European Court of Human Rights finds Greece to be in violation of Articles 3 and 13 of the ECHR in the case of Lautaru and Seed v. Greece

In the case of Lautaru and Seed v. Greece, the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) found Greece to be in violation of Articles 3 (prohibition of torture and inhuman or degrading treatment) and 13 (right to an effective remedy) of the ECHR.In particular, the ECtHR ruled that: a) the applicants were detained in conditions inconsistent with Article 3 of the ECHR (prison overcrowding, general condition of the cell, issues of cleanliness and food, absence of activities outside the cell) and b) the applicants had no real and effective remedy to challenge the conditions of their detention. In addition to the violations found by the ECtHR, the arguments used by the Greek government in the context of the trial also raise concerns about the rule of law, mainly because they could be considered as an unfounded attack on the defenders of rights.

In addition, the Court accepted that the applicants had no real remedy available to them to complain about the conditions of their detention, and therefore there was also a violation of Article 13 of the ECHR in conjunction with Article 3.

Despite the fact that the ECtHR did not actually take a position on the specific issue, the following is also worth mentioning: the Greek government argued that the specific appeal should be rejected because the applicants refused an offer to transfer to another cell, where the detention conditions were more favorable. As proof of this claim, two statements from the applicants were submitted, (in Greek) in which they stated that despite the conditions they do not want to transfer to another cell, as they have problems with other prisoners. Also, according to what is mentioned in the decision, the government, using the 3-7-2009 report by the warden of the prison, argued that when the applicants submitted an appeal to the supervising prosecutor complaining about the conditions of their detention, they were called by the warden of the prison to communicate their complaints to him as well, and when the warden read them the content of their appeal, they expressed surprise and replied that the said appeal was drafted by a lawyer and not by them. They assured the warden that they wanted to remain in their cell and refused his offer to be transferred to another cell. In response to the above, the applicants argued that a) they instructed their lawyer (who also knew the Romanian language) to draft the appeal to the prosecutor, b) although they signed the above-mentioned statements, they were drawn up by the prison warden and they themselves do not know the Greek language. They claim that no one read these statements to them in a language they understood, and that they were forced to sign them. In general, they complained that the attitude of the prison authorities was intended to intimidate them and prevent them from reporting violations of their rights, a situation that also violates their right to individual appeal under Article 34 of the ECHR.

Although the ECtHR limited itself to examining the above issue in the context of the admissibility of the appeal and to rejecting the relevant objection of the government (see paras. 39-45 and 43-44), the above “attitude” of the prison authorities and the invocation of these arguments by the government can be considered problematic. A key problem that arises in this particular case is that the allegations made by the government imply that, not only did the allegations in the complaint not happen, but that they were, additionally, invented by a lawyer. Lawyers, however, belong to the category of defenders of human rights (see more on the concept of defenders of rights here) and an attack on their reputation and ethos without evidence is in itself a blow to the rule of law.