Information Note on the Court’s case-law No. 71
January 2005
Bastone v. Italy (dec.) - 59638/00
Decision 18.1.2005 [Section II]
Article 3
Inhuman treatment
Special prison regime aimed at preventing any contact with the Mafia: inadmissible
Article 8
Article 8-1
Respect for family life
Special prison regime involving restrictions on family visits aimed at preventing contacts with the Mafia: inadmissible
The applicant had already been convicted of attempted murder and was charged with complicity in a homicide, crimes which were linked to the Mafia. In view of the danger posed by the applicant, the Minister of Justice issued an order imposing a special prison regime as provided for in Article 41bis of the Judicial Administration Act. This special regime entailed several restrictions on the imprisoned applicant’s freedoms, in particular a limitation on visits from family members (a maximum of one one-hour visit per month), a restriction on access to exercise (two hours per day at most), prohibitions on meetings with third persons, telephone use or involvement in cultural, recreational and sporting activities and a ban on taking part in arts-and-crafts activities. The applicant was placed under this special regime from the end of April 1993 until the beginning of September 2003 (his second conviction became final in April 2002). In June 1997 the applicant was permitted a one-hour telephone call per month with family members where he was unable to meet them. In June 1998 the Minister of Justice lifted the restriction on the exercise period, which was subsequently re-imposed at the end of December 2002, albeit to a lesser extent, as a result of which the applicant was permitted to leave his cell for four hours per day, two hours of which could be spent in the open air.
Inadmissible under Article 3: The prohibition on contacts with other prisoners on security, disciplinary or protective grounds did not in itself amount to inhuman treatment or punishment. The applicant had not been subjected to sensory isolation or total social isolation within the prison: admittedly, his opportunities for contact were limited, but one could not speak of isolation in this context. The restrictions also concerned the frequency of the applicant’s contacts with his family, and his recreational, sporting and crafts activities. However, those measures had been justified by the seriousness of the offences with which the applicant had been charged, which were linked to the Mafia, and by the wish to prevent any resumption of contact with organised criminal structures. The applicant had not shown that the Italian authorities’ concerns in this respect were groundless or unreasonable. In addition, the prohibition on working in his cell was applicable only to work involving the use of dangerous tools, which was justified within the high-security wing of a prison. Equally, the applicant’s regime had become less strict. In view of the applicant’s age and state of health, the special prison regime did not reach the minimum level of severity for it to fall within the scope of Article 3: manifestly ill-founded.
Inadmissible under Article 8 (family life): While any lawful detention was likely to result in a restriction of family life, it was essential for the respect of family life that the prison administration helped the prisoner to maintain contact with his or her close family. In the present case, the applicant had been subject to a special prison regime resulting in additional restrictions on the number of family visits (one per month) and close supervision of those meetings (use of a glass partition). This interference in the right to respect for the applicant’s family life was prescribed by law and pursued legitimate aims. The special prison regime was intended to put an end to any remaining ties between the prisoner and the Mafia environment from which he had come. It had been established that family relations often played a crucial role in the Mafia’s functioning as a criminal organisation. Furthermore, numerous States party to the Convention had high-security regimes for dangerous prisoners. The Italian parliament could therefore reasonably have considered that such security measures were required to reach the legitimate aims pursued, namely the prevention of disorder and the interests of public safety, as well as the prevention of crime. The special regime was imposed on the applicant for an extended period. However, he was not subjected at any point to restrictions on family visits, which were authorised under this regime. At the end of the fourth year, the applicant was allowed to have a one-hour telephone call per month with members of his family, failing a meeting with them. This attested to the authorities’ concern to assist the applicant in maintaining contact with his close family, in so far as that was possible, and thus to strike a fair balance between his rights and the aims they sought to achieve through the special regime. Accordingly, the restrictions on the applicant’s right to respect for his family life had not gone further than was necessary in a democratic society in order to prevent disorder or crime and to protect public safety: manifestly ill-founded.
© Council of Europe/European Court of Human Rights
This summary by the Registry does not bind the Court.
Click here for the Case-Law Information Notes
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy