Facts of the case
Petitioner Kunakbayev was placed in a disciplinary cell as a result of violations of the prison regulations. He was denied an opportunity to contact a lawyer. He filed suit alleging unlawful state action; administrative trial court dismissed the suit, and the appellate court affirmed. Petitioner then filed this suit seeking to find the provisions limiting his ability to contact a lawyer unconstitutional.
Question
Do the provisions of the Penitentiary Code that limit an ability of a prisoner—placed in a disciplinary cell—to make telephone calls absent exigent personal and familial circumstances and that sets a frequency limit on those calls violate the prisoner’s rights to receive legal (Article 13) and medical assistance (Article 29)?
Holding
No. Article 13 rights are absolute and cannot be restricted under any circumstances. While the state may regulate the form and procedure under which legal assistance is provided depending on the nature of a proceeding, it cannot limit the means and scope of such assistance. The state, therefore, has affirmative obligations to delineate, with requisite precisions, mechanisms necessary to realize this right. The Court, thus, interpreted the relevant provisions as not imposing an “exhaustive list” of circumstances under which a prisoner is entitled to make telephone calls. Given that other provisions of the Penitentiary Code guarantee basic medical and legal assistance regardless of the nature of confinement—the Court noted—the prisoner cannot be limited in his ability to receive a guaranteed minimal level of medical assistance or to receive legal assistance, including via phone calls.
Foreign Authorities Cited
- None
Metadata
- Judges: Azimova (Chief); Eskendirov; Zhakipbaev (Rapporteur); Zhatkanbayeva; Kydyrbaeva; Musin; Ongarbaev; Sarsembaev; Udartsev
- Date: December 27, 2024
- Link: Kunakbayev
- Other citations: Naumtsev
DISCLAIMER:
- The website’s summary of the Court’s holding is made for educational purposes only, is not legal advice, and does not form an attorney-client relationship. The summary represents author’s interpretation of the decision, and may be incomplete or inaccurate. For the text of the decision, see the hyperlink above.