The European Court of Human Rights has found against Belgium in two cases concerning the treatment of mentally ill prisoners.
The first of the cases, Rooman v Belgium, concerned proceedings brought by Mr. Rooman on account of the lack of psychiatric care in the facilities in which he was being detained. Convicted of theft and sexual assault in 1997, and as of 2004, he has been detained in a social protection facility in Paifve. Mr. Rooman speaks and understands only German and for the duration of his detention in Paifve, where the staff speak only French, had been unable to avail of any therapeutic treatment for his mental health problems. The Mental Health Board, having repeatedly rejected his applications for release on a trial basis, recommended that he be transferred to a facility in which he could receive adequate treatment in German. Despite these recommendations and the isolation from both staff and patients Mr. Rooman endured due to the language barrier, efforts made to relocate him were thwarted by the authorities’ failures to take appropriate measures to bring about change.
The Court, given that German was one of the three official languages in Belgium, found that the national authorities had not provided adequate care for Mr. Rooman’s condition. According to the Court his continued detention in the Paifve social protection facility without appropriate medical support or any realistic prospect of change had entailed particularly acute hardship, causing him distress of an intensity exceeding the unavoidable level of suffering inherent in detention and in violation of the Article 3 prohibition of torture.
The second case Tekin & Arslan v Belgium was taken by Ilhami Tekin and Döne Arslan whose son, Michael Tekin, died in Jamioulx prison in 2009. Mr. Tekin was detained for violating the terms of his probation and held in the ordinary part of the prison, despite having a history of mental health problems He died following an altercation with three correctional officers who were trying to place him under specific security measures.
The decision to place Mr. Tekin under specific security measures was made by the Governor of the prison as a result of his nervous and agitated state. Mr. Tekin allegedly provoked three prison officers when he was informed of the measures. The officers performed a series of manipulations to immobilise Mr. Tekin and move him to a security cell. While subjected to the manoeuvres of the correctional officers Mr. Tekin complained of not being able to breathe. Once restrained, both his hands and ankles were handcuffed before being removed and, having gone limp, he was dragged by the shoulders to be transported. During transportation the officers noted that he had urinated himself and once he was in the security cell found his face was cyanosed. The medical staff then intervened unsuccessfully and he was pronounced dead. The autopsy report witnessed signs of suffocation and concluded that the manoeuvres by the officers caused very deep lesions to the point of breaking cartilage in the throat area.
The Court, therefore, had to determine whether the use of force exerted by the correctional officers acting on behalf of the State had been necessary and proportional.
In finding a violation of the Article 2 right to life, the Court placed emphasis on the decision to place Mr. Tekin in the ordinary part of the prison instead of its psychiatric wing, as well the lack of training afforded the correctional officers. The Court also questioned the relevance of the intervention, the failure to consider alternative less coercive measures, the choice of the applied immobilisation techniques and the failure of the correctional officers to carry out an examination of Mr. Tekin once he was no longer posing a threat to others.
Click here for more on the Rooman v Belgium and Tekin & Arslan v Belgium cases.
Click here for the full judgement of Rooman v Belgium.
Click here for more on prison conditions in Belgium.