A judgment in the case on keeping of religious objects in places of imprisonment has been adopted

18.03.2011.

The Constitutional Court has adopted a judgment in the case No. 2010-50-03 “On Compliance of the First Appendix of 30 May 2006 Cabinet of Ministers Regulations No. 423 “Regulations of Internal Procedure in Imprisonment Establishments” insofar as It Regulates Keeping of Religious Objects with Article 99 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia.”

Article 99 of the Satversme [Constitution] provides among the rest things that everyone shall have the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion.

The First Appendix of the Cabinet of Ministers Regulations referred to in the title of the case regulates objects and foodstuffs that a prisoner has the right to keep. Religious objects are not included in this Appendix; therefore keeping of them is prohibited. The applicant Mr. Nauris Rakuzovs indicated that the contested norm infringes his right to freedom of religion.

The Constitutional Court indicated that the contested norm restricts the freedom of religion. The Court recognized that neither the Cabinet of Ministers, nor the Latvian Prison Administration have substantiated the fact that religious objects could cause greater threat to security of the society if compared to those objects, keeping of which is allowed. Moreover, information furnished by prisons show that at present keeping of such objects is allowed based on an individual assessment.

The Constitutional Court recognized the contested norm as non-compliant with Article 99 of the Satversme. The court indicated that the Cabinet of Ministers is committed to establishing common principles for administration of a prison to be able to allow or to prohibit prisoners keeping religious objects based on individual circumstances of each person. Because elaboration of a new regulatory framework requires time the Court found the contested norm as null and void as from 1 October 2011.

The judgment of the Constitutional Court is final and not subject to appeal.

Linked case: 2010-50-03