The case represents a human rights judgement against the country. Denmark acted wrongly by refusing to allow an independent assessment of if the man in question can still be considered dangerous to the others, the ECHR found.
Even rarer can be a result in favor of the claimant. “It is rare for Denmark to be given a mark on its own human rights record,” said lawyer Tobias Stadarfeld of both Aarhus-based firm Bonnez and Ziebe, who presented the case against Denmark at the ECHR.
The Strasbourg court consented in 2018 to critique the case against Denmark, an unusual case by itself, Ritzau writes. The individual in question has been sentenced in 1996 to protect custody (forvaring in biblical ), a kind of sentence that will keep him imprisoned with no time limit provided he’s regarded as dangerous.
From the intervening years, the Herstedvester FC&ngsel prison, by which he is held, is wearing repeated evaluations found him too dangerous to be released on parole. The case can be appealed using the ECHR’s highest court, the Grand Chamber.
The judgment means by allowing a completely assessment of the prisoner, Denmark is obliged to correct the difficulty. He had been awarded the sentence for trying to sexually assault a child.
On a practical point, this means that the court agreed with us that a (human rights) violation occurred, and also that the procedure did not live up to the states of the convention, Stadarfeld added. The European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) has found that Denmark reinforces the individual rights of a convicted criminal.
