Public Law Studies Quarterly

Assessing Life Imprisonment Sentence in Light of Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights

Document Type : Article

Authors

Alireza Jalali 1
Mohammad Mazhari 2
Mohammadhassan Maldar 3

1 Assistant Professor, Department of Law, Damghan University, Damghan, Iran.

2 Associate Professor of Public Law, Faculty of Law and Social Sciences, University of Tabriz, Tabriz, Iran

3 Ph. D. Student in Criminal Law and Criminology, Department of Criminal Law and Criminology, Ferdowsi University of Mashhad, Mashhad, Iran

https://doi.org/10.22059/jplsq.2022.347366.3164
Abstract
The European Court of Human Rights has, in several instances, equated life imprisonment with Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights, which prohibits torture. Over time, the judges have shifted from a conservative to a more progressive viewpoint, considering life imprisonment contrary to the principles prohibiting torture, as well as inhuman and degrading treatment. In this research, through descriptive and deductive analysis, we will explore the criteria laid down by th European Court's for life imprisonment not to be violative of Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights. These criteria include: the proportionality between crime and penalty, the provision of future prisoner release not only in rules and norms but also in practice, the allowance for parole for those convicted of crimes related to public security, and the prohibition of extradition to third countries that do not adhere to the standards set by the European Court. While these viewpoints undoubtedly enhance the safeguarding of human rights for those sentenced to life imprisonment, they may also pose challenges to the defense of public order in the member states of the convention.

Keywords

degrading treatment
European Convention on Human Rights
European Court of Human Rights
inhuman treatment
life imprisonment
Subjects

  1. Eng;lish

    1. A) Books
    2. Buyse, A., & Hamilton, M. (2011). Transnational Jurisprudence and the ECHR: Justice, Politics and Rights. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    3. Christoffersen, J. & Rask Madsen, M. (2011). The European Court of Human Rights between Law and Politics. New York: Oxford University Press.
    4. De Weck, F. (2017). Non-Refoulement Under the European Convention on Human Rights and the UN Convention Against Torture. Leiden, Brill.
    5. Harris, D. J.; O'Boyle, M. & Warbrick. C (1995). Law of the European Convention on Human Rights. London: Butterworths, First edition.
    6. Public International Law and Policy Group NL (Report) (2016). The Legality of Life Imprisonment: Comparative Analysis of International, European and Dutch Law. Prepared by the Public International Law & Policy Group.
    7. Van Zyl Smit, D. (2013). Punishment and Human Rights, SAGE Handbook of Punishment and Society. edited by: Jonathan Simon and Richard Sparks, First Published.
    8. Van Zyl Smit, D., & Appleton, C. (2018). Life imprisonment: A policy briefing, Penal Reform International. University of Nottingham, Nottingham.
    9. Van Zyl Smit, D., & Appleton, C. (2016). Life Imprisonment and Human Rights. Oñati International Series in Law and Society, Bloomsbury UK.
    10. Viven Stern, B. (2007). Alternatives to the death penalty: the problems with life imprisonment, speech to the Second World Congress against the Death Penalty. Montreal, 6 October 2004, published by Penal Reform Briefing, No 1.

     

    1. B) Articles
    2. Campaign to End Life Imprisonment (2018). The Facts of Life Sentences, https://www.sentencingproject.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/12/Facts-of-Life.pdf., 1-4.
    3. Gumboh, Esther (2017). A Critical Analysis of Life Imprisonment in Malaw. Journal of African Law, 61( 3), 443 – 466.
    4. Stone Sweet, A. (2012). The European Convention on Human Rights and National Constitutional Reordering. Cardozo Law Review, 33(5), 1859-1868.

     

    1. C) Cases
    2. Ireland v. United Kingdom, 18-1-1978, n. 5310-71.
    3. Kafkaris v. Cyprus, 12-2-2008 (A), n. 21906-04.
    4. Kudla v. Poland, 26-10-2000, n. 30210-96.
    5. Mayeka and Mitunga v. Belgium, 12-10-1989, n. 13178-03.
    6. Öcalan v. Turkey, 18-3-2014 (A), n. 10464-07.
    7. Saadi v. Italy, 28-2-2008 (B), n. 37201-06.
    8. Selmouni v. France, 28-7-1999, n. 25803-94.
    9. Streicher v. Germany, 10-2-2009, n. 40384-04.
    10. Törköly v. Hungary, 5-4-2011, n. 4413-06.
    11. Trabelsi v. Belgium, 7-10-2014 (B), n. 140-10.
    12. Vinter and Others v. United Kingdom, 17-1-2012, n. 66069-09.
    13. Vinter and Others v. United Kingdom, Grand Chamber, 9-7-2013, n. 3869-10.
    14. Viola v. Italy, 13-6-2019, n. 77633-16.

     

    1. ایتالیایی
    2. Libri
    3. Fungardi, S. (2014). Fine pena mai. Il cosiddetto ergastolo ostativo tra diritto interno e giurisprudenza della Cedu. Università di Milano, Tesi di Laurea Magistrale in Giurisprudenza.
    4. Martino, P. (2014). I giudici di common law e la (cross) fertilization. Rimini, Maggioli.
    5. Mezzetti, Luca & Pizzolo, Calogero (2013). Diritto processuale dei diritti umani.Rimini, Maggioli.
    6. B) Articoli
    7. Lobba, P. (2017). Punire la tortura in Italia. Spunti ricostruttivi a cavallo tra diritti umani e diritto penale internazionale. Diritto penale contemporaneo, 10, 181-250
    8. Ranalli, D. (2015). L’ergastolo nella giurisprudenza della Corte europea dei diritti dell’uomo. Rassegna penitenziaria e criminologica, 1, 289-315.
    9. Scotti, V. R. (2015). Fra overruling e conferme giurisprudenziali. La Corte di Strasburgo e il caso Öcalan c. Turchia. Diritto pubblico comparato ed europeo, 3, 239-248.
    10. Zagato, L. (2006). L’eccezione per motivi di emergenza nel diritto internazionale dei diritti umani. DEP, 5-6, 137-156.

     

    References In Persian:

    1. A) Articles
    2. Ghari Seyyed Fatemi, S. M. (2018). The New Tribunal of ECHR. Journal of International Law, 25, 129-145 (In persian).
    3. Jafari, A. (2008). HIV and Human Rights in the Rules of HCHR. Medical Law Journal, 2(4), 107-127 (In persian).
    4. Jalali, A. (2022). The Interpretation of the Expulsion of Foreigners in the Framework of the Prohibition of Torture in the Jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights. Public Law Studies Quarterly, 51(4), 1603-1621 (In persian).
    5. Jalali, M., & Soodbar, S.(2020). The Impact of European Court of Human Rights on National Legal Order. Comparative Law Review, 11, (1), 59-79 (In persian).
    6. Razavifard, B. (2012). Efficiency and non-Efficiency of Imprisonment in International Criminal Law. Research Journal of Criminal Law, 1(1), 181-203 (In persian).
    7. Zamani, S., & Nesari, E. (2012). Problems About Life Imprisonment in the light of International Penal Law. Journal of Teachings of Criminal Law, 3(1), 79-100 (In persian).
Public Law Studies Quarterly
Volume 54, Issue 3
Autumn 2024
Autumn 2024
Pages 2055-2072

  • Receive Date 20 August 2022
  • Accept Date 24 October 2022

Home

Journal Process Ethics

Peer Review Process

Submission

Indexing and Abstracting

Contact Us