issued by the Registrar of the Court
ECHR 311 (2013)
25.10.2013
Applicant’s treatment in detention did not violate the Convention
In its decision in the case of Khider v. France (application no. 56054/12) the European Court of
Human Rights has unanimously declared the application inadmissible. The decision is final.
The case concerned a convicted prisoner who had made several escapes and attempted escapes and
was classified by the authorities as a “high-risk prisoner”. He alleged that his conditions of detention
were particularly strict, including frequent changes of establishment, prolonged periods in solitary
confinement, and strip-searches. He relied on Article 3 (prohibition of torture and of inhuman or
degrading treatment) of the Convention, considering that the way he was treated was inhuman and
degrading.
The Court found that the consequences of Mr Khider’s transfers and the conditions of his detention
in solitary confinement could not be considered to have attained the minimum level of severity
required to constitute inhuman or degrading treatment within the meaning of Article 3.
Concerning strip-searches, the Court found that the applicant had produced no evidence that there
had been any violation of Article 3.
Principal facts
The applicant, Christophe Khider, is a French national who was born in 1971 and is currently in
prison in Lille (France).
Mr Khider has been in prison since 16 September 1995, having been convicted of various criminal
offences, including robbery, murder, kidnapping and handling stolen goods. He was also convicted of
several attempts to escape – including one by helicopter, in collusion with others armed with
military weapons and involving the taking of hostages – as well as a number of successful escapes,
including one with violence, abduction and false imprisonment.
Eligible for release in 2052, he has been listed in a register of “high-risk prisoners” by the prison
authorities.
Between 1999 and 2012 Mr Khider was transferred thirty-four times – four of those by judicial order
and thirty by administrative decision.
Complaints, procedure and composition of the Court
The application was lodged with the European Court of Human Rights on 1 August 2012.
Relying on Article 3 (prohibition of torture and of inhuman or degrading treatment), Mr Khider
alleged that the numerous transfers he had had to endure, his spells in solitary confinement and the
strip-searches to which he had been subjected amounted to inhuman and degrading treatment.
Relying on Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life), he contended that his conditions of
detention adversely affected his private and family life and his personal development. And under
Article 13 (right to an effective remedy) he complained that he had had no effective remedy before
the urgent-applications judge against the 10 May 2011 decision to keep him in solitary confinement.
The decision was given by a Chamber of seven judges, composed as follows:
Mark Villiger (Liechtenstein), President,
Ann Power-Forde (Ireland),
Ganna Yudkivska (Ukraine),
André Potocki (France),
Paul Lemmens (Belgium),
Helena Jäderblom (Sweden),
Aleš Pejchal (the Czech Republic),
and also Claudia Westerdiek, Section Registrar.
Decision of the Court
Article 3
The Court noted that Mr Khider had been transferred thirty-four times between June 1999 and
October 2011. It reiterated that measures depriving persons of their liberty inevitably involved an
element of suffering and humiliation. Under Article 3 of the Convention, however, the State was
required to ensure that people were detained under conditions compatible with respect for their
human dignity, that the manner and method of the execution of the measure did not subject them
to distress or hardship exceeding the unavoidable level of suffering inherent in detention, and that
their health and well-being were adequately secured.
The authorities explained that the applicant had been frequently transferred for security reasons
precisely because of his repeatedly violent behaviour. He had been transferred for practical reasons
and not out of any desire to belittle or humiliate him. The Court noted that since October 2011
Mr Khider had been detained under the “normal” prison regime. It considered that the
consequences of the transfers imposed on Mr Khider could not be considered to have attained the
minimum level of severity required to amount to inhuman or degrading treatment within the
meaning of Article 3.
As to his placement in solitary confinement, the Court pointed out that prohibiting contact with
other prisoners for reasons relating to security, discipline and protection did not in itself amount to a
form of inhuman treatment or punishment.
Mr Khider had been periodically placed in solitary confinement for a total of seven years out of the
seventeen years he had spent in prison. He had never been subjected to total social isolation but
only to relative social isolation. He had seen his doctor on several occasions, had been visited by his
family, had had access to news, to the canteen and to correspondence, and although he had not
been allowed to take part in organised group activities, he had been able to practise sport one hour
a day and to use the exercise yard for an hour and a half in the morning and two hours in the
afternoon. The Court considered that such conditions of solitary confinement did not attain the
minimum level of severity required to amount to inhuman or degrading treatment within the
meaning of Article 3 of the Convention.
In respect of strip-searches – even full-body ones – the Court had already found that they might be
necessary on occasion to ensure prison security or prevent disorder or crime. Mr Khider had not
stated in which establishments or on what dates he was allegedly subjected to strip-searches. Nor
had he specified the frequency or the number of searches carried out. The Court accordingly
considered that Mr Khider had produced no evidence of any violation of Article 3.
Article 8
The Court reiterated that any lawful detention, by its nature, entailed restrictions on the private and
family life of the person concerned.
The Court observed that the prison authorities had not deprived Mr Khider of family visits. The visits
had been limited because of his frequent transfers from one prison to another for security reasons.
2
Furthermore, Mr Khider had given no details of the actual impact of the transfers on the frequency
of his family’s visits. The Court rejected this part of the application.
Article 13
After examining Mr Khider’s complaints under Articles 3 and 8 of the Convention, the Court found
that there was no arguable claim of a breach of a substantive right under the Convention. Article 13
was therefore not applicable.
The decision is available only in French.
This press release is a document produced by the Registry. It does not bind the Court. Decisions,
judgments and further information about the Court can be found on www.echr.coe.int. To receive
the Court’s press releases, please subscribe here: www.echr.coe.int/RSS/en or follow us on Twitter
@ECHRpress.
Press contacts
[email protected] | tel: +33 3 90 21 42 08
Denis Lambert (tel: + 33 3 90 21 41 09)
Tracey Turner-Tretz (tel: + 33 3 88 41 35 30)
Nina Salomon (tel: + 33 3 90 21 49 79)
Jean Conte (tel: + 33 3 90 21 58 77)
The European Court of Human Rights was set up in Strasbourg by the Council of Europe Member
States in 1959 to deal with alleged violations of the 1950 European Convention on Human Rights.
3