The Joint Panels of the Supreme Court, composed of 16 judges, have made an important decision that reformulates the standards for the assignment and continuation of the personal security measure "prison arrest", placing emphasis on concrete reasoning and realistic consideration of alternatives.
The case was reviewed following the initiative of the President of the Supreme Court, who set in motion the United Panels to address the issues identified in judicial practice regarding the way this measure was requested, justified and implemented, with the aim of orienting it towards constitutional standards and those of the European Court of Human Rights.
Essentially, the decision establishes an important change: detention in prison can no longer be based on general formulations, but requires an individualized justification, based on concrete and verifiable facts.
The Joint Panels established three key rules. First, courts are required to realistically consider less restrictive alternative measures and to clearly explain why they are not sufficient in each specific case. Second, the measure “custody” is of an exceptional nature and can only be imposed when any other measure is inappropriate, while the dangerousness cannot be based simply on the criminal offense or the penalty provided, but must be related to the specific circumstances and the profile of the person. Third, the burden of justifying this measure lies with the prosecution, while the court must verify and justify it at every stage, without being influenced by the lack of “positive evidence” from the defendant.
This decision is seen as an important step towards strengthening guarantees of personal freedom and towards a more stable and predictable judicial practice.
In the specific case, the United Panels upheld the decision of the Court of Appeal of General Jurisdiction, dismissing the prosecution's appeal.
The full and reasoned decision is expected to be published within the legal deadline and published in the Official Gazette.
