CASE OF ENACHE v. ROMANIA
Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading treatment) (Substantive aspect);Violation of Article 34 - Individual applications (Article 34 - Hinder the exercise of the right of petition);Pecuniary damage - claim dismissed;Non-pecuniary damage - award
Alvina Gyulumyan;Josep Casadevall;Kristina Pardalos;Luis López Guerra
5. The applicant was born in 1977 and is currently detained in Giurgiu Prison. 6. In a final judgment by the Dolj County Court, the applicant was sentenced to life imprisonment for murder. 7. The applicant was detained in Craiova Prison between 2 December 1997 and 26 June 2008. During that time he was transferred to other prisons or prison hospitals for short periods. On 26 June 2008 he was transferred to Poarta Albă Prison. He has been serving his sentence in Giurgiu Prison since 2 September 2010. 8. The material conditions of detention in Craiova Prison were described by the applicant as being inhuman and degrading. 9. As a result of the severity of his sentence, the applicant was classified as a dangerous prisoner in accordance with the prison regulations and was held in solitary confinement. He alleged that he had insufficient living space in his cell because it contained unnecessary beds. His requests for some of the beds to be removed were always refused by the prison administration. He also complained that he felt isolated, as he had been forbidden to share the cell with another person or to meet other detainees for the entire duration of his detention. This situation was aggravated by the complete lack of activities outside the cell. In this respect he contended that he had participated in educational activities only in 2002 and 2003. For the rest of the time he had spent in Craiova Prison, no activities had been proposed to him. 10. There was a severe lack of drinking water, and of hot and cold water in general. The insufficient provision of hot water, namely once a week for one hour for a high number of detainees in collective showers, made it impossible to maintain a proper standard of personal hygiene. 11. Heating was provided for only two hours in the morning and two in the evening, which was not enough to heat the cell. The applicant therefore suffered constantly from the cold during the winter. 12. The food was insufficient and of very poor quality. The applicant, who did not have the financial means to buy additional food, suffered from hunger for most of the time. 13. There was not enough light in the cell because the window was too narrow and artificial light was only provided in the evening. 14. The applicant was systematically handcuffed every time he was taken out of his cell, even when he was taken to the prison’s religious facilities. 15. The applicant alleged that those conditions had had a negative impact on his physical and psychological well-being. In this connection, it appears from his prison medical file that he was suffering from chronic depressive psychopathy and had attempted to commit suicide. He was also diagnosed with gastritis and duodenitis, both of which became chronic as from 2004. 16. The applicant was held alone in a cell measuring 9.03 sq. m, in which three rows of bunk beds were installed each measuring 1.90 m by 0.80 m. The cell also contained a table and two chairs. All the furniture was fixed on the floor and could not be moved. During his detention in Craiova Prison, the applicant shared the cell with other detainees for various periods of time. On one occasion, he even planned an escape with his cellmate, R.A. The applicant participated in two educational activities in the course of 2002 and one educational activity from January to April 2003. 17. There was a constant supply of cold drinking water, in accordance with the international conventions signed by Romania. Until 2001 inmates had had an opportunity to take a bath once a week in the collective bathing facilities. As from the second half of 2001, hot water was supplied daily, for a minimum of one hour. 18. In winter, heating was available between 1 November and 31 March, in accordance with a pre-established schedule, for an average of eight hours per day. 19. With respect to the quality and quantity of food served, the Government submitted that it was in accordance with the European standards and the internal prison regulations. 20. Concerning the alleged lack of light in the applicant’s cell, the Government submitted that the cell contained a window measuring 1.50 m high and 0.75 m wide, which afforded the necessary light during the day. In addition, artificial lighting was available if needed until 10 p.m., in accordance with the prison’s schedule for the provision of electricity. 21. Prisoners classified as dangerous, such as the applicant, were handcuffed whenever they were taken out of their cells and during transportation, in accordance with the prison regulations. The handcuffs were removed while they were attending educational or ethic/religious programmes and during visits. 22. The applicant was detained alone in a cell measuring 7 m by 1.50 m. A very small window was covered with metal bars and metallic netting. 23. The applicant could leave his cell for only three hours per day for a walk outside, but had no other activities. 24. The prison rubbish dump was outside the cell window and made the air smell unbearably fetid. 25. Whenever the applicant needed something, he had to tap on the door in order to draw the guard’s attention. For this he was disciplined, usually by members of the special intervention units wearing masks. 26. The applicant was detained in five different cells, all of which had the same specifications, namely a surface of 10.24 sq. m, two beds measuring 1.93 m by 0.83 m and one bed-side table. 27. The prison’s rubbish dump was, and still is, located around 100 m from the window of the applicant’s cell and the rubbish is collected at least once per month. The Government submitted that there were situations when a fetid smell was released in the air but measures to remedy the situation were always taken. No specific measures were given as examples in that respect. 28. As for the activities available to prisoners in Giurgiu Prison, the Government submitted a general overview of the internal regulations on that matter. 29. On 23 January 2007 and 14 May 2009 the Court sent two letters to the applicant at Craiova Prison. The second letter was returned to the Court by the postal services with the mention “recipient unknown at this address”. 30. On 5 August 2010 the Court invited the Government to submit information on whether the applicant was still detained and if so, in which prison he was currently being held. 31. On 16 September 2010 the Government submitted information confirming that the applicant was detained at that time in Poarta Albă Prison. 32. The Court sent two more letters by registered mail on 21 September and 30 November 2010 to Poarta Albă Prison. In view of the applicant’s failure to reply to those letters and of the difference between the applicant’s signature on the application form and the signatures on the return receipts, on 12 January 2011 the Court asked the Government to submit additional information as to whether the two letters had reached the applicant. 33. On 24 February 2011 the Government replied that as the applicant had been transferred to Poarta Albă Prison and subsequently to Giurgiu Prison, the two letters had not reached him until 1 October and 10 December 2010 respectively. 34. In support of those allegations, the Government submitted copies of incoming mail registers showing that the two letters had been returned from Craiova Prison owing to the applicant’s transfer. They also submitted a copy of a page from a register entitled “Planning of personnel for prisoner’s escort”, on which the applicant’s name, his signature and the registration number of the letter of 21 September 2010 appeared. The page was not dated. A copy of a page from Giurgiu Prison’s incoming mail register showed the applicant’s name and signature confirming receipt of the Court’s letter of 30 November 2010 on 10 December 2010. Another copy of a page from an incoming mail register of 31 January 2011 showed the applicant’s signature for a delivery from the Council of Europe. 35. The Government further submitted that the signatures on the return receipts belonged to the prison employee in charge of receiving and distributing correspondence from and to the detainees, as provided for by the prison regulations. In this connection, they submitted a copy of the procedural rules for ensuring prisoners’ right to correspondence, as approved by the National Administration of Prisons, as well as a copy of the relevant internal regulations in force in Poarta Albă Prison. It appears from those documents that the correspondence addressed to prisoners is collected by designated staff members, who confirm the collection of mail by signing the post office register. Subsequently, the receipt of mail by the detainee to whom it is addressed is confirmed by the detainee’s signature in the prison’s incoming mail register. 36. Among the documents attached to the Government’s response was a copy of a statement signed by the applicant on 4 February 2011 and drafted in the following terms: “... With respect to the letter sent by the E.C.H.R. [the Court] to the Romanian Ministry of Foreign Affairs concerning the letters addressed to me, which remained without reply, I declare that I submitted these 2 (two) petitions, being unsatisfied with the conditions of detention in Craiova Prison. ... I was transferred to Poarta Albă Prison and subsequently to Giurgiu Prison. I declare that I no longer wish to correspond with the E.C.H.R. because I was transferred to another prison and the previous problems do not interest me anymore. In order to clarify any suspicions, I can hand over copies of the letters in question to the Giurgiu Prison. ...” 37. In a letter dated 16 May 2011 the applicant replied to the Government’s submissions, stating that the authorities in the prisons of Craiova, Poarta Albă and Giurgiu continuously refused to ensure that his correspondence reached the Court, even threatening him that if he continued to complain before the Court “he would get out of prison only in a coffin” (“Dacă mai continui procesul la Curtea Europeană te vom scoate de aici în patru scânduri”). He further alleged that he had been transferred from Poarta Albă to Giurgiu Prison only to make him give up his application before the Court, and that he had been forced to sign the statement of 4 February 2011 in the office of the prison section director and in the presence of three masked guards. He mentioned that he intended to pursue his application before the Court. 38. The applicant also mentioned that he had received the Court’s letters of 21 September and 30 November 2010 with excessive delay. They had been opened. 39. The Government submitted that all letters addressed to detainees were opened in order to check them for forbidden elements. They were then handed to the recipients without their content being read by the authorities. However, correspondence received from non-governmental organisations or international institutions such as the Court was never opened. With respect to the two letters in question, the Government contended that they had been handed to the applicant in due time and without being opened.