Tokens: 14
.
We
might
wonder
whether
such
an
approach
covers
all
the
existing
realties
in
this
sphere
and
the
whole
range
of
situations
which
can
arise
,
and
in
particular
whether
it
covers
the
present
case
.
In
the
instant
case
,
not
only
did
the
law
classify
the
measure
as
“
preventive
detention
”
and
not
as
a
penalty
,
but
it
also
prescribed
appropriate
treatment
in
an
establishment
specialising
in
psychological
disorders
.
However
,
as
regards
the
facts
,
pursuant
to
a
systematic
and
consistent
administrative
practice
,
such
measures
were
–
for
an
initial
period
,
until
the
applicant
was
transferred
to
a
new
suitable
establishment
–
enforced
in
prisons
that
did
not
offer
appropriate
treatment
.
The
situation
was
not
accidental
,
but
structural
:
all
persons
held
in
preventive
detention
who
were
suffering
from
a
mental
disorder
were
systematically
and
invariably
held
in
prisons
,
for
the
simple
reason
that
no
specialised
establishments
existed
.
In
view
of
that
situation
,
can
we
consider
that
the
measure
was
not
a
penalty
,
knowing
that
in
line
with
systematic
administrative
practice
it
was
enforced
in
exactly
the
same
way
as
a
penalty
?
Should
we
not
take
into
account
all
the
structural
facts
and
conclude
that
the
measure
indeed
constituted
a
penalty
?
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