Judgment No. 15895 of 2024: Extended Visits and Differentiated Prison Regime

The judgment No. 15895 of January 26, 2024, issued by the Court of Cassation, provides an important interpretation regarding the differentiated prison regime and the rights of inmates, particularly concerning extended visits. This decision, which rejects the appeal filed by an inmate, clarifies some fundamental conditions related to Article 41-bis of the prison regulations.

The Regulatory Context

The differentiated detention regime, regulated by Article 41-bis of Law No. 354 of 1975, is intended for inmates deemed particularly dangerous. The rules establish that, for these inmates, visual visits are limited, allowing only one visit per month. However, the judgment highlights that, under particular circumstances, it is possible to have extended visits lasting up to two hours, as stipulated by Article 37, paragraph 10, of Presidential Decree No. 230 of 2000.

Differentiated detention regime under Article 41-bis of the penal code - Extended visit under Article 37, paragraph 10, Presidential Decree No. 230 of 2000 - Applicability - Conditions. Regarding the differentiated prison regime pursuant to Article 41-bis of Law No. 354 of July 26, 1975, the inmate may have an extended visit of up to two hours, according to Article 37, paragraph 10, Presidential Decree No. 230 of June 30, 2000, with the peculiarity that, having the right to one visual visit per month, the prerequisite for the non-utilization of "the weekly visit" must be considered fulfilled when the inmate has not had the visit in the preceding month.

The Implications of the Judgment

The Court, with this ruling, clarifies that the right to an extended visit is subject to specific conditions. Indeed, the inmate is entitled to one visual visit each month, but the possibility of extending its duration is contingent on the absence of visits in the previous month. This aspect is crucial for understanding how the prison system manages the rights of inmates, particularly for those subjected to more severe measures.

  • The extended visit is an exceptional measure reserved for specific cases.
  • It is essential that the inmate has not already availed themselves of a visit in the previous month.
  • The judgment fits into a jurisprudential context that aims to guarantee human rights even within the prison system.

Conclusions

In summary, Judgment No. 15895 of 2024 represents a significant step in the protection of the rights of inmates subjected to a differentiated prison regime. The provisions on extended visits should be understood not only as a right but also as a tool for rehabilitation and social reintegration. The Court, with this decision, reaffirms the importance of balancing security and human rights, a topic of increasing relevance in Italian and European jurisprudence.

Bianucci Law Firm