Contents Introduction 1. Proposed amendments to the Internal Pre-Trial Detention Centers Rules 2. Proposed amendments to the Internal Prisons Rules 3. The draft of the Internal Pre-Trial Detention Centers Rules prepared by the Ministry of Justice of Ukraine 4. The draft of the Internal Prisons Rules prepared by the Ministry of Justice of Ukraine This publication is the first comprehensive attempt to familiarize general public with the problems of the Internal Rules of Ukrainian prisons. It contains suggestions of amendments to the Internal Pre-Trial Detention Centers Rules, as well as the Internal Prisons Rules.
Solicitation Holder List - MDCAL31024096 Solicitation Name: ITB 2016-073 CUSTODIAL SERVICES HARRIET ELIZABETH BROWN COMMUNITY CENTER. Ondol is a heating system hidden beneath the floor. There are different theories on how old it is, but Chinese records state that during Goguryeo (37 B.C.- A.D. 668), an L-shaped ondol that provided partial heating to the room floor was common.
The proposals are intended to implement international standards, such as recommendations of the European Committee for the Prevention of Torture and decisions of the European Court of Human Rights. The changes are based on international standards as well as other logical and legal arguments. The author points out the shortcomings of the two current Rules, which are considered as leftovers of the Soviet Union, and should therefore be changed in the light of modern approaches to prisoners’ rights.
The publication also contains draft amendments to the Internal Pre-Trial Detention Centers Rules, as well as to Internal Prisons Rules developed by the Ministry of Justice as of August 2017. Introduction The title of this work speaks for itself. Ukrainian prisons still live by the orders written in the days of the USSR. Today, these orders are made sustainable through many legal acts, but their quintessence is in the Internal Prison and Pre-Trial Detention Centers Rules. These regulations are by-laws that have undergone several stages of review during the Ukraine independence. However, despite the large number of formal amendments and changes in terminology, they essentially preserve the basic philosophy and provisions of the Soviet internal prison regulations developed by the Ministry of Internal Affairs of the USSR.
Every prison officer may confirm: these Rules are perceived as key documents that frame internal processes in prison. The Rules are sometimes referred to as the “Bible” of prisons, since their norms are perceived as sacred.
At one time, a senior official responsible for the regime on the territory of all Ukraine indicated: “Every provision of the Rules is written by the blood of more than one generation of prison personnel and prisoners.” Therefore, in his opinion, maximum conservatism in the process of their revision is justified. Such a vision is observed in every new generation of managers of the Ukrainian penitentiary system. New heads of the prison agency declared their readiness to reform the system in accordance with international standards. However, getting down to realities they became less enthusiastic. It either ended up with minor amendments to the Rules, as it was the case in 2013 and 2014, or everything was retained in its past forms. My claims are based on own experience.
I have repeatedly submitted to the new leaders of the penitentiary system concrete proposals for amendments to the Rules. These amendments were justified by references to specific international standards, including recommendations of the European Committee for the Prevention of Torture, some of which were continuously expressed to the Ukrainian authorities for more than a decade. However, the government was not convinced. Everything followed a similar scenario: the officials received proposals for changes in the Rules, assigned them to the subordinated operational staff, former penitentiary employees, who, in turn, kept persuading the officials about the danger of international standards in Ukrainian conditions. As a result, the new officials ignored the proposals or, if they did take them into account, it concerned only a very small part of them.
Moreover, during the last revision of the Rules, most of the provisions became even more repressive and introduced a number of new unreasonable restrictions. This motivated human rights activists to launch a public campaign. These lines are written at the time when the Rules are once again being reviewed on the initiative of the new managers of the system. They have reassured that the progressive changes that had been offered to the previous managers will be finally taken into consideration now.
It is too early to speak about the probability of compliance with this promise. However, taking into account the previous experience, I decided that it would be better to compile the aforementioned suggestions in this publication. Let them serve as a benchmark for comparing the changes that have taken place, as well as those that still have to take place.
The future senior officials and public who will take interest in changing the national penitentiary system will find this publication useful. Historically, the penitentiary system has a monopoly on making changes to the Rules. Outsiders’ views are perceived with arrogance and suspicion. Understanding this, these amendments are not only proposed, but also justified.
For this purpose, the international standards become true trumps and, therefore, the proposed amendments are full of justifications referring to them. However, not only from the point of view of international standards, but also from the point of view of common sense, the current Pre-Trial Detention Centers Rules, as well as the Internal Prison Rules, concentrate sovietism, that is, leftovers of the Soviet past, whose philosophy was far from the values of human rights. In my research on justification of restrictions imposed on prisoners’ rights, I found a number of deficiencies in the provisions of the Rules. The very idea of the mentioned research emerged as a result of the analysis of the Rules. Therefore, the present amendments can be considered as a continuation of the ideas formulated in the mentioned work. The reader is welcome to get acquainted with it for an in-depth analysis of the issue, which will be covered below.
In developing these changes, I proceed from the assumption that restriction of prisoners’ freedom of movement is a sufficient punishment in itself. Therefore, additional aggravation of their situation is unnecessary. The only exceptions are those limitations that are minimum necessary to achieve justified aims such as order and security. In this way, the difference between the living conditions behind bars and outside prisons can be reduced. The greater this difference is, the more difficult it is for the prisoner after his release to reintegrate into a free society. Therefore, minimizing restrictions is a prerequisite for preparing a person to lead a crime-free life once released.
In the long run, the Ukrainian penitentiary system should aim at reducing repression of the state in the enforcement of sentences. This can be confirmed by the full support of my initiative to exclude retribution from the goals of punishment in the Criminal Code of Ukraine. This support was demonstrated during the preparation of the draft “On the Penitentiary System of Ukraine”.
So its high time for the Rules to break with the philosophy of retaliation and move toward the philosophy of human rights and reintegration. How does sovietism manifest itself?