Information Note on the Court’s case-law 7

June 1999

Messina v. Italy (no. 2) (dec.) - 25498/94

Decision 8.6.1999 [Section II]

Article 3

Inhuman treatment

Strict conditions of detention imposed on applicant because of his links with the mafia: inadmissible

Article 8

Article 8-1

Respect for correspondence

Routine censorship of detainee’s correspondence by prison authorities: admissible

On a number of occasion s between 1992 and 1998 the applicant was charged with and convicted of involvement in Mafia-type activities. In 1993, while he was serving a prison sentence, the Minister of Justice issued a decree ordering a special regime to be applied to him for reason s of public order and security owing to his links with the Mafia. Under this regime, prisoners were not allowed to make telephone calls or to take part in prison recreation activities, visits from their families were limited, visits from other persons were not allowed and their correspondence was monitored (subject to prior authorisation from the courts). The applicant challenged the decree but in vain. The governors of the successive prisons where he was held obtained an authorisation to censor his corresp ondence. However, the restrictions on his use of the telephone and on visits from his family were eased. In November 1994 the Minister of Justice ordered him to be kept on the special regime until May 1995, although the restrictions on visits from his fami ly were again eased. The special regime continued to be applied to the applicant by virtue of successive ministerial decrees, although certain restrictions were lifted in 1997 by two court decisions. The applicant came off the special regime in May 1998. I t appears that several letters which the applicant had asked his wife to send to the Commission were found, on delivery, to have been stamped “censored” by the prison authorities.

Admissible under Articles 8 and 13.

Inadmissible under Article 3: a prohibition on contact with other prisoners for reasons of security, discipline or protection is not in itself a form of inhuman treatment or punishment. The applicant in this case had been relatively isolated since he had not been allo wed to mix with prisoners held under the ordinary regime, to have visits from people other than his family or to make telephone calls. His contact with others had admittedly been limited but he had not been in solitary confinement in the true sense. Moreov er, he had been placed on that particular regime because of his close links to the Mafia. Forbidding him from taking part in recreation activities had been justified in that he could have used those activities to make contact with the Mafia again via other prisoners subject to less strict conditions of detention. Bearing in mind that between 1993 and 1998 he had been charged with other serious offences, for one of which he had been convicted, and that other proceedings relating to his Mafia activities had b een pending, the measures in question had been justified at all times. Furthermore, the regime had been eased as a result of a Constitutional Court judgment and the Government had made efforts to reconcile the rights of prisoners on the special regime with the difficulties which changes to that regime caused for the prison authorities. 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