DignITA Database

DATA: 28/05/2020

STRUMENTI CORRELATI:

NOTE:

Pena di anni venti di reclusione per i reati contestati agli imputati (associazione a delinquere, tortura, sequestro di persona a scopo di estorsione) così ridotta per effetto della scelta del rito. Condanna degli imputati al pagamento delle spese processuali, nonché al pagamento delle spese di mantenimento durante la custodia cautelare in carcere. Gli imputati sono dichiarati in stato di interdizione legale e interdetti in perpetuo dai pubblici uffici. È disposta confisca e distruzione di quanto in sequestro.

Il concetto di dignità umana è richiamato all’interno della sentenza nel capo d’imputazione B (p.3) e al paragrafo 6.2 (p.39), con riferimento alle condotte perpetrate all’interno del centro di prigionia di Zawyia, sostanziantesi in costanti e reiterate violenze fisiche (percosse con bastoni, tubi di gomma, frustate e somministrazione di scariche elettriche), ripetute minacce gravi attraverso l’uso delle armi o pestaggi, mancata fornitura di beni di prima necessità, acqua potabile e cure mediche.
Tali atti, finalizzati a lucrare sulla disperazione dei prigionieri per costringerli a contattare i parenti e richiedere denaro per la loro liberazione con la minaccia di morte o di alienazione ad altri trafficanti, configurano trattamenti inumani e degradanti per la dignità della persona, poiché idonei a indurre uno stato di prostrazione fisica e mentale tale da inibire l’autodeterminazione dell’individuo in ordine ai diritti fondamentali.

DATA: 30/06/2017

STRUMENTI CORRELATI:

NOTE:

Ruling:

The court declares the application admissible and holds that there has been a violation of Article 4.2 of the Convention.

Reference to obligations of criminalization:

Arts. 2, 3, 4 Directive 2011/36/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 5 April 2011 on preventing and combating trafficking in human beings and protecting its victims, and replacing Council Framework Decision 2002/629/JHA.ù

Reference to human dignity:

Indirect reference.
Forced labour and human trafficking violate fundamental human rights, including human dignity.
In the case at hand the applicants worked in greenhouses for twelve hours every day, picking strawberry under the supervision of armed overseers; they lived in makeshift shacks made of cardboard, nylon, without toilets or running water; their employers did not pay them and warned them that they would only receive their wages if they continued to work. In addition, the applicants did not have a residence permit or work permit. Consequently, the employer abused his power and took advantage of the vulnerability of his workers in order to exploit them. The prior consent of the victims is not sufficient to exclude the characteristic of such conducts as forced labour.

DATA: 07/01/2010

STRUMENTI CORRELATI:

NOTE:

Ruling:

For these reasons, the Court, unanimously […] Holds that there has been a procedural violation of Article 2 of the Convention by Cyprus because of the failure to conduct an effective investigation into Ms Rantseva’s death; Holds that there has been a violation of Article 4 of the Convention by Cyprus by not affording to Ms Rantseva practical and effective protection against trafficking and exploitation in general and by not taking the necessary specific measures to protect her, Holds that there has been a violation of Article 4 of the Convention by Russia of its procedural obligations to investigate the alleged trafficking; Holds that there has been a violation of Article 5 of the Convention by Cyprus;

Reference to obligations of criminalization:

Paragraphs 244, 282, 285, 288, 289

Reference to human dignity:
282. There can be no doubt that trafficking threatens the human dignity and fundamental freedoms of its victims and cannot be considered compatible with a democratic society and the values expounded in the Convention. In view of its obligation to interpret the Convention in light of present-day conditions, the Court considers it unnecessary to identify whether the treatment about which the applicant complains constitutes “slavery”, “servitude” or “forced and compulsory labour”. Instead, the Court concludes that trafficking itself, within the meaning of Article 3(a) of the Palermo Protocol and Article 4(a) of the Anti-Trafficking Convention, falls within the scope of Article 4 of the Convention. The Russian Government’s objection of incompatibility ratione materiae is accordingly dismissed.