Secondly, it is essential that proper treatment for the problem is diagnosed and suitable medical supervision is provided.255 It is not enough for such detainees to be examined and a diagnosis made.256 An absence of a comprehensive therapeutic strategy aimed at treating a prisoner with mental health issues may amount to a “therapeutic abandonment” in breach of Article 3 ECHR.257 Thirdly, such treatment has to be provided in a timely manner. A significant delay in admission to mental health institutions and, thus, in treatment of the person concerned will obviously affect the prospects of the treatment’s success.258 Lastly, the level of care required for this category of detainees must go beyond basic care. Mere access to health professionals, consultations, and the provision of medication cannot suffice for treatment to be considered appropriate and thus satisfactory under Article 5.259 In this context, Article 3 ECHR may impose an obligation on the State to transfer mentally ill prisoners to special facilities to receive adequate treatment.260 The Court has applied the above principles to the treatment of various mental health issues suffered by prisoners. These include chronic depression,261 psychiatric disorders involving suicidal tendencies,262 posttraumatic stress disorder,263chronic paranoid schizophrenia,264 acute psychotic disorders,265 and neurological disorders.266 iii. The Right to Confidentiality The right to privacy enshrined in Article 8 ECHR obliges state authorities to ensure medical confidentiality in detention. In Szuluk v. the United Kingdom, the Court dealt for the first time with the issue of medical confidentiality in prison. A prisoner who had undergone brain surgery discovered that his correspondence with the specialist supervising his hospital treatment had been monitored by a prison medical officer. The Court found that the state violated its obligation to respect his right to confidentiality of his correspondence under Article 8 ECHR and underlined the importance of medical confidentiality in detention. Article 8 ECHR furthermore imposes a positive obligation on domestic authorities to ensure appropriate access to sanitary facilities with a minimum level of privacy.267 iv. Additional Obligations during the Covid-19 Pandemic In its jurisprudence, the Court has reiterated that states have a positive obligation to prevent the spreading of contagious diseases in detention centres, to introduce a screening system for prisoners upon admission, and to guarantee prompt and effective treatment. But the Court grants states a margin of appreciation regarding specific measures that should be taken.268 255 256 257 258 259 260 Ibid at para. 106. Ibid. ECtHR, Judgement of 21/01/2020, No. 34602/16, Strazimiri v. Albania, 2020, para. 108-112. ECtHR, Judgement of 12/02/2008, No. 34151/14, Pankiewicz v. Poland, 2008, para. 45. ECtHR, Judgement of 31/01/2019, No. 18052/11, Rooman v. Belgium [GC], para. 209. ECtHR, Judgement of 26/04/2016, No. 10511/10, Murray v. the Netherlands [GC], para. 105; ECtHR, Judgement of 21/12/2010, No. 36435/07, Raffray Taddei v. France, para. 63. 261 ECtHR, Judgment of 26/10/2000, No. 30210/96, Kudła v. Poland [GC]. 262 ECtHR, Judgement of 31/03/2020, No. 82284/17, Jeanty v. Belgium, para. 101-114 263 ECtHR, Judgement of 14/09/2007, Novak v. Croatia. 264 ECtHR, Judgement of 18/12/2007, No. 41153/06, Dybeku v. Albania; See also, ECtHR, Judgement of 20/01/2009, No. 28300/06, Sławomir Musiał v. Poland. 265 ECtHR, Judgment of 16/10/2008, No. 5608/05, Renolde v. France. 266 ECtHR, Judgement of 03/02/2009, No. 23052/05, Kaprykowski v. Poland. 267 ECtHR, Judgement of 15/12/205, No. 17249/12, Szafrański v. Poland, para. 37-41. 268 ECtHR, Judgement of 24/02/09, No. 9870/07, Poghosyan v. Georgia, ECtHR, Judgment of 03/03/2009, No. 23204/07, Ghavtadze 41 DETENTION OF MIGRANTS ON THE ISLAND OF KOS