Tokens: 96
.
In
line
with
the
Government
,
the
majority
set
themselves
the
difficult
task
of
arguing
that
jailing
a
person
in
a
preventive
detention
centre
after
the
commission
of
a
criminal
offence
is
nevertheless
not
a
“
penalty
”
for
the
purposes
of
Article
7
of
the
Convention
.
The
majority
do
not
differentiate
between
“
nature
”
and
“
purpose
”
of
the
measure
,
nor
they
provide
any
methodological
hint
on
how
to
differentiate
the
two
,
but
they
acknowledge
three
“
purposes
”
pursued
by
the
applicant
’s
preventive
detention
:
a
“
punitive
”
one[263
]
,
a
“
preventive
”
one[264
]
and
a
“
therapeutic
”
one[265
]
.
However
,
their
focus
on
the
conditions
of
detention
reveals
the
implicit
premise
that
the
“
nature
”
or
“
purpose
”
of
the
measure
is
determined
by
how
the
measure
is
implemented
.
In
fact
,
they
invoke
the
material
and
living
conditions
provided
to
those
interned
in
the
Straubing
detention
centre
,
how
they
can
choose
their
own
clothes
,
have
larger
cells
,
specialised
treatment
,
and
so
on
.
According
to
the
majority
,
the
“
preventive
”
and
“
therapeutic
”
purposes
“
erase
”
the
“
punitive
element
”
of
the
measure
to
such
an
extent
that
it
is
no
longer
a
penalty
.
[
266
]
However
,
this
reasoning
omits
some
crucial
legal
considerations
.
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