Credit: Flammekueche via Wikimedia Commons
The Grand Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) unanimously held on October 20 that Croatia violated a prisoner’s right to be free from inhuman or degrading treatment when it confined him in a cell measuring 2.62 square meters for 27 consecutive days. See ECtHR, Muršić v. Croatia [GC], no. 7334/13, ECHR 2016, Judgment of 20 October 2016, para. 171. This decision reverses a chamber decision from March 2015 that found no violation of the applicant’s rights. However, the Grand Chamber did not find a violation of Article 3 with regard to other instances when the applicant had less than three square meters of personal space but for shorter periods of time and with mitigating factors, such as freedom of movement and other activities outside of the cell. See id. at para. 171.
Similar cases on personal space in detention have arisen in multiple Council of Europe countries due to the prevalence of prison overcrowding, and the European Court has held that personal space less than three square meters in detention raises a strong presumption of a violation of Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment) of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) that may be overcome by other factors, including the general conditions of detention and the inmate’s freedom to engage in activities outside the cell. See id. at paras. 94, 105. While the Grand Chamber here found a violation in the context of 27 consecutive days, in a previous case, the Court held that the State had not violated Article 3 where the applicant had less than three square meters of personal space for 26 consecutive days, based on these other factors. See id. at para. 130 (citing ECtHR, Vladimir Belyayev v. Russia, no. 9967/06, Judgment of 17 October 2013).
Case Background
The applicant, a Croatian national, was imprisoned in Bjelovar County Prison from October 2009 to March 2011. See id. at paras. 13–14. During that time, the applicant was housed in multiple overcrowded multi-occupancy cells and allocated less than three square meters of personal space for a total of 50 days, including 27 consecutive days. See id. at para. 15. On the remainder of those days, he was given only 2.62 square meters of space “once for one day, once for two days and three times for three days” and 2.55 square meters of space for one eight-day period and one three-day period. [ECtHR Press Release]
The applicant also expressed dissatisfaction with the conditions of the facilities. He stated that his cells were poorly kept, unclean, and humid. See Muršić v. Croatia [GC], 20 October 2016, at para. 16. The layout of the prison was such that the sanitary facilities were in close proximity to both the living and dining areas, causing a persistent smell in those areas. See id. The applicant additionally claimed that he was denied the opportunity to work in prison and did not have adequate access to recreational or educational activities. See id.
In March 2010, the applicant requested a transfer to another prison so his family could visit him more easily. See id. at para. 22. In August 2010, he filed a complaint with a judge regarding his detention conditions and restated his transfer request. See id. at para 26. These requests and their subsequent appeals were repeatedly denied for months. See id. at paras. 26-40. The applicant was eventually transferred to another prison in March 2011. See Muršić v. Croatia [GC], 20 October 2016, at para. 14.
Analysis of the Grand Chamber for the 27-Day Period
The European Court has determined that when the area of a prisoner’s personal space falls below three square meters, a strong presumption arises of a violation of Article 3. See id. at para. 126. The government bears the burden of rebutting this presumption by demonstrating that the prisoner was sufficiently compensated for the lack of space with other benefits, such as freedom of movement and activities outside of the cell, and confinement to such spaces was minor and limited in duration. See id. at paras. 126, 131–32, 154. The Grand Chamber reiterated in this case that the length of the confinement in a small space is not itself a determining factor, but rather, the presumption of a violation can only be overcome by the totality of mitigating factors. See id. at para. 132.
The Court found that the applicant’s rights under Article 3 had been violated during the 27-day period in which he had less than three square meters of personal space. See id. at para. 172. Although in a previous case the European Court of Human Rights found no violation of Article 3 where a prisoner was given 2.97 square meters of personal space for a period of 26 consecutive days, the Court concluded that this applicant suffered “hardship going beyond the unavoidable level of suffering inherent in detention.” See id. at paras. 130, 151-53 (citing ECtHR, Vladimir Belyayev v. Russia, no. 9967/06, Judgment of 17 October 2013). As such, the strong presumption in favor of a violation could not be overcome, regardless of any other factors related to his detention, constituting a violation of Article 3. See Muršić v. Croatia [GC], 20 October 2016, at paras. 151–53. The Grand Chamber’s reasoning supporting this finding was limited and brief, and does not discuss the differences between this case and the Vladimir Belyayev judgment, beyond stating that the applicant in this case had only 2.62 square meters of personal space and the prior applicant had 2.97 square meters. See id. at para. 151.
Analysis of the Grand Chamber for the Other Periods
With respect to the other periods of time in which the applicant had less than three square meters of personal space, the Court found no Article 3 violation. See id. at para. 173. In making its decision, noting that the State has the burden of overcoming the presumption of an Article 3 violation, the Court considered evidence from both sides and determined that the applicant’s out-of-cell privileges were sufficient to compensate for his limited personal space. See id. at paras. 160, 169.
The Croatian government emphasized that inmates were allowed ample freedom of movement outside their cells throughout the day, including two hours of outdoor exercise plus free movement within the prison for three hours in the evening. See id. at para. 155. The government submitted detailed materials such as photos and floor plans to show that the conditions of the prison as well as the inmates’ daily routines were adequate to make up for small living spaces. See id. at para. 156, 161-69.
The applicant made only general objections to the government’s claims, failing to provide details to dispute the State’s assertions, such as that opportunities for outdoor exercise existed. See id. at para. 157. Additionally, the applicant admitted that he had three hours a day to move outside the cell, he did not provide detailed information about his daily routines, and some of his statements were inconsistent and contradicted undisputed evidence before the Court. See Muršić v. Croatia [GC], 20 October 2016, at paras. 157, 159, 165. The Court also placed great weight on the fact that the applicant failed to raise concerns about certain facets of his detention, such as inadequate freedom of movement, at the domestic level. See id. at para. 159. Therefore, the Court could not substantiate his claims of inadequacy. See id. at para. 168.
Based on this evidence, the Court concluded that the circumstances of the applicant’s detention during the other periods of time did not rise to the level of severity necessary to constitute inhuman or degrading treatment. See id. at paras. 169-71. The Court found that the non-consecutive periods were only “short and minor reductions in personal space” and were adequately balanced with freedom of movement and activities in the rest of the prison. See id. at para. 169. As such, the Court found no violation of the applicant’s rights under Article 3 of the ECHR for the remaining time periods when he was subject to less than three square meters of personal space but not for a prolonged consecutive amount of time. See id. at paras. 171, 173.
Implications
The Court has considered a number of cases concerning the rights of prisoners to personal space in multi-occupancy cells. See id. at para. 91; see, e.g., ECtHR, Vladimir Belyayev v. Russia, no. 9967/06, ECHR 2013, Judgment of 17 October 2013. While the Court has consistently held that three square meters of personal space is subject to heightened levels of scrutiny, it applies other factors, such as duration, freedom of movement, and an inmate’s physical and mental health in overcoming a presumption of an Article 3 violation. See Muršić v. Croatia [GC], 20 October 2016, at paras. 94, 103, 105.
In Vladimir Belyayev v. Russia, the Court stated that the absence of individual sleeping space, at least three square meters of personal space, or the ability to move between furniture items in the cell creates the presumption of an Article 3 violation. See Vladimir Belyayev v. Russia, Judgment of 17 October 2013, para. 30. The applicant in that case had 2.97 square meters of personal space for 26 consecutive days, but the applicant also had at least an hour of outdoor exercise each day. See id. at paras. 33-34. Without extensive analysis, the Court then held that Russia had not violated the applicant’s right to prohibition of inhuman treatment under Article 3 of the ECHR. See id. at para. 36.
Additional Information
For more information about the European Court of Human Rights, visit IJRC’s Online Resource Hub.
For a summary of the European Court’s jurisprudence on prisoners’ rights, see its factsheets on detention conditions and treatment of prisoners, detention and mental health, and prisoners’ health-related rights.