Tokens: 13
.
In
attempting
to
answer
this
crucial
question
,
I
note
that
in
rounding
up
the
discussion
of
the
nature
and
aim
of
the
impugned
measure
,
the
majority
accepts
that
“
‘
ordinary
’
preventive
detention
which
is
not
executed
with
a
view
to
treating
the
detainee
’s
mental
disorder
,
even
if
implemented
in
accordance
with
the
new
legislative
framework
,
still
constitutes
a
penalty
for
the
purposes
of
Article
7
§
1
of
the
Convention
.
The
improved
material
conditions
and
care
do
not
,
in
these
circumstances
,
suffice
to
erase
the
factors
indicative
of
a
penalty
”
(
see
paragraph
228
of
the
judgment
)
.
In
other
words
,
the
decisive
point
in
“
eras[ing
]
the
factors
indicative
of
a
penalty
”
is
not
so
much
the
improvement
of
material
conditions
and
care
–
which
can
fluctuate
over
time
and
is
therefore
unreliable
–
but
rather
the
aim
of
the
measure
,
which
must
focus
on
“
treating
the
detainee
’s
mental
disorder
”
.
Labels: O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O