(Suspected) terrorists
THE LAW I. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 3 OF THE CONVENTION ON GROUNDS OF CONDITIONS OF DETENTION 79. The applicant submitted that his conditions of detention on İmralı Island were inhuman and exceeded the severity threshold deriving from Article 3 of the Convention. He also alleged a violation of Articles 5, 6, 8, 13 and 14 of the Convention, on the grounds of the social isolation imposed on him during his detention in İmralı Prison. The Court considers these complaints primarily under Article 3 of the Convention, which reads as follows: “No one shall be subjected to torture or to inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.” ... B. Merits 1. The parties ’ submissions ( a ) The applicant 81. The applicant pointed out that he had been the only inmate of İmralı Prison for ten years ten months, up until 17 November 2009, when five other prisoners had been transferred. Following this transfer his situation had not greatly improved : the time granted to prisoners for collective activities was extremely limited, especially as compared with the regime normally applied in the other high- security prisons. The applicant added that his social isolation had been further exacerbated by several prohibitions which were not applied to other convicted persons in Turkey, namely deprivation of a television set and any kind of telephone communication, strict censorship of his correspondence with the outside, and restrictions on access to outdoor exercise. Furthermore, the failure to improve the marine transport conditions was a physical obstacle to visits by his lawyers and family members, and to his access to daily newspapers and books. 82. The applicant also submitted that his state of health was rapidly deteriorating (breathing problems, permanent difficulties in the upper respiratory tracts, unidentified skin allergy, and so on), and asserted that he felt humiliated and degraded by all the said conditions of detention. 83. The applicant took the view that the Government had rejected most of the proposals presented by the CPT and the Human Rights Commission of the Turkish National Assembly geared to reducing the negative effects of his social isolation. ( b ) The Government 84. The Government contested that argument. They first of all observed that the applicant had made no allegation of ill- treatment by prison staff. 85. The Government referred to the conclusions presented by the CPT following its January 2010 visit to the effect that the material conditions in the cell and the building in which the applicant was detained were in conformity with the highest international standards in matters of detention. They explained that following the comments from the CPT on the quantity of daylight entering the applicant ’ s cell, a team made up of architects and an ophthalmologist had visited the premises and noted that the cell had sufficient exposure to daylight, making it possible to read and work without any problem during the daytime, without the use of artificial light. 86. Moreover, the Government submitted that when the applicant was not subject to a disciplinary sanction, he had thirty-six and a half hours per week of activities outside his cell, including eight and a half in the company of the other prisoners. When he was subject to a disciplinary sanction – consisting of confinement to his cell – the applicant was allowed two hours per day of out-of-cell activities. 87. The Government also observed that the system of healthcare for the applicant had been completely reorganised in accordance with the CPT ’ s recommendations. 88. The Government asserted that the refusal to allow the applicant to have a television set in his cell or to make telephone calls was due to the recurrent disciplinary offences which he had committed and the resultant sanctions, as well as the danger which he posed; they referred in this regard to section 4 of Law no. 5275 on the enforcement of sentences and preventive measures. 89. The Government drew attention to the fact that neither the applicant nor his lawyers had appealed against the disciplinary sanctions imposed. They submitted that the national authorities had welcomed the CPT ’ s suggestions and had taken all the necessary steps to apply the optimum international standards of detention to the applicant. They quoted the examples of the transfer of five more prisoners to İmralı, the possibility of engaging in collective activities, the introduction of “around the table” visits, the replacement of visits cancelled owing to poor weather conditions, and the twice-weekly deliveries of newspapers arriving every day. 90. The Government affirmed that the law enabled prison authorities to prevent prisoners from sending or receiving mail which jeopardised law and order and prison security or which facilitated communication with other members of a terrorist organisation. 91. They reiterated in this connection that the applicant had been sentenced to life imprisonment for running an organisation whose attacks had killed and maimed thousands of people and jeopardised the peace and safety of the population. Following the applicant ’ s incarceration, the PKK had continued its armed attacks and terrorist activities. There was reliable evidence that the applicant had been transmitting instructions to members of his organisation, who in fact still considered him as their leader, through the intermediary of the lawyers who visited him every week for the needs of his applications to the Court. The Government pointed out that because of such acts the applicant had been the subject of disciplinary proceedings, leading to disciplinary sanctions preventing him from having a television set and using the telephone; however, those sanctions had apparently not had the required deterrent effect and the applicant had persisted in this behaviour. They asserted that when some of the lawyers had been banned from visiting the applicant because of the transmission of messages to the PKK, some of the new lawyers replacing them had continued to act as messengers between the applicant and his armed organisation. The Government submitted that if the applicant complied with the prison regulations, no further disciplinary sanctions would be imposed on him and he would benefit from the facilities of communication with the outside world as authorised by law. 92. The Government affirmed that telephone calls had been technically possible for İmralı inmates since 20 March 2010 and that the applicant could telephone for ten minutes every fortnight. 2. The Court ’ s assessment ( a) Period of detention to be taken into consideration 93. The Court must first of all determine the period of detention to be taken into consideration in assessing the conformity of the conditions of detention with the requirements of Article 3. 94. It firstly reiterates that within the compass delimited by the decision on the admissibility of the application, the Court may deal with any issue of fact or law that arises during the proceedings before it ( see, among many other authorities, Guerra and Others v. Italy, 19 February 1998, § 44, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1998-I; Chahal v. the United Kingdom, 15 November 1996, § 86, Reports 1996-V; and Ahmed v. Austria, 17 December 1996, § 43, Reports 1996-VI). 95. The Court secondly reiterates that it considered the conformity with Article 3 of the applicant ’ s conditions of detention from the outset until 12 May 2005 in its judgment of the same date ( see Öcalan, cited above, §§ 192 ‑ 196), when it reached the following conclusion: “While concurring with the CPT ’ s recommendations that the long- term effects of the applicant ’ s relative social isolation should be attenuated by giving him access to the same facilities as other high security prisoners in Turkey, such as television and telephone contact with his family, the Grand Chamber agrees with the Chamber that the general conditions in which he is being detained at İmralı Prison have not thus far reached the minimum level of severity required to constitute inhuman or degrading treatment within the meaning of Article 3 of the Convention. Consequently, there has been no violation of that provision on that account. ” 96. In the present judgment, the Court can only hear and determine the facts which have occurred since its judgment of 12 May 2005 ( application no. 46221/99), up to 8 March 2012 ( the date of the latest observations received ). It will, however, take into account the applicant ’ s situation on 12 May 2005, particularly with regard to the long- term effects of his particular conditions of detention. ( b) General principles 97. The Court reiterates that Article 3 of the Convention enshrines one of the fundamental values of democratic societies. Even in the most difficult circumstances, such as the fight against terrorism and organised crime, the Convention prohibits in absolute terms torture and inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, irrespective of the conduct of the person concerned ( see El Masri v. “ the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia ” [GC], no. 39630/09, § 195, ECHR 2012; Ramirez Sanchez v. France [GC], no. 59450/00, § 115, ECHR 2006 ‑ IX; and Chahal, cited above, § 79). 98. In the modern world, States face very real difficulties in protecting their populations from terrorist violence. However, unlike most of the substantive clauses of the Convention and of Protocols Nos. 1 and 4, Article 3 makes no provision for exceptions and no derogation from it is permissible under Article 15 § 2 even in the event of a public emergency threatening the life of the nation ( see Labita v. Italy [GC], no. 26772/95, § 119, ECHR 2000 ‑ IV; Selmouni v. France [GC], no. 25803/94, § 95, ECHR 1999-V; and Assenov and Others v. Bulgaria, 28 October 1998, § 93, Reports 1998-VIII). The nature of the offence with which the applicant is charged is therefore irrelevant to the assessment under Article 3 ( see Ramirez Sanchez, cited above, § 116, and Indelicato v. Italy, no. 31143/96, § 30, 18 October 2001). 99. In order to fall within the scope of Article 3, ill-treatment must attain a minimum level of severity, the assessment of which depends on all the circumstances of the case, including the duration of the treatment and its physical or mental effects, and also, in some cases, on the sex, age and state of health of the victim, and so on (see, for example, Ireland v. the United Kingdom, 18 January 1978, § 162, Series A no. 25). Moreover, to assess the evidence before it in establishing cases of treatment contrary to Article 3, the Court adopts the standard of proof “beyond reasonable doubt”. However, such proof may follow from the coexistence of sufficiently strong, clear and concordant inferences or of similar unrebutted presumptions of fact. In this context, the conduct of the Parties when evidence is being obtained has to be taken into account (ibid, § 161). 100. The Court has considered treatment to be “inhuman” because, inter alia, it was premeditated, was applied for hours at a stretch and caused either actual bodily injury or intense physical or mental suffering. It has also deemed treatment to be “degrading” because it was such as to arouse in the victims feelings of fear, anguish and inferiority capable of humiliating and debasing them ( see, for example, Kudła v. Poland [GC], no. 30210/96, § 92, ECHR 2000-XI). In considering whether a punishment or treatment is “degrading” within the meaning of Article 3, the Court will have regard to whether its object is to humiliate and debase the person concerned and whether, as far as the consequences are concerned, it adversely affected his or her personality in a manner incompatible with Article 3 ( see, for example, Raninen v. Finland, 16 December 1997, § 55, Reports 1997 ‑ VIII). However, the absence of any such object or purpose cannot conclusively rule out a finding of a violation of Article 3 ( see V. v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 24888/94, § 71, ECHR 1999-IX, and Van der Ven v. the Netherlands, no. 50901/99, § 48, ECHR 2003 ‑ II). 101. In order for a punishment or the treatment associated with it to be “inhuman” or “degrading”, the suffering or humiliation involved must in any event go beyond that inevitable element of suffering or humiliation connected with a given form of legitimate treatment or punishment ( see, for example, V. v. the United Kingdom, cited above, § 71; Indelicato, cited above, § 32; Ilaşcu and Others v. Moldova and Russia [GC], no. 48787/99, § 428, ECHR 2004-VII; and Lorsé and Others v. the Netherlands, no. 52750/99, § 62, 4 February 2003). 102. In this regard, it should be pointed out that measures depriving a person of his liberty are usually accompanied by such suffering and humiliation. Nevertheless, Article 3 requires the State to ensure that all prisoners are detained in conditions which are compatible with respect for his human dignity, that the manner and method of the execution of the measure do not subject them to distress or hardship of an intensity exceeding the unavoidable level of suffering inherent in detention and that, given the practical demands of imprisonment, their health and well-being are adequately secured ( see Kudła, cited above, §§ 92-94, and Kalashnikov v. Russia, no. 47095/99, § 95, ECHR 2002-VI). The Court adds that the measures taken must also be necessary to attain the legitimate aim pursued ( see Ramirez Sanchez, cited above, § 119). 103. Furthermore, when assessing conditions of detention, account has to be taken of the cumulative effects of these conditions, as well as of specific allegations made by the applicant ( see Dougoz v. Greece, no. 40907/98, § 46, ECHR 2001 ‑ II). 104. One of the main elements of the applicant ’ s allegations in the present case is the length of time he spent in relative social isolation. On that specific point the Court reiterates that a prisoner ’ s segregation from the prison community does not in itself amount to inhuman treatment. In many States Parties to the Convention more stringent security measures exist for dangerous prisoners. These arrangements, which are intended to prevent the risk of escape, attack, disturbance of the prison community or contact with those involved in organised crime, are based on separation of the prison community together with tighter controls ( see Ramirez Sanchez, cited above, § 138). 105. However, in order to avoid any risk of arbitrariness, substantive reasons must be given when a protracted period of solitary confinement is further extended. The decision should thus make it possible to establish that the authorities have carried out a reassessment that takes into account any changes in the prisoner ’ s circumstances, situation or behaviour. The statement of reasons will need to be increasingly detailed and compelling as time passes. 106. Furthermore, such measures, which are a form of “imprisonment within the prison”, should be resorted to only exceptionally and after every precaution has been taken, as specified in paragraph 53.1 of the Prison Rules adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 11 January 2006. A system of regular monitoring of the prisoner ’ s physical and mental condition should also be established in order to ensure that his condition is compatible with continued solitary confinement ( ibid., § 139). 107. The Court has already established the conditions under which solitary confinement of a prisoner – even if he is considered dangerous – constitutes inhuman or degrading treatment ( or indeed, under some circumstances, torture ), as follows : “ Complete sensory isolation coupled with total social isolation can destroy the personality and constitutes a form of inhuman treatment that cannot be justified by the requirements of security or any other reason. On the other hand, the prohibition of contact with other prisoners for security, disciplinary or protective reasons does not in itself amount to inhuman treatment or punishment .” ( see, among other authorities, Messina v. Italy (no. 2) (dec.), no. 25498/94, ECHR 1999 ‑ V, and Öcalan, cited above, § 191, the two cases in which the Court concluded that there had been no treatment contrary to Article 3). Similarly, the Court found a violation of Article 3 of the Convention in the following conditions of detention : “ As regards the applicant ’ s conditions of detention while on death row, the Court notes that Mr Ilaşcu was detained for eight years, from 1993 until his release in May 2001, in very strict isolation: he had no contact with other prisoners, no news from the outside – since he was not permitted to send or receive mail – and no right to contact his lawyer or receive regular visits from his family. His cell was unheated, even in severe winter conditions, and had no natural light source or ventilation. The evidence shows that Mr Ilaşcu was also deprived of food as a punishment and that in any event, given the restrictions on receiving parcels, even the food he received from outside was often unfit for consumption. The applicant could take showers only very rarely, often having to wait several months between one and the next. On this subject the Court refers to the conclusions in the report produced by the CPT following its visit to Transdniestria in 2000 (see paragraph 289 above), in which it described isolation for so many years as indefensible. The applicant ’ s conditions of detention had deleterious effects on his health, which deteriorated in the course of the many years he spent in prison. Thus, he did not receive proper care, having been deprived of regular medical examinations and treatment (see paragraphs 253, 258-60, 262-63 and 265 above) and dietetically appropriate meals. In addition, owing to the restrictions on receiving parcels, he could not be sent medicines and food to improve his health. ” ( see Ilaşcu and Others, cited above, § 438; see also, for a finding of no violation of Article 3 in the case of different conditions of detention, Rohde v. Denmark, no. 69332/01, § 97, 21 July 2005 ). ( c) Application of these principles to the present case i. Specific nature of the case 108. As regards the present case, the Court observes that in its judgment of 12 May 2005 it found that the applicant ’ s detention posed exceptional difficulties for the Turkish authorities. As the head of a large armed separatist movement the applicant was considered by a large section of the Turkish population as the most dangerous terrorist in the country. This was compounded by all the differences of opinion that had come to light within his own movement, showing that his life was genuinely at risk. It was also a reasonable presumption that his supporters would seek to help him escape from prison. 109. The Court observes that those conditions have not radically changed since May 2005: the applicant has remained actively involved in the political debate in Turley regarding the PKK armed separatist movement, and his instructions as transmitted by his lawyers ( see § 43 above ) have been closely monitored by the general public, prompting a variety of reactions, some of which have been very extreme ( see § 45 above ). The Court therefore understands why the Turkish authorities found it necessary to take extraordinary security measures to detain the applicant. ii. Physical conditions of detention 110. The physical conditions of the applicant ’ s detention must be taken into account in assessing the nature and duration of his solitary confinement. 111. The Court observes that before 17 November 2009 the cell occupied alone by the applicant had an area of approximately 13 sq. m and contained a bed, a table, a chair and a bookshelf. It was air-conditioned and had a sanitary annex. It had a window overlooking an exercise yard and sufficient natural and artificial light. In February 2004 the walls had been reinforced with chipboard panels to protect them against the damp. 112. The Court also observes that since 17 November 2009 the applicant has been the sole occupant of a cell in the new İmralı Prison building, which was designed also to accommodate other prisoners. His new cell has an area of 9. 8 sq. m ( living space), with an additional 2 sq. m ( bathroom and toilets ), and comprises a bed, a small table, two chairs, a metal cupboard and a kitchenette with a wash basin. The building comprising the cells is properly damp-proofed. The applicant ’ s cell has a window measuring 1 m x 0. 5 m and a partly glazed door, both of which open on to an exercise yard. The Government, drawing on an expert report indicating that the cell receives enough natural light and on concerns about the applicant ’ s safety, would appear not to have accepted the CPT ’ s proposal to lower the wall. 113. The new building provides the applicant and the other inmates with a sports room equipped with a ping-pong table and two further rooms furnished with chairs and tables, all three of which rooms receive plentiful daylight. In the new building, up until the end of 2009 /beginning of 2010, the applicant enjoyed two hours of outdoor activities per day, remaining alone in the exercise yard adjacent to his cell. Furthermore, he was able to spend one hour per week alone in the recreation room (where no specific activities were on offer) and two hours per month alone in the prison library ( see paragraph 26 above ). 114. In response to the CPT ’ s observations after its January 2010 visit, the authorities responsible for İmralı Prison relaxed the relevant regulations. The applicant was accordingly authorised to engage alone in out-of-cell activities four hours per day. 115. The Court notes that the physical conditions of the applicant ’ s detention are in conformity with the European Prison Rules adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 11 January 2006. Furthermore, the CPT has also described them as “ broadly acceptable ”. Therefore, no infringement of Article 3 can be found on this account. iii. The nature of the applicant ’ s isolation – Access to information 116. Before 17 November 2009 the applicant ’ s cell contained books and a radio which only received State broadcasts. He was not allowed to have a television set in his cell on the ground that he was a dangerous prisoner and a member of an illegal organisation. For the same reasons he had no access to telephones. These restrictions increased the applicant ’ s relative social isolation. 117. Over the same period the applicant was subject to restrictions in his access to the daily and weekly press. In fact, he received newspapers once a week, provided by his family or lawyers. Sometimes, when there were no visits from his relatives or lawyers, he went for weeks on end without any access to the press. The newspapers delivered to the applicant were extensively censored. 118. After 17 November 2009 a number of improvements were made to these conditions. From 2010 onwards the applicant, like the other İmralı Prison inmates, received newspapers twice instead of once a week. Since March 2010 he has also been allowed ten minutes of telephone calls to the outside per fortnight. 119. All in all, the Court observes that the applicant has benefited from moderate access to information, and not all the means of communication have been available at the same time. Censorship of the daily papers delivered to the applicant would appear to be offset by uncensored access to books. Given that access to television is a means of mitigating the harmful effects of social isolation and since the inmates of the other high-security prisons benefit from such facilities without any major restrictions, the Court holds that the restriction imposed on the applicant until recently in this regard, without any convincing justification, was such as to increase his relative social isolation in the long term. – Communication with prison staff 120. In the light of the reports prepared by the CPT after its visits in 2007 and 2010 ( see links in paragraph 72 above, (CPT/Inf (2008)13 for the May 2007 visit, §§ 25-30, and CPT/Inf (2010) 20 for the January 2010 visit, §§ 30-35), the Court observes that for practically the whole duration of his first eleven years of detention the applicant received daily visits from GPs. A different doctor attended him each time, which the CPT says ruled out any constructive doctor/patient relationship. 121. From May 2010 onwards, following the CPT recommendations, the applicant received doctor ’ s visits either regularly once a month or at his request or as needed. A specific physician was charged with collating all medical data on the applicant ’ s health, assessing the data and ensuring respect for their medical secrecy. 122. The Court also notes that none of the medical certificates issued by the medical officers of the Ministry of Health and none of the CPT visit reports mentioned that the applicant ’ s relative social isolation could have major and permanent negative effects on the applicant ’ s health. It is true that after their visit in 2007 the CPT delegates reported a deterioration in the applicant ’ s mental state as compared with 2001 and 2003. According to the CPT delegates, this deterioration was the result of a state of chronic stress and social and affective isolation, combined with a feeling of abandonment and disillusionment, not forgetting a longstanding ENT problem. Following their visit to İmralı in 2010 after the construction of a new building and the transfer of other prisoners to İmralı Prison, the CPT delegates noted that the applicant ’ s mental state had considerably improved, although he was still slightly vulnerable, a condition which had to be monitored. 123. The Court further observes that the prison staff were authorised to communicate with the applicant, but that they had to restrict conversations to the strict minimum required for their work. Such contact is not in itself capable of lessening a prisoner ’ s social isolation. – Communication with the other inmates 124. Before 17 November 2009 the only contact which the applicant, as the only inmate of İmralı Prison, could have was with the staff working there, within the strict limits of their official duties. 125. After 17 November 2009, when the applicant and five other prisoners transferred to İmralı from different prisons were moved to the new building, the applicant was authorised to spend one hour per week conversing with the other inmates. 126. In response to the observations made by the CPT following its visit in January 2010, the authorities responsible for İmralı Prison relaxed the rules on communication between the applicant and the other prisoners. Since then the applicant has been allowed to spend three hours, rather than just one, per week with the other inmates for conversation. Moreover, like all the İmralı inmates, he can engage, on request, in the following five collective activities, at a rate of one hour per week for each of the five : painting and handicraft activities, table tennis, chess, volleyball and basketball. He can therefore engage in a total of five hours ’ collective activities per week. According to the prison registers, the applicant in fact only plays volleyball and basketball. In 2010 the prison authorities considered giving the applicant and the other prisoners two extra hours per week to engage in other collective activities. – Communication with family members 127. The Court observes that the applicant was visited by members of his family, particularly his sisters and his brother. 128. Even though the prison rules authorise a one-hour visit by close relatives ( brothers and sisters in the applicant ’ s case ) every fortnight, the visits did not take place as frequently as the applicant and his family would have wished. The fact that the applicant was incarcerated in a prison located on a remote island inevitably caused major problems of access for the family members as compared with high- security prisons on the mainland. The main reasons advanced by the governmental authorities to explain the frequent interruptions in the shuttle-boat services between the prison and the nearest coast highlight the difficulties: “ poor weather conditions ”, “ maintenance work on the ferry boats between the island and the mainland” and “the inability of the boats to cope with prevailing weather conditions ”. 129. Perusal of the dates and frequency of visits actually conducted by relatives and visits refused shows that in 2006 and early 2007 more visits were refused than actually effected. On the other hand, visits increased in frequency in late 2007 and in 2008, 2009 and 2010. In 2011 and 2012, however, the applicant received very few visits from his relatives. In this connection the Court notes with concern that very many visits were blocked by poor weather conditions and technical breakdowns in the shuttle boats, which sometimes necessitated several week ’ s work, despite the fact that the Government had informed the Court, in the case of Öcalan v. Turkey which led up to the Grand Chamber judgment of 12 May 2005, that such difficulties would be eliminated by the use of more suitable means of transport ( see Öcalan, cited above, § 194). 130. As to the conditions under which these visits are conducted, the Court observes that prior to 2010 the applicant could only communicate with his sisters and brother in visiting rooms equipped with a barrier ( consisting of glass panels and telephones ), because under the prison rules visiting rooms without barriers were reserved for first- degree relatives. This section of the prison rules having been deleted by the administrative courts in December 2009, the applicant and the members of his family who have visited him since 2010 have sat around a table. – Communication with lawyers and other persons 131. The Court observes that the applicant has been visited by his lawyers, sometimes at regular intervals and sometimes sporadically. While the applicant was entitled to see his lawyers once a week ( every Wednesday ), he was in fact deprived of most of these visits. The prison authorities adduced poor weather conditions or ferry breakdowns to explain refusals of visit requests. 132. The Court notes that the periods when the applicant was refused lawyer ’ s visits preceded the commencement of proceedings against some of the applicant ’ s lawyers, who had been accused of having acted as messengers between him and the PKK. It notes that the interruptions in visits were more due to the national authorities ’ concern to prevent communication between the applicant and his former armed organisation that to weather conditions or boat breakdowns. 133. The Court further observes that the applicant was entitled to correspond with the outside world under the supervision of the prison authorities, and that the mail which he received was inspected and censored. 134. It also notes that the applicant was not permitted to have confidential conversations with his lawyers. The records of these conversations were subject to supervision by the post-sentencing judge. 135. The Court concludes that, as a person incarcerated for terrorist activities, the communication between the applicant and his lawyers and his correspondence were subject to greater restrictions than those of persons held in other prisons. Nevertheless, while persons deprived of their liberty for terrorist activities cannot be excluded from the scope of the provisions of the Convention and the essence of their rights and freedoms recognised by the latter must not be infringed, the national authorities can impose “ legitimate restrictions ” on them inasmuch as those restrictions are strictly necessary to protect society against violence. – Conclusion on the nature of the solitary confinement imposed on the applicant 136. The Court concludes that for the period up to 17 November 2009, the applicant cannot be said to have been detained in total sensory or social isolation. His social isolation at that time was partial and relative. Since 17 November 2009 ( for the remainder of the period under consideration, see § 96 above ), the applicant also cannot be deemed to have been maintained in strict social isolation, despite the major de facto restrictions to his communication with his lawyers. iv. Duration of the applicant ’ s social isolation 137. The Court finds that the applicant was kept in relative social isolation from 12 May 2005 to 17 November 2009, that is to say for approximately four years and six months. It should be remembered that on 12 May 2005, when the Court gave its judgment on the previous application lodged by the applicant, the latter, who had been arrested on 15 February 1999, had already been detained in relative social isolation for approximately six years and three months. The total duration of the detention in relative social isolation was therefore nineteen years and nine months. 138. In view of the length of that period, a rigorous examination is called for by the Court in order to determine whether it was justified, whether the measures taken were necessary and proportionate in the light of the available alternatives, what safeguards were afforded the applicant and what measures were taken by the authorities to ensure that the applicant ’ s physical and mental condition was compatible with his continued solitary confinement ( see Ramirez Sanchez, cited above, § 136). 139. For the period preceding 17 November 2009, the restrictions placed on the applicant were comparable to those imposed on Mr Ramirez Sanchez, whose application was the subject of a Grand Chamber judgment finding no violation of Article 3 of the Convention ( ibid., particularly §§ 125-150). While Mr Ramirez Sanchez had been placed for a certain length of time in an area of the prison where inmates had no possibility of meeting one another or of being in the same room together, the applicant was the only inmate of the prison and therefore could only meet physicians and staff members on a day-to- day basis. He was visited by members of his family and his lawyers when marine transport conditions so permitted. 140. The Court accepts that the placement and maintenance of the applicant in such conditions of detention were motivated by the risk of escape from a high-security prison, the concern to protect the applicant ’ s life against those who hold him responsible for the deaths of a large number of people and the desire to prevent him from transmitting instructions to his armed organisation, the PKK, which still considered him as its leader. 141. Nevertheless, the Court already held in Ramirez Sanchez that it would be desirable for alternative solutions to solitary confinement to be sought for persons considered dangerous and for whom detention in an ordinary prison under the ordinary regime is considered inappropriate ( ibid., § 146). 142. The Court observes that the CPT, in its report on its visit from 19 to 22 May 2007, expressed similar concerns about the negative effects of prolonging conditions which were tantamount to relative social isolation. Finally, in March 2008, in the absence of any real progress on this matter by the Government, the CPT initiated the procedure of issuing a public statement, as provided for in Article 10 § 2 of the European Convention for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Punishment or Treatment. 143. The Court notes the Government ’ s positive reaction with interest. In June 2008 they decided to construct a new building inside İmralı Prison in order to comply with the standards required by the CPT in relation to the applicant ’ s detention, and in October 2008 they held high-level negotiations on this matter with CPT representatives. The building work was completed in summer 2009, and in November 2009 the applicant and other prisoners transferred from other prisons were moved to the new building. 144. The Court finds that the regime applied to the applicant from November 2009 onwards gradually moved away from social isolation. His communication with the other inmates, which was initially very limited, progressed as the Government accepted most of the CPT ’ s relevant suggestions. In March 2010, in the light of these developments, the CPT discontinued the procedure which it had decided to initiate two years previously under Article 10 § 2 of the Convention for the Prevention of Torture. 145. The Court notes the CPT ’ s concern about the possible long - term effects of the prolonged lack of a television set in the applicant ’ s cell ( until 12 January 2012) and of the frequent interruptions in his communication with his lawyers and relatives. All these facilities help prevent prisoners ’, and therefore the applicant ’ s, social isolation. Prolonged absence of such facilities, combined with the “ time ” factor, that is to say over thirteen years ’ incarceration in the applicant ’ s case if the beginning of his detention is taken as the starting point, is liable to cause him a justified feeling of social isolation. In particular, the Court holds that although the choice of a remote island as the applicant ’ s place of detention was a matter for the Government, they are duty-bound, in such cases, to ensure that the prison in question has appropriate means of transport in order to facilitate the normal operation of the regulations on visits to prisoners. v. Conclusions - Prior to 17 November 2009 146. The Court reiterates that in its judgment of 12 May 2005 it took note of the CPT ’ s recommendations that the applicant ’ s relative social isolation should not be allowed to continue for too long and that its effects should be attenuated by giving him access to a television and to telephone communications with his lawyers and close relatives ( see Öcalan, cited above, § 195). It also reiterates that in the same judgment it pointed out that the general conditions in which the applicant is being detained at İmralı Prison had not reached the minimum level of severity required to constitute inhuman or degrading treatment within the meaning of Article 3 of the Convention ( see Öcalan, cited above, § 196). However, the Court now notes that the applicant ’ s social isolation continued until 17 November 2009 under more or less the same conditions as those observed in its 12 May 2005 judgment. In its assessment of the applicant ’ s conditions of detention prior to 17 November 2009, the Court takes account of the conclusions set out by the CPT in its report on its May 2007 visit ( see § 72 above ) and its own findings, particularly the extension to nineteen years and nine months of the period during which the applicant was the prison ’ s only inmate (see paragraph 137 above ), the lack of communication media to prevent the applicant ’ s social isolation ( protracted absence of a television set in the cell and of telephone calls – see paragraphs 116 and 119 above ), excessive restrictions on access to news information ( see paragraphs 116, 117 and 119 above ), the persistent major problems with access by visitors to the prison ( for family members and lawyers ) and the insufficiency of the means of marine transport in coping with weather conditions ( see paragraph 129 above ), the restriction of staff communication with the applicant to the bare minimum required for their work ( see paragraphs 123 and 124 above ), the lack of any constructive doctor/patient relationship with the applicant ( see paragraph 120 above ), the deterioration in the applicant ’ s mental state in 2007 resulting from a state of chronic stress and social and affective isolation combined with a feeling of abandonment and disillusionment ( see paragraph 122 above ), and the fact that no alternatives were sought to the applicant ’ s solitary confinement until June 2008, despite the fact that the CPT had mentioned in its report on the May 2007 visit the negative effects of prolonging conditions tantamount to social isolation ( see paragraph 122 above ). The Court concludes that the conditions of detention imposed on the applicant during that period attained the severity threshold to constitute inhuman treatment within the meaning of Article 3 of the Convention. 147. There has accordingly been a violation of Article 3 of the Convention in relation to the applicant ’ s conditions of detention up to 17 November 2009. - After 17 November 2009 148. In its assessment of the period subsequent to 17 November 2009, the Court takes into account, in particular, the physical conditions of the applicant ’ s detention, the Government ’ s positive reaction in the light of the procedure initiated by the CPT under Article 10 § 2 of the Convention for the Prevention of Torture, which resulted in the transfer of other prisoners to İmralı Prison ( see paragraph 143 above ), the improvement in the applicant ’ s access to news and information during this period ( see paragraph 118 above ), the substantial reinforcement of communication and collective activities between the applicant and the other inmates in response to the CPT ’ s observations following its visit in January 2010 ( see paragraph 126 above ), the increased frequency of visits authorised and the quality of the applicant ’ s conversations with his family, without any glass barrier ( see paragraphs 129 and 130), and the provision of facilities mitigating the effects of the relative social isolation ( telephone contact since March 2010, television in his cell since January 2012). The Court concludes that the conditions of detention imposed on the applicant during this period did not attain the severity threshold to constitute inhuman treatment within the meaning of Article 3 of the Convention. 149. There has accordingly been no violation of Article 3 of the Convention on the ground of the conditions of detention imposed on the applicant during the period after 17 November 2009. The Court stresses that the finding of no violation of Article 3 of the Convention cannot be interpreted as an excuse for the national authorities not to provide the applicant with more facilities for communicating with the outside world or to relax his conditions of detention, because as the length of time he has spent in detention increases, it may become necessary to grant him such facilities in order to ensure that his conditions of detention remain in conformity with the requirements of Article 3 of the Convention. II. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 8 OF THE CONVENTION ON ACCOUNT OF THE RESTRICTIONS PLACED ON VISITS BY AND COMMUNICATION WITH FAMILY MEMBERS 1 50. The applicant complained of a violation of his right to respect for his family life on the basis of some of the facts which he presented under Article 3 of the Convention, that is to say the restrictions imposed on his contact with members of his family, telephone calls, correspondence and visits. 151. Article 8 of the Convention provides : “ 1. Everyone has the right to respect for his private and family life, his home and his correspondence. 2. There shall be no interference by a public authority with the exercise of this right except such as is in accordance with the law and is necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security, public safety or the economic well-being of the country, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others. ” 152. The Government contested that argument and broadly reiterated the observations presented under Article 3 of the Convention concerning communication between the applicant and the members of his family. They pointed out that the applicant could communicate with his relatives subject to the restrictions imposed by legislation concerning high-security prisons and the execution of sentences (that is to say, in the present case, life imprisonment. They add that where a disciplinary sanction was imposed on the applicant for failing to comply with the prohibition on transmitting messages to his former armed organisation, this had an impact on the exercise of the right to receive visits. ... B. Merits 154. The Court reiterates that any detention which is lawful for the purposes of Article 5 of the Convention entails by its nature a limitation on private and family life. However, it is an essential part of a prisoner ’ s right to respect for family life that the prison authorities assist him in maintaining contact with his close family ( see Messina v. Italy (no. 2), cited above, § 61). 155. In the present case, the Court stresses that the applicant, who was sentenced to life imprisonment in a high- security prison, is subject to a special detention regime which involved restricting the number of family visits ( once a week, on request ) and, up until 2010, imposed measures to monitor the visits ( the prisoner was separated from his visitors by a glass panel ). 156. The Court considers that these restrictions undoubtedly constitute an interference with the applicant ’ s exercise of his right to respect for his family life as secured by Article 8 § 1 of the Convention ( see X v. the United Kingdom, no. 8065/77, Commission decision of 3 May 1978, Decisions and Reports 14, p. 246). 157. Such interference is not in breach of the Convention if it is “in accordance with the law”, pursues one or more legitimate aims under paragraph 2 of Article 8 and may be regarded as a measure which is “necessary in a democratic society”. 158. The Court notes that the security measures were imposed on the applicant in accordance with the provisions of the legislation on the regime for prisoners considered dangerous, particularly Law no. 5275 on the execution of sentences and preventive measures, and that they were therefore “ in accordance with the law”. It also considers that the measures in question pursued aims which were legitimate for the purposes of Article 8 § 2 of the Convention, namely the protection of public safety and the prevention of disorder and crime. 159. As regards the necessity of the interference, the Court reiterates that in order to be necessary “in a democratic society ”, interference must correspond to a pressing social need and, in particular, must be proportionate to the legitimate aim pursued ( see, among other authorities, McLeod v. the United Kingdom, 23 September 1998, § 52, Reports 1998-VII). 160. The Court notes that the regulations on contacts with families for life prisoners in high- security prisons tend to limit the existing relations between the persons concerned and their original criminal environment in order to minimise the risk of their maintaining personal contacts with the criminal organisations. The Court reiterates that in its judgment of 12 May 2005 ( see Öcalan, cited above, § 192) and in paragraph 132 above, it considered the Government ’ s concerns justified, as they feared that the applicant might use his communications with the outside to resume contact with members of the armed separatist movement of which he was the leader. The Court is not in a position to assess whether the circumstances of the applicant ’ s detention had radically changed between 2005 and the date of the said restrictions on communication. 161. The Court also reiterates that many of the States parties to the Convention have stricter security regimes for dangerous prisoners. These regimes are based on stepping up surveillance of communications with the outside in respect of prisoners posing a particular threat to internal order in the prison and law and order outside. 162. In the light of these arguments, the Court cannot doubt the need for the special detention regime as applied to the applicant. 163. As regards striking a balance between the applicant ’ s individual interest in communicating with his family and the general interest of limiting his contact with the outside, the Court notes that the prison authorities attempted to help the applicant as far as possible to remain in contact with his immediate family, authorising visits once a week without any limit on the number of visitors. Furthermore, from 2010 onwards the prison authorities, further to the CPT ’ s recommendations, allowed the applicant to receive his visitors seated at a table ( see, conversely, Trosin v. Ukraine, no. 39758/05, §§ 43-47, 23 February 2012). The case file also shows that ten minutes of telephone calls are authorised per fortnight. Correspondence between the applicant and his family is functioning normally, apart from the inspections and censorship carried out in order to prevent exchanges relating to PKK activities. 164. In the light of these considerations, the Court considers that the restrictions on the applicant ’ s right to respect for his family life did not exceed those which are necessary in a democratic society for the protection of public safety and the prevention of disorder and crime, within the meaning of Article 8 § 2 of the Convention. There has therefore been no violation of Article 8 of the Convention on this account. III. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 7 OF THE CONVENTION 16 5. The applicant further complained of a violation of Article 7 of the Convention, which provides: “ 1. No one shall be held guilty of any criminal offence on account of any act or omission which did not constitute a criminal offence under national or international law at the time when it was committed. Nor shall a heavier penalty be imposed than the one that was applicable at the time the criminal offence was committed. 2. This Article shall not prejudice the trial and punishment of any person for any act or omission which, at the time when it was committed, was criminal according to the general principles of law recognised by civilised nations. ” A. The parties 166. The applicant submitted that the commutation of the death penalty into life imprisonment without parole infringed Article 7 of the Convention, such commutation having resulted from a legislative amendment made subsequently to his conviction ( under Law no. 4771, which came into force on 9 August 2002). Prior to this amendment, persons sentenced to the death penalty whose execution had not been approved by the National Assembly had remained in prison for a maximum term of thirty-six years. In particular, the applicant would appear to have put forward two separate arguments: firstly he submitted that when he had been sentenced to the death penalty, the latter had, from the outset, been equivalent to a maximum prison term of thirty-six years, because in 1984 Turkey had declared a moratorium on the enforcement of the death penalty; secondly, the applicant would seem to be saying that after the abolition of capital punishment, the death penalty to which he had been sentenced was commuted first of all into an ordinary life sentence (with a possibility of release on parole after a specific minimum term) and then, much later on, into aggravated life imprisonment ( with no possibility of parole until the end of his life). 167. The applicant also contended that the social isolation to which he had been subjected had not been set out in any legislation and amounted to an infringement of his rights under Articles 6 and 7 of the Convention. 168. The Government contested that argument. They first of all affirmed that under the legislation in force before the applicant ’ s conviction, persons sentenced to the death penalty, where execution of the penalty had been formally rejected by Parliament, had been eligible for parole after a period of thirty -six years. However, Parliament had never taken a decision rejecting the execution of the death penalty imposed on the applicant. Under Law no. 4771 of 9 August 2002, Parliament had abolished the death penalty and replaced it with a “ reinforced life sentence ” that is to say a life sentence to last for the remainder of the person ’ s life without any possibility of parole. This principle had been followed in all the subsequent legislation on sentencing for crimes of terrorism ( including Law no. 5218, which had abolished the death penalty and amended a number of laws, the new Law no. 5275 on the execution of sentences and preventive measures, and Law no. 5532 amending specific provisions of the Anti - Terrorism Law ). The Government submitted that it had been clear to the applicant, at all stages in proceedings, that his conviction under Article 125 of the Criminal Code initially involved the death penalty and later on, following the abolition of this penalty, a life sentence without parole. B. The Court ’ s assessment ... 2. Merits ( a) General principles 171. The guarantee enshrined in Article 7, which is an essential element of the rule of law, occupies a prominent place in the Convention system of protection, as is underlined by the fact that no derogation from it is permissible under Article 15 in time of war or other public emergency. It should be construed and applied, as follows from its object and purpose, in such a way as to provide effective safeguards against arbitrary prosecution, conviction and punishment (see Scoppola v. Italy (no. 2) [GC], no. 10249/03, § 92, 17 September 2009; S.W. v. the United Kingdom, 22 November 1995, § 34, Series A no. 335 ‑ B; and C.R. v. the United Kingdom, 22 November 1995, § 32, Series A no. 335 ‑ C). 172. Article 7 § 1 of the Convention does not confine itself to prohibiting the retrospective application of criminal law to the detriment of the defendant. It also embodies in general terms the principle that only the law can define a crime and prescribe a penalty ( nullum crimen, nulla poena sine lege ). While it prohibits in particular extending the scope of existing offences to acts which previously were not criminal offences, it also lays down the principle that the criminal law must not be extensively construed to an accused ’ s detriment, for instance by analogy ( see, among other authorities, Kafkaris v. Cyprus [GC], no. 21906/04, § 138, ECHR 2008, and Coëme and Others v. Belgium, nos. 32492/96, 32547/96, 32548/96, 33209/96 and 33210/96, § 145, ECHR 2000 ‑ VII). 173. It follows that offences and the relevant penalties must be clearly defined by law. The Court must therefore verify that at the time when an accused person performed the act which led to his being prosecuted and convicted there was in force a legal provision which made that act punishable, and that the punishment imposed did not exceed the limits fixed by that provision ( see Scoppola (no. 2), cited above, § 95; Coëme and Others, cited above, § 145; and Achour v. France [GC], no. 67335/01, § 43, ECHR 2006 ‑ IV). 174. The term “law” implies qualitative requirements, including those of accessibility and foreseeability ( see Kafkaris, cited above, § 140, and E.K. v. Turkey, no. 28496/95, § 51, 7 February 2002). These qualitative requirements must be satisfied as regards both the definition of an offence and the penalty the offence carries ( see Achour, cited above, § 41). The individual must be able to know from the wording of the relevant provision and, if need be, with the assistance of the courts ’ interpretation of it, what acts and omissions will make him criminally liable ( see, among other authorities, Scoppola (no. 2), cited above, § 94; Kokkinakis v. Greece, 25 May 1993, § 52, Series A no. 260-A; and Cantoni v. France, 15 November 1996, § 29, Reports 1996 ‑ V). Furthermore, a law may still satisfy the requirement of foreseeability even if the person concerned has to take appropriate legal advice to assess, to a degree that is reasonable in the circumstances, the consequences which a given action may entail ( see, among other authorities, Cantoni, cited above, § 35, and Achour, cited above, § 54). 175. The Court notes that the principle of retrospectiveness of the more lenient criminal law, considered by the Court in Scoppola (no. 2), as guaranteed by Article 7, is embodied in the rule that where there are differences between the criminal law in force at the time of the commission of the offence and subsequent criminal laws enacted before a final judgment is rendered, the courts must apply the law whose provisions are most favourable to the defendant ( see Scoppola (no. 2), cited above, § 109). 176. In its decision in the case of Hummatov v. Azerbaijan ( ( dec. ), nos. 9852/03 and 13413/04, 18 May 2006), the Court approved the parties ’ shared opinion that a life sentence was not a harsher penalty than the death penalty. ( b) Application of these principles to the present case 177. The Court notes that the parties agree that on the date of their commission, the crimes of which the applicant was accused were subject to the death penalty under Article 125 of the Criminal Code, to which penalty the applicant was in fact sentenced. The legal basis for the applicant ’ s conviction and sentence was therefore the criminal law applicable at the material time, and his sentence corresponded to that prescribed in the relevant provisions of the Criminal Code ( see, to the same effect, Kafkaris, cited above, § 143). The Court also notes that the parties agree that life imprisonment is a more lenient penalty than the death penalty ( see, to the same effect, Hummatov, cited above ). 178. The parties ’ submissions primarily concern, first of all, the mode of execution of the death penalty before it was abolished, and secondly, the events following the commutation of the applicant ’ s death penalty to “ life imprisonment ”, and the interpretation of the latter sentence. 179. The Court will first of all examine whether the death penalty imposed on the applicant was equivalent from the outset to a prison sentence of a maximum of thirty -six years, owing to the moratorium on the enforcement of the death penalty in Turkey since 1984. 180. The Court reiterates that it has previously found that, since the applicant had been convicted of the most serious crimes contained in the Turkish Criminal Code, and given the general political controversy in Turkey – prior to the decision to abolish the death penalty – surrounding the question of whether he should be executed, it was not possible to rule out the possibility that the risk of the sentence being implemented was a real one. In fact, the risk remained until the Ankara National Security Court ’ s judgment of 3 October 2002 commuting the death penalty to which the applicant had been sentenced to life imprisonment ( see Öcalan, cited above, § 172). 181. Furthermore, the Court observes that, as the Government pointed out, under the legislation in force before the abolition of the death penalty in Turkey, persons sentenced to this penalty could be released on parole after a period of thirty -six years only where the enforcement of the said penalty had been formally rejected by Parliament. The fact is that the applicant ’ s death penalty was never submitted to Parliament for approval and was never the subject of a formal parliamentary decision rejecting it. It follows that the Court cannot accept the applicant ’ s contention that the penalty imposed on him had amounted, from the outset, to a thirty -six year prison sentence. 182. Secondly, the Court will consider the argument that the death penalty imposed on the applicant was commuted following the abolition of that penalty, first of all into an “ ordinary ” life sentence and then, much later and in breach of Article 7 of the Convention, into “ aggravated ” life imprisonment, without any possibility of parole. 183. On this matter, the Court notes first of all that the Turkish Criminal Code clearly prohibits retrospective application of a provision laying down a “ more severe penalty ” and the principle of retrospective enforcement of the “ more lenient penalty ”. 184. The Court will then consider whether the successive reforms of Turkish criminal legislation during the process of abolishing the death penalty cleared the way for allowing the applicant to be released after a specified period of imprisonment. 185. It notes that Law no. 4771 of 9 August 2002, which for the first time provided for the abolition of the death penalty and replaced it with life imprisonment, clearly states that this latter penalty must consist of actual incarceration of the sentenced persons for the remainder of his life, without any possibility of release on parole. The Court also notes that Law no. 5218 of 21 July 2004 on the abolition of the death penalty confirms the provisions of Law no. 4771, while also stipulating that the possibility of parole as provided for in the legislation on the enforcement of sentences does not apply to life sentences passed on persons who were initially sentenced to the death penalty for terrorist offences, and that such persons must serve their prison sentence until the end of their lives. The laws amending the Criminal Code and the Law on sentence enforcement only confirmed this principle. 186. It follows that, at the time of the abolition of the death penalty, no law or statute provided the applicant with the possibility of release on parole after a minimum period of incarceration. The fact that different terms ( reinforced life imprisonment, aggravated life imprisonment ) were used in the various laws on the matter does not alter this finding. 187. The Court will also consider the applicant ’ s complaint regarding the lack of legislation against the social isolation imposed on him up to 2009. It reiterates that the social isolation in question was not imposed under any decision taken by the authorities to confine the applicant in a cell in an ordinary prison, but rather resulted from a concrete situation, namely the fact that the applicant was the only inmate in the prison. This highly exceptional measure, which consisted in earmarking an entire prison for a single prisoner, did not form part of a detention regime geared to punishing the applicant more severely. It was motivated solely by the concern to protect the applicant ’ s life and to prevent the risk of escape linked to the conditions prevailing in ordinary prisons, including high- security establishments. The Court takes the view that this was such an extraordinary measure that a State could not be reasonably expected to provide details in its legislation on the regime to be applied in such cases. 188. Moreover, the applicant, who had been wanted for serious offences carrying the death penalty, did not contend before the Court that he could not have foreseen that he would be incarcerated under exceptional conditions should he be arrested. 189. In conclusion, the Court finds that there has been no violation of Article 7 of the Convention in the present case. IV. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 3 OF THE CONVENTION ON ACCOUNT OF THE LIFE SENTENCE PASSED ON THE APPLICANT WITHOUT POSSIBILITY OF RELEASE ON PAROLE 190. The applicant submitted that his life sentence without parole, in conjunction with the social isolation imposed on him, constituted a violation of Article 3 or Article 8 of the Convention. He also stated that a life sentence which took no account of the prisoner ’ s possible good conduct or rehabilitation, associated with a strict prison regime, attained the level of severity required by Article 3 of the Convention to constitute inhuman punishment. 191. The Government contested that argument. They referred to the nature of the crimes of which the applicant had been convicted and stressed the applicant ’ s overriding responsibility for the campaign of violence which his former organisation had conducted and which had claimed the lives of thousands of individuals, including many innocent civilian victims. The Government reiterated that the applicant had been sentenced to the death penalty, which the Turkish legislature had subsequently commuted into life imprisonment without parole. As regards the allegation concerning social isolation, the Government affirmed that the applicant was receiving visits and engaging in collective activities with the other prisoners within the limits permitted by the legislation applicable to this category of prisoner ( the fact that he had initially been the only inmate of İmralı Prison had not been the result of any decision to isolate him but had been geared solely to protecting his life ). According to the Government, the applicant had been subjected to disciplinary sanctions – for transmitting messages to a terrorist organisation or for any other disciplinary offence – in exactly the same way as all the other prisoners. ... B. Merits 193. The Court reiterates that the imposition of a life sentence on an adult offender is not in itself prohibited by or incompatible with Article 3 or any other Article of the Convention ( see Vinter and Others v. the United Kingdom [GC], nos. 66069/09, 130/10 and 3896/10, § 106, ECHR 2013 ( extracts ), and Kafkaris, cited above, § 97). 194. At the same time, the imposition of an irreducible life sentence on an adult may raise an issue under Article 3 (see Vinter and Others [GC], cited above, § 107; Nivette v. France (dec.), no. 44190/98, ECHR 2001 ‑ VII; Stanford v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 73299/01, 12 December 2002; and Wynne v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 67385/01, 22 May 2003). 195. However, a life sentence does not become irreducible by the mere fact that in practice it may be served in full. As the Court pointed out in its Vinter and Others judgment (§ 108): “ ... no Article 3 issue could arise if, for instance, a life prisoner had the right under domestic law to be considered for release but was refused on the ground that he or she continued to pose a danger to society. This is because States have a duty under the Convention to take measures for the protection of the public from violent crime and the Convention does not prohibit States from subjecting a person convicted of a serious crime to an indeterminate sentence allowing for the offender ’ s continued detention where necessary for the protection of the public (see, mutatis mutandis, T. v. the United Kingdom, § 97, and V. v. the United Kingdom, § 98, both cited above). Indeed, preventing a criminal from re-offending is one of the ‘ essential functions ’ of a prison sentence (see Mastromatteo v. Italy [GC], no. 37703/97, § 72, ECHR 2002 ‑ VIII; Maiorano and Others v. Italy, no. 28634/06, § 108, 15 December 2009; and, mutatis mutandis, Choreftakis and Choreftaki v. Greece, no. 46846/08, § 45, 17 January 2012). This is particularly so for those convicted of murder or other serious offences against the person. The mere fact that such prisoners may have already served a long period of imprisonment does not weaken the State ’ s positive obligation to protect the public; States may fulfil that obligation by continuing to detain such life sentenced prisoners for as long as they remain dangerous (see, for instance, Maiorano and Others, cited above). ” 196. In fact, in determining whether a life sentence in a given case can be regarded as irreducible, the Court has sought to ascertain whether a life prisoner can be said to have any prospect of release. Analysis of Court case-law on this point shows that where national law affords the possibility of review of a life sentence with a view to its commutation, remission, termination or the conditional release of the prisoner, this will be sufficient to satisfy Article 3 ( see Vinter and Others [GC], cited above, § § 108 and 109). 197. In its Grand Chamber judgment in the case of Vinter and Others, the Court set out the main reasons why, in order to remain compatible with Article 3, a life sentence must provide both a prospect of release and a possibility of review : “ 111. It is axiomatic that a prisoner cannot be detained unless there are legitimate penological grounds for that detention. As was recognised by the Court of Appeal in Bieber and the Chamber in its judgment in the present case, these grounds will include punishment, deterrence, public protection and rehabilitation. Many of these grounds will be present at the time when a life sentence is imposed. However, the balance between these justifications for detention is not necessarily static and may shift in the course of the sentence. What may be the primary justification for detention at the start of the sentence may not be so after a lengthy period into the service of the sentence. It is only by carrying out a review of the justification for continued detention at an appropriate point in the sentence that these factors or shifts can be properly evaluated. 112. Moreover, if such a prisoner is incarcerated without any prospect of release and without the possibility of having his life sentence reviewed, there is the risk that he can never atone for his offence: whatever the prisoner does in prison, however exceptional his progress towards rehabilitation, his punishment remains fixed and unreviewable. If anything, the punishment becomes greater with time: the longer the prisoner lives, the longer his sentence. Thus, even when a whole life sentence is condign punishment at the time of its imposition, with the passage of time it becomes – to paraphrase Lord Justice Laws in Wellington – a poor guarantee of just and proportionate punishment ... 113. Furthermore, as the German Federal Constitutional Court recognised in the Life Imprisonment case ..., it would be incompatible with the provision on human dignity in the Basic Law for the State forcefully to deprive a person of his freedom without at least providing him with the chance to someday regain that freedom. It was that conclusion which led the Constitutional Court to find that the prison authorities had the duty to strive towards a life sentenced prisoner ’ s rehabilitation and that rehabilitation was constitutionally required in any community that established human dignity as its centrepiece. Indeed, the Constitutional Court went on to make clear in the subsequent War Criminal case that this applied to all life prisoners, whatever the nature of their crimes, and that release only for those who were infirm or close to death was not sufficient ... Similar considerations must apply under the Convention system, the very essence of which, as the Court has often stated, is respect for human dignity (see, inter alia, Pretty v. the United Kingdom, no. 2346/02, § 65, ECHR 2002 ‑ III, and V.C. v. Slovakia, no. 18968/07, § 105, ECHR 2011 ) .” 198. In the same judgment ( Vinter and Others ), the Court, having considered the relevant European and international material which currently confirms the principle that all prisoners, including those serving life sentences, must have a possibility of reforming and rehabilitating and the prospect of release if such rehabilitation is achieved, drew a number of specific conclusions on life sentencing in the light of Article 3: “ 119. ... the Court considers that, in the context of a life sentence, Article 3 must be interpreted as requiring reducibility of the sentence, in the sense of a review which allows the domestic authorities to consider whether any changes in the life prisoner are so significant, and such progress towards rehabilitation has been made in the course of the sentence, as to mean that continued detention can no longer be justified on legitimate penological grounds. 120. However, the Court would emphasise that, having regard to the margin of appreciation which must be accorded to Contracting States in the matters of criminal justice and sentencing ..., it is not its task to prescribe the form (executive or judicial) which that review should take. For the same reason, it is not for the Court to determine when that review should take place. This being said, the Court would also observe that the comparative and international law materials before it show clear support for the institution of a dedicated mechanism guaranteeing a review no later than twenty-five years after the imposition of a life sentence, with further periodic reviews thereafter ... 121. It follows from this conclusion that, where domestic law does not provide for the possibility of such a review, a whole life sentence will not measure up to the standards of Article 3 of the Convention. 122. Although the requisite review is a prospective event necessarily subsequent to the passing of the sentence, a whole life prisoner should not be obliged to wait and serve an indeterminate number of years of his sentence before he can raise the complaint that the legal conditions attaching to his sentence fail to comply with the requirements of Article 3 in this regard. This would be contrary both to legal certainty and to the general principles on victim status within the meaning of that term in Article 34 of the Convention. Furthermore, in cases where the sentence, on imposition, is irreducible under domestic law, it would be capricious to expect the prisoner to work towards his own rehabilitation without knowing whether, at an unspecified, future date, a mechanism might be introduced which would allow him, on the basis of that rehabilitation, to be considered for release. A whole life prisoner is entitled to know, at the outset of his sentence, what he must do to be considered for release and under what conditions, including when a review of his sentence will take place or may be sought. Consequently, where domestic law does not provide any mechanism or possibility for review of a whole life sentence, the incompatibility with Article 3 on this ground already arises at the moment of the imposition of the whole life sentence and not at a later stage of incarceration. ” 199. In the instant case, the Court first of all reiterates its above- mentioned finding that since 17 November 2009, the applicant ’ s relative social isolation – which has been gradually reduced thanks to the improvements made by the Government in line with the CPT ’ s recommendations – has not attained the level of severity required to constitute a violation of Article 3 of the Convention. 200. It remains to be determined whether, in the light of the foregoing observations, the life sentence without parole imposed on the applicant can be regarded as irreducible for the purposes of Article 3 of the Convention. 201. The Court reiterates that the applicant was initially sentenced to capital punishment, for particularly serious crimes, namely having organised and conducted an unlawful armed campaign which caused a great many deaths. Following the promulgation of a law abolishing the death penalty and replacing death sentences which had already been imposed with sentences to aggravated life imprisonment, the applicant ’ s sentence was commuted by decision of the Assize Court, applying the new legal provisions, to aggravated life imprisonment. Such a sentence means that the applicant will remain in prison for the rest of his life, regardless of any consideration relating to his dangerousness and without any possibility of parole, even after a specific period of incarceration ( see paragraph 182 above regarding the Court ’ s findings on the complaints under Article 7 of the Convention). 202. The Court notes in that connection that section 107 of Law no. 5275 on the enforcement of sentences and security measures clearly excludes the applicant ’ s case from the scope of release on parole, as he was convicted of crimes against the State under a provision of the Criminal Code ( Book 2, Chapter 4, sub -chapter 4 ). It also notes that under Article 68 of the Criminal Code the sentence imposed on the applicant is one of the exceptions which are not subject to the statute of limitations. As a result, current legislation in Turkey clearly prohibits the applicant, in his capacity as a person sentenced to aggravated life imprisonment for a crime against the security of the State, from applying, at any time while serving his sentence, for release on legitimate penological grounds. 203. Furthermore, it is true that under Turkish law, in the event of the illness or old age of a life prisoner, the President of the Republic may order his immediate or deferred release. Nevertheless, the Court considers that release on humanitarian grounds does not correspond to the concept of “ prospect of release ” on legitimate penological grounds ( see, to similar effect, Vinter and Others, § 129). 204. It is also true that the Turkish legislature has, at fairly regular intervals, adopted general or partial amnesty laws ( the latter type of law grants release on parole after a minimum term ) in order to help resolve major social problems. However, there is no evidence before the Court that such a plan is being prepared by the Government to provide the applicant with a prospect of release. The Court must concern itself with the law as applied in practice to prisoners sentenced to aggravated life imprisonment. That legislation is characterised by a lack of any mechanism for reviewing, after a specified minimum term of incarceration, life sentences imposed for crimes such as those committed by the applicant with a view to verifying the persistence of legitimate reasons for continuing his incarceration. 205. As regards the argument that the applicant was sentenced to life imprisonment without parole because he had committed particularly serious terrorist crimes, the Court reiterates that the provisions of Article 3 of the Convention allow for no derogation and prohibit inhuman or degrading punishment in absolute terms (see paragraphs 97-98 above). 206. In the light of these findings, the Court considers that the life sentence imposed on the applicant cannot be deemed reducible for the purposes of Article 3 of the Convention. It concludes that in this context the requirements of this provision were not fulfilled in respect of the applicant. 207. There has accordingly been a violation of Article 3 of the Convention on this point. Nevertheless, the Court considers that this finding of a violation cannot be understood as giving the applicant the prospect of imminent release. The national authorities must review, under a procedure to be established by adopting legislative instruments and in line with the principles laid down by the Court in paragraphs 111 ‑ 113 of its Grand Chamber judgment in the case of Vinter and Others ( quoted in paragraph 194 of this judgment ), whether the applicant ’ s continued incarceration is still justified after a minimum term of detention, either because the requirements of punishment and deterrence have not yet been entirely fulfilled or because the applicant ’ s continued detention is justified by reason of his dangerousness. ...
The Court held that there had been a violation of Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment) of the Convention as to the conditions of the applicant’s detention up to 17 November 2009 and that there had been no violation of Article 3 as regards the conditions of his detention during the period subsequent to that date. On the one hand, in view of a certain number of aspects, such as the lack of communication facilities that would have overcome the applicant’s social isolation, together with the persisting major difficulties for his visitors to gain access to the prison, the Court found that the conditions of detention imposed on the applicant up to 17 November 2009 had constituted inhuman treatment. On the other hand, having regard in particular to the arrival of other detainees at the İmralı prison and to the increased frequency of visits, it came to the opposite conclusion as regards his detention subsequent to that date.  The Court also held that there had been a violation of Article 3 as regards the applicant’s sentence to life imprisonment without any possibility of conditional release, finding that, in the absence of any review mechanism, the life prison sentence imposed on the applicant constituted an “irreducible” sentence that amounted to inhuman treatment.  The Court further held that there had been no violation of Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life) of the Convention, considering that in view of the Turkish Government’s legitimate fear that the applicant might use communications with the outside world to contact members of the PKK, the restrictions on his right to respect for private and family life had not exceeded what was necessary for the prevention of disorder or crime.