Tokens: After
dispatching
the
issue
of
the
applicability
of
Article
7
in
such
an
unsatisfactory
way
,
the
majority
go
on
to
address
the
core
of
the
case
in
the
same
manner
.
It
is
true
that
the
majority
confirm
the
principle
nulla
poena
sine
culpa
set
out
in
Sud
Fondi
[
154
]
.
According
to
paragraph
242
of
the
present
judgment
,
Article
7
requires
,
for
the
purposes
of
punishment
,
a
mental
link[155
]
.
But
in
spite
of
this
confirmation
,
the
majority
immediately
backtrack
from
their
own
position
,
by
conceding
in
the
following
paragraph
that
this
requirement
does
not
preclude
the
existence
of
certain
forms
of
“
objective
liability
stemming
from
presumptions
of
liability
”
,
keeping
the
bulk
of
the
unfortunate
paragraph
70
of
Varvara
.
One
could
ask
how
two
radically
opposite
perspectives
of
Article
7
,
indeed
of
criminal
law
itself
,
can
be
upheld
by
the
same
court
,
and
one
would
expect
the
majority
to
provide
the
reader
with
an
explication
of
this
legal
imbroglio
.
The
majority
simply
omit
to
provide
any
articulation
for
the
two
logically
and
axiologically
contradictory
statements
.
The
only
justification
given
is
that
,
since
the
Court
has
accepted
certain
forms
of
presumption
of
liability
under
Article
6
§
2
of
the
Convention
,
“
the
Court
finds
that
the
case
-
law
described
above
applies
mutatis
mutandis
under
Article
7”[156
]
.
This
deeply
regrettable
confusion
between
Article
6
procedural
guarantees
and
Article
7
substantive
guarantees
does
not
end
here
.
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