CASE OF MIHĂILESCU v. ROMANIA
Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading treatment;Inhuman treatment) (Substantive aspect)
Alvina Gyulumyan;Johannes Silvis;Josep Casadevall;Luis López Guerra
5. The applicant was born in 1971. He is currently detained in Iaşi Prison. 6. On 8 February 2012 the applicant was detained pending trial on charges of human trafficking and was placed in the Bacău Police Department’s detention facility (Centrul de Reţinere şi Arestare Preventivă al Inspectoratului de Poliţie Judeţeană Bacău). 7. On 6 March 2012 he was transferred to Bacău Prison. 8. In his initial letters to the Court the applicant stated that in the Bacău Police Department’s detention facility he had been forced to sleep on the floor because there had been more detainees than beds. He was forced to eat without cutlery and sitting on the floor because the cell was unfurnished. In addition, he was not provided with a blanket and had to share the room with smokers even though he was a non-smoker. 9. In the same letters he also stated that in Bacău Prison he had had to sleep in overcrowded, flooded and damp cells infested with bed bugs, without furniture and on very old, smelly and lumpy mattresses without any bed linen, blanket or pillow. He was forced to eat sitting on the floor and was not provided with a broom or any cleaning products. The bathroom pipes and lavatories were defective and he had been splashed with waste from the pipes located on the ceiling. The rooms smelled and he could not sleep at night on account of the constant noise made by some detainees and their conversations with the women inmates detained in the same prison. Furthermore, he was forced on many occasions to eat spoiled food because there was no refrigerator. There was no access to natural light, nor any ventilation or opportunity to air the cells. The food was insufficient and poorly cooked. He was not allowed more than one hour of outdoor exercise per day and his health was affected because he had to share the cell with smoking detainees, even though he was a non-smoker. 10. The applicant was detained in cell no. 3 of the Bacau Police Department’s detention facilities. The cell measured 12.82 sq. m and contained four beds. During the first day of his detention the applicant shared the cell with three other inmates. For the remainder of his time in police custody he shared his cell with two other inmates. 11. The applicant was assigned a bed, and was provided with a mattress, a blanket and a pillow. The cell was also fitted with a window which ensured natural ventilation and light, a radiator for heating the cell and with air-conditioning. No other furniture was available in the cell. 12. On 16 September 2013 the Service for the Coordination of Pre-trial Detention Centers attached to the Romanian Police Inspectorate informed the Government that it would have been impossible to have separated smokers and non-smokers in the Bacău Police Department’s detention facility on account of the large number of smokers. 13. The applicant was detained in Bacău Prison from 6 March to 6 November 2012 and from 13 November 2012 to 2 April 2013. 14. The applicant was detained in several cells measuring 33.23, 32.09, 27.22, 35.81, 39.36, 18.52 and 27.05 sq. m, which he shared with a maximum number of six, two, fourteen, ten, ten, eight and eleven other detainees, respectively. 15. The cells had bathrooms, toilets and showers. They were fitted with windows for natural light and ventilation. The available furniture allowed the detainees to store their clothes and eat. The cells were also fitted with radiators, which were connected to the prison’s central heating system. 16. Every detainee was assigned a bed and was provided with a mattress, a blanket and a pillow. 17. In August 2012 the cells in which the applicant was detained were extensively renovated and repaired, and the water infiltration problem on the ceilings was fixed. 18. The cells were properly ventilated. The food was prepared according to the rules in force. Its quality and taste were tested daily by, inter alia, a representative assigned by the detainees. 19. The detainees were responsible for cleaning the cells using cleaning materials provided regularly by the prison authorities and given to the detainees against their signature. They also had access to running water. 20. The cells were disinfected regularly each trimester or as often as required, and the detainees were allowed a minimum of three hours’ outdoor exercise per day. 21. When he was transferred to Bacău Prison, the applicant declared that he was a non-smoker. However, having been informed by the prison authorities that, as a non-smoker, he could not buy cigarettes, he did not ask to be detained in a cell reserved for non-smokers. In addition, according to the information submitted by the prison authorities, supported by evidence, during his detention in Bacău Prison between 13 March 2012 and 18 March 2013 the applicant had regularly purchased cigarettes and lighters. 22. On 24 April 2012 and on an unspecified date the applicant brought two sets of criminal proceedings against some of the staff members and the medical personnel of the Bacău Police Department’s detention facility, claiming that they had not provided him with adequate medical care and had failed to correctly fulfil their professional duties. In addition, he claimed that on 20 February 2012 he had been hit and threatened by several State agents, including S.B., which resulted in him losing his eyesight. 23. By decisions of 28 June and 12 September 2012 the Bacău Prosecutor’s Office and the Public Prosecutor’s Office attached to the Court of Cassation, respectively, discontinued the criminal proceedings. They held that the doctor and other medical and regular staff at the detention facility were constantly involved in examining and appropriately treating the detainees. In addition, according to the available medical reports, the applicant had not suffered any recent trauma in the eye region, but was suffering from severe eyesight problems which made it unlikely that even if he underwent surgery his eyesight would be restored. There is no evidence in the file that the applicant appealed against the decisions before the domestic courts. 24. By an interlocutory judgment of 5 March 2012 the post-sentencing judge dismissed the applicant’s complaint that the Bacău Police Department’s authorities had not allowed him to receive an electric television set. The applicant was advised to get a battery-powered one. 25. By an interlocutory judgment of 1 November 2012 the postsentencing judge dismissed the applicant’s complaints that the Bacău Prison authorities had refused to allow him to receive chocolate from his wife and that they had forwarded several medical documents from his prison file to the Bacău Police Department without his consent. It held that according to the information provided by the prison authorities there was no evidence that the applicant had not been allowed to receive chocolate from his wife. In addition, Law no. 275/2006 did not provide that medical documents were confidential in so far as the criminal investigation bodies were concerned. 26. By an interlocutory judgment of 29 November 2012 the postsentencing judge dismissed the applicant’s complaint that his right to private life and information had been breached because the Bacău Prison authorities had unlawfully cut the power after 11 p.m. On the same date the applicant’s complaint that the Bacău Prison authorities had refused to provide him with copies of the requests he had lodged before them was also dismissed for lack of competence ratione materiae. 27. By an interlocutory judgment of 5 December 2012 the postsentencing judge allowed the applicant’s complaint that his right to correspondence had been breached in so far as the Bacău Prison authorities had retained some summonses issued in his name and a judgment delivered by the domestic courts in connection with criminal proceedings instituted against him. The judge ordered the Bacău Prison authorities to stop retaining the applicant’s correspondence and to give it to him. 28. By an interlocutory judgment of 14 January 2013 the postsentencing judge dismissed the applicant’s complaint that the Bacău Prison authorities had not allowed him to receive chocolate and prescribed medication from his wife. It held that there was no proof that his wife had brought him chocolate and that the prison authorities had denied it to him. The medication had been returned to his wife because she had brought him capsules instead of tablets as required by law. Moreover, the medication had to be given to the prison’s medical office and not directly to the applicant, and had to be managed separately. 29. By an interlocutory judgment of 11 February 2013 the postsentencing judge dismissed as inadmissible the complaint lodged by the applicant against the Bacau Prison authorities that the food received on a particular day had been insufficient and had not contained the correct ingredients. 30. By an interlocutory judgment of 19 February 2013 the postsentencing judge dismissed the applicant’s complaints that the Bacău Prison authorities had turned off the electricity after 11 p.m., thereby breaching his statutory right to watch television as long as the national television station was being broadcast, and had failed to ensure that he could sleep eight hours a night without disturbance from other detainees. The judge held that the prison authorities did not have a legal duty to keep the electricity on and to allow him to watch television after 11 p.m. In addition, they could not force every detainee to sleep at night. Silence could be enforced by punishments imposed by the prison’s disciplinary commission. 31. By an interlocutory judgment of 11 March 2013 the post-sentencing judge dismissed as time-barred the applicant’s complaint against the Bacău Prison authorities for failing to commit him to a psychiatric unit following a recommendation of the Jilava Prison Hospital. 32. The applicant challenged some of the interlocutory judgments delivered by the post-sentencing judge before the domestic courts, but subsequently withdrew his challenge. There is no evidence in the file that he appealed against any of the interlocutory judgments before the domestic courts. 33. On 7 March 2012 the Târgu-Ocna Prison Hospital informed the Bacău Prison authorities that they would accept the applicant after a psychiatrist from the Bacău Emergency County Hospital recommended the applicant’s hospitalization. 34. On 9 September 2013 the Bacău Prison authorities informed the Government and submitted documents attesting that the applicant had bought items from the prison shops at least three times between 5 November and 6 December 2012. 35. On the same date the Bacău Prison authorities also informed the Government that the applicant’s request of 19 March 2013 that he be categorised as a vulnerable detainee had been allowed and he had been transferred to a cell reserved for vulnerable detainees.