Autore: Rosella Alunni

SARTARELLI S. – Il caso Provenzano e il diritto di (umanamente) morire

Abstract

 Premettendo che…. – In un clima socio-politico come quello attuale, contrassegnato da diffusi sentimenti di violenza e da risentimenti sovranisti marcatamente anti-europeisti, una sentenza della Corte EDU come quella in esame che addirittura “si è permessa” di intervenire sulla problematica, tutta italiana, del trattamento penitenziario dei mafiosi non poteva che essere accolta da sdegnate polemiche. In realtà, la Corte Europea dei Diritti Umani, “dei Diritti Umani” appunto, si è limitata a sottolineare come l’umanità della pena, o meglio, l’umanità (-dignità) della morte durante l’esecuzione di una pena detentiva possa patire un giustificato indebolimento solo in presenza di comprovate e giudizialmente motivate ragioni di sicurezza.

Più in particolare, la Corte EDU con la sentenza del 25 ottobre 2018 (ricorso n. 55080/13, Provenzano c. Italia) ha condannato l’Italia per violazione dell’art. 3 Cedu ovvero per la contrarietà al divieto di pene o trattamenti inumani e degradanti del solo ultimo decreto di proroga del regime carcerario differenziato previsto dall’art. 41 bis ord. penit. (quello del 23 marzo 2016), emesso nei confronti del detenuto Bernardo Provenzano senza una congrua valutazione dell’intervenuto, ulteriore, deterioramento delle sue funzioni cognitive. […]

In a political climate such as the current one, marked by feelings of violence and markedly anti-European resentments, the sentence ruled  by the ECHR in the case of Provenzano which intervened on the Italian problem of the mafia prison treatment could only be accepted from strong controversy. However, the European Court of Human Rights has limited itself to underlining how the principle of the punishment humanity and its execution can suffer a justified weakening only in the presence of proven and justified security reasons..

 

Sánchez H. | Criteria for limiting the use of religious symbols in court appearances in Strasbourg case law

Abstract

In its recent ruling, Hamidović v. Bosnia and Herzegovina, the Strasbourg Court found that the conviction of a Muslim for his refusal to remove the taquiyah (skullcap), during a criminal proceeding where he was witness, was illegitimate. The paper analyzes the proportionality criteria applied by the European Court of Human Rights as well as by some national courts in cases where the legal restrictions to the wearing of religious clothing or symbols by privates may constitute forms of discrimination.[…]

VANNUCCINI S. – Diacronia dello sviluppo giurisprudenziale e legislativo della disciplina sul parto anonimo e sulla conoscenza dei propri veri natali

Abstract

This paper deals with the interaction of two potentially competing rights, and the ways in which they can be balanced against each other: the right of the mother to remain anonymous after giving birth, without recording her name on the child’s birth certificate, and the right of the newborn to know his/her parentage, i.e. his/her biological family, ascendance and conditions of birth, as an integral part of the right to an identity.
The evolution of the regulation of anonymous birth – from the blind preference to the person who wishes to keep her identity secret (with the consequence that the right of the person abandoned at birth to find his/her origins is entirely neglected and forgotten) to the recognition that the problematic issue does not lie in the mother’s right to anonymity per se, but rather in its irreversible nature, and to the progress on the implementation of the child’s right to knowledge of his/her personal history (and similar right to knowledge on the side of the mother who desires to initiate a search for her child) – is studied through a diachronic analysis of the judicial and legislative development on this matter in the Italian Legal System.
.[…]

VANNUCCINI S. – «Memento mori» («secundum voluntatem medicorum et sententiam iudicum»). Il caso francese di Vincent Lambert

Abstract

The case of Vincent Lambert refers to the withdrawal of artificial nutrition and hydration of a French patient in a state characterized as «minimally conscious plus», according to the decision taken by the doctors in charge of him, first confirmed by the Conseil d’État and then by the ECtHR, but in the absence both of advance directives drawn up by the patient and of a person of trust within the meaning of the relevant provisions of the Public Health Code, and also with the opposite opinion of his parents and other family members.
This case is not only a patient’s case, but also a question about the death, that of a young man in the incapacity to express its will. This case, and the questionable national and European rulings, reopen a debate never ceased in France, as in Europe as a whole, about the rights of patients and their representatives, the duties of care and assistance, the distinction between treatments and vital treatments, the full protection of human frailty, the unavailability of one’s own bodily life.[…]

Accessibility