ABOUT LIFELONG AND REAL LIFELONG SENTENCE – (SEMI)PERMEABILITY OF THEORY AND PRACTICE – SUPRANATIONAL JUDICIAL APPROACH BY THE EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS

Abstract

Annoying moreover disturbing situation has been formed around since the total abolition of death penalty in the countries forming High Contracting Parties of the European Convention on Human Rights (47 States). Different pros and cons has been raising ever since. Whether there might be a supplementary penalty for the most brutal, torture-like and cruel felonies having been committed mainly for innocent human beings depriving their life in aggravated forms? The answer is: ’yep’…..with a lot of barriers, preconditions and prerequisits. Thinking deeply about deprivation of liberty for the whole life of the defendant/convicted whether the State is empowered to do that? The judiciary of the European Court of Human Rights (in Strasbourg/France) itself could not answer consequently the eagerly rampant question: the Vinter Case and afterwards the Hutchinson case have formed controversial enforcement-compromising viewpoints. Hungary has introduced a very special legal remedy giving back the hope to be released – even conditionally: - after spending 40 years imprisonment a strictly formed National Commision is being entitled to revise the convicted person’s behaviour and attitude demonstrated during the imprisonment and presuming whether he/she might be returned to the normal society…..heavy duty for the Commission and heavy precondition for the imprisoned person. The essay tries to clarify why it has been so hard to achieve a more or less compromise solution in order to comply with the Convention’s spirit and written text. Enjoy and form You own opinion.

Keywords

• convenção europeia de direitos humanos
• pena de morte
• abolição.