Inimõiguste giid

Kaasus

Khider vs. Prantsusmaa

Euroopa Inimõiguste Kohus
09.07.2009

Facts

The applicant, Mr. Khider, was detained awaiting trial for armed robbery as a member of a gang, kidnapping and attempted manslaughter of a prison officer and aiding an attempted escape. As soon as he was incarcerated he was registered as a high-security prisoner and frequently transferred from one prison to anohter, long periods of solitary confinement and frequent body searches.

Complaint

Mr. Khider complained that the Article 3 of the Convention had been violated because of his numerous transfers. 

Court's ruling

The Court agreed that the transfers seemed to have been part of a special preventive security regime to which Mr. Khider was submitted. The purpose of this regime for dangerous detainees was to hinder would-be escapees and their accomplices in the preparation and execution of their plans. However the Court considered that the failed escape attempt in which the applicant had taken part was not sufficient to justify subjecting him indefinitely to a strict preventive rotation scheme. The transfers were likely to have triggered feelings of acute anxiety in Mr. Khider since every time he had to adapt to different prison establishments. Frequent transfers also made it virtually impossible to set up any coherent medical supervision of his psychological condition. 

The Court also found that for years no disciplinary proceedings had been instituted against the applicant and restrictions based on the need to guarantee security was less justified as the time went by. Therefore the Court concluded that the State has failed to strike a fair balance between the security needs and the obligation to guarantee the applicant humane detention conditions. Thus the Court ruled that there has been a violation of Article 3 of the Convention.