I correctly predicted that there was a violation of human rights in SY v. ITALY.


  • Judgment date: 2022-01-24
  • Communication date: 2020-06-24
  • Application number(s): 11791/20
  • Country:   ITA
  • Relevant ECHR article(s): 3
  • Conclusion:
    Remainder inadmissible (Art. 35) Admissibility criteria
    (Art. 35-1) Six-month period
    Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading treatment
    Inhuman treatment) (Substantive aspect)
    No violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-1 - Lawful arrest or detention
    Procedure prescribed by law
    Article 5-1-a - Conviction)
    Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-1 - Lawful arrest or detention
    Article 5-1-e - Persons of unsound mind)
    Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-5 - Compensation)
    Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Enforcement proceedings
    Article 6-1 - Access to court)
    Violation of Article 34 - Individual applications (Article 34 - Hinder the exercise of the right of application)
    Non-pecuniary damage - award (Article 41 - Non-pecuniary damage
    Just satisfaction)
  • Result: Violation

JURI Prediction

  • Probability: 0.60567
  • Prediction: Violation
  • Consistent


 In line with the court's judgment
 In opposition to the court's judgment
Darker color: higher probability
: In line with the court's judgment  
: In opposition to the court's judgment

Communication text used for prediction

The application concerns the continued detention on remand in a common ward of Rebibbia prison (Rome) of a drug addict suffering from a severe psychiatric disorder, notwithstanding domestic courts’ decisions revoking his detention on remand and imposing his placement in a specialized structure, and expert reports underlying the incompatibility of detention with his state of mental health.
The applicant complains of the unlawfulness of his prolonged detention; of the conditions of his detention, inadequate for his mental health in the absence of specific treatment for his psychiatric issues; of the absence of domestic remedies and of non-enforcement of domestic courts’ decisions ordering his placement outside prison.