A case initiated with respect to the compatibility of a norm, which does not provide to a convict in a closed prison the right to leave the prison temporarily in connection with the death of a close relative, with the Satversme
On 13 December 2019, the 3rd Panel of the Constitutional Court initiated the case “On Compliance of Section 492 (1) of the Sentence Execution Code of Latvia with the Second Sentence of Article 91 and Article 96 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia”.
The Contested Norm
Section 492 (1) of the Sentence Execution Code of Latvia provides:
“A convicted person who is serving the sentence at the highest level of the sentence serving regime in a partly-closed prison, an open prison or a juvenile correctional institution may, by lodging a written submission to the head of the deprivation of liberty institution, request a permission to temporarily leave the deprivation of liberty institution for up to five twenty-four hour periods due to death of a close relative or a serious illness that endangers the life of a sick person.”
Norms of Higher Legal Force
The second sentence of Article 91 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia: (hereafter – the Satversme): “Human rights shall be realised without discrimination of any kind.”
Article 96 of the Satversme: “Everyone has the right to inviolability of his or her private life, home and correspondence.”
The Facts
The case was initiated on the basis of an application submitted by a person serving his prison sentence in a closed prison on the medium level of the regime for serving the sentence. The contested norm does not provide to a convicted person, who is serving his sentence in a closed prison, the right to leave the prison territory temporarily in connection with the death of a close relative.
The applicant holds that the contested norm disproportionally infringes upon his right to private life since the legitimate aim of the restriction set out in it could be reached by measures that restrict fundamental rights to a lesser extent, for example, an individual assessment in deciding on the permission to convicted person to leave the prison temporarily. Moreover, the possibility to see a close person for the last time and to bid farewell is said to be so important that it cannot be justified by abstract and general public security interests.
It is maintained that the contested norm also violates the prohibition of discrimination on the grounds of gender. The women, who are sentenced for committing a crime of similar severity, would have the right to request temporary leave from the prison in connection with the death of a close relative. This differential treatment on the basis of gender is said to be disproportional since alternative measures for reaching the legitimate aim are said to exist and such differential treatment is not in the society’s interests.
The Legal Proceedings
The Constitutional Court has requested the institution, which issued the contested act, the Saeima, to submit a written reply on the facts of the case and the legal reasoning by 13 February 2020.
The term for preparing the case is 13 May 2020. The Court will decide on the type of procedure and the date for hearing the case after it has been prepared.
Linked case: 2019-32-01