CASE OF MIHĂILESCU v. ROMANIA
Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading treatment;Inhuman treatment) (Substantive aspect)
Iulia Motoc;Marko Bošnjak;Paulo Pinto De Albuquerque
4. The applicant was born in 1971 and is currently serving a prison sentence in Vaslui Prison. 5. In 2012 the applicant was convicted of human trafficking and sentenced to ten years’ imprisonment. 6. He was detained in several detention facilities. However, in the present application he only complained about the conditions of his detention in Iaşi Prison and about the fact that he had not been assigned a personal care assistant in Rahova and Iaşi Prisons between 2 April 2013 and 30 January 2014. 7. The applicant was detained in Iaşi Prison on several occasions, for a period of almost ten months: between 2 and 16 August 2013, 3 September 2013 and 11 March 2014, 14 March and 6 June 2014, as well as from 27 June and 4 July 2014. 8. The applicant alleged that he had been kept in conditions of poor hygiene in overcrowded cells. He had shared a cell of twentynine square metres with seventeen other detainees. Moreover, he submitted that he had shared his cell with smokers despite the fact that he was a nonsmoker. The food had also been of very poor quality. 9. According to the information provided by the National Prison Administration and forwarded to the Court by the Government, the applicant was held in the following cells: - cells E 4.3, E 6.2. and E 6.7., all measuring 33.33 sq. m, containing twentysix beds (that is, 1.2 sq. m per bed), occupied by twenty to twentysix detainees; - cell E 7.5., measuring 17.48 sq. m, containing three beds (that is, 5.8 sq. m per bed), occupied by one to three detainees; - and cell E 8.10, measuring 17.48 sq. m, containing eight beds (that is, 2.1 sq. m per bed) and occupied by four to eight detainees. 10. The Government did not provide any information concerning either the exact number of detainees who had occupied the cells or the time spent by the applicant in each of the above-mentioned cells. 11. The detainees were provided with cleaning materials and personal hygiene products and they were responsible for cleaning the cells. Specialist contractors carried out work to eradicate rodents and insects whenever it was considered necessary. The detainees were entitled to two showers per week. 12. The applicant received a special diet for his medical condition (see paragraph 13 below). 13. On 29 October 2013 a medical commission issued a certificate attesting that the applicant had been classified as a person with a permanent, severe physical disability on account of his visual impairment. The medical commission granted the applicant the right to a personal care assistant. 14. The applicant alleged that no special arrangements had been made for him as a person with severe visual impairment in Iaşi and Rahova Prisons between 2 April 2013 and 30 January 2014. 15. Moreover, he contended that he had not been assigned a personal care assistant and had been permanently subjected to humiliating and degrading remarks from his cellmates, the same people to whom he had to appeal for assistance. As he had had no personal assistant he had not been able to benefit from daily walks and had been dependent on the other inmates to be moved around the prison. 16. He had only received assistance from inmates in the facility in exchange for cigarettes and money. The inmates had refused to help him unless they were paid. The administration had not taken any steps to rectify the situation. 17. The applicant submitted copies of several requests he had lodged with the prison authorities on 21 May, 21 November and 23 December 2013 and on 20 February 2014 respectively, by which he had asked to be assigned a personal assistant. In each of his requests he had indicated the name of the co-detainee he had preferred to be assigned to him. All these requests were dismissed on the ground that the co-detainees indicated by the applicant could not assist him because they had been subject to disciplinary sanctions. 18. The Government submitted that the administration of both prisons had made diligent efforts to comply with the standards imposed by the Court. Moreover, in 2013 the authorities in Iaşi Prison had refurbished cell E 4.3 (see paragraph 9 above) to accommodate the needs of detainees with disabilities, including those of the applicant. 19. The Government contended that the medical certificate on his disability had been issued only on 29 October 2013 (see paragraph 13 above) because the applicant had failed to submit the documents requested by the special commission for disabled persons. They further argued that even before the medical certificate had been issued, the prison authorities had on 9 August 2013 allowed a request lodged by the applicant on 7 August 2013 to be assigned a personal care assistant. They had assigned him an inmate, M.D., who had been sharing the applicant’s cell. He had assisted the applicant until 16 August 2013, when the latter had been admitted to the medical unit of Dej Prison. In the medical unit the applicant had been assisted by a co-detainee with whom he had shared the room. The Government did not provide any information about the co-detainee in question. 20. After the applicant had returned to Iaşi Prison he had lodged a request to be assigned a personal care assistant. On 22 April 2014 the prison authorities had assigned him an inmate, whom the applicant had refused. 21. The applicant lodged several complaints on the basis of Law no. 275/2006 on the execution of sentences with the post-sentencing judge. 22. In 2013 the applicant lodged three complaints concerning an infringement by the administration of the Rahova Prison of his right to have a personal care assistant. He stated that he had not been assigned a person to assist him although he was suffering from a severe visual impairment. 23. The complaints were joined and examined together by the postsentencing judge on 14 June 2013. The judge noted that the prison doctor’s opinion was that the applicant was not entitled to a personal assistant. It further noted that on 9 May 2013 the prison authorities had appointed a commission of specialists, which had examined the applicant. The commission had found that owing to his visual impairment the applicant encountered difficulties in eating, maintaining his hygiene and in alerting prison staff or other co-detainees in case of need. It had therefore recommended a set of steps to be taken, which included closely monitoring the applicant. Subsequently, a detainee, C.F., sharing the applicant’s cell, had been assigned to support him in his daily activities. The post-sentencing judge dismissed the applicant’s complaints on the grounds that the steps taken by the prison authorities had been sufficient. 24. In his application to the Court, the applicant contended that assigning him C.F. had been useless because the latter had refused to provide him with any help. The applicant produced a handwritten statement by C.F., dated 20 June 2013, in which the latter had stated that he had not helped the applicant because the prison authorities had refused to consider his activity as a personal care assistant as work that should be remunerated.