	Visitationer over en periode på to år af fængselsindsat, hvor den indsatte efter hvert besøg skulle afklæde sig, og hvor hans anus skulle besigtiges, krænkede artikel 3
	Af advokat Claus Bonnez, formand for Landsforeningen KRIM 10. maj 2008 Den europæiske menneskerettighedsdomstol (EMD) har den 12. juni 2007 afgjort sagen Frérot mod Frankrig (application no. 70204/01). Kropsvisitationer med afklædning af fængselsindsat og med besigtigelse af anus efter hvert besøg, som denne modtog i fængslet over en periode på to år, udgjorde en krænkelse af EMRK artikel 3. Der var tale om en indsat, der var idømt flere livsstraffe for drab, drabsforsøg, røverier og terrorisme. Der var enighed om, at han over en længere årrække havde været udsat for cirka 11 visitationer af den omhandlede art. Den Europæiske Menneskerettighedsdomstol bemærkede, at sådanne visitationer ikke i sig selv krænker artikel 3, hvis de er begrundet i en konkret mistanke om, at den indsatte gemmer genstande eller stoffer, som den indsatte ikke må være i besiddelse af, på de steder på kroppen, som man vil undersøge. Domstolen lagde vægt på, at der i et af de fængsler, hvor klageren havde været indsat, var fastsat bestemmelser om, at indsatte skulle besigtiges i anus efter hvert besøg. Afgørelsen var enstemmig. I det følgende oversættes - noget afkortet - domstolens pressemeddelelse af samme dato. Originalteksten følger umiddelbart efter uforkortet og på engelsk:
		"... EMD finder ved en enstemmig afgørelse, at der er sket: - en krænkelse af artikel 3 i Den europæiske Menneskerettighedskonvention (forbudet mod nedværdigende behanding) med hensyn til kropsvisitationer, hvor klageren skulle afklædes; - en krænkelse af artikel 8 i Den europæiske Menneskerettighedskonvention (retten til at korrespondance respekteret) - en krænkelse af artikel 13 (retten til effektive retsmidler) - en krænkelse af artikel 6 § 1 (retten til en retfærdig rettergang inden rimelig tid) Under konventionens artikel 41 fik klageren tilkendt 12.000 euros i ikke-økonomisk skade. Det fremgår af sagen, at klageren i 1989 blev idømt fængsel på livstid for drabsforsøg, væbnet røveri og gidseltagning. I 1992 blev han på ny idømt fængsel på livstid for drab, drabsforsøg, væbnet røveri, ulovlig våbenbesiddelse mv. I 1995 blev han idømt yderligere 30 års fængsel for blandt andet terrorisme. I 1994 indgav klageren en administrativ klage, hvor han forsøgte at få ophævet bestemmelser i administrative regler fastsat af justitsministeriet i 1986 vedrørende kropsvisitationer med afklædning samt indsattes korrespondance skriftligt og via telegram. Han gjorde gældende, at bestemmelserne om censur af indsattes korrespondance, om iværksættelse af kropsvisitationer med afklædning og muligheden for at bruge magt til at gennemføre sådanne visitationer krænkede den menneskelige værdighed. Den 8. december 2000 afviste forvaltningsdomstolen klageres klage over visitationer og ophævede den ministerielle bestemmelse om forbud mod korrespondance mellem varetægtsarrestanter og strafafsonere indsat i straffeceller og "deres venner eller relationer" eller besøgende i fængslet. Klageren blev udelukket fra fællesskab den 2. december 1987. Han har været i et almindeligt fængselsregime siden 22. december 1990. Siden 1987 har han været anbragt i 13 forskellige fængsler. I 1993, da han var i Fleury-Mérogis fængslet, blev han for første gang udsat for en kropsvisitation med afklædning, hvor han blev bedt om at åbne munden. Da han nægtede dette, blev han ført til strafafdelingen. Fra sidst i januar 1994 til den 26. september 1994 blev han tvungen til at åbne munden under et antal visitationer under afklædning, enten uden forudgående advarsel, eller når han forlod besøgsrummet, og i to tilfælde i forbindelse med ture uden for fængslet. Da han var fængslet i Fresnes fra september 1994 til september 1996 skulle han hver gang han forlod besøgsrummet igennem en visitation under afklædning, som nu omfattede pligten til at "læne sig forover og hoste". Når han nægtede dette, blev han sat i strafcelle. klagerne: Under henvisning til artikel 3 (forbudet mod umenneskelig og nedværdigende behandling), 8 (retten til respekten for sin korrespondance), 13 (retten til effektive retsmidler) og 6 § 1 (retten til en retfærdig rettergang inden for rimelig tid), klageren gjorde gældende, at han havde været udsat for umenneskelige og nedværdigende kropsvisitationer med afklædning. Han klagede endvidere over en krænkelse af sin ret til respekt for sin korrespondance samt længden af den administrative sagsbehandling. Menneskerettighedsdomstolens afgørelse. Artikel 3 EMD anerkender, at en fængselsindsat, der er tvungen til at underkaste sig kropsvisitationer, kan opfatte handlingen som et overdrevent og nærgående indgreb i sin værdighed, specielt når han bedes om at afklæde sig foran en anden person og endda yderligere bedes om at stille sig selv i ydmygende positioner. Dog er kropsvisitationer, inklusive fuldstændige kropsvisitationer, nogle gange nødvendige for at opretholde sikkerheden i fængslet, for at forhindre uorden og for at forhindre strafbare forhold. EMD bemærkede, at cirkulæret af 14. marts 1986 specificerede, at visitationerne havde til formål at sikre, at indsatte ikke på deres krop skjulte genstande, der kan bidrage til at gøre overfald eller flugt nemmere, eller som kan forhandles eller bruges i forbindelse med indtagelse af rusmidler. Fremgangsmåden ved fuldstændige kropsvisitationer var beskrevet i en teknisk note, der lød: Den indsatte skulle tage alt sit tøj af, og fængselsbetjenten, der skulle gennemføre visitationen, skulle undersøge hans krop. Blandt kravene var, at den indsatte skulle åbne munden, hoste, hæve sin tunge og "hvis nødvendigt" fjerne sine forlorne tænder. Han skulle også sprede sine ben for at vise, at der ikke var gemt nogen mellem dem. "I de særlige tilfælde, hvor der blev søgt efter forbudte genstande eller stoffer", havde han pligt til at læne sig frem og hoste (tydeligvis for at tillade en visuel inspektion af hans anus); en læge kunne også blive tilkaldt for at vurdere, hvorvidt den indsatte skulle underkastes røntgen eller en lægelig undersøgelse for at finde frem til fremmedlegemer. Til trods for, at de indsatte blev kropsvisiteret af en fængselsfunktionær af samme køn, hver for sig i et lokale afsat til formålet, anerkendte EMD, at de, som underkastes sådanne undersøgelser, kan føle, at deres værdighed krænkes. Dog fandt EMD overordnet, at den ovenfornævnte fremgangsmåde, inklusive inspektion i form af besigtigelse af anus "i de tilfælde, hvor der søges efter forbudte genstande eller stoffer" var passende, forudsat at sådanne indgreb kun tillades, når de er absolut nødvendige set i lyset af særlige omstændigheder og når der er vægtige grunde til at antage, at den indsatte skjuler sådan en genstand eller et stof dette sted på kroppen. EMD indtog i overensstemmelse med dette synspunkt den holdning, at denne fremgangsmåde for kropsvisitation ikke generelt var umenneskelig og nedværdigende. I henhold til straffeloven og til cirkulæret fra 1986, skulle indsatte tåle hyppige visitationer med afklædning. Indsatte, der ansås "som særlige tilfælde" ligesom klageren, var yderligere udsat for denne type kropsvisitation. Dette understøttede klagerens anklage om, at han hyppigt havde været udsat for visitationer under afklædning. I det foreliggende tilfælde var visitationerne med afklædning blevet gennemført overfor klageren på baggrund af hændelser, som utvivlsomt nødvendiggjorde dem af hensyn til sikkerheden og for at forhindre strafbart forhold. Dog var EMD overrasket over den omstændighed, at proceduren for visitation var forskellig fra fængsel til fængsel. Uagtet at det ikke var kendt nøjagtig hvor ofte klageren havde været udsat for visitationer under afklædning, hvor han var bedt om at åbne munden og "læne sig fremad og hoste", havde den franske regering anerkendt, at der havde været mindst 11 af denne slags indgreb, som var fundet sted, når klageren forlod besøgsrummet, når han skulle forlade sin celle i forbindelse med gårdtur, eller når han skulle i strafcelle. I seks af disse tilfælde havde klageren nægtet at "læne sig forover og hoste". Hyppigheden af visitationerne er derfor sandsynlig. EMD bemærkede, at klageren kun skulle underkaste sig undersøgelser af anus i Fresnes, hvor der var formodning for, at enhver indsat, der returnerede fra besøgsrummet, gemte genstande eller stoffer på de mest intime steder på deres person. Under disse omstændigheder anerkendte EMD, hvorledes de berørte indsatte, ligesom klageren, måtte føle, at de var ofre for vilkårlige forholdsregler, navnlig da fremgangsmåden ved visitationerne var fastlagt i et cirkulære, og som tillod de enkelte fængselsledere et vidt skøn. Følelsen af vilkårlighed, følelsen af mindreværd og frygt, som ofte knytter sig dertil, og følelsen af et alvorligt anslag mod ens værdighed utvivlsomt forstærket af pligten til at klæde sig af foran en anden person og underkaste sig besigtigelse af sin anus, hvortil kommer de andre overdrevne intime foranstaltninger, der knytter sig til visitationer under afklædning. Dette førte efter EMDs opfattelse til en grad af ydmygelse, som går ud over, hvad der er en uundgåelig følge af gennemførelsen af kropsvisitationer hos indsatte. Dertil kommer, at ydmygelsen følt af klageren er blevet forværret af den omstændighed, at han i en række tilfælde, hvor han har nægtet at underkaste sig foranstaltningerne, er blevet sat i strafcelle. EMD fandt i overensstemmelse hermed, at visitationerne, som klageren havde været udsat for, da han var indsat i Fresnes fængslet mellem september 1994 og december 1996 var nedværdigende behandling i artikel 3's forstand. EMD fandt, at artikel 3 var krænket, og at det ikke var nødvendigt at undersøge spørgsmålet under artikel 8. Artikel 8. EMD havde noteret sig, at inspektøren i Fleury-Mérogis Fængslet havde besluttet ikke at videresende breve fra klageren til en indsat i et andet fængsel fordi, med hans ord, de ikke var i overensstemmelse med definitionen af begrebet korrespondance". EMD fandt, at undladelsen af at uddele den omhandlede post udgjorde et "indgreb" i klagerens ret til respekt for sin korrespondance. Indgrebet var ikke i "overensstemmelse med lov", en omstændighed, der var overraskende, idet indsattes ret til frit at korrespondere i høj grad var beskyttet i retsplejeloven. EMD bemærkede yderligere, at definitionen af udtrykket "korrespondance" anvendt i cirkulæret fra 1986 udelukkede blandt andet kategorien "breve ... hvis indhold ikke særligt og fuldt ud vedrører modtageren". EMD fandt en sådan definition uforenelig med artikel 8 i konventionen med på grundlag af omfanget af "korrespondance" og på grundlag af den automatiske udelukkelse fra beskyttelsen i artikel 8 af en hel kategori af privat udveksling i hvilken indsatte måtte have lyst til at deltage. EMD fandt således, at der var sket en krænkelse af artikel 8. Artikel 13 EMD bemærkede, at forvaltningsdomstolen havde afvist klagerens anmodning om at tilsidesætte en beslutning, hvor fængselsinspektøren i Fleury-Mérogis Fængslet havde nægtet at videresende breve til en anden indsat med henvisning til den eneste begrundelse, at der var tale om en intern foranstaltning, der ikke var genstand for domstolsprøvelse. Da de franske myndigheder ikke havde godtgjort, at klageren havde andre retsmidler til sin rådighed, fandt EMD, at klageren var blevet berøvet effektive retsmidler med hensyn til hans klage over retten til respekt for sin korrespndance. EMD fandt således, at der var sket en krænkelse af artikel 13. Artikel 6 § 1 EMD foretog en vurdering af længden af sagen, navnlig 6 år ved en instans var uforholdsvis lang og opfyldte ikke kravene til "rimelig tid". EMD fandt således, at der var sket en krænkelse af artikel 6 § 1.
	Nedenfor gengives pressemeddelelsen uforkortet på engelsk.
		The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing its Chamber judgment1 in the case of Frérot v. France (application no. 70204/01). The Court held unanimously that there had been: · a violation of Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights (prohibition of degrading treatment) on account of the strip searches imposed on the applicant; · a violation of Article 8 (right to respect for correspondence) of the Convention; · a violation of Article 13 (right to an effective remedy); · a violation of Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial within a reasonable time). Under Article 41 (just satisfaction), the Court awarded the applicant 12,000 euros (EUR) for non-pecuniary damage. (The judgment is available only in French.) 1. Principal facts The applicant, Maxime Frérot, is a French national who was born in 1956. He is a former member of the extreme left armed movement “Action directe” and is currently serving a sentence of life imprisonment in Lannemezan (France). In 1989 the applicant was sentenced to life imprisonment for attempted murder, armed robbery, and hostage-taking committed in order to facilitate or prepare the commission of a criminal offence or serious crime. In 1992 he was again sentenced to life imprisonment, 18 years of which were to be served before he became eligible for parole, for murder, attempted premeditated murders, attempted murders, armed robbery, receiving, conspiracy, possessing and carrying prohibited weapons, forging cheques, uttering forged cheques, causing criminal damage through the use of explosive substances and breaches of the legislation on explosives. In 1995 he was sentenced to 30 years’ imprisonment for unauthorised manufacture or possession of explosive substances or devices, robbery, criminal damage and terrorism. In 1994 the applicant lodged an administrative appeal seeking annulment of provisions in circulars sent out by the Minister of Justice in 1986 concerning, in one case, strip searches and, in the other, prisoners’ correspondence in writing or by telegram. He argued that the passages concerning the censorship of prisoners’ correspondence, the imposition of strip searches on prisoners and the possibility of using force to carry out such searches infringed human dignity. On 8 December 2000 the Conseil d’Etat dismissed the applicant’s complaint concerning strip searches and annulled the ministerial circular concerning the prohibition of all correspondence between remand and convicted prisoners placed in punishment cells and “their friends or relations” or prison visitors. The applicant was placed in solitary confinement on 2 December 1987. He has been subject to the ordinary prison regime since 22 December 1990. Since 1987 he has been detained in 13 different prisons. In 1993, while in Fleury-Mérogis Prison, he was subjected for the first time to a strip search during which he was told to open his mouth. When he refused he was taken to the disciplinary wing. From late January 1994 to 26 September 1994 he was compelled to open his mouth during a number of strip searches, either without warning, or when he was leaving the visiting room, and twice on the occasion of trips outside the prison. While imprisoned in Fresnes, from September 1994 to September 1996, he was subjected, each time he left the visiting room, to a strip search which now included the obligation to “lean forward and cough”. When he refused he was taken to a disciplinary cell. 2. Procedure and composition of the Court The application was lodged on 5 March 2001 and declared partly admissible in decisions of 11 May 2004 and 28 March 2006. Judgment was given by a Chamber of seven judges composed as follows: András Baka (Hungarian), President, Jean-Paul Costa (French), Riza Türmen (Turkish), Karel Jungwiert (Czech), Mindia Ugrekhelidze (Georgian), Antonella Mularoni (San Marinese), Elisabet Fura-Sandström (Swedish), judges, and also Sally Dollé, Section Registrar. 3. Summary of the judgment2 Complaints Relying on Articles 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment), 8 (right to respect for correspondence), 13 (right to an effective remedy) and 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial within a reasonable time), the applicant complained that he had been subjected to inhuman and degrading strip searches. He further complained of an infringement of his right to respect for his correspondence and of the length of the administrative proceedings he had brought. Decision of the Court Article 3 The Court accepted that a prisoner obliged to submit to a body search might view the procedure as an excessively intimate infringement of his dignity, especially when it required him to undress in front of another person and even more when he was instructed to place himself in embarrassing positions. However, body searches, including full body searches, might sometimes be necessary to maintain security inside a prison, to prevent disorder or prevent criminal offences. The Court noted that the circular of 14 March 1986 specified that searches were designed to ensure that prisoners were not concealing about their persons any object or product capable of facilitating assaults or escapes, of being traded or of permitting the consumption of toxic products or substances. The procedure for a full body search was described in a technical note as follows: the prisoner had to strip off and the officer carrying out the search then examined his body; among other requirements, the prisoner had to open his mouth, cough, raise his tongue and “if necessary” remove any false teeth; he also had to spread his legs to show that he had nothing hidden between them; “in the specific case of a search for prohibited objects or substances”, he could be obliged to lean forward and cough (clearly in order to permit a visual inspection of the anus); a doctor could also be called, to decide whether the prisoner should be required to undergo radiography or a medical examination to locate any foreign bodies. Although prisoners were body-searched by an officer of the same sex, individually, in a room set aside for the purpose, the Court understood that those who underwent such searches might feel that their dignity had been infringed. However, the Court considered that on the whole the above procedure, including visual inspection of the anus “in the specific case of a search for prohibited objects or substances”, was appropriate, provided that such a measure was permitted only where absolutely necessary in the light of the special circumstances and where there were serious reasons to suspect that the prisoner was hiding such an object or substance in that part of the body. The Court accordingly took the view that that body-search procedure was not, generally speaking, inhuman or degrading. Under the provisions of the Criminal Code and the 1986 circular, prisoners were liable to undergo frequent strip searches and “prisoners identified as special cases”, like the applicant, were even more likely to undergo that type of search. That confirmed the applicant’s allegation that he was frequently subjected to strip searches. In the present case strip searches had been imposed on the applicant in the context of events which clearly made them necessary in order to maintain security or prevent criminal offences. However, the Court was struck by the fact that, from one prison to another, the search procedure varied. Although it was not known exactly how often and how frequently the applicant had undergone strip searches during which he was instructed to open his mouth or “lean forward and cough”, the French Government had admitted that there had been at least 11 incidents of that type, which had occurred when the applicant was leaving the visiting room, when he was being taken out of his cell, following exercise or on being taken to a disciplinary cell; on six of these occasions the applicant had refused to “lean forward and cough”. The frequency of the searches was therefore probable. The Court noted that the applicant had been expected to submit to anal inspections only in Fresnes, where there was a presumption that any prisoner returning from the visiting room was hiding objects or substances in the most intimate parts of his person. That being so, the Court could understand how the prisoners concerned, like the applicant, might feel that they were the victims of arbitrary measures, especially as the search procedure was laid down in a circular and allowed each prison governor a large measure of discretion. That feeling of arbitrariness, the feelings of inferiority and anxiety often associated with it, and the feeling of a serious encroachment on one’s dignity undoubtedly prompted by the obligation to undress in front of another person and submit to a visual inspection of the anus, added to the other excessively intimate measures associated with strip searches, led in the Court’s view to a degree of humiliation which exceeded that which was inevitably a concomitant of the imposition of body searches on prisoners. Moreover, the humiliation felt by the applicant had been aggravated by the fact that on a number of occasions his refusal to comply with these measures had resulted in his being taken to a disciplinary cell. The Court accordingly concluded that the strip searches to which the applicant had been subjected while imprisoned in Fresnes, between September 1994 and December 1996, amounted to degrading treatment within the meaning of Article 3. It held that there had been a violation of Article 3 and that it was not necessary to examine the question under Article 8. Article 8 The Court noted that the governor of Fleury-Mérogis Prison had decided not to pass on letters from the applicant to another prisoner in a different prison because, in his words, they “[did] not correspond to the definition of the notion of correspondence”. The Court considered that not delivering the mail concerned constituted “interference” with the applicant’s right to respect for his correspondence. That interference had not been “in accordance with the law”, a fact that was especially striking since the right of prisoners to correspond freely was amply recognised in the Code of Criminal Procedure. The Court further noted that the definition of the term “correspondence” used in the 1986 circular excluded, among other categories “letters … whose content does not specifically and exclusively concern the addressee”. It considered such a definition incompatible with Article 8 of the Convention, being based on the content of “correspondence” and resulting in the automatic exclusion from the protection of Article 8 of an entire category of private exchanges in which prisoners might wish to take part. The Court accordingly found a violation of Article 8. Article 13 The Court noted that the Conseil d'Etat had declared inadmissible the applicant’s application to set aside a decision in which the governor of Fleury-Mérogis Prison had refused to pass on mail to another prisoner, citing as the sole reason the fact that that was an internal regulatory measure, not amenable to judicial review. As the French Government had not asserted that the applicant had any other remedy at his disposal, the Court considered that the applicant had been deprived of all remedies as regards the complaint of an infringement of his right to respect for his correspondence. It accordingly held that there had been a violation of Article 13. Article 6 § 1 The Court considered that the length of the proceedings, namely six years for one level of jurisdiction, was excessive and failed to satisfy the “reasonable time” requirement. It accordingly held that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1. *** The Court’s judgments are accessible on its Internet site (http://www.echr.coe.int). Press contacts Emma Hellyer (telephone: 00 33 (0)3 90 21 42 15) Stéphanie Klein (telephone: 00 33 (0)3 88 41 21 54) Beverley Jacobs (telephone: 00 33 (0)3 90 21 54 21) Tracey Turner-Tretz (telephone : 00 33 (0)3 88 41 35 30) 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. 1 Under Article 43 of the Convention, within three months from the date of a Chamber judgment, any party to the case may, in exceptional cases, request that the case be referred to the 17-member Grand Chamber of the Court. In that event, a panel of five judges considers whether the case raises a serious question affecting the interpretation or application of the Convention or its protocols, or a serious issue of general importance, in which case the Grand Chamber will deliver a final judgment. If no such question or issue arises, the panel will reject the request, at which point the judgment becomes final. Otherwise Chamber judgments become final on the expiry of the three-month period or earlier if the parties declare that they do not intend to make a request to refer. 2 This summary by the Registry does not bind the Court.