On August 25, 2023, the case was won in the UN Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities.

Заголовок: On August 25, 2023, the case was won in the UN Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. Сведения: 2024-10-30 03:09:46

The case of S.M. v. Denmark. Views of the UN Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities dated August 25, 2023. Message No. 61/2019.

In 2019, the author of the communication was assisted in preparing a complaint. Subsequently, the complaint was communicated to Denmark.

The author claimed that the State party violated his rights under article 14 of the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities because he was deprived of his liberty on the grounds of psychosocial disability. He was sentenced to compulsory treatment without a time limit, while those convicted of the same crime and without a psychosocial disability receive a much shorter sentence. The complainant stated that the State party had violated article 15 of the Convention because, during his stay in a psychiatric clinic, he was forced to take certain medications without his consent. The author stated that the methods of compulsory treatment of psychiatric patients in the State party violate the provisions of article 16 of the Convention, read in conjunction with article 4 of the Covenant. The author claimed that he was forced to take medicines without his free consent, in violation of article 17 of the Convention. The Committee considered that the State party had failed to comply with its obligations under articles 14 and 17 of the Convention, read in conjunction with article 25 of the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities.

The Committee's legal position is that freedom and personal integrity are one of the most valuable rights that every person is endowed with. In particular, all persons with disabilities, and especially persons with intellectual and psychosocial disabilities, have the right to freedom in accordance with article 14 of the Convention (paragraph 9.2 of the Views).

The Committee also recalls that compulsory treatment by psychiatric and other health and medical professionals is a violation of the right to personal integrity (paragraph 9.4 of the Views).

The Committee's assessment of the factual circumstances of the case: it was taken into account that on June 30, 2016, the district court ordered the author to be treated in a psychiatric hospital, recognizing him as "insane" at the time of the crimes. The Committee noted that the District Court had applied article 16, paragraph 1, of the Criminal Code, which provides that persons who are in an insane state due to a mental disorder or a similar condition at the time of the commission of the act are not subject to punishment. The Committee stated that the District Court thus applied article 68 of the Criminal Code, which explicitly provides for the possibility of deciding whether to place a person in a hospital "for the mentally ill or in an institution for persons with severe mental disorders." The Committee has taken into account the State party's argument that the possibility of applying alternative measures of influence to offenders and, thus, the difference between punishment and treatment is due to the needs of the category of offenders covered by article 16 of the Criminal Code. The Committee recalled that treatment is a sanction of social control and should be replaced by formal criminal sanctions against offenders whose involvement in the crime has been established. The procedure used in deciding whether to prescribe treatment to a given person did not comply with the guarantees that should be provided in the framework of criminal proceedings if it could lead to the imposition of a particular punishment on a person. Thus, the prescription of treatment is incompatible with article 14 of the Convention. The Committee stated the following: Although the State party argued that the author was entitled to continuous judicial and medical supervision and that the District Court decided not to set a maximum period of preventive treatment in accordance with article 68A, paragraph 2, of the Criminal Code, the State party did not challenge the author's argument that the decision not to set a maximum period put him at risk much more a longer sentence than that which would have been imposed on an offender who was not recognized as "insane". The Committee considered that the author's compulsory psychiatric treatment was a violation of his rights under article 14 of the Convention (paragraph 9.2 of the Views).

The Committee concluded that the author had failed to substantiate his claim that the presumption of innocence had not been applied against him, as well as the timing of the charges against him, the decision to sentence him despite the preliminary decision to drop some charges, as well as the alleged refusal of the District court to consider the Committee's concluding observations They violate his rights under article 14 of the Convention. The Committee noted that, although the author claimed that he had not been "properly heard" and had not been given the opportunity to present his views in writing, the District Court's decision contained a detailed and detailed description of the materials submitted by him. The Committee indicated that the applicant had been represented by a lawyer in the District Court, the High Court and the Appeals Board. Thus, on the basis of the information available in the case, the Committee was unable to conclude that the author's rights under article 14 of the Convention had been violated (paragraph 9.3 of the Views).

The Committee took note of the author's argument under article 17 of the Convention that he was forced to take medicines without his consent. The Committee recalled that it had previously expressed its concern about the use of compulsory treatment in connection with articles 17 and 25 of the Convention. The Committee determined that the forced administration of the drug Cisordinol to the author in the period from March to September 2017 caused him to have akathisia. The Committee pointed out that this forced the author to move constantly and that it was so painful that it caused him suicidal moods, as a result of which the attending physician decided to change this medication. The Committee considered that the forced administration of a drug to the author, which caused him suffering up to thoughts of suicide, was a violation of his rights under article 17 of the Convention, considered in conjunction with article 25 of the Convention (paragraph 9.4 of the Views).

The Committee's conclusions: The State party has failed to comply with its obligations under articles 14 and 17 of the Convention, read in conjunction with article 25 of the Convention (paragraph 10 of the Views).

 

 

© 2011-2018 Юридическая помощь в составлении жалоб в Европейский суд по правам человека. Юрист (представитель) ЕСПЧ.