Cour européenne des droits de l’Homme
19 février 2015
Facts
The applicant, Mr. Helhal, was serving a 30-year prison sentence while suffering from paraplegia of the lower limbs and double incontinence. In 2010, he applied to the judge to have his sentence suspended on medical grounds. He complained that the prison was not adapted to his disability and that as result he could only move around in a wheelchair, and he had inadequate access to sanitary facilities. He also complained that he did not receive adequate physiotherapy. His application was rejected.
Complaint
Mr. Helhal alleged that the lack of physiotherapy and of adequate access to sanitary facilities violated Article 3 of the Convention.
Court’s ruling
The Court examined the applicant’s complaints in the light of the principles related to States’ duty of care towards disabled individuals in detention. The Court first determined whether the quality of care given to Mr. Helhal was sufficient and whether the national authorities had done everything that could reasonably be expected of them. It was found that no physiotherapy had been provided in prison for 3 years and that no specific measures had been taken to enable the applicant to receive a rehabilitation treatment adapted to his condition, despite the doctors’ recommendations.
The Court then verified the conditions of detention and access to the sanitary facilities, especially the showers. The applicant was unable to get to the facilities unaided since they were not located within the cell, nor were they wheelchair accessible. The prisoner assigned to help him had not received the required training and there was no additional care dispensed by the health care professionals. According to the Court, the fact that there was assistance provided by a fellow prisoner did not mean that the applicant’s needs had been met and that the State had fulfilled its obligations under article 3 of the Convention. The Court concluded that the domestic authorities had not provided Mr Helhal with the care required in order to protect him from inhumane and degrading treatment, and therefore there was a violation of Article 3.