Summary
Mark Keenan received intermittent psychiatric treatment since the age of 21. At 28, Keenan was admitted to prison, initially to the prison health center. Several attempts were made to transfer him to the general population, but his mental health worsened each time. Following a transfer attempt, he assaulted two guards and his sentence was increased by twenty-eight days. The next day Keenan hung himself. His mother alleged violations of the European Convention on Human Rights, including failure to protect his right to life under Article 2, inhuman and degrading treatment under Article 3, and lack effective remedy to these violations under Article 13..
Under article 2 the Court stated that States’ positive obligations may include preventing self-harm. To determine a state’s obligations, the Court asks whether, in light of available information, authorities should have recognized an immediate risk of self-harm. If, given the risk, they took all reasonable measures, there is no violation. The Court found that because Keenan’s record contained no formal diagnosis of schizophrenia, authorities could not have known he was an immediate suicide risk. Therefore, their response to the known risk was reasonable and the claim under article 2 was dismissed.
With regard to article 3, States are obligated to protect prisoners’ mental health and inadequate mental-health treatment may be found to be a violation. In assessing adequacy of treatment the Court considers mentally ill persons’ vulnerability, and does not require them to articulate specific ill effects. In Keenan’s case, inadequate record keeping, monitoring, and psychiatric input showed significant defects in treatment. Extending his sentence some time after the assault, and nine days before his scheduled release, was not compatible with standard treatment for a mentally ill person.
The Court found available remedies inadequate under Article 13. No available remedy would allow Keenan to challenge his punishment within the additional prison time. For his mother, an inquest was not adequate because it would not determine authorities’ liability, or provide compensation. An action in negligence was inadequate because it might not consider Keenan’s mental suffering, or provide adequate compensation. No available remedy would allocate responsibility for Keenan’s death, an essential element of a remedy for a bereaved parent.
