The European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) ruled on Thursday that Italy breached the human rights of Fabio Cramesteter, who was held in psychiatric detention for nearly a decade. This decision reflects a critical perspective on Italy’s legislative evolution toward deinstitutionalization. The case received extensive attention after Cramesteter, convicted in 2003 for weapons possession and theft, appealed his sentence and was acquitted by reason of insanity in 2004. Subsequently, he was transferred to a forensic psychiatric hospital (Ospedali Psichiatrici Giudiziari, OPG). Initially sentenced to two years, his confinement extended until 2016 due to repeated extensions.
Historically, Italy’s OPGs were rooted in 19th century criminologist Enrico Ferri’s theory of inherent criminality, leading to the establishment of more carceral than clinical facilities. This institutional paradigm began to shift globally during the 1960s with the deinstitutionalization movement. In Italy, Franco Basaglia’s initiative led to the closure of general-population asylums favoring community care, but the OPGs persisted under the justice ministry’s jurisdiction, escaping the 1978 reforms.
In 2014, following allegations of inhumane treatments by the Council of Europe (CoE), Italy enacted reforms mandating the closure of all OPGs by March 2015 and ensuring that individuals acquitted by reason of insanity could not be detained longer than their potential jail sentence. However, Cramesteter remained in psychiatric detention until May 2016 despite his eligibility for release by early 2015. His subsequent wrongful detention claim was denied by Italian courts based on non-retroactive sentencing limitations.
The ECHR’s ruling indicates that Italy infringed upon Cramesteter’s rights to liberty and security, along with his right to compensation for unlawful detention, stipulated under the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR Convention), Article 5 sections 1, 3, and 5. Consequently, Italy has been ordered to compensate Cramesteter with 8,000 euros in damages. Further details on the judgment can be found here.