The European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) has today held that a 2006 legal approach by the Spanish Supreme Court -known as "Parot doctrine"- on the enforcement of sentences in cases involving terrorism is illegal, since it goes against the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR).

The Court has decided over a case filed by Inés del Río, an ETA member, who had been sentenced to over 3,000 years by the Spanish courts.

When Del Río was sentenced, Spanish laws made it clear that any prison term could not exceed 30 years. It was also a matter of fact that convicts could be given remissions of sentence for work done in prison. Specifically, Del Río was given a remission of almost nine years. Having been arrested in 1987, she should have been released in 2008, but she was not, on the grounds that the "Parot doctrine" allowed Spain to extend her holding in prison.

A 2003 law by the Spanish Parliament targeting terrorism offences set that remissions should be applied to each sentence individually, not to the maximum limit. This meant in practice that convicts having several different sentences would have to serve the full 30 year period, even if they had the right to remissions.

In 2006, the Supreme Court retroactively enforced this law onto a decision on a 1990 prison sentence to ETA member Henri Parot, thus establishing the so-called "Parot doctrine".

Thus, under new time calculations, it was decided that Del Río could not be released until 2017.

Unlawful extension of sentence

What the ECtHR has today ruled is the unlawfulness of extending Del Río's prison sentence in this way. The Court considers that Spanish laws passed after Del Río was sentenced cannot be retroactively applied to the ETA member, since that violates articles 5 and 7 of the ECHR.

The European Court has asked the Spanish authorities to release Del Río "at the earliest possible date" and to pay her a compensation of 30,000 euros.