Problems of Ukrainian penitentiary institutions

I must draw public attention to the facts of large-scale violations of legality occurring in institutions for the execution of sentences.
I will talk about the conditions and regime of detention of convicts in minimum-security colonies with general detention conditions and medium-security colonies in high-control sections.
In accordance with Part 1 of Article 97 of the Criminal Executive Code (CEC) of Ukraine, ‘In the high-control section of minimum-security correctional colonies with general detention conditions and in medium-security correctional colonies, a regime is established for convicts that is provided for the detention of convicts in maximum-security correctional colonies.’
In Part 2 of the specified article, it is noted that in the high-control section of maximum-security correctional colonies, convicts are held in cell-type premises.
According to Part 1 of Article 140 of the CEC of Ukraine, ‘In maximum-security correctional colonies, convicts are kept in conditions of strict isolation in ordinary residential premises and cell-type premises.’
The conditions of detention for convicts in the high-control section of minimum- and medium-security colonies are disclosed in more detail in Appendix 2 to Clauses 7 and 16 of the Internal Rules (IR) of institutions for the execution of sentences. There, it is clearly written that the equipment for resocialisation and high-control sections of correctional colonies must have the following: a horizontal bar and parallel bars; a smoking area for convicts with benches and a table attached to the ground; a place for formation and roll-call checks of convicts, including the location of washbasins and toilets separate from residential premises.
The only thing that distinguishes a resocialisation section from a high-control section of minimum- and medium-security colonies is that in the high-control section, the fence is equipped with metal bars on the side of the internal territory of the residential zone, and an additional chain-link fence is installed in such a way as to ensure observation of the behaviour of the convicts held therein and to make it impossible for them to pass any items. The local sector area is covered from above by a metal mesh, and dormitory windows are equipped with bars.
That is, in accordance with the criminal-executive law and bylaws of the Department for the Execution of Sentences, the high-control sections of minimum- and medium-security colonies must be separated and isolated from resocialisation, quarantine, and other sections, but the premises in high-control sections must be open, and convicts must have free access from the dormitories.
Evidence of this is the practice of equipping high-control sections in certain colonies, for example: Strizhivska Correctional Colony No. 81 of medium security in the Vinnytsia region, where, as the institution and department management surely believes, the high-control section meets the requirements declared by the Department of obligations to bring conditions of detention for convicts in the Ukrainian penal system up to international standards by 2011. That is, in the said colony, the residential premises of the high-control sections differ from the resocialisation sections only by the strict isolation of the high-control section itself, while the regime and conditions of detention for convicts are general, meaning residential premises are open and closed only at night, and convicts have the ability to move around the section and go outside.
At the same time, for example, in the same Vinnytsia region, in Colony No. 86, also of medium security, the high-control section has the appearance of a cell.
Such a situation exists in almost all institutions of the penal system of minimum and medium security, with very few exceptions for high-control sections. These institutions have the following systemic violations of the conditions and regime of execution of sentences: the presence of a washbasin and toilet in the cell; premises where convicts live are locked around the clock, with the exception of one hour for exercise; cell checks; taking meals in the cell; and other restrictions that are in no way argued by the institution’s administration, are not defined at the legislative level, and have no justification with reference to insufficient funding. After all, it does not require large financial expenditures to have the cell doors open after dark and allow convicts to move freely around the territory of the high-control sections while observing the detention regime.
Also, I would like to draw special attention to the imperfection of the regulatory framework in such an important issue as the regulation and control of official correspondence sent by convicts, both by state institutions and the public.
Convicts in institutions for the execution of sentences with general conditions of detention send official correspondence in most cases as follows: they drop letters into a mailbox that is located on the territory of the institution and is accessible to a wide circle of convicts.
But, after dropping a letter into the mailbox, for example, with a cassation appeal to the Supreme Court of Ukraine, where the date of dispatch is of great importance, convicts are not sure that it will be sent on time. After all, there are cases when the deadline for filing a cassation appeal was violated through no fault of the convict.
There is no clear mechanism for recording and controlling outgoing correspondence; it is impossible to establish either the actual date the letter was sent by the convict or the administration’s compliance with the deadlines established by law for sending correspondence.
In Part 4 of Article 113 of the CEC of Ukraine, it is stated: ‘Proposals, statements, and complaints addressed to the Ukrainian Parliament Commissioner for Human Rights and the prosecutor are not subject to review and are sent to the appropriate authority within 24 hours.’ Verifying the implementation of this norm is not possible at the present time.
I believe that correspondence of this content should be sent with the participation of an uninterested person, for example, a representative of a supervisory commission ‘by quota from the public.’
It is important that correspondence of an official nature be handed over by convicts to a specific person, not dropped into a mailbox. Only in this way can one ensure a clear record of the date of dispatch, for example, in a register of outgoing correspondence from convicts. There should also be an entry in the register—the date of dispatch with an outgoing number, which will make it possible to record both the fact of receipt and compliance with the deadlines for sending correspondence.
We invite human rights defenders and everyone interested in the problems of penitentiary institutions to express their opinion on these issues.