1.
The proposal addresses the following (little discussed) key issues, relevant for further progress of the EUROPE OF RIGHTS debate. Using MULTI-MODULAR APPROACH, best exploiting DIGITAL INSTRUMENTS, the proposal aims to create NEW AWARENESS of LIFE IMPRISONMENT (hereinafter: L.I.), building the first L.I. Database (Life DataBase).
2.
Certainly, unlike the DEATH PENALTY, L.I. is in the background. For this and other reasons, the project team is made of competent ACADEMICS from different disciplines and countries, GUARANTEES of the Rights of Detainees, members of influential NGOs working with lifers and former PRISON DIRECTORS. Project’s results will be constantly uploaded in the official proposal WEBSITE (www.lifeimprisonment.eu) also to promote new JOINT VENTURES with other influential RESEARCH GROUPS and to create real OPEN EDUCATIONAL RESOURCES (OER).
3.
The main impact will be on three aspects: a) a BACKGROUND FOR STUDENTS through Lesson and Seminar AUDIO-VIDEO RECORDS, an ON-LINE DISCUSSION FORUM and L.I. NEWSLETTERS (tools to help students’ first studies on these topics); b) the point of view of Law and Political Science Universities on L.I. thanks to AD HOC QUESTIONNAIRES; c) an idea for a “EUROPEAN REFLECTION DAY ON L.I.”, similar to the “World and European Day Against Death Penalty”. In fact, many of the EU arguments against the death penalty can be extended to L.I. (inhuman, not deterrent). Similarly, L.I. can be suggested as a topic for the Annual Meeting of MINISTERS OF JUSTICE of the EU member states or of the Annual Conference on the Fundamental Rights of the EU AGENCY FOR FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS.
4. KEY ISSUES:
A1) L.I. and EU LAW:
* Is L.I. compatible with EU Law, involving inviolability of human dignity and prohibition of inhuman and degrading treatment?
* Is L.I. consistent with the respect of human dignity that is, according to the Court of Luxemburg, a general principle of EU law?
* Can L.I. be defined a proportionate penalty as provided for by Art. 49 of the Charter of EU Fundamental Rights?
A2) L.I. and EUROPEAN ARREST WARRANT (EAW):
* In accordance to Art. 5 of EAW, does the EU law consider L.I. to be overcome?
A3) L.I. and INTERNATIONAL LAW:
* The EU is committed to advance universal support to Statute of the International Criminal Court, whose Art. 77 provides 30 years as maximum penalty (L.I. only for genocide, admitting, under Art. 110, sentence review after 25 years).
B1) L.I. and COUNCIL OF EUROPE:
* Once the EU accedes the ECHR, how should L.I. case laws of the Strasbourg Court be considered? These case laws are based on Art. 3 of ECHR identical to Art. 4 of the Charter of EU Fundamental Rights.
B2) L.I. and COMMON CONSTITUTIONAL TRADITIONS:
* Are there any European common constitutional traditions in the field of L.I.? Which offenses is it expected for? Is it mandatory or discretionary? How many lifers? How is release on parole governed? And pardon?
C) L.I. and EUROPEAN BEST PRACTICES:
* Whole continents have (almost) completely abolished L.I. Even the U.S. has lately mitigated L.I. And Europe? Portugal was the first country in the world to abolish L.I., which does not even exist in Cyprus, Croatia and two candidate states (Serbia, Montenegro). In Iceland (another candidate) L.I. exists but has never been sentenced. The max penalty in Norway is 21 years. Is there, in Europe, a general trend to reconsider L.I.?
D) L.I. and EUROPEAN CRIMINAL LAW:
* After the Lisbon Treaty, what space will L.I. in the European criminal law debate find, especially to distinguish, in a globalised world, our European criminal culture from others? How is the European issue of overcrowded prisons related to L.I.?
E) L.I. and MEDICAL STUDIES:
* The most recent medical studies have shown that our system of neurons is plastic and renews itself thanks to stem cells. Do these discoveries not prove that L.I., as indeterminate penalty, is also a non-scientific penalty?
