9.  The applicant was born in 1938 and currently lives in Lancashire. 10.  In 1953 he joined the British army at 15 years of age. He served with the Royal Engineers between February 1954 and April 1968, when he was discharged for reasons unrelated to the present application.
In 1981 he was diagnosed as suffering from hypertension and late onset bronchial asthma and in 1989 he was found to have high blood pressure and chronic obstructive airways disease (bronchitis – COAD). He has not worked since 1992 or thereabouts and is registered as an invalid. 11.  The Chemical and Biological Defence Establishment at Porton Down (“Porton Down”) was established during the First World War in order to conduct research into chemical weapons with a view to advancing the protection of the United Kingdom's armed forces against such weapons. The research included tests of gases on humans as well as on animals. Servicemen who participated in the tests were paid extra wages. 12.  The applicant participated in such tests at Porton Down. While there was some debate as to whether he attended in 1962, it was not disputed that he did so in July 1963. His service medical records contained no record of any tests at Porton Down. 13.  The applicant alleged as follows. In the spring of 1962 he was invited to Porton Down; he was medically examined on arrival; he was asked on three or four occasions to enter a sealed and unventilated room, where he was seated and strapped to a chair; over a period of about six hours, drops of mustard gas were applied to patches of tissue which were then taped to his skin; he was told that, if he was unlucky, he might suffer temporary pain or discomfort but otherwise he was not given any, or any proper, warning about the possible consequences of the tests for his health; once the tests were finished he returned to his unit; there was no further medical examination after he left Porton Down. He relied on a memorandum and file note of 13 November 1989 (see paragraph 24 below) and on the conclusions in this respect of 14 January 2004 of the Pensions Appeal Tribunal (“the PAT” – see paragraph 63 below) to substantiate his participation in tests in 1962. 14.  While the Government did not deny that participation, they pointed to a number of matters that appeared to militate against such a conclusion: the summary and alphabetical record books did not refer to his attendance in 1962 but only to his attendance in 1963; there was no documentary evidence at all of the 1962 tests whereas certain records existed of his 1963 tests; and if the PAT had accepted his participation in the 1962 tests, this was based solely on his recollections. 15.  The nerve gas (known as “G-agent” or “GF”) test is described in the relevant records as “exposure to single-breath GF”. The applicant alleged that he was told before the test that the experiment “could not harm a mouse”; that he was placed in an air-tight, glass-partitioned cubicle containing a face mask, the mask was placed over his mouth and nose, the fitting was checked and the chamber was sealed; that a loudspeaker informed him that the test was about to begin and to inhale normally; that he felt an immediate tightening of the chest muscles and lungs which wore off after the end of the test; and that blood samples were taken at regular intervals during the following twenty-four hours. The Government submitted that diluted GF vapours were put into a gas chamber and, as the name of the test suggested, volunteers took a single breath of air with calculated doses of GF gas through a tube connected to that chamber, they held their breath for two seconds and then exhaled. 16.  The other test involved mustard gas and was described in the records as “H sensitivity and penetration”. According to the applicant, it followed the same format as that in 1962.
The Government added the following detail: the mustard gas test was designed to test the performance of protective clothing and was carried out in two parts. The first was a sensitivity test to determine an individual's sensitivity to mustard gas and it involved the placement of a dilute solution of the gas on the participant's upper arm. If after twenty-four hours the test subject had a small red mark, he or she was deemed too sensitive and did not participate any further in the tests. On the other hand, if the participant was not demonstrably sensitive, the second part consisted of putting a drop of dilute mustard gas solution on three samples of protective clothing left in place on the participant's body and the skin under the clothing was examined after six and then twenty-four hours. The participants were monitored before and after the tests. The rooms were properly ventilated, the dosages were small and safe and the tests were carefully planned and controlled. 17.  From 1981 the applicant was medically treated for breathlessness and high blood pressure and by 1987 these problems had significantly worsened. He began to search for his Porton Down records through what he described as “medical” and “political” channels. 18.  In response to his doctor's enquiry, in late 1987 the Ministry of Defence (MOD) supplied his doctor with his service medical records on a “medical in confidence” basis. Those records did not refer to the applicant's Porton Down tests. 19.  In a letter of 14 November 1989, Porton Down responded to another enquiry from his doctor. The letter was sent on a “medical in confidence” basis and confirmed the applicant's participation in a GF gas test in July 1963. That GF test had been preceded and succeeded by a full medical examination which revealed no abnormality. The letter also referred (inaccurately, as it later emerged – see paragraph 36 below) to seven blood tests conducted after the GF test and to their results and confirmed that “peak flow meter measurements” had also been taken from the applicant and that “breath-holding tests”, a clothing penetration study (apparently, although not expressly noted, the mustard gas tests) and a battery of personality tests were performed. The results of these tests were not included in the letter and no other records supporting the statements made in the letter were enclosed. His doctor's stamp on it indicates that he decided to tell the applicant that all was normal. The applicant persuaded his doctor to show him the letter in 1994. 20.  By a letter dated 14 December 1989, a consultant informed the applicant's doctor that he doubted that the applicant's bronchial asthma was caused by his exposure to nerve gas. Further tests were to be carried out. 21.  A letter from Dr H. (a professor of environmental toxicology at the University of Leeds and later the court-appointed expert witness in the PAT proceedings – see paragraphs 42-68 below) dated 5 December 1994 to the applicant stated that full and detailed records were required to judge the long-term effects of his participation in the tests and that a long-term epidemiological study would have been useful either to establish that there were long-term effects or to reassure test participants that there were none. His letter of 10 July 1996 repeated his view as to the need for such a study. 22.  An internal Porton Down memorandum of 24 November 1997 noted that certain blood-test figures given in the letter to the applicant's doctor of 14 November 1989 were inaccurate. In addition, it was considered that the applicant's description of the tests was roughly consistent with the procedures in the 1960s. While there were no obvious gaps in the 1960s records, it could not be said that the records were complete: the applicant could have attended in 1962 and his name could have been omitted or incorrectly recorded due to a clerical error. 23.  Inter alia, the applicant carried out a sit-in hunger strike at Porton Down, held a press conference in the House of Commons and requested members of parliament to put parliamentary questions. 24.  Between 11 and 14 November 1989, the applicant went on hunger strike outside Porton Down. On 13 November 1989 he spoke with the Secretary of Porton Down. The latter noted in a memorandum of that date that the applicant's description of the tests was strong enough to indicate that he had been there and he recommended a further search of the records. He also recorded in a file note (of the same date) that the applicant's description of his visits to Porton Down in 1962 and 1963 left him with a level of confidence that he had been a volunteer there on both occasions. This led to the letter of 14 November 1989 to the applicant's doctor (see paragraph 19 above). 25.  In January 1994 the applicant formed the Porton Down Volunteers Association with the object of seeking recognition and redress for test participants. The association has over 300 members to date. 26.  By a letter dated 26 January 1994, the Chief Executive of Porton Down answered, at the request of the Secretary of State for Defence, a series of questions raised by a member of parliament about chemical and biological warfare testing. The Chief Executive's letter described the test procedure, stating that participants were given a medical examination before and after the tests and recalled for check-ups “from time to time”. It was pointed out that there was no evidence that the health of participants had deteriorated because of their test participation. On 22 June 1994 the Chief Executive confirmed the well-established policy of the MOD of releasing service medical records to a veteran's doctor on a “medical in confidence” basis. The Chief Executive's letter of 7 March 1995 (in response to a parliamentary question to the Minister of State for Defence) noted that the tests did not include any plan for long-term systematic monitoring of participants: any monitoring thereafter was purely ad hoc and sporadic. 27.  On 2 February 1994 the applicant wrote to the MOD requesting copies of his medical records and of reports on the relevant tests. The reply of 9 March 1994 from Porton Down recalled the MOD policy of release on a “medical in confidence” basis. The applicant's doctor had been provided with information in 1989 on this basis. It was “entirely up to your own doctor how much or how little of this information he conveys to you”. Further queries from the applicant led to a similar response from Porton Down by letter dated 20 April 1994. 28.  On 12 December 1994 Lord Henley stated in the House of Lords that the MOD would continue to send veterans to their doctors and would release medical records as appropriate. Information was provided to doctors to allow proper diagnosis and “would be released, if necessary”. He repeated that there was no evidence over the previous forty years that test participants had suffered harm to their health. 29.  In response to a series of parliamentary questions put to the Secretary of State for Defence as to the necessity for a public inquiry, the government's representative replied on 28 February 1995 that there was no evidence that any test participants had suffered any long-term damage to their health in the past four decades. Similar responses as to the lack of evidence of harm to the test participants were given by the Minister of State for Defence in Parliament on 4 April and 2 May 1995 in response to questions concerning the instigation of a study into the long-term health effects of exposure to chemical and biological substances. 30.  On 25 April 1995 the applicant and the Labour Party defence spokesman took part in a press conference on the question of Porton Down volunteers and their requirements. 31.  Following a meeting between them, on 2 December 1997 the Minister of State for Defence wrote to the applicant. He referred to the concerns of the applicant (and other test participants) that information about the tests was being withheld. He confirmed that this was not the case but rather reflected “less than thorough” record-keeping than would be currently expected. Henceforth all volunteers would be able to obtain access to all the information held on them at Porton Down and steps would be taken to declassify reports so as to make that information more accessible.
Certain copies of test documents were enclosed: (a) the alphabetical record book which recorded the applicant's attendance at Porton Down between 13 and 19 July 1963; (b) the summary record book which referred to the two tests carried out on the applicant involving GF and mustard gas and listed the monitoring procedures that were to be carried out on the applicant (chest X-rays, peak flow meter tests, “x 3 x alcohol” quiz, breath-holding tests and blood tests); and (c) a report entitled “Effects of Inhaled GF on Man” which described the single breath GF test and contained an analysis of the results of the tests carried out on fifty-six participants, believed to include the applicant's test. It was indicated that these documents were available to any test participant who requested them.
This was the first material obtained by the applicant about his participation in the tests.
The letter went on to note that much GF-related research work had already been published in open literature or was in the Public Record Office. The review of files to be disclosed would continue and the applicant was given a list of all relevant research papers already published between 1957 and 1987. There was no evidence to date to suggest that any volunteer had suffered long-term adverse effects. A full independent and long-term study of the health impacts of test participation was not, however, considered feasible or practical so none had been or would be carried out. 32.  In a letter dated 31 August 1999 to the PAT, Porton Down indicated that it was well acquainted with the applicant, having received numerous communications from him and from members of parliament. 33.  By a letter dated 3 May 2001, Porton Down informed the applicant that it had discovered some old laboratory notebooks that included information about the 1963 tests: one book included some previously unavailable details of the mustard patch tests. A pre-exposure chest X-ray and the associated report card were also now available. The applicant was to contact Porton Down if he wanted to see this material or obtain copies. 34.  As well as those disclosed with the Minister of State's letter of 2 December 1997, the following documents were also submitted to the Court. 35.  The Government indicated that these were all the relevant records that could be traced: (a) an extract from a laboratory record of results of personality and intelligence tests; (b) extracts from laboratory records of GF blood tests – seven blood samples were taken from the applicant; and (c) an explanation of the GF blood-test results. 36.  The Government corrected their previous explanations of the seven blood samples (see paragraph 19 above): one was taken on 13 July 1963, a second one prior to the applicant's exposure to GF and the remaining five were taken later. They also corrected other errors relating to information provided in their earlier observations about those tests including the following: “the reference to '25 milligrams of GF [vapour per kilogram of body weight]' appears to have been a typographical error. In fact, calculated doses of GF ranged from 0.16 to 2.84 microgrammes per kilogramme of body weight.” They also disclosed documents recently discovered following a further search: (a) the applicant's pre-exposure X-ray and its associated report card (see paragraph 33 above); (b) a report dated August 1942 which described the manner in which the sensitivity tests to mustard gas were performed and entitled “Technique of the Physiological Experiments Carried Out on the Human Subjects at [Porton Down]”; and (c) extracts from a laboratory notebook entitled “Overgarment Tests. Mustard on Men”, relating to mid-July 1963 and referring to the applicant. 37.  On 10 June 1991 the applicant claimed a service pension on the grounds of “hypertension/breathing problems” resulting from the Porton Down tests (and, in addition, from his radiation exposure on Christmas Island during the relevant nuclear tests there). The Department of Social Security (DSS) obtained copies of his service and civilian medical records together with a report from his doctor, which confirmed that he suffered from hypertension, COAD and late onset bronchial asthma. On 28 January 1992 the Secretary of State rejected his claim for a service pension as there was no causal link demonstrated between the tests and those medical conditions. The applicant did not pursue an appeal at that stage. 38.  The applicant consulted solicitors in 1994 and obtained legal aid for proceedings. By a letter dated 14 November 1994 to the Secretary of State, his solicitors threatened proceedings, alleging, inter alia, negligence, assault and breach of statutory duty on the part of the MOD, and demanding the release of all medical and laboratory records in the possession of the Secretary of State or of Porton Down as regards the test periods in 1962 and 1963, failing which the applicant would apply to the High Court for pre-action discovery. The applicant's representatives met with MOD representatives in early January 1995 on a “without prejudice” basis and by a letter dated 5 June 1995 requested confirmation from the MOD as to whether a certificate would be issued under section 10 of the 1947 Act (“a section 10 certificate”). 39.  By a letter dated 4 July 1995 to the applicant's solicitors, the claims section of the MOD wrote as follows:
“War Pensions Agency has informed me that a section 10 certificate in respect of acute bronchitis (1963), a bruised knee and loss of hearing will be regarded as attributable to service and a section 10 certificate will be issued. The other ailments for which [the applicant] claimed a war pension have not been regarded as attributable to service.” 40.  On 3 August 1995 a section 10 certificate was signed by the Secretary of State:
“In so far as the personal injury of [the applicant] is due to anything suffered as a result of his service in the Army between 16 February 1954 and 2 April 1968, I hereby certify that his suffering that thing has been treated as attributable to service for the purpose of entitlement to an award under the Naval, Military and Air Forces Etc. (Disablement and Death) Service Pensions Order 1983, which relates to disablement or death of members of the Army.” 41.  By a letter dated 8 August 1995, the Treasury Solicitor provided a copy of the section 10 certificate to the applicant's representatives. 42.  Following the judgment of this Court in McGinley and Egan v. the United Kingdom (judgment of 9 June 1998, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1998-III) and the Government's disclosure of certain documents in their observations in the present case (on 9 March 1998), the applicant requested an adjournment of the present application in order to pursue an appeal to the PAT and, in particular, disclosure of documents under Rule 6 of the Pensions Appeal Tribunals (England and Wales) Rules 1980 (“the PAT Rules”). The present application was adjourned. 43.  On 1 June 1998 he lodged his PAT appeal. Since the War Pensions Agency (“the WPA” – a specialised agency of the Department of Social Security) clarified that a further form was required, on 8 November 1998 the applicant re-lodged the appeal. 44.  In February 1999 the applicant received his “Statement of Case”. He obtained two extensions of the time-limit for the submission of his “answer” to the Statement of Case (to take advice from an expert chemical pathologist on the documents already disclosed and on those which were also to be requested during the PAT appeal and to consider the intervening observations of the Government in the present application) and he indicated that he would be making an application under Rule 6(1) of the PAT Rules. 45.  On 30 July 1999 his answer was submitted to the WPA along with a letter which noted that the answer included an application for disclosure of documents under Rule 6(1) of the PAT Rules: paragraph 18 of the answer set out a list of seventeen categories of document required by him under that rule. 46.  On 10 August 1999 the WPA responded by pointing out that enquiries were being made to obtain all the information requested under Rule 6(1) of the PAT Rules. Once received, the WPA would ask for the agreement of the President of the PAT to disclose it. 47.  On the same day the WPA wrote to Porton Down enclosing a copy of the applicant's Rule 6 request and asking for the information as soon as possible so that the agreement of the President of the PAT could be obtained. 48.  On 14 March and 13 April 2000 the WPA sent the supplementary Statement of Case (now incorporating the supplemental medical evidence) to the applicant and to the PAT, respectively. 49.  On 3 August 2000 the President of the PAT responded to the applicant's enquiry, indicating that his case had not been listed as it awaited production of further documentary evidence and the Secretary of State's response. However, since the Rule 6 request should not have been made in the applicant's answer to the Statement of Case, that request had just come to light. The applicant was to confirm to the President if he intended paragraph 18 of his answer to constitute his Rule 6 request and, if so, the President would be grateful to receive any observations that would assist his consideration of the relevance of the documents to the appeal issues. The applicant was also to identify the State department to which a Rule 6 direction should be addressed. 50.  On 9 November 2000 the applicant confirmed to the President of the PAT that paragraph 18 of his answer did indeed constitute his Rule 6 request and he made detailed submissions on the matters requested by the President. 51.  By a letter dated 13 November 2000, the President of the PAT requested the applicant to submit a draft direction and attend a hearing on it since he was concerned that the wording of some parts of the Rule 6 request appeared to be ambiguous and lacking in clarity. The applicant submitted a draft direction (essentially listing those documents already included in paragraph 18 of his answer). 52.  By an order dated 1 February 2001, the President of the PAT directed, pursuant to Rule 6(1) of the PAT Rules, disclosure of the scheduled documents by the Secretary of State since the documents “were likely to be relevant to the issues to be determined in the appeal”. 53.  On 6 July 2001 the Secretary of State responded to the direction of the President of the PAT. It was marked “medical in confidence”. It referred to the documents already submitted by the Government to this Court (see paragraphs 34-36 above). The Secretary of State was unable to give a definitive response to the request for the fifth category of document required (namely, “any scientific or medical reports, whether published or prepared for internal use by Porton Down, the [MOD] or other government departments or agencies of the volunteer studies or experiments in Porton Down between 1957 and 1968 which were similar or related to the studies or experiments in which [the applicant] was involved”). A full and careful review had been undertaken and was a time-consuming process. Many of the documents identified as being possibly relevant to the request were classified. The Secretary of State had asked for an urgent review of the classification to be undertaken and, once the review was completed, he would let the PAT have his full response. Otherwise the Secretary of State provided various explanations of the documents already submitted by the Government to this Court and details of the precise dates on which the applicant would have participated in the tests, of the levels of exposure to gases and of various headings and abbreviations in the disclosed documents. The only documents (additional to those already submitted to this Court) disclosed to the PAT were the applicant's service and payment records, the latter of which included a payment for attendance for a week at Porton Down in July 1963. 54.  The MOD's letter was passed to the applicant on 25 July 2001. By a letter dated 19 July 2002, the applicant wrote to the PAT apologising for not having responded and explaining the reasons for the delay. 55.  By a letter dated 23 August 2002, the MOD disclosed documents concerning the above-described fifth category: two reports entitled “The feasibility of performing follow-up studies of the health of volunteers attending [Porton Down]” and “The single-breath administration of Sarin”, from which individual names had been blanked out. The feasibility report acknowledged that the records held at Porton Down prior to the late 1970s generally consisted of the name, service number and age of participants at the date of testing but were not “sufficient to allow either a comprehensive morbidity study or mortality study to proceed”. While a study could be carried out on post-1976 test participants, “such a study would be of very limited value and may only serve to draw attention to [Porton Down's] interest in possible long-term health problems experienced by volunteers”. The feasibility report concluded that a comprehensive follow-up study of all volunteers was “impractical”. Porton Down's library catalogue had also mentioned a document entitled “Unique papers relating to early exposure of volunteers to GD [O-Pinacolyl methylphosphonoflouidate, commonly known as Soman] and GF and DM [diphenylaminearsine chloride, commonly known as Adamsite]”. However, a copy of this document could not be located. A letter of 20 August 2002 was also enclosed which certified that nine of the requested documents were “in the nature of departmental minutes or records” and would not therefore be disclosed (Rule 6(1) of the PAT Rules). 56.  A hearing was fixed for 3 October 2002. On 27 September 2002 the applicant was obliged to request an adjournment since his counsel had advised that further questions needed to be put to Dr H. On 30 September 2002 the PAT declined to adjourn, indicating that it was unlikely Dr H. could or would prepare a report. 57.  On 2 October 2002 the MOD wrote to the PAT and the applicant. While nine documents had been previously certified as non-disclosable, (letter of 23 August 2002 – see paragraph 55 above), seven of those nine documents could now be disclosed. The MOD had “had the opportunity of re-examining the documents ... with a view to assessing whether [they] could be the subject of voluntary disclosure ... in an effort to ensure that everything that can be disclosed has been disclosed and so as to ensure the maximum openness and the maximum assistance to the [PAT]”. Certain blocking out had been done on some disclosed documents to protect the identities of staff involved and to excise irrelevant material. Two documents could still not be disclosed: the first did not appear “to contain anything of relevance” to the applicant's tests and, in any event, “contained information which remains security sensitive and is not properly subject to voluntary disclosure on security grounds”; and the second required permission from the United States before it could be disclosed. 58.  The appeal was scheduled for 3 October 2002. The applicant applied for an adjournment supported by the Veterans Agency (the successor of the WPA – “the VA”). The PAT decision (delivered on 7 October 2002) recorded as follows:
“The [PAT] are deeply disturbed that this application has proved necessary as a result of the [applicant's] advisers' failure to consider documents disclosed over a year ago, in a timely fashion.
However, since the [VA] also appear to be without documentation and there is confusion by the [applicant] as to whether he also wishes to appeal for hypertension, we have reluctantly decided to allow the adjournment.
It is highly unsatisfactory that Court resources have been wasted in this way. To prevent this happening in the future the Tribunal intend to exercise some control over the ongoing progress of the appeal.”
The PAT was to clarify with the MOD the status of certain classified documents and the extent to which they could be released to the public, and directed the MOD to provide, by 21 October 2002, disclosure of further documents. The MOD, the VA and the applicant were to notify the PAT by 18 November 2002 of the questions and documents it wanted Dr H. to examine. It was intended that the PAT would add its own questions and submit a composite questionnaire to Dr H. who would report in response to the PAT. The applicant was also to confirm his position as regards the hypertension appeal by 28 October 2002. 59.  On 21 October 2002, the MOD disclosed to the PAT three declassified documents. These were forwarded by the PAT to the applicant by a letter dated 8 November 2002, accompanied by a warning that the MOD had released the documents for the purpose of the appeal and that no information in them was to be used for any other purpose without the consent of the MOD. By a letter dated 25 October 2002, the applicant confirmed that his appeal had been intended to cover hypertension also, he explained the reasons for his confusion and he requested an extension of time to so appeal. A hypertension appeal form was lodged with the PAT on 5 December 2002. 60.  By a letter dated 3 December 2002, the PAT wrote to Dr H. enclosing the documents disclosed by the MOD (at that point) with two sets of questions (prepared by the applicant and the medical member of the PAT). By a letter dated 19 February 2003, Dr H. provided the PAT with a report. The applicant having noted that Dr H. had omitted to respond to the PAT questions, Dr H. did so in a supplemental report sent to the PAT under cover of a letter dated 14 May 2003. 61.  In a document dated 14 October 2003, the MOD submitted its comments on Dr H.'s reports. On 16 October 2003 the VA submitted a supplementary Statement of Case. 62.  The PAT appeal hearing took place on 23 October 2003. It allowed the hypertension appeal to be heard out of time but, once it became clear that the VA had not processed the appeal documentation filed by the applicant, the PAT reluctantly granted the MOD an adjournment to allow the VA time to “properly consider all the evidential material and prepare a reasoned medical opinion”. The COAD appeal was, however, dismissed. 63.  On 14 January 2004 the PAT delivered its written decision. As to the facts, the PAT accepted that the applicant had undergone tests for mustard gas “some time in 1962 as well as the documented tests in July 1963” despite the fact that there was no reference in his service records or in other research records to the 1962 test. The PAT also found “disquieting” the “difficulties” experienced by the applicant in obtaining the records which were produced to the PAT. The PAT also established the following facts:
“1.  We find that [the applicant] suffered no long-term respiratory effect from skin contact with mustard gas following both tests in 1962 and 1963. 2.  We find that [the applicant] was administered only small doses of mustard gas and GF gas which would have resulted in minimal exposure to mustard gas by off-gassing and a limited and transitory reaction to the GF gas. Although no records relating to doses exist, the mustard gas tests were designed to test the suitability of military clothing to exposure and were not a gas test per se. Furthermore, after a fatality at Porton Down in 1953, safeguards were put in place to ensure that volunteers were only exposed to safe dosages. 3.  The compelling weight of the evidence is that [the applicant] did not receive, in any of the tests, dosages likely to have long-term effects as described in the research papers. In particular, the [PAT expert], although accepting the possibility that given further research through a long-term follow-up study a link might be found, concludes that there is no evidence to link [the applicant's] exposure to either gases with his present condition. We accept [the PAT expert's] conclusion that, given the limited doses and [the applicant's] minimal immediate reactions, this would rule out a link between the tests and the claimed conditions. 4.  We particularly rely on [Dr H.'s] expert report. He has analysed the specific data relevant to [the applicant's] case and considered the conditions for which he is claiming in relation to that specific data. The research papers relied on by the [applicant], although of some evidential value, are very general and speculative. We therefore prefer the evidence, and the conclusions reached by [Dr H.] in his reports.”
The PAT also accepted, as a matter of law, that it was sufficient to show that the proved service event was only one of the causes of the condition even if there were other contributory factors. However, it stated:
“2.  We do not accept that the lack of possible evidence of other follow-up tests is sufficient to constitute reliable evidence. 3.  We find that there is some reliable evidence surrounding the Porton Down tests for which [the applicant] volunteered. However, this evidence tends, if anything, to support the view that there is in fact no link between those tests and [the applicant's] current conditions. The test of reasonable doubt is not therefore met. 4.  There is no reliable evidence to suggest a causal link between the tests for either mustard gas or GF gas and the claimed condition. 5.  [The PAT expert's] views that 'he cannot exclude the possibility' of a link between exposure to GF and/or mustard gas and the claimed condition, does not meet the 'reasonable doubt' test. Furthermore, he 'rules out' exposure to GF as a cause and deems it 'unlikely' that mustard gas is a cause. 6.  Finally, [the applicant's counsel] invites us to allow the appeal for reasons which can be summarised as 'general fairness'. The [PAT] does not have legislative or discretionary power to do so. The decision of the [PAT] is to disallow the appeal for [COAD].” 64.  On 4 February 2004 the applicant applied to the PAT for leave to appeal to the High Court (on the COAD matter) and for a stay of the hypertension appeal then pending before the PAT. On 26 April 2004 leave was refused, the PAT's reserved decision being delivered on 28 April 2004. 65.  On 11 May 2004 the applicant applied for leave to appeal to the High Court. On 13 July 2004 leave was granted. 66.  The applicant's appeal notice and supporting skeleton argument were submitted on 10 August 2004. The appeal was listed to be heard on 7 October 2004. 67.  On 8 October 2004 the High Court allowed the appeal and referred the matter back to the PAT for a further hearing. 68.  On 7 March 2005 a directions hearing was held before the PAT. It ordered the hypertension and COAD appeals to be heard together and mutual disclosure of any further documents relevant to the appeal by 18 April 2005. On the latter date the Treasury Solicitor produced a “schedule of disclosure” listing and disclosing eleven documents: apart from three items, the applicant had not seen them before. The Treasury Solicitor maintained that disclosure of most of the documents (including two sets of minutes of meetings which Rule 6 specifies can be withheld) was not obligatory as they were of marginal relevance, noted that all documents had been downgraded to “unclassified” and indicated that the MOD would endeavour to produce the annexes referred to in certain documents. 69.  The armed forces have, since 1998, put in place a service to deal with enquiries from Porton Down test participants (“the 1998 Scheme”). The relevant information pamphlet noted that participants could request their test records, that a search would be carried out for references to that person and for additional evidence of actual procedures, that a summary would be provided and that, if the person wanted to go to Porton Down, he or she could obtain the actual records. While the pamphlet noted that reasonably comprehensive records had existed since 1942, individuals had to accept that old records in some cases were very sparse, that record keeping in years gone by was not up to current standards and that in certain cases a person's attendance might not even have been marked. The pamphlet claimed that no participant was worse off after the Porton Down tests. 70.  In 2001 the Porton Down Volunteers Medical Assessment Programme was established by the MOD to investigate health concerns of Porton Down test participants. The study involved 111 participants but no control group. The report, published in April 2004, was entitled “Clinical Findings in 111 Ex-Porton Down Volunteers”. It noted that over 20,000 had participated in the tests since Porton Down's establishment in 1916 and that 3,000 had participated in nerve gas tests and 6,000 in mustard gas tests, with some servicemen having been exposed to both. It concluded that:
“On a clinical basis, no evidence was found to support the hypothesis that participation in Porton Down trials produced any long-term adverse health effects or unusual patterns of disease compared to those of the general population of the same age.” 71.  From July 2002 the MOD funded “an initial pilot research project” on mortality and cancer incidence among Porton Down test participants. It compared 500 participants with a control group of 500 other servicemen and the decision was taken that a full-scale epidemiological study should be undertaken. By mid-2003 this had begun and it was expected to take about two years to complete. 72.  Further to the death of Aircraftsman Maddison in May 1953 after being exposed to Sarin gas (also referred to as GB gas, a nerve agent related to GF), a coroner's inquest was held and recorded “death by misadventure”. An application was brought for a fresh inquest alleging, inter alia, that incomplete evidence had been brought before the coroner and in November 2002 the Court of Appeal ordered a fresh inquest. It concluded on 15 November 2004 with the jury finding that the cause of Mr Maddison's death was the “application of a nerve agent in a non-therapeutic experiment”. Judicial review proceedings appear to be pending.
In or around 2004-05 a non-governmental organisation (“Porton Down Veterans”) discovered during searches in the Public Record Office two letters of May and August 1953 containing legal advice from the Treasury Solicitor to the MOD about Mr Maddison's case and about section 10 of the 1947 Act. That organisation sent this material to the Veterans Policy Unit – Legacy Health Issues of the MOD on 7 February 2005. The Treasury Solicitor's letter of August 1953 noted as follows:
“When the case was referred to me previously I did consider the relevance of section 10 of the Crown Proceedings Act 1947 but I came to the conclusion that it had no application. On the information before me I am still of that opinion. Subsection (1) of that section, which deals with injuries caused by acts of members of the Armed Forces, can have no application since the administration of the GB gas to ... Maddison was (so I understand) carried out by [civilian] personnel and not by any member of the Armed Forces. Subsection (2) also seems inapplicable. [It] provides that no proceedings in tort are to lie against the Crown for death or personal injury due to anything suffered by a member of the Armed Forces if that thing is suffered by him 'in consequence of the nature or condition of any equipment or supplies used for the purposes of the Armed Forces of the Crown'. As I understand the facts of this case, GB gas cannot be said to be a 'supply used for the purposes of the Armed Forces' at all, it being purely an experimental substance and one which has never been used for the purposes of the Armed Forces. If this is correct, then section 10 of the 1947 Act cannot protect the Crown or the Minister from liability.”


5.  The applicant was born in 1965 and is presently detained in Gdańsk, Poland. 6.  On 28 May 2001 the applicant was arrested by the police while crossing the Latvian-Polish border. On 29 May 2001 he was questioned by the police. On 30 May 2001 the applicant was heard by a prosecutor and was charged with robbery committed while acting in an organised criminal gang. 7.  On 30 May 2001 the Gdańsk District Court decided to place the applicant in pre-trial detention in view of the reasonable suspicion that he had committed armed robberies as a member of an organised criminal gang. 8.  On 17 August 2001 the Gdańsk Regional Court extended the applicant’s detention relying, in addition to the grounds originally given, on the risk that the applicant would interfere with the course of the proceedings, since the leader of the organised gang had not yet been arrested. 9.  On 13 November and 18 December 2001 the applicant’s detention was extended by the same court. It based its decision on the risk that a severe sentence would be imposed, which made it probable that the applicant would interfere with the course of the proceedings. Moreover, the court relied on the complexity of the case, as it concerned organised crime. 10.  Subsequently, the applicant’s pre-trial detention was extended, inter alia, on 21 March 2002 and 19 March 2003. The Regional Court reiterated the original grounds given for detention and held that keeping the applicant in custody was necessary for securing the evidence. In the latter decision the court considered that although the investigation had been lengthy, it had been justified by the complexity of the case. 11.  Afterwards, as the length of the applicant’s detention had reached the statutory time‑limit of two years laid down in Article 263 § 3 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Kodeks postępowania karnego), the Regional Court applied to the Gdańsk Court of Appeal (Sąd Apelacyjny) asking for the applicant’s detention to be extended beyond that term. On 19 March, 27 June and 17 December 2003 the Gdańsk Court of Appeal allowed the application and extended his pre‑trial detention. The Court of Appeal based its decisions on the reasonable suspicion that the applicant had committed serious offences and on the risk that he might interfere with the course of justice. The court further considered that the complexity of the case constituted an extraordinary circumstance justifying his continued detention. The court also referred to the fact that the applicant did not have a permanent place of residence in Poland. 12.  In the meantime, on 16 June 2003, the applicant and 14 other co‑accused were indicted before the Gdańsk Regional Court. 13.  In 2004 the applicant’s detention was extended by decisions of the Gdansk Court of Appeal given on 16 June and 28 December. The court reiterated the grounds given previously. 14.  On 14 June and 22 November 2005 the applicant’s detention was further extended. The court observed that the period of detention had been excessive given the complexity of the case and the need to ensure the proper conduct of the final stages of the trial. 15.  On 22 February 2006 the applicant’s detention was further extended. The applicant’s numerous applications for release and appeals against the decisions extending his detention were to no avail. 16.  During the entire proceedings the applicant made numerous, unsuccessful applications for release and appealed, likewise unsuccessfully, against the decisions extending his detention. 17.  On 30 May 2006 the Gdańsk Regional Court gave judgment. The court convicted the applicant and sentenced him to seven years’ imprisonment. It appears that the applicant requested that the reasoned judgment be served on him with a view to lodging an appeal. 18.  It appears that the proceedings are pending before the Court of Appeal. The applicant remains in detention.


4.  The applicant was born in 1972 and lives in Diyarbakır. 5.  On 31 October 2000 the applicant was taken into police custody in Diyarbakır on suspicion of membership of Hezbollah, an illegal armed organisation. In his police statement dated 9 November 2000, taken in the absence of a lawyer, the applicant accepted the charges against him. 6.  On 10 November 2000 the applicant was brought before the public prosecutor and subsequently the investigating judge. Before the public prosecutor and the investigating judge, the applicant denied that he was a member of Hezbollah. 7.  On 30 November 2000 the public prosecutor at the Diyarbakır State Security Court filed a bill of indictment and accused the applicant of membership of an illegal armed organisation. He requested that the applicant be charged and sentenced pursuant to Article 168 of the Criminal Code. On 30 April 2002 the Diyarbakır State Security Court convicted the applicant as charged and sentenced him to twelve years and six months' imprisonment. In convicting the applicant, the court had regard to his statement taken in the absence of a lawyer. 8.  On 30 April 2002 the applicant appealed. On 19 June 2002 the Principal Public Prosecutor at the Court of Cassation lodged a written opinion, in which he submitted that the Court of Cassation should uphold the judgment of the State Security Court. This opinion was not served on the applicant or his representative. On 21 October 2002 the Court of Cassation upheld the judgment of the Diyarbakır State Security Court. 9.  On 8 July 2005 the applicant was released from prison.


5.  The applicant was born in 1959 and lives in Dzerzhinsk, the Nizhniy Novgorod region. 6.  On 26 May 1998 the applicant was arrested, charged with the unlawful possession of firearms and attempted murder of a police officer, and remanded in custody. 7.  On 12 October 1998 the Criminal Section of the Nizhniy Novgorod Regional Court, composed of a professional judge and two lay assessors, convicted the applicant as charged and sentenced him to fifteen years and six months’ imprisonment. The court referred to statements from five witnesses: two eyewitnesses, two forensic medical examination reports and a ballistic expert’s report. The applicant had extensive opportunities to cross-examine those witnesses and challenge other pieces of evidence throughout the trial. It appears that the court refused the applicant’s request to call two more witnesses. 8.  The applicant appealed against the first-instance judgment. In his appeal submission he argued that the trial court had made wrong findings of fact and had assessed the evidence incorrectly. He did not raise any objections as to the composition of the first-instance court. 9.  On 26 April 1999 the Supreme Court of Russia examined the applicant’s appeal and reduced the sentence to eight years and six months’ imprisonment. The applicant was present at the hearing, at the end of which the operative part of the decision was read out. According to the applicant, he obtained a copy of the decision on 12 May 1999. 10.  The applicant’s attempts to avail himself of supervisory review proved unsuccessful. 11.  On 17 March 2004 the applicant was released on parole. 12.  According to the applicant, he was held in remand prison IZ – 32/1 in the city of Nizhniy Novgorod (СИЗО – 32/1) from 26 May 1998 to 16 March 1999. 13.  The applicant was kept in a cell designed to hold 24 inmates. During the applicant’s detention the cell accommodated 120 inmates, and therefore he could only sleep taking turns, for no more than four hours a day. Due to lack of space, detainees had to remain standing the rest of the day. 14.  The window of the cell was covered with metal grilles supplemented with “eyelashes”, that is metal strips covering the grille, which let no daylight in. The cell was lit only by a single light bulb. As there was no ventilation, the air was stale and musty. The cell was overrun with cockroaches and bloodsucking insects. Neither the cell nor detainees’ personal belongings were ever sanitised. 15.  Detainees were able to take a shower every eight days. However, only a few of the shower cabins functioned properly, and therefore the detainees did not have enough time to wash themselves. The scarce meals were of poor quality, and the detainees had to eat standing, as the only table in the cell was designed for eight inmates.
(ii)  Medical assistance 16.  In December 1998 the applicant was diagnosed with tuberculosis and underwent medical treatment until 16 March 1999.
(b)  The Government’s account
(i)  General conditions of detention 17.  According to the Government, the applicant was held in remand prison IZ – 32/1 in the city of Nizhniy Novgorod from 5 June 1998 to 16 March 1999. From 26 May to 5 June 1998 he was held in a temporary detention centre of the Dzerzhinsk Directorate of the Interior, Nizhniy Novgorod Region. 18.  During his placement in remand prison IZ – 32/1 the applicant was held in cell no. 3/19, which measured 40.1 square metres and had 20 beds; cell no. 9/69, which measured 40.6 sq. m and had 24 beds; cell no. 19/266, which measured 34.1 sq. m and had 22 beds; and cell no. 1/3, which measured 40.9 sq. m and had 20 beds. 19.  The Government submitted that they were not in a position to provide information about the number of inmates held in the cells at the same time as the applicant because the relevant documents had been destroyed due to the expiry of their storage term. 20.  Every inmate was provided with an individual bed and bedding. The cells had glass windows which measured 1.6 m by 1.4 m. The windows provided natural light sufficient for reading and working. A ventlight ensured natural ventilation in addition to the mandatory ventilation system installed in the cells. The cells were also equipped with central heating. The average temperature in the cells was 18 to 20 degrees Centigrade. Every cell had a washbasin and a lavatory pan separated by a brick partition. The inmates could wash once a week. None of the cells was infested with insects or rodents.
 (ii)  Medical assistance 21.  On 5 June 1998, during a medical check conducted upon the applicant’s arrival at the remand prison, he complained of a stomach ache and loss of vision in his right eye. 22.  On 7 June 1998 the applicant underwent fluorography, which showed the following changes in his lungs: limited fibrosis of the right side and minor calcification in the roots. A tuberculosis doctor regarded these changes as post-specific and recommended supervision by a radiologist. 23.  On 1 December 1998 the applicant again underwent fluorography which showed a minor infiltration in the first intercostal space on the right side with focal shadows. A tuberculosis doctor diagnosed the applicant with focal tuberculosis of the upper part of the right lung in the infiltration phase. Mycobacterium tuberculosis was not found. 24.  The applicant was first placed in a specialised cell for treatment for tuberculosis. He was mainly treated with rifampicin (an antibiotic). 25.  On 22 August 1999 the applicant was placed in medical penitentiary institution no. 10 (ЛИУ-10). An X-ray showed improvement following the treatment. 26.  On an unspecified date the acting deputy head of the Medical Department of the Federal Service of Execution of Sentences issued a medical certificate as to the possibility of the applicant having contracted tuberculosis while in detention. The certificate read, in particular:
“- [According to the] anamnesis (the patient’s recollection), [the applicant had] peptic ulcer disease, chronic gastroduodenitis since 1996, which is a risk factor for the development of tuberculosis;
- post-specific changes in the lungs were revealed upon [the applicant’s] arrival at the remand prison [on 1 December 1998] – such changes prove that the applicant had had tuberculosis earlier;
- the patient’s attitude towards treatment was highly negative, which exacerbated the condition and caused escalation of the tuberculosis process.
Having regard to the foregoing, it is possible to assert that previous convictions, presence of risk factors, post-specific changes in the lungs as well as [the applicant’s] placement in cells for detainees in good health before he was diagnosed with active tuberculosis, are evidence of endogenous reactivation of the tuberculosis process and not of [the tuberculosis] being contracted in the remand prison in 1998.” 27.  According to the applicant, he was transferred to remand prison IZ – 48/3 in Moscow (ИЗ – 48/3) on 17 March 1999 and held there until 28 May 1999. 28.  Despite the fact that he was suffering from tuberculosis, the applicant was placed in a cell with detainees in good health. The cell, measuring approximately 11 square metres (2.5 m by 4.5 m) and designed for seven inmates, held 14 to 16 detainees. The ventilation did not function properly and therefore the cell was hot and damp. 29.  The applicant submitted that he did not remember further details of the conditions of his detention in Moscow. 30.  Following his transfer to Moscow, the applicant did not receive any medical treatment for tuberculosis, since remand centre IZ – 48/3 had no facilities for such treatment. According to the applicant, he complained about the lack of any medical assistance to the local authorities and various State bodies, but his complaints remained unanswered. However, the applicant only furnished the Court with an uncertified handwritten copy of one of those complaints.
(b)  The Government’s account 31.  According to the Government, the applicant was held in remand prison IZ – 48/3 in Moscow between 16 March and 28 May 1999. However, according to the certificate dated 16 June 2005 issued by the head of remand prison IZ-77/3 (former IZ-48/3), the applicant was held there between 17 March and 28 May 1999. 32.  During his placement in remand prison IZ – 48/3 the applicant was held in cell no. 417, which measured 14.98 square metres, and cell no. 419, which measured 14.9 sq. m. The applicant was provided with an individual bed and bedding. The cells had glass windows which measured 0.89 m by 0.94 m. During the daytime the windows provided natural light sufficient for reading and working. The cells also had artificial light provided by luminescent lamps. A ventlight ensured natural ventilation in addition to the mandatory ventilation system installed in the cells. Every cell had a tap, a lavatory pan separated by a brick partition and a tank with drinkable water. The average temperature in the cells was never below 18 Centigrade. The inmates could wash once a week and took at least an hour’s daily exercise. 33.  The Government submitted that they were not in a position to provide information about the number of inmates held in the cells simultaneously with the applicant and the medical assistance available to him because the relevant documents had been destroyed due to the expiry of their storage term. 34.  It appears that from remand prison IZ-48/3 the applicant was transferred to penitentiary institution LIU-10 where he served his sentence. 35.  In January 2000 the applicant was diagnosed with focal tuberculosis of the upper part of the right lung in the carnification phase. 36.  In September 2000 his condition worsened and the applicant was prescribed treatment for tuberculosis. Until March 2003 the applicant’s condition was stable; however in April 2003 his condition worsened further. 37.  On 17 April 2003 the applicant was admitted to the hospital of penitentiary institution LIU-10. 38.  In the course of a search conducted on 20 August 2003 prison officers found and seized over one hundred anti-tuberculosis and ranitidine (anti-histamine) tablets, which the applicant had not taken despite having been prescribed them by the doctor. 39.  The applicant was released on 17 March 2004. 40.  On 21 January 2002, while the applicant was serving his sentence, he lodged a claim for damages caused by the alleged infection with tuberculosis and deterioration of his health due to inadequate treatment while in detention in remand prison IZ – 32/1. By this time the number of the remand prison had been changed to IZ – 52/1. 41.  On 22 August 2002 the Sovetskiy District Court of Nizhniy Novgorod dismissed the claim as unsubstantiated. The judgment read, in particular:
“On 5 June 1998 [the applicant] was placed in cell 3/19 of remand prison IZ – 52/1 where he remained until 28 August 1999.
Fluorogram no. 33-34 of 7 June 1998 made on [the applicant’s] admittance to remand prison IZ – 52/1 showed post-specific changes in his right lung in the form of limited fibrosis and minor calcification in the roots.
Fluorogram no. 25-26 of 1 December 1998... showed a minor infiltration with focal shadows in the first intercostal space on the right side [and] minor calcification in the roots.
...on 1 December 1998 [the applicant] was diagnosed with “focal tuberculosis of the upper part of the right lung in the infiltration phase”...
The report of the medical commission [included in the materials of the case], concluded that “taking into account post-specific changes in his right lung and the lung’s roots that had been stated earlier as well as such risk factors as a duodenal ulcer and stress reaction to the arrest, the tuberculosis process in the right lung has reactivated.
Immediately after the disease had been diagnosed, remand prison IZ – 52/1 took measures for the plaintiff’s treatment: [he was] prescribed medication, provided with special] nutrition, [and] subjected to regular medical examinations, which is confirmed by... the plaintiff’s medical file. ...
Having analysed the evidence submitted by the defendant (the plaintiff submitted no evidence that he had contracted tuberculosis through the fault of the administration of remand prison IZ – 52/1), the court has not found the administration of remand prison IZ – 52/1 responsible for [the applicant] having contracted tuberculosis...
In his statement of claim the plaintiff submitted that he had not suffered from tuberculosis before, which is refuted by the medical file provided by the defendant... According to the medical file, on 7 June 1995 the applicant was admitted for treatment to the surgical department... with the diagnosis: “Dystrophy of the retina of the right eye following thrombosis of the central vein with extensive extravasation, myopia... of the right eye.” ... Fluorography showed limited fibrosis on the right, calcification in the roots. ...[S]uch changes were post-specific... [The applicant] refused further examination and left the hospital. ...
Tuberculosis is an infectious disease which nowadays is spread not only in detention facilities. The court found no evidence to support [the claim] that actions or omissions of the administration of remand prison IZ – 52/1... caused damage to the plaintiff’s health.” 42.  The applicant appealed against the judgment. 43.  On 4 April 2003 the Nizhniy Novgorod Regional Court upheld the judgment on appeal.


8.  The applicant was born in 1976 and lives in Helsinki. 9.  At 6.14 p.m. on Friday 6 September 1996 the applicant received a telephone call from H., who inquired whether he had any cannabis in his possession. The applicant replied in the negative but added that in a couple of days, after having made some inquiries, he might know better. 10.  At 8.04 a.m. on Sunday 8 September 1996 R. and K. entered Finland in a car in which a quantity of drugs had been hidden. They drove through customs in Turku, south-west Finland, and left for Helsinki. At 8.37 a.m. M. called the applicant and requested him to go and get the drugs because he was unable to do so himself. The applicant accepted. 11.  At 1.48 p.m. and 8.11 p.m. H. called the applicant again. In the first call H. asked the applicant whether he now had any cannabis. The applicant answered that he could provide it later that day. In the second call it was agreed that H. would call the applicant again in order to arrange a meeting later the same evening. At 10.25 p.m. H. called the applicant and they agreed to meet in front of a restaurant twenty minutes after the call. 12.  At the material time, the applicant did not know that H. had been in detention on remand from 3 September 1996. 13.  The parties disagree as to the time of the initial call and as to when the order for narcotics was made. According to the applicant, the first call from H. could have taken place either on Wednesday 4 or Thursday 5 September 1996. That call was the start of the applicant's involvement in the relevant events and the order was placed on 6 September 1996. According to the Government, the order was placed at 8.11 p.m. on 8 September 1996, but the applicant had become involved earlier, during the importation of the drugs into Finland. They did not specify the exact nature or the time of his involvement. 14.  At 11.10 p.m. on 8 September 1996 the applicant was arrested in front of the restaurant while in possession of 986 grams of cannabis. In a later search of his apartment, a further 13.2 grams of cannabis were found. 15.  When questioned by the police, the applicant stated that he had earlier that day met two women at a petrol station, in accordance with the instructions of M., a drug dealer. The women had given him the car. He and M. together had unloaded some ten kilograms of cannabis. The applicant had received about one kilogram and had gone to the restaurant, where he had been arrested. 16.  On 9 September 1996 the Espoo District Court (käräjäoikeus, tingsrätten) authorised the police to obtain telephone metering information concerning the applicant's telephone. On 11 September 1996 the court ordered his detention pending trial. 17.  During the criminal investigation the applicant told the police about his earlier drug deals, namely the sale of cannabis purchased from M. in 1996, two incidents of exporting cash to the Netherlands in early 1996, the purchase of three mobile telephone connections to be used by M., the introduction of a third party to M. to purchase another mobile telephone connection and for the export of cash to the Netherlands, and giving M. a key to his apartment. 18.  On 8 October 1996 the applicant was charged with the following offences:
“I)  aiding and abetting on two occasions the importing of narcotic substances in January and February 1996 [delivering cash to Holland on the order of M.];
II)  promoting the importation of narcotic substances on three occasions in February-March and July 1996 [acquiring mobile phone connections for M.];
III)  an aggravated narcotics offence on 8 September 1996 [possession and handling of 10 kilograms of cannabis together with M. and taking about one kilogram for himself];
IV)  two narcotics offences in July 1996 [sale of 200-300 and 100 grams of cannabis on the order of M.]; and
V)  an aggravated narcotics offence in 1996 [sale of five kilograms of cannabis purchased from M.].”
He admitted all the events on which the charges were based. 19.  At the hearing on 22 October 1996 the applicant gave evidence against one of his co-defendants. The applicant's counsel clarified that on 8 September 1996 his client had taken delivery of the car in order to obtain one kilogram of cannabis without knowing how much cannabis the car contained. The case was adjourned and the applicant was ordered to remain in custody as the police investigation concerning some of the events had not yet come to an end. 20.  At the hearing on 5 November 1996 the prosecution presented alternative charges against the applicant in so far as he had been charged on count II with promoting the importation of narcotic substances. He was now charged in the alternative with aiding and abetting a narcotics offence on three occasions. The prosecution also made a change to count V to the following effect. As he had earlier been accused of possessing and selling some five kilograms of cannabis in 1996, the altered charge concerned twenty-one kilograms of cannabis of which he had allegedly sold about twenty kilograms to three different persons during the period from 1 April 1996 until 8 September 1996. Also two new charges were added, namely:
“VI)  aiding and abetting narcotics offences in the spring of 1996 [giving M. keys to his apartment knowing that it was going to be used for the sale of narcotics]; and
VII)  aiding and abetting an aggravated narcotics offence in May 1996 [introducing a person to M. in order to have him deliver cash to Holland].” 21.  At the hearing on 19 November 1996 the applicant's counsel pointed out as newly acquired information that H. had been in police custody when he had placed the order and he had been released as a reward for his favours to the police. Therefore, counsel argued that no offence had been committed under count III as the events had taken place under police control. The police had set a trap by having the agent provocateur order cannabis from the applicant, who would not have committed the offence had he not been explicitly asked to do so. Counsel had requested the police to produce the telephone metering information about calls made from and to the applicant's mobile telephone, but this had not yet been disclosed.
The applicant gave oral evidence that H. had ordered a kilogram of cannabis on Wednesday or Thursday, whereupon the applicant had contacted M., who the same day had confirmed that there would be a shipment that weekend. When H. called again on Saturday, the applicant had told him that the deal might go through on Sunday or Monday. 22.  On 25 November 1996 the police applied to the Espoo District Court for permission not to disclose to the applicant that his mobile telephone had been under surveillance. The same day the court granted permission, relying on Chapter 5a, section 11(2) of the Coercive Measures Act (pakkokeinolaki, tvångsmedelslagen). The next day the police informed the applicant of the decision, declining to divulge the requested information. The same day the applicant requested the police to issue a formal decision which could be appealed. On 29 November 1996 the police issued a decision in which it was maintained, inter alia, that the information was not to be disclosed even to a party to criminal proceedings. On the same day the applicant requested the Helsinki District Court to order the police officer in charge of the investigations, Superintendent J.M., to produce the telephone metering information at the next hearing. The applicant had received several telephone calls from H. during the period 3 to 8 September 1996 and the observance of the equality of arms principle required the production of the telephone records. 23.  On 3 December 1996 the District Court held its final hearing. As the criminal investigations had been continuing throughout, at this stage twelve people had already been accused of various narcotics offences. 24.  The applicant's counsel submitted that on 2 December 1996 he had tried to summon Superintendent J.M. to appear before the court, without success. He renewed his request to the court to summon J.M. and to order the disclosure of the telephone metering information. 25.  The prosecutor submitted that the allegation about the calls made by H. while in police custody appeared to be true. He produced a fax from Superintendent J.M. (a memorandum dated 26 November 1996) in which it was maintained that, given the date of H.'s arrest, it was impossible that the police could have incited the applicant and M. to smuggle narcotics, as plans to import the drugs had already been in place. There was no mention in the memorandum as to when H. had called the applicant. The prosecution also produced another fax from J.M. dated 2 December 1996 in which he reiterated that the detailed telephone metering information was classified. He nevertheless maintained that there had been one call on 6 September and three calls on 8 September 1996 from the police to the applicant. No further details were provided. 26.  The applicant submitted that the former of the above faxes gave the court sufficient information to rule on the matter of incitement. It showed that the only reason for his actions under count III was the telephone call from H. The public prosecutor accepted that he did not rule out this possibility and submitted that the calls could be taken into account so as to reduce the applicant's sentence, but not to absolve him of all criminal liability. The applicant's counsel pointed out that the prosecution did not dispute the agent provocateur claim. He withdrew his request to examine Superintendent J.M., who was in any event likely to rely on his right not to testify. He also withdrew the request to the court to order the disclosure of the telephone metering information. 27.  It cannot be concluded from the records of the hearings that any of the co-defendants testified as regards the charges brought against the applicant. According to the Government, both R. and K. were heard at the hearings on 22 October and 19 November 1996. 28.  On 3 December 1996 the applicant was convicted on all counts and sentenced to three years and six months' imprisonment. On count III he was convicted on the basis that on 8 September 1996 he had been in possession of at least ten kilograms of cannabis, having taken delivery of a car in which R. and K. had illegally imported the drugs, and having later removed them from the car and weighed them together with M. The judgment did not mention any police involvement. 29.  On 4 December 1996 the applicant lodged a criminal complaint against Superintendent J.M. and Senior Constable J.O., alleging, inter alia, incitement to commit an offence (see paragraph 39). 30.  On 26 December 1996 the applicant complained to the Uusimaa County Administrative Board (lääninhallitus, länsstyrelsen), arguing that the District Court's decision of 25 November 1996 not to disclose to him that his telephone had been under surveillance did not mean that the information gathered should not now be accessible to him. 31.  On 2 January 1997 the applicant appealed to the Helsinki Court of Appeal (hovioikeus, hovrätten), requesting an oral hearing on count III. He also requested, relying on Edwards v. the United Kingdom (judgment of 16 December 1992, Series A no. 247‑B, § 36), that the police officer in charge of the criminal investigation, Superintendent J.M, be ordered under Chapter 17, Article 12, of the Code of Judicial Procedure (oikeudenkäymiskaari, rättegångsbalken) to produce the telephone metering information. As to the request for an oral hearing, he stated that, following the District Court's judgment, he had received more exact information about the persons involved in the agent provocateur operation. The National Bureau of Investigation (keskusrikospoliisi, centralkriminalpolisen) had proceeded with the investigation into the suspected offences. The public prosecutor did not submit any written reply to the appeal. 32.  On 20 February 1997 the applicant submitted a pre-trial investigation report of 3 February 1997 which concluded that J.M. and J.O. were suspected of abuse of public office, breach of official duty and incitement to commit an aggravated narcotics offence. He also produced a subsequent indictment by the County Prosecutor (lääninsyyttäjä, länsåklagaren). Lastly, he renewed his request for disclosure of the telephone metering information. 33.  On 26 February 1997 the County Administrative Board, finding that the applicant in his capacity as a party to the proceedings against him should have access to the telephone metering information, annulled the police decision regarding the non-disclosure and ordered the information to be given to the applicant's counsel. On 11 March 1997 the applicant renewed his request to the Court of Appeal for disclosure of the information. At that time, he had apparently still not received the requested information as the decision had not become final. 34.  Meanwhile, on 10 March 1997, the Court of Appeal delivered its judgment, upholding the applicant's conviction. It rejected the requests for a hearing and disclosure of the telephone metering information as ill-founded. It stated that it had admitted to the file the applicant's written submission of 20 February 1997 with annexes, despite the fact that it had arrived after the time-limit for the appeal had expired. The court confirmed the substance of the District Court's judgment but amended some of the reasoning. It found it established that there had been one telephone call to the applicant on 6 September and three calls on 8 September 1996 from a mobile telephone owned by the police. Relying on the pre-trial statements of two of the applicant's co-defendants, R. and K., the court found that “there [had been] an arrangement that the applicant receive the cannabis prior to the order made by H.” and thus found him guilty as charged. It did not specify whether it was making reference to the call of 6 September or to one of the three calls of 8 September. Nor did it specify the date of the applicant's initial involvement with the narcotics. The case file does not disclose that R. and K.'s statements touched upon the chronology of the events as regards the applicant's involvement. 35.  On 5 May 1997 the applicant sought leave to appeal from the Supreme Court (korkein oikeus, högsta domstolen), requesting an oral hearing. He emphasised that charges had been brought against the police officers. Further, the Court of Appeal had based his conviction in part on R. and K.'s pre-trial statements, although neither the prosecution nor the District Court had relied on them. Had the applicant known that those statements, which he had not seen, would be used as evidence against him, he would have cross-examined R. and K. in the District Court. The Court of Appeal had not held an oral hearing and had assumed the functions of the prosecution, thereby violating the applicant's right to examine the witnesses against him. The Court of Appeal had also breached Chapter 26, Article 11a, of the Code of Judicial Procedure as it had not identified the special reasons justifying an examination beyond the arguments and facts adduced in the writ of appeal. The Court of Appeal had reached its conclusion regarding the timing of H.'s call on the basis of the pre-trial investigation report in the proceedings against J.M. and J.O., and thus on material relating to another case. 36.  On 18 June 1997 the applicant submitted the judgment of the District Court in which J.M. and J.O. had been convicted and fined. The incitement charge had however been dismissed (see paragraph 45 below). 37.  On 20 August 1997 the applicant filed a written submission, maintaining that the only differences between his case and that of Teixeira de Castro v. Portugal (no. 25829/94, Commission's report of 25 February 1997, Decisions and Reports) were that he had been deprived of information about the agent provocateur operation and of an opportunity to examine J.M. and J.O. Further, the lower courts' judgments had not been properly reasoned. 38.  On 14 October 1997 the Supreme Court refused him leave to appeal. 39.  As mentioned above, on 4 December 1996 the applicant made a criminal complaint about Superintendent J.M. and Senior Constable J.O. 40.  The applicant's request that the police interview the prosecutor in the criminal proceedings against him about, inter alia, whether the police report in his case had contained sufficient information, was rejected, as was his request that M. be interviewed about whether the applicant had participated in the smuggling of the narcotics prior to 8 September 1996. 41.  During the pre-trial investigation J.M. maintained that H. had agreed to disclose the identity of his drugs supplier only if it was not written down in the report. The applicant's identity had been established from the telephone number produced by H. The purpose of the first call had been to establish whether he had any narcotics in his possession. He had been under surveillance from the afternoon of 8 September 1996 and he had become a suspect as he had been sighted in a rented car together with M. on that afternoon. The police had received information from independent sources that a drugs shipment was going to be smuggled into the country on that day in a rented car. The police had planned on stopping the vehicle but had failed. The only way to find the cannabis had been to call the applicant and place an order. 42.  In the pre-trial investigation the applicant and H. testified that an order had been made in code language in the call of 6 September 1996. 43.  In February and March 1997 the then County Prosecutor brought charges against J.M. and J.O. for abuse of public office, incitement to commit an aggravated narcotics offence and breach of official duty. The indictment alleged:
“From 6 to 8 September 1996 J.M. in his capacity as Superintendent and J.O. in his capacity as Senior Constable acted in the following manner when carrying out a pre-trial investigation into a suspected narcotics offence in which H. was a suspect: 1.  [J.M. and J.O.] abused their office in relation to [H.], who was under their direct supervision as a detainee on remand, by ... persuading H., who hoped that it would bring him relief as regards his own situation, to make a deal over the telephone to the effect that [the applicant] sell to him one kilogram of cannabis to enable the police to arrest [the applicant] and confiscate the drugs as the deal was about to take place. They thereby restricted his right to liberty to a greater extent than the aim of his arrest required. 2.  [J.M. and J.O.], in the manner explained above, through [H.] on 6 September 1996, deliberately incited [the applicant] to obtain cannabis unlawfully to deliver it to [H.] together with another person receiving at least ten kilograms of narcotics from the persons who imported the narcotics unlawfully. Of this amount [the applicant] took over 986 grams. When [the applicant] arrived at the location agreed on the telephone with [H.] the police arrested [the applicant] and confiscated the cannabis from his possession. [The applicant] was subsequently convicted of an aggravated narcotics offence. ... They have thereby also breached their official duty.”
The applicant associated himself with the prosecution. He also brought an alternative private prosecution to the following effect:
“3.  [J.M.] breached his official duty in that he did not, by making an annotation in the pre-trial investigation records or by any other means, inform [the applicant], the District Prosecutor or the Helsinki District Court of the circumstances in which [the applicant's] offence had taken place. ... These circumstances had become clear at the end of the trial as the District Prosecutor upon [the applicant's] request had requested a clarification of the facts in issue.” 44.  The defence relied, inter alia, on the Court of Appeal's judgment of 10 March 1997 in the applicant's case, in which it was held that there had been an arrangement that the applicant receive the drugs prior to the order made by H. The defence argued that the order had not been made before 8.11 p.m. on 8 September 1996. The applicant gave oral evidence, maintaining that H. had placed the order in his first call, on Wednesday 4 or Thursday 5 September, whereupon the applicant had contacted M. At 8.37 a.m. on 8 September 1996 M. had called the applicant and requested him to take delivery of the narcotics from R. and K. The court also heard oral evidence from H., the defendant police officers and some other officers. 45.  On 5 June 1997 the District Court convicted J.M. and J.O. of abuse of public office and sentenced them to a fine. It held that the facts regarding the telephone calls as described in the indictment were established and stated that it did not believe that H. would have called the applicant solely on his own initiative. It noted that the telephone metering information disclosed that H. had called the applicant at 6.14 p.m. on 6 September and at 1.48 p.m., 8.11 p.m. and 10.25 p.m. on 8 September 1996. It however rejected the incitement charge as the applicant had not been convicted of delivering the kilogram of cannabis to H. Further, J.M. and J.O. had lacked intent to incite the applicant to obtain the remaining drugs. Also the charge concerning breach of official duty was rejected. 46.  The applicant submitted, inter alia, that the Court of Appeal had been wrong to find in its judgment of 10 March 1997 that there had been an arrangement that he receive the narcotics prior to H.'s order. 47.  On 8 December 1998 the Helsinki Court of Appeal quashed the convictions of the two police officers for abuse of public office, holding:
“On 10 March 1997 [the applicant] was convicted by the Helsinki Court of Appeal ... of several narcotics offences committed from the beginning of the year 1996 ... In that judgment it was established that prior to the police officer's order made by telephone there had been an arrangement that he would receive a ten kilo drugs shipment. During the present proceedings, no such grounds have emerged for concluding otherwise. Accordingly, the order for the narcotics in issue did not affect [the applicant's] guilt as to the possession of the ten kilograms of narcotics of which he has been convicted as mentioned above. The guilt of [J.M. and J.O.] as regards a prohibited entrapment operation has not therefore been established. ...” 48.  In his writ of appeal, the State Prosecutor (valtiosyyttäjä, statsåklagaren; who replaced the County Prosecutor) submitted that it could not be concluded from the Court of Appeal judgment of 10 March 1997 that prior to the police order there had been an arrangement for the applicant to receive the narcotics. Further, he pointed out that the applicant had been charged and convicted of an offence committed on 8 September 1996, and not before, and no evidence had even been produced to show that the applicant had been involved in the shipment prior to 8 September 1996. In any event, it had not even been alleged that the shipment had arrived in Finland on 6 September 1996, or earlier. 49.  In its judgment of 22 November 2000 the Supreme Court found that H., who had been in detention on remand, had co-operated with the police. It considered that there was no reason to depart from the lower courts' establishment of the facts, although it remained unclear how the co-operation had been induced. The court found that on 6 and 8 September 1996 H. had discussed with the applicant in general terms whether it would be possible to buy cannabis from him. At 8.11 p.m. on 8 September 1996 H. had placed an order. According to J.M.'s confession, on the evening of 8 September 1996 he had encouraged H. through J.O. to place an order with the applicant for one kilogram of cannabis. H. had therefore called the applicant at 8.11 p.m. The court found it established that J.M. and J.O. at 8.11 p.m. had incited the applicant to commit a new offence by selling narcotics to H. 50.  The Supreme Court noted that in their judgments of 3 December 1996 and 10 March 1997 the District Court and the Court of Appeal respectively had found the applicant guilty of an aggravated narcotics offence in that on 8 September 1996 he had been unlawfully in possession of at least ten kilograms of cannabis having unlawfully taken delivery of a car from persons who had unlawfully imported the narcotics in it and by participating in the unloading and the weighing of the cannabis. It had been established that the applicant had been involved in the importing of these ten kilograms of cannabis long before 6 September 1996. According to the Supreme Court, the telephone conversations between H. and the applicant had not therefore had any impact on the receipt by the applicant of the imported narcotics. Thus, the involvement by J.M. and J.O. could not be regarded as having had any causal relation with the offence of which the applicant had been convicted. In order to convict someone of incitement to commit an offence it was a pre-condition that the offence had actually been committed. That had not been the case here, because the police intervention had prevented the applicant from selling the one kilogram to H. Accordingly, J.M. and J.O. were not guilty of incitement to commit an aggravated narcotics offence. 51.  The Supreme Court found however that J.M. and J.O. had used prohibited methods and were thus guilty of a breach of official duty. 52.  As to the sentence, the Supreme Court noted that the police officers had been tipped off by a third party that a rented car containing narcotics was going to enter the country during the weekend. On the evening of 8 September 1996 the police had sighted the applicant in a rented car, but had not been able to follow it. In order to prevent the narcotics from entering the market, J.M. had decided that it was necessary to encourage H. to place an order and agree on a meeting. This had resulted in the applicant's arrest and the confiscation of a large amount of narcotics. The court concluded that, considering the seriousness of the situation, resorting to the prohibited method was excusable. It therefore decided not to impose a sentence. 53.  On 29 September 1998 the applicant requested a re-opening of the case against him, based on the fact that the District Court had convicted J.M. and J.O. of a breach of official duty. He made reference to the case of Teixeira de Castro v. Portugal (judgment of 9 June 1998, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1998‑IV). 54.  On 22 November 2000, thus on the same day judgment in the case against Superintendent J.M. and Senior Constable J.O. was delivered, the Supreme Court refused the request.


5.  The applicant was born in 1953 and lives in Velenje. 6.  On 17 March 1986 the applicant was injured in an accident at work in a lignite mine. Following two separate court settlements made in 1987 and 1992, the applicant received compensation for the injuries sustained. 7.  On 5 April 1994 the applicant instituted civil proceedings against his employer, a company called RLV, in the Celje Labour Court (Sodišče združenega dela v Celju) seeking damages in the amount of 2,315,789 tolars (approximately 9,600 euros) for the injuries sustained in the accident of 1986, but which only became apparent after the settlements.
Between 1 June 1994 and 10 February 1997 the applicant lodged ten preliminary written submissions and/or adduced evidence.
Between 1 June 1994 and 13 December 1996 he made four requests that a date be set for a hearing.
Of the five hearings held between 9 January 1995 and 25 March 1997 none was adjourned at the request of the applicant.
During the proceedings the court appointed a medical expert and a financial expert. The court also sought an additional opinion from the appointed experts.
At the last hearing the court decided to deliver a written judgment. The judgment, upholding the applicant’s claim in part, was served on the applicant on 1 April 1997. 8.  On 10 April 1997 the applicant appealed to the Higher Labour and Social Court (Višje delovno in socialno sodišče). RLV cross-appealed.
On 3 December 1999 the court allowed the appeals in part and remitted the case to the first-instance court for re-examination.
The judgment was served on the applicant on 17 January 2000. 9.  The hearing before the Celje Labour Court scheduled for 2 March 2000 was adjourned until 30 March 2000 at the applicant’s request.
Between 29 March 2000 and 21 March 2001 the applicant lodged three preliminary written submissions.
On 20 June 2000 the court sought an additional opinion from the appointed medical expert.
On 24 May 2001 the court held a hearing and concluded the case.
The judgment, upholding the applicant’s claim in part, was served on the applicant on 21 June 2001. 10.  On 26 June 2001 the applicant appealed to the Higher Labour and Social Court. He also sought an exemption from court fees. RLV cross-appealed.
On 24 August 2001 the Celje Labour Court rejected the applicant’s request for exemption from court fees.
On 4 September 2001 the applicant appealed against the decision concerning court fees to the Higher Labour and Social Court.
On 3 October 2003 the Higher Labour and Social Court upheld the first-instance court decision concerning court fees.
On the same day the court rejected the appeals against the first-instance court’s judgment. 11.  On 30 October 2003 the applicant lodged an appeal on points of law with the Supreme Court (Vrhovno sodišče).
On 15 June 2004 the court dismissed the applicant’s appeal.
The judgment was served on the applicant on 28 June 2004.


5.  The applicant was born in 1964. 6.  In 1999 he was diagnosed as suffering from diabetes. He became insulin-dependent on an unspecified later date. 7.  On 22 March 2000 the applicant was arrested. On 24 March 2000 he was remanded in custody by the Gliwice District Court on suspicion that he had killed his mother. On 24 March 2000 the applicant was placed in Bytom Remand Centre. 8.  From 13 March 2001 until 11 October 2001 he was treated for his diabetes in the hospital of the Bytom Remand Centre. The applicant remained there until 23 October 2002. 9.  On 14 August 2002 the applicant was convicted of murder and sentenced to twelve years’ imprisonment. 10.  On 3 September 2002 an ophthalmologist examined the applicant as he had complained about deterioration of his eye-sight. He received a medical prescription for glasses. 11.   From 7 November to 6 December 2002 the applicant was detained at the hospital of Krakow Remand Centre, where he received treatment. From 11 December 2002 until 24 April 2003 the applicant was detained in Bytom Remand Centre. 12.  From 25 April 2003 the applicant was detained in Strzelce Opolskie Remand Centre. He remained there until 2 February 2005. 13.  It transpires from the list of Polish prisons, available on the Internet site of the Polish prison service[1], that Strzelce Opolskie where he served most of his sentence is one of the prisons (i.e. Goleniów, Nysa, Dębica, Koszalin; Tarnów) which are listed as suitable for serving sentences by inmates suffering from insulin-dependent diabetes. 14.  In 2004 the applicant met the director of the prison health service on 7 April, 12 May, 16 June, 4 August, 22 September, 6 October and 24 November 2004 to discuss his condition and the therapeutic options available to him.  It appears that the applicant had been supplied with a glucometer and that he could test his sugar level himself several times a day. 15.  He also took various medicines, including insulin. The applicant alleged, however, that because of the nature of his illness, he had frequently developed hypoglycaemia in the evening. Because he did not have the right to keep any glucose in the cell, he had to acquire sugar from his fellow inmates or the remand centre staff had to call an ambulance. 16.  On 2 February 2005 the applicant was placed in Bytom Remand Centre for the purposes of medical treatment. He remained there until 25 February 2005. 17.  In 2005 the applicant had two meetings with a director and a deputy director of the prison health services, on 5 January and 5 November 2005. 18.  In 2005 the applicant developed glaucoma. He alleged that it was not treated. The Government disagreed. They submitted that he received treatment for this condition from the diagnosis onwards.
From 2 to 25 February 2005 the applicant was placed in the Ophthalmological Ward of the Bytom Remand Centre Hospital. 19.  On 14 August 2006 the applicant was examined by a court‑appointed doctor, who ordered that he should be hospitalised in order to improve his health and stabilise his blood sugar levels. 20.  In July 2006 the applicant developed conjunctivitis. He was treated for it from 7 September until 5 October 2006. 21.  From October 2006 onwards the applicant’s diet was adapted because of his diabetes. He was to receive one additional meal per day so that he could have a fourth injection of insulin. 22.   He also submitted to the Court his diabetic record (książeczka cukrzyka) covering the period from August 2005 to January 2007. It transpires therefrom that he was able to monitor his sugar levels on a regular basis, at least five times a day. He had five injections of insulin per day. 23.  The applicant suffered from headaches. He was examined by a neurologist on 17 April 2000, 17 and 24 May 2000, 7 June, 30 August 2000, 18 December 2001, 2 January, 20 February, 29 May, 19 June and 5 October 2002. Subsequently, a neurologist examined him on 3 January and 5 March 2007. On an unspecified date an MRI scan of his head was carried out. 24.  Eventually, on 6 September 2006 the applicant was transferred to a hospital at Łódź Prison, where he remained until 5 October 2006. 25.  The applicant was examined by an ophthalmologist on 18 October 2006, 9 March, 25 and 29 May 2007. 26.   From 6 October 2006 until 1 March 2007 the applicant was again detained in Strzelce Opolskie Remand Centre. 27.  On 29 January 2007 and 29 March 2007 the applicant talked with the Deputy Director of the Penitentiary Ward about the treatment of diabetes. 28.  On 2 March 2007 the applicant was transferred to Bytom Remand Centre, where he was detained in the hospital. The applicant submitted that the remand centre nurse was frequently late with his insulin injections. On 16 March 2007 the applicant was transferred again to Strzelce Opolskie Remand Centre, where he remained until 17 May 2007. 29.  On many occasions the applicant complained to the penitentiary authorities of his allegedly inadequate medical treatment in Bytom and Strzelce Opolskie Remand Centres. By a letter of 27 April 2007 the Deputy Director of the Opole Regional Inspectorate of the Prison Service informed the applicant that his complaints had been considered ill-founded in the light of the finding that the applicant had repeatedly refused to cooperate with the medical staff. 30.  From 18 May until 11 June 2007 the applicant was placed for treatment in the hospital of the Bytom Remand Centre. On the latter date the applicant was transferred back to Strzelce Opolskie Remand Centre. 31.  On 13 June 2007 the applicant discussed the treatment of his diabetes with the penitentiary judge. On 5 September 2007 the applicant discussed with the Deputy Director of the Remand Centre the possibility of hospital treatment. 32.  The applicant submitted a copy of his medical record (książeczka zdrowia) numbering several hundred pages and covering the period from 18 September 2000 to July 2007. It transpires therefrom that the applicant consulted doctors at least twice a month, even more often at times. He regularly received various medication, including antidepressants, vitamins and prescriptions for insulin. He also regularly received packs of glucometer strips for the purpose of measuring blood sugar levels. 33.  From 2 April to 25 July 2008 the applicant received treatment in respect of his alcohol addiction. 34.  On 22 September 2008 the Opole Regional Court – Penitentiary Division decided that the applicant should be released on parole. The court had regard to the applicant’s conduct in the months prior to this decision. The applicant was released immediately afterwards. 35.  From 10 to 22 October 2008 and from 6 to 14 November 2008 the applicant was hospitalised in Gliwice Hospital. His medical records prepared for the purposes of discharge from the hospital show that his diabetes was very unstable and that the general indicator of stabilisation of diabetes (HbA1c) was very high (8,3).[2] In a certificate dated 14 November 2008 the treating doctor observed that the applicant’s blood sugar levels did not fall within the acceptable range of 60 to 140 mg/dl as a result of his lack of knowledge as regards self-treatment of diabetes and adapting insulin doses to amounts of food and physical activity. 36.  On 17 March 2009 the applicant died.