The
mother of the individual held in the psychiatric hospital has addressed a
complaint to the Human Rights Defender, stating that the first instance civil
court of general jurisdiction had decided to subject her son to involuntary
hospitalization and treatment in a psychiatric hospital for no more than six
months.
According
to the received information, a psychiatric board examination recorded that
individual’s mental health showed positive dynamics after two months, and he no
longer required psychiatric inpatient treatment. In this regard, the
psychiatric hospital applied to the first instance civil court of general
jurisdiction, requesting the annulment of the decision to subject the
individual to involuntary treatment.
However, the court made a decision to return the psychiatric hospital's
application regarding the hospitalization of the citizen, reasoning that the
application should be submitted to the court (judge) that previously made a
decision to subject the citizen to psychiatric hospital treatment. It is
noteworthy that the psychiatric hospital has repeatedly applied to the same
court on the same issue, and the case has been assigned to the same judge; in
all instances, the same decision has been made.
The
aforementioned decision was upheld by the Civil Court of Appeal. Regarding this
issue, the mother of the individual kept in the psychiatric hospital regularly
alerted the Defender’s Office, stating that her son no longer needed treatment,
but his right to personal liberty has been unnecessarily violated.
Subsequently,
the decision for involuntary hospitalization of the individual in the
psychiatric hospital was annulled by another judge of the first instance court.
The Human Rights Defender considers the consequences of this situation to be
highly concerning, emphasizing that as a result, the individual was kept in a
psychiatric hospital for about three months without justification for the need
for inpatient treatment. Consequently, a number of his rights were violated,
including the right to personal liberty.
The
Human Rights Defender emphasizes that the state should develop and implement
appropriate mechanisms to guarantee human rights in similar situations, and no
procedural or technical circumstance can be the basis for the state’s failure
to fulfill its obligations in this area.
In
this regard, it is important to note that the European Court of Human Rights in
the case of T. A. versus Armenia stated that an individual cannot be deprived
of their liberty as "having mental health issues" unless the
following three minimum conditions are met:
1.
The fact of having a mental health issue must be confirmed by the competent
authorities based on an objective medical examination.
2.
The mental disorder must be of such a type or degree that it requires mandatory
deprivation of liberty.
3.
The justification for continuing the detention of the individual depends on the
continuity of the mental disorder.
Furthermore,
the Court noted that in this case, when the court imposed compulsory treatment
in a hospital setting on the applicant, it did not consider the less
restrictive measure of outpatient treatment or appointing psychiatric
supervision, which is one of the medical coercive measures provided by domestic
legislation.
Therefore,
it cannot be said that the decision to deprive the applicant of their liberty
was based on an assessment of all relevant factors, including therapeutic
prospects or the viability of less invasive alternatives, as required by the UN
Principles for the Protection of Persons. The Court finds in the case mentioned
above that restrictions on the rights of individuals with mental health issues
can only be justified for "very serious reasons," and it should be
taken into account that compulsory psychiatric hospitalization often involves
measures that interfere with the individual's personal life and physical
integrity, including medical interventions performed against the individual's
will, such as the forced administration of medication. In this case, the Court
also found that the authorities failed to convincingly demonstrate that the
applicant's mental disorder was of such a type or degree that it required
compulsory treatment in a hospital setting.
Thus,
the European Court of Human Rights' approach concludes that, in the absence of
the aforementioned legal grounds, keeping an individual in a psychiatric
hospital may result in a violation of their right to personal liberty, as
protected by the European Convention on Human Rights.
Հայերեն
