Articles 2 and 3 ECHR and the mental and physical health of detainees

A.Z. v. Italy

In the A.Z. case (no. 29926/20, judgment of 4 July 2024), the applicant, who was born in 1982 and lived in Bari, complains of violation of articles 3, 5 § 1 and 2 ECHR. The case concerns the applicant’s continued detention in prison, notwithstanding his psychiatric disorder and repeated suicide attempts.

The Court declared the complaints admissible and found a violation of Article 3 ECHR for the applicant’s detention between July 2019 and September 2020, but not after September 2020. The complaint under Article 5 § 1 ECHR was found inadmissible, while the issues raised under Article 2 were dismissed. Italy was ordered to pay 10,000 Euros as non-pecuniary damages, and 8,000 Euros for legal costs.

Libri v. Italy

In the Libri case (no.  45097/20 judgment of 11th January 2024), the applicant, who was born in 1960 and living in L’Aquila, complained that his continued detention in prison without adequate medical treatment violated Article 3 of ECHR. In early 2017, the applicant was convicted of serious crimes, including mafia-related offenses and was sentenced to life imprisonment. He was recognised as 100% disabled and needed rehabilitation every day. Despite medical recommendations, he experienced delays in receiving treatment and essential medical devices. The Rome court reviewed his condition on 3 July 2017 and ruled that his detention was compatible with his health, despite acknowledging delays in care. The ECtHR found that, while Libri’s health condition did not necessitate his release, the inadequate medical treatment provided in prison violated Article 3. Since the applicant did not claim compensation, no monetary award was granted to him.

Pintus v. Italy

In the Pintus case (no. 35943/18, judgment of 1st February 2024), the applicant, Mr Alessio Pintus, born in 1978 and living in Rome, complains of a violation of articles 2 and 3 ECHR. The applicant continued to endure detention for approximately eight months under the ordinary detention regime despite the alleged incompatibility of the detention conditions with his mental health conditions. 

The applicant was imprisoned in Rebibbia Nuovo Complesso prison (Rome) on 18 October 2017 to serve a six-year prison sentence for sexual assault. Before imprisonment, an expert report stated that he had been suffering from psychological problems since 2001 and that, therefore, he had to be placed in a therapeutic centre. However, Mr Pintus was showing no signs of mental illnesses, withdrew his request of release and eventually his health situation was found to be compatible with the prison regime. With time, the condition of the applicant worsened. However, on 26 January 2018, the Department of Prison Administration (DAP) informed him that no places were available and that a long waiting list existed. On 9 April 2018, the applicant committed acts of self-mutilation. His condition deteriorated significantly, and the prison’s psychiatrist confirmed the incompatibility of his health conditions with the prison regime. However, due to a lack of places in mental illness facilities, the applicant could not be freed. Finally, on 18 June 2018, after 8 months of waiting, the applicant was placed in a specialised centre.

According to the ECtHR, after April 9, 2018, when the applicant’s mental health started deteriorating, authorities should have been aware of the risk of inhumane treatment. The ECtHR stated that the prison administration took reasonable steps to monitor and treat the applicant, preventing serious harm. Therefore, no violation of Article 2 was found. The Court emphasized that mentally ill detainees require heightened protection and concluded that the delay in transferring the applicant from the prison to the psychiatric facility violated Article 3.

Tarricone v. Italy

In Tarricone V. Italy (no.4312/13 judgment of 08/05/2024) the applicant, Mr Alfonso Tarricone, is an Italian national born in 1963. He was detained on several occasions in various correctional facilities between 1993 and 2021. The case concerns Mr Tarricone’s continued detention despite mental health issues and the alleged failure to provide him with appropriate medical care.

The applicant was subjected to an initial detention between 14 December 1993 and 28 March 2021 in various prisons. During this period, Mr Tarricone was examined several times by a psychiatrist and received treatment, which he sometimes refused to take and often refused to cooperate. The applicant claimed that he was not receiving the necessary psychiatric and psychological support, lamenting the violation of Article 3, and asked for the replacement of his detention in prison with house arrest. From December 2014 to 28 March 2021, according to doctors' information, Mr Tarricone’s mental health showed significant improvement. Medical professionals reported that the mental illness of the applicant could be treated in prison and that there was no need for house arrest. The applicant considers that he did not receive adequate care for his psychiatric disorders. The Italian government claimed that the applicant did not exhaust domestic remedies. 

The Court found that the applicant’s multiple detentions were separate events, not a single continuous situation. Since the complaint was filed too late regarding the first three detention periods, those parts of the case were declared inadmissible. However, the ECtHR found it admissible with respect to the period of detention from 18 December 2004 to 28 March 2021. Domestic courts which had ruled on the applicant's numerous requests for house arrest had all rejected them based on health reports and clinical progress showing that his mental health was compatible with detention and that specialised care was available in prison. The ECtHR ultimately agreed with the national courts and therefore found no violation under Article 3 of ECHR.

Giorgio v. Italy

In Giorgio v. Italy (no. 24499/21 judgment of 11th April 2024) the applicant, Giuseppe Giorgio, born in 1990, complained of the violation of Articles 3 and 8 of the ECHR, due to the incompatibility of his state of mental health with detention and the psychiatric care provided in prison. 

The Italian Government submitted a unilateral declaration, acknowledging the violations and offering €12,500 for non-pecuniary damages and €2,000 for costs and expenses. The applicant opposed this, arguing that the compensation was insufficient and the acknowledgement inadequate. The Court, however, found the Government’s admission and compensation offer reasonable and in line with previous similar cases (see, for example, Rooman v. Belgium [GC], no. 18052/11, §§ 144-48, 31 January 2019, and Blokhin v. Russia [GC], no. 47152/06, §§ 135-40, 23 March 2016). It decided that further examination of the case was no longer justified and struck it out under Article 37 § 1 (c) of the Convention.

Articles 2 and 3 ECHR and refugee procedures  

X.H. v. Italy

In X.H. v. Italy (no. 8827/23 judgment of 18 April 2024), the applicant is Ms. X.H., a Chinese national who entered Italy in 2016 on a tourist visa and applied for asylum, citing religious persecution in China. However, the Italian authorities rejected her claims. The Italian authorities found her testimony inconsistent and lacking credibility, particularly regarding her conversion to the Church of Almighty God. They noticed that the applicant was able to obtain a passport despite alleging persecution.The applicant argued that her expulsion would violate Article 3 ECHR, that domestic proceedings had been unfair (Article 6), and that she lacked an effective remedy (Article 13). 

While the Court acknowledged that members of the Church face persecution in China, it found that the applicant failed to provide sufficient evidence of her personal risk of persecution. The Court determined that Italian authorities had reasonably questioned her credibility based on discrepancies in her testimony. As a result, the ECHR unanimously declared the application inadmissible.

E.A. v. Italy

In E.A. v. Italy (no. 34573/22, decision of 25 January 2024), the applicant, Mr. E.A., a Nigerian national residing in Treviso, sought international protection in Italy, claiming a fear of persecution due to his homosexuality. His application was rejected by the Territorial Commission of Caserta in 2018, and the Court of Naples upheld this decision in 2020. The applicant appealed to the Court of Cassation, but his appeal was declared inadmissible in 2022 due to a procedural formality - the absence of a certification date on his power of attorney. He complained of violations of Article 6 of the ECHR and Article 13 in conjunction with Article 3 (lack of an effective remedy and risk of inhuman treatment in case of expulsion).

The Court found that, according to its case law, Article 6.1 did not apply to asylum procedures and that the Italian authorities had conducted a fair and independent examination of the asylum request. It ruled that the applicant had access to an effective remedy and that Article 13 did not require a second level of appeal. Therefore, the application was declared inadmissible.

Articles 2 and 3 ECHR and reparations for medical negligence

Pericolo v. Italy

In Pericolo v. Italy (no. 42565/19, judgment of 15 February 2024), the applicant, Mr. Alessandro Pericolo, an Italian national, sustained life-threatening injuries in a 1994 car accident, leading to multiple surgeries. Due to alleged medical negligence at Udine and Latisana hospitals, he developed an infection, which was not promptly diagnosed, ultimately resulting in the amputation of part of his left leg in 2008. The Udine District Court awarded him €1,121,346 in 2013 for the damage caused. The applicant argued that the compensation was insufficient and that the 17-year-long legal proceedings violated not only Article 6 ECHR on fair and effective judicial response but also his right to life under Article 2 ECHR. 

The Court found that Italian courts had acted within established legal standards and that compensation had been fairly assessed and therefore declared the application inadmissible.