9.  The applicant was born in 1949 and is currently in Clairvaux Prison. 10.  The applicant, who claims to be a revolutionary by profession, was taken into custody on 15 August 1994. He was placed under judicial investigation in connection with a series of terrorist attacks in France and was given a life sentence on 25 December 1997 for the murder of two police officers and an acquaintance on 27 June 1975. 11.  He was held in solitary confinement from the moment he was first taken into custody in mid-August 1994 until 17 October 2002, notably in La Santé Prison (Paris). 12.  According to his lawyer, this entailed his being held in a 6.84 square metre cell that was run-down and poorly insulated, with an open toilet area. The applicant was prohibited all contact with other prisoners and even prison warders and was only allowed to leave his cell once his fellow inmates had returned to theirs. His sole permitted activity outside his cell was a two-hour daily walk in a triangular area that was 15 metres long and 7.5 metres wide at the base, receding to 1 metre at the vertex. This area was walled in and covered with wire mesh. His only recreational activity was reading the newspapers or watching television on a rented set. The only visits he received were from his lawyers and, once a month, a priest. The prison authorities ignored his requests to be allowed visits from anyone else. Mail intended for the applicant had gone missing, although it had not been officially confiscated, and he had not received a winter jacket that had been brought to the prison for him in October 1999 until 16 February 2000. 13.  The Government did not dispute these facts. They said that the cell was lit by natural light, a ceiling light and a reading lamp. None of the members of the applicant’s family had ever applied for permission to visit. Only two requests to visit had been turned down, both from journalists. 14.  The documents in the case file show that the applicant has received visits from 58 different lawyers during his time in prison.
His current representative, who is also his wife under Islamic law, visited him more than 640 times between 27 June 1997 and 29 April 2002. 15.  The parties have produced a series of decisions requiring the applicant to be held in solitary confinement for successive three-month periods. 16.  The first was taken when the applicant was first detained (15 August 1994). It consists of a form on which the following boxes were ticked: “Need to prevent communication with one or more other prisoners” and “Undermining of order and discipline in the prison”. There were no observations by the applicant. The same day, a doctor issued a medical certificate stating:
“[The applicant’s] health is compatible with solitary confinement. However, he must, if possible, have complete rest for eight days.” 17.  A decision dated 3 November 1994 to prolong the applicant’s solitary confinement from 15 November 1994 to 15 February 1995 was approved by the Regional Director’s Office of the Prison Service. The reasons stated were the same, but the applicant made the following observations:
“I consider that these solitary-confinement measures, especially the disturbances at night, indicate a desire to harass a political prisoner.”
In a medical certificate issued the same day, a doctor
“certif[ied] that [the applicant’s] health [was] compatible with his continued solitary confinement”. 18.  A decision of 20 January 1995, which was applicable from 15 February to 15 May 1995, cited the same reasons and was approved by the Regional Director’s Office. The applicant refused to sign the notice informing him of the decision. In a medical certificate issued the same day, a doctor
“certif[ied] that [the applicant’s] health [was] compatible with his continued solitary confinement for administrative reasons”. 19.  A decision dated 25 April 1995, which was approved by the Regional Director’s Office and was applicable from 15 May to 15 August 1995, spoke of the “need to prevent communication with one or more other prisoners” and a “security measure”. The applicant was transferred that day to Fresnes Prison. 20.  A proposal to prolong the measure dated 26 July 1995 cited the “need to prevent communication with one or more other prisoners”.
On 27 July 1995 a doctor from Fresnes Prison issued a certificate stating:
“Health currently compatible with continued solitary confinement.” 21.  On 11 August 1995 the measure was prolonged for a period of three months starting on 15 August 1995. 22.  On 10 November 1995 a doctor from Fresnes Prison issued a medical certificate stating that the applicant’s health was satisfactory and compatible with solitary confinement.
A further proposal to prolong the measure dated the same day referred to “the undermining of order or discipline in the prison”. 23.  On 20 November 1995 the measure was prolonged for a period of three months starting on 15 November 1995. 24.  A proposal of 24 January 1996 for a further extension referred to “the need to prevent communication with one or more other prisoners”.
On 25 January 1996 a doctor from Fresnes Prison issued a certificate stating that the applicant’s health was satisfactory. 25.  On 4 March 1996 the measure was prolonged for a period of three months starting on 15 February 1996. 26.  On 19 April 1996 a doctor from Fresnes Prison issued a certificate stating that the applicant’s health was compatible with his detention in the segregation unit.
On 7 May 1996 the measure was extended for a period of three months commencing on 15 May 1996. A proposal dated 17 April 1996 mentioned a “precautionary or security measure required for one or more of the following reasons: need to prevent communication with one or more other prisoners”. 27.  It was not until 31 October 1996 that the applicant was notified of the measure applicable for the period from 15 May to 15 August 1996. He made the following observation:
“I do not think it right that I should be asked to sign more than five months late.” 28.  On 15 July 1996 the applicant was notified of a measure which referred to the “need to prevent communication with one or more other prisoners” and to “international terrorism”. 29.  On 22 October 1996 a doctor from Fresnes Prison issued a certificate stating that the applicant’s health was compatible with his detention in solitary confinement. 30.  A decision dated 31 October 1996, which was applicable from 15 November 1996 to 15 February 1997, referred only to the “need to prevent communication with one or more other prisoners”. The applicant made the following observations on the notification slip:
“I note that Mr ..., the director, has already replied to these observations, even before I have made them, it is stated below: 07.11.1996 before the Sentence Enforcement Board in the prison. Consequently, the remarks I am required to make have become superfluous. Even so, my solitary confinement is a form of torture.”
This measure was authorised by the head of the Prison Service at the Ministry of Justice on 14 November 1996, as were those that followed. 31.  On 17 January 1997 a doctor from the Paris Regional Health Authority certified that he had examined the applicant and found his health to be compatible with solitary confinement. 32.  A proposal made on 20 January 1997 referred to the “need to protect [the applicant] from the rest of the prison population” and the “need to prevent communication with one or more other prisoners”. The applicant made the following remarks:
“I note that I am increasingly subject to this base harassment and am being singled out as a political prisoner. I reject the reasons given for keeping me in solitary confinement.” 33.  On 23 April 1997 a doctor from the Paris Regional Health Authority certified that solitary confinement was not contraindicated for the applicant. 34.  The following reasons were given for a proposal for a further extension dated 25 April 1997:
“Precautionary or security measure for one or more of the following reasons:
(i)  need to protect you from the rest of the prison population;
(ii)   need to prevent communication with one or more other prisoners.”
The applicant made the following comments:
“I have not had a check-up, been weighed or had my blood pressure taken, etc. ... I note that the lower section of the questionnaire has already been filled in, thus making a mockery of the observations which I have been asked to make. Please give me a further complete medical check-up.” 35.  A decision of 21 July 1997 referred in addition to “the undermining of order and discipline in the prison” and “potential dangerousness linked to acts of terrorism”. The applicant made the following comments:
“I have not had a medical certificate following a medical examination and you are using forged documents which you do not even dare to show me. I request an immediate interview with the governor.” 36.  A decision of 13 August 1997 again cited the “need to prevent communication with one or more other prisoners”. 37.  On 14 October 1997 a doctor at Fresnes Prison issued a certificate certifying that the applicant’s health was satisfactory.
Proposals of 21 October 1997 and 23 January 1998 were in the same terms as the decision of 13 August 1997. On signing the proposal of 21 October, the applicant stated:
“I sign under protest against an unjust repressive measure (decision) against a political prisoner held hostage by the French State.” 38.  On 23 January 1998 a Fresnes Prison doctor issued a certificate certifying that the applicant’s health was satisfactory. 39.  It was followed by a further certificate on 22 April 1998 stating that the applicant was fit enough to remain in solitary confinement and a certificate of 23 July 1998 stating that solitary confinement was not contraindicated. A further certificate drawn up on 21 October 1998 stated that the applicant was in satisfactory health and fit enough to remain in solitary confinement. 40.  Proposals made on 22 April, 23 July and 19 October 1998 cited the need for “precautionary and security measures in view of the prisoner’s character and record”.
The applicant commented as follows on the proposal of 22 April 1998:
“I acknowledge receipt of notice but protest against the renewal of this unjustified measure of vile political repression that has been imposed on me. Please provide me with a copy.”
On the proposal of 19 October 1998, he noted:
“The signature on this notice by the disloyal deputy director Mr V. further attests to the unfairness of repressive measures imposed by a prison service that acts unlawfully against political inmates such as me.” 41.  The measure dated 19 October 1998 referred to “precautionary and security measures in view of the prisoner’s character and record”. 42.  On 15 January 1999 a doctor from La Santé Prison issued a medical certificate in which he stated:
“The applicant’s health is currently compatible with his continued detention in solitary confinement subject to his receiving psychiatric treatment.”
Proposals made on 14 January and 8 April 1999 stated:
“The prisoner must remain in administrative solitary confinement on order and security grounds, in view of his character and record and the nature of his court cases.” 43.  The Ministry of Justice stated in decisions of 20 January and 20 April 1999:
“The character of this prisoner, who is an HSP [high-security prisoner] and objectively dangerous, in particular because of the nature and length of the sentence he faces, justifies his continued solitary confinement on order and security grounds.” 44.  On 9 April 1999 the senior doctor at La Santé Prison issued a certificate which read:
“The circular of December 1998 on solitary confinement states that the opinion of a doctor will only be sought after a year’s confinement. Last certificate issued on (illegible). I do not, therefore, need to append a certificate regarding prolongation to this note.” 45.  On 23 April 1999 another prison doctor certified that the applicant’s health was compatible with his detention or continued detention in solitary confinement. 46.  A further certificate dated 20 July 1999 confirmed that the applicant’s health was compatible with his continued detention in solitary confinement. 47.  A decision of 22 July 1999 cited the following reasons:
“You must remain in solitary confinement for a further period of three months on order and security grounds, in view of your character, your classification as an HSP, and the nature of your convictions and of the cases currently pending.” 48.  A decision of 25 October 1999, which took effect on 15 November 1999, read as follows:
“It is necessary to prolong your solitary confinement for a further period of three months in order to preserve order and security in the prison in view of your dangerousness, your ability to influence fellow inmates and the risk of your escaping given the substantial aid potentially at your disposal.”
The applicant made the following observations:
“I note that the infamous masquerade by the Zionist militant Elisabeth Guigou, who runs the French Ministry of Justice on behalf of the imperialist forces that are seeking to reduce France to the level of a suzerain of the United States, continues. To heck with Human Rights and with Law itself. ALLOUHA AKBAR.” 49.  On 1 February 2000 the authorities relied on
“order and security grounds, in view of your character, your classification as an HSP and the offences for which you have been imprisoned”. 50.  The decisions of 27 April, 20 July and 20 October 2000 were couched in identical terms to the decision of 25 October 1999, save that the end of the sentence read “given your access to outside help”. 51.  On 13 July 2000 the senior doctor at La Santé Prison issued a medical certificate which read:
“I, the undersigned, ... declare that [the applicant] is in quite astounding physical and mental condition after six years in solitary confinement.
However, it is not proper for a patient’s doctor to be required to issue a certificate that ought to be a matter for expert opinion. It is very difficult for a doctor to sanction solitary confinement on administrative, rather than medical, grounds.” 52.  On 3 October 2000 another doctor issued a certificate in the following terms:
“I, the undersigned, ... certify that I have today examined [the applicant].
No clinical examination was carried out. However, in view of his current mental condition, I am unable to give a medical opinion on whether he is fit to remain in solitary confinement.” 53.  On 5 January and 23 January 2001 the Ministry of Justice ratified decisions by the governors of Fleury-Mérogis and La Santé Prisons, dated 30 December 2000 and 22 January 2001 respectively, to place the applicant in solitary confinement after previous orders had automatically lapsed following his transfer. 54.  The following reasons were stated in the decision of 22 January 2001:
“Regard has been had to your personality, your classification as an HSP, the length of your sentence (LI [life imprisonment]), the nature of the offences and your involvement in an international terrorist network. All these objective indicators of dangerousness make your continued solitary confinement necessary on security grounds.” 55.  On 20 March 2001 a doctor from La Santé Prison certified that she had seen the applicant but had not been able to carry out a physical examination. She added:
“However, in view of his current mental state, I am unable to give a medical opinion on whether he is fit to remain in solitary confinement.”
On 28 March 2001 the applicant commented as follows:
“I have once again filled in this form, having already done so on 19 March ... I denounce ‘the white torture’ of perpetual solitary confinement which, following the ‘serious provocation of 28 December 2000’, has been aggravated by the obstruction of the fanlight, which now only opens to an angle of 30o (7.5 cm), preventing fresh air getting in. This is on top of the ban on my receiving visits or French lessons, in breach of the undertakings. You are committing a crime of ‘lese-humanity’.” 56.  On 28 March 2001 a doctor from the Cochin Hospital practising in La Santé Prison issued the following certificate:
“I, the undersigned, ... state that the doctors from the medical service at Paris La Santé Prison are not qualified to judge whether the physical and mental condition of the prisoner Ilich Ramirez Sanchez, who is currently being held in La Santé, is compatible with his continued solitary confinement.” 57.  On 22 April 2001 it was decided to prolong the solitary confinement
“in order to preserve order and security in the prison in view of your dangerousness, your ability to influence fellow inmates and the risk of your escaping given your access to outside help”.
The same reasons were cited in a further extension of 18 June 2001, while a decision of September 2001 was worded in almost identical terms. 58.  On 23 May 2001 the doctor in charge of the Outpatient Consultation and Treatment Unit (“the OCTU”) wrote to the governor of La Santé Prison in these terms:
“I have met Mr Ilich Ramirez Sanchez ... as I was asked for an opinion on whether there is any contraindication to this patient’s remaining in solitary confinement.
Even though Mr Ramirez Sanchez is in reasonable physical and mental condition, strict solitary confinement for more than six years and nine months is ultimately bound to cause psychological harm.
It is my duty as a doctor to alert you to these potential consequences so that you may take an informed decision.
...” 59.  On 20 June 2001 the doctor who issued the certificate of 20 March 2001 issued a second certificate in similar terms. 60.  The following reasons were stated in a decision that was applicable from 22 July 2001:
“... in order to preserve order and security in the prison in view of your dangerousness, your ability to influence fellow inmates and the risk of your escaping given your access to outside help.” 61.  On 20 September 2001 the doctor in charge of the OCTU issued a medical certificate after examining the applicant “for the purposes of the medical opinion required for continued solitary confinement”. He stated that the applicant presented
“a physical and mental condition that was entirely reasonable after seven years in solitary confinement”,
adding, however, that
this opinion does not constitute an expert opinion, which I am not qualified to give”. 62.  The following reasons were given for prolonging the solitary confinement in a decision of 4 October 2001:
“It is necessary to prolong your solitary confinement in order to preserve order and security in the prison and to avoid your exerting an influence over your fellow inmates or attempting to escape.”
In his observations, the applicant noted in particular:
“More than seven years of strict solitary confinement, a ban on receiving visits or French lessons and a steady reduction in the amount of fresh air in the isolation cell from which even the old wooden school desk has been removed all serve to demonstrate the unfairness of the repressive measures that have been taken against a revolutionary political leader who will not be broken.” 63.  On 20 December 2001 the measure was renewed for a further three months on the following grounds:
“Regard has been had to your character, your classification as an HSP, the length of your sentence (LI), the nature of the offences and your involvement in an international terrorist network. All these objective indicators of dangerousness make your continued solitary confinement necessary on security grounds.” 64.  Decisions of 10 January, 25 March and 8 July 2002 read as follows:
“It is necessary for you to remain in solitary confinement in order to preserve order and security in the prison and to avoid your exerting an influence over your fellow inmates or attempting to escape. The fact that you have received a life sentence, your classification as a high-security prisoner and the nature of the offences for which you have been prosecuted militate in favour of your remaining in solitary confinement.” 65.  On 13 June 2002 an assistant doctor from the OCTU at La Santé Prison issued a medical certificate in the following terms:
“I, the undersigned, Doctor ..., an assistant doctor from the OCTU at La Santé Prison in Paris, certify that I have examined Mr Ramirez Sanchez Ilich, who was born on 12/10/49, in connection with a request for him to remain in solitary confinement.
From the medical standpoint, the problem posed by prolonged solitary confinement over a number of years is that it may affect the prisoner’s physical and mental health.” 66.  On 29 July 2002 the doctor in charge of the OCTU at La Santé Prison provided the Ministry of Health with the following summary of the medical care the applicant was receiving:
“This patient, who, as you are aware, is in the segregation unit, receives two mandatory medical visits from a member of the OCTU medical team every week, as required by the French Criminal Code.
He is currently in excellent somatic health. I am not qualified to express an opinion on his mental health.
In addition, Mr Ramirez Sanchez may on request consult members of the OCTU team independently of the mandatory medical visits to the segregation unit.
He has thus been able to consult an ophthalmologist ... and has been prescribed corrective glasses.
He has consulted a general practitioner several times independently of mandatory visits to the segregation unit on ...
Biological tests are performed regularly. ...
The treatment Mr Ramirez Sanchez has been receiving can be equated to comfort treatment: ...
It should be noted that Mr Ramirez Sanchez has refused any psychological help from the RMPS [Regional Medical and Psychological Service].
...” 67.  In September 2002 a further decision to prolong the solitary confinement was taken “in order to preserve security and order, which are under serious threat owing to the applicant’s implication in terrorist networks, his dangerousness and the risk of his escaping”. 68.  On 17 October 2002 the applicant was transferred to Saint-Maur Prison (département of Indre), where his solitary confinement ended. On 13 May 2003 he lodged a fresh application with the Court, in which he complained of the new conditions in which he was being held and, in particular, of the distance from Paris. 69.  In June 2003 a book that had been written by the applicant with the help of a journalist was published under the title L’islam révolutionnaire (“Revolutionary Islam”). 70.  On 27 August 2003 the Indre Health Inspector wrote the following letter to the Ministry of Health:
“Mr Ramirez Sanchez received a somatic and psychiatric medical examination on his arrival at the prison on 17 October 2002.
He has at no stage been placed in solitary confinement in Saint-Maur Prison.
As regards his somatic health, Mr Ramirez Sanchez receives the statutory care and may consult the OCTU on request.
As to his mental health, he was seen by an RMPS psychiatrist as part of the standard induction procedure. No follow-up was prescribed at the time and the patient has not asked to see a psychiatrist since. He was offered an examination and this took place on 26 August 2003. The RMPS have not recommended any follow-up to that appointment.” 71.  On 18 March 2004 the applicant was transferred to Fresnes Prison in the Paris area where he was again placed in solitary confinement. This followed a television programme in which, in the course of a telephone interview with a journalist, the applicant refused among other things to express any remorse for his crimes to the victims on the grounds that there were “no innocent victims”. 72.  On 6 August 2004 a doctor at Fresnes Prison issued a medical certificate in the following terms:
“I, the undersigned, ... certify that the prolonged period of solitary confinement to which Mr Ilich Ramirez Sanchez, who was born on 12 October 1949, is subject is detrimental to his mental health.
Bringing the solitary confinement to an end would go a long way to facilitating the monitoring of a chronic somatic pathology from which the patient has recently started to suffer which requires medical supervision and regular biological tests.” 73.  On 20 December 2005 another doctor issued a medical certificate which read:
“I, the undersigned, ... regularly see Mr Ilich Ramirez Sanchez, a prisoner in the segregation unit.
His continued solitary confinement is damaging his health; it has now lasted for several years and it would appear desirable from the medical standpoint for it to cease.” 74.  On 24 January 2005 the applicant was transferred to Fleury-Mérogis Prison and on 24 November 2005 to La Santé Prison. In both institutions he was kept in solitary confinement with the measure being periodically renewed, including on 17 February 2005 (see below). 75.  On 30 June and 5 October 2005 the senior doctor at the OCTU at Fleury-Mérogis Prison issued two medical certificates in exactly the same terms:
“I, the undersigned, ... certify that Mr Ramirez Sanchez Ilich, who was born on 12 October 1949, has been in my care since his arrival at the prison.
The problems which Mr Ramirez Sanchez has had with his physical health are now stable.
Mr Ramirez Sanchez continues to make the same complaints about the difficulties of being held in full solitary confinement.
Since he does not wish to be treated by the Regional Medical and Psychological Service at Fleury-Mérogis Prison and I am not qualified to determine the impact of the conditions in which he is detained on his mental state, a medical and psychological assessment would be desirable.
Certificate issued at the request of the prison authorities and delivered by hand for whatever purpose it may serve in law.” 76.  On 5 January 2006 the applicant was transferred to Clairvaux Prison, where he is held under the ordinary prison regime. 77.  On 14 September 1996 the applicant lodged an application for judicial review with the Paris Administrative Court, arguing that the decision of 11 July 1996 to place him in solitary confinement should be set aside. 78.  In a judgment of 25 November 1998, which was served on the applicant on 26 January 1999, the Paris Administrative Court rejected the application, holding that the impugned decision was an internal administrative measure which the administrative courts had no power to set aside. 79.  The applicant lodged an application for an order setting aside, on the grounds of formal invalidity, the decision of 17 February 2005 to keep him in solitary confinement. In a judgment of 15 December 2005, the Paris Administrative Court held as follows.
“Although the authorities argue in their defence that the judge responsible for the execution of sentences gave an oral decision on 4 February 2005 in favour of prolonging Mr Ramirez Sanchez’s solitary confinement, there is no evidence in the file to show that the regional director obtained the opinion of the Sentence Enforcement Board before delivering his reasoned report to the Minister of Justice, even though, by virtue of the aforementioned provisions of Article D. 283-1 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the Board is the only body empowered to decide whether solitary confinement should continue beyond a year. It follows that Mr Ramirez Sanchez’s argument that the decision of 17 February 2005 to prolong his solitary confinement was defective and must be set aside is well-founded.
As regards the submissions on the issue of compensation.
Although the formal invalidity of a solitary-confinement measure constitutes a fault capable of engaging the State’s responsibility, such a fault cannot entitle the person subjected to the measure to compensation for his or her loss if the circumstances of the case were such as to justify in law the decision to place the prisoner in solitary confinement as the alleged loss cannot be considered to have been a consequence of the defect in the decision.
The investigation shows that Mr Ramirez Sanchez has been sentenced to life imprisonment for the murder of police officers. He has been placed under investigation in connection with various terrorist cases, inter alia, for voluntary homicide and using an explosive device to destroy movable property. The applicant might use communications in Fleury-Mérogis Prison or on the outside to re-establish contact with the members of his terrorist cell or seek to proselytize other prisoners and possibly prepare an escape. That being so, the circumstances of the instant case were such as to justify in law the decision taken to prolong the solitary confinement for a period of three months. The damage alleged by Mr Ramirez Sanchez, which included the loss of contact with other prisoners, cannot, therefore, be considered to have been a consequence of the procedural defect in the decision of 17 February 2005, so that his request for an order requiring the State to compensate him for the damage he claims to have sustained is unfounded. ...”