Judgment on juvenile detention centres In addition to giving advice, the Council is also charged with administering justice. This duty is performed by the appeal committees within the RSJ. These appeal committees, acting as a court of appeal, review judgments on persons being sentenced to a term in prison or a measure involving the deprivation of liberty. The Council received an appeal concerning a complaint on the implementation of the seclusion measure and the use of mechanical constraints with respect to a person detained at a penitentiary psychiatric centre. Due to a number of incidents, he was placed in solitary confinement. The complainant uses medication to regulate his moods, but this was not administered in time. This made the complainant turn aggressive. The RSJ’s appeal committee was unable to establish that staff had tried to regulate his behaviour by, for instance, talking with him, consulting a behavioural expert, or discuss administering tranquillizers. The complainant immediately had his hands and feet bound behind his back while a helmet was placed on his head. This treatment not only is painful, but, according to the complainant, also carries risks: almost all movement is prevented and he was afraid he would suffocate if he were to become indisposed. Very important in this connection is that he was unable to alert anyone. This treatment lasted until the following morning. Staff at a penitentiary psychiatric centre can be expected to be able to deal with situations like these. However, a number of essential legal safeguards provided by the Custodial Institutions Act to ensure proper treatment were disregarded.: • the use of mechanical restraints lasted longer than the maximum of 4 hours10; • upon the end of this maximum term, the direction did not personally assess the situation in situ and extend the measure only based on information from third parties; • night-time observation was disproportionate to the severity of the situation; • the complaint committee had already established that the essential legal safeguards were not observed as concerned camera monitoring. For instance, no written notice was provided on the use of cameras and the complainant was not provided an opportunity to be heard. This leads the appeals committee to conclude11 that the principles of proportionality and subsidiarity were insufficiently observed when the means of constraint were applied. The appeals committee considers the situation of a mentally unbalanced person being bound, provided with a helmet, initially deprived of medication and not being provided with adequate supervision to constitute inhumane treatment. The actions were therefore contrary to the prohibition provided in Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR)12. As the appeal being declared (partially) well-founded cannot undo the seclusion measure and the use of constraints, the complainant was awarded indemnification amounting to € 250,-. Custodial Institutions Act, Section 33(2). Judgment on appeal 14/3309/GA, 12 February 2015. 12 Section 3. Prohibition of torture: No one shall be subjected to torture or to inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. 10 11 17