CASE OF JEVSNIK v. SLOVENIA
Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading treatment;Inhuman treatment) (Substantive aspect);No violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading treatment;Inhuman treatment) (Substantive aspect);Violation of Article 13 - Right to an effective remedy (Article 13 - Effective remedy)
Ann Power-Forde;Helena Jäderblom
5. The applicant was born in 1985 and lives in Brestanica. 6. The applicant served his prison sentence in the semi-open and closed sections of Ljubljana prison in the period between 21 July 2009 and 24 December 2009. On the latter date he was transferred to Celje prison, where he stayed until his conditional release on 31 May 2010. The transfer was made on the basis of a decision issued by the director-general of the General Administration at the request of the governor of Ljubljana prison. The decision cited overcrowding as the ground for the transfer. The applicant’s complaints relate to the conditions of detention in Ljubljana prison only. 7. From 21 July 2009 to 25 October 2009 he was held in the semi-open section in cell 146 (third floor) measuring 18.8 square metres (including a separate 1.72 square metre sanitary facility). From 25 October 2009 to 4 November 2009 and from 10 December 2009 to 24 December 2009 he was held in the semi-open section in cell 138 (third floor) measuring 18.6 square metres (including a separate 1.72 square metre sanitary facility). Due to drug problems he was temporarily held from 4 November 2009 to 10 December 2009 in the closed section in cell 7 (third floor) measuring 16.8 square metres (including a separate 1.72 square metre sanitary facility). All the cells contained, apart from the furniture, five sleeping places (two bunk beds and one single bed). According to the applicant, five prisoners were being held in each of the cells during his detention. The Government, however, submitted that the number varied between four and five. Each cell had one 107 x 110 cm double casement window, which the prisoners could freely open or close. 8. During his imprisonment the applicant had twelve consultations with a general practitioner and six dental appointments. He attended several interviews and group sessions with a pedagogue. 9. As regards the general characteristics of the cells, material conditions inside the cells, sanitary conditions and health care, see the judgment in Štrucl and Others v. Slovenia, nos. 5903/10, 6003/10 and 6544/10, §§ 21 to 32, 20 October 2011. 10. As to the out-of-cell time in the closed section, the Court found in the aforementioned judgment that sentenced prisoners in the closed section of the prison were locked up in their cells and were only able to leave them if they applied for certain activities, most of which were to take place in the recreation room. There was, however, only one 50square-metre recreation room per floor, which was to be used by ten inmates at most (Štrucl and Others § 86). 11. As to the out-of-cell time in the semi-open section, the Government submitted that the cell doors in the semi-open section of the prison were unlocked, except from 9.45 p.m. (on Fridays, Saturdays and before holidays from midnight) until 6.00 a.m. (on Saturdays, Sundays and during holidays until 8.30 a.m.). During this time prisoners could move freely in the corridor (35.7 square metre), living quarters of co-prisoners or in the indoor or outdoor exercise areas, in accordance with prison rules. The Government alleged that this regime had been in place for several years. 12. As regards the cell temperature, the data provided by the Government showed that the average temperature in the cells in the late afternoon (5- 5.30 p.m.) in the second half of July and August 2009 had been approximately 28oC, exceeding 30oC on seven days.