After having recalled the ECtHR’s (over-)sensitivity to security and material justice, and after having described its method of interpretation, the paper focuses on the scrutiny of the ECtHR over the national rules regulating the detention, and emphasizes the Court’s different approach to ordinary detainees (predominance of the human dignity and full enforcement of the prohibition ex Art. 3 ECHR) and “dangerous prisoners” (predominance of the social defense policy and fuzzy enforcement of the prohibition ex Art. 3 ECHR); moreover, the text describes the tendency of the European Court to adopt a different concept of “foreseeable conviction” in case of lack/presence of victims. The strange case of B. Contrada is fully inconsistent with this “double-standards” scenario. Indeed, he had been convicted of “mafia”, and therefore, he was a “dangerous prisoner” who contributed to a massive victimization; however, he has won at Strasbourg twice, because its rights ex Artt. 3, 7 ECHR have been fully recognized and protected by the ECtHR. All of this demonstrates that the European Court of Human Rights case-law is too unpredictable and unequal to be (always) taken seriously.
Normativa antimafia e diritto europeo dei diritti umani. Lo strano caso del dottor Bruno Contrada
Valentini, Vico
2017
Abstract
After having recalled the ECtHR’s (over-)sensitivity to security and material justice, and after having described its method of interpretation, the paper focuses on the scrutiny of the ECtHR over the national rules regulating the detention, and emphasizes the Court’s different approach to ordinary detainees (predominance of the human dignity and full enforcement of the prohibition ex Art. 3 ECHR) and “dangerous prisoners” (predominance of the social defense policy and fuzzy enforcement of the prohibition ex Art. 3 ECHR); moreover, the text describes the tendency of the European Court to adopt a different concept of “foreseeable conviction” in case of lack/presence of victims. The strange case of B. Contrada is fully inconsistent with this “double-standards” scenario. Indeed, he had been convicted of “mafia”, and therefore, he was a “dangerous prisoner” who contributed to a massive victimization; however, he has won at Strasbourg twice, because its rights ex Artt. 3, 7 ECHR have been fully recognized and protected by the ECtHR. All of this demonstrates that the European Court of Human Rights case-law is too unpredictable and unequal to be (always) taken seriously.I documenti in IRIS sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.
