DOUBLE PUNISHMENT

More documents

Recommendations

Info

V. Domestic and International standards France’s duties under European and International law The prohibition of torture and cruel or degrading treatment or punishment France is bound by the prohibition of torture and cruel or degrading treatment or punishment as a matter of customary international law, and specifically under treaties it has ratified such as the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) and the UN Convention against Torture. 175 Article 7 of the ICCPR provides that “no one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment” 176 and article 10 provides that “all persons deprived of their liberty shall be treated with humanity and with respect for the inherent dignity of the human person.” The new UN Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners, while they are not binding, provide guidelines to governments on how to treat prisoners in accordance with international norms and principles. The first rule is that “all prisoners shall be treated with the respect due to their inherent dignity and value as human beings,” and that “no prisoner shall be subjected to, and all prisoners shall be protected from torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.” 177 The right of prisoners to be free from such treatment is also guaranteed under Article 3 of the ECHR. 178 The European Court of Human Rights has interpreted this provision as including living conditions in prisons, which can amount to violations of the prohibition of 175 UN General Assembly, Universal Declaration of Human Rights, December 10, 1948, Article 5; UN General Assembly, Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, December 10, 1984, Article 2. 176 UN General Assembly, International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), December 16, 1966, United Nations, Treaty Series, vol. 999, p. 171, accession by France on November 4, 1980. 177 UN Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners (the Mandela Rules), adopted by the Commission on Crime Prevention and Criminal Justice, May 21, 2015, E/CN.15/2015/L.6/Rev.1, http://www.unodc.org/documents/commissions/CCPCJ/CCPCJ_Sessions/CCPCJ_24/resolutions/L6_Rev1/ECN152015_L6Rev 1_e_V1503585.pdf (accessed March 19, 2016). 178 European Convention on Human Rights, Article 3. 63 HUMAN RIGHTS WATCH | APRIL 2016
torture and other forms of ill treatment. 179 The Court has interpreted Article 3 as obliging the state to ensure that “a person is detained in conditions which are compatible with respect for his human dignity, that the manner and method of the execution of the measure do not subject him to distress or hardship of an intensity exceeding the unavoidable level of suffering inherent in detention and that, given the practical demands of imprisonment, his health and well-being are adequately secured by, among other things, providing him with the requisite medical assistance.” 180 In its case law, the Court has established that “the assessment of whether the treatment or punishment concerned is incompatible with Article 3 has, in the case of mentally ill persons, to take into consideration their vulnerability and their ability, in some cases, to complain coherently or at all about how they are being affected by any particular treatment.” 181 In its 2009 case Slawomir Musial v. Poland that concerned the detention of a man diagnosed with schizophrenia, the Court stated that “there are three particular elements to be considered in relation to the compatibility of an applicant’s health with his stay in detention: a) the medical condition of the prisoner, b) the adequacy of the medical assistance and care provided in detention, and c) the advisability of maintaining the detention measure in view of the state of health of an applicant.” 182 The Court held that “while maintaining the detention measure is not, in itself, incompatible with the applicant’s state of health, detaining him in establishments not suitable for the incarceration of the mentally ill raises a serious issue under the Convention,” and concluded that Poland had violated the prohibition of torture and other cruel or inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment under Article 3 of the ECHR. 183 In a 2008 report focusing on the situation of persons with disabilities with regard to torture and other cruel or inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, the then Special Rapporteur on torture stated that in his view, “the prolonged isolation of detainees may amount to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment and, in certain instances, 179 See for instance European Court of Human Rights, Ananyev and Others v. Russia, January 10, 2012, Applications No. 42525/07 and 60800/08, and Canali v. France, April 25, 2013, Application No 40119/09. 180 European Court of Human Rights, Kudla v. Poland, Application No. 30210/96, October 26, 2000, para 94. 181 European Court of Human Rights, Renolde v. France, Application No. 5608/05, October 16, 2008, para 120; Aerts v. Belgium, July 30, 1998, Application No. 61/1997/845/1051, para 66, Keenan v. United Kingdom, Application No. 27229/95, March 4, 2001, para 111, Riviere v France, Application No. 33834/03, July 11, 2006, para 63. 182 European Court of Human Rights, Slawomir Musial v Poland, Application No. 28300/06, January 20, 2009, paragraph 88. 183 European Court of Human Rights, Slawomir Musial v Poland, Application No. 28300/06, January 20, 2009, paragraphs 94 and 97-98. <strong>DOUBLE</strong> <strong>PUNISHMENT</strong> 64
Page 1 and 2:
H U M A N R I G H T S W A T C H DOU
Page 3 and 4:
Copyright © 2016 Human Rights Watc
Page 5 and 6:
Medication ........................
Page 7 and 8:
A frequent explanation given for th
Page 9 and 10:
despite being responsible for their
Page 11 and 12:
The government should also expand t
Page 13 and 14:
• Work towards reducing the ratio
Page 15 and 16:
• Equip more prisons with Regiona
Page 17 and 18: of over two years and who were cons
Page 19 and 20: Terms Psychosocial disability 1 : T
Page 21 and 22: According to the National Institute
Page 23 and 24: therefore lead to more serious sent
Page 25 and 26: II. Organization of Mental Healthca
Page 27 and 28: detention of persons “who have di
Page 29 and 30: health services.” 35 During our r
Page 31 and 32: escalating situations of distress a
Page 33 and 34: Nighttime regimes Depending on the
Page 35 and 36: health condition], and the physical
Page 37 and 38: harm. However, the prisoner should
Page 39 and 40: However, she also said, “if someo
Page 41 and 42: Human Rights Watch also found that
Page 43 and 44: detention conditions in the women
Page 45 and 46: protection cell for men, but not fo
Page 47 and 48: disabilities “I don’t feel read
Page 49 and 50: The issue was also raised by the di
Page 51 and 52: ok?’” He said he also saw a psy
Page 53 and 54: centrale” section (for people ser
Page 55 and 56: These demands on mental health staf
Page 57 and 58: daily basis or periodically during
Page 59 and 60: considered to be in need of psychia
Page 61 and 62: quarter. In general, prisoners pref
Page 63 and 64: According to the latest figures of
Page 65 and 66: Relations between medical professio
Page 67: take place. 172 When nurses obstruc
Page 71 and 72: The right to life is also guarantee
Page 73 and 74: Article 12 of the Convention on the
Page 75: DOUBLE PUNISHMENT Inadequate condit
show all

DOUBLE PUNISHMENT

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?