Tokens: 107
.
The
measure
of
confusion
of
the
majority
’s
reasoning
can
be
perceived
in
the
way
they
mix
law
and
facts
and
equate
sentencing
and
enforcement
of
penalties
,
in
the
pivotal
paragraph
207
of
the
judgment
.
It
is
true
that
the
interpretation
of
Article
7
§
1
of
the
Convention
proposed
in
the
most
unfortunate
paragraph
207
of
the
judgment
is
limited
to
the
“
some
rare
cases
”
mentioned
in
the
previous
paragraph
.
There
is
only
one
,
very
unsatisfactory
justification
for
the
“
rarity
argument
”
to
be
used
here
by
the
majority
:
they
know
that
they
are
entering
uncharted
,
dangerous
territory
in
paragraph
207
and
want
as
far
as
possible
to
limit
the
scope
of
the
proposed
interpretation
and
the
ensuing
collateral
damage
caused
to
the
basic
foundational
principles
of
modern
criminal
law
and
the
principle
of
legality
as
we
have
known
it
since
Anselm
von
Feuerbach
coined
in
§
24
of
his
Lehrbuch
des
gemeinen
in
Deutschland
geltenden
peinlichen
Rechts
of
1801
the
Latin
expression
nulla
poena
sine
lege
.
The
limited
scope
of
applicability
of
the
interpretation
proposed
in
paragraph
207
does
not
detract
from
the
fact
that
it
constitutes
a
heresy
in
criminal
law
.
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