The European Court of Human Rights deliberated on this issue while hearing a case Mesina v Italy.186 The case originated in an application filed by a citizen of Italy Antonio Messina (the Applicant). The Applicant alleged in particular infringement of his right to respect for his family life on account of the restrictions on family visits while he was a prisoner, of his right to respect for his correspondence on account of the fact that it was intercepted by the prison authorities, and of his right to an effective remedy against the decisions to extend the period for which he was to be subject to the special prison regime (which stipulated the restriction on the number of visits by the Applicant’s family members with maximum two visits for a month). The restrictions also implied supervision on visits (prisoners were separated from visitors by glass partitions). The Court holds that these restrictions represent interference in the Applicant’s right to family life promulgated by Article 8 of the Convention. The Court notes that the regime laid down in section 41 bis is designed to cut the links between the prisoners concerned and their original criminal environment, in order to minimize the risk that they will maintain contact with criminal organisations. In particular, it notes that as the Government point out, before the introduction of the special regime imprisoned Mafia members were able to maintain their positions within the criminal organisation, to exchange information with other prisoners and the outside world and to orgnise and procure the commission of serious crimes both inside and outside their prisons. In that context, the Court takes into account the specific nature of the phenomenon of organized crime, particularly of Mafia type, in which family relates often play a crucial role. Moreover, numerous Sates party to the Convention have high-security regimes for dangerous prisoners. These regimes are also based on separation from the prison community, accompanied by tighter supervision. In its judgement the Court holds that the Italian legislature reasonably considered such measures to be necessary to achieve the goal. This refers to the critical circumstances of the investigations of the Mafia being conducted by the Italian authorities. However, the Court considered that the extension of the special regime may have violated the right of the Applicant guaranteed by Article 8 of the Convention. European Court of Human Rights ruled that the right of the Applicant guaranteed by Article 8 of the Convention was not violated by imposing restrictions over visits of his family members. However, interception of the Applicant’s correspondence did breach the above mentioned right. According to Article 1211, Part III, Paragraph A of the close relatives of convicts/accused (child, spouse, a partner, a parent (adoptive parent), stepmother, stepfather, in-laws, stepchild, adopted children and their descendants, grandchildren, sister, brother, niece, nephew and their children, grandfather, grandmother, great grandparents (both paternal and maternal), uncles (maternal and paternal), aunts, cousins, also a person with who a convict lived with in a same household for a year before imprisonment) may be granted the right to visits upon recommendation of a physician in charge and a consent of a head of the department under the terms ruled by the Minister. 186 Messina v Italy, Judgement of September 28, 2000 NATIONAL PREVENTIVE MECHANISM OF GEORGIA 143