Judgment No. 17489 of 2024: Differentiated Regime and Purchase of Foodstuffs in Prison

The recent judgment No. 17489 of March 29, 2024, by the Court of Cassation offers significant insights regarding the management of inmates subjected to a differentiated regime, particularly concerning the authorization to purchase foodstuffs in surplus. This provision, which annuls without remand the decision of the Surveillance Court of Sassari, highlights the delicate interactions between individual rights and security needs within penitentiary institutions.

The Regulatory Context and Conditions of Legitimacy

Law No. 354 of July 26, 1975, Article 41-bis, regulates the detention methods for individuals deemed dangerous, establishing restrictive measures to ensure internal security. In this context, the Court reiterated that the denial by the prison administration to allow the purchase of foodstuffs, such as flour and yeast, is legitimate if based on objective needs for order and security. This approach is consistent with the necessity to prevent risk situations within the prison.

Inmates subjected to a differentiated regime under Article 41-bis of the Criminal Procedure Code - Authorization to purchase foodstuffs in surplus - Denial - Legitimacy - Conditions - Case. Regarding the differentiated regime under Article 41-bis of Law No. 354 of July 26, 1975, the provision whereby the prison administration does not authorize the purchase of surplus and the retention of food is legitimate based on objective needs for internal order and security, provided that the resulting limitations do not affect the inmate's rights to health and nutrition. (Case concerning the denial of the purchase of surplus flour and yeast, adopted due to their easy flammability and non-essential nature, as the inmate can benefit from the meals provided by the administration, which comply with ministerial nutritional tables).

The Implications for Inmates' Rights

The judgment emphasizes that, although the restrictions imposed for security reasons are legitimate, they must not compromise the fundamental rights of inmates, particularly those related to health and nutrition. The administration must ensure that the provided meals adhere to ministerial nutritional tables so that inmates can maintain an adequate state of health.

  • Legitimacy of the denial of the purchase of foodstuffs based on security needs.
  • Inmate rights to health and nutrition must be protected.
  • Possibility to benefit from the meals provided by the administration as an alternative.

Conclusions

In conclusion, judgment No. 17489 of 2024 represents an important reference point for the management of inmates under a differentiated regime, emphasizing the need to balance security needs with the fundamental rights of inmates. This balance is essential for a criminal justice system that respects human dignity, even within prison facilities.

Bianucci Law Firm