Oct 21, 2013 | News
The ICJ welcomes today’s ruling by the Grand Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights in the case of Inés Del Rio Prada, affirming that changes made retroactively to the remission of her sentence violated her rights.
The ICJ, which intervened as third-party in the case, says the judgment reinforces and makes effective the principle of non-retroactivity of criminal law, an essential element of the rule of law.
“This is a highly significant judgment that affirms and strengthens the rule of law in criminal sentencing,” said Róisín Pillay, Director of the ICJ Europe Programme. “Rules and practices that have a significant impact on the calculation and remission of sentences must not be applied retroactively to the detriment of a convicted person.”
“The key principle that the Grand Chamber has upheld today is that the rules that apply to the calculation of the sentence to be served, must be clear and foreseeable under the law at the time of conviction. Subsequent re-interpretation by the courts cannot fundamentally revise the principles that apply to a sentence already handed down. While States have the responsibility for setting sentencing rules for crimes, any changes to those rules which would result in an increased penalty must not applied retroactively in breach of (Article 7 of) the European Convention on Human Rights,” she added.
BACKGROUND:
Inés Del Rio Prada had been convicted of terrorism offences and sentenced to a total of over 3,000 years of imprisonment.
According to Spanish sentencing rules in force at the time, this theoretical sentence was tantamount to an effective sentence of 30 years imprisonment.
While at that time, the benefit of sentence reduction for work performed in prison was applied to the 30-year period, in 2008 the Spanish courts decided to deduct such benefits from the 3,000 years of nominal imprisonment instead, thereby significantly reducing their impact, and leading to a considerably longer sentence in the case of the applicant.
In its judgment, the Grand Chamber held that the application of changes to Spanish sentencing rules as applied to applicant Inés Del Rio Prada had violated the prohibition on retroactive penalties guaranteed in Article 7 of the European Convention on Human Rights.
It held that a 2006 decision of the Spanish Supreme Court, which altered the system of calculation of maximum terms of sentences, leading to reduced remission of sentences for work done in prison, constituted a retroactive redefinition of the sentence previously imposed, which could not have been foreseen.
As such, the Court held that Spain had violated its obligations under article 7 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR).
The Court also found that the applicant’s continued detention violated the right to liberty under Article 5(1) ECHR, and required her release at the earliest possible date.
Contact:
Róisín Pillay, Director, ICJ Europe Programme, t +32 2 734 8446; e-mail : roísín.pillay(a)icj.org
Read also:
Third Party Intervention in Del Rio Prada v. Spain
Apr 23, 2013 | Advocacy, Cases, Legal submissions
The ICJ and Amnesty International presented a third party intervention in the case Abu Zubaydah v. Lithuania before the European Court of Human Rights.
In the third party intervention, the ICJ and AI outlined developments on the knowledge imputable to Contracting Parties at relevant times; on the obligations attached to principle of non-refoulement; on the duty to investigate credible allegations of human rights violations and other procedural obligations; and on the human rights violations that detainees previously held in the USA’s secret detention and rendition programmes are currently enduring.
Abu_Zubaydah_v_Lithuania-ICJAIJointSubmission-ECtHR-final (download the third party intervention)
Mar 18, 2013 | Advocacy, Cases, Legal submissions
The ICJ and Amnesty International presented a third party intervention in the case Al Nashiri v Romania before the European Court of Human Rights.
In the third party intervention, the ICJ and AI outlined developments on the prohibition of arbitrary deprivation of liberty as a rule of customary international law; on the knowledge imputable to Contracting Parties at relevant times; on the duty to investigate credible allegations of human rights violations and the right to truth; and on the evidential approach to enforced disappearances.
AlNashiri_v_Romania-ICJAIJointSubmission-ECtHR-final (download the third party intervention
Feb 25, 2013 | Advocacy, Cases, Legal submissions
The ICJ and Amnesty International presented additional observations in the case Al Nashiri v Poland before the European Court of Human Rights.
In their supplementary third party intervention, the ICJ and AI outlined developments in light of the case El-Masri v the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia on enforced disappearances, on diplomatic representations in light of the Grand Chamber’s findings on responsibility for violations outside the jurisdiction, on the gross human rights violations that detainees previously held in the USA’s secret detention and rendition programme are currently enduring, and on relevance of the Grand Chamber’s observations in El-Masri in relation to any potential resort to ex parte materials and procedures.
Poland-ICJAI-SupplAmicusBrief-AlNashiri v Poland-legal submission-2013 (download the third party intervention)
Feb 19, 2013 | News
The European Court of Human Rights today ruled that an Austrian ban on same-sex second-parent adoption is discriminatory.
The European Court of Human Rights delivered its judgment in the case of X and Others v. Austria and ruled that Austria’s Civil Code discriminates against a partner in a same-sex relationship by making it legally impossible to adopt the biological child of the other partner while permitting second parent adoptions for unmarried heterosexual couples.
The organisations that provided written submissions in this case (FIDH, ICJ, ILGA-Europe, BAAF, NELFA, and ECSOL) welcome this judgment and consider it a landmark judgment applying the European Court of Human Rights’ case law on equal treatment of unmarried couples to same-sex couples applying for second-parent adoption.
Children in same-sex families are highly vulnerable due to a lack of legal recognition and their inability to establish legal links to both of their parents.
Currently, second-parent adoption is possible in 11 European countries: Belgium, Denmark, Finland, Germany, Iceland, the Netherlands, Norway, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden and Great Britain. New legislation that would allow it is planned in France, Luxembourg and Switzerland. Moreover, as a result of the Court’s judgment, it would follow that the legislation of Austria, Andorra, parts of Bosnia and Herzegovina, Liechtenstein, Portugal and Romania should be amended to allow same-sex couples to apply for second-parent adoption, because these countries already permit unmarried heterosexual couples to do so.
Martin K.I. Christensen, Co-Chair of ILGA-Europe’s Executive Board:
“This is a very significant and important victory for rainbow families in Europe. We hope that this judgment will pave the way towards the removal of the remaining legal barriers for these families in Europe. The lack of recognition and the inability for partners in same-sex families to establish legal links to their children is not only discriminatory and creates a number of legal uncertainties, but also has a profound and detrimental impact on the everyday lives of these families and the wellbeing of the children in those families. The principle of the best interests of the child needs to be upheld without exception.”
Alli Jernow, Senior Legal Adviser, International Commission of Jurists, stated:
“With today’s decision, the Court clearly asserts that families are families, regardless of the sex of the parents, and that barriers to legal recognition and protection based on sexual orientation serve the interests of neither parents nor children.”
Souhayr Belhassen, President of FIDH, said:
“The Court recognised the right of a partner in same-sex couple to adopt another partner’s biological child when such adoptions are available for heterosexual couples. This is an important step forward towards the application of the principle of non-discrimination based on the sexual orientation and strengthening legal security and certainty for children. This ruling should guide not only domestic courts, but also the legislator in European states that have not yet amended their legislation in that direction”.
Juha Jämsä, the Vice-President of NELFA, said:
“This is an important day for European LGBT families. We feel very hopeful that this case will lead to our children’s rights gaining better recognition throughout Europe. No group of children should be discriminated against because of their parents’ sexual orientation, gender identity or gender expression”
