issued by the Registrar of the Court  
ECHR 104 (2020)  
31.03.2020  
The Belgian authorities prevented the suicide of a prisoner  
with psychological problems but subjected him to degrading treatment  
In today’s Chamber judgment1 in the case of Jeanty v. Belgium (application no. 82284/17) the  
European Court of Human Rights held:  
- by a majority, that there had been no violation of Article 2 (right to life) of the European  
Convention on Human Rights, and  
- unanimously, that there had been a violation of Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading  
treatment).  
The case concerned an individual suffering from a psychological disorder who made several suicide  
attempts while in pre-trial detention in Arlon Prison.  
The Court considered that Article 2 was applicable in the present case because the very nature of Mr  
Jeanty’s actions (repeated suicide attempts) had put his life at real and imminent risk. The Court  
went on to find that the measures taken by the authorities had actually prevented Mr Jeanty from  
committing suicide.  
The Court also found that Mr Jeanty had suffered distress or hardship of an intensity exceeding the  
unavoidable level of suffering inherent in detention, particularly on account of the lack of medical  
supervision and treatment during his two periods of detention, combined with his placement in an  
isolation cell for three days as a disciplinary measure in spite of his repeated suicide attempts. It also  
held that the investigation in that regard had been ineffective.  
Principal facts  
The applicant, Philippe Jeanty, is a Belgian national who was born in 1969 and lives in Arlon  
(Belgium).  
Period of detention from 26 June to 12 August 2011  
In June 2011 Mr Jeanty was arrested and taken into police custody on suspicion of the offences of  
indecent assault accompanied by violence or threats, and assault resulting in unfitness for work,  
committed against his wife. During police questioning he reported being in psychological distress  
and asked to be compulsorily confined, saying that he intended to take his own life.  
The following day the investigating judge ordered Mr Jeanty’s placement in pre-trial detention and  
informed Arlon Prison of his suicidal tendencies. After arriving at the prison Mr Jeanty made three  
suicide attempts. The prison staff removed all objects and his personal effects. He was placed in a  
secure isolation cell and a doctor administered a tranquiliser. Mr Jeanty was kept under special  
surveillance for a few days. He was released on bail on 12 August 2011.  
1. Under Articles 43 and 44 of the Convention, this Chamber judgment is not final. During the three-month period following its delivery,  
any party may request that the case be referred to the Grand Chamber of the Court. If such a request is made, a panel of five judges  
considers whether the case deserves further examination. In that event, the Grand Chamber will hear the case and deliver a final  
judgment. If the referral request is refused, the Chamber judgment will become final on that day.  
Once a judgment becomes final, it is transmitted to the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe for supervision of its execution.  
Further information about the execution process can be found here: www.coe.int/t/dghl/monitoring/execution.  
Period of detention from 21 October to 2 December 2011  
In October 2011 a second arrest warrant was issued against Mr Jeanty, as he had not complied with  
his bail conditions. He was therefore taken back to Arlon Prison, where he made several requests to  
move to a different cell, complaining about his cellmates.  
In November 2011, following the refusal of the head of the prison officers to allow him to change  
cell again, Mr Jeanty threatened to commit suicide. He was placed in an isolation cell under special  
surveillance. During a check, a guard found him perched on the bars of the door in the process of  
attaching his trousers. He was stopped before he could throw himself off. On the doctor’s orders,  
the staff put a helmet on him and handcuffed him to prevent him from hitting his head against the  
wall and injuring himself. He remained restrained in that way until the following day.  
Two days later Mr Jeanty was brought out of isolation and was interviewed by the prison governor,  
who ordered his placement in an isolation cell for three days as a disciplinary sanction, taking the  
view that the applicant’s suicide threats had been aimed at pressurising the prison staff into allowing  
him to change cell. Mr Jeanty was released on bail on 2 December 2011.  
Subsequent events  
In April 2014 Mr Jeanty lodged a complaint against a person or persons unknown, alleging that he  
had been subjected to inhuman and degrading treatment during his two periods in pre-trial  
detention, and complaining of being placed in ordinary prison cells although his state of health  
meant that he needed psychological support. The complaint was dismissed and that decision was  
upheld on appeal. Mr Jeanty appealed unsuccessfully on points of law.  
Also in April 2014 Mr Jeanty was sentenced at first instance to a term of four years’ imprisonment,  
half of which was suspended, for the offences of indecent assault accompanied by violence or  
threats, and assault resulting in unfitness for work, committed against his wife. In April 2019 the  
Court of Appeal set aside that judgment and found that Mr Jeanty was not criminally responsible for  
his actions. It ordered his compulsory confinement and his immediate arrest.  
Complaints, procedure and composition of the Court  
Relying on Article 2 (right to life) of the Convention, Mr Jeanty alleged that the authorities had failed  
in their duty to take the appropriate measures in his case to prevent the certain and immediate risk  
of attempted suicide from materialising.  
Under Article 3 of the Convention (prohibition of torture and inhuman or degrading treatment), he  
complained of a lack of appropriate medical care during his detention. He also complained about the  
treatment to which he had been subjected while in isolation and of the lack of an effective  
investigation.  
The application was lodged with the European Court of Human Rights on 20 November 2017.  
Judgment was given by a Chamber of seven judges, composed as follows:  
Georgios A. Serghides (Cyprus), President,  
Paul Lemmens (Belgium),  
Paulo Pinto de Albuquerque (Portugal),  
Helen Keller (Switzerland),  
María Elósegui (Spain),  
Erik Wennerström (Sweden),  
Lorraine Schembri Orland (Malta),  
and also Milan Blaško, Section Registrar.  
2
Decision of the Court  
Article 2 (right to life)  
Whether Article 2 was applicable  
Mr Jeanty had survived his suicide attempts. Nevertheless, that fact in itself did not preclude the  
applicability of Article 2 of the Convention. Where the activity involved by its very nature was  
dangerous and put a person’s life at real and imminent risk, as in the case of life-threatening  
violence, the level of injuries sustained might not be decisive, and even in the absence of injuries a  
complaint in such cases might fall to be examined under Article 2.  
In the present case Mr Jeanty had made several attempts on his own life while in detention, and it  
was because of the intervention of the prison staff that he had not succeeded. The fact that the  
applicant had not sustained life-threatening injuries, or apparently any serious physical injury, was  
not decisive in this case, as the very nature of the applicant’s actions had placed his life at real and  
imminent risk. Accordingly, Article 2 was applicable in the present case.  
Whether the national authorities took the necessary measures to safeguard Mr Jeanty’s life  
The Court considered that, overall, the authorities had done all that could reasonably be expected of  
them to prevent the risk to Mr Jeanty’s life from materialising, in so far as they had had knowledge  
of the certain and immediate nature of that risk. Moreover, the measures taken had actually  
prevented Mr Jeanty from committing suicide. Consequently, there had been no violation of Article  
2 of the Convention.  
Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment)  
Whether Mr Jeanty was subjected to treatment contrary to Article 3  
The Court considered that in view of Mr Jeanty’s mental state, the lack of medical supervision and  
treatment during his two periods of detention, combined with his placement in an isolation cell for  
three days as a disciplinary measure in spite of his repeated suicide attempts, amounted to  
particularly acute hardship, causing him distress of an intensity exceeding the unavoidable level of  
suffering inherent in detention. The Court did not doubt that this treatment had aroused in him  
feelings of arbitrariness, inferiority, humiliation and anguish. The fact that it had not been designed  
to humiliate or debase the applicant did not prevent it being characterised as degrading and thus  
falling within the scope of the prohibition set out in Article 3. There had therefore been a violation of  
the substantive aspect of Article 3 of the Convention.  
The effectiveness of the investigation into Mr Jeanty’s criminal complaint  
It emerged from the reasoning of the Indictments Division’s judgment that the investigation carried  
out under the authority of the investigating judge had established with some degree of accuracy the  
events that had taken place in the prison. Nevertheless, more than eight months had elapsed  
between the public prosecutor’s submissions recommending an investigation (July 2014) and the  
point at which the investigating judge had received the file (March 2015). The length of time that  
had elapsed before the commencement of the investigation had not been explained by the  
Government and was difficult to understand and accept, given that a criminal complaint had been  
lodged for inhuman and degrading treatment and culpable failure to act.  
Moreover, when the investigation began in March 2015 the investigating judge had simply  
requested the investigators to obtain and examine Mr Jeanty’s prison and medical records. No other  
measures had been ordered. None of the persons concerned had been questioned, be it the prison  
staff, the doctors who had attended Mr Jeanty or the applicant himself. Less than three months after  
the file had been received by the investigating judge, the public prosecutor had recommended that  
3
the proceedings be discontinued. Such an investigation could not be considered effective.  
Accordingly, there had been a violation of the procedural aspect of Article 3 of the Convention.  
Just satisfaction (Article 41)  
The Court held that Belgium was to pay Mr Jeanty 15,000 euros (EUR) in respect of non-pecuniary  
damage and EUR 8,000 for costs and expenses.  
Separate opinion  
Judges Serghides, Pinto de Albuquerque and Schembri Orland expressed a separate opinion which is  
annexed to the judgment.  
The judgment 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  
@ECHR_CEDH.  
Press contacts  
Journalists can continue to contact the Press Unit via echrpress@echr.coe.int  
Inci Ertekin  
Tracey Turner-Tretz  
Denis Lambert  
Patrick Lannin  
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.  
4