The fate of the man who has served 25 years behind bars after admitting to four ruthless murders back in 1988, has now been entrusted to the Parole Board.

This decision was taken by the superior court of appeal following a fresh application by Ben Ali Wahid Ben Hassine, the Tunisian convicted in February 1992 of the brutal quadruple murder of two taxi drivers and two men, one British and the other French, in a killing spree that shocked the nation.

The criminal court had condemned the Tunisian to life imprisonment and had recommended that he was to serve a minimum of 22 years behind bars.

This decision arrived in the wake of a controversial judgment delivered last November whereby the Appeals Court had called upon the legislator to provide for a mechanism intended to reduce a life sentence and to do so within four months.

Drawing on EU case-law, the court had declared that the absence of such mechanism constituted a violation of the right to protection against inhuman treatment as safeguarded by the Constitution.

Following the lapse of four months, Mr Ben Hassine once again sought recourse before the Court of Appeal, arguing that no remedy had yet been provided by Parliament.

The Attorney General argued that amendments to the Reparative Justice Act were currently being discussed in Parliament, pointing out that the legislative process had to follow its natural and proper course.

However, the court of appeal, presided over by Chief Justice Silvio Camilleri and by Mr Justices Giannino Caruana Demajo and Noel Cuschieri, observed that such amendments did not envisage any possible reduction of a life sentence but rather provided for the granting of parole.

Consequently, the Court remitted the matter to the Parole Board which, within one month is to hear submissions from Mr Ben Hassine, as well as from relatives of the victims, before deciding upon whether the accused's continued detention is justified.

The board is to assess whether Mr Ben Hassine has registered significant progress in his road to rehabilitation in such manner as to no longer pose a threat to other individuals and to society at large.

It is to decide whether the accused is to be unconditionally released from jail or remanded in custody pending another review within a stipulated time.