A judgment in the case on the norms of sanitary conditions in places of short-term detention has been adopted
The Constitutional Court has adopted a judgment in the case No. 2010-44-01 “On Compliance of the Words of Section 7 (5) Indent 1 “the Height of Which Does not Exceed 1.2 Meters” of the Law “On Procedures for Keeping of Detained Persons” and Para 1 of Transitional Provisions Thereof with Article 1 and Article 95 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia”.
Article 1 of the Satversme provides that Latvia is an independent democratic republic, whilst Article 95 of the Satversme establishes that the State shall protect human honour and dignity. Torture or other cruel or degrading treatment of human beings is prohibited. No one shall be subjected to inhuman or degrading punishment.
The contested norms provide that a detention cell must be supplied with toilet facilities connected with a water-main, the facilities being separated from the rest of the premise by means of a wall, the height of which does not exceed 1.2 meters (Section 7 (5) Indent 1 of the Law “On Procedures for Keeping of Detained Persons”), and these requirements shall be fulfilled before 31 December 2013 (Para 1 of Transitional Provisions). The applicant, the Ombudsman of the Republic of Latvia holds that such circumstances do not ensure enough privacy for the detained and constitute obvious infringement of dignity of a person.
The Constitutional Court has indicated that the rights of person who have been deprived of liberty differ from those of free persons, namely, short-term detention of a person also imposes certain restrictions to rights and cause certain suffer for persons. However, it should be taken into account that the majority of persons who are placed in places of short-term detention, have not been deprived of liberty based on a particular court decision; therefore these persons can only be applied such restrictions that are indispensible for execution of activities of criminal proceedings, as well as ensuring general order and security.
The Court acknowledged that the contested norms could infringe security interests of the society; however, in this aspect, the legislator has not substantiated the reason for determining the particular height of the separating wall. The duty of the legislator is to balance different interests, like, security of the society and privacy of persons. At present, toilet facilities are usually separated by means of one wall disregarding their location in a cell, and in this case the facilities are always seen from at least one side.
The Constitutional Court recognized that such situation does not comply with Article 95 of the Satversme, namely, it is in breach with minimum standards for protection of the human rights. Moreover, the norm of Transitional Provisions permits that such situation may be preserved for three more years, although it has been initially established in the Law that cells must be properly equipped by 31 December 2008.
The Court indicated that by failing to ensure compliance of short-term detention places with standards of protection of the human rights, the State would undergo other expenses in the long term, which at a national level is disbursement of compensations established by administrative courts to be disbursed to a person, while at the international level this is being done by institutions for protecting of the human rights, for instance, the European Court of Human Rights.
The Constitutional Court recognized that the words and the figure of Section 7 (5) Indent 1 “the height of which does not exceed 1.2 meters” of the Law “On Procedures for Keeping of Detained Persons” do not comply with Article 95 of the Satversme. Consequently, this norm shall henceforth establish that cells must be equipped with “toilet facilities connected to a water-main, the facilities being separated from the rest of the premise by means of a wall”. Likewise, the Constitutional Court recognized the above mentioned norm of Transitional Provisions as non-compliant with the Satversme and null and void as from 1 January 2012.
The judgment of the Constitutional Court is final and not subject to appeal. The judgment shall come into force on the date of publishing it in the newspaper “Latvijas Vēstnesis”.
Linked case: 2010-44-01