| Analysis |
The Commission repeats that ordinary control of a prisoner’s correspondence is to be considered as an inherent feature of imprisonment and that this control may include the right to stop a letter tending to influence a witness in a case still pending. The Commission concludes that ‘in the circumstances of the present case it cannot be said that the investigating judge was not justified when he considered that the letter in question, regardless of its particular wording, might possibly influence the Applicant’s wife with regard to the evidence which she had to give at the trial’. Interestingly, like in a number of previous cases, this does not lead the Commission to argue that the interference on the right to privacy on this point was justified, but that there was not interference with his right under Article 8 paragraph 1.
|