] ‘afforded the fundamental guarantees of procedure applied in matters of deprivation of liberty’ (ECtHR judgment Winterwerp v. the Netherlands, 24 October 1979, Series A, no. 33, § 60).
While the requirements of Article 5 § 4 ECHR [can be distinguished] from those laid down in Article 6 ECHR, which applies to civil and criminal proceedings, this provision dictates, according to legal science, that sufficient safeguards be afforded in order to guarantee effective judicial supervision.
Should a fresh expert’s opinion not be ordered, it would at least be justified for the author of the report to give evidence at a hearing of the court and for [the applicant] to put questions to him.
As already stated, European legal science guarantees in such cases an adversarial hearing and the examination of witnesses. It entails that a fresh expert’s opinion may prove necessary in order to uphold the rights of the person confined.” 22.  The Administrative Court dismissed the applicant’s appeal by a decision of 19 January 2005. It found that in view of the circumstances, the expert’s report of 2001 was still valid. The doubts expressed by the applicant concerning that report had already given rise to a final judgment of the Administrative Court of 4 December 2002. Moreover, it was unnecessary for the expert to give evidence as he had already expressed his opinion clearly and comprehensively in his report. No new pertinent information could thus be expected of such a hearing. In addition, the applicant had not shown how his right of access to a court had actually been impaired. He had failed to indicate the reasons which led him to believe that the Administrative Court was not able to comply with the basic rules of procedure or to exercise sufficient supervision. Lastly, he had been denied legal assistance on the ground that his appeal appeared devoid of any prospect of success, two appeals in the same case already having been dismissed without any change in the meantime. 23.  The applicant lodged an administrative-law appeal with the Federal Court. He reiterated the complaints he had submitted to the Administrative Court: the last expert’s report was now four years’ old, and the therapy report was not a neutral assessment and was insufficient. In addition, given that various findings of the expert’s report were based on misinterpretations it was necessary for a fresh expert’s report to be drawn up or for the expert to give evidence with the possibility of cross-examination. The applicant was, moreover, entitled to the holding of a public and adversarial hearing. Lastly, the denial of legal assistance by the court below had impaired his right of access to a court. As the applicant was entitled to regular scrutiny of the lawfulness of his detention, the fact that he was appealing again against a refusal could not constitute a ground for refusing legal aid. The applicant also sought free legal assistance in the proceedings before the Federal Court. 24.  In a judgment of 19 October 2005 the Federal Court dismissed the applicant’s appeal. It declared inadmissible the complaint concerning the lack of a public hearing, on the ground that no formal application to that effect had been lodged with the cantonal authorities. As regards the need for a fresh assessment by a neutral expert, it first noted that Article 45 of the Criminal Code did not require one, even though case-law had found it necessary in particular circumstances. In the present case, the Federal Court found that a fresh psychiatric assessment was not necessary, because the initial diagnosis had been confirmed in subsequent therapy reports and “no change c[ould] be identified”. It concluded that no other measure of sentence enforcement could be considered, with the result that the maintaining of the applicant’s confinement was to be regarded as proportionate. As regards, lastly, the complaint about the refusal to grant the applicant legal aid, the Federal Court first observed that he had been able to use the remedies available to him. It then noted that Article 5 § 4 of the Convention required scrutiny of the lawfulness of detention only at reasonable intervals, and that such intervals were longer with regard to persons of unsound mind, where circumstances only changed in the medium term. The last decision to have been taken by a court in the present case dated from 4 December 2002. At the time of the annual assessment by the prison administration in 2004, it had been found that the circumstances had clearly not changed since that decision. The appeal thus appeared to be devoid of any prospects of success. In the Federal Court’s view, that constituted a legitimate ground on which to deny legal aid. In view of the foregoing, legal aid was also denied in respect of the proceedings before the Federal Court itself.
...