Judgment No. 17047 of 2024: Precautionary Measures and the Need for Clinical Checks

The judgment no. 17047 of February 16, 2024, issued by the Court of Cassation, represents an important step forward in understanding personal precautionary measures and their implications for the health of inmates. In particular, the decision addresses the issue of the necessity for clinical and instrumental checks, clearly establishing that such needs do not necessarily imply an incompatibility with detention.

The Context of the Judgment

The judgment in question is based on a case in which the Court of Freedom of Reggio Calabria deemed the request for incompatibility by the inmate M. P.M. O. Lucia inadmissible. The Court emphasized that the mere need for clinical checks does not, in itself, necessitate the exclusion of the inmate from the prison regime. This is a crucial aspect, as it recognizes the possibility of keeping in custody those who require care, provided that transfers to suitable facilities are guaranteed.

Relevance of the Judgment

The need for periodic instrumental clinical checks for the ongoing assessment of pathological conditions and the planning of therapy - Relevance for the purposes of incompatibility with detention - Exclusion - Reasons. Regarding personal precautionary measures, the recognition of the need for periodic clinical and instrumental checks, aimed at the ongoing assessment of the identified pathological conditions and the planning of the most appropriate pharmacological therapy, even through brief admissions to specialized environments outside the prison system, does not, in itself, determine a state of relevant incompatibility, pursuant to Article 275, paragraph 4-bis, of the Code of Criminal Procedure, for the purposes of the operationality of the prohibition of custody in prison, which requires the presence of a morbid state, such needs can be safeguarded in accordance with Article 11, Law No. 354 of July 26, 1975, through the transfer of the inmate to suitable clinical centers of the penitentiary administration or other external care facilities, with the consequent right to obtain such transfers.

This maxim highlights how it is possible to ensure the health needs of the inmate without compromising their custody, provided that the necessary measures are implemented. The law already provides that inmates can receive appropriate medical care, also through transfer to specialized centers.

Practical Implications

The implications of this judgment are manifold and primarily concern the management of the health of inmates. Below are some of the main considerations:

  • The health of inmates must be a priority, and institutions must ensure access to adequate care.
  • Precautionary measures should not be interpreted rigidly but should take individual health needs into account.
  • Transfer to clinical centers should be considered a feasible and necessary solution for the protection of the inmate's health.

Conclusions

In conclusion, judgment no. 17047 of 2024 offers an important reflection on how the legal system can balance the custody of inmates with the right to health. The decision of the Court of Cassation represents a step forward towards greater humanization of the penitentiary system, emphasizing the importance of ensuring that health needs are not overlooked in the name of justice. It is essential that legal operators and penitentiary institutions are aware of the implications of this judgment and work to implement the necessary measures to ensure the well-being of inmates, in line with current legislation.

Bianucci Law Firm