-40 takes into consideration in finding a violation of Article 3 in cases of disabled applicants.74 It considers that where the authorities decide to place and keep a disabled person in continued detention, they should demonstrate special care in guaranteeing that such conditions correspond to the special needs resulting from the disability. The ECtHR also found violations of Article 3 in cases where prisoners with disabilities were left at the mercy of their cellmates in receiving assistance to relieve themselves, bathe, and get dressed or undressed.75 The ECtHR found violations of Articles 2 and 3 of the ECHR also in a number of cases of persons with mental disabilities. Lack of appropriate treatment, combined with harsh conditions of detention, led the Court to find a violation of Article 3 in the case of Dybeku v. Albania dealing with the imprisonment of a person suffering from a chronic mental disorder, which involved psychotic episodes and feelings of paranoia.76 In several cases, the ECtHR found that the failure of the government to offer appropriate treatment regimes to prisoners with mental disabilities amounts to inhuman and degrading treatment.77 The ECtHR also found violations of Article 3 in cases of ill-treatment of prisoners with mental disabilities by the prison staff (handcuffing, solitary confinement, prolonged immobilization)78, as well as where the prison authorities did not take appropriate measures to prevent the suicide of prisoners either because of their indifference to the prisoners’ psychological problems or because they imposed disciplinary punishments on them.79 ECtHR, Price v. the United Kingdom, 2001: The case concerns a British national who is four-limb deficient as a result of phocomelia due to Thalidomide. She also suffers from problems with her kidneys. She 74. ECtHR, Grimailovs v. Latvia, No. 6087/03, Judgment of 26 June 2013; ECtHR, Arutyunyan v. Russia, No. 48977/09, Judgment of 10 January 2012. 75. CEDH, Vincent c. France, no. 6253/03, Arrêt du 24 octobre 2006; ECtHR, Engel v. Hungary, No. 46857/06, Judgment of 20 May 2010. 76. ECtHR, Dybeku v. Albania, No. 41153/06, Judgment of 18 December 2007. See also for a violation of Article 3 in similar circumstances: CEDH, Ţicu c. Roumanie, no. 24575/10, Arrêt du 1 octobre 2013. 77. ECtHR, Z.H. v. Hungary, No. 28973/11, Judgment of 8 November 2011; ECtHR, G. v. France, No. 27244/09, Judgment of 23 February 2012; ECtHR, Murray v. the Netherlands, No. 10511/10, Grand Chamber judgment of 26 April 2016. 78. ECtHR, Kucheruk v. Ukraine, No. 2570/04, Judgment of 6 September 2007; CEDH, Dimcho Dimov c. Bulgarie, no. 57123/08, Arrêt du 16 décembre 2014. 79. ECtHR, Renolde v. France, no. 5608/05, Judgment of 16 October 2008; CEDH, Ketreb c. France, no. 38447/09, Arrêt du 19 juillet 2012; ECtHR, Çoşelav v. Turkey, No. 1413/07, Judgment of 9 October 2012;