Tokens: 9
.
It
was
doubtless
because
the
originators
of
the
Convention
realised
that
the
rule
embodied
in
Article
8
(
art
.
8)
would
have
to
be
understood
in
a
very
qualified
way
,
if
it
was
to
be
practicable
at
all
,
that
they
subjected
it
to
a
number
of
specific
exceptions
;
-
and
although
these
do
not
in
my
opinion
-
for
the
reasons
just
given
-
necessarily
exhaust
all
the
possible
limitations
on
the
rule
,
they
are
sufficiently
wide
and
general
to
cover
most
of
the
cases
likely
to
arise
.
The
drafting
of
these
exceptions
is
unsatisfactory
in
one
important
respect
:
six
heads
or
categories
are
mentioned
,
but
they
are
placed
in
two
groups
of
three
,
-
and
what
is
not
clear
is
whether
it
is
necessary
for
an
alleged
case
of
exception
to
fall
under
one
of
the
three
heads
in
both
groups
,
or
whether
it
suffices
for
it
to
fall
under
any
one
of
the
three
heads
in
either
the
one
or
the
other
group
.
This
ambiguity
,
which
certainly
exists
in
the
English
text
of
the
Article
(
art
.
8)
(
see
paragraph
4
supra)[7
]
(
7
)
,
I
fortunately
do
not
need
to
resolve
,
because
I
am
satisfied
that
,
considered
on
a
category
basis
,
control
of
a
prisoner
’s
correspondence
is
capable
of
coming
under
the
heads
both
of
"
public
safety
"
and
"
the
prevention
of
disorder
or
crime
"
,
thus
ranking
as
an
excepted
category
whichever
of
the
two
above
described
methods
of
interpreting
this
provision
might
be
adopted
.
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
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