THIRD SECTION
\nCASE OF SHATOKHIN v. RUSSIA
\n(Application no. 50236\/06)<\/p>\n
JUDGMENT
\nThis judgment was revised in accordance with Rule 80 of the Rules of Court in\u00a0a\u00a0judgment of 16 October 2018
\nSTRASBOURG
\n27 February 2018<\/p>\n
This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision<\/p>\n
In the case of Shatokhin v. Russia,<\/strong><\/p>\n The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:<\/p>\n Luis L\u00f3pez Guerra, President, Having deliberated in private on 6 February 2018,<\/p>\n Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:<\/p>\n PROCEDURE<\/strong><\/p>\n 1.\u00a0\u00a0The case originated in an application (no. 50236\/06) against the Russian Federation lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (\u201cthe Convention\u201d) by a Russian national, Mr Konstantin YuryevichShatokhin (\u201cthe applicant\u201d), on 16 November 2006.<\/p>\n 2.\u00a0\u00a0The applicant, who had been granted legal aid, was represented by Mr\u00a0I.Kuptsov, a lawyer practising in the Altay region. The Russian Government (\u201cthe Government\u201d) were represented by Mr\u00a0G.\u00a0Matyushkin,\u00a0Representative of the Russian Federation at the European Court of Human Rights, and then by his successor in that office, Mr M. Galperin.<\/p>\n 3.\u00a0\u00a0On 18 March 2011 the application was communicated to the Government.<\/p>\n THE FACTS<\/strong><\/p>\n I.\u00a0\u00a0THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE<\/p>\n 4.\u00a0\u00a0The applicant was born in 1982 and lives in the Altay region.<\/p>\n 5.\u00a0\u00a0At the material time the applicant was serving a sentence for robbery in correctional colony no. LIU-8 in the Altay region.<\/p>\n 6.\u00a0\u00a0On 22 June, 12 July and 20 December 2004 heattempted suicide by opening his veins.<\/p>\n 7.\u00a0\u00a0On 12 July 2004 a prison psychiatrist diagnosed the applicant as suffering from a slight mental retardation, psychopathy and claustrophobia with elements of self-aggression. An entry was made in his medical records that solitary confinement was contraindicated for mental health reasons. The correctional colony authorities were informed accordingly. The applicant was prescribed treatment. Since that time he had been examined by the prison psychiatrist at regular intervals. Theprison psychiatrist\u2019s diagnosis and recommendations were confirmed by the psychiatric unit of prison hospital no. 12 where the applicant was treated from 2 to 26 April 2005.<\/p>\n 8.\u00a0\u00a0On 3 May 2005 the governor of the correctional colony ordered the applicant\u2019s placement in a punishment cell for thirteen days as a punishment for the disorderly state of his bed and bedside table.<\/p>\n 9.\u00a0\u00a0On 5 May 2005 the applicant was examined by the prison doctor on duty who found that his state of health permitted his placement in a punishment cell, provided that he was not held in solitary confinement.<\/p>\n 10.\u00a0\u00a0The applicant was then placed in punishment cell no. 32 designed to accommodate two inmates. He was left alone in the cell, butthe doorwas kept open.<\/p>\n 11.\u00a0\u00a0On the same day the applicant went on a hunger strike in protest against his placement in solitary confinement.<\/p>\n 12.\u00a0\u00a0At 8 p.m. on 8 May 2005 the applicant was visited by the prison doctor on duty who examined him and found that his health was satisfactory. He reiterated the recommendation that given the applicant\u2019s mental condition solitary confinement was contraindicated.<\/p>\n 13.\u00a0\u00a0After the doctor left, the door of the applicant\u2019s cell was shut. About an hour later the applicant had a panic attack and attempted to open his veins with his teeth. The doctor was called back. He noted numerous lacerated wounds on the applicant\u2019s forearms and made bandages.<\/p>\n 14.\u00a0\u00a0By letters of 15 June, 8 August and 1 November 2005 the applicant asked the prosecutor\u2019s office of the Altay Region to initiate criminal proceedings against the warders on duty.<\/p>\n 15.\u00a0\u00a0On 15 December 2005 a deputy prosecutor of Barnaul refused to open criminal proceedings. He referred to statements by a warder, Mr Sh., that the applicant had himself asked him to shut the door. Moreover, the applicant\u2019s health had not been seriously damaged as a result of the incident.<\/p>\n 16.\u00a0\u00a0It follows from the letter of 16 December 2005 from the prosecutor of Barnaul that the prosecutor\u2019s office had found that the applicant had been lawfully placed in a punishment cell. At the same time, the warders had disrespected the doctor\u2019s recommendation by leaving the applicant alone in a closed cell. The governor of correctional colony no. LIU-8 had been warned against \u201cpermitting similar incidents to occur in future\u201d.<\/p>\n 17.\u00a0\u00a0Following to further complaints by the applicant, in which he stated in particular that he had never asked the warders to close the door, the prosecutor of Barnaul conducted an additional inquiry. He questioned the applicant and Mr Sh. He also questioned warders Mr K. and Mr S. who testified that the door to the applicant\u2019s cell had been temporarily closed to prevent his communication with other inmates who were at that time receiving clean bedding in the storage room opposite to the applicant\u2019s cell.<\/p>\n 18.\u00a0\u00a0On 27 January 2006 the prosecutor of Baranaul refused to open criminal proceedings against the warders. He found that the warders had acted in compliance with the internal regulations and had had no intention of provoking the applicant to self-injury.<\/p>\n 19.\u00a0\u00a0The applicant challenged the prosecutor\u2019s decisions of 15 December 2005 and 27 January 2006 before the Tsentralniy District Court of Barnaul.<\/p>\n 20.\u00a0\u00a0On 27 September 2006 the Tsentralniy District Court upheld the prosecutor\u2019s decisions, finding that the inquiry had been thorough and the refusals to open criminal proceedings had been lawful and justified.<\/p>\n 21.\u00a0\u00a0The applicant appealed. He submitted, in particular, that the warders had known that he suffered from claustrophobia and had closed the door to take vengeance on him for going on a hunger strike.<\/p>\n 22.\u00a0\u00a0On 2 November 2006 the Altay Regional Court upheld the decision of 27 September 2006 on appeal.<\/p>\n II.\u00a0\u00a0RELEVANT DOMESTIC LAW<\/p>\n 23.\u00a0\u00a0The 1997 Penitentiary Code provides that a convict in detention who has breached penitentiary rules may be subjected to the following punishment measures: (i) a reprimand; (ii) a fine; (iii) placementin a punishment cell for up to fifteen days, applicable to convicts in a correctional colony or a prison; (iv) placement in cell-type quarters for up to one year for men or up to three months for women, applicable to convicts declared \u201chabitual breakers of penitentiary rules\u201d;(v) placement in solitary confinement for up to six months, applicableto male convicts in a maximum-security correctional colony who have been declared \u201chabitual breakers of penitentiary rules\u201d (Article 115 \u00a7 1).<\/p>\n 24.\u00a0\u00a0Convicts placed in a punishment call may not have visits or telephone calls, buy food or receive parcels from outside. They are entitled to a one-hour outdoor activity per day (Article 118 \u00a7 1 of the Penitentiary Code).<\/p>\n LAW<\/strong><\/p>\n I.\u00a0\u00a0ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 3 OF THE CONVENTION<\/p>\n 25.\u00a0\u00a0The applicant complained that his placement in solitary confinement in a punishment cell, despite his condition, had amounted to treatment in breach of Article 3 of the Convention, which reads as follows:<\/p>\n \u201cNo one shall be subjected to torture or to inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.\u201d<\/p>\n A.\u00a0\u00a0Admissibility<\/strong><\/p>\n 26.\u00a0\u00a0The Court notes that this complaint is not manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 \u00a7 3 (a) of the Convention. It further notes that it is not inadmissible on any other grounds. It must therefore be declared admissible.<\/p>\n B.\u00a0\u00a0Merits<\/strong><\/p>\n 27.\u00a0\u00a0The applicant complained that he had been placed in solitary confinement despite his diagnosis and the doctors\u2019 clear injunction that he should not be held in solitary confinement. After he had spent three days alone in his cell and after the door had been kept closed for quite a long time, he had had a panic attack and had inflicted injuries on himself. The applicant argued that the prison authorities had known about the risk of self\u2011injury as he had earlier inflicted injuries on himself in similar circumstances, that is to say while he was held in solitary confinement in a punishment cell.<\/p>\n 28.\u00a0\u00a0The Government submitted that the applicant was a \u201chabitual breaker of penitentiary rules\u201d. During his detention he had committed thirty\u2011eight breaches of penitentiary rules, had been reprimanded six times, placed in a punishment cell twenty-seven times and in cell-type quarters five times. His placement in a punishment cell in May 2005 had been justified by his unruly behaviour. The punishment had been sanctioned by the prison doctor who had confirmed that the applicant\u2019s health permitted his detention in a punishment cell, provided that he was not placed in solitary confinement. The conditions of the applicant\u2019s detention in the punishment cell had been satisfactory. He had been provided with food. His cell had lavatory facilities, a window and all necessary furniture. It was heated, ventilated and adequately lit.<\/p>\n 29.\u00a0\u00a0The Government further submitted that punishment cells were designed to accommodate two inmates, but the applicant had been left alone in the punishment cell to exclude a bad influence on other inmates. The door had been however kept open and his psychological state was regularly monitored by the prison doctor. On 8 May 2005 the door to the applicant\u2019s cell had been temporarily closed while the warders were distributing bedding to other inmates. The warders had acted lawfully as it was prohibited by the internal rules to have several doors open at the same time. It was at that moment that the applicant had inflicted injuries to himself. He had been immediately given first aid by the doctor on duty. An inquiry had been conducted into the incident which had found that there were no reasons to open criminal proceedings. Given that the applicant had committed numerous breaches of the penitentiary rules, that the authorities had taken measures to protect him from his suicidal tendencies and had provided him with medical assistance immediately after the incident, the Government argued that the applicant\u2019s placement in solitary confinement had not breached Article 3.<\/p>\n 30.\u00a0\u00a0The Court reiterates that the prohibition of contact with other prisoners for security, disciplinary or protective reasons does not in itself amount to inhuman treatment or punishment (see, among other authorities, \u00d6calan v. Turkey [GC], no. 46221\/99, \u00a7 191, ECHR 2005\u2011IV). Whilst prolonged removal from association with others is undesirable, the question of whether or not such a measure falls within the ambit of Article 3 of the Convention depends on the particular conditions, the stringency of the measure, its duration, the objective pursued and its effects on the person concerned (see Rohde v. Denmark, no. 69332\/01, \u00a7 93, 21 July 2005). Solitary confinement is one of the most serious measures which can be imposed within a prison. In view of the gravity of the measure, the domestic authorities are under an obligation to assess all the relevant factors in an inmate\u2019s case before placing him in solitary confinement (seeRamishvili and Kokhreidze v. Georgia, no.\u00a01704\/06, \u00a7 83, 27 January 2009, and Onoufriou v. Cyprus, no. 24407\/04, \u00a7 71, 7 January 2010). In order to avoid any risk of arbitrariness resulting from a decision to place a prisoner in solitary confinement, the decision must be accompanied by procedural safeguards guaranteeing the prisoner\u2019s welfare and the proportionality of the measure (see Ramirez Sanchez v.\u00a0France [GC], no.\u00a059450\/00, \u00a7\u00a0139, ECHR 2006\u2011IX; Onoufriou, cited above, \u00a7 70; and A.L. (X.W.)v. Russia, no.\u00a044095\/14, \u00a7 76, 29 October 2015).<\/p>\n 31.\u00a0\u00a0The Court further reiterates that persons in custody are in a vulnerable position and that the authorities are under a duty to protect them (see Keenan v. the United Kingdom, no. 27229\/95, \u00a7 91, ECHR 2001\u2011III, and Trubnikov v. Russia, no. 49790\/99, \u00a7 68, 5 July 2005). In the case of mentally ill persons, regard must be had to their particular vulnerability (seeAerts v. Belgium, 30 July 1998, \u00a7 66, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1998\u2011V; Keenan, cited above, \u00a7 111; Rivi\u00e8re v. France, no. 33834\/03, \u00a7 63, 11 July 2006). There are general measures and precautions which will be available to diminish the opportunities for self-harm, without infringing personal autonomy. Whether any more stringent measures are necessary in respect of a prisoner and whether it is reasonable to apply them will depend on the circumstances of the case (see Keenan, cited above, \u00a7 92, and Trubnikov, cited above, \u00a7 70).<\/p>\n 32.\u00a0\u00a0Prisoners known to be suffering from serious mental disturbance and to pose a suicide risk require special measures geared to their condition in order to ensure compatibility with the requirements of humane treatment (see Rivi\u00e8re, cited above, \u00a7 75). In the Keenan case, the Court found that the imposition on the applicant \u2013 who suffered from a chronic mental disorder, presented a suicide riskand did not receive adequate medical monitoring and treatment \u2013 of a disciplinary punishment of seven days\u2019 segregation in the punishment block amounted to treatment in breach of Article 3 of the Convention (see Keenan, cited above, \u00a7 116). Similarly, in the case of Renoldev. France, a penalty of forty-five days\u2019 detention in a punishment cell accompanied by a prohibition of visits and of contact with other prisonersimposed on a personwith a history of suicide attempts was not compatible with the standard of treatment required in respect of a mentally ill person and constituted inhuman and degrading treatment and punishment (see Renolde v. France, no. 5608\/05, \u00a7 129, ECHR 2008 (extracts)). In the case of Ketreb v. Francethe placement of the applicant \u2013 who had not been diagnosed with any psychiatric disorder but who had previously made two suicide attempts \u2013 in a punishment cell for fifteen days without previous consultation with a psychiatrist or adequate monitoring during his stay there also amounted to inhuman and degrading treatment and punishment (see Ketreb v. France, no. 38447\/09, \u00a7\u00a7 114 and 115, 19 July 2012).<\/p>\n 33.\u00a0\u00a0Turning to the circumstances of the present case, the Court notes that the applicant suffered from a psychiatric disorder with elements of claustrophobia and self-aggression. He had already made three suicide attempts before the incident in question in the present application. In view of his condition and his history of suicide attempts, the psychiatrist who treated him recommended that he should not be placed in solitary confinement. That recommendation was reiterated by the prison doctor on 5\u00a0May 2005 immediately before the applicant\u2019s placement in a punishment cell for thirteen days, and then again on 8 May 2005 about an hour before the applicant made a new suicide attempt and injured himself. Despite these unequivocal and consistent medical recommendations, the applicant was left in the punishment cell alone. The Court is particularly concerned by the fact that on 8 May 2005, that is to say three days after the commencement of his solitary confinement and immediately after the doctor repeated his recommendation that the applicant should not be left alone, the door to his cell was shut in order to avoid any communication between the applicant and other inmates.<\/p>\n 34.\u00a0\u00a0It appears that no formal decision to place the applicant in solitary confinement, stating the legal basis and the reasons for that measure, was ever issued. The decision of 3 May 2005 ordered his placement in a punishment cell (punishment cells are designed to accommodate two inmates), without mentioning solitary confinement. The Court therefore finds that the applicant was placed in a de factosolitary confinement without any objective assessment as to whether or not the measure in question was necessary and appropriate and in disregard to his psychiatrist\u2019s recommendation that such measure should not be applied to him. The applicant\u2019s solitary confinement in a punishment cell therefore amounted to inhuman and degrading treatment contrary to Article\u00a03 of the Convention.<\/p>\n 35.\u00a0\u00a0There has accordingly been a violation of Article 3 of the Convention.<\/p>\n II.\u00a0\u00a0OTHER ALLEGED VIOLATIONS OF THE CONVENTION<\/p>\n 36.\u00a0\u00a0Lastly, the Court has examined the other complaints submitted by the applicant and, having regard to all the material in its possession and in so far as the complaints fall within the Court\u2019s competence, it finds that they do not disclose any appearance of a violation of the rights and freedoms set out in the Convention or its Protocols. It follows that this part of the application must be rejected as manifestly ill-founded, pursuant to Article\u00a035 \u00a7\u00a7 3 (a) and 4 of the Convention.<\/p>\n III.\u00a0\u00a0APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION<\/p>\n 37.\u00a0\u00a0Article 41 of the Convention provides:<\/p>\n \u201cIf the Court finds that there has been a violation of the Convention or the Protocols thereto, and if the internal law of the High Contracting Party concerned allows only partial reparation to be made, the Court shall, if necessary, afford just satisfaction to the injured party.\u201d<\/p>\n A.\u00a0\u00a0Damage<\/strong><\/p>\n 38.\u00a0\u00a0The applicant claimed 100,000 euros (EUR) in respect of non\u2011pecuniary damage.<\/p>\n 39.\u00a0\u00a0The Government submitted that the amount claimed was excessive.<\/p>\n 40.\u00a0\u00a0The Court awards the applicant EUR 15,000 in respect of non\u2011pecuniary damage.<\/p>\n B.\u00a0\u00a0Costs and expenses<\/strong><\/p>\n 41.\u00a0\u00a0The applicant did not claim costs and expenses. Accordingly, there is no call to make an award under this head.<\/p>\n C.\u00a0\u00a0Default interest<\/strong><\/p>\n 42.\u00a0\u00a0The Court considers it appropriate that the default interest rate should be based on the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank, to which should be added three percentage points.<\/p>\n FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT, UNANIMOUSLY,<\/strong><\/p>\n 1.\u00a0\u00a0Declares the complaints concerning the applicant\u2019s placement in solitary confinement in a punishment cell admissible and the remainder of the application inadmissible;<\/p>\n 2.\u00a0\u00a0Holdsthat there has been a violation of Article 3 of the Convention;<\/p>\n 3.\u00a0\u00a0Holds<\/p>\n (a)\u00a0\u00a0that the respondent State is to pay the applicant, within three months,EUR 15,000 (fifteen thousand euros), plus any tax that may be chargeable, in respect of non-pecuniary damage, to be converted into the currency of the respondent State at the rate applicable at the date of settlement;<\/p>\n (b)\u00a0\u00a0that from the expiry of the above-mentioned three months until settlement simple interest shall be payable on the above amount at a rate equal to the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank during the default period plus three percentage points;<\/p>\n 4.\u00a0\u00a0Dismissesthe remainder of the applicant\u2019s claim for just satisfaction.<\/p>\n Done in English, and notified in writing on 27 February 2018, pursuant to Rule\u00a077\u00a0\u00a7\u00a7\u00a02 and 3 of the Rules of Court.<\/p>\n Fato\u015f Arac\u0131\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Luis L\u00f3pez Guerra
\nDmitry Dedov,
\nJolien Schukking, judges,
\nand Fato\u015f Arac\u0131, Deputy Section Registrar,<\/p>\n
\nDeputy Registrar\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 President<\/p>\n