Judgment No. 24425 of 2023: Alternative Measures to Detention and Three-Year Ban on Granting

The judgment no. 24425 of April 26, 2023, published on June 7, 2023, represents an important evolution in the jurisprudence regarding alternative measures to detention. In this case, the Court addressed the issue of the three-year ban on granting benefits as provided by Article 58-quater of the penitentiary system, particularly concerning the revocation of probation for individuals subjected to alternative measures.

The Context of the Judgment

The central issue of the judgment concerns the applicability of the three-year ban on granting penitentiary benefits for convicts whose alternative measure to detention has been revoked. The Court established that this ban does not apply in the case of revocation of probation in specific circumstances, as provided by Article 94 of Presidential Decree No. 309 of 1990.

This means that the unsuccessful application of an alternative measure does not automatically entail a presumption of the convict's inability to comply with rehabilitative benefits. The Court emphasized that the peculiarities of the situation of the individuals involved must be taken into account, thus excluding a rigid application of the ban.

The Reasons Behind the Decision

01 President: ROCCHI GIACOMO. Rapporteur: POSCIA GIORGIO. Defendant: MAGLIUOLO RAFFAELE GIANLUCA. P.M. LIGNOLA FERDINANDO. (Partial Diff.) Annuls without referral, TRIB. SUPERVISION CATANIA, 10/06/2022 563000 PREVENTION AND PENAL INSTITUTES (PENITENTIARY SYSTEM) - Alternative measures to detention - Three-year ban on new grant of the benefit provided by Article 58-quater penal code - Applicability also in the case of revocation of "therapeutic" probation as provided by Article 94 of Presidential Decree No. 309 of 1990 - Exclusion - Reasons. The three-year ban on granting penitentiary benefits to the convict against whom the revocation of an alternative measure to detention has been ordered, as provided by Article 58-quater of the penal code, does not operate in the case of revocation of probation in specific circumstances referred to in Article 94 of Presidential Decree of October 9, 1990, No. 309, since the unsuccessful application of this measure, in addition to not being expressly contemplated among the "prejudicial" conditions outlined in Article 58-quater, paragraph 2, cited due to the peculiar situation of the individuals benefiting from it, does not determine any absolute presumption of the convict's inability to comply with benefits aimed at common rehabilitative purposes.

Conclusions

Judgment No. 24425 of 2023 marks an important step towards greater flexibility in the application of alternative measures to detention. The Court clarified that the revocation of probation should not automatically result in the inability to access new benefits, emphasizing the importance of rehabilitation and social reintegration. This approach reflects an evolution in jurisprudence that takes into account the specific needs of convicts, promoting a more humane and rehabilitative penitentiary system.

Bianucci Law Firm