The internal procedure for suspension of sentence
The applicant was detained in France for various sentences of criminal imprisonment, accompanied by a ban on French territory, for acts of a terrorist nature. In 2012, he underwent a series of examinations, notably neurological, which led to a diagnosis of multiple sclerosis. The following year, the applicant began a so-called “first-line” drug treatment.
At the same time, the applicant filed with the sentence enforcement court a request for suspension for medical reasons on the basis of article 720-1-1 of the code of criminal procedure. The suspension was pronounced by the judges of first instance on the basis of two expert reports which indicated that “the applicant’s state of health required daily care and a multidisciplinary medical environment and that this state was permanently incompatible with his continued detention” (§ 8) subject to conditions clearly in violation of the law (§§ 8-9). The sentencing chamber overturned the judgment due to the conditions imposed and considered that it was not sufficiently informed by the initial expert assessments. She ordered a new one. This more complete assessment essentially indicated that the applicant’s medical follow-up was appropriate. Furthermore, it recommended that the applicant benefit from physiotherapy sessions of at least thirty minutes per week in accordance with the recommendations of the High Health Authority, a neurology consultation every year and occasional opinions from specialists, all constituting second-line treatment. The expert opinion concluded that the establishment of such support was compatible with detention.
The Sentencing Chamber refused the suspension of the sentence and the applicant appealed to the Court of Cassation. The High Court overturned the judgment on the grounds that the court had not investigated whether the recommendations could actually be implemented by the prison administration. On remand, the Sentence Enforcement Chamber confirmed the rejection of the suspension of sentence.
Claims of the applicant
The applicant alleged a violation of Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights, which prohibits inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, for several reasons. Firstly, he argued various failures in his care. He cited the late nature of first aid. Furthermore, he denounced, on the basis of recommendations established before the domestic courts, the absence of annual neurological consultation and insufficient physiotherapy care, in that it only took place once every two to three weeks. Secondly, he argued that his state of health was permanently incompatible with his continued detention.
On the compatibility of continued detention with the state of health
The Strasbourg Court recalls that the ability to undergo detention is the condition for it to be prosecuted. Thus, the State has an obligation to ensure that a prisoner is capable…
