Prisoners right to healthcare, a European perspective

European Journal of Health Law

Volumn 20, Issue 1, 2013, Pages 5-19

  Abbing, Henriette Roscam ^a  

^a Emerita of Health Law   (Netherlands)

Author keywords

Degrading treatment and punishment; European standards; Principle of equivalence; Prisoners' health; Prohibition against torture; Public health; Right to life; Right to private life; Social right to healthcare

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; EUROPE; HEALTH CARE DELIVERY; HUMAN; HUMAN RIGHTS; LEGAL ASPECT; MENTAL HEALTH SERVICE; PRISONER;

EUROPE; HEALTH SERVICES ACCESSIBILITY; HUMAN RIGHTS; HUMANS; MENTAL HEALTH SERVICES; PRISONERS;

MLCS; MLOWN;

EID: 84876374898     PISSN: 09290273     EISSN: 15718093     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1163/15718093-12341251     Document Type: Review

References (76)

1. This article is based on the author's presentation at the joint EAHL-EJHLworkshop held during the 19th World Congress on Medical Law, Maceió, Brazil, 7-10 August 2012.
2. UN Basic principles for the treatment of prisoners, 1977.
3. H. Stöver, C. Weilandt, H. Zurhold, C. Hartwig and K. Thane, Prevention, treatment and harm reduction services in prison, Final Report, April 2008, Directorate General for Health and Consumers, European Commission.
4. CPT Standards, European Committee for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman and Degrading Treatment or Punishment (CPT), CPT/Inf/E 2002/1, Rev 2011, para. 31.
5. R. Watson, Anne Stimpson and Tony Hostick, 'Prison healthcare, a review of the literature', International Journal of Nursing Studies 41 (2004) 124.
6. Lantsova v. Russian Federation, Communication no. 736/1997, 26 March 2012, CCPR/C74/D/763.
7. United Nations: International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (1966), art. 12
8. Council of Europe: European Social Charter (1996), particularly Arts. 11-13, Convention on Human Rights and Biomedicine (Oviedo Convention (1997), Article 3
9. European Union: Charter of Fundamental Rights (2000), Arts. 34-35.
10. UN General Comment no. 14, 2000, CH. II, para 34.
11. Kudla v. Poland, no. C30210 (96), 26 October 2000.
12. WHO, Health in prisons, A WHO guide to the essentials in prison health. 2007, p. 7.
13. UNODC/WHO Europe, Women's health in prison, correcting gender inequity in prison health, 2009 (Kyiv Declaration on Women's Health in Prison, p. 4).
14. Council of Europe, European Committee of Social Rights, Digest of case law, 1 September 2008, p. 81, www.coe.int.
15. Ingrid Nifosi-Sutton, 'The power of the European Court of Human Rights to order specific nonmonetary relief: a critical appraisal from a right to health perspective,' 23 Harvard Human Rights Journal (2010) 59.
16. United Nations, International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, 1966, Articles 6 and 7
17. Council of Europe, European Convention on Human Rights, 1950, Articles 2 and 3
18. European Union, Charter of Fundamental Rights, 2000, Articles 3 and 4.
19. On the basis of the first Optional Protocol to the Covenant.
20. United Nations, Economic and Social Council, The right to the highest attainable standard of health, General Comment no. 14, 2000, paras. 43 and 47.
21. CPT/Inf/E(2002)1,rev. 2011.
22. M. Marochini, 'The ill-treatment of prisoners in Europe: a disease diagnosed, but not cured,' 30(2) Zb. Prav. fak. Sveuc. Rij (2009) 1108-1128.
23. Recommendation (2006) 2 of 11 January 2006. Relevant other recommendations on specific health related aspects are: R (93) 6 concerning prison and criminological aspects of the control of transmissible diseases including AIDS and related health problems in prison, and R (98) 7 concerning the ethical and organisational aspects of healthcare in prison.
24. See also the UN minimum standard rules for the treatment of prisoners, 1977 and the UN basic principles for the treatment of prisoners, 1995.
25. Labita v. Italy, no. 26772/95, 6 April 2000.
26. Kudla v. Poland, 30210/96, 26 Oktober 2000.
27. Goginashvili v. Georgia, no. 47729/08, 4 October 2011.
28. Pakhomov v. Russia, no. 44917/08 (first section), 30 September 2010.
29. Pantea v. Romania, no. 3343/96. Para 96
30. ECHR 2003-VI (extracts) cited in Aleksejeva v. Latvia, no. 21780/07, 3 July 2012.
31. See for instance Aleksanyan v. Russia, no. 46468/06 of 22 December 2008, paras. 133-1548.
32. Aleksejeva v. Latvia, no. 21780/07, 3 October 2012, paras. 36, 37.
33. Moeisel v. France, no. 67263/01, 14 November 2002.
34. See also Raffray v. France, no. 36435/07, 21 December 2010.
35. Aleksanyan v. Russia, no. 46468/06, 22 December 2008, para. 141.
36. CPT/Inf/E(2002)1,rev.2011. Paras. 46, 50.
37. A pilot procedure may be followed when there is a certain amount of pending cases before the Court that are so called repetitive cases, which derive from a common dysfunction at the national level. Where the Court receives several applications that share a root cause, it can select one or more for priority treatment under the pilot procedure. In the pilot procedure the Court decides whether a violation of the Convention occurred in the specific cases and also identifies the systematic problem so as to give the government clear indications of the type of remedial measures needed to solve it. Factsheet Pilot Judgments, July 2012.
38. Ananyev and others v. Russia, no. 42525/07, 10 January 2012.
39. The Court had found over 80 judgements involving Russia since Kalashnikov v. Russia (no. 47095/99, 15 July 2002). A further 250 cases were pending.
40. Kaverzin v. Ukraine, no. 23893/03, 215 May 2012.
41. CPT Standards, rev 2011, para. 31.
42. Farbtuhs v. Latvia, no. 4672/02.
43. See also Flaminzeanu v. Romania, 56664/08, 12 April 2011, section III.
44. Anna Lawson, 'Disability, equality, reasonable accommodation and the avoidance of ill-treatment in places of detention: the role of supranational monitoring and inspection bodies,' 16(6) The International Journal of Human Rights (August 2012) 845-864.
45. Makharadze and Sikharulidze v. Georgia, no. 35254/07, 22 November 2011, Third Section.
46. Dickson v. U.K. no. 44362/04, 4 December 2007. In this case, the welfare of the child was not into question.
47. Khudobin v. Russia, no. 59696/00, 26 October 2010.
48. Aleksanyan v. Russia, no. 46468/06 of 22 December 2008, para. 139.
49. Grishin v. Russia, no. 30983/02 o.c. para. 77.
50. See also Aleksanyan v. Russia, o.c., para. 149.
51. Also cited in the Aleksanyan v. Russia Judgment, no. 46468/06 of 22 December 2008, para. 139.
52. See also the General Statement in the context of the economic crisis made by the European Committee of Social Rights in its activity report 2009, 25 June 2010, p. 17.
53. Pnaitescu v. Romania, no. 30909/06, 19 April 2012.
54. CPT Standards (2002)1, rev. 2011, para. 39.
55. See also Aleksanyan v. Russia, e.g. para. 147.
56. Paul and Audrey Edwards v. the United Kingdom, no. 466477/99 (third Section), 14 March 2002.
57. World Health Organization, International Red Cross, Mental Health and Prisons, Information Sheet, October 2005.
58. M.S. v. the United Kingdom, no. 24527/08, 3 May 2012. In this case the neglect was a consequence of a lack of coordination between the relevant authorities.
59. Dybeku v. Albania, no. 41153/06, 18 December 2007.
60. Renolde v. France, no. 5608/05, 16 October 2008.
61. Rupa v. Romania, no. 56664/08, 2 October 2012.
62. De Donder and de Clipper v. Belgium, no. 8595/06, 6 December 2011.
63. L.B. v. Belgium, no. 22831/08 of 2 October 2012.
64. CPT Standards (2002)1, rev. 2011, para. 64.
65. CPT Standards (2002)1, rev. 2011, para. 32.
66. Liam Herrick, 'Prisoners rights', in: Ursula Kilkelly (ed.), ECHR and Irish Law, CH 11, 30 January 2009.
67. No. 47095/99, 15 July 2002, section III.
68. Shelley v. United Kingdom, no. 23800, 4 January 2008. In this case, the authorities had taken some preventive steps, while monitoring at the same time developments in needle exchange elsewhere.
69. Kate Dolan, Scott Rutter, and Alex D. Wodak, 'Prison based syringe exchange programmes, a review of international research and development,' (98) Addiction (2003) 153-158.
70. Rick Lines, 'Injecting reason, prison syringe exchange and article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights,' (1) European Human Rights Law Review (2007) 73.
71. Rick Lines, 'From equivalence of standards to equivalence of objectives: the entitlement of prisoners to healthcare standards higher than those outside prisons,' International Journal of Prisoners Health (December 2006) 269-280.
72. Council of Europe Recommendation 1998/7, para. 10.
73. Hans Joachim Salize, Harald Dresing, Chiristine Kief, Central Instititute of Mental Health, Mentally Disordered Persons In European Prison Systems, Needs, Programmes and Outcome, EUPRIS, Final Report, October 2007.
74. WHO Regional Office for Europe, Guide to the Essentials in Prison Health, 2007.
75. Luke Birmingham, Simon Wilson and Gwen Adshead, 'Prison Medicine, ethics and equivalence,' 188 British Journal of Psychiatry (2006) 4-6.
76. Council of Europe Recommendation 1998/7, para. 12. Paul Hayton, Alex Gatherer and Andrew Fraser, 'Patient or Prisoner: does it matter which government ministry is responsible for the health of prisoners?' A briefing paper for networking meeting, WHO, Copenhagen, October 2010.