I worked in a military correctional facility for several years, so I understand how prisoners filing frivolous claims/complaints is a normal thing, but this is downright silly.
Doesn’t it make sense that, in order to have a violation, the victim would have to be human? I’d be happy to see an international agreement that determines such vile individuals have effectively given up their humanity through their heinous actions. Rabid animals are shot. Rabid people are stored in semi-secure containers. This makes no sense to me.
At least the “European Court of Human Rights” found no merit in Carlos’ complaints – although the slim margin is a bit frightening.
The applicant, Ilich Ramirez Sanchez, better known as “Carlos the Jackal”, is a Venezuelan national who was born in 1949. He is currently detained in Fleury Merogis Prison.
The applicant was placed under investigation in connection with a series of terrorist attacks carried out in France and sentenced to life imprisonment on 25 December 1997 for the murder of three police officers in 1975.
For eight years and two months – from his detention in Sante’ Prison on 15 August 1994 until his transfer to Saint-Maur Prison on 17 October 2002 – the applicant was held in solitary confinement. The reasons generally given to justify the decisions to prolong his detention in solitary confinement were his dangerousness, the need to maintain order and security in the prison and the risk of his absconding. On each occasion, the applicant underwent medical examinations to determine his fitness for solitary confinement.
This regime meant that the applicant was detained alone in a cell measuring 6.84 square metres, which, he said, was dilapidated and poorly insulated. He had no contact with other prisoners or prison warders and was authorised to leave his cell only for a two-hour daily walk. The applicant further alleged that his only recreation was provided by newspapers and a rented television, and that he received no visits other than from his lawyers and, once a month, a cleric.
The applicant complains that his prolonged solitary confinement from 15 August 1994 to 17 October 2002 violated Article 3 of the Convention (prohibition of inhuman and degrading treatment). The applicant also alleges that the authorities did not follow the correct procedure for prolonging his solitary confinement, in breach of Article 13 (right to an effective remedy).
In a judgment of 27 January 2005, a Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights held by four votes to three that there had been no violation of Article 3 and unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 13.