Liberty - Protecting civil liberties, promoting human rights

The case concerned the applicant’s disenfranchisement following his criminal conviction. The Court found that the disenfranchisement of convicted prisoners provided for under Italian law was not like the general, automatic, indiscriminate measure that led it to find a violation of Article 3 of Protocol No. 1 in the Hirst (no. 2) v. the United Kingdom case. Italian law took care to adapt the measure to the particular circumstances of a case, particularly the length of the sentence.

Isabella Sankey, Director of Policy for Liberty said:

"After all the political hot-air and raised tempers over prisoner voting, today's judgment shows that whilst the Court of Human Rights must uphold core values against blanket and irrational Victorian laws, it will allow individual countries a great deal of discretion about how best to apply human rights at home.

The Commons huffed and puffed but the Court had no intention of blowing its House down. Perhaps we can now have a more rational domestic debate about what prisoner voting bans really achieve and if and when they might be appropriate?"

Contact: Liberty Press Office on 020 7378 3656 or 07973 831128