Virahsawmy v Commissioner of Police

• Jurisdiction: Mauricio
• Date: 10 October 1972
• Court: Supreme Court (Mauritius)

Mauritius, Supreme Court.

(Latour-Adrien C.J. and Ramphul J.)

Virahsawmy and Another

and

Commissioner of Police

The individual in international law In general Human rights and freedoms Solitary confinement Mental and physical discomfort Whether amounting to torture or inhuman treatment Section 7(1) of the Mauritius Constitution The law of Mauritius

Summary: The facts:Section 7 (1) of the Mauritius Constitution provided that no person shall be subjected to torture or to inhuman or degrading punishment or other such treatment. The plaintiffs alleged a violation of this Section on the ground that they had been detained in solitary confinement in a small cell with inadequate ventilation and without penetration of daylight. They further complained of inadequate exercise and the policy of not allowing visits from relatives.

Held:The plaintiffs' allegation was rejected.

(1) The lack of physical comfort coupled with the mental discomfort caused by solitary confinement were an inevitable consequence of detention.

(2) Torture had to be given its ordinary meaning of severe physical or mental pain. The word inhuman meant brutal, unfeeling or barbarous. The solitary confinement and mental and physical discomfort experienced by the plaintiffs did not constitute torture or inhuman treatment within the meaning of Section 7(1) of the Constitution.

(3) It was not necessary to decide whether the word torture in Section 7 included mental torture.

The following is the text of the judgment of the Court:

Sir Maurice Latour-Adrien, C.J.:The plaintiffs, who allege that they are and are likely to be subjected to mental torture and inhuman treatment by the defendant in contravention of the provisions of section 7 of the Constitution, have applied to this Court for redress in accordance with the provisions of section 17 of the Constitution. They aver in their plaint that, since the 16th June, 1972, they are being detained at Line Barracks in cells reserved for political detainees; that the said cells are very small, have inadequate ventilation, are deprived of fresh air and have walls which are painted dark brown, a colour which has a depressing effect on them and a detrimental effect on their health; that daylight never penetrates the cells and the light given by a 150-watt electric bulb has a bad effect on their eyes and gives them a continuous headache; that the openings in the walls are so constructed that although the detainees cannot see through them, mosquitoes invade the cells and the plaintiffs suffer from mosquito bites; that each detainee is allowed only ^l/₂; hours daily during which he can take some exercise, but he is not allowed to talk to any one or receive visits from his relatives; that no tables are provided in the cells and the plaintiffs' food is left on the floor which is covered with dust; and that the plaintiffs are disturbed day and night by the noise from a nearby garage and a construction site.

The defendant has denied the plaintiffs' allegation of inhuman treatment and has pleaded that section 7(1) of the Constitution does not protect a person from mental torture, which is altogether independent of bodily torture. He has further averred that the facts and circumstances alleged by the plaintiff do not, even if they were admitted and proved, constitute torture or inhuman treatment, and do not show that there is any likelihood that the plaintiffs will be subjected to torture or inhuman treatment. As far as the facts alleged by the plaintiffs are concerned, the defendants aver, inter alia, that the plaintiffs are being detained in virtue of an order made...