Prison, inhuman treatment the locker hung too low on the wall

From the surface area available to inmates in the prison must be deducted the space occupied by hanging furniture if it is placed at a height that hindersfreedom of movement. The Cassazione, in its judgment 34150, upheld the appeal against the Surveillance Court's rejection of the compensation demanded by a prisoner for inhuman and degrading treatment, suffered in various penal institutions. On the list were rats, the possibility of showering three times a week, and the walkable space of less than three square metres, which is required by Strasbourg jurisprudence, in line with Article 3 of the Convention on Inhuman and Degrading Treatment. As for the rats, the supervisory judges had given weight to the deratization campaigns carried out in the prison, for the shower there were shifts and soaps and personal hygiene products were distributed, while the hanging lockers were spaced out from the floor and therefore did not encroach on the prisoner's walkable space.

An answer that does not satisfy the Supreme Court. The judges of legitimacy, measurements in hand, recall that not only the space of the beds and furniture on the floor should be deducted from the useful metres, but also that occupied by the 'hanging' furniture. Specifically, the fixed cabinets were placed 40 centimetres from the ground for the long one, and 150 centimetres for the three small ones: a height capable of limiting the prisoners' freedom of movement. The Court was therefore wrong to let it be understood "that the space projected to the ground by these furnishings would never be deductible from the calculation," reads the sentence, "and that it is therefore not necessary to verify in concrete terms whether or not the area underneath is usable for free movement.

With sentence 34156, the Court of Cassation remained on the subject of prisons, this time rejecting a prisoner's appeal against histransfer from Pescara to Viterbo. A measure adopted, according to him, because he had complained of bureaucratic red tape, and justified instead by the prison administration on security grounds, for an assault that the Tunisian detainee had actually suffered months earlier. The Supreme Court recalls, however, that the transfer, just because it is unwelcome, does not constitute an infringement of a subjective right, and falls within the administration's margin of discretion, for reasons of organisation or security, to implement common re-educational treatments, as to avoid reciprocal negative influences. Without, however, being able to border on arbitrariness. The change of institute must be made, except for impediments to be documented, in compliance with the territoriality criterion that also regulates the initial assignment, in order to allow the prisoner to be close to his family or, if identifiable, to a social nucleus of reference. Even the detainee, remember the ermines, has the right to request a transfer, for affective, study, etc. reasons, which will have to be assessed.