 Source: HRO.org (info) · Tatarstan · Prisoners · Human rights defenders · Access to justice A judge has warned that they may make a complaint to the Office of the General Prosecutor of Russia as a result of the actions of prosecutor Artur Abutalipov, who issued an unlawful warning to a member of the Public Oversight Commission who found violations in penal colonies in Tatarstan. On 14 August this year on entering Penal Colony No. 19, members of the Public Oversight Commission for human rights observance in places of detention in Tatarstan voluntarily handed in their mobile phones. Staff of the penal colony without any reason decided to check the belongings of the observers. In a backpack belonging to Vladimir Rubashny prison officers found a number of objects, including a dictaphone for recording conversations with prisoners, a 3-G modem and money. Kazan Human Rights Centre reports that the Kazan prosecutor’s office for legal observance in penal colonies sided with the administration of Penal Colony No. 19 and took the view that taking the given objects on to the territory of the penal colony could result in the prisoners unlawfully receiving them. The next day prosecutor Artur Abutalipov issued a warning to Rubashny that it is unlawful to violate the requirements of Article 82 of the Criminal Execution Code (‘Regime in the correction facilities and its main demands’) and Article 19.12 of the Code of Administrative Violations (‘Passing or attempting to pass forbidden objects to people detained in the penitentiary system, pre-trial detention facilities or temporary police cells’). Member of the Public Oversight Commission Vladimir Rubashny appealed against the prosecutor’s decision to the Novo-Savinovsky district court in the city of Kazan. Igor Sholokhov, head of the Kazan Human Rights Centre, in a statement pointed out: (1) according to the instructions of the General Prosecutor’s Office of the Russian Federation it is possible to issue a warning that violations of a law are impermissible only to official persons (which Rubashny is not); such a warning cannot be addressed towards citizens or legal persons; 2) according to the Criminal Execution Code, members of the Public Oversight Commission have the right to visit penitentiary institutions without any special permission being granted, and with written permission of prisoners they may take photos and videos. The same norm can be found in the internal departmental instructions that exclude members of the Public Oversight Commission from the list of persons who must, on entering the territory of a penal colony, leave bags, briefcases and so on, take out metal objects and go through metal detectors; (3) according to Article 82 of the Criminal Execution Code the administration of a penal colony can inspect and confiscate banned items and documents listed in the laws of the Russian Federation and in the Internal Rules of correction facilities. The Supreme Court of Russia has ruled that the Internal Rules do not apply to members of the Public Oversight Commissions, and federal law does not treat the visits of members of Public Oversight Commissions to penitentiary facilities and their conversations with prisoners as ‘meetings with prisoners.’ Despite these conclusions, during the court hearing the representative of the Kazan Special Prosecutor continued to insist that the warning had been properly issued to Rubashny. Nonetheless, the representative of the prosecutor’s office could not give a reasonable answer to the question: ‘Where did you obtain information that Rubashny intended to take onto the territory of the penal colony forbidden items?’, since in the warning itself there is evidence relating to what had already happened, but there is no word about a possible violation of the law by the member of the Public Oversight Commission. Judge Ruslan Korolev pointed out that the Special Prosecutor had not clearly not understood the meaning of a warning in issuing it to a citizen, and not to a public official, and had violated the instructions of the General Prosecutor of Russia. Judge Korolev threatened to make a complaint to the General Prosecutor’s Office and pointedly commented: ‘Does he (Abutalipov) wish to specially underline that he has a higher position than the General Prosecutor?’ As a result, the Novo-Savinovsky district court in Kazan ordered the prosecutor to quash the warning issued to member of the Public Oversight Commission Rubashny and to pay costs of 200 roubles. |
|
|
