Cette thèse porte sur les limites du pouvoir étatique de restreindre les droits des détenus. Afin d'explorer cette question, l’auteur identifie les spécificités de ces limitations qui peuvent influencer la justification de leur application. Ces spécificités rendent la justification des limitations en milieu pénitentiaire plus facile par rapport à celles des citoyens libres. La thèse propose des barrières juridiques améliorées contre les limitations non-justifiées.L’auteur propose une théorie originale sur la nature juridique des limitations aux droits des détenus. Il décrit aussi les normes pertinentes développées par l’ONU et le Conseil de l’Europe (la Cour européenne et le Comité pour la prévention de la torture) ainsi que les normes nationales encadrées par la législation et la jurisprudence. Une analyse critique de ces normes est menée afin de comprendre leurs défauts et de prévenir la commission d’erreurs à l’avenir.La doctrine populaire selon laquelle les détenus conservent tous les droits sauf ceux qui sont incompatibles avec l'emprisonnement est rejetée car elle s’avère peu protectrice du point de vue juridique. En revanche, d’autres axes d’amélioration des clauses limitatives existantes en droit pénitentiaire sont proposés. Il s’agit de la construction de garanties procédurales contre l’abus de limitations non-justifiées et notamment du renforcement du rôle du contrôle judiciaire ainsi que de l’application du principe de proportionnalité. L’application légitime de ce principe est plus complexe en monde libre qu’en milieu fermé ; elle requiert sans doute non de s’appuyer non seulement sur des arguments juridiques et logiques, mais encore sur des arguments empiriques. / This thesis focuses on the limits of the State’s power in restricting prisoners’ rights. In order to explore this issue, the author identifies the specificities of these limitations which can influence the justification of their use. Due to these specificities, it is easier to justify the limitations of prisoners’ rights than to those of free citizens. It is on this basis that the thesis suggests to improve legal barriers against the unjustified limitations of prisoners' rights.The author develops an original theory pertaining to the legal nature of limitations applied to prisoners' rights. Furthermore, he describes the standards developed by the UN and the Council of Europe (the European Court and the Committee for the Prevention of Torture) which apply to these limitations, as well as the relevant national standards defined by legislations and/or jurisprudence. A critical analysis of these standards is conducted with the purpose of understanding their flaws and preventing them in the future.The popular view according to which detainees retain all their rights, with the sole exception of those that are incompatible with imprisonment is rejected as not providing sufficient legal protection. This thesis presents alternative ideas for improving restrictive prison law clauses. Particular attention is paid to the construction of procedural safeguards against the abuse of unjustified limitations, including strengthening the role of judicial review and the principle of proportionality. In a security context, it is more complicated to apply this principle legitimately as it might require not only legal and logical arguments, but also empirical data.

Made available in DSpace on 2016-08-10T10:46:38Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 1 Yashmin Crispim Baiocchi de Paula e Toledo.pdf: 737877 bytes, checksum: c2b6da727cd7314501330cf1d94c95b3 (MD5) Previous issue date: 2010-06-10 / The Public Attorneys was created as an institution to defend the interests of sovereign will and to promote the penal prosecution. In Brazil, the Federal Constitution of 1988 conferred a new profile to the institution, by prioritizing the defense of basic human rights. The prison sentence, in turn; also appeared as an instrument of enforcing the sovereign will, directed toward transgressors of the law. Over time, it was molded and shaped according to political, economical and social changes. In the international scene, the penitentiary rights gained distinction in 1955, when the United Nations Congress elaborated the Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners. Since then, the humanitarian and social idealism has made its way into the national and international legislation. The Law of Criminal Execution, Law N. 7,210/84, prior to the constitutional text, did not foresee the action of the Public Attorneys in defending the basic human rights of the prisoners. In this context, this paper proposes to investigate the performance of the Brazilian Public Attorneys through the following and inspection of the prison sentence, with the intention of verifying that it is in agreement with its new character, according to the Federal Constitution of 1988, of defending and keeping the legal order, the democratic system and the basic human rights, or if the institution continues to be engaged in the role of "relentless accuser" and in this sense is contributing to the chaos of the penitentiary system. The theoretical postulates will be centered on authors pertaining to the issue, such as: ALBERGARIA (1992); ANDRADE (2002); BARBOSA (2002); BECCARIA (1996), BITENCOURT (2001); BOBBIO (2004); CANOTILHO (1998); FOUCAULT (1987/2002); FRAGOSO (1980); MAZZILLI (2005); MIRABETE (1997/1998); ROXIN (1986/2000); SHECAIRA (1995/2004), among others. / O Ministério Público surgiu como uma instituição incumbida de defender os interesses do soberano e promover a acusação penal. No Brasil, a Constituição Federal de 1988 conferiu novo perfil à instituição, ao priorizar a atuação em defesa dos direitos fundamentais. A pena privativa de liberdade, por sua vez; também surgiu como instrumento de imposição da vontade do soberano dirigido àquele que transgredisse a ordem dominante e, ao longo do tempo, recebeu contornos diferentes à medida que se alteravam fatores políticos, econômicos e sociais. No cenário internacional, o direito penitenciário ganhou destaque, a partir de 1955, quando a Organização das Nações Unidas elaborou as Regras Mínimas para o Tratamento de Reclusos. Desde então, o ideário humanitário e socializador passou a permear a legislação nacional e internacional. A Lei de Execução Penal, Lei n. 7.210/84, anterior ao texto constitucional, não previu a atuação do Ministério Público, como garantidor dos direitos fundamentais dos presos. Nesse contexto, o presente trabalho se propõe a investigar a atuação do Ministério Público brasileiro no acompanhamento e fiscalização da pena privativa de liberdade, no intuito de verificar se há consonância com a nova feição que lhe foi atribuída pela Constituição Federal de 1988, de defensor da ordem jurídica, do regime democrático e dos direitos fundamentais, ou se a instituição continua apegada à função de "acusador implacável" e nesse sentido está contribuindo para o caos do sistema penitenciário. Os postulados teóricos; estarão centrados em autores pertinentes ao tema, como: ALBERGARIA (1992); ANDRADE (2002); BARBOSA (2002); BECCARIA (1996), BITENCOURT (2001); BOBBIO (2004); CANOTILHO (1998); FOUCAULT (1987/2002); FRAGOSO (1980); MAZZILLI (2005); MIRABETE (1997/1998); ROXIN (1986/2000); SHECAIRA (1995/2004), além de outros.

C’est un adage bien connu, la peine privative de liberté n’est, théoriquement, que la privation de la liberté d’aller et venir. La France s’est ainsi dotée, le 24 novembre 2009, d’une loi pénitentiaire régissant les droits et les devoirs des personnes incarcérées. Son article 26 précise que : « les personnes détenues ont droit à la liberté d'opinion, de conscience et de religion ». Ce droit implique en substance celui de rechercher des informations, de construire son opinion, puis de l’extérioriser, soit, de pouvoir librement s’exprimer. Or, la réclusion physique d’un individu entraîne inévitablement des restrictions à l’usage de sa liberté deparole, entendue au sens large. S’il ne fait nul doute que les individus incarcérés sont titulaires de droits subjectifs, dans quelles conditions peuvent-ils être exercés ? Les droits des personnes détenues sont contraints par les limites inhérentes à la détention, la sécurité et le bon ordre. Cela implique une censure des autorités pénitentiaires, tant sur la parole que sur les écrits des personnes placées sous sa garde. A ces limitations générales, il faut aussi ajouter lescontraintes liées à la surpopulation carcérale et le poids du contexte sécuritaire actuel. Il entraîne un durcissement des politiques pénales qui peut fragiliser la liberté d’expression des personnes incarcérées. / It is a well-known saying, the sentence depriving of liberty is, in theory, only the deprivation of the freedom of movement. France has established, on November 24th, 2009, a prison law regulating the incarcerated persons rights and duties. Article 26 of said law indicates : “incarcerated persons have the right to freedom of opinion, conscience and religion”. This right implies the right to search information, build an opinion and carry it out, therefore to be able to speak freely. Yet, the physical imprisonment of an individual inevitably triggers restrictions to the use of his broader freedom of speech. If there is no doubt thatincarcerated persons have subjective rights, in what conditions can they be asserted? The inmate’s rights are compelled by the limits inherent in detention, security and order, which lead the prison administration to censor speech and writing of the individuals placed in custody. In addition to these general restrictions, be added all the constraints related to prison overcrowding but also the weight of the current security context. It leads to the strengthening of criminal policies which can weaken the prisoners’s freedom of expression.