Execution of the judgments of the European Court of Human Rights
Labita and Indelicato against Italy

(Labita, application No. 26772/95, judgment of 6 April 2000, Grand Chamber
Indelicato, application No. 31143/96, judgment of 18 October 2001, final 18 January 2001)

The Committee of Ministers, under the terms of Article 46, paragraph 2, of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, which provides that the Committee supervises the execution of final judgments of the European Court of Human Rights (hereinafter “the Convention” and “the Court”);

Having regard to the judgments transmitted by the Court to the Committee once they had become final;

Recalling that the violations of the Convention found by the Court in these cases concerns the lack of an effective investigation into the applicants' allegations of ill-treatment during detention (violations of Article 3), and, in the Labita case, further violations related in particular to the applicant's detention pending trial and the conditions in which he was freed (violations of Article 5, paragraphs 1 and 3, and of Article 8, and Articles 2 of Protocol No. 4, and 3 of Protocol No. 1) (see details in Appendix);

Having invited the government of the respondent state to inform the Committee of the measures taken to comply with its obligation under Article 46, paragraph 1, of the Convention to abide by the judgments;

Having examined the information provided by the government in accordance with the Committee's Rules for the application of Article 46, paragraph 2, of the Convention;

Having satisfied itself that, the respondent state paid the applicants the just satisfaction provided in the judgments (see details in Appendix),

Recalling that a finding of violations by the Court requires, over and above the payment of just satisfaction awarded in the judgments, the adoption by the respondent state, where appropriate, of
 - individual measures to put an end to the violations and erase their consequences so as to achieve as far as possible restitutio in integrum; and

- general measures preventing, similar violations;

DECLARES, having examined the measures taken by the respondent state (see Appendix), that it has exercised its functions under Article 46, paragraph 2, of the Convention in these cases and

DECIDES to close the examination of these cases.

Appendix to Resolution CM/ResDH(2009)83

Information about the measures to comply with the judgments in the cases of
Labita and Indelicato against Italy

Introductory case summary

These cases concern the lack of an effective investigation into allegations made by the applicants that they had been ill-treated during the first months of their detention in the Pianosa prison, in 1992 (violations of Article 3). The European Court underlined in particular the delays in the investigation carried out by the prosecutor's office in the two cases and the negligence in identifying the persons allegedly responsible. The Court noted in addition that in the Labita case that the failure to act upon the applicant's complaint was based not on the ground that it was baseless but because those responsible had not been identified. In the same case, the Court found that the inactivity of the Italian authorities was made even more regrettable by the fact that the applicant's complaint was not an isolated one. The existence of controversial practices by warders at Pianosa Prison had been publicly and energetically condemned even by authorities of the State (§§133-135 of the Labita judgment).

The Labita case furthermore concerns:
- the lack of reasonable grounds for the applicant's continued detention pending trial (the applicant was suspected of being a member of a mafia-type organisation) and the excessive length of this detention (2 years and 7 months, between 1992 and 1994) (violation of Article 5§3);
- the unlawfulness of his detention for 12 hours after being acquitted, owing to the absence of the competent officer (violation of Article 5§1);
- unlawful monitoring of the applicant's correspondence during his detention (violation of Article 8);
- the insufficient grounds for placing the applicant under special police supervision after his acquittal (violation of Article 2 of Protocol No. 4) and the automatic disenfranchisement of the applicant after his acquittal (violation of Article 3 of Protocol No. 1).

I.	Payments of just satisfaction and individual measures

a)  Details of just satisfaction

Name and application No.	Pecuniary damage	Non-pecuniary damage	Costs and expenses	Total	Interest paid	
Labita
(26772/95)	-	75 000 000 ITL	6 000 000 ITL	81 000 000 ITL
Paid on 18/08/2000	123.21 euros	
Indelicato (31143/96)	-	70 000 000 ITL	15 664 480 ITL
Moins 4 100 FRF	46 054 euros Paid on 2/05/2002	60.80 euros	

b) Individual measures

1) Labita case : the applicant was acquitted by a judgment of 12 November 1994 and released the day after. In 2000, the proceedings brought against prison authorities by the applicant were discontinued owing to prescription of the alleged offences. The preventive measures against the applicant (special police supervision), applied after his acquittal, ceased to apply in November 1997. On 11 December 1997 the applicant was reinstated on the electoral register. In 1998 he was compensated for illegal detention. The European Court awarded him just satisfaction for non-pecuniary damage sustained.

2) Indelicato case : The European Court awarded just satisfaction in respect of non-pecuniary damage sustained by the applicant. In 2001, proceedings brought against prison authorities by the applicant were discontinued due to prescription of the alleged offences.

II.	General measures

	1) Violations of Article 3: the effectiveness of procedures relating to the follow-up given to complaints of ill-treatment in prison was improved in 1998 through the modification of the register of medical comments and the issue of circulars and guidelines. Information is also available in the report of the Committee for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (CPT) (Document CPT/Inf(2003)16).

	2) Violation of Article 5§3: Articles 274 and 292 of the Code of Criminal Procedure were amended in 1995. According to the amended law, detention pending trial is revoked ex officio if there are no longer sufficient grounds to justify it. It also lays down that time already served in detention pending trial is to be taken into account in determining the sentence. In addition, Article 303 of the Code of Criminal Procedure provides the maximum length of detention pending trial according to specific circumstances (see Resolution ResDH(2005)90 adopted in the Vaccaro case for further details).

3) Violation of Article 8 : In 2004, new legislation (Law No. 95/2004 on Prison Administration) set limits to the monitoring and restriction of prisoners' correspondence. In particular, correspondence with lawyers and organs of the European Convention is excluded from monitoring (see Final Resolution ResDH(2005)55 adopted in the Calogero Diana case).

	4) Violation of Articles 2 of Protocol No. 4 and 3 of Protocol No. 1: In order to avoid further unjustified application of this kind of measures (special police supervision and automatic disenfranchisement), the judgment in the Labita case has been sent out to the judicial authorities concerned. Furthermore, a seminar was organised by the Supreme Judicial Council in February 2005 in this issue.

	5) Violation of Article 5§1: By circular No. 3498/5948 of 19/04/1999, the Ministry of Justice drew prison authorities' attention to their duty to ensure permanent attendance of officials responsible for freeing detainees (see Final Resolution ResDH(2003)151 adopted in the Santandrea case).

 The judgments have been translated and published in the database of the Court of Cassation on the case-law of the European Court of Human Rights (). This website is widely used by all those who practice law in Italy: civil servants, lawyers, prosecutors and judges alike. The Labita judgment was also published in several legal journals including Documenti Giustizia, 2000, No. 1/2, and transmitted to the Supreme Judicial Council which is competent for training magistrates. The Indelicato judgment has been transmitted to the Public Prosecutor of Livorno and to the Office of the Public Prosecutor's Office before the Court of Cassation.

III.	Conclusions of the respondent state

The government considers that no further individual measure is required in these cases, and that the general measures taken will prevent other similar violations and that Italy has thus complied with its obligations under Article 46, paragraph 1, of the Convention.