Information Note on the Court’s case-law No. 17
April 2000
Labita v. Italy [GC] - 26772/95
Judgment 6.4.2000 [GC]
Article 3
Degrading treatment
Inhuman treatment
Alleged ill-treatment in prison and effectiveness of investigation: no violations; violation
Article 5
Article 5-1
Lawful arrest or detention
Delay in implementing release following acquittal: violation
Article 5-3
Length of pre-trial detention
Detention on remand lasting 2 years 7 months: violation
Article 8
Article 8-1
Respect for correspondence
Censorship of prisoner's correspondence: violation
Article 3 of Protocol No. 1
Vote
Disenfranchisement of suspected mafioso: violation
Article 2 of Protocol No. 4
Article 2 para. 1 of Protocol No. 4
Freedom of movement
Restrictions on movement of suspected mafioso: violation
Facts – The applicant was arrested in April 1992 on suspicion of belonging to the mafia, on the basis of uncorroborated statements of a former mafioso (pentito), whose information was second-hand. The applicant was acquitted in November 1994, but as he did not arrive back at the prison until after midnight and the registration officer was absent he could not be released until the following morning. He claims that he was subjected to ill-treatment during his detention in Pianosa prison, where he alleges that the ill-treatment of inmates (slapping, squeezing of testicles, beatings, as well as insults and intimidation) was systematic. At a hearing in October 1993, the applicant and other inmates complained about ill-treatment which they claimed had occurred until October 1992. This was borne out by a judge's report. However, criminal proceedings were discontinued because the pepetrators could not be identified. During his detention, the applicant was kept under a special security regime until January 1995. Moreover, his correspondence was censored, partly on the basis of court decisions and partly on the basis of an order of the Minister for Justice, but at one stage without any basis. After the applicant's acquittal, preventive measures ordered during his detention were applied for three years (curfew between 8 p.m. and 6 a.m., obligation not to leave his home without informing the supervisory authorities, obligation to report weekly to the police, prohibition on going to bars or public meetings or associating with persons with a criminal record) and he was ordered to live in a particular place. His attempts to have these measures lifted were rejected on the ground that although there had been insufficient evidence for a conviction there was enough to justify preventive measures. The measures also had the effect of depriving the applicant of his voting rights. In January 1998 the applicant was awarded 64 million lire as compensation for his "unjust" detention.
Law – Article 3: The applicant has not produced any conclusive evidence in support of his allegations of ill-treatment and the only concrete evidence he has furnished (prison medical register and certain specific reports) does not suffice to fill that gap. He has not suggested that he was ever refused permission to see a doctor, yet he did not complain about ill-treatment until a hearing a year after the most recent incidents and has not given any explanation for that delay. The material available does not constitute sufficient evidence to support the conclusion that the applicant was subjected to physical and mental ill-treatment, and this finding is not called into question by the judge's report on the general conditions in Pianosa prison.
Conclusion: no violation (nine votes to eight).
Article 3: The applicant's complaints did give reasonable cause for suspecting that he may have been subjected to improper treatment, and an effective official investigation was therefore required. Certain investigations were carried out, but the Court was not satisfied that they were sufficiently thorough and effective to satisfy this requirement. The investigation was slow and no effort was made to allow the applicant to identify the perpetrators in person, although he maintained that he would be able to do so. In these circumstances, there has been a violation of Article 3.
Conclusion: violation (unanimously).
Article 3: With regard to the applicant's complaint about the conditions in which he was transferred from Pianosa to other prisons, he has not supplied detailed information and there is insufficient evidence to reach the conclusion that Article 3 was violated.
Conclusion: no violation (unanimously).
Article 5 § 3: An award of compensation in respect of "unjust" detention does not imply that the detention did not satisfy the requirements of Article 5, and although the length of the detention was taken into account in calculating the amount of compensation, there was no acknowledgement, express or implied, that the length had been excessive. The applicant may therefore still claim to be a victim. His detention lasted almost two years and seven months (to the date of acquittal, rather than the date of release). While the cooperation of pentiti is a very important weapon in the fight against the mafia, the risk that a person may be accused and arrested on the basis of unverified statements must not be underestimated. Statements by pentiti must therefore be corroborated and hearsay must be supported by objective evidence, especially when deciding whether to prolong detention, since such statements necessarily become less relevant with the passage of time. In view of the applicant's acquittal due to the absence of other evidence, very compelling reasons would be required for his lengthy detention to be justified. The other grounds relied on by the courts (risk of pressure on witnesses and interfering with evidence, dangerous nature of the accused, complexity, requirements of the investigation) were reasonable, at least initially, but the decisions referred to the prisoners as a whole and did not point to any factor capable of showing that the risks actually existed or establish that the applicant posed a danger. No account was taken of the fact that the accusations against him were based on evidence which had become weaker rather than stronger. Accordingly, the grounds were not sufficient to justify the length of the detention.
Conclusion: violation (unanimously).
Article 5 § 1: While some delay in implementing a decision to release from detention is often inevitable, the delay in the case of the applicant was only partly due to the relevant administrative formalities, the additional delay being due to the absence of the registration officer. In these circumstances, the continued detention of the applicant after his return to the prison did not amount to the first step in the execution of the order for his release and did come within any of the sub-paragraphs of Article 5 § 1.
Conclusion: violation (unanimously).
Article 8: With regard to periods when the censorship of the applicant's correspondence was based on Law no. 354 of 1975, the Court saw no reason to disagree with the view expressed by the European Commission of Human Rights that the censorship did not comply with Article 8 due to the lack of clarity in the relevant provisions. With regard to the period when censorship was based on an order by the Minister for Justice under the provisions concerning the special regime, since the Court of Cassation has held that the Minister had no power to take measures concerning prisoners' correspondence the interference was not in accordance with the law. Finally, for one specific period there was no legal basis whatsoever.
Conclusion: violation (unanimously).
Article 6 § 3: In the light of the above conclusion, this complaint is absorbed in the foregoing.
Conclusion: not necessary to examine (unanimously).
Article 2 of Protocol No. 4: The very severe restrictions on the applicant's freedom of movement undoubtedly amounted to an interference with his rights under this provision. This was in accordance with the law and pursued legitimate aims, namely the maintenance of ordre public and the prevention of crime. However, while concrete evidence gathered at trial, although insufficient to secure a conviction, may nonetheless justify reasonable fears that the person may commit offences in the future, the grounds relied on in refusing to revoke the measures after the applicant's acquittal cannot lead to the conclusion that the restrictions were justified. They cannot therefore be regarded as necessary.
Conclusion: violation (unanimously).
Article 3 of Protocol No. 1: The Court had no doubt that temporarily suspending the voting rights of persons against whom there is evidence of mafia membership pursues a legitimate aim. However, it did not accept the Government's view that the serious evidence against the applicant had not been rebutted during his trial. Thus, when his name was removed from the electoral roll there was no concrete evidence on which a suspicion that he belonged to the mafia could be based, and the measure cannot be regarded as proportionate.
Conclusion: violation (unanimously).
Article 41: The Court found no causal link between the violations and sums claimed for pecuniary damage. Taking into account the compensation the applicant had obtained in respect of his pre-trial detention, it awarded him 75 million lire in respect of non-pecuniary damage. It also made an award in respect of costs.
© 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