CASE OF GHEORGHE PREDESCU v. ROMANIA
Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Positive obligations) (Substantive aspect)
Alvina Gyulumyan;Ján Šikuta;Josep Casadevall;Kristina Pardalos;Luis López Guerra
5. The applicant was born in 1955 and is currently serving a prison sentence. Since his sentence began, he has been imprisoned in a number of prisons in Romania. 6. On 22 January 2007 the applicant was placed in pre-trial detention on suspicion of murder. 7. On 10 July 2007 the applicant was convicted of murder and sentenced to seventeen years and six months’ imprisonment. 8. According to the information provided by the National Prisons Administration (Administraţia Naţională a Penitenciarelor, the “ANP”), from his arrest to January 2012 the applicant was mainly held in Târgu Jiu, Craiova, Giurgiu, Gherla and Arad Prisons. Every two or three months he spent about a week in a prison hospital, in one of Jilava, Colibaşi or Dej Prisons. During the reporting period, the applicant was transferred forty-seven times between these eight facilities; fifteen of these transfers were to the psychiatric wards of prison hospitals. 9. The applicant alleged that in all of the prisons in which he had been held other inmates had tried to poison his food and to beat him to death, and had been encouraged to do so or even helped by the prison authorities. 10. On 14 March 2007, while in detention, the applicant was diagnosed with delusional disorder, a type of psychosis. Psychiatric treatment in Jilava Prison Hospital was recommended. 11. According to the official prison records, each time the applicant was admitted to a prison hospital the diagnosis was confirmed. From 2007 to March 2010, each time he was discharged from prison hospital he was prescribed medication for his psychiatric disorder. It is mentioned in the official prison records that he refused to accept the diagnosis and to take his medication. For this reason, he was on each occasion discharged from hospital and transferred back to prison. 12. From March to July 2010 the applicant spent two periods of two weeks and one period of one week in Jilava Prison Hospital. He was discharged from hospital each time, it being considered that no medication was needed for his psychiatric condition. Following a further period of admission to Colibaşi Prison Hospital in September 2010, he was given medication again. 13. On several occasions the applicant reported to the authorities that the other inmates were trying to poison him. According to him, instead of receiving an answer to his complaints, he was transferred each time to a psychiatric hospital. He also asked to be placed in a cell alone, in order to prevent other attempts at poisoning him. 14. According to the information provided by the ANP, the quality of food was tested daily, and water quality was tested periodically. The results were satisfactory. The applicant was never admitted to the infirmary with symptoms of poisoning. 15. In 2009, in Craiova Prison, he was transferred, at his request, to the maximum security wing of that prison, where he shared a room with two others. While he was there, the applicant nevertheless chose to sleep in a small bathtub (measuring 80 cm by 80 cm) in the unheated bathroom from November 2009 to February 2010, as he feared that his cellmates were trying to poison him while he was asleep. 16. The applicant lodged criminal complaints against the prison guards, the doctor and the governor of Craiova Prison, whom he accused of improper behaviour. On 10 March 2010, 31 March 2010 and 8 July 2011 the Prosecutor’s Office decided not to bring a criminal prosecution. It noted that there was no evidence that prison officers had encouraged the inmates to poison or beat the applicant. The prosecutor also noted that the applicant had never sought medical help in prison for any poison-related symptoms and that he had never been in conflict with the other inmates or with the wardens. The prosecutor took account of the fact that the applicant had been diagnosed with mixed delusional disorder and that he had been compulsorily admitted to hospital several times, but discharged only a few days later, because he had refused to acknowledge the illness or to receive treatment. 17. Upon receiving the prosecutor’s decision of 10 March 2010, the applicant asked to be examined by the National Institute for Forensic Medicine (“the Forensic Institute”) to prove that he was not mentally ill. 18. In Gherla Prison, the applicant chose to sleep on the toilet seat to avoid the alleged poisoning and used to wake up in the middle of the night to rinse his mouth, being certain that he had been poisoned in his sleep. According to the official prison records, the most difficult stage of his detention in Gherla Prison was in April 2010, when he repeatedly complained that the administration was promising benefits for inmates if they poisoned his food and water. 19. In February 2010 the applicant went on hunger strike to force the prison administration to place him alone in a cell. The judge delegated by the court of appeal to supervise the observance of prisoners’ rights for the purpose of Law no. 275/2006 on the execution of sentences (“the postsentencing judge”) visited him and explained that his request could only be met if there were places available in individual cells, which was not the case at that time. In a decision of 24 February 2010 the post-sentencing judge determined that it was appropriate for the applicant to be kept in common dormitories but asked that he be seen daily by a doctor during his hunger strike, to ensure that his life was not endangered. 20. In 2011, a similar request to be placed alone was denied by the Craiova Prison administration, as there were no individual cells available. 21. The applicant asked to be transferred to Rahova Prison Hospital, in a single room under medical supervision, from September to November 2009. His request was refused, as it was considered that the conditions of detention in Craiova Prison were appropriate. 22. On 8 September 2009, 9 November 2009 and 15 June 2011 the Craiova Prison administration responded to inquiries by the ANP concerning the applicant’s allegations of poisoning, explaining the applicant’s mental health problems. In the letter of 15 June 2011 they also informed the ANP that the applicant was not “a person in need” who required the help of another person, as he could take care of himself, notably wash and feed himself. At the end of its investigation, the ANP informed the applicant that his allegations remained unfounded. 23. The applicant lodged similar complaints with the post-sentencing judge. On 9 November 2010 such a complaint concerning the situation in Giurgiu Prison was dismissed as unfounded. On 12 February 2009 the postsentencing judge dismissed a similar complaint concerning Craiova Prison as unfounded. 24. On 30 August 2008, while in Târgu Jiu Prison, the applicant was involved in a violent incident. 25. According to the applicant, he was beaten up by three inmates and stabbed in the lungs, kidneys, spleen and other organs by H.G. He was only taken to the doctor seven days after the incident and never received a copy of the medical certificate. Despite the applicant’s complaints H.G. was never punished for the attack. 26. According to the official prison records, the applicant was found injured by a guard and immediately taken to the prison infirmary, where he refused to be bandaged. As a consequence, he was immediately taken to a civilian hospital. Later on, he was also examined by a forensic doctor, who confirmed the existence of lesions and established that the applicant needed nine to ten days of medical care but that his life had not been endangered. 27. During disciplinary proceedings opened in the prison, the applicant refused to give statements or to get acquainted with the official reports. On 10 September 2008 the disciplinary commission punished H.G. with three days’ isolation. On 21 November 2008 the same disciplinary commission exonerated the applicant of any responsibility for the incident; a copy of this decision was forwarded on the same day to the applicant. 28. No criminal complaint was filed with respect to that incident.