Postponement of Sentence Execution due to Serious Illness: The Court of Cassation's Interpretation in Judgment No. 11725/2025

The Italian legal system is constantly called upon to balance fundamental principles, often in apparent contrast. One of the most delicate areas is undoubtedly the execution of sentences, where the punitive function of the State confronts inalienable human rights, including the right to health. In this context, the Court of Cassation, with Judgment No. 11725 of 14/03/2025 (filed on 25/03/2025), has provided a crucial interpretation regarding the discretionary postponement of sentence execution due to serious physical illness, clarifying the prerequisites and procedures for applying this complex measure.

The Regulatory Framework and the Convicted Person's Right to Health

While the Italian legal system provides for the deprivation of personal liberty as a penalty for crimes, it does not ignore the human condition of the convicted person. Article 147, first paragraph, no. 2) of the Criminal Code, read in conjunction with Article 47-ter of the Law on the Penitentiary System (Law 354/1975), governs the possibility of suspending or postponing the execution of a custodial sentence in the presence of serious physical illness. This principle is also rooted in Article 32 of the Constitution, which protects the right to health as fundamental, and in Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), which prohibits inhuman or degrading treatment. The decision rests with the Supervisory Court, which must conduct a careful and detailed assessment.

The discretionary postponement of sentence execution referred to in art. 147, first paragraph, no. 2), of the Criminal Code, presupposes that the illness affecting the convicted person is serious, i.e., such as to endanger their life or cause significant harmful consequences, and, in any case, such as to require treatment that cannot be easily administered in detention, requiring a balance between the convicted person's interest in receiving adequate care and the community's security needs.

The summary of the Court of Cassation, reproduced here in full, encapsulates the essence of the issue. Any pathology is not sufficient to obtain postponement; a "serious illness" is required. The Court specifies that such seriousness manifests in two main scenarios: when the illness endangers the convicted person's life or when it causes "significant harmful consequences." But that is not enough. It is essential that the necessary treatment for such a condition cannot be "easily administered in detention." This means that the prison system must be objectively inadequate to guarantee the required therapeutic treatment, overcoming the ordinary difficulties that may arise in a prison environment. The judgment rejects the appeal filed against the decision of the Supervisory Court of Rome, in the case involving the defendant S. P.M. P., indicating a possible lack of full adherence to the principles outlined herein by the Court.

The Delicate Balance Between the Right to Health and Collective Security

The core of the Court of Cassation's ruling lies in the concept of "balancing." The Supreme Court emphasizes that the convicted person's interest in receiving adequate care must be weighed against the "community's security needs." This implies an assessment that is not merely medical but also legal and social. It is not an automatic process: the right to health, while fundamental, does not automatically override the reasons for justice and social protection. The judge must therefore consider various factors, including:

• The severity and irreversibility of the pathology: Assessed through accurate medical reports.
• The actual impossibility of treatment in a detention setting: Not a mere difficulty, but an objective incompatibility.
• The convicted person's social dangerousness: That is, the risk that, once free, they may commit new crimes or evade sentence execution.
• The seriousness of the committed crime: An element that affects the perception of collective security needs.

Jurisprudence has repeatedly stated that the burden of proof for serious illness and incompatibility with detention lies with the convicted person. However, the judge's assessment must be carried out with the utmost diligence, considering the dignity of the person and the principle of humane punishment.

Conclusions: A Beacon for Justice and Health in Prison

Judgment No. 11725/2025 of the Court of Cassation serves as an important reference point for the application of Article 147 of the Criminal Code. It reiterates the need for a rigorous and in-depth analysis that considers both the medical condition of the detainee and the indispensable requirements of public safety. This dynamic balance is essential to ensure that justice is not only firm in applying the law but also sensitive to the protection of fundamental rights. For convicted persons and their families, understanding these criteria is crucial, and qualified legal assistance becomes indispensable for navigating the complexities of these procedures, ensuring that each case is evaluated with due attention and in compliance with all legal principles.