Constitutional Court upheld the Constitutional Claim №1676 (“Public Defender of Georgia vs. the Minister of Justice of Georgia”)
Constitutional Court upheld the Constitutional Claim №1676 (“Public Defender of Georgia vs. the Minister of Justice of Georgia”)
On December 22, 2022 the first board of the Constitutional Court of Georgia satisfied a constitutional claim №1676 (the Public Defender of Georgia vs. the Minister of Justice of Georgia).
The disputed norms on the case defined the rule for placing the convicts in a cell of the Penitentiary Institutions N3 and N6, according to which the convict on the basis of a general rule, is placed in a single or double occupancy cell.
By the argumentation of the complainant, the contravention in respect of Article 9.2 of the Constitution of Georgia was caused due to the degree of social isolation resulting from placing the convict in a single-occupancy cell and, on the other hand, the inexistence of proper procedural guarantees of taking the foregoing decision, without sufficiently clear and objective criteria.
The respondent party named the protection of the surrounding prisoners, the safety and proper functioning of the penitentiary institution as well as the desire of the convicts to serve their sentences in isolation as the legitimate aims of the disputed norms. The respondent considered that on the basis of the disputed norms, the convict’s placement in a single-occupancy cell did not imply social isolation of such an intensity as to tantamount to inhuman treatment. Besides, the disputed norms ensured the decision of the head of the penitentiary institution to place a prisoner in a single cell was based on sufficiently clear and objective criteria, enabling a convict to appeal this decision to a higher authority or to the court, and, in general, equipped him/her with procedural guarantees compatible with the requirements of Article 9.2 of the Constitution of Georgia.
The Constitutional Court indicated that that placing a convict in a solitary cell to serve a sentence as part of a preventive administrative measure does not in itself constitute inhumane treatment. However, in certain cases, the degree of social and sensory isolation created for the convicted person based on such a measure, the duration of the used measure, as well as the decision-making procedure regarding the accommodation of the convicted person in a single cell may conflict with the material and procedural aspect of Article 9.2 of the Constitution.
In respect of the material aspect of Article 9.2 of the Constitution of Georgia, the Constitutional Court noted that the disputed norms did not cause social and sensory isolation of the convict, which could be considered as inhuman treatment. Accordingly, the disputed regulation, from this point of view, did not violate the material requirements of Article 9.2 of the Constitution of Georgia.
Concurrently, the Constitutional Court of Georgia evaluated the disputed norms in relation to the procedural requirements set with Article 9.2 of the Constitution of Georgia and deemed that the rule set with the disputed norms contradicted the requirements of the above-mentioned provision of the Constitution in terms of positive obligation of the State. The Constitutional Court ruled that a decision must be made within a specified period of time, in writing and reasoned, when a convict is sentenced to a solitary cell, the decision must be based on the results of an individual assessment and examination and must take into account the obligation of the penitentiary institution to periodically re-evaluate the decision. In addition, the convict must be provided with the efficient and effective right to appeal, which was not foreseen with the rule set with the disputed norm.
In view of the above-mentioned arguments, disputed norms were declared unconstitutional by the Constitutional Court. At the same time, the Constitutional Court postponed the invalidation of the disputed norms until May 1, 2023 as to allow for a certain timeframe to the Minister of Justice of Georgia for implementation of the foregoing judgement.
Subject of the Dispute: The constitutionality of the Paragraph 1 of the Article 14 of the Regulation approved with the Decree N 109 issued by the Minister of Corrections of Georgia upon “Adoption of the Regulation of the Penitentiary Institution N 3 of the Ministry of Corrections of Georgia” Penitentiary and Paragraph I of the Article 15 of the Regulation approved with the Decree N 108 issued on August 27, 2015 by the Minister of Corrections of Georgia upon “Adoption of the Regulation of the Penitentiary Institution N 6 of the Ministry of Corrections of Georgia.
