| Analysis |
The Commission points out three things. First, it reiterates that the normal control, including in certain circumstances a restriction of correspondence is an inherent feature of imprisonment and does not constitute a violation of paragraph (1) of Article 8 (Art. 8-1). Second, that it has found no irregularities as respect to the communication to and with the Commission. Third, contained most serious and offensive allegations
against the judge as well as against prosecution and defence counsel
and witnesses involved in the applicant’s trial. The Commission stresses that this was provided for by law and necessary in a democratic society in light of the protection of the rights and freedoms of others, namely the right to reputation. This choice is interesting for two reasons. On the one hand, the Commission usually refers to the prevention of disorder and crime when treating cases about the limitation of prisoners’ rights. On the other hand, while the right to reputation is made explicit as one of the grounds that can legitimize interferences in paragraph 2 of Article 10 ECHR (the freedom of speech), it is not mentioned in paragraph 2 of Article 8 ECHR. The Commission does not find that this means a contrario that the protection of the reputation of others cannot serve as a legitimate ground for limiting the right to privacy.
|