mental disorders in addition to deprivation of liberty, raises many questions: are their rights vitiated by some weakness? Does the application of full liability to the acts of persons whose state means that they are unable to take responsibility not seriously prejudice fundamental rights? The Contrôle Général has looked into this question overall for all of the populations catered for in places of deprivation of liberty as a whole. In in the first place, it was appropriate to examine the difficulties of identification of mental illness, a phenomenon which remains poorly understood, which affect the persons themselves, often helpless in the face of their suffering as well as institutions, which are sometimes deaf to requests, and finally gaps in the measures put in place in places catering for them. In the second part, the obstacles to suitable care will be questioned, for the most part in prisons, young offenders’ institutions and psychiatric treatment institutions themselves. 1. Framework and Limits of Psychiatric Care as Defined by the European Court of Human Rights The extensive case law of the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) has come to determine the framework and limits with which any psychiatric care has to comply. The ECtHR considers that the deprivation of liberty of persons suffering from psychiatric disorders can be analysed from the point of view of potential violation of article 3 of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (ECHR) which prohibits inhuman and degrading treatment. It considers that Member States have to make sure that any prisoner is detained under conditions compatible with respect for human dignity247. It has made several different rulings, and has condemned France on several different occasions, in particular at the time of suicides of prisoners. With regard to one person suffering from psychotic disorders who, three days after a first suicide attempt, had a sanction imposed upon them of forty-five days in a punishment cell by the disciplinary committee, the Court recalled to France that the vulnerability of the mentally ill requires special protection appropriate to the risks of suicide248. Another case led the Court to assert that the fact of maintaining a person in confinement, suffering from a schizophrenic type of chronic psychosis, without appropriate medical supervision, constituted and inhuman and degrading treatment249. In another instance, it recalled the special duty of vigilance incumbent upon States in order to prevent the suicide of a vulnerable prisoner250. Special attention is also given to the feelings of vulnerable persons, which the Court associates with prisoners suffering from psychiatric disorders, in a captive environment. Thus, the Soering vs. United Kingdom, 7th July 1989 and Kudla vs. Poland 26th October 2000. Renolde vs. France, 16th October 2008. 249 Rivière vs. France, 17th July 2006. 250 Ketreb vs. France, 19th July 2012. 247 248 160