Chapter 8 • International Legal Standards for the Protection of Persons Deprived of Their Liberty In the case of de Varga-Hirsch, the European Commission of Human Rights held that “it cannot be excluded that detention of a person who is ill may raise issues” under article 3 of the European Convention. In that particular case, the applicant, who was in prolonged detention on remand, suffered from diabetes and cardio-vascular disorders; “[his] state of health was poor throughout his detention ... and it became worse”.94 The Commission pointed out, however, that the authorities had “complied with all the applicant’s requests for medical expert opinions” and where “the reports were lacking in precision, the authorities did not fail to appoint new experts”; in all, 10 reports were drawn up, and “none of the expert opinions definitely reached the conclusion that the applicant’s state of health was incompatible with detention”.95 When the experts had recommended that the applicant be transferred to a hospital, this had also been done. The Commission further pointed out that the Government had noted that “the applicant had contributed to his bad state of health by refusing, at a certain period, his transfer to a prison hospital, not properly following his diabetic diet and refusing insulin treatment”.96 Given “the special circumstances of the case”, the applicant’s medical treatment during his detention did not amount to a violation of article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights.97 State Responsibility for Prisoners on Hunger Strike The Case of R., S., A. and C. v. Portugal The responsibilities of the State for the health and well-being of prisoners on hunger strike were inter alia at issue in a case against Portugal, involving four applicants, with applicant R. only being examined by a medical team on the twenty-sixth day of his hunger strike. The European Commission of Human Rights noted that it was “certainly disturbing that such a long time could have elapsed without the applicants being put under medical supervision”, but the question to be determined was “the extent to which the national authorities were responsible for this situation”.98 The Commission found it important to note that, as from the moment they began their hunger strike, “the applicants always refused to be examined by the prison doctor”, and two of the applicants – including applicant R. – even refused to be examined by a team composed of three doctors from the Lisbon University Hospital, although one of these appeared in a list supplied by the applicants stating the doctors of their choice.99 94 Eur. Comm. HR, Application No. 9559/81, P. de Varga-Hirsch v. France, decision of 9 May 1983 on the admissibility, 33 DR, p. 213, para. 6. 95 Ibid., loc. cit. 96 Ibid., pp. 213-214, para. 6. 97 Ibid., para. 6 at p. 214. 98 Eur. Comm. HR, Applications Nos. 9911/82 & 9945/82 (joined), R., S., A. and C. v. Portugal, 36 DR, p. 207, para. 16. 99 Ibid., pp. 207-208, para. 16. Human Rights in the Administration of Justice: A Manual on Human Rights for Judges, Prosecutors and Lawyers 345