EIT:n suuri jaosto: Elinkautisen vankeusrangaistuksen tulee sisältää mahdollisuus vapautumiseen ja mahdollisuus rangaistuksen tarkistamiseen

11.7.2013 | Oikeusuutiset

Markku Fredman

EIT on ratkaisussaan Yhdistyneitä Kuningaskuntia vastaan katsonut suuren jaoston ratkaisussa äänin 16-1, että elinkautinen vankeusrangaistus ilman mahdollisuutta tuomion tarkistamiseen tai vapautumiseen loukkaa EIS 3 artiklaa.

EIT:n lehdistötiedotteesta:

The case concerned three applicants’ complaint that their imprisonment for life amounted to inhuman and degrading treatment as they had no hope of release.

The Court found in particular that, for a life sentence to remain compatible with Article 3, there had to be both a possibility of release and a possibility of review. It noted that there was clear support in European and international law and practice for those principles, with the large majority of Convention Contracting States not actually imposing life sentences at all or, if they did, providing for a review of life sentences after a set period (usually 25 years’ imprisonment).

The domestic law concerning the Justice Secretary’s power to release a person subject to
a whole life order was unclear. In addition, prior to 2003 a review of the need for a
whole life order had automatically been carried out by a Minister 25 years into the
sentence. This had been eliminated in 2003 and no alternative review mechanism put in
place. In these circumstances, the Court was not persuaded that the applicants’ whole
life sentences were compatible with the European Convention.

In finding a violation in this case, however, the Court did not intend to give the applicants any prospect of imminent release. Whether or not they should be released would depend, for example, on whether there were still legitimate penological grounds for their continued detention and whether they should continue to be detained on grounds of dangerousness. These questions were not in issue in this case and were not the subject of argument before the Court.

The only claim for just satisfaction that had been made was by Mr Vinter and the Court declined to award any damages.

Koko lehdistötiedote, missä myös linkki koko tuomioon, löytyy täältä: here

Inline Feedbacks
View all comments