Life imprisonment and the right to life in Malta : does one contradict the other?

Abstract

The right to life in Malta is protected by Article 33 of the Constitution, as well as under Article 2 of the European Convention on Human Rights. The reason why such a right is one of the first to be mentioned is because of the fundamental aspect it poses in that, along with the right to respect for human dignity, it is the basis of all other rights. This gives the right to life a much more profound meaning than the traditional definition that is often associated with this right. Consequently, life imprisonment is being considered under a new light. While a life sentence is legal, and compliant with European Union standards, there are also underlying conditions that one must consider. For example, a life sentence cannot nowadays be given unless the offender is also given a list of criteria on which s/he could possibly be released. This was the principle laid down in the Vinter judgement, where the European Court of Human Rights argued that a life sentence does indeed breach the fundamental rights of a person, when there is no prospect for release. The breach of the rights of a person commences the moment that life imprisonment is no longer justified, and therefore there would no longer be any penological grounds for continued imprisonment. Following this landmark case, various other judgements followed suit, and slowly, the concept of life imprisonment started being given a new definition. Having said all this, it does not mean that this is an absolute right, or that it is a guarantee that the prisoner will be released earlier. It is the mere possibility of release that would render a life sentence compliant with human rights’ principles, and when the grounds for such are non-arbitrary, and clear to the lifer from the moment a life sentence is served. In Malta, this principle is recognised by our Courts, even though there has been hardly any legislative process to reflect this. However, as of 2016, following the Ben Hassine judgement, the Courts have recognised that having no review mechanism renders life sentences de jure and de facto irreducible, and therefore breaching the fundamental rights of a person. While this is definitely a start, there is still some work that needs to be done to ensure that there is complete respect for the most basic rights.