Tokens: 12
.
We
now
come
to
the
nature
and
the
aim
of
preventive
detention
.
This
is
the
principal
criterion
on
which
the
majority
relied
to
find
that
the
impugned
detention
did
not
constitute
a
“
penalty
”
.
In
my
view
,
it
might
nevertheless
be
legitimate
to
ponder
whether
that
criterion
,
which
is
“
dynamic
”
and
therefore
flexible
and
changeable
,
could
conceivably
counterbalance
the
other
three
criteria
mentioned
previously
.
In
other
words
,
can
the
nature
and
aim
of
the
detention
turn
a
“
penalty
”
into
a
mere
preventive
measure
falling
outside
the
scope
of
Article
7
of
the
Convention
?
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