The abstract of the judgment (The judgment is available only in Georgian). Abstracts published by the Constitutional Court of Georgia summarise the facts of the case and key legal considerations of the judgment.

Abstract

On 28 May 2019, the Second Board of the Constitutional Court of Georgia refused to uphold the constitutional complaint of Giorgi Kartvelishvili (registration №704) against the Parliament of Georgia. The disputed provision prohibited long visits for convicted persons serving sentence in high risk penitentiary facilities, which implied prohibition on the possibility to live for up to 23 hours on the territory of the facility with persons from a limited circle of relatives, in accordance with rules established in the facility.

The complainant argued that the possibility of enjoying long visits was part of the convicted person’s right to private and family life, which envisages the possibility of having contact with family members and close relatives in an intimate setting. Maintaining contact with family members and close relatives significantly contributes to re-socialization of the convicted person and the process of his or her reintegration in the society after leaving the penitentiary facility. In the view in the complainant, the disputed provision provided a blank prohibition on long visits, and applied to all persons serving sentence in a specific type of facility, regardless of their individual characteristics and was in breach of the claimant’s right to private and family life.

The respondent argued that the legitimate aim of the disputed provision was to guarantee security of the penitentiary facility or persons surrounding it, as well as that of the society, state and/or law enforcement bodies, alongside the prevention of crime and disorder. The respondent pointed out that placing persons in high-risk penitentiary facilities and thus preventing them from long visits had to do with high risks related to a given convicted person. These risks are assessed in advance, and in each individual case they are subject to periodical reexamination parallel to changes in the conduct of the convict.

The Constitutional Court emphasized the especial importance of the right to private and family life for the purposes of resocialization of the convicted person and his or her successful reintegration in the society after serving a sentence. The Court noted that this guarantee balances negative effects of physical imprisonment, improves one’s way of living, facilitates his or her intellectual and social development and gives them a possibility to maintain contact with the outside world.

Accordingly, the Court ruled that a convicted person has the right to establish and maintain family relations via means of personal or remote communication. At the same time, communication with family members cannot have a permanent character and such a degree of intimacy, which is afforded to those that are not placed in penitentiary facilities. The right of the convicted person envisages the possibility to maintain ties with family members to the degree and extent that is compatible with the use of imprisonment as a form of punishment and does not represent an unreasonable burden for a state.

The Constitutional Court also noted that preventing convicts placed in special risk penitentiary facilities from long visits was serving important legitimate aims including security of the penitentiary facility, society, state and law enforcement bodies. At the same time, people are placed in such facilities based on assessment of risks stemming from them. The legislation also provides for the opportunity to reexamine results of the first assessment of a convict and appeal these results. Accordingly, convicted persons placed in special risk facilities were given an opportunity to have an impact on these results by virtue of good behavior, which would result in replacing him or her to another penitentiary facility and thus giving the latter the opportunity to enjoy long visits.

According to the aforementioned, the Constitutional Court deemed that the restriction of the right to receive long visits as provided under Article 17² (6) (edition in force from 2 May 2014 to 20 June 2017) Imprisonment Code was a measure proportionate to legitimate aims and did not contradict the right to private and family life under Article 15 (1) of the Constitution.