Condensed: All persons deprived of their liberty should have access to medical, psychiatric and dental treatment when needed. In women’s institutions special accommodation should be made for pre-natal and post-care and treatment. A medical practitioner should see and examine every prisoner as soon as possible after admission. Poor conditions of detention such as overcrowding and poor prison food can cause deterioration of detained person’s health. The lack of medical treatment aggravates such situations and could amount to inhuman or degrading treatment. Conditions which have been held by monitoring bodies to be incompatible with the right to health in detention include: lack of medical attention leading to death, denial of proper medical care for severe medical conditions; insufficient efforts to curb the spread of infectious diseases and unsanitary conditions in detention causing health problems Comprehensive: Article 22(1) of the Standard Minimum Rules provides: ‘At every institution there shall be available the services of at least one qualified medical officer who should have some knowledge of psychiatry.’[1] In women’s institutions special accommodation should be made for pre-natal and post-care and treatment. Arrangements should, wherever practicable, be made for children to be born outside prison.[2] All prisoners shall have access to a dentist.[3] A medical practitioner should see and examine every prisoner as soon as possible after admission.[4] The state of health including any visible injuries and complaints of ill-treatment should be noted in the register of the detention facility. (See *registration of detainees*). Poor conditions of detention such as overcrowding and poor prison food can cause deterioration of detained person’s health. The lack of medical treatment aggravates such situations and could amount to inhuman and degrading treatment.[5] In Nevmerzhitskyv Ukraine a prisoner contracted microbic eczema and scabies. These untreated conditions had such a detrimental effect on his health and well being that the ECtHR considered that there had been a violation of article 3 of the ECHR as regards the lack of adequate medical treatment.[6] With regard to psychiatric treatment, the European Prison Rules note that special attention should be paid to suicide prevention.[7] In Keenan v United Kingdom, the ECtHR was satisfied that the prison authorities knew that a prisoner who had died by hanging himself was in a mental state such that he posed a potential risk to his own life. The lack of effective monitoring of his condition and the lack of informed psychiatric input into his assessment and treatment disclosed significant defects in the medical care provided to a mentally ill person known to be a suicide risk. The ECtHR found a violation of article 3 (prohibition of torture, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment) of the ECHR.[8] In C v Australia the HRC held that the state had violated article 7 of the ICCPR by not taking ‘the steps necessary to ameliorate the author’s mental deterioration’.[9] Conditions which have been held by monitoring bodies to be incompatible with the right to health in detention include: lack of medical attention leading to death,[10] denial of proper medical care for severe medical conditions; insufficient efforts to curb the spread of infectious diseases (eg tubercolosis); and unsanitary conditions in detention causing health problems. (See also *failure to ensure diseases prevention, treatment and control*) In Brown v Jamaica the HRC held that the destruction by the authorities of the asthma pump and other medication of Mr Brown together with other ill-treatment violated articles 7 and 10 of the ICCPR.[11]
[1] Rule 22(1); Principles and Best Practices on the Protection of Persons Deprived of Liberty in the Americas principle X; European Prison Rules arts 39-50. See on the right to health in general ICESCR art 12, ACHPR art 16.
All persons deprived of their liberty should have access to medical, psychiatric and dental treatment when needed. In women’s institutions special accommodation should be made for pre-natal and post-care and treatment. A medical practitioner should see and examine every prisoner as soon as possible after admission. Poor conditions of detention such as overcrowding and poor prison food can cause deterioration of detained person’s health. The lack of medical treatment aggravates such situations and could amount to inhuman or degrading treatment.
Conditions which have been held by monitoring bodies to be incompatible with the right to health in detention include: lack of medical attention leading to death, denial of proper medical care for severe medical conditions; insufficient efforts to curb the spread of infectious diseases and unsanitary conditions in detention causing health problems
Comprehensive:
Article 22(1) of the Standard Minimum Rules provides: ‘At every institution there shall be available the services of at least one qualified medical officer who should have some knowledge of psychiatry.’ [1] In women’s institutions special accommodation should be made for pre-natal and post-care and treatment. Arrangements should, wherever practicable, be made for children to be born outside prison.[2] All prisoners shall have access to a dentist.[3] A medical practitioner should see and examine every prisoner as soon as possible after admission.[4] The state of health including any visible injuries and complaints of ill-treatment should be noted in the register of the detention facility. (See *registration of detainees*).
Poor conditions of detention such as overcrowding and poor prison food can cause deterioration of detained person’s health. The lack of medical treatment aggravates such situations and could amount to inhuman and degrading treatment.[5] In Nevmerzhitsky v Ukraine a prisoner contracted microbic eczema and scabies. These untreated conditions had such a detrimental effect on his health and well being that the ECtHR considered that there had been a violation of article 3 of the ECHR as regards the lack of adequate medical treatment.[6]
With regard to psychiatric treatment, the European Prison Rules note that special attention should be paid to suicide prevention.[7] In Keenan v United Kingdom, the ECtHR was satisfied that the prison authorities knew that a prisoner who had died by hanging himself was in a mental state such that he posed a potential risk to his own life. The lack of effective monitoring of his condition and the lack of informed psychiatric input into his assessment and treatment disclosed significant defects in the medical care provided to a mentally ill person known to be a suicide risk. The ECtHR found a violation of article 3 (prohibition of torture, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment) of the ECHR.[8] In C v Australia the HRC held that the state had violated article 7 of the ICCPR by not taking ‘the steps necessary to ameliorate the author’s mental deterioration’.[9]
Conditions which have been held by monitoring bodies to be incompatible with the right to health in detention include: lack of medical attention leading to death,[10] denial of proper medical care for severe medical conditions; insufficient efforts to curb the spread of infectious diseases (eg tubercolosis); and unsanitary conditions in detention causing health problems. (See also *failure to ensure diseases prevention, treatment and control*) In Brown v Jamaica the HRC held that the destruction by the authorities of the asthma pump and other medication of Mr Brown together with other ill-treatment violated articles 7 and 10 of the ICCPR.[11]
[1] Rule 22(1); Principles and Best Practices on the Protection of Persons Deprived of Liberty in the Americas principle X; European Prison Rules arts 39-50. See on the right to health in general ICESCR art 12, ACHPR art 16.
[2] SMR rule 23.
[3] SMR 22(3).
[4] SMR rule 24.
[5] See eg Bitiyeva & X v Russia applications 57953/00; 37392/03 (ECtHR 2007) para 102; Melnik v Ukraine application 72286/01 (ECtHR 2006) para 106.
[6] Nevmerzhitsky v Ukraine application 54825 (ECtHR ) paras 103, 106
[7] European Prisons Rules rule 42(2).
[8] Keenan v United Kingdom application 27229/05 (ECtHR 2001) paras 95, 116.
[9] C v Australia communication 900/1999 para 8.4.
[10] Lantsova v Russia communication 763/1997 (HRC 2002) para 9.2; Miguel Castro Castro v Peru (IACtHR 2006) para 295.
[11] Communication 775/97 (HRC 1999) para 6.5.