essly provided for in the Code of Criminal Procedure, the applicant became eligible to apply for release; he subsequently made several such applications. In 1984 he received the support of the President of the Human Rights League (Ligue des droits de l'homme), while the civil party threatened the applicant with death should he be released from prison.
21. The applicant's applications for release on licence were transmitted to the Minister of Justice, the competent authority at the time, in 1985, 1988, 1990, 1991, 1992, 1993, 1994, 1995 and 1997. They were each refused, among other reasons for the applicant's own safety despite "evidence supporting them", as a former Minister of Justice (from 1995 to 1997) explained in a press article on 8 June 2000.
22. The applicant also made several applications for a presidential pardon, but without success. The last refusal occurred in 1998, after an expert medical assessment had concluded that the applicant's state of health was compatible with detention.
23. On 18 March 1999 a member of the Lille Bar applied for the applicant's release on licence.
24. The sentence enforcement board gave a positive opinion, but consideration of the application was adjourned pending the submission of a fresh expert report.
25. On 4 October 1999 the experts submitted their report, focusing entirely on aspects of the applicant's personality from a strictly psychiatric and forensic standpoint. They concluded that there were no formal obstacles to his release.
26. The report also stated that the previous experts had already found that there did not appear to be a risk of a further offence involving a child and that only the risk of a surge of paranoia and querulousness had held them back. The experts considered that there was nothing standing in the way of the applicant's release on licence, and that it was ultimately the continuity, consistency and solidity of the reference points provided to him that should prevent a reaction of psychological destabilisation after such a lengthy period of imprisonment. They therefore took the view that it would be helpful for the applicant, at least initially, to receive support through psychological counselling.
27. On 7 February 2000 the judge responsible for the execution of sentences gave his opinion, concluding that there were no obstacles to the applicant's release.
28. Following the reform of the post-sentencing system under Law No. 2000-516 of 15 June 2000, in particular the conditions and procedure for releasing long-term prisoners on licence, the Minister of Justice refused the applicant's application and referred his case to the newly established courts.
C. The applicant's 2001 application for release on licence
29. On 16 January 2001 the applicant submitted an application under the new judicial procedure. In it he again stated that, on his release, friends would provide him with accommodation in an outbuilding at their home and with employment in their bakery.
30. On 5 February 2001 the sentence enforcement board issued a unanimous opinion in favour of his release on licence. The applicant's resettlement and probation officer likewise expressed an opinion strongly in favour of the application.
31. At the hearing in the Douai Regional Parole Court the advocate-general submitted that the applicant's application should be refused in view of his "failure to make amends" for the acts that had led to his conviction.
32. In a decision of 6 July 2001 the Regional Parole Court, observing that the applicant denied having committed the offence of which he had been convicted, refused his application, basing its decision in particular on the psychiatric expert assessments carried out between 1965 and 1999.
33. The applicant appealed to the National Parole Co
> 1 2 3 ... 11 12 13 ... 15 16 17
Zaki.ru законы и право
поиск по сайту
каталог документов
добавить сайт Zaki.ru в избранное
Правовые акты международные
Правовые акты Российской Федерации
