Judgment No. 17489 of 2024: Differentiated Regime and Purchase of Foodstuffs in Prison

The recent judgment No. 17489 of March 29, 2024, by the Court of Cassation offers significant insights into the management of inmates under a differentiated regime, particularly concerning the authorization to purchase foodstuffs through the prison commissary. This ruling, which quashes without referral the decision of the Sassari Supervisory Court, highlights the delicate interplay between individual rights and security needs within correctional facilities.

Regulatory Context and Conditions of Lawfulness

Law of July 26, 1975, No. 354, Article 41-bis, governs the detention modalities for individuals deemed dangerous, establishing restrictive measures to ensure internal security. In this context, the Court reiterated that the denial by the prison administration to purchase foodstuffs, as in the case of flour and yeast, is lawful if based on objective requirements of order and security. This approach is consistent with the need to prevent risky situations within the prison.

Inmates subject to the differentiated regime pursuant to Article 41-bis of the Prison Regulations - Authorization for the purchase of foodstuffs through the commissary - Denial - Lawfulness - Conditions - Case. Regarding the differentiated regime under Article 41-bis of Law of July 26, 1975, No. 354, the measure by which the prison administration does not authorize the purchase and possession of foodstuffs through the commissary is lawful, based on objective internal order and security requirements, provided that the resulting limitations do not affect the inmate's rights to health and nutrition. (Case concerning the denial of purchasing flour and yeast through the commissary, adopted due to their easy flammability and non-essential nature, as the inmate can benefit from the meals provided by the administration, compliant with ministerial nutritional tables).

Implications for Inmates' Rights

The judgment emphasizes that, while restrictions imposed for security reasons are lawful, they must not compromise the fundamental rights of inmates, particularly those relating to health and nutrition. The administration must ensure that the meals provided comply with ministerial nutritional tables, so that inmates can maintain an adequate state of health.

• Lawfulness of denying the purchase of foodstuffs based on security needs.
• Inmates' rights to health and nutrition must be protected.
• Possibility of benefiting from meals provided by the administration as an alternative.

Conclusions

In conclusion, judgment No. 17489 of 2024 represents an important reference point for the management of inmates under a differentiated regime, underscoring the need to balance security requirements with the fundamental rights of inmates. This balance is essential for a criminal justice system that respects human dignity, even within correctional facilities.