Abstract The European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) is a key actor in the regulation of prison conditions at the European level. Before 1998, the ECtHR did little more than legitimate state practice in terms of detention, no matter the effects on the health of those detained. Yet, since 1998, the ECtHR has recognised that prisoners are in a particularly vulnerable situation due to their almost total dependence on the authorities, and has defined a number of positive obligations that States are under to protect the health of prisoners. Several reasons have been suggested for this evolution. Firstly, in 1998, the ECHR system was restructured and the ECtHR became a permanent court. Secondly, the Council of Europe’s enlargement process to the East brought about an explosion in the number of applications from prisoners in post-soviet States complaining about severely inadequate prison conditions and overcrowded conditions. Thirdly, the ECtHR began to work more closely with Committee for the Prevention of Torture (CPT), an interdisciplinary body that looks to make structural changes to prison conditions and focuses on the effects on health to prisoners. In this connection, the ECtHR post-1998 also began to rely more heavily on external standards, such as CPT standards, WHO guidelines, and UN Minimum Standards to supplement its reasoning. This study examines the dynamics between the ECtHR’s normative standards of prison conditions and other international prison health standards by tracking the ECtHR’s use of external materials in its assessment of the acceptability of prison conditions. It does so in the context of the ECtHR’s jurisprudence relating to tuberculosis prevention, treatment and control in prisons. Apart from standard improvement, preliminary results demonstrate an increase in the use of WHO documents corresponding with the evolution in the Court’s thinking, and indicate that such documents are increasingly recognised as minimum legal requirements for governments to meet.
Read full abstract