Deprivation of voting rights as part of a criminal investigation
II. Relevant domestic law and practice A. Provisions relating to the length of detention pending trial 85. The first paragraph of Article 273 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (“CCP”) provides that “no one shall be detained pending trial unless there is serious evidence of his guilt”. 86. Article 274 CCP goes on to provide that detention pending trial may be ordered: “(a) if detention is demanded by special and unavoidable requirements of the inquiry into the facts under investigation concerning a genuine and present danger for the production or authenticity of evidence ...; (b) if the accused has absconded or there is a real danger of his absconding, provided that the court considers that, if convicted, he will be liable to a prison sentence of more than two years; and (c) where, given the specific nature and circumstances of the offence and having regard to the character of the suspect or the accused as shown by his conduct, acts or criminal record, there is a genuine risk that he will commit a serious offence involving the use of weapons or other violent means against the person or an offence against the constitutional order or an offence relating to organised crime or a further offence of the same kind as that of which he is suspected or accused ...” 87. Under Article 275 § 3 CCP, as amended by Legislative Decree no. 152 of 1991 (which became Law no. 203 of 1991) and Legislative Decree no. 292 of 1991 (which became Law no. 356 of 1991) there is a rebuttable presumption that such a necessity exists where certain offences, such as being a member of a mafia -type organisation, are concerned. 88. Article 303 CCP lays down the maximum permitted periods of detention pending trial which vary according to the stage reached in the proceedings. For the offence laid down in Article 416 bis of the Criminal Code, the periods applicable during the proceedings at first instance are one year from the beginning of the defendant's detention until the order committing him for trial and one year from the beginning of the trial until his conviction at first instance. If no committal order is made or, as the case may be, the defendant is not convicted at first instance within the relevant period, the detention pending trial ceases to be lawful and the defendant must be released. 89. However, paragraph 2 of Article 304 CCP provides that for certain offences, including the one provided for in Article 416 bis of the Criminal Code, the periods laid down in Article 303 may be extended during the hearings, the deliberations at first instance or the appeal, if the proceedings prove to be particularly complex. Article 304 provides that the length of detention pending trial must not, under any circumstances, exceed two ‑ thirds of the maximum sentence for the offence with which the defendant is charged or the sentence imposed by the first-instance court. 90. Paragraph 2 of Article 305 CCP provides: “During the preliminary investigation, the public prosecutor may request an extension of a period of detention pending trial that is about to expire where there is a serious need for precautionary measures which, in particularly complex investigations, make it absolutely necessary to extend the period of detention pending trial ...” That provision goes on to provide that such an extension may be renewed only once and that, in any event, the periods provided for in Article 303 CCP cannot be exceeded by more than half. 91. With regard to the procedures on release, on 29 March 1996 the Ministry of Justice informed all penal institutions of the need for administrative services to be provided at night time, too, to ensure not only the release of prisoners but also, among other things, the admission of suspects who had been arrested or had voluntarily surrendered to custody and the availability of emergency hospital treatment for prisoners. B. Reparation for “unjust” detention 92. Article 314 CCP provides that anyone who has been acquitted in a judgment that has become final – on the grounds that the case against him has not been proved, he has not committed the offence, no criminal offence has been committed or the facts alleged do not amount to an offence at law – is entitled to equitable reparation for any period he has spent in detention pending trial, provided that misrepresentations or fault on his part were not contributory factors in his being detained. 93. An application for reparation must be made within eighteen months after the judgment becomes final. The maximum award is 100,000,000 Italian lire. C. Provisions relevant to the censorship of correspondence 94. Section 18 of Law no. 354 of 26 July 1975, as amended by section 2 of Law no. 1 of 12 January 1977, provides that power to order censorship of prisoners' correspondence vests in the judge dealing with the case – whether the investigating judge or the trial judge – until the decision at first instance and thereafter in the judge responsible for the execution of sentences. The judge may order censorship of a prisoner's correspondence in a reasoned decision; this provision does not, however, specify the circumstances in which such orders may be made. 95. In practice, censorship entails all the prisoner's mail being intercepted and read by either the judge that made the order or the prison governor or prison staff designated by him; censored mail is stamped to show that it has been inspected (see also Article 36 of the decree implementing Law no. 354 referred to above – Presidential Decree no. 431 of 29 April 1976). Censorship cannot extend to deleting words or sentences, but the judge may order that one or more letters shall not be delivered; in such cases, the prisoner must be informed immediately. This latter measure can also be ordered temporarily by the prison governor, who must, however, notify the judge. 96. Article 103 CCP forbids the seizure or any form of censorship of correspondence between a prisoner and his lawyer, provided that the correspondence is identifiable as such and unless the judge has well ‑ founded reasons to believe that the correspondence constitutes the substance of the offence. 97. Similarly, by Article 35 of the transitional provisions of the new Code of Criminal Procedure the rules on the censorship of a prisoner's correspondence laid down in Law no. 354 and Presidential Decree no. 431 do not apply to correspondence between a prisoner and his lawyer. However, for such correspondence to escape censorship, the envelope must be marked with the identity of both the accused and his lawyer, the fact that the lawyer is acting in that capacity and the words “correspondence for the purposes of court proceedings” (“ corrispondenza par ragioni di giustizia ”) signed by the sender, who must also specify the proceedings to which the letter relates. If the sender is the lawyer, his signature must be certified by the head of the Bar Association or the latter's delegate. 98. As the censorship of correspondence is an administrative act and does not affect the prisoner's personal liberty, no appeal lies to the Court of Cassation in respect of it (Court of Cassation, judgments nos. 3141 of 14 February 1990 and 4687 of 4 February 1992). 99. Section 35 of the Prison Administration Act (Law no. 354 of 26 July 1975) provides that prisoners may send requests or complaints in a sealed envelope to the following authorities: ( i ) the prison governor, prison inspectors, the director-general of penal institutions and the Minister of Justice; (ii) the judge responsible for the execution of sentences; (iii) the judicial and health-care authorities who inspect the prison; (iv) the president of the regional council; (v) the President of the Republic. D. The effect of section 41 bis of Law no. 354 of 1975 on the censorship of correspondence 100. By section 41 bis of the Prison Administration Act, as amended by Law no. 356 of 7 August 1992, the Minister of Justice is empowered to suspend application of the ordinary prison regime – as laid down by Law no. 354 of 1975 – in whole or in part if it fails to meet the standards required to preserve public order and security. He must give reasons for so doing and judicial review will lie. The provision may be applied only where the prisoner has been prosecuted for or convicted of one of the offences set out in section 4 bis of the statute. The offences concerned include those linked to mafia activities. By Law no. 446 of 28 November 1999 that provision is to remain in force until 31 December 2000. 101. Section 41 bis contains no list of the restrictions that may be imposed. They must be determined by the Minister of Justice. When first implemented, section 41 bis was construed as also empowering the Minister of Justice to censor prisoners' correspondence. 102. In its judgments nos. 349 and 410 delivered in 1993, the Italian Constitutional Court, which was examining whether that system was consistent with the principle that the legislator's powers should not be encroached upon, held that section 41 bis was compatible with the Constitution. However, it stated that by virtue of Article 15 of the Constitution a reasoned decision of the courts was required for any restriction on correspondence to be imposed. The Minister of Justice was accordingly not empowered to impose measures regarding prisoners' correspondence. E. Relevant provisions concerning preventive measures in individual cases 103. The power to impose preventive measures was introduced by Law no. 1423 of 27 December 1956. Such measures are intended to prevent individuals regarded as a “danger to society” from committing offences. The statute currently classifies three groups of people as a danger to society: (a) anyone who on the basis of factual evidence must be regarded as being an habitual offender; (b) anyone who on account of his conduct or life-style must be regarded, on the basis of factual evidence, as habitually deriving his income from the proceeds of crime; and (c) anyone who on account of his conduct must be regarded on the basis of factual evidence as having committed offences endangering the mental or physical integrity of minors or posing a threat to society, security or public order. 104. Section 3 of Law no. 1423/56 provides that persons who are a danger to society may be placed under special police supervision. That measure may be accompanied, if need be, by a requirement not to stay in one or more named towns or provinces or, if the person concerned is considered to be particularly dangerous, by a compulsory residence order requiring him to live in a named municipality ( obbligo di soggiorno ). 105. Jurisdiction to make such orders is vested exclusively in the court sitting in the provincial capital. The court sits in camera and must give a reasoned decision after hearing the representative of the public prosecutor's office and the person on whom it is proposed to impose the measure, who has the right to lodge memorials and to be represented by a lawyer. Both parties may appeal within ten days. Lodging an appeal has no suspensive effect. A further appeal lies from the court of appeal to the Court of Cassation. 106. When imposing a preventive measure, the court must fix its duration – between one and five years maximum – and specify the conditions with which the person concerned must comply. 107. Under Law no. 575 of 31 May 1965, which was amended in 1982, preventive measures in the form of an order for special supervision, compulsory residence or exclusion may be imposed on persons against whom there is evidence ( indiziati ) that they belong to a mafia -type organisation. 108. Law no. 327 of 3 August 1988 provides that a person can only be ordered to reside in the town where he has his domicile or residence. 109. Lastly, in cases where the trial has started, Law no. 55 of 19 March 1990 empowers the courts to suspend proceedings relating to the application of preventive measures until the conclusion of the trial. F. Provisions on disenfranchisement 110. Article 2 of Presidential Decree no. 223 of 20 March 1967 provides that, inter alia, persons on whom preventive measures have been imposed by a court order or an administrative decision shall be disenfranchised. 111. Article 32 § 1 (3) of that decree provides that in such cases the prefect ( questore ) empowered to enforce such measures shall notify the municipality where the person concerned resides of any decision entailing the loss of civil rights. The municipal electoral committee shall then remove the name of the person concerned from the electoral register, even outside one of the usual periods for updating the lists. THE LAW I. Alleged violation of Article 3 of the Convention 112. The applicant complained that during the first months of his detention in Pianosa Prison he had been subjected to treatment contrary to Article 3 of the Convention, which provides: “No one shall be subjected to torture or to inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.” A. Allegation of ill-treatment at Pianosa Prison 113. The Government acknowledged that the situation in Pianosa Prison during the summer and autumn of 1992 was very difficult, in particular because of the extremely tense atmosphere at the time. 114. Initially, the Government had affirmed before the Commission: “These deplorable acts were committed by certain warders on their own initiative; such transgressions cannot be regarded as forming part of a general policy. Such reprehensible conduct, unforeseen and unwanted – just the reverse: it constituted a criminal offence – cannot engage the responsibility of the State, which on the contrary has responded through the judicial authorities in order to re-establish the rule of law that such episodes serve to undermine.” 115. However, at the hearing before the Court, the Government made a preliminary submission that, in the absence of any cogent medical evidence, the level of severity required for a violation of Article 3 of the Convention could not be regarded as having been attained in the instant case. 116. In any event, the Government disagreed with the Commission's conclusion that the Italian State had failed to react to the acts of violence committed by its agents. The Government argued that the fact that the investigation to identify the warders allegedly responsible for the ill ‑ treatment had been unsuccessful did not amount to a violation of Article 3, as the Court's case-law on the subject could not be construed as meaning that a State failed to satisfy its obligations under Article 3 of the Convention unless the investigation led to a conviction. The issue was rather whether the investigation had been conducted diligently or whether the authorities had been guilty of errors or omissions. In the present case, the authorities conducting the investigation had shown resolve and spared no effort to identify those responsible. On the contrary, it was the applicant who had been responsible for the failure of the investigation by not requesting a medical examination immediately after being subjected to the ill-treatment in question. Furthermore, the fact that the applicant, the only witness able to give direct evidence, had been unable to identify the warders from the photographs he had been shown indicated that any further action by the investigators would have been futile. 117. The applicant said that particularly between July and September 1992 he had been subjected to numerous acts of violence, humiliation, and debasement, threats and other forms of torture, both physical and mental (see paragraph 29 above). He had been slapped and struck on many occasions, and had suffered injuries to his fingers, knees and testicles. He had been subjected to body searches in the shower and had remained handcuffed during medical examinations. His protests had been futile, even dangerous. On one occasion when he had protested after his clothes had been torn by warders, he had been threatened, insulted and struck by one of the warders. As a result, his glasses and a false tooth had been damaged and – as his clinical records showed – he had been refused permission to have them repaired. The psychological disorders which he had suffered since being detained at Pianosa were confirmed by a medical certificate of 20 April 1996. 118. The applicant maintained that the government of the day was undoubtedly aware of the incidents at Pianosa Prison and had tolerated them. He referred on that point to a note drawn up by the Livorno judge responsible for the execution of sentences, in which it was stated that the methods used at Pianosa were intended as an instrument of intimidation of the prisoners. Further, the fact that his criminal complaint had been filed away on the ground that the offenders could not be identified marked approval of an unlawful act and demonstrated that the government of the day had been guilty of causing or encouraging events at Pianosa. 119. As the Court has stated on many occasions, Article 3 enshrines one of the most fundamental values of democratic societies. Even in the most difficult circumstances, such as the fight against terrorism and organised crime, the Convention prohibits in absolute terms torture and inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. Unlike most of the substantive clauses of the Convention and of Protocols Nos. 1 and 4, Article 3 makes no provision for exceptions and no derogation from it is permissible under Article 15 § 2 even in the event of a public emergency threatening the life of the nation (see Selmouni v. France [GC], no. 25803/94, § 95, ECHR 1999 ‑ V, and the Assenov and Others v. Bulgaria judgment of 28 October 1998, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1998-VIII, p. 3288, § 93). The Convention prohibits in absolute terms torture and inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, irrespective of the victim's conduct (see the Chahal v. the United Kingdom judgment of 15 November 1996, Reports 1996-V, p. 1855, § 79). The nature of the offence allegedly committed by the applicant was therefore irrelevant for the purposes of Article 3. 120. The Court recalls that ill-treatment must attain a minimum level of severity if it is to fall within the scope of Article 3. The assessment of this minimum is relative: it depends on all the circumstances of the case, such as the duration of the treatment, its physical and mental effects and, in some cases, the sex, age and state of health of the victim. In respect of a person deprived of his liberty, recourse to physical force which has not been made strictly necessary by his own conduct diminishes human dignity and is in principle an infringement of the right set forth in Article 3 (see the Tekin v. Turkey judgment of 9 June 1998, Reports 1998-IV, pp. 1517-18, §§ 52 and 53, and the Assenov and Others judgment cited above, p. 3288, § 94). Treatment has been held by the Court to be “inhuman” because, inter alia, it was premeditated, was applied for hours at a stretch and caused either actual bodily injury or intense physical and mental suffering, and also “degrading” because it was such as to arouse in its victims feelings of fear, anguish and inferiority capable of humiliating and debasing them. In order for a punishment or treatment associated with it to be “inhuman” or “degrading”, the suffering or humiliation involved must in any event go beyond that inevitable element of suffering or humiliation connected with a given form of legitimate treatment or punishment. The question whether the purpose of the treatment was to humiliate or debase the victim is a further factor to be taken into account (see, for instance, V. v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 24888/94, § 71, ECHR 1999-IX, and the Raninen v. Finland judgment of 16 December 1997, Reports 1997-VIII, pp. 2821-22, § 55), but the absence of any such purpose cannot conclusively rule out a finding of violation of Article 3. 121. Allegations of ill-treatment must be supported by appropriate evidence (see, mutatis mutandis, the Klaas v. Germany judgment of 22 September 1993, Series A no. 269, pp. 17-18, § 30). To assess this evidence, the Court adopts the standard of proof “beyond reasonable doubt” but adds that such proof may follow from the coexistence of sufficiently strong, clear and concordant inferences or of similar unrebutted presumptions of fact (see the Ireland v. the United Kingdom judgment of 18 January 1978, Series A no. 25, pp. 64-65, § 161 in fine ). 122. In the instant case, the ill-treatment complained of by the applicant consisted of, on the one hand, being slapped, blows, squeezing of the testicles and baton blows and, on the other, insults, unnecessary body searches, acts of humiliation (such as being required to remain in handcuffs during medical examinations), intimidation and threats. 123. The Court observes at the outset that at the hearing before it the Government argued that there was no medical evidence to show that the treatment had attained the level of severity required for there to be a violation of the provision relied on. Although that argument was not raised at an earlier stage in the proceedings, the Court must nevertheless examine it in view of the importance and seriousness of a finding of a violation of Article 3 of the Convention. 124. The Court notes that, as the Government said, the applicant has not produced any conclusive evidence in support of his allegations of ill ‑ treatment or supplied a detailed account of the abuse to which the warders at Pianosa Prison allegedly subjected him, particularly between July and September 1992. He confined himself to describing a situation that he said was widespread at Pianosa at the time and to referring to the note of 12 December 1996 of the President of the court responsible for the execution of sentences (see paragraph 50 above). Indeed, the only concrete evidence furnished by the applicant on this issue, namely the Pianosa Prison medical register (see paragraphs 31-33 above), a medical report of 24 March 1995 and the results of a scan of his knees dated 3 April 1996 (see paragraph 34 above), and a certificate regarding his mental health drawn up on 20 March 1996 (see paragraph 35 above), do not suffice to fill that gap. Thus, there is nothing in the prison medical register to show that the problems the applicant had with his false tooth were caused by blows from a warder. Nor is there any evidence that the injuries to his knees were caused by ill-treatment, especially as he did not seek medical attention on that account until 10 August 1993 (while asserting that the ill-treatment had considerably diminished and even ceased by the end of September 1992). Moreover, the certificate indicating that he suffered from psychological disorders was dated about three and a half years after the incidents in issue and does not point to any causal link (it merely states that the disorders had begun three years earlier – in other words, after the incidents complained of had ceased). 125. The Court recognises that it may prove difficult for prisoners to obtain evidence of ill-treatment by their prison warders. In that connection, it notes that the applicant alleged that the warders at Pianosa applied pressure on the prisoners by threatening reprisals if they were denounced. It observes, however, that the applicant has not suggested, for example, that he was ever refused permission to see a doctor. In addition, the applicant made several applications through his lawyers to the judicial authorities, notably for release (see paragraphs 14, 15, 19 and 21 above); those applications were made shortly after September 1992, that is to say not long after the ill-treatment concerned had diminished or even ceased. Yet he did not complain about his treatment until the preliminary hearing on 2 October 1993 (see paragraph 36 above). The applicant has given no explanation for that substantial delay. 126. The Court has examined the note of the President of the court responsible for the execution of sentences dated 12 December 1996; it was the Government which produced it to the Commission (see paragraph 50 above). While not underestimating the seriousness of the matters criticised therein, the Court cannot lose sight of the fact that the note represents no more than a general assessment that was not based on concrete and verifiable facts. It is therefore unable to treat it as decisive evidence. 127. In these circumstances, the Court considers that the material it has before it regarding the applicant's assertion that he was subjected to physical and mental ill-treatment in Pianosa Prison does not constitute sufficient evidence to support that conclusion. 128. Nor is that finding called into question by the general conditions in Pianosa Prison at the material time, as described by the Livorno judge responsible for the execution of sentences in his report of 5 September 1992 (see paragraphs 42-43 above): the report contains no evidence directly relevant to the applicant's position and the severity and extent of the abuse described in it were reduced to less alarming proportions following inquiries made by the prison authorities concerned (see paragraphs 44-46 above). 129. In conclusion, since the evidence before it does not enable the Court to find beyond all reasonable doubt that the applicant was subjected to treatment that attained a sufficient level of severity to come within the scope of Article 3, the Court considers that there is insufficient evidence for it to conclude that there has been a violation of Article 3 of the Convention on account of the alleged ill-treatment. B. The nature of the investigations carried out 130. The Court observes that, when taken together, the statements made by the applicant to the Trapani investigating judge at the hearing on 2 October 1993 and to the carabinieri on 5 January 1994 gave reasonable cause for suspecting that the applicant had been subjected to improper treatment in Pianosa Prison. It must not be forgotten either that the conditions of detention at Pianosa had been the centre of media attention during the period concerned (see paragraph 44 above), and that other prisoners had complained of treatment similar to that described by the applicant (see paragraphs 36 and 43 above), thus lending further credibility to his allegations. 131. The Court considers that where an individual makes a credible assertion that he has suffered treatment infringing Article 3 at the hands of the police or other similar agents of the State, that provision, read in conjunction with the State's general duty under Article 1 of the Convention to “secure to everyone within their jurisdiction the rights and freedoms defined in ... [the] Convention”, requires by implication that there should be an effective official investigation. As with an investigation under Article 2, such investigation should be capable of leading to the identification and punishment of those responsible (see, in relation to Article 2 of the Convention, the McCann and Others v. the United Kingdom judgment of 27 September 1995, Series A no. 324, p. 49, § 161; the Kaya v. Turkey judgment of 19 February 1998, Reports 1998-I, p. 324, § 86; and the Yaşa v. Turkey judgment of 2 September 1998, Reports 1998-VI, p. 2438, § 98). Otherwise, the general legal prohibition of torture and inhuman and degrading treatment and punishment would, despite its fundamental importance (see paragraph 119 above), be ineffective in practice and it would be possible in some cases for agents of the State to abuse the rights of those within their control with virtual impunity (see the Assenov and Others judgment cited above, p. 3290, § 102). 132. The Court notes that after the investigating judge had informed the relevant public prosecutor's office of the allegations of ill-treatment made by the applicant at the preliminary hearing, the State authorities conducted certain investigations into those allegations (see paragraphs 37-41 above). It is not, however, satisfied that those investigations were sufficiently thorough and effective to satisfy the aforementioned requirements of Article 3. 133. The Court observes at the outset that the investigation by the Livorno public prosecutor's office was very slow: after the applicant was interviewed by the carabinieri on 5 January 1994, fourteen months elapsed before he was given a further appointment with a view to identifying those responsible. Yet the file shows that the only action taken during that interval was the obtaining of photocopies (not prints) of photographs of the warders who had worked at Pianosa. It will be recalled that throughout that period the applicant remained a prisoner at Pianosa. 134. The Court finds it particularly striking that although the applicant repeated on 9 March 1995 that he would be able to recognise the warders concerned if he could see them in person, nothing was done to enable him to do so and, just nine days later, the public prosecutor's office sought and was granted an order for the case to be filed away on the ground not that there was no basis to the allegations but that those responsible had not been identified. 135. The inactivity of the Italian authorities is made even more regrettable by the fact that the applicant's complaint was not an isolated one. The existence of controversial practices by warders at Pianosa Prison had been publicly and energetically condemned even by authorities of the State (see paragraphs 42-45 above). 136. In these circumstances, having regard to the lack of a thorough and effective investigation into the credible allegation made by the applicant that he had been ill-treated by warders when detained at Pianosa Prison, the Court holds that there has been a violation of Article 3 of the Convention. C. Allegedly inhuman and degrading nature of transfers from Pianosa 137. The applicant also alleged that the conditions in which prisoners were transferred from Pianosa to other prisons were inhuman and degrading. 138. The Court observes, however, that the applicant has not supplied detailed information regarding how many times he was transferred from Pianosa or the dates and precise conditions of such transfers. Nor did he complain about the conditions of transfer to the relevant authorities. Like the Commission, the Court consequently considers that there is insufficient evidence for it to conclude that there has been a violation of Article 3 on that account. II. Alleged violation of Article 5 § 3 of the Convention 139. The applicant complained of the length of his detention pending trial and alleged a violation of Article 5 § 3 of the Convention, which provides: “3. Everyone arrested or detained in accordance with the provisions of paragraph 1 (c) of this Article shall be brought promptly before a judge or other officer authorised by law to exercise judicial power and shall be entitled to trial within a reasonable time or to release pending trial. Release may be conditioned by guarantees to appear for trial.” 140. The Government contested that submission whereas the Commission agreed with it. A. Loss of standing as a victim 141. The Government submitted that as the Palermo Court of Appeal had awarded the applicant a sum as compensation for the time he had spent in detention pending trial, the respondent State had acknowledged, at least in substance, and afforded redress for any violation of Article 5 § 3 of the Convention. Accordingly, the applicant could no longer claim to be the victim of such a violation. 142. In the case of Amuur v. France ( judgment of 25 June 1996, Reports 1996-III, p. 846, § 36) and in Dalban v. Romania ([GC], no. 28114/95, § 44, ECHR 1999-VI), the Court reiterated that “a decision or measure favourable to the applicant is not in principle sufficient to deprive him of his status as a 'victim' unless the national authorities have acknowledged, either expressly or in substance, and then afforded redress for, the breach of the Convention”. 143. In the instant case, even though the Palermo Court of Appeal, in a decision of 20 January 1998 lodged at the registry on 23 January 1998, acceded to the applicant's claim for compensation for unjust detention, it based its decision on Article 314 § 1 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which affords a right to reparation to “anyone who has been acquitted in a judgment that has become final” (see paragraph 92 above). The detention is deemed to be “unjust” as a result of the acquittal, and an award under Article 314 § 1 does not amount to a finding that the detention did not satisfy the requirements of Article 5 of the Convention. While it is true that the length of the applicant's detention pending trial was taken into account in calculating the amount of reparation, there is no acknowledgment in the judgment concerned, either express or implied, that it had been excessive. 144. In conclusion, the Court considers that despite the payment of a sum as reparation for the time he spent in detention pending trial, the applicant can still claim to be a “victim” within the meaning of Article 34 of the Convention of a violation of Article 5 § 3. B. Merits of the complaint 1. Period to be taken into consideration 145. The parties and the Commission agreed that the period to be taken into consideration began on 21 April 1992, when the applicant was taken into custody. 146. As to when the period ended, the applicant and the Commission took the date of the applicant's release (13 November 1994 – see paragraph 24 above). The Government, on the other hand, contended that the period ended on 12 November 1994, when the judgment of the court of first instance was delivered (see paragraph 23 above). 147. The Court reiterates that the end of the period referred to in Article 5 § 3 is “the day on which the charge is determined, even if only by a court of first instance” (see the Wemhoff v. Germany judgment of 27 June 1968, Series A no. 7, pp. 23-24, § 9). The applicant's detention pending trial for the purposes of Article 5 § 3 of the Convention therefore ended on 12 November 1994. 148. The period to be taken into consideration therefore lasted almost two years and seven months. 2. The reasonableness of the length of detention (a) Submissions of those appearing before the Court 149. The applicant submitted that the length of his detention pending trial could not be regarded as justified for the purposes of Article 5 § 3 of the Convention. There was no serious evidence of guilt as the accusations were based on the false allegations of a single pentito and there was no risk of further offending. He had been unlucky enough to find himself accused of belonging to the Mafia at a time when the Italian authorities wished to demonstrate the efforts they were making to clamp down on that organisation. He had had no prospect, therefore, of being released despite the fact that he had no criminal record. 150. The Government accepted that the applicant's detention pending trial had been lengthy, but contended that it had been justified in the instant case in view of the weighty evidence against him. The Government argued in particular that where, as here, a case concerned Mafia-related offences, the authorities had an obligation to conduct an exceptionally stringent and thorough inquiry through a “maxi-trial”, which inevitably entailed very lengthy and complex investigations and hearings. 151. The Commission considered that the longer the investigation went on the more necessary it became for the authorities to have concrete and specific proof of the presumed risks of the applicant's absconding, reoffending or tampering with evidence. The presumption that arose under Article 273 of the Code of Criminal Procedure did not by itself justify the applicant's being held for so long. Furthermore, the Commission considered that the proceedings in issue were not conducted with the expedition that Article 5 § 3 demanded. Despite the fact that the evidence against the applicant was very weak, the Government had confined themselves to asserting, in general terms, that complex banking and fiscal investigations had to be conducted, without identifying the steps that had to be and were in fact taken. (b) The Court's assessment ( i ) Principles established under the Court's case-law 152. Under the Court's case-law, the issue of whether a period of detention is reasonable cannot be assessed in abstracto. Whether it is reasonable for an accused to remain in detention must be assessed in each case according to its special features. Continued detention can be justified in a given case only if there are specific indications of a genuine requirement of public interest which, notwithstanding the presumption of innocence, outweighs the rule of respect for individual liberty (see, among other authorities, the W. v. Switzerland judgment of 26 January 1993, Series A no. 254-A, p. 15, § 30). It falls in the first place to the national judicial authorities to ensure that, in a given case, the pre-trial detention of an accused person does not exceed a reasonable time. To this end they must examine all the facts arguing for or against the existence of a genuine requirement of public interest justifying, with due regard to the principle of the presumption of innocence, a departure from the rule of respect for individual liberty and set them out in their decisions dismissing the applications for release. It is essentially on the basis of the reasons given in these decisions and of the true facts mentioned by the applicant in his appeals, that the Court is called upon to decide whether or not there has been a violation of Article 5 § 3 of the Convention. 153. The persistence of reasonable suspicion that the person arrested has committed an offence is a condition sine qua non for the lawfulness of the continued detention, but after a certain lapse of time it no longer suffices. In such cases, the Court must establish whether the other grounds given by the judicial authorities continued to justify the deprivation of liberty. Where such grounds were “relevant” and “sufficient”, the Court must also ascertain whether the competent national authorities displayed “special diligence” in the conduct of the proceedings (see the Contrada v. Italy judgment of 24 August 1998, Reports 1998-V, p. 2185, § 54, and the I.A. v. France judgment of 23 September 1998, Reports 1998-VII, pp. 2978-79, § 102). (ii) Application of those principles in the instant case 154. The Court observes that the relevant authorities examined whether the applicant should remain in detention following his applications for release on three occasions: 6 May 1992, 29 December 1992 and 8 February 1993. In addition, on 22 June 1993 they considered whether the maximum permitted period for detention pending trial should be extended (see paragraphs 14-20 above). In refusing to release the applicant, the authorities relied simultaneously on the existence of serious evidence of his guilt, the danger of pressure being brought to bear on witnesses and the risk of evidence being tampered with. They also relied on the presumption created by Article 275 § 3 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (see paragraph 87 above). In deciding to prolong the detention pending trial they invoked the risk of evidence being tampered with, the fact that the accused were dangerous, the complexity of the case and the needs of the investigation, including the need to conduct highly complex banking inquiries. (α) Whether reasonable grounds for suspecting the applicant remained 155. As regards “reasonable suspicion”, the Court reiterates that the fact that an applicant has not been charged or brought before a court does not necessarily mean that the purpose of his detention was not in accordance with Article 5 § 1 (c). The existence of such a purpose must be considered independently of its achievement and sub-paragraph (c) of Article 5 § 1 does not presuppose that the police should have obtained sufficient evidence to bring charges, either at the point of arrest or while the applicant was in custody (see the Erdagöz v. Turkey judgment of 22 October 1997, Reports 1997-VI, p. 2314, § 51, and the Brogan and Others v. the United Kingdom judgment of 29 November 1988, Series A no. 145-B, pp. 29-30, § 53). However, for there to be reasonable suspicion there must be facts or information which would satisfy an objective observer that the person concerned may have committed an offence (see the Erdagöz judgment cited above, p. 2314, § 51 in fine, and the Fox, Campbell and Hartley v. the United Kingdom judgment of 30 August 1990, Series A no. 182, pp. 16-17, § 32). 156. In the instant case, the allegations against the applicant came from a single source, a pentito who had stated in 1992 that he had learned indirectly that the applicant was the treasurer of a mafia -type organisation (see paragraph 10 above). According to the authorities in question, in May 1992 those statements constituted sufficient evidence to justify keeping the applicant in detention, given the general credibility and trustworthiness of the pentito concerned (see paragraph 12 above). 157. The Court is conscious of the fact that the cooperation of pentiti is a very important weapon in the Italian authorities' fight against the Mafia. However, the use of statements by pentiti does give rise to difficult problems as, by their very nature, such statements are open to manipulation and may be made purely in order to obtain the advantages which Italian law affords to pentiti, or for personal revenge. The sometimes ambiguous nature of such statements and the risk that a person might be accused and arrested on the basis of unverified allegations that are not necessarily disinterested must not, therefore, be underestimated (see Contrada v. Italy, application no. 27143/95, Commission decision of 14 January 1997, Decisions and Reports 88-B, p. 112). 158. For these reasons, as the domestic courts recognise, statements of pentiti must be corroborated by other evidence. Furthermore, hearsay must be supported by objective evidence. 159. That, in the Court's view, is especially true when a decision is being made whether to prolong detention pending trial. While a suspect may validly be detained at the beginning of proceedings on the basis of statements by pentiti, such statements necessarily become less relevant with the passage of time, especially where no further evidence is uncovered during the course of the investigation. 160. In the instant case, the Court notes that, as the Trapani District Court and Palermo Court of Appeal confirmed in their decisions acquitting the applicant, there was no evidence to corroborate the hearsay evidence of B.F. On the contrary, B.F.'s main, if indirect, source of information had died in 1989 and had, in turn, obtained it on hearsay from another person who had also been killed before he could be questioned. Furthermore, B.F.'s statements had already been contradicted during the course of the investigation by other pentiti who had said that they did not recognise the applicant (see paragraph 18 above). 161. In these circumstances, very compelling reasons would be required for the applicant's lengthy detention (two years and seven months) to have been justified under Article 5 § 3. (β) The “other reasons” for the continued detention 162. The national courts referred to the risk of pressure being brought to bear on witnesses and of evidence being tampered with, the fact that the accused were dangerous, the complexity of the case and the requirements of the investigation. They relied on the presumption created by Article 275 § 3 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (see paragraph 87 above). 163. The Court observes that the grounds stated in the relevant decisions were reasonable, at least initially, though very general, too. The judicial authorities referred to the prisoners as a whole and made no more than an abstract mention of the nature of the offence. They did not point to any factor capable of showing that the risks relied on actually existed and failed to establish that the applicant, who had no record and whose role in the mafia -type organisation concerned was said to be minor (the prosecutor called for a three-year sentence in his case), posed a danger. No account was taken of the fact that the accusations against the applicant were based on evidence which, with time, had become weaker rather than stronger. 164. The Court accordingly considers that the grounds stated in the impugned decisions were not sufficient to justify the applicant's being kept in detention for two years and seven months. 165. In short, the detention in issue infringed Article 5 § 3 of the Convention. III. Alleged violation of Article 5 § 1 of the Convention 166. The applicant submitted that he had been held in detention unlawfully for twelve hours after his acquittal. 167. Article 5 § 1 of the Convention provides: “1. Everyone has the right to liberty and security of person. No one shall be deprived of his liberty save in the following cases and in accordance with a procedure prescribed by law: (a) the lawful detention of a person after conviction by a competent court; (b) the lawful arrest or detention of a person for non-compliance with the lawful order of a court or in order to secure the fulfilment of any obligation prescribed by law; (c) the lawful arrest or detention of a person effected for the purpose of bringing him before the competent legal authority on reasonable suspicion of having committed an offence or when it is reasonably considered necessary to prevent his committing an offence or fleeing after having done so; (d) the detention of a minor by lawful order for the purpose of educational supervision or his lawful detention for the purpose of bringing him before the competent legal authority; (e) the lawful detention of persons for the prevention of the spreading of infectious diseases, of persons of unsound mind, alcoholics or drug addicts or vagrants; (f) the lawful arrest or detention of a person to prevent his effecting an unauthorised entry into the country or of a person against whom action is being taken with a view to deportation or extradition.” 168. The applicant maintained that he should have been freed immediately after his acquittal. A check could have been performed before the hearing as to whether other grounds for his detention existed, in case he was acquitted. The remaining administrative formalities could have been carried out after his release. 169. The Government pointed out that although a prisoner is considered “free” once his acquittal has been pronounced at a hearing, he cannot be released until certain administrative formalities have been performed, first and foremost being a check to see whether other reasons for detaining him exist. Since it was for the prison authorities to carry out that check on the instructions of the public prosecutor's office, the prisoner had to be brought back to the prison before he could be released. In the instant case, the applicant had had to be taken from Trapani, where the trial took place, to Termini Imerese – a distance of approximately 120 km. As regards the delay caused by the absence of the registration officer, the Minister of Justice had acknowledged in a note to the Commission dated 31 January 1997 that it had been unjustified. Furthermore, the Minister had explained that since March 1996 instructions had been given to the governors of penal institutions so that prisoners could be released at any time, including at night. 170. The Court reiterates that the list of exceptions to the right to liberty secured in Article 5 § 1 is an exhaustive one and only a narrow interpretation of those exceptions is consistent with the aim of that provision, namely to ensure that no one is arbitrarily deprived of his or her liberty (see, among other authorities, the Giulia Manzoni v. Italy judgment of 1 July 1997, Reports 1997-IV, p. 1191, § 25, and the Quinn v. France judgment of 22 March 1995, Series A no. 311, pp. 17-18, § 42). 171. While it is true that for the purposes of Article 5 § 1 (c) detention ceases to be justified “on the day on which the charge is determined” (see paragraph 147 above) and that, consequently, detention after acquittal is no longer covered by that provision, “some delay in carrying out a decision to release a detainee is often inevitable, although it must be kept to a minimum” (see the Giulia Manzoni judgment cited above, p. 1191, § 25 in fine ). 172. The Court observes, however, that in the instant case the delay in the applicant's release was only partly attributable to the need for the relevant administrative formalities to be carried out. The additional delay in releasing the applicant between 12.25 a.m. and the morning of 13 November 1993 was caused by the registration officer's absence. It was only on the latter's return that it was possible to verify whether any other reasons existed for keeping the applicant in detention and to put in hand the other administrative formalities required on release (see paragraph 24 above). 173. In these circumstances, the applicant's continued detention after his return to Termini Imerese Prison did not amount to a first step in the execution of the order for his release and therefore did not come within sub ‑ paragraph 1 (c), or any other sub-paragraph, of Article 5. 174. Accordingly, there has been a violation of Article 5 § 1 on that account. IV. Alleged violation of Article 8 of the convention 175. The applicant complained that the Pianosa Prison authorities had censored his correspondence with his family and lawyer. Article 8 of the Convention provides: “1. Everyone has the right to respect for his ... correspondence. 2. There shall be no interference by a public authority with the exercise of this right except such as is in accordance with the law and is necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security, public safety or the economic well-being of the country, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others.” 176. The Commission unanimously expressed the view that Article 8 of the Convention had been violated in the present case as the interference with the applicant's right to respect for his correspondence was not “in accordance with the law”. It said that the applicable legislation – section 18 of Law no. 354 of 1975, which contains no rules as to the length of time for which prisoners' correspondence may be censored or the grounds on which an order for censorship may be made – did not indicate with sufficient clarity the extent of the relevant authorities' discretion in that sphere or provide guidance on how it was to be exercised. The Commission relied on the judgments of the Court in the Calogero Diana and Domenichini cases, which also concerned censorship of prisoners' correspondence (see the Calogero Diana v. Italy judgment of 15 November 1996, Reports 1996-V, pp. 1775-76, §§ 29-33, and the Domenichini v. Italy judgment of 15 November 1996, Reports 1996-V, pp. 1799-800, §§ 29-33). 177. In the light of the decision of the Court in its Calogero Diana and Domenichini judgments, the Government did not contest the Commission's conclusion. They explained that the Minister of Justice had introduced a bill in the Senate on 23 July 1999 for the amendment of the relevant statute to bring it into line with the aforementioned judgments of the Court. 178. The Court agrees with the Government and the Commission that there has been an “interference by a public authority” in the exercise of the applicant's right to respect for his correspondence, as guaranteed by paragraph 1 of Article 8. 179. Such an interference will contravene Article 8 unless it is “in accordance with the law”, pursues one or more of the legitimate aims referred to in paragraph 2 and, furthermore, is “necessary in a democratic society” in order to achieve them (see the following judgments : Silver and Others v. the United Kingdom, 25 March 1983, Series A no. 61, p. 32, § 84; Campbell v. the United Kingdom, 25 March 1992, Series A no. 233, p. 16, § 34; Calogero Diana cited above, p. 1775, § 28; Domenichini cited above, p. 1799, § 28; and Petra v. Romania, 23 September 1998, Reports 1998-VII, p. 2853, § 36). A. “In accordance with the law” 1. Periods from 21 April 1992 to 20 July 1992, 15 September 1993 to 21 February 1994 and 13 August 1994 to 13 November 1994 180. The censorship of the applicant's correspondence during the aforementioned periods was ordered by decisions of the Trapani District Court and was based on section 18 of Law no. 354 of 1975 (see paragraphs 54 and 58 above). However, the Court sees no reason to disagree with the Commission's view that, despite being based on that provision, the censorship of the applicant's correspondence did not comply with Article 8 of the Convention. 2. Period from 20 July 1992 to 15 September 1993 181. During this period, the censorship was based on an order of the Minister of Justice made pursuant to section 41 bis of Law no. 354 of 1975 (see paragraphs 55-56 above). 182. The Court notes that the Italian Constitutional Court, relying on Article 15 of the Constitution, has held that the Minister of Justice had no power to take measures concerning prisoners' correspondence and had therefore acted ultra vires under Italian law (see paragraph 102 above). The censorship of the applicant's correspondence during this period was therefore illegal under national law and was not “in accordance with the law” within the meaning of Article 8 of the Convention. 3. Period from 21 February 1994 to 10 June 1994 183. There was no legal basis for the censorship of the applicant's correspondence during this period (see paragraph 59 above). 4. Conclusion 184. In conclusion, the various measures complained of by the applicant regarding the censorship of his correspondence were at no time “in accordance with the law” within the meaning of Article 8 of the Convention. There has therefore been a violation of that Article. B. The purpose and necessity of the interference 185. In the light of the foregoing conclusion, the Court does not consider it necessary in the instant case to examine whether the other requirements of paragraph 2 of Article 8 were satisfied. V. Alleged violation of Article 6 § 3 of the Convention 186. The applicant complained also of a violation of his defence rights in that his correspondence with his lawyer was censored. He relied on Article 6 of the Convention, the relevant part of which provides: “3. Everyone charged with a criminal offence has the following minimum rights: ... (b) to have adequate time and facilities for the preparation of his defence; (c) to defend himself in person or through legal assistance of his own choosing or, if he has not sufficient means to pay for legal assistance, to be given it free when the interests of justice so require; ...” 187. The Court considers that in the light of its conclusion regarding Article 8 of the Convention this complaint is absorbed by the preceding complaint. 188. Furthermore, and in any event, the Court observes that the applicant has not stated in what way his defence was adversely affected by the censorship of his correspondence with his lawyer; moreover, he was finally acquitted at the end of the proceedings in question. VI. Alleged violation of Article 2 of Protocol No. 4 to the Convention 189. The applicant maintained that the fact that he had been placed under special police supervision despite his acquittal amounted to a breach of Article 2 of Protocol No. 4, which provides: “1. Everyone lawfully within the territory of a State shall, within that territory, have the right to liberty of movement and freedom to choose his residence. 2. Everyone shall be free to leave any country, including his own. 3. No restrictions shall be placed on the exercise of these rights other than such as are in accordance with law and are necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security or public safety, for the maintenance of ordre public, for the prevention of crime, for the protection of health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others. 4. The rights set forth in paragraph 1 may also be subject, in particular areas, to restrictions imposed in accordance with law and justified by the public interest in a democratic society.” 190. The Government stressed the importance of preventive measures where suspected Mafia members were concerned. They added that the fact that the applicant had been acquitted did not affect the lawfulness of the preventive measures that had been imposed on him. In the Italian legal order, criminal penalties and preventive measures were quite separate. The former constituted a response to an unlawful act and the attendant consequences; the latter were a means of preventing the occurrence of such acts. In other words, a penalty was imposed when an offence had already been committed, whereas preventive measures were intended to guard against the risk of future offences. Indeed the Court had accepted that in the Raimondo judgment (see the Raimondo v. Italy judgment of 22 February 1994, Series A no. 281-A, p. 19, § 39). In the present case, although the applicant had been acquitted (the Government emphasised in that connection that the expression “with the benefit of doubt” had now been abolished), there was serious evidence of his guilt which had justified his committal and that evidence had not been rebutted at trial. 191. The applicant submitted that following his acquittal on the ground that “he had not committed the offence”, he should no longer have been treated as a Mafia criminal, as the “serious evidence” against him had, contrary to the Government's contention, been disproved at trial. 192. The Commission considered that the grounds relied on by the Italian courts, in particular the fact that the applicant had family connections with the Mafia, were insufficient. 193. The Court observes that the applicant was for three years (from 19 November 1994 to 18 November 1997 – see paragraphs 69 and 76 above) subjected to very severe restrictions on his freedom of movement, which undoubtedly amounted to an interference with his rights guaranteed by Article 2 of Protocol No. 4 (see the Guzzardi v. Italy judgment of 6 November 1980, Series A no. 39, p. 33, § 92, and the Raimondo judgment cited above, p. 19, § 39). 194. Those measures were based on Laws nos. 1423/56, 575/65, 327/88 and 55/90 (see paragraphs 103-09 above), and were therefore “in accordance with law” within the meaning of the third paragraph of Article 2. They clearly pursued legitimate aims: “maintenance of ordre public ” and the “prevention of crime” (see the Raimondo judgment, ibid.). 195. However, the measures also had to be “necessary in a democratic society” for those legitimate aims to be achieved. In this connection, the Court considers that it is legitimate for preventive measures, including special supervision, to be taken against persons suspected of being members of the Mafia, even prior to conviction, as they are intended to prevent crimes being committed. Furthermore, an acquittal does not necessarily deprive such measures of all foundation, as concrete evidence gathered at trial, though insufficient to secure a conviction, may nonetheless justify reasonable fears that the person concerned may in the future commit criminal offences. 196. In the instant case, the decision to put the applicant under special supervision was taken on 10 May 1993 at a time when there effectively existed some evidence that he was a member of the Mafia, but the measure was not put into effect until 19 November 1994 after his acquittal by the Trapani District Court (see paragraphs 63 and 69 above). The Court has examined the grounds relied on by the Italian courts for refusing to rescind the measure after the applicant's acquittal, namely B.F.'s assertion that the applicant had contacts in the Mafia clan as was proved by the fact that his deceased brother-in-law had been the head of the main clan (decision of the Trapani District Court of 11 June 1996 – see paragraph 72 above) and the fact that “the applicant had not shown any real change in his lifestyle or that he was genuinely repentant” (decision of the Trapani District Court of 21 October 1997 – see paragraph 75 above). The Court fails to see how the mere fact that the applicant's wife was the sister of a Mafia boss, since deceased, could justify such severe measures being taken against him in the absence of any other concrete evidence to show that there was a real risk that he would offend. As regards changing his lifestyle and repenting, the Court is mindful of the fact that the applicant, who has no criminal antecedents, was acquitted of the charge that he was a member of the Mafia on the ground that no concrete evidence in support of that allegation could be found during the preliminary investigation and trial. 197. In conclusion, and without underestimating the threat posed by the Mafia, the Court concludes that the restrictions on the applicant's freedom of movement cannot be regarded as having been “necessary in a democratic society”. There has therefore been a violation of Article 2 of Protocol No. 4. VII. Alleged violation of Article 3 of Protocol No. 1 to The Convention 198. The applicant considered that the fact that, despite his acquittal, he had been disenfranchised infringed Article 3 of Protocol No. 1, which provides: “The High Contracting Parties undertake to hold free elections at reasonable intervals by secret ballot, under conditions which will ensure the free expression of the opinion of the people in the choice of the legislature.” 199. The Government maintained that the measure was intended to prevent the Mafia exercising any influence over elected bodies. In view of the real risk that persons suspected of belonging to the Mafia might exercise their right to vote in favour of other members of the Mafia, the temporary disenfranchisement of the applicant was not disproportionate. 200. The Commission, on the other hand, found the measure to have been disproportionate, particularly in view of the fact that the applicant had been acquitted and of the danger that he would subsequently be alienated from society. 201. The Court points out that implicit in Article 3 of Protocol No. 1, which provides for “free” elections at “reasonable intervals” “by secret ballot” and “under conditions which will ensure the free expression of the opinion of the people”, are the subjective rights to vote and to stand for election. Although those rights are important, they are not absolute. Since Article 3 recognises them without setting them forth in express terms, let alone defining them, there is room for implied limitations (see the Mathieu ‑ Mohin and Clerfayt v. Belgium judgment of 2 March 1987, Series A no. 113, p. 23, § 52). In their internal legal orders the Contracting States make the rights to vote and to stand for election subject to conditions which are not in principle precluded under Article 3. They have a wide margin of appreciation in this sphere, but it is for the Court to determine in the last resort whether the requirements of Protocol No. 1 have been complied with; it has to satisfy itself that the conditions do not curtail the rights in question to such an extent as to impair their very essence and deprive them of their effectiveness; that they are imposed in pursuit of a legitimate aim; and that the means employed are not disproportionate (see the Gitonas and Others v. Greece judgment of 1 July 1997, Reports 1997 ‑ IV, pp. 1233-34, § 39, and Matthews v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 24833/94, § 63, ECHR 1999-I). 202. The Court observes that persons who are subject to special police supervision are automatically struck off the electoral register as they forfeit their civil rights because they represent “a danger to society” or, as in the instant case, are suspected of belonging to the Mafia (see paragraphs 107 and 110 above). The Government pointed to the risk that persons “suspected of belonging to the Mafia” might exercise their right of vote in favour of other members of the Mafia. 203. The Court has no doubt that temporarily suspending the voting rights of persons against whom there is evidence of Mafia membership pursues a legitimate aim. It observes, however, that although the special police supervision measure against the applicant was in the instant case imposed during the course of the trial, it was not applied until the trial was over, once the applicant had been acquitted on the ground that “he had not committed the offence”. The Court does not accept the view expressed by the Government that the serious evidence of the applicant's guilt was not rebutted during the trial. That affirmation is in contradiction with the tenor of the judgments of the Trapani District Court (see paragraph 23 above) and the Palermo Court of Appeal (see paragraph 26 above). When his name was removed from the electoral register, therefore, there was no concrete evidence on which a “suspicion” that the applicant belonged to the Mafia could be based (see, mutatis mutandis, paragraph 196 above). In the circumstances, the Court cannot regard the measure in question as proportionate. There has therefore been a violation of Article 3 of Protocol No. 1. VIII. Application of Article 41 of the Convention 204. Article 41 of the Convention provides: “If the Court finds that there has been a violation of the Convention or the Protocols thereto, and if the internal law of the High Contracting Party concerned allows only partial reparation to be made, the Court shall, if necessary, afford just satisfaction to the injured party.” A. Damage 205. The applicant claimed 2,000,000,000 Italian lire (ITL) for physical and mental injury. He also claimed ITL 1,000,000,000 for pecuniary damage suffered as a result of the confiscation of some of his immovable property and the closing down of his discotheque during the trial until 1995 and the attachment of his shareholding in a company. 206. The Government contended that there was no causal link between the alleged pecuniary damage and the alleged violations and emphasised that the applicant had not complained before the Convention institutions about the confiscation and attachment. As regards the length of detention, the Government said that the applicant had already obtained sufficient reparation before the domestic courts. 207. As regards the confiscation of the applicant's land and attachment of his company shareholding, the Court accepts the Government's argument that there is no causal link between the sums claimed for pecuniary damage and the violations found in the instant case. It must also take into account the fact that the applicant has obtained reparation from the national courts for any damage that he might have sustained by reason of his detention pending trial. The Court nevertheless considers that having regard to the seriousness and number of violations found in the instant case the applicant should be awarded compensation for non-pecuniary damage. Ruling on an equitable basis, as provided for in Article 41 of the Convention, the Court decides to award ITL 75,000,000. B. Costs and expenses 208. Lastly, the applicant sought reimbursement of his costs and fees incurred before the Commission and the Court, but did not quantify the amount. 209. The Government left the issue to the Court's discretion. 210. Having regard to the fact that the applicant, who was legally aided before the Commission, has not quantified his claim for costs and expenses or furnished any fee note, the Court dismisses it (see the Calogero Diana judgment cited above, p. 1778, § 47, and the Papageorgiou v. Greece judgment of 22 October 1997, Reports 1997-VI, p. 2293, § 60). However, the applicant must have incurred some costs for the hearing before the Court. The Court considers it reasonable to award him ITL 6,000,000 under this head. C. Default interest 211. According to the information available to the Court, the statutory rate of interest applicable in Italy at the date of adoption of the present judgment is 2.5% per annum.
The Court held that there had been a violation of Article 3 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention. It noted in particular that, as someone who was subject to special police supervision because he was suspected of belonging to the Mafia, the applicant had automatically forfeited his civic rights and been struck off the electoral register. The Court had no doubt that temporarily suspending the voting rights of persons against whom there was evidence of Mafia membership pursued a legitimate aim. It observed, however, that although the special police-supervision measure against the applicant had in the instant case been imposed during the course of the trial, it had not been applied until the trial was over and the applicant acquitted on the ground that “he had not committed the offence”, the serious evidence of the applicant’s guilt having been rebutted during the trial. When his name was removed from the electoral register, therefore, there was no concrete evidence on which a suspicion that the applicant belonged to the Mafia could have been based. The Court could not regard that measure as proportionate.