Facts of the case
Petitioner Naumtsev challenged the constitutionality of certain provisions in Article 141 of the Penitentiary Code of Kazakhstan. Specifically, he contested the provisions that impose different conditions for prisoners serving life sentences compared to those serving fixed-term sentences in high-security prisons. These conditions include the time required before a life-sentenced prisoner can be moved to less restrictive conditions (10 years) versus one year for fixed-term prisoners, the monthly commissary expenses limit, and the frequency and type of visits allowed.
Question
Do the provisions that impose stricter conditions on life-sentenced prisoners regarding their treatment and privileges, compared to prisoners serving fixed-term sentences in otherwise similar institutions, violate the the Constitution’s Article 14, Article 17, and/or Article 27?
Holding
Partially. The court ruled that the provisions regarding the time required for changing conditions of imprisonment and the monthly allowance for life-sentenced prisoners are consistent with the Constitution. However, the provision denying life-sentenced prisoners the right to a one long-term visit, while allowing such visits for fixed-term prisoners, was found to violate the Constitution. The court emphasized that any differentiation in treatment must be justified and proportionate to the goals of social rehabilitation and reintegration. It noted, in particular, the importance of prisoners’ communications with family members in light of the corrective goals of the criminal justice system. It was unable to find the differentiation in access to lengthier family visitations in this context to be an objectively reasonable and proportionate limit on an inmate’s right to dignity (Article 17), the principle of equality (Article 14), and the state’s duty to protect the institution of a family (Article 27).
In addition, the court took note of the legislation already enacted but which had not, at the time of the dispute, yet come into effect that sought to address some of these issues by reducing the time before life-sentenced prisoners can be moved to less restrictive conditions, increasing their monthly allowance, and granting them the right to one long-term visit per year. Nevertheless, the Court required—in the interim—to equalize the number of long-term visits available to life-sentenced prisoners and those sentenced to a fixed term.
Foreign Authorities Cited
Metadata
- Judges: Azimova (Chief); Eskendirov; Nurmukhanov; Zhakipbaev (Rapporteur); Zhatkanbayeva; Kydyrbaeva; Musin; Ongarbaev; Podoprigora; Sarsembaev (Rapporteur); Udartsev
- Date: March 27, 2023
- Link: 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.