CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 11 avril 2006

.s3ABFC313 { font-size:10pt } .sEB86A30B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; page-break-after:avoid } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .sA241FE93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-align:justify; page-break-after:avoid; border-bottom:0.75pt solid #000000; padding-bottom:1pt } .s2EF62ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s8F2B0B1B { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:12pt } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s9FF10068 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt } .s5F48796F { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s5CB9E8AB { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; border-bottom:1pt solid #000000; padding-bottom:1pt } .sDF790F1E { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s3DC36BA9 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } Information Note on the Court’s case-law No. 86 May 2006 Kafkaris v. Cyprus (dec.) - 21906/04 Decision 11.4.2006 [Section I] Article 3 Degrading treatment Inhuman treatment Applicant allegedly left in uncertainty as to the actual duration of his “life imprisonment”: admissible   Article 5 Article 5-1 Lawful arrest or detention Detention beyond the alleged date of expiry of a sentence to “life imprisonment”: admissible   Article 7 Ambiguity as to the actual duration of “life imprisonment”: admissible   In 1989 the applicant was found guilty by an assize court on three counts of premeditated murder and was sentenced to life imprisonment in respect of each count. During the hearing concerning his sentencing, the prosecution invited the court to clarify whether the meaning of the term “life imprisonment” in the Criminal Code actually entailed imprisonment for life or for a period of twenty years as provided by the Prison (General) Regulations of 1981 and the Prison (General) (Amending) Regulations of 1987. If the court were to find that the latter framework was applicable, an issue would arise as to whether the sentences should be imposed consecutively or concurrently and the prosecution would then propose consecutive sentences. The court, relying on the findings of another assize court in 1988, found that it was not competent to examine the validity of the Regulations or take into account any possible repercussions they could have on the applicant’s sentence. It went on to find that the term “life imprisonment” used in the Criminal Code meant imprisonment for the remainder of the life of the convicted person. In view of this, the court did not consider it necessary to examine whether the sentences it imposed would run concurrently or consecutively. The Supreme Court dismissed the applicant’s appeal against his conviction. The day the applicant was put into prison, he was given a written notice to the effect that the date set for his release was 16 July 2002. His release was conditional upon his good conduct and industry during detention. Following the commission of a disciplinary offence, his release was postponed to 2 November 2002. In 1992, in an unrelated case, the Supreme Court declared the 1981-1987 regulations unconstitutional and in 1996 a new Prison Law was enacted. The applicant was not released in 2002 and in 2004 he submitted a Habeas Corpus application, challenging the lawfulness of his detention and invoking the Convention. The Supreme Court, sitting as the first instance, dismissed his application. In his appeal he challenged the interpretation of the term “life imprisonment” made by the assize court when sentencing the applicant in 1989, in view of the regulations applicable at the time and the notice given to the applicant on his entry into prison. He argued that the fact that he had not challenged his sentence following conviction could not be interpreted as an acceptance of the assize court’s interpretation of the term “life imprisonment”. The Supreme Court, now sitting as an appellate bench, dismissed his appeal. Before the European Court the applicant complains of a violation of Article 3 of the Convention in that   the whole or a significant part of his life imprisonment exceeds the reasonable and acceptable standards for the length of a period of punitive detention laid down in the Convention. Moreover,   following the notice given to him upon entry into prison by the prison authorities, he was under the legitimate expectation that he would be released in 2002. However, as a result of his continuous detention beyond the date mentioned in that notice he has been left in a state of distress and uncertainty over his future for a significant amount of time, which amounts to inhuman and degrading treatment. He further complains under Article 5 that his continuing detention since 2 November 2002 has been unlawful as the sentence imposed on him in 1989 expired on that date. He also complains of a violation of Article 7 in that when he was sentenced to mandatory life imprisonment in 1989 that term – under the prison regulations applicable at the time – was tantamount to imprisonment for a period of twenty years. As a result of the repeal of the relevant Prison Regulations, he is subject to an unforeseeable prolongation of his term of imprisonment from a definite twenty-year sentence to an indeterminate term for the remainder of his life. Thus, a heavier penalty has been imposed than that applicable at the time when he had committed the offence for which he had been convicted. Furthermore, the amendment of the relevant legislative provisions and their retroactive application has resulted in the increase of his sentence from twenty years to an indeterminate term and a change in the conditions of his detention. Finally, he complains that whilst most other inmates serving life sentences are being released on having served their twenty-year sentence, he remains the longest-serving life prisoner and was therefore being subjected to discriminatory treatment, contrary to Article   14 of the Convention in conjunction with Articles 3, 5 and 7. Admissible as a whole.   © 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