CCPR/C/115/D/2621/2015
The facts as submitted by the author
2.1 On 26 January 1968, the author wrote to the Grand Orient de France, stating that
he was a “young man interested in the radio programmes broadcast by the association ”
and requesting to join. On 25 April of that year, the Secretary-General of the Grand
Orient de France, M.C., replied in a letter that he was handling the application, which
he had sent to “his friends” in Montpellier so that “preliminary enquiries” could be
made about the author.
2.2 M.C. arranged to meet the author on 2 May 1968. When he failed to hear any
news after the meeting, the author decided to write to the head office of th e Grand
Orient de France. On 25 July 1968, he received a reply from the Secretary -General of
the association announcing that his application had been successful. Some time later,
the author learned that M.C. had led his parents to believe that, during thei r meeting,
he had been carrying explosives.
2.3 On 1 April 1969, M.C. made an appointment for the author to have a psychiatric
consultation with the head of the psychiatric ward of Montpellier University Hospital.
The author claims that he was committed 1 to the ward that same day and remained
there against his will for 53 days. He alleges that he was subjected to 10
electroconvulsive therapy sessions, which caused him to have an epileptic seizure, and
that he was subjected to brutal treatment, with the admi nistration of several powerful
neuroleptic drugs. In his reply of 25 March 2013 to a letter sent by the Petitions and
Inquiries Section of the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human
Rights, the author maintains that the decision made by the French authorities was
clearly arbitrary and biased, in that it “clearly favoured the Grand Orient de France”.
He also claims that the French domestic courts wrongly found there to be no evidence
of collusion between M.C. and the head of the psychiatric ward, despite accepting the
existence of a relationship between them. The author further stresses that the Court of
Appeal ruled, against all evidence, that no agreement was in place to commit him
illegally.
2.4 On 6 June 1994, the author applied to the Montpellier Administrative Court to
annul the decision of 1 April 1969 to admit him to the psychiatric ward of Montpellier
University Hospital. His application was rejected on 25 November 1998. On 4
February 1999, the author appealed the decision.
2.5 On 30 June 1995, the author filed a claim for damages against Montpellier
University Hospital and the Treasury with the Paris Tribunal de Grande Instance
(Court of Major Jurisdiction) for the harm suffered as a result of his illegal committal.
2.6 On 27 June 2002, the Marseille Administrative Court of Appeal quashed the
judgement of the Montpellier Administrative Court and ruled that, in the light of the
documents submitted by the University Hospital, the author had been admitted to the
psychiatric ward and detained there illegally.
2.7 On 27 June 2005, the Paris Court of Major Jurisdiction found that the author ’s
committal had been “improper” and ordered the University Hospital to pay the sum of
€23,000 for “the anguish caused by being viewed as mentally retarded by his family
and friends and for the effects of the treatment that he had undergone ”. 2
__________________
1
2
GE.15-22254
In its ruling of 27 June 2005, the Paris Tribunal de Grande Instance (Court of Major Jurisdiction)
noted that the application for admission had been signed by the author ’s father, even though the
author had reached the age of majority. Moreover, the author ’s father had given permission for his
son to undergo “all necessary treatment and examinations”. The court recognized that the author
had not been admitted voluntarily.
This account was submitted to the Human Rights Committee by the author on 3 September 2012
3/6