Judgment No. 17047 of 2024: Precautionary Measures and the Need for Clinical Checks

Judgment No. 17047 of February 16, 2024, issued by the Court of Cassation, represents a significant step forward in understanding personal precautionary measures and their implications for the health of detainees. In particular, the decision addresses the issue of the necessity of clinical and instrumental checks, clearly establishing that such needs do not necessarily entail incompatibility with detention.

Context of the Judgment

The judgment in question is based on a case where the Court of Liberty of Reggio Calabria deemed inadmissible the request for incompatibility of the detainee M. P.M. O. Lucia. The Court emphasized that the mere need for clinical checks does not, in itself, determine the necessity of excluding the detainee from the prison system. This is a crucial aspect, as it recognizes the possibility of keeping individuals in custody who require treatment, provided that transfers to appropriate facilities are guaranteed.

Relevance of the Judgment

The need for periodic clinical and instrumental checks for the ongoing assessment of pathological conditions and the planning of therapy - Relevance for incompatibility with detention - Exclusion - Reasons. Regarding personal precautionary measures, the recognition of the need for periodic clinical and instrumental checks, aimed at the ongoing assessment of diagnosed pathological conditions and the planning of the most appropriate pharmacological therapy, even through short hospitalizations in specialized facilities outside the prison system, does not, in itself, constitute a relevant state of incompatibility, pursuant to Article 275, paragraph 4-bis, of the Code of Criminal Procedure, for the purpose of the prohibition of detention in prison, which requires an ongoing morbid state. Such needs can be safeguarded, pursuant to Article 11 of Law of July 26, 1975, No. 354, by transferring the detainee to suitable clinical centers of the penitentiary administration or to other external healthcare facilities, with the consequent right to obtain such transfers in such cases.

This summary highlights how the health needs of a detainee can be met without compromising their custody, provided that the necessary measures are implemented. The law, in fact, already provides that detainees can receive adequate medical care, including through transfer to specialized centers.

Practical Implications

The implications of this judgment are manifold and primarily concern the management of detainees' health. Below are some of the main considerations:

• The health of detainees must be a priority, and institutions must ensure access to adequate care.
• Precautionary measures should not be interpreted rigidly but must take into account individual health needs.
• Transfer to clinical centers must be considered a practical and necessary solution for safeguarding the detainee's health.

Conclusions

In conclusion, Judgment No. 17047 of 2024 offers an important reflection on how the legal system can balance the custody of detainees with the right to health. The decision of the Court of Cassation represents a step towards greater humanization of the penitentiary system, emphasizing the importance of ensuring that health needs are not overlooked in the name of justice. It is essential that legal professionals and penitentiary institutions are aware of the implications of this judgment and work to implement the necessary measures to ensure the well-being of detainees, in line with current legislation.