Recommendations of Human Rights Center on Early Release of Prisoners or Facilitation of Punishments

Human Rights Center welcomes amendments introduced to the Decree # 151 of the Minister of Corrections and Legal Assistance issued of October 28, 2010 on “Approval Typical Provision for the Number of Local Councils, Territorial Discussion and Local Councils of the Ministry of Corrections and Legal Assistance”, which aimed to promote re-socialization of convicted people and protection of public security.

Human Rights Center positively evaluates increased number of local councils, which will simply the work of local councils and increase effectiveness of their activities. Changes in the council members were also positive initiative, particularly adding representative of a nongovernmental organization in the council. We believe the amendment will promote increase of transparency of the Council’s activities and participation of the nongovernmental sector in the decision making process. In accordance to the new changes, invitation of psychologist, social worker and teacher will assist the Council to make well-grounded and impartial decision.

Despite positive amendments to the decree, Human Rights Center recommends to introduce some other amendments to the typical provision on local councils:

Nongovernmental organizations shall nominate candidatures of their representatives in the Council instead the Coordination Council of the Ministry. This amendment will promote involvement of the civil society in the formation process of the Council and will increase its independence.

We think Public Defender’s Office shall also have one representative in the Council.

We think the Council shall be selected for three-years-term. Increased authority of Council members will promote stability of their activities and reduce impact of interested parties on their activities.

We think the Council members shall be required to take special courses in pedagogy and psychology with permanent re-training during operation as council members. The purpose of the Council – promotion of effective re-socialization of convicted people-caused necessity of the special courses. 

Formulation of the Article 5 Paragraph I of the Typical Provision is inadmissible for us. It states that Council is authorized to discuss early release of the prisoner and facilitation of the unserved term of imprisonment. We think, word “authorized” shall be changed into “obliged.” According to the current edition of the law, the Council acquires wrong discretion – to discuss or decline aforementioned cases. The Council shall be obliged to discuss issues under its competence and pass either negative or positive decision. Discretion shall not be granted with regard to the issue that is purpose and subject of the Council’s competence. 

We think if the Council makes decision on early release of the convicted person or on facilitation of the unserved term, solicitation on the same case shall be discussed only four months later instead estimated six months. On the one hand, it will promote flexibility of the Council and will increase its effectiveness; on the other hand, prisoners will have chance to repeatedly apply to the Council short after the refusal.

The amendments aim to remove Paragraph III of the Article 12 of the Provision that is not right decision in our opinion. Achievement of the punishment goals is basis for early release of a prisoner and facilitation of the imprisonment term that proves that it is not necessary to fully serve the term, to early release/facilitate term of the convicted. Thus, we think Paragraph III of the Article 12 shall not be removed because when discussing early release of the prisoner, the prior obligation of the Council is to consider whether the objective of the punishment was achieved.

Article 12 Part IV – a- of the acting Typical Provision takes responsibility to early release prisoners if the council concludes that objective of the punishment was achieved. In accordance to the amendments, the Council makes decision on early release of prisoner. We think, regulation of this particular Article shall be restored because in our opinion when making the decision the Council shall consider whether the objective of the punishment is achieved or not, whether the prisoner is re-socialized and ready to return to the society. 

Human Rights Center