Date when decision was rendered: 16.10.2001

Judicial body: Supreme Court = Högsta domstolen = Korkein oikeus

Reference: Report No. 2125; R2000/191

Reference to source

KKO 2001:104.

Decisions of the Supreme Court 2001 II July-December

Avgöranden av Högsta domstolen 2001 II juli-december

Korkeimman oikeuden ratkaisuja 2001 II heinä-joulukuu

Place of publication: Helsinki

Publisher: Edita

Date of publication: 2002

Pages: pp. 654-661

Subject

prisoners, prison conditions, preventive detention, inhuman treatment or punishment,
fångar, fängelseförhållanden, internering i tvångsinrättning, omänsklig behandling eller bestraffning,
vangit, vankilaolosuhteet, pakkolaitokseen eristäminen, epäinhimillinen kohtelu tai rangaistus,

Relevant legal provisions

sections 1, 15 and 16 of the Act on the Incarceration of Dangerous Recidivists; section 22 of the Constitution Act

= lag om internering av farliga återfallsförbrytare 1 §, 15 § och 16 §; grundlagen 22 §

= laki vaarallisten rikoksenuusijain eristämisestä 1 §, 15 § ja 16 §; perustuslaki 22 §.

ECHRP-7-4; ECHR (in general); CCPR (in general)

Abstract

A had been released on parole from an institution for preventive detention.While on parole, he committed manslaughter and was sentenced to prison by a court of first instance which considered that A had committed the offence without full possession of his senses.The prosecutor requested the court to authorize the Prison Court to decide on the incarceration of A in preventive detention.The court considered the conditions for incarceration under section 1 of the Act on the Incarceration of Dangerous Recidivists and concluded that these conditions were fulfilled in A's case.It decided to authorize A's incarceration and to cancel his parole.

A claimed that incarceration in preventive detention was a violation of human rights treaties binding on Finland.In its decision, the court of first instance discussed this question at length.It noted, among other things, that incarcerated recidivists did not serve their sentence in a separate institution but in ordinary prisons under close to normal prison conditions.In practice, incarceration only meant that the offender served the total length of his sentence.The court also pointed out that there was a possibility of appeal against the decisions of both the sentencing court and the Prison Court.According to the Act on the Incarceration of Dangerous Recidivist (section 15), an incarcerated recidivist shall be released on parole upon having served his total term of imprisonment, unless the Prison Court still considers him dangerous to the life or health of others.If he is not released, the matter shall be re-examined at least every six months.The court of first instance noted that such a possibility to continue the loss of liberty of the offender may be problematic.However, in the opinion of the court this constituted a security measure rather than an additional punishment, and in practice the possibility had not been used since 1971.The court continued that being released on parole was not a new punishment but a legal consequence of the fact that the offender had been incarcerated in preventive detention.Cancelling the parole in case the person on parole commits a crime (section 16) is not an additional punishment.

The court of first instance concluded that incarcerating A in preventive detention and cancelling his parole did not violate his human rights.One lay member of the court took a different view and considered, among other things, that the authorization of an offender's incarceration was against Article 4 of Protocol No. 7 to the ECHR as the offender was not aware of the total length of his sentence.

A took the case to the court of appeal which reduced the length of A's prison sentence but did not change the order of the first instance court concerning A's incarceration and the cancellation of his parole.In its decision, the court of appeal pointed out that international human rights treaties should be taken into account, especially when deciding on the possible continuation of the incarceration after the offender has served the total period of his imprisonment.

The case went further to the Supreme Court which mainly agreed with the reasoning of the lower courts and concluded that incarceration in preventive detention could not be considered an inhuman, cruel or degrading punishment.With reference to section 22 of the Constitution Act and to the duty of public authorities to guarantee the observance of basic rights and liberties and human rights, the Supreme Court pointed out that when considering the conditions for incarceration, the provisions of and legal practice under the CCPR and the ECHR had to be taken into account.It also mentioned the decisions of the European Commission of Human Rights concerning applications 20560/92 and 29328/95 against Finland.The Commission had noted that the fact that an offender served the total length of his prison sentence was not a violation of the ECHR.In the opinion of the Supreme Court, it is not a violation of the CCPR either.The Supreme Court concluded that the Prison Court could be authorized to decide on the incarceration of A in preventive detention.The order by the lower court to cancel A's parole was not relevant, as the Prison Court would in any case consider the question of A's incarceration.

30.10.2002 / 10.10.2012 / RHANSKI