Mental and physical healthcare lapses during detention

The case Lavorgna v. Italy (judgement of 7 November 2024, application No. 8436/21) brought to the ECtHR the alleged mistreatment of Mr. Lavorgna during his confinement at a psychiatric ward. The Italian court discontinued a criminal procedure lodged against the psychiatric hospital personnel.  Mr Lavorgna claimed that he was strapped down for an excessively extensive period, contrary to Article 3, namely in the light of the 2017 Committee for the Prevention of Torture (CPT) revised standards on the use of means of restraint in psychiatric establishments for adults (CPT/Inf(2017)6). The ECtHR unanimously held that there had been a violation of Article 3 in its substantive and procedural limbs. The Court found that the Italian government was unable to justify the long hours for which the applicant was restrained during eight days. It found the restraint argument as “precautionary” rather than “last resort”, thus violating the human right not to be subjected to inhuman or degrading treatment. The criminal investigations on the matter failed to ascertain whether the purported danger to others posed by the applicant was clear and present throughout the eight-day duration of the measure’s application.

S.M. v. Italy (judgment of 17 October 2024, application no. 16310/20) shows the complexity of addressing healthcare in detention during a pandemic (see a comprehensive summary of the case), including for non-citizens. The judgement of this case was not unanimous. The majority voted that there was no violation of Article 3 in the overall treatment of the applicant in detention. However, dissenting opinions found that the Italian government failed to prove that the national protocol to prevent COVID-19 infection was adequately applied in the prison where the applicant was detained. 

The case Lombardi v. Italy (judgement on 3 October 2024, application No. 80288/13) concerned an Italian national, Mr Carlo Lombardi, born in 1959, who complained that there was a breach of Article 3 ECHR during his detention in prison between 2008 and 2011, and between 2011 and 2013, for lack of adequate medical treatment. The Court’s Committee found that the six-month term to apply before the ECtHR was not respected for the detention period before 2011 and found the case admissible only for the 2011-2013 detention. The Court unanimously held that, despite a diagnosis that required regular or constant physiotherapy was issued, the applicant had only ten physiotherapy sessions in two years. Therefore, there has been a violation of Article 3 ECHR. The Italian government was ordered to pay a sum of €8,000 for non-pecuniary damage.

Dismissed for insufficient evidence under provisions of Article 37

In Temporale v. Italy (judgement of 20 September 2024, application no. 38129/15), the applicant complained about his extended detention in prison despite his serious health problems, claiming that his condition deteriorated due to inadequate medical care. Temporale alleged violations of Articles 2 (right to life), 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment), and 38 (obligation to furnish necessary facilities for case examination). The ECtHR found no evidence to support the applicant’s claims and held no violations of Article 3 or Article 38.

Vottari and Di Giacomo v. Italy (judgement of 5 September 2024, application Nos. 9231/22 & 55641/22). The Court unanimously decided to join the two Vottari and Di Giacomo applications and declared them inadmissible on September 5th, 2024. The ECtHR found that the national authorities justified the renewal of the 41-bis special prison regime based on extensive individualised assessments of the applicants' criminal histories, their persistent leadership roles in mafia organisations, and the continued communication channel maintained about criminal activities despite being in prison. As the application in this case of the 41-bis regime did not reach the minimum severity required to constitute a violation of Article 3 ECHR, there was no evidence of serious physical or psychological consequences to the applicants. 

While the first applicant did not provide any supporting evidence, the second applicant submitted ‘a psychologist's report describing the applicant's condition as characterised by anxiety, sleep disturbances, and altered eating habits, and generally recommending a "more adequate" prison regime.’ This statement was not deemed adequate evidence to prove claimed violations. The ECtHR noted that the national court had thoroughly investigated the applicants’ arguments to come to the same decision. As neither applicant had submitted any element that legitimates doubts on their ability to maintain contacts with the respective criminal organisations or evidence that ‘the extension of the restrictions entailed by the special prison regime was patently unjustified,’ the ECtHR found no reason to depart from the conclusion reached by the national court. On the claim of violations under Article 7 ECHR, the ECtHR found the complaint incompatible with the Convention and declared it inadmissible.

E.G. v.  Italy (judgement of 20 June 2024, application No. 56697/21) 
The applicant, E.G., a minor of Dominican nationality, raises grievances concerning Articles 3, 5  and 13 ECHR, considering his detention was incompatible with his health status because of his drug dependence. After being sentenced for several offences, the applicant was detained in a juvenile prison in July 2020. He was then assigned to several educational centres to undergo multidisciplinary care until, in February  2023, he was expelled from the last centre and returned to his family. Both parties agree that the applicant suffered from a behavioural disorder that required psychological and educational follow-up, a re-socialisation programme, treatment for addiction and, where appropriate, pharmacological treatment.
Skipping the admissibility test, the Court concluded that the applicant’s allegation manifestly lacked sufficient evidence and rejected the application under Article 35 §§ 3 and 4 of the Convention.

Cases struck off from the list after a unilateral declaration of the State

In the Brunetti v. Italy case (decision of 20 June 2024, application No. 21551/23),  following a friendly settlement between the two parties, a Committee struck out the application from the list. The case was initially brought to the ECtHR on June 1, 2023, by Mr. Brunetti, a 26-year-old Italian-born prison detainee. The initial claims complained about the conditions of detention deemed inadequate for his mental health as the prison facilities were not equipped with a care or assistance department. The ECtHR determined that the settlement terms respected human rights as defined in the ECHR, finding no further cause to continue examination.

The case C.V. v. Italy (decision of 28 November 2024, application No. ​​6897/24) was stricken off the list for the ECtHR under the provisions of Article 37.1 (c) ECHR, despite the applicant rejecting the amount of 24,684 euros offered by the State as non-pecuniary damage. The applicant complained that her detention was inadequate in light of her mental health and was therefore in breach of Articles 3, 5 and 5.1, 6, 13 and 34 ECHR. A Committee of the Court found that the unilateral statement of the State and the awarded sum was consistent with the amounts awarded in similar cases and that respect for human rights as defined in the ECHR did not require it to continue the examination of the application.