Del Río Prada Case: European Court of Human Rights Ruling on Retroactive Sentence Extension
CASE DEL RÍO PRADA
a) CONTEXT
Inés Del Río Prada is a Spanish terrorist, a member of ETA’s terrorist organization, who was arrested and imprisoned in 1987 for various terrorist attacks.
The Audiencia Nacional fixed the maximum term to be served by the applicant in respect of all her prison sentences combined at thirty years (Limit provided in the 1973 Criminal Code).
On 24 April 2008, taking into account the 3,282 days’ remission to which she was entitled for the work she had done since 1987, the authorities at Murcia Prison, where the applicant was serving her sentence, proposed to the Audiencia Nacional that she be released on 2 July 2008, due to her work done in prison.
However, on 19 May 2008, the Audiencia Nacional rejected that proposal and asked the prison authorities to submit a new date for the applicant’s release, based on a new precedent (known as the “Parot doctrine”) set by the Supreme Court. According to this new approach, sentence adjustments and remissions were no longer to be applied to the maximum term of imprisonment of thirty years, but successively to each of the sentences imposed.
Finally, The Audiencia Nacional set the date for the final release at June 27th 2017.
Subsequent unsuccessful appeals led her to the European Court of Human Rights.
b) SUMMARY
First of all, the Chamber found that there had been a violation of Article 7 of the Convention.
“1. Nadie podrá ser condenado por una acción o una omisión que, en el momento en que haya sido cometida, no constituya una infracción según el derecho nacional o internacional. Igualmente no podrá ser impuesta una pena más grave que la aplicable en el momento en que la infracción haya sido cometida.”
Secondly, the Chamber observed that in the applicant’s case the new interpretation by the Supreme Court in 2006 of the way in which remissions of sentence should be applied had led, retroactively, to the extension of the applicant’s term of imprisonment by almost nine years, by depriving her of the remissions of sentence for work done in detention.
Moreover, the Chamber concluded that since 3 July 2008 the continued detention of the applicant had been neither “lawful” nor “in accordance with a procedure prescribed by law” as required by Article 5 § 1 of the Convention.
Conclusion
Violation of Article 7 (ECHR): States can change their criminal policies, but respecting the requirements of Article 7, which prohibits the retrospective application of the criminal law if it’s to an accused’s disadvantage.
Violation of Article 5 (ECHR): the applicant could not have foreseen the departure from case-law by the Supreme Court in 2006 and that the new approach would be applied to her. Therefore, she served a longer term of imprisonment than she should have served under the domestic legal system as it had stood at the time of her conviction (remissions of sentence granted by the law).That’s why, since July 3rd 2008, the applicant’s detention is unlawful.
The Respondent State has to ensure that the applicant is being released at the earliest possible date, to put an end to the violations of the Convention, as well as pay the applicant 30,000€.
c) ANALYSIS
The European Court of Human Rights stated that it was not possible, and thus stated the violation of Article 7 and 5.1 of the Convention.
It implies a redefinition of the competence of Article 7:
The notion of law now clearly comprises case-laws and practices, and thus their submission to the provisions of Article 7, especially regarding the principle of retroactivity. In this case, the “Parot doctrine” is not applicable since it extends the prison’s sentence to 9 years & that it is not foreseeable.