Consultative Council of European Prosecutors (CCPE)

In brief
Home
About the CCPE
A word from the Chair
Secretariat
Activities
  MEETINGS
Calendar
Plenary meetings
Meetings of the Bureau
Working group meetings
  EVENTS
Conferences
10th anniversary of the Recommendation Rec(2000)19
Documents
Reference documents
Press releases
  OPINIONS

Adopted opinions

Preliminary works

Profiles
Country Profiles A-Z
Links
Coe Bodies, international organisations and research centers
Restricted
  MEETINGS
Restricted access
Collaborative workspace


      CPJE-GT(2011)2
      Bilingue/ bilingual

      Strasbourg, 10 mars / March 2011

      CONSEIL CONSULTATIF DE PROCUREURS EUROPEENS
      CONSULTATIVE COUNCIL OF EUROPEAN PROSECUTORS
      (CCPE)

        QUESTIONNAIRE FOR CCPE DELEGATIONS

        with a view to the preparation of the
        Opinion No.6 (2011) of the CCPE
        on the relationships between prosecutors and prison administration, in particular in the light of the Recommendation Rec(2006)2 on the European prison rules

        *******

        PROJET DE QUESTIONNAIRE À L’ATTENTION DES DÉLÉGATIONS DU CCPE

        en vue de la préparation de
        l’Avis n°6(2011) du CCPE
        sur les relations entre les procureurs et l’administration pénitentiaire, à la lumière notamment de la Recommandation Rec(2006)2 sur les règles pénitentiaires européennes

        Contents

        ALBANIA

        1. What are the Prosecution Service’s powers regarding prison matters and in terms of deprivation of liberty?
        Power to make a request to the Court to issue an arrest warrant
        According to Criminal Procedure Code, (CPC) the prosecutor is the only authority to request to the court an arrest warrant.
        Power to order detention or release
        According to CPC, the prosecutor is entitled to order the Judicial Police to detain a person suspected for a crime punishable not less then 2 years of imprisonment or release a detainee/ people arrested in flagrance, when he finds it not appropriate or not authorized by the CPC.
        Power to order the execution of a final sentence
        According to the Law “on execution of criminal sentences of the Court” the prosecutor is the only authority in charge to order the execution of an arrest warrant or an imprisonment authorized by a court decision.
        Power to issue orders after the execution of the arrest warrants/imprisonments ordered by the Courts.
        According to CPP the Law “on execution of criminal sentences of the Court” and the Law “ On the rights and treatment of prisoners/ detainees”, the prosecutor is in charge of all knotty problems arising during the practice of the arrest warrant/ imprisonments or those related to the rights of the prisoners/detainees. In such capacity the prosecutor has power either to order the Judicial Police or make recommendations to the prison authorities asking them to stop the breach of law.
        Power to make request to the Court to make orders to the prisons authorities
        In case the prisons authorities do not comply with his recommendations the prosecutor have resort to the Court asking to force the prison authorities to comply.

        2. In States where prosecutors do not have full authority in prison matters, what are nevertheless their means of action used as regards prisons?

        3. If prosecutors have general competences as regard prisons and detention, what kind of means have been provided to the Prosecution Service to allow its effective and fast action towards protecting human rights in matters of prison administration?

        4. What are the positive and decisive elements of the prosecutor’s role in terms of protecting Human rights compared to other mechanisms of legal protection?
        To my opinion since the prosecution office is an independent body it can serve better to check the obligations of the other state agencies toward human rights protection in their activity, by using its power to initiate ex office an investigation of its own and to give them obligatory orders to be followed when finding human rights infringements.

        5. What could be the improvements to this system of protection?
        To my opinion there must be more power shifted by law to the Prosecution Office. After the prosecutor carries out inspection or investigation in the detention places or prison, I think its better, instead of making only a request to the court to force the prisons authorities obey to the law, the prosecutor can make orders that are obligatory to be followed by the prisons authority, without the need of getting first an authorization from the Court. Namely it must be other way around; the prisons authority must first follow the orders of the prosecutors and only after this they can appeal against that order in the Court.
        Even on the matters of probation services, I think the law must give the prosecution offices more controlling competences of the process, not considering it only as a passive looking down agency.

        6. Do prosecutors have jurisdiction to examine whether the rights (Human rights and especially procedural rights) of persons in criminal (for example as regards enforcement of prison sentences or pre-trial detention) or administrative detention are respected at the detention centre?

        With a view of examining the respect of rights of the detainees/ prisoners, according to the Law ““on execution of criminal sentences of the Court”, the prosecutor, based on complaints made by detainee/prisoners or their lawyers or even ex office, has jurisdiction to enter and inspect the prisons or places of detention, to ask the prison authorities to handle related documents and information they posses as well as to give them full access to particular places of interest or objects of the prison.

        7. Can a prisoner meet in private with a prosecutor to determine whether they had been subjected to torture or to any other inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment?

        According to the Law ““on execution of criminal sentences of the Court” the prosecutors are entitled to interrogate the prisoners or detainees even without the presence of the administration authority.

        8. Do prosecutors examine, and if so, how frequently, whether the accommodation provided to prisoners meet the recommendations of the Council of Europe (and namely of the European Committee for the prevention of Torture/CPT1? Can prosecutors make proposals in that direction which have an influence on the relevant budget?

        9. What kind of means exist for prosecutors to deal with authorities or officers/employees which have not completely or properly enforced the decisions of the court or the Prosecution Service related to punishments and/or measures involving deprivation of liberty? If a prosecutor detects such negligence, is he entitled to give binding instructions for the immediate termination of the breach of law? Is it in their power to initiate criminal or disciplinary proceedings, actions for damages or any other kind of impeachment? What other prosecutorial instruments are at his disposal ?

        According to the Law ““on execution of criminal sentences of the Court”, when the decisions of the Court are not completely or properly enforced and this has given rise to breaches of law from the perspective of the rights of the detainees or prisoners, the prosecutors can address requests to the prisons authorities to enforce the decision of the Court properly, completely and according to the Law. If that request is not taken into account, the prosecutor can have resort to the Court which orders the prisons authorities to comply with the law, of course if it finds the request of the prosecutor to be well established. Anyway the prosecutor can not initiate by himself disciplinary proceedings or any civil action for eventual damages caused. He can only ask the proper authorities either to initiate such disciplinary proceedings or apply for a civil action.
        While relating to the refusal by the Police to enforce a court decision at all, or interrupting its execution fraudulently there is no specific provision in the Law “on execution of criminal sentences of the Court”, dealing with these situations. Nevertheless, according to Criminal Code, when there is substantial evidence the prosecutor can decide to initiate criminal proceedings against any person who prevents or hinders the execution of a court decision. The same possibilities remain where there is evidence of a refusal, done with malice aforethought, to properly or completely execute a court decision.

        10. How often do prosecutors carry out monitoring visits of institutions of criminal and administrative detention? Are there concrete follow-ups related to these visits?

        11. Within the framework of their monitoring duties, do prosecutors have the power to take action at any time of the day (even at night) in the institutions of criminal and administrative detention?
        According to article of the Law ““on execution of criminal sentences of the Court”, based on detainee/sentenced people complaints or ex office the prosecutor has jurisdiction to enter and inspect the prisons or places of detention at any time, without any expressed restriction whether by day or by night and even without a prior warning for such a visit to the prison authority.

        12. May prosecutors commission experts to assist them in their tasks related to supervision and inspection?

        According to the Law ““on execution of criminal sentences of the Court”, the prosecutor can have resort to be accompanied and assisted by an expert or any other kind of assistant when performing inspection or supervision duties in prisons or detaining places.

        13. Are complaints and/or denunciations regarding criminal and administrative detention subject to prosecutorial inquiry independently of any relevant authority or employees/officers? Is it a prosecutor’s duty to complete investigations himself/herself or is he/she allowed to forward these complaints for investigation to the officers/employees that are the subject of those complaints?

        The prosecution office has all competences to make investigation of its own, ex office or on the basis of complaints filed by those interested.

        14. In case of sudden death, accident or criminal offence committed against a prisoner, or if a prisoner commits a crime against another prisoner or a prison staff member, is the investigation conducted by a prosecutor acting as an independent judicial authority or is it simply supervised by a prosecutor? Do prosecutors have any role in investigations?
        In such cases the prosecution office has full competences and obligation by law to make investigation of its own, or order that the investigative duties be carried out by the Judicial Police. In both cases the investigation activity is under the direct control and supervision of the prosecution office.

        15. Are prosecutors entitled to take action in procedures concerning the adoption/revocation of special measures for high risk detainees or subject to special restrictions in connection with their role and position in active criminal organizations? If so, how?

        16. With a view to preserving them from any type of influence, are prosecutors autonomous or subordinated to other colleagues when monitoring the detention’s legality?

        Yes. According to the Law for the Organization of the Prosecution Office, the Prosecution Office is organized as a centralized body. Based on this Law and an Order issued by the General Prosecutor, there exist a scheme of subordination between prosecutors from the top to the bases. Accordingly, even the prosecutors dealing with the execution of criminal sentences are organized on the same bases of subordination.

        17. Is a prosecutor involved in granting a person’s pardon, amnesty or release, especially in the case of negative effects resulting from the punishment? Do prosecutors supervise criminal records?
        According to the legislation in power there is no provision that gives the prosecutor any kind of authority to take part in any way in pardon or amnesty processes. As far as the release of the sentenced people, according to the CPC, when the execution of an imprisonment results in negative effects to the prisoners, in the sense that the imprisonment itself put his life in a serious danger, the court can order his release. In law the initiative to require from the Court such a release can be taken evenly from the prisoner, his lawyer or the prosecutor. But in practice the initiative is rarely taken by the prosecutor.
        Yes, the prosecutor can have full access to the criminal records.

        18. Are special qualifications and training required of prosecutors who carry out duties in matters of criminal and administrative detention? Please specify.
        No, there is no any written qualification requirement for prosecutors who deal with matters on the execution of criminal sentences. Anyway practically speaking, their appointment is based on their experience and special qualifications.

        19. What acts (presentation of conclusions, attend hearings, appeal against court decisions) are prosecutors entitled to carry out during proceedings before judges with jurisdiction over the enforcement of sentences/surveillance judges (“juges de l’application des peines”), in states where such judge exists?

        In states where such a judge does not exist, what acts (release on probation, subsequent alteration of the detention’s enforcement scheme, further restriction of a detainee’s rights, placement in solitary confinement, disciplinary punishment, and so on) are prosecutors entitled to carry out as regards court decisions?

        According to CPC the defendant can ask from the Court to be released on probation. The prosecutor takes part in the hearings and can present his conclusion on the matter. After the Court accepts his release, it is the probation service to have full control during the probation time period, on the way the court requirements are followed by the people released. The Probation Service is an independent body, with no any kind of subordination to the Prosecution Office. But the prosecutor can request to the Court the alteration of the probation scheme based on the information of the probation service that the people released on probation didn’t satisfy the requirements.

        20. When monitoring the enforcement of punishments, do public prosecutors interact with the ombudsman or any other organisation linked to or charged with controlling the enforcement of punishments? If so, what type of interactions are they? Could you give the names of these organisations, whether they be institutional or not, and explain briefly their roles?

        As far as I know there is no any kind of cooperation between prosecutor and ombudsman in monitoring the execution process of the sentences. The only “cooperation” is the free and deliberate forwarding by the Ombudsman toward the Prosecution Office of the complaints of the prisoners filed at his office.

        21. Could you give other useful information to the preparation of the draft Opinion (relevant questions to add, documents, etc)?

        ARMENIA


        During the last years, extensive measures have been carried out in Armenia to bring the protection of the human rights in line with the international standards, tens of international human rights treaties have been ratified, and the legislation of the Republic of Armenia has been improved.
        The amendments to the Constitution of the Republic of Armenia were adopted through a national referendum on 27 November 2005. Article 3 of the Constitution states that the human being and the dignity, fundamental rights and freedoms thereof are ultimate values. The state ensures the protection of fundamental human and civil rights and freedoms in conformity with the principles and norms of the international law. The state is bound by fundamental human and civil rights and freedoms as a directly applicable rights. The right to freedom is closely related to inviolability – i.e. to the human security and freedom guaranteed by the state - which excludes any offence against the person, honour and dignity of a human being. Therefore, pursuant to Article 14 of the Constitution, “human dignity shall be respected and protected by the state as an inseparable foundation of human rights and freedoms.”
        The state ensures the protection of human rights and freedoms through legislative body, by establishing a national legal system. It is worth mentioning that the amended Constitution of the Republic of Armenia has also adhered to the direct transposition of international treaty provisions into the national legislation. Thus, pursuant to the constitutional provision, international treaties ratified by the Republic of Armenia are a constituent part of the legal system of the Republic of Armenia and prevail over the national laws. Therefore, pursuant to the relevant provision of Article 6 of the Constitution, where contradiction exists between norms prescribed by ratified international treaties and norms prescribed by national laws, the provisions of the treaty apply.
        Article 17 of the Constitution of the Republic of Armenia clearly prescribes that “no one shall be subjected to torture or inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. All persons arrested, detained or deprived of liberty shall have the right to be treated with humanity and with respect for dignity”.
        The new Criminal Code of the Republic of Armenia was adopted on 18 April 2003. In accordance with internationally accepted principles and values, the Criminal Code is based on the principles of legality, equality before the law, inevitable liability, fault-based liability, justice and humanity. Thus, Article 11 of the Criminal Code prescribes that the Criminal Code of the Republic of Armenia serves to provide for physical, mental, material, ecological, and other human security, and that no one shall be subjected to torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.

        Question 2
        Exclusive powers are vested in prosecution authorities by the Constitution of the Republic of Armenia (Article 103) with regard to exercising control over the legality of inquest and preliminary investigation and of the application of punishments and other compulsory measures. The Law of the Republic of Armenia on Prosecutor’s Office entered into force on 1 May 2007. This Law regulates the issues related to the control over the legality of inquest and preliminary investigation, of the application of punishments and other compulsory measures.
        Pursuant to Article 29 of the Law of the Republic of Armenia on Prosecutor’s Office, punishment means the forms of punishment provided for by criminal statute (fine, confiscation of property, detention, imprisonment, etc.). And other compulsory measure means deprivation of liberty in cases provided for by points 2 to 7 of part 1 of Article 16 of the Constitution of the Republic of Armenia, as well as the use of physical force, firearms or special means by special services.
        Pursuant to Article 29 of the Law of the Republic of Armenia on the Prosecutor’s Office, when exercising control over the legality of the application of punishments and other compulsory measures, the prosecutor is entitled to:

          (1) Visit all the places where people deprived of liberty are held, without any restrictions and at any time;
          (2) Familiarise with the documents, on the basis of which the person has been subjected to a sentence or other compulsory measures;
          (3) Check the conformity with the legislation in force of orders, instructions, and decisions of the administration of bodies enforcing sentences and other compulsory measures, which concern the fundamental rights of the person subjected to a sentence or other compulsory measures. When discovering an act that contradicts the legislation, the prosecutor files a motion to revise it; when the prosecutor considers that a delay may lead to grave consequences, the prosecutor is entitled to suspend the validity of the act and to file a motion to revise it;
          (4) Question persons subjected to a sentence or other compulsory measures;
          (5) Release immediately persons kept illegally in places of deprivation of liberty and in penal and disciplinary isolators of such places, and, if a person was deprived of liberty on the basis of a legal act of the administration of the place of deprivation of liberty, then the person that adopted such an act is obliged, upon the prosecutor’s instruction, to immediately annul the act;
          (6) In case of doubt that the rights and freedoms of persons subjected to a sentence or to other compulsory measures have been violated, to demand explanations from officials on actions taken by them or on their inaction.

        Question 3

        Pursuant to the Penitentiary Code of the Republic of Armenia, the execution of a sentence, as well as imposition of compulsory medical measures combined with execution of the sentence, must not be accompanied by physical violence against a person, as well as by actions which can lead to socio-psychological degradation of a person. No person, deprived of liberty upon a judgment, shall be subjected to torture or other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. No circumstance may serve as a ground for justifying torture or other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.
        Pursuant to Article 2 of the Law of the Republic of Armenia on the Custody of Arrestees and Remand Prisoners adopted on 26 February 2002, an arrestee or a remand prisoner shall be respectively kept under arrest or remand detention based on the principles of legality, equality before the law of arrestees and remand prisoners, humanity, respect for individual rights, freedoms and dignity, in accordance with the Constitution of the Republic of Armenia, the Criminal Code of the Republic of Armenia and the Criminal Procedure Code of the Republic of Armenia, as well as generally recognised principles and norms of international law. It is prohibited to exercise physical violence, as well as carry out inhuman or degrading actions against an arrestee or a remand prisoner.

        The abuse and excess of official powers by an official, as established by Articles 308 and 309 of the Criminal Code of the Republic of Armenia, are also deemed as criminal offence and are punishable by up to four years of imprisonment depending on the type of offence.

        Question 4

        With a view to complying with the requirements of the Convention, a number of amendments have been made to the legislation of the Republic of Armenia to reduce the risk of exposure to torture or other cruel treatment in the Republic of Armenia.
        Article 16 of the Constitution of the Republic of Armenia prescribes that a person may be deprived of liberty in cases and in the manner prescribed by law. The law may envisage deprivation of liberty only in the following cases:
        (1) The person has been convicted by a competent court for committing a crime;
        (2) The person has not complied with a court order that has entered into legal force;
        (3) To ensure the performance of certain duties prescribed by law;

          (4) There is a reasonable doubt that a criminal offence has been committed, or when it is necessary to prevent the commission of a criminal offence by a person or to prevent his/her absconding after the committal thereof;
          (5) To place a minor under educational supervision or bring him/her before another competent authority;
          (6) To prevent spread of infectious diseases or public danger emanating from persons with mental illnesses, alcoholics, drug addicts or vagrants;
          (7) To prevent unauthorised entry of a person into the Republic of Armenia, to expel or extradite him/her to another country.

        Each person deprived of liberty shall be informed immediately about the reasons thereof in a language comprehensible for him/her, and in case a criminal charge is brought against, of the charges as well. Each person deprived of liberty shall have the right to inform immediately thereon the person of his/her own choosing.

        Question 5

        According to Article 53 of the Criminal Procedure Code of the Republic of Armenia, in the course of pre-trial proceedings the prosecutor is, inter alia, authorised to assign the inquest body and the investigator to prepare materials for instituting criminal proceedings in connection with the incident of crime.

        The Prosecutor’s Office of the Republic of Armenia is critically engaged in organising and implementing effective control over observance of the requirements of the law in penitentiary establishments and places of applying other compulsory measures. In its sessions, the Board of the Prosecutor’s Office has regularly discussed issues relating to the rights of the convicts, remand prisoners and arrestees, their living conditions, healthcare services, improvement of the manner and conditions of serving the sentence, release on parole or due to grave illness, persons having committed acts posing public danger in a state of insanity, and many other issues, as well as undertaken necessary measures aimed at restoring the violated rights of such persons and eliminating the shortcomings identified.

        Question 6

        On 3 August 2006, the Government of the Republic of Armenia adopted Decision No. 1543-N on Approving the Internal Regulations for Remand Facilities and Correctional Establishments of the Penitentiary Service of the Republic of Armenia, which entered into force on 3 December 2006. The Internal Regulations define and regulate the manner of exercising the rights, freedoms and duties of remand prisoners and convicts, the rules of conduct of remand prisoners and convicts, the medical care and conditions and rules of keeping personal hygiene, the assurance of living conditions for remand prisoners and convicts, their work, education, access to books, magazines and journals, the manner of establishment and operation of self-governing associations of convicts, participation in religious ceremonies, the manner of granting visits, the manner of receiving and delivering parcels and packages, the manner of receiving and making monetary transfers, the filing of proposals, requests and complaints by remand prisoners and convicts, the correspondence, and the manner of granting telephone conversations and short-time leaves, etc. Compliance with the requirements of the Internal Regulations is compulsory for the administration of the remand facility and correctional establishment, remand prisoners and convicts, as well as other persons visiting remand facilities or correctional establishments.
        Issues relating to human rights, including explication of issues regarding torture and degrading treatment have been incorporated in the curriculum of the professional and combat-readiness trainings organised for police officers. Relevant educational courses are also held at the Academy and the Educational Centre of the Police of the Republic of Armenia. Human rights issues are studied at the Police Academy of the Republic of Armenia within the framework of Human Rights and the Police, International Humanitarian Law and Constitutional Law subjects. Under the auspices of the OSCE, a special lecture room was opened at the Educational Centre of the Police of the Republic of Armenia designed for trainings on human rights.

        Question 7

        See the Answers for Question 4

        Question 8

        Pursuant to Article 29 of the Law of the Republic of Armenia on the Prosecutor’s Office, when exercising control over the legality of the application of punishments and other compulsory measures, the prosecutor is entitled to visit all the places where people deprived of liberty are held, without any restrictions and at any time; check the conformity with the legislation in force of orders, instructions, and decisions of the administration of bodies enforcing sentences and other compulsory measures, which concern the fundamental rights of the person subjected to a sentence or other compulsory measures. When discovering an act that contradicts the legislation, the prosecutor files a motion to revise it; when the prosecutor considers that a delay may lead to grave consequences, the prosecutor is entitled to suspend the validity of the act and to file a motion to revise it; question persons subjected to a sentence or other compulsory measures; release immediately persons kept illegally in places of deprivation of liberty and in penal and disciplinary isolators of such places, and, if a person was deprived of liberty on the basis of a legal act of the administration of the place of deprivation of liberty, then the person that adopted such an act is obliged, upon the prosecutor’s instruction, to immediately annul the act; in case of doubt that the rights and freedoms of persons subjected to a sentence or to other compulsory measures have been violated, to demand explanations from officials on actions taken by them or on their inaction.


        Question 9
        According to Article 12 of the Penitentiary Code of the Republic of Armenia, convicts have the right to the following:

            (1) To be informed - in their native language or other language which they understand - of their rights, freedoms and duties, manner and conditions of execution of the sentence imposed by the court, amendments thereto, recommendations, requests and complaints, as well as on relevant international documents;

        (2) Courteous treatment towards themselves;

            (3) To file requests and complaints regarding violations of their rights and freedoms, in person or through a counsel or a legal representative, with the administration of the punishment execution body or establishment, their superior authorities, the court, prosecutor’s office, human rights defender, state and local self-government bodies, non-governmental associations and parties, mass media, as well as with international human rights bodies or organisations;

        (4) Health care, including receiving sufficient food, and medical treatment;
        (5) Social security;
        (6) To receive legal assistance;
        (7) Personal safety;
        (8) Freedom of thought, conscience and religion, political or other opinions;

            (9) To communicate with the outside world, including maintaining correspondence, have visits, enjoy telephone communication, literature and available mass media;

        (10) To rest, including open air walk or exercise, as well as to eight hours of night sleep;
        (11) To be called by their name and surname;

            (12) to apply to the head of the punishment execution body or establishment, as well as to authorities carrying out control and supervision over that body or establishment, with a request for a personal meeting;

        (13) To participate in civil transactions;
        (14) To receive education that is available and provided for by law, engage in creative work;

            (15) To purchase, from a shop or a mini-shop of the punishment execution establishment or through the latter’s administration, additional food and basic necessities;

        (16) To receive and make money transfers, receive and send parcels and packages.
        As for the conditions of keeping in custody and treatment of arrestees, remand prisoners or imprisoned persons, they are regulated, as mentioned above, by law of the Republic of Armenia on the Custody of Arrestees and Remand Prisoners adopted by the National Assembly of the Republic of Armenia on 6 February 2002 and the Regulation approved by the Decision of the Government of the Republic of Armenia No. 543-N of 3 August 2003, which envisage liability for breaching the principles, conditions and manner prescribed thereby. Nevertheless, information regarding physical ill-treatment in penitentiary establishments under the Ministry of Justice of the Republic of Armenia is thoroughly investigated and relevant measures are imposed on the offenders. Special attention is attached to proper recording of possible injuries of remand prisoners and convicts and to accurate response mechanisms to their complaints.
        However, there are cases where penitentiary officers are compelled to use physical force or special means in accordance with the law, when remand prisoners and convicts do not obey the lawful orders of the personnel of the penitentiary establishment, hinder the performance of their duties or commit unlawful actions. Each case of using physical force or special means is recorded. Where a prisoner disagrees to the actions of penitentiary administration, he/she can appeal against them, as well as against any action violating his/her rights. In case of inflicting injury to the health or causing death of a prisoner as a result of using physical force or special means, it is mandatory to send a written communication thereon to the Head of the Penitentiary Department and the prosecutor. Prosecutors carrying out oversight get familiar, on regular basis, with the cases of using force or special means, for determining the proportionality of the use thereof to the nature and level of the threat of the offence or resistance. The use of physical force or special means as a punishment is excluded.
        In accordance with point 4 of the Executive Order of the President of the Republic of Armenia No. NK-328-NG of 28 December 2004, and point 4.4 of the Order of the Head of the Police of the Republic of Armenia No. 5-Ag of 31 January 2005, practical steps were undertaken towards ensuring a minimum floor space of 4 square meters per person for all persons kept in custody facilities, sufficient intra-cell lighting (including natural light) and ventilation, mattress and night bedclothes, and for persons under administrative detention - an opportunity to take a hot bath at least once a week. Cells and sanitary installations are kept in hygienically sufficient condition. Handout food rations for arrestees were increased upon the Decision of the Government of the Republic of Armenia No. 587-N of 15 May 2003. Nevertheless, due to the increase of the number of detainees, detention facilities often become overcrowded creating certain difficulties for fully implementing the above-mentioned provisions; such issues will be settled resultant to the reforms of the existing infrastructures and the construction of new ones.
        Construction of several new penitentiary establishments, as well as termination of operation of some old ones is planned within the framework of the infrastructure reforms activities. Within this framework, a completely new penitentiary establishment will be put into operation following the completion of construction works which have commenced in 2007 on the site adjacent to the town of Echmiatsin, after which the operation of “Sevan” penitentiary establishment under the Ministry of Justice of the Republic of Armenia will be terminated, and a completely new penitentiary establishment will be constructed in lieu. The operation of “Gyumri” penitentiary establishment under the Ministry of Justice of the Republic of Armenia, as well as the exploitation of those premises of “Vanadzor” penitentiary establishment which are old and unfavourable for persons serving their sentence has already been terminated. The new building of “Vanadzor” penitentiary establishment under the Ministry of Justice of the Republic of Armenia was opened in the town of Vanadzor on 19 March 2007. Facility, space and cell conditions of the new building are exemplary in comparison to other similar institutions in the territory of the Republic of Armenia and are, to the extent possible, in line with the international standards. The surface of cells provides each inmate with at least 4 square metres space, the cells have wide windows, toilet facilities are completely separated, backyards of required quantity and surface are available, etc. The institution is designed for holding remand prisoners and convicts serving their sentence in “closed type” correctional establishments. Currently, each remand prisoner and convict held in “Goris" penitentiary facility under the Ministry of Justice of the Republic of Armenia is provided with at least 4 square metres of living space. In 2006, refurbishment works were initiated in the institution: toilets have been separated; the heating system has been renewed. The refurbishment works are ongoing. A new building for “Goris” penitentiary establishment in compliance with modern requirements is planned to be constructed in the nearest future.
        A special emphasis is also put on life-sentenced prisoners. During 2006, significant work has been carried out to improve the cell conditions of the life-sentenced prisoners. Custody conditions of the life-sentenced prisoners, including education and work related issues are permanently in the focus of attention of penitentiary officers. Issues relating to involvement of the life-sentenced prisoners in rehabilitation programmes are being discussed with the International Prison Reforms Organisation, as a result of which an efficient settlement of the mentioned issues based on international practices is expected. For ensuring their active communication with the outside world, in addition to their access to telephone calls, visits, library, there are TV sets, radio sets, tape recorders in almost all cells, a number of newspapers and entertainment magazines, monthly papers and other periodicals are also often distributed to convicts through which they are able to keep in touch with the outside world.

        Question 10

        In detailed please see the answers to the Question 4

        According to the Article 353 of the Criminal Code of Armenia( Failure to carry out a court act) willful failure by an official to carry out an effective court sentence, verdict or other court act, or hindrance to their implementation, is punished with a fine in the amount of 300 to 500 minimal salaries, or with arrest for the term of 1-3 months, or with imprisonment for the term of up to 2 years.
        According to the Article 103 of Constitution of Armenia, prosecutor has right to initiate criminal case, but he/she has not right to initiate disciplinary procedure. The prosecutor also has right to bring actions in court to defend the State interests.
        Question 11

        According to relevant legislation, the prosecutors have right without any limitation to visit remand facilities or correctional establishments. Due to purpose of their visits, prosecutors can make reports.

        Question 12
        The answer is the same as it is in Question 11.

        Question 13
        According to the Article 103 of the Constitution of Armenia, prosecutors shall oversee the legality of preliminary inquiries and investigations.
        According to the Article 53 ( The Powers of the Prosecutor at the Pre-trial Proceedings of the Criminal Case) of the Criminal Procedural Code of Armenia:
        1. The prosecutor is authorized to conduct the following during the pre-trial proceedings:

            1) to institute and carry out criminal prosecution and to start proceedings of cases instituted by the body of inquiry, the investigator, to cancel the decision of the body of inquiry and the investigator on suspension of a case, to institute a criminal case based on court motion, to cancel the decision of the body of inquiry and the investigator rejecting the institution of a criminal case and to institute a criminal case.
            2) to investigate personally the criminal case in its full volume, passing necessary decisions during the preliminary investigation and implementing investigatory and other procedural actions in accordance with provisions of this Code;
            3) in case of a crime, instructs the body of inquiry and the investigator to prepare the materials for the institution of a criminal case.
            4) To instruct the body of inquiry and the investigator to conduct urgent investigatory measures or conduct them personally;
            5) To participate in the inquest;
            6) To carry out prosecutorial management of the inquest and the preliminary investigation.

        Question 14

        The administration of remand facilities or correctional establishments is obliged to accept, without any quantitative restrictions, proposals and requests submitted, as well as complaints filed by remand prisoners or convicts. Proposals and requests submitted, as well as complaints filed by remand prisoners or convicts are sent to addressees within three working days following their delivery. The administration of remand facilities or correctional establishments examines the proposals, requests and complaints addressed to them in the manner and within the time limits prescribed by the legislation of the Republic of Armenia. The answers to proposals, requests and complaints are submitted to a remand prisoner or a convict upon signature and, if desired, are attached to his/her personal file. Proposals, requests and complaints addressed to the administration of remand facilities or correctional establishments are attached to the personal file of a remand prisoner or a convict respectively. Upon taking the proposals, requests and complaints from а remand prisoner or a convict, the representative of the administration of a remand facility or correctional establishment makes an entry in the relevant register on taking thereof, where the remand prisoner or the convict also signs to that effect.

        Question 15
        In case of serious illness or death of an arrestee or remand prisoner, the administration of detention facility or remand facility immediately informs thereof to the close relatives of the arrestee or remand prisoner, to the body conducting criminal proceedings and the prosecutor conducting oversight. In case of serious illness or death of a foreign arrestee or remand prisoner, the administration of a relevant establishment immediately informs thereof to its superior body, which in its turn informs the agencies concerned, including the diplomatic mission or the consular office of the relevant state.

            Regrettably, due to housing and technical conditions, it is not expedient to establish women’s unit in the “Hospital for Prisoners” penitentiary establishment under the Ministry of Justice of the Republic of Armenia. Medical and sanitary conditions and services for women are planned to be enlarged in “Abovyan” penitentiary establishment under the Ministry of Justice of the Republic of Armenia. Female remand prisoners and convicts, where appropriate, are hospitalised in medical facilities of health care institutions, which is regulated by the Decision of the Government of the Republic of Armenia No. 825-N of 26 May 2006.
            The Penitentiary Service has adopted the following approach with regard to cases of self-injury: in each similar case, special written communications are received by the Penitentiary Department and immediate measures are taken for identifying and specifying the causes of the incident, personal, psychological and health conditions of the person having committed the act concerned, as well as circumstances relating to the incident, and for elaborating a relevant intervention plan. For the purpose of exercising control over the cases of self-injury and for enhancing the activities carried out for their prevention, the officers of the social, psychological and legal activities and security units of the Penitentiary Department were given a relevant assignment by the Head of the Penitentiary Department of the Ministry of Justice of the Republic of Armenia for arranging a meeting with persons who have committed self-injury, and for reporting on actions taken.
            In collaboration with the social, psychological and legal activities and security units, persons inclined to self-injury are placed under the supervision of medical staff. Whenever it is found out that the case of self-injury does not carry the purpose of committing a specific offence, but is rather caused by reasons of psychological or psychiatric nature, it is not considered as an offence and social and psychological activities are carried out with the person concerned.

        Question 16

        According to the Article 53 ( The Powers of the Prosecutor at the Pre-trial Proceedings of the Criminal Case) of the Criminal Procedural Code of Armenia:
        1. The prosecutor is authorized to conduct the following during the pre-trial proceedings:

            1) to institute and carry out criminal prosecution and to start proceedings of cases instituted by the body of inquiry, the investigator, to cancel the decision of the body of inquiry and the investigator on suspension of a case, to institute a criminal case based on court motion, to cancel the decision of the body of inquiry and the investigator rejecting the institution of a criminal case and to institute a criminal case.
            2) to investigate personally the criminal case in its full volume, passing necessary decisions during the preliminary investigation and implementing investigatory and other procedural actions in accordance with provisions of this Code;
            3) in case of a crime, instructs the body of inquiry and the investigator to prepare the materials for the institution of a criminal case.
            4) To instruct the body of inquiry and the investigator to conduct urgent investigatory measures or conduct them personally;
            5) To participate in the inquest;
            6) To carry out prosecutorial management of the inquest and the preliminary investigation.

        Question 17

        According to the Article 103 of the Constitution the prosecutors’ office of Armenia represents a unified system, headed by the Prosecutor General.

        Question 18

        According to the Article 55 point 17 of the Constitution of Armenia the President of the Republic of Armenia may grant pardons to convicted individuals.
        According to the Article 81 part 1st of the Constitution of Armenia upon the recommendation of the President of the Republic of Armenia the Parliament may declare an Amnesty.
        According to the Article 29 part 5 of the Law on Prosecutor’s office of Armenia the prosecutors shall participate in court trials during release cases.
        Question 19

        According to the Article 62 of the Law on Prosecutor’s office of Armenia the Prosecutor’s school is responsible for organization of prosecutors annual and additional trainings.

        Question 20
        According to the Articles 52 of the Criminal Procedural code of Armenia
        1. The prosecutor is a state official, who conducts, within the limits of his/her competence, at all stages of the criminal procedure, the criminal prosecution, supervises the legitimacy of the preliminary investigation and inquest, supports the prosecution in court, appeals against the court verdicts and other decisions. The prosecuting attorney supporting the prosecution in court is called the prosecutor.
        2. The prosecutor is entitled to lodge to the accused or to a person, who bears proprietary responsibility for the actions of the latter, a claim [suit] in protection of the interests of the state.
        3. During the exercise of his/her powers at the proceedings of criminal case the prosecutor is independent and submits only to law. He/she shall execute the legitimate instructions of the superior prosecutor. If the subordinate prosecutor considers the instruction illegitimate, he/she appeals it to a superior prosecutor without executing it.
        Article 54. Powers of the Prosecutor During Consideration of the Criminal Case or Materials in the Court
        1. During consideration of the criminal case by the court, the prosecutor:

            1) declares challenges;
            2) brings motions;
            3) expresses opinion regarding the motions of other participants of the trial;
            4) ensures the presentation to the court of the evidences; gives to the body of inquiry mandatory assignments for the submission of the evidence to court;
            5) participates in the examination of case materials;
            6) objects against unlawful actions of other party;
            7) objects against unlawful, groundless actions of the presiding person;
            8) requests the inclusion into the protocol of court session of records regarding circumstances mentioned by him;
            9) exercises the right to dismiss criminal prosecution against the accused;
            10) announces the indictment in the court, makes the opening and closing speeches and a remarks in the court of first instance and the appellate court, and be present at the session of the Cassation Court;
            11) appeals the verdict and other court decisions in cases prescribed by this Code;
            12) exercises other powers, prescribed by this Code.

        2. The prosecutor, participating in the court session is obligated to:

            1) To obey to the order in the court session and observe the legitimate instructions of the presiding person;
            2) exercise other powers, prescribed by this Code.

        3. Participation of the prosecutor in court is mandatory during consideration of criminal cases.

        Question 21

        In 2008, the National Assembly of the Republic of Armenia adopted a Law on Making a Supplement to the Law of the Republic of Armenia on the Human Rights Defender, which proclaimed the Defender as the national preventive mechanism provided for in the Optional Protocol to the Convention against Torture and other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment.
        Following the supplements to the Law, the Office of the Human Rights Defender has undertaken to establish a cooperation framework with NGOs. A number of meetings with the representatives of NGOs, as well as seminars with the participation of international experts were held. Cooperation formats were discussed, and further steps were identified.

            Having regard to Article 47 of the Law of the Republic of Armenia on the Custody of Arrestees and Remand Prisoners, as well as to Article 21 of the Penitentiary Code of the Republic of Armenia, the procedure for carrying out public monitoring in the penitentiary establishments and bodies, as well as the composition of the Public Monitoring Group carrying out such monitoring was approved by the Order of the Minister of Justice of the Republic of Armenia No. QH-66-N.

        Public monitoring in penitentiary establishments and bodies under the Ministry of Justice of the Republic of Armenia is carried out by the Public Monitoring Group. The Public Monitoring Group is a monitoring body dealing with the issues of respect for the rights and freedoms of persons held in remand facilities and correctional establishments of the Penitentiary Service (prisoners), as well as of persons under the control of penitentiary bodies.
        The goals of the activities of the Group are: to conduct public monitoring of protection of the rights of prisoners and persons under the control of penitentiary bodies; to improve the working and living conditions for prisoners in penitentiary establishments; to report to the public on the issues relating to the penitentiary service; to launch activities aimed at the detection and prevention of human rights violations in the Penitentiary Service, and numerous other tasks.
        The composition of the Group is approved by the Order of the Minister of Justice of the Republic of Armenia based on the relevant documents submitted by the candidate organisation. Preference is given to organisations that were involved in the implementation of the above-mentioned objectives or human rights protection over the past year.
        The Group may consist of no less than seven and no more than twenty one persons. Each non-governmental organisation may have only one representative in the Group. The Group operates on a voluntary basis. The Group currently consists of eleven members.
        The Group may, where appropriate, involve relevant qualified experts in its activities. Upon the motion of the Group, the Ministry of Justice of the Republic of Armenia issues a temporary pass for the expert to visit penitentiary establishments and bodies.
        Members of the Group are entitled to free access to penitentiary establishments and bodies, to get familiar with the contents of various documents, including, upon the consent of a prisoner or a person under the control of penitentiary bodies, with their personal files and correspondence, except for confidential documents, to get familiar with the situation in the establishment, as well as to meet prisoners and persons under the control of penitentiary bodies.

        Monitoring is conducted through visiting penitentiary establishments and bodies, and submitting reports to the Minister of Justice of the Republic of Armenia and to the public based on these visits. Three types of reports (progress reports, annual reports and urgent reports) are submitted, in regard with which the Ministry of Justice of the Republic of Armenia presents its comments.
        Progress reports may cover specific cases of violation of the rights of prisoners and persons under the control of penitentiary bodies, as well as cases when the penitentiary establishments and bodies hinder the exercise of the Group's powers. Urgent reports cover facts, conclusions on gross violations of human rights detected in the Penitentiary Service that require urgent solution.
        All Group members sign under the decision on approving progress or annual reports; in addition, where one of the Group members disagrees to any of the points in the report approved by the decision, a relevant note is made to that effect or an individual opinion is attached to the report.
        In February 2008 – May 2009 the Group submitted one annual report, one progress report and three urgent reports.

        On 10 March 2006, a Public Monitoring Group for the detention facilities under the Police of the Republic of Armenia was formed pursuant to the Order of the Head of the Police of the Republic of Armenia of 14 January 2005 on Approving the Rules of Procedure for the Public Monitoring Group for the Detention Facilities under the Police of the Republic of Armenia.
        According to this Rules of Procedure, the Public Monitoring Group for detention facilities under the Police of the Republic of Armenia (hereinafter referred to as detention facilities) is a monitoring body dealing with the protection of rights and freedoms of persons detained in detention facilities.
        The Group consists of no less than seven and no more than twenty one persons. Furthermore, each non-governmental organisation may have only one representative in the Group. The Group currently consists of nine members.
        With a view to carrying out its activities, the Group members have the right to free access to detention facilities; to meet persons detained in detention facilities; to get familiar with the internal legal acts regulating the activities of detention facilities, with personal file and correspondence of a person detained in a detention facility upon his/her consent, except for documents constituting state or official secret.
        In this case, the Group member holds the office in the Group for a term of three years and is issued a document certifying his/her membership.
        Members of the Group may visit detention facilities on any day, including non-working days. Members of the Group may, as a rule, meet a person detained in the detention facility in private or, at the wish of the Group member, in the presence of a representative from the administration of the detention facility.
        To ensure fully-fledged monitoring, the Group members must visit no less than half of all detention facilities under the Police of the Republic of Armenia at least once a year.
        The Group conducts monitoring through visiting detention facilities and submitting reports to the Head of the Police of the Republic of Armenia and to the public based on these visits.
        The Group submits two types of reports (progress and annual), in regard with which the Police of the Republic of Armenia provides its comments.

          (1) Progress reports cover specific cases on violation of rights of persons detained in detention facilities, as well as on hindering the exercise of the Group’s powers.
          (2) Annual reports cover general situation in detention facilities, main problems and recommended solutions, outcomes of the activities conducted by the Group, etc.

        In recent three years, a number of large-scale reforms were implemented in detention facilities under the Police of the Republic of Armenia as a result of the activities of the Group. Some detention facilities were closed due to the lack of relevant conditions. Conditions of some detention facilities were improved.

        Article 117 of the Penitentiary Code of the Republic of Armenia prescribes the procedure for deferment of the serving of sentence and releasing from the sentence. Pursuant to part 1 of the said Article, if the convict is a pregnant woman or has a child under the age of three or suffers from a grave disease preventing the serving of the sentence, as well as where further serving of the sentence may cause serious consequences for the convict or the family members thereof (fire or other natural disasters, grave illness or death of the sole family member capable to work, or other exceptional circumstances), the motion on deferment of the serving of sentence or releasing from the sentence is filed with the court by the head of the body or establishment executing the sentence. The motion shall be accompanied by the profile of the convict, the consent of a relative on placement of the convict and her child and providing them with accommodation and appropriate living conditions, or a statement certifying that the convict has an accommodation and appropriate living conditions to have the child reside with her, or medical conclusion on pregnancy, or a copy of birth certificate of the child, or statements on other circumstances, as well as the personal file of the convict.
        Article 27 of the Law of the Republic of Armenia on the Custody of Arrestees and Remand Prisoners determines the specifics of holding women and juveniles under arrest or remand detention.
        According to this Article, female and juvenile arrestees or remand prisoners are provided with improved living conditions in detention facilities and remand facilities.
        Female and juvenile arrestees and remand prisoners enjoy the right to daily walks of no less than two hours, during which they have an opportunity to do some physical exercises.
        Female remand prisoners have the right to have their children under the age of three reside with them while they are in custody.
        Female arrestees or remand prisoners who are pregnant or have their children residing with them are provided with appropriate living conditions, as well as specialised medical services.
        It is prohibited to place pregnant women or women with children in a disciplinary cell as a sanction.
        In case of illness, improper performance of parental duties, demonstrating cruel treatment against the child, as well as committing violations of internal regulations, the administration of the detention facility or remand facility may file a motion with the court on depriving the remand prisoner of parental rights and (or) placing the child in the care of other persons.
        Female pregnant arrestees or remand prisoners, nursing mothers, juveniles, as well as ill arrestees or remand prisoners are provided with special handout food, the menu and minimum rations of which are determined by the Government of the Republic of Armenia (Article 43 of the Law).
        According to Article 31 of the Law, arrestees are put in solitary confinement in detention facilities, and the following remand prisoners are held separately in remand facilities:

            (1) Men from women;
            (2) Juveniles from adults;
            (3) First-time remand prisoners from those who have previously served a sentence in the form of imprisonment, etc.

        When releasing from custody or remand detention, persons who need care due to the condition of their health, as well as pregnant women, women with infants, and juveniles, the administration of the detention facility or remand facility gives prior notice on their release to their close relatives or other persons. In case of absence of close relatives, the necessary assistance is provided by the administration of the given establishment.
        The above-mentioned persons are transferred to their places of residence accompanied by close relatives or other persons or an officer of the given establishment (Article 43).

            (d) Judgments of the European Court on violations of Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms

        So far the European Court of Human Rights has rendered three judgments against Armenia finding a violation of Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights (“No one shall be subjected to torture or to inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment”).

            (1) In respect of the case of Mkhitaryan v. Armenia (Application No. 22390/05), the Court delivered its judgment on 2 December 2008, where it found that there had been a violation of Article 3, and Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (a)-(d) of the Convention, as well as of Article 2 of Protocol No. 7.
            (2) In respect of the case of Tadevosyan v. Armenia (Application No. 41698/04), the Court delivered its judgment on 2 December 2008, where it found that there had been a violation of Article 3, and Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (b)-(d) of the Convention, as well as of Article 2 of Protocol No. 7.
            (3) In respect of the case of Kirakosyan v. Armenia (Application No. 31237/03), the Court delivered its judgment on 2 December 2008, where it found that there had been a violation of Article 3 of the Convention.

        All judgments of the European Court of Human Rights are envisaged to be executed in the form of monetary compensation in August 2009.

            PART 3
            Information on the measures undertaken for the implementation of the conclusions and recommendations of the Committee against Torture on the second periodic report of the Republic of Armenia

        Below is presented information on the implementation of the recommendations in point 39 of Doc. A/56/4 of the UN Committee against Torture, per sub-points:
        (a) See Part 1 (12)-(14) of the Report.
        (b) See Part 1 (54), (57), (58), (93), (94), (108)-(129) of the Report.
        (c) By the Decision of the Government of the Republic of Armenia No. 1015 of 19 October 2001, the institutions under the authority of the Department of Execution of Criminal Sanctions of the Ministry of Interior Affairs of the Republic of Armenia were reorganised into penitentiary establishments operating under the authority of the central agency of the Penitentiary Service of the Ministry of Justice of the Republic of Armenia, and a Penitentiary Service was established within the system of the Ministry of Justice of the Republic of Armenia, which includes the Penitentiary Department and the establishments under its authority.
        The objective of the transfer to the authority of the Ministry of Justice of the Republic of Armenia of the Penitentiary Department and the establishments under its authority was to improve the whole system of the penitentiary service, as well as contribute to the improvement of conditions of detainees, and ensure the highest protection of their rights.
        The Law of the Republic of Armenia on the Custody of Arrestees and Remand Prisoners enacted on 7 March 2002 pursues the same goal. The Law defines the general principles, conditions and procedures for holding arrestees or remand prisoners under arrest or in remand detention in accordance with the Criminal Procedure Code of the Republic of Armenia, the rights of arrestees and remand prisoners, guarantees for ensuring their rights, as well as their duties, and the procedure for releasing these persons from arrest or remand detention.
        This Law prohibits physical violence, as well as inhuman or degrading actions against arrestees or remand prisoners (Article 2).
        The Law thoroughly regulates also the procedures for transferring persons held in remand facilities to detention facilities, procedure for transportation of remand prisoners, internal regulations of detention facilities and remand facilities, defines the legal status of arrestees and remand prisoners, their rights, as well as guarantees for ensuring them.
        In addition to the above-mentioned legal acts, the National Assembly of the Republic of Armenia adopted the Penitentiary Code of the Republic of Armenia on 24 December 2004. It is aimed at defining the procedure for and terms of executing criminal sentences and imposing compulsory medical measures combined with execution of the sentence, as well as ensuring necessary conditions for correction of the convict, and protecting the rights and freedoms of the convict.
        Pursuant to Article 6 of the mentioned Code, the execution of a sentence, as well as imposition of compulsory medical measures combined with execution of the sentence, must not be accompanied by physical violence against a person, as well as such actions which can lead to socio-psychological degradation of a person.
        No person, deprived of liberty upon a judgment, shall be subjected to torture or other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. No circumstance may serve as a ground for justifying torture or other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.
        Thus, the establishment of the Penitentiary Department and the transfer of the establishments under its authority to the Ministry of Justice of the Republic of Armenia, as well as the above-mentioned legislative reforms serve as significant pre-conditions for establishing an independent monitoring system in detention facilities.
        (d) 678 crimes were recorded in the Armed Forces of the Republic of Armenia in 2007, 12 of which were cases of violence with fatal outcomes. 9 of them were cases of murder, 6 of which were committed by the adversary, 3 by comrade-in-arms, and 3 were cases of violence causing suicide.
        During the given period, the Armed Forces of the Republic of Armenia recorded 76 cases of criminal violations of statutory relations, 44 of which resulted in the institution of a criminal case. 33 of them were sent to court upon indictments, which resulted in the conviction of 37 persons.
        80 cases of abuse were recorded in 2007, 50 of which resulted in the institution of a criminal case. 36 of them involving 43 servicemen were sent to court upon indictments, which resulted in the conviction of 29 persons. 32 servicemen were arrested for abuse, as well for criminal incidents involving non-statutory relations. Remand detention was imposed on 41 persons as a measure of restraint.
        In 2007, 34 criminal cases were instituted with regard to cases with fatal outcome recorded in the Armed Forces of the Republic of Armenia. 10 of them involving 18 persons were sent to court upon indictments, from which 7 cases resulted in the conviction of 9 persons. 15 persons were arrested in connection with criminal cases instituted with regard to incidents with fatal outcomes, and remand detention was further imposed on them as a measure of restraint.
        In 2007, the Ministry of Defence of the Republic of Armenia planned and implemented complex measures to reduce, to the extent possible, the number of cases of murder, suicide, violent actions, emergency cases and accidents resulting from non-statutory relations. The activities of the Supernumerary Groups for the Prevention of Suicides and Mutilations were continuously monitored, and adequate measures were undertaken to increase their effectiveness. Due attention was paid to educational and socio-psychological activities during combat duty, guard and garrison service.
        In 2007 the cooperation with the Ministry of Defence of the Republic of Armenia with non-governmental organisations was enhanced. During one year, 14 visits to 71 military units, as well as to military hospitals were made jointly with the representatives from the coordinating council “Zinvor” of non-governmental organisations, which unifies about 51 non-governmental organisations.
        During 11 months of 2008, 773 crimes were recorded in the Armed Forces of the Republic of Armenia, from which 512 military crimes, and 261 general crimes. During 11 months of 2008, 66 cases of death were recorded, as a result of which 69 servicemen died, including 25 people from disease, 14 people from car accidents, 2 people from violation of rules of handling of weapons, 8 people from casualty, 2 people from exposure of mine, 9 people from murder, whereas 3 people were murdered by the adversary, and 8 people committed suicide. Moreover, 2 cases of murder and 2 cases of suicide occurred due to violence and non-statutory relations.
        During 11 months of 2008, the Armed Forces of the Republic of Armenia recorded 84 cases of criminal violations of statutory relations. 154 criminal cases were instituted in connection with death, abuse, criminal violations of non-statutory relations; 85 servicemen were convicted. In regard with the mentioned cases 12 servicemen were arrested, remand detention was imposed on 25 persons as a measure of restraint.
        In 2008 the following measures were undertaken to reduce non-statutory relations in the Armed Forces of the Republic of Armenia:

            - Oversight proceedings are filed on all servicemen having committed mutilation, execution of which is delegated to more skilled employees,
            - With a view to continuously keeping the conditionally sentenced serviceman within the operative sight, preventive oversight proceedings are filed,
            - Prior to conscription, preventive measures towards servicemen are carried out through “Personal Record Books”,
            - The heads of the units of the Military Police Department of the Ministry of Defence of the Republic of Armenia, jointly with commanders of the military units of increased criminogenic environment, develop plans for preventive measures and carry out preventive measures.

        (e) Article 11 of the Judicial Code of the Republic of Armenia adopted on 21 February 2008 by the National Assembly of the Republic of Armenia covers the independence of the judge and the autonomy of the court.
        Thus, according to this Article, in administering justice and performing other powers provided for by law, the judge is independent, is not accountable to anyone and, inter alia, is not bound to give any explanation, except for the cases envisaged by law. It is prohibited to interfere in the activities of a judge in a manner not envisaged by law. Any such act is subject to criminal prosecution.
        Section 3 of the same Code defines also the procedure for the formation of the Council of Justice and its powers, Article 106 of which relates to the Disciplinary Committee of the Council of Justice. The said Committee consists of three members of the Council of Justice; two of them are two judge members and one is academic lawyer. The Disciplinary Committee is formed by the principle of rotation. The Disciplinary Committee is entitled to institute disciplinary proceedings against a judge or chairperson of the courts of first instance and of appeal, and, upon the request by the Ethics Committee of the Council of Court Chairmen, to institute disciplinary proceedings against a judge of the Court of Cassation, chamber chairperson and the Chairperson of the Court of Cassation, as well as to file motions to that effect with the Council of Justice.
        The power to subject a judge to disciplinary liability is vested in the Council of Justice on the following grounds: an obvious or grave violation of a provision of substantive law in the administration of justice; an obvious and grave violation of a provision of procedural law; regular violations or a grave violation of work discipline; regular violations or a grave violation by the judge of the Code of Conduct.
        The power to institute disciplinary proceedings is vested in the Minister of Justice, the Disciplinary Committee of the Council of Justice and the Chairperson of the Court of Cassation only against a chamber judge and chamber chairperson of the Court of Cassation.
        Disciplinary proceedings may be initiated where a decision of the Cassation Court is available, which confirms that an obviously illegal judicial act was rendered in the administration of justice when resolving a case or matter on the merits, or the judge committed an obvious and grave violation of the rules of procedural law in the administration of justice.
        The reasons for instituting disciplinary proceedings also include: an application by a person; a communication from an official of a state or local self-government body; a motion filed by the Ethics Committee of the Council of Court Chairpersons; a judicial act issued by the international court with participation of the Republic of Armenia, which establishes that a court of the Republic of Armenia, while examining the case concerned, committed a violation of human rights and fundamental freedoms prescribed by the relevant international treaty of the Republic of Armenian.
        According to Article 157 of the Judicial Code of the Republic of Armenia, the Council of Justice may, as a result of reviewing the matter related to the disciplinary liability of a judge, impose any of the following disciplinary sanctions on the judge:

            (1) Warning;
            (2) Reprimand, which is combined with depriving the judge of 25% of his/her salary for a period of six months;
            (3) Severe reprimand, which is combined with depriving the judge of 25% of his/her salary for a period of one year;
            (4) Filing a motion with the President of the Republic to terminate the powers of a judge.

        The latter shall be imposed where a grave disciplinary offence or periodic disciplinary offences committed by the judge render him/her incompatible with the position of a judge.
        When examining matters of subjecting a judge to disciplinary liability, the Council of Justice acts as a court. The decision is made in the consultation room. After declaring the completion of case examination, the Council of Justice declares the venue and date of pronouncing the decision. Decisions of the Council of Justice are published in the Official Journal of the Republic of Armenia and on the official website of the judiciary of the Republic of Armenia (www.court.am).
        As to holding a judge criminally liable for the errors made while rendering a judgment, a judge may be subjected to criminal liability in accordance with Article 352 of the Criminal Code of the Republic of Armenia only for rendering an obviously unjust judgment or other judicial act with mercenary purposes or other personal motives. The mentioned act is punishable by a fine in the amount of 300-fold to 500-fold of the minimum salary, or by deprivation of the right to hold certain positions or to engage in certain activities, or by imprisonment for a term of 2 to maximum 7 years.
        The above-mentioned forms of disciplinary liability provided for by the legislation of the Republic of Armenia, as well as the above-mentioned Article on holding judges criminally liable, are not aimed at weakening the judiciary, but at ensuring the principle of equality of all before the law and elimination of impunity, which is one of the cornerstones of building a democratic state.
        In 2006 the Council of Court Chairpersons of the Republic of Armenia approved the anti-corruption strategy for the judiciary system of the Republic of Armenia, the annex of which defines that the remuneration of the judge should be sufficient for independent, just and effective implementation of the broad powers vested in the judge. The Law of the Republic of Armenia on Official Rates of Remuneration of Senior Officials of Legislative, Executive, and Judicial Authorities has also been amended, increasing the official rate of remuneration of judges.
        (f) See Part 1 (81)-(91) of the Report.
        (g) Death penalty was abolished in Armenia in 2003 by the adoption of the new Criminal Code, which was also enshrined in Article 15 of the Constitution of the Republic of Armenia proclaiming that no one shall be sentenced to death or executed. In addition, on 9 September 2003 the Republic of Armenia ratified the Protocol No. 6 to the Council of Europe Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, concerning the abolition of death penalty, and on 19 May 2006 signed the Protocol No.13 to the Council of Europe Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, concerning the abolition of death penalty in all circumstances.

        AUSTRIA

        Relationship between prosecutors and prison administration

        Austrian reply to the questionnaire
        by Ernst Eugen FABRIZY

        General remarks:
        Since the Austrian prosecution service has no powers in matters of prison administration, I can give answers only to few questions.

        Question 10:
        If the public prosecutor is informed of the suspicion of misuse of authority (not only negligence) of prison staff, he is obliged to investigate the case and to inform the disciplinary body.

        Question 14:
        The public prosecutor is obliged to carry out an investigation because of the crime of misuse of authority of a member of the prison staff by himself or by the police, but nor by the prison administration.

        Question 15:
        A criminal investigation in case of sudden death, accident or criminal offence comitted against a prisoner or a crime committed by a prisoner is conducted by the public prosecutor or by the police under supervision of the public prosecutor.

        Question 18:
        The public prosecutor is heard in proceedings on pardon or release on probation. Amnesty is only possible by law.
        Criminal records are in charge of the police (Bundespolizeidirektion Wien); the public prosecutor has no power to supervise them.

        Question 20:
        Some important decisions concerning the enforcement of judgements are under the jurisdicion of the Criminal Court („Strafvollzugsgericht“), like the decision on release on probation. In these proceedings the public prosecutor has the right to file an application; at any rate he has the right to be heard and to appeal against the court decision.

        BELGIQUE

        Avis N°6 ( 2011 ) sur les relations entre les procureurs et l’administration pénitentiaire, à la lumière notamment de la recommandation sur les règles pénitentiaires européennes.

        La politique pénitentiaire belge a connu depuis la fin de la seconde guerre mondiale une évolution importante.
        Il faut cependant reconnaître que le droit pénitentiaire est une matière réglementée par de nombreuses normes éparpillées dans des textes parfois non publiés et souvent peu lisibles.

        Une évolution très nette s’est toutefois dessinée ces dernières années grâce, notamment, à l’influence de certaines décisions rendues par la Cour européenne des droits de l’home et des visites du Comité européen pour la prévention de la torture et des peines ou traitements inhumains ou dégradants. Un droit pénitentiaire s’élabore.

        Le statut interne est réglé par la loi de principes du 12 janvier 2005 concernant l’administration des établissements pénitentiaires ainsi que le statut juridique des détenus.
        Le statut externe est régi par la loi du 17 mai 2006 relative au statut externe des personnes condamnées à une peine privative de liberté et aux droits reconnus à la victime dans le cadre des modalités d’exécution de la peine.

        Les compétences du ministre de la Justice ont évolué depuis la création des tribunaux d’application des peines et l’entrée en vigueur de la loi relative au statut juridique externe des personnes condamnées.
        A l’heure actuelle, les compétences en matière d’exécution des peines privatives de liberté se partagent entre le ministère public, le ministre de la justice et son administration et les tribunaux de l’application des peines.

        La création des tribunaux de l’application des peines s’est accompagnée de la création d’un parquet spécialisé : des substituts du procureur du Roi spécialisés en application des peines ont en effet été désignés dans les parquets près les tribunaux de première instance situés au siège des cours d’appel.

        La constitution définit les droits de toute personne se trouvant sur le territoire national ; la catégorie des « détenus » ne fait l’objet d’aucune disposition constitutionnelle spécifique ; leurs droits fondamentaux doivent dès lors être déterminés à partir des droits fondamentaux reconnus à tout citoyen.
        Pour chacun d’eux, il s’agit de savoir dans quelle mesure la situation de détention justifie que des restrictions y soient apportées.
        La peine d’emprisonnement ne doit donc consister qu’en une privation de liberté.
        Les droits tels la liberté d’expression, le maintien des relations familiales ou de liberté de culte ne peuvent donc être limités par le simple prononcé de la peine de prison.

        C’est au ministère public qu’il appartient de décider de mettre à exécution les condamnations pénales (articles 165, 197 et 376 du code d’instruction criminelle).
        A cet effet, chaque parquet (de police, de première instance et près la cour d’appel) comporte en son sein un « service d’exécution des peines ».
        L’exécution proprement dite des peines ne relève, en revanche, pas des attributions du parquet mais est confiée directement au ministre de la justice et à son administration.
        En raison du principe de la séparation des pouvoirs, une nouvelle intervention du pouvoir judiciaire, à savoir des tribunaux de l’application des peines, est nécessaire pour toutes les décisions qui modifient de manière substantielle la nature ou la durée de peines qui excèdent trois ans.

        Question 2 :

        Le procureur du Roi peut faire procéder à l’arrestation d’une personne s’il existe à son égard des indices sérieux de culpabilité relatifs à un crime ou un délit.
        Cette décision d’arrestation est immédiatement notifiée à l’intéressé.
        Si celui-ci tente de fuir, des mesures conservatoires peuvent être prises par les agents de la force publique dans l’attente de la décision du magistrat. (article 2 de la loi du 20 juillet 1990 sur la détention préventive).
        La privation de liberté doit cesser dès qu’elle n’est plus nécessaire et, en aucun cas, la durée ne peut excéder 24 heures à partir du moment où la personne ne dispose plus de la liberté d’aller et de venir (article 12 Constitution et articles 1 et 2 de la loi du 20 juillet 1990).

        En matière d’exécution des peines, le ministère public qui prend la décision de mettre une peine à exécution fera adresser au condamné un billet d’écrou lui enjoignant de se présenter à une date indiquée dans l’établissement pénitentiaire désigné pour y subir sa peine.
        Si le condamné ne s’y conforme pas, le ministère public délivrera une ordonnance de capture permettant l’arrestation du condamné par la force publique.
        Si celui-ci n’a pas de domicile, le ministère public demandera l’insertion d’un signalement au Bulletin Central des Signalements (B.C.S.) et sera averti en cas d’interception.

        Le ministère public peut, par ailleurs, requérir une décision d’arrestation immédiate lors du prononcé de la peine lorsque la juridiction condamne un prévenu ou accusé comparaissant libre à un emprisonnement principal d’un an ou à une peine plus grave sans sursis s’il y a lieu de craindre qu’il ne tente de se soustraire à l’exécution de la peine (article 33 § 2 al. 1er loi sur la détention préventive du 20 juillet 1990).
        L’exécution est alors immédiate sans nécessiter de billet d’écrou.

        D’après la loi relative au statut juridique externe, ce sont les procureurs du Roi près le tribunal dans le ressort duquel le condamné se trouve qui sont chargés de procéder, le cas échéant, à l’arrestation provisoire des condamnés en permission de sortie, congé pénitentiaire ou interruption de l’exécution de la peine qui mettent gravement en péril l’intégrité physique ou psychique de tiers (articles 14 et 19), de même qu’à celle des condamnés bénéficiant d’une détention limitée, d’une surveillance électronique, d’une libération conditionnelle ou d’une mise en liberté provisoire en vue de l’éloignement du territoire ou de la remise, dans les cas pouvant donner lieu à révocation de ces mesures (article 70).

        En matière pénitentiaire,
        La compétence du ministère public s’arrête aux portes des prisons.
        Il a toutefois le pouvoir d’inscrire des peines en recommandation pour exécution de nouvelles peines à charge de personnes déjà détenues.

        Questions 3 et 4 :

        Le Procureur du Roi dispose, sans avoir de compétence générale, de différents moyens d’action tels :

          - le pouvoir de faire cesser toute arrestation et/ou toute détention illégale si celle-ci constitue une infraction en droit belge,
          - la possibilité d’examiner régulièrement les dossiers de détention préventive aux fins de prendre toute réquisition utile devant le juge d’instruction,
          - la compétence d’avis pour différentes modalités d’exécution de peines (requêtes en grâce, libérations conditionnelles, …),
          - la possibilité de visiter les prisons lorsqu’il l’estime opportun,
          - la possibilité de recevoir la correspondance de détenus sans que celle-ci ne soit interceptée,
          - l’intervention suite au rapports du Comité européen pour la prévention de la torture.

        Question 5 :

        Le statut d’indépendance du ministère public conféré par l’article 151 de la Constitution lui permet d’exécuter ses missions de façon autonome, sans craindre l’interférence d’autres structures : étatiques telle l’administration pénitentiaire, politiques tel le ministre de la justice ou privées.

        De par les missions légales qui lui sont confiées, le Procureur du Roi dispose de la globalité des informations pertinentes en matière de protection des droits de l’homme.
        Le Procureur du Roi a connaissance et accès à l’ensemble des dossiers répressifs ouverts en Belgique.
        Et d’autre part, il participe à des structures de concertation avec la police et d’autres acteurs susceptibles de recueillir des plaintes de détenus.

        Question 6 :

        En l’état actuel du droit, la loi de principes, la loi instaurant des tribunaux de l’application des peines et celle relative au statut juridique externe ne sont encore entrés en vigueur que de manière partielle.
        En effet, doivent encore entrer en vigueur à ce jour, toutes les dispositions légales relatives aux compétences du juge de l’application des peines statuant comme juge unique à l’égard des condamnés à une ou plusieurs peines privatives de liberté dont la partie à exécuter n’excède pas trois ans.

        La mise en œuvre et la plus-value d’un service d’audit externe, composé notamment d’un membre du ministère public, qui contrôlerait et évaluerait la situation des prisons pourrait également être envisagé.

        Question 7 :

        Toute détention nécessite titre de détention et le ministère public est un des organes chargés du contrôle de la légalité de ces titres.
        Par ailleurs, il a la mission légale de rechercher et de poursuivre les infractions aux rangs desquels figurent notamment la détention et l’arrestation illégale, le traitement inhumain et dégradant, les tortures, les coups et blessures volontaires, la privation d’aliments….

        Question 8 :

        Le Procureur du Roi donnera mission à un officier de police judiciaire de procéder à l’audition de ces détenus.

        Question 9 :

        Le Procureur du Roi ne détient pas cette compétence qui appartient au Ministre de la justice et à d’autres administrations.

        Depuis 2003, la mission de surveillance des prisons belges est confiée à un Conseil central de surveillance pénitentiaire ainsi qu’à diverses commissions de surveillance instituées auprès de chaque prison.

        Le Conseil central de surveillance pénitentiaire a pour missions principales d’exercer un contrôle indépendant sur tout ce qui concerne le traitement réservé aux détenus et le respect des règles en la matière, de rendre des avis au ministre de la justice sur l’exécution des peines et mesures privatives de liberté et de rédiger annuellement un rapport concernant le fonctionnement des commissions de surveillance et leurs constatations sur tout ce qui concerne le traitement réservé aux détenus et le respect des règles en la matière.

        Les commissions de surveillance ont, quant à elles, pour mission d’exercer un contrôle sur tout ce qui concerne le traitement réservé aux détenus et le respect des règles en la matière dans la prison auprès de laquelle elles sont instituées, de rédiger annuellement un rapport sur ces questions à l’adresse du Conseil central de surveillance pénitentiaire et de soumettre à celui-ci et au ministre de la justice des avis, informations ou propositions relativement à la prison pour laquelle elles sont compétentes.

        Question 10 :

        Toute négligence constitutive d’infraction pénale sera poursuivie par le ministère public.

        Les sanctions disciplinaires relèvent, quant à elles, de la compétence des directeurs de prisons.

        Question 11 :

        Le procureur a la faculté de visiter les lieux de détention et de rétention mais cela ne relève pas d’une obligation légale.

        Question 12 :

        Oui, le Procureur du Roi peut intervenir à tout moment dans les lieux de détention et rétention dans le cadre de son pouvoir d’inspection.

        Question 13 :

        Dans le cadre de poursuites pénales, le procureur a effectivement la faculté de recourir à des experts.
        Hors ce cadre, les honoraires de ceux-ci ne pourraient être pris en charge.

        Question 14 :

        Le Procureur du Roi enquêtera lui-même ou par le biais d’officiers de police judiciaire auxquels il donnera des missions spécifiques de recherche de la manifestation de la vérité.
        Dans les cas les plus graves, un juge d’instruction pourra être saisi des faits dénoncés.

        Si les faits ne sont pas constitutifs d’infractions pénales, le Procureur du Roi a la faculté de dénoncer ceux-ci à l’autorité disciplinaire dont dépendent les agents concernés.

        Question 15 :

        Le Procureur du Roi mène l’information pénale et met, le cas échéant, le dossier à l’instruction si la gravité des faits le requiert.
        Ce sont les procédures de droit commun qui trouvent à s’appliquer.

        Question 16 :

        Non, le procureur n’a pas de pouvoir d’intervention.

        Question 17 :

        Oui, le statut d’indépendance du ministère public lui permet d’exécuter ses missions de façon autonome.
        Le ministère public est cependant un corps hiérarchisé. Le pouvoir d’injonction positive existe à la différence de l’injonction négative.
        Certaines décisions du tribunal de l’application des peines sont susceptibles de pourvoi en cassation par le ministère public – art 96 de la loi du 17 mai 2006 relative au statut externe.

        Question 18 :

        En ce qui concerne les grâces, le procureur fournit un rapport détaillé et un avis motivé sur les requêtes.
        La grâce est une prérogative royale.
        Toute condamnation pénale définitive prononcée par une juridiction peut faire l’objet d’un recours en grâce conformément à l’article 110 de la Constitution.
        La mesure porte sur l’exécution de la peine et non sur la condamnation qui subsiste intégralement et reste mentionnée au casier judiciaire pouvant servir de base à une éventuelle récidive.

        L’amnistie relève, quant à elle, du pouvoir législatif.
        Elle supprime le caractère infractionnel de certains faits.

        En matière de libération des personnes, le tribunal de l’application des peines, pour les condamnés à plus de 3 ans, rend ses décisions sur base des avis rendus par le ministère public.

        Le ministère public a la faculté de demander des rectifications de casiers judiciaires en cas de non-conformité de ceux-ci aux décisions de justice.

        Question 19 :

        Une formation spécifique préalable est indispensable à une nomination comme magistrat du ministère public au tribunal de l’application des peines.

        Question 20 :

        Le ministère public spécialisé assure, en vertu de l’article 62 de la loi relative au statut juridique externe, le contrôle des condamnés bénéficiant d’une modalité d’exécution décidée par le tribunal.
        A cette fin, il est avisé du contenu des décisions du tribunal de l’application des peines et reçoit copies de tous les rapports des maisons de justice et du Centre national de surveillance électronique. Cela lui permet d’être au courant de l’évolution des situations et de prendre, le cas échéant, les réquisitions utiles auprès du tribunal de l’application des peines.
        Il peut :

          - lorsque le jugement est rendu mais non encore exécuté, requérir du juge de l’application des peines un retrait ou une modification de la mesure prise par le tribunal en cas d’incompatibilité de la situation avec la décision rendue (ex. : formation à suivre supprimée, plus de disponibilité dans le milieu d’accueil, ….) – article 61 loi du 17 mai 2006 relative au statut juridique externe des personnes condamnées à une peine privative de liberté ;
          - en cours de mesure, demander la suspension, la précision ou l’adaptation pour adaptation aux circonstances d’une condition du jugement (ex. : suppression de la condition de suivi psychologique quand le thérapeute estime qu’il n’y a plus lieu à poursuivre) – article 63 loi du 17 mai 2006 ;
          - en cas de non respect de la mesure, saisir le juge de l’application des peines en vue de la révocation de celle-ci – article 64 loi du 17 mai 2006.

          Dans les cas pouvant donner lieu à révocation, le ministère public peut donner ordre d’arrestation provisoire en cas de fait grave nécessitant une privation de liberté immédiate ; l’individu est alors renvoyé en prison, le tribunal d’application des peines a 7 jours pour rendre une ordonnance levant la mesure d’arrestation provisoire ou prenant une mesure pour un mois au cours duquel une audience devra être tenue

          Les autres compétences du ministère public sont des compétences d’avis.
          Il intervient par voie d’avis écrits motivés et/ou par réquisitions verbales à l’audience pour toutes les décisions susceptibles d’être prises par le TAP.

        Question 21 :

        Le ministère public près le tribunal de l’application des peines est en contact avec les maisons de justice chargées du contrôle des obligations imposées par le TAP.
        Les services de police vérifient, quant à eux, le respect des interdictions prononcées par le même tribunal de l’application des peines.
        Le ministère public est en contact avec les services de police pour le suivi des détentions limitées et des surveillances électroniques.

        Le collège des procureurs généraux travaille actuellement à la rédaction d’une circulaire visant à régir le flux d’informations entre les différents intervenants.

BULGARIA

        English


        Français

        Remarks / Бележки

        Remarques

        This questionnaire is addressed to prosecutors and the member of the CCPE of each State shall be responsible for collecting of replies.

        Този въпросник е адресиран до прокурорите и членовете на ССРЕ са отговорни за събирането на отговори.

        In some States, prosecutors have only reduced powers within matters of prison administration. Some States will therefore not be able to reply to all questions.

        В някои държави прокурорите имат ограничени правомощия по отношение на пенитенциарната (затворническа) администрация. Поради това някои държави няма да бъдат в състояние да отговорят на всички въпроси.

        It will not be implied from the fact that this questionnaire was answered that prosecutors shall have a role in this matter.

        От самото попълване на въпросника няма да се подразбира, че прокурорите имат решаваща роля по тази тема.

        The scope of the questionnaire is identical to that of Recommendation Rec(2006)2 (see para.10): this questionnaire concerns any person deprived of liberty, in any form whatsoever and not strictly the person detained in a prison.

        Обхватът на въпросника е идентичен с този на Препоръка (2006)2 – вж. § 10: въпросникът касае всяко лице, на което е ограничена свободата под каквато и да е форма, и не касае само лицата, които са задържани в затвор.

        This questionnaire does not concern the enforcement of sanctions in general but is limited to the prosecutor’s supervision of the legality of the enforcement of sanctions.
        Въпросникът не касае изпълнението на наказния генерално, а е съсредоточен върху прокурорския надзор за законност при изпълнението на наказания

        Ce questionnaire s’adresse aux procureurs et le membre du CCPE au titre de chaque Etat est responsable de la collecte des réponses.

        Dans certains Etats, les procureurs ont peu de compétences en matière d’administration pénitentiaire. Certains Etats ne pourront donc pas répondre à toutes les questions.

        Le fait de répondre à ce questionnaire ne sous-entend pas que les procureurs doivent avoir un rôle en la matière.

        Le champ d’application du questionnaire est le même que celui de la Recommandation Rec(2006)2 (voir para.10) : ce questionnaire concerne toute personne privée de liberté, sous quelque forme que ce soit, et non simplement de la personne détenue dans un établissement pénitentiaire.

        Ce questionnaire ne concerne pas l’exécution des sanctions de manière générale et se limite au contrôle de la légalité de l’exécution des sanctions par le procureur.

        Question 2

        What are the Prosecution Service’s powers regarding prison matters and in terms of deprivation of liberty?

        Какви са правомощията на прокуратурата, касаещи пенитенциарни въпроси и ограничаването на свободи?

        According to the Bulgarian legislation the Prosecution is the authority, which exercise supervision for observation of legality at execution of the penalties and the other measures of procedural compulsion. The Prosecution possesses comparatively broad powers on the penitentiary matters, including:
        1. The Prosecutor executes the penalty for deprivation of liberty, by ordering the detention of the person and his/her taking away to the prison and sends to the penitentiary body the effective verdict.
        2. The administrative heads of the first-instance Prosecutor’s Offices are empowered to defer the execution of the penalties for deprivation of liberty on indicated grounds by the law for a certain period of time.
        3. The administrative heads of the District Prosecutor’s Offices are empowered to terminate the execution of already started serving of penalty for deprivation of liberty on indicated grounds by the law for a certain period of time.
        4. The Prosecutor is authorized to perform detached inspections of the activity of the penitentiary administration, to become acquainted with all documents, to meet in private with prisoners, to consider their signals, complaints and requests in connection with the serving of the penalty and to order to the administration of the places for deprivation of liberty and execution of other compulsory measures to inform him/her about certain actions, acts and events.
        5. At ascertained violation the prosecutor may immediately release anybody illegally seized in the places for deprivation of liberty, may issue written order for removal of the violations and may suspend the execution of illegal acts of the officials, by requesting their overturning.

        1.

        Question 3

        In States where prosecutors do not have full authority in prison matters, what are nevertheless their means of action used as regards prisons ?

        В държавите, в които прокурорът няма пълни правомощия по пенитенциарни въпроси, какви са въпреки всичко техните средства за намеса спрямо дейността на затворите?

        The question is not relevant to the legal system of the Republic of Bulgaria. See the answer to the question № 1.

        Dans les Etats dans lesquels les procureurs n’ont pas de compétence générale en matière de prisons, quels sont néanmoins les moyens d’action dont ils disposent concernant les systèmes pénitentiaires ?

        Question 4

        If prosecutors have general competences as regard prisons and detention, what kind of means have been provided to the Prosecution Service to allow its effective and fast action towards protecting human rights in matters of prison administration?

        Ако прокурорите имат генерална компетентност спрямо дейността на затворите и арестите, от какво естество са предоставените им средства (правомощия), които им позволяват ефективни и бързи действия, насочени към защита на човешките права в областта на затворното дело?

        The prosecutor issues within the framework of his/her competences rulings and dispositions, which are mandatory for execution by the state authorities and the officials. The guilty failure to execute his/her acts by them is considered a breach of their office and may lead to imposition of fine by the prosecutor himself/herself (in his capacity as a body of the judicial authority) or of a disciplinary punishment imposed by the head of the administration.

        Si les procureurs sont compétents en matière de prisons et de détention, quels sont les moyens à disposition du Ministère public pour lui permettre d’agir efficacement et rapidement pour protéger les droits de l’homme en matière d’administration pénitentiaire ?

        Question 5

        What are the positive and decisive elements of the prosecutor’s role in terms of protecting Human rights compared to other mechanisms of legal protection?

        Кои са позитивните и ключови (решаващи) елементи в ролята на прокурора по защита на човешките права – в сравнение с други механизми на законова защита?

        By our opinion the advantages of the prosecutor’s role in terms of protecting Human rights compared to other mechanisms of legal protection, are:

          1. There exists tradition and experience of the Prosecutor’s activity on the supervision of the execution of the penalties and the compulsory measures.
          2. Independency of the executive authority, which bodies are engaged with the detention of persons and execution of the penalty for deprivation of liberty and the other compulsory measures.
          3. Opportunities for urgent intervention and issue of mandatory orders, which cannot be appealed by the penitentiary administration. The eventual revision of the prosecutor’s acts is available through the instance control of the superior prosecutor.

        Quels sont les éléments positifs et déterminants du rôle du procureur en matière de protection des droits de l’homme, par rapport aux autres mécanismes de protection juridique ?

        Question 6

        What could be the improvements to this system of protection?

        Какви биха могли да бъдат подобренията на системата за защита на човешките права?

          1. In the Republic of Bulgaria the main concern about the Human rights of the prisoners comes from the lack of budget resources and infrastructure to assure the exigible standard of life. The Prosecution has no possibilities to influence for a better financing and improvement of the infrastructure.
          2. Out of the main problem under item 1, it would be appropriate to be widened the scope of the judicial control on the acts of the administration and the decisions of first-instance courts on matters, related to the execution of penalties.

        Quels sont les améliorations qui pourraient être apportées à ce système de protection ?

        Question 7

        Do prosecutors have jurisdiction to examine whether the rights (Human rights and especially procedural rights) of persons in criminal (for example as regards enforcement of prison sentences or pre-trial detention) or administrative detention are respected at the detention centre?

        Имат ли прокурорите юрисдикция (правомощия) да проверяват дали в мястото за задържане са спазени правата (човешите права и по-специално процесуалните права) на лица, които са задържани във връзка с наказателен процес (при изпълнение на присъди или предварително задържане) или в изпълнение на административен акт?

        Yes, and this is a part of their general competence on exercising the supervision on the execution of the penalties and the compulsory measures. See the answer to the question №2.

        Le procureur a-t-il compétence pour examiner si les droits (droits de l’homme et en particulier droits procéduraux) des personnes détenues ou retenues (par exemple en matière d’exécution de peines de prison ou de détention provisoire) sont respectés au centre de détention?

        Question 8

        Can a prisoner meet in private with a prosecutor to determine whether they had been subjected to torture or to any other inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment?

        Може ли затворник да се срещне насаме с прокурор, за да се установи дали е бил подложен на мъчение или друго нечовешко или унизително третиране?

        Yes, the competence is explicitly stipulated in Article 146, Paragraph 1, Item 2 of the Law on Judiciary. See the answer to the question №2.

        Les détenus peuvent-ils avoir une entrevue en tête-à-tête avec le procureur pour savoir s’ils ont été exposés à un acte de torture ou à tout autre peine ou traitement inhumain ou dégradant ?

        Question 9

        Do prosecutors examine, and if so, how frequently, whether the accommodation provided to prisoners meet the recommendations of the Council of Europe (and namely of the European Committee for the prevention of Torture/CPT2? Can prosecutors make proposals in that direction which have an influence on the relevant budget ?

        Прокурорите проверяват ли, и ако да – колко често, дали условията за настаняване на затворници отговарят на препоръките на Съвета на Европа (а именно на европейския комитет за предотвратяване на изтезанията). Могат ли прокурорите да правят предложения в тази посока и да повлияят предвидения за това бюджет?

        Yes. The intensity of the prosecutor’s monitoring visits in the prisons and arrests is regulated with internal directions, issued by the Supreme Cassation Prosecutor’s Office. Arrests (places for preliminary detention of accused persons on pending investigations) are visited at least once per week. The monitoring visits in the prisons (the places for accommodation of convicted persons and persons under trial) are carried out once per month.
        The prosecutors carry out monitoring visits emphasizing on the guarantee of the lawful status of the deprived of liberty – rhythm of the meetings with the investigating body, the use of the right of visits, correspondence, meetings with the defender, etc. Examined are also the conditions of accommodation, as the prosecutor may give recommendations, proposals and dispositions, with regard to the lawful treatment of the deprived of liberty, conformable to the infrastructural and budget possibilities.
        The prosecutors can not influence the provided budget for activities of the institutions for execution of penalties and other compulsive measures.

        Le procureur examine-t-il, le cas échéant à quelle fréquence, si l’hébergement des détenus respecte les recommandations du Conseil de l’Europe (et en particulier du Comité européen pour la prévention de la torture/CPT)1 ?
        Le procureur peut-il faire des propositions en ce sens ayant une influence sur le budget concerné ?

        Question 10

        What kind of means exist for prosecutors to deal with authorities or officers/employees which have not completely or properly enforced the decisions of the court or the Prosecution Service related to punishments and/or measures involving deprivation of liberty? If a prosecutor detects such negligence, is he entitled to give binding instructions for the immediate termination of the breach of law? Is it in their power to initiate criminal or disciplinary proceedings, actions for damages or any other kind of impeachment? What other prosecutorial instruments are at his disposal ?

        Какъв тип средства съществуват за прокурорите, за да се справят със служители, които не напълно или неправилно изпълняват решенията на съда или прокуратурата, свързани с наказанието или изпълнението на мерки, изискващи ограничаването на свобода? Ако прокурорът установи такива пропуски, опровомощен ли е той да издаде обвързващи указания за незабавно прекратяване на закононарушение? Имат ли власт прокурорите да инициират наказателно или дисциплинарно производство, искове за обезвреда или друг вид импийчмънт (не знам как да го преведа по-добре) спрямо служителя. Какви други прокурорски инструменти са на разположение?

        The Prosecution has the possibility to react to the unlawful acts of the officials during the execution of the penalty and the compulsory measures in two aspects:

          1. As an authority of supervision on the legality of the execution of compulsory measures, the competent prosecutor may:

              - give mandatory dispositions in writing for removal of established by him/her factual infringement of the law
              - if there exists an issued formal act – an order or disposition of a competent authority, which is unlawful, the prosecutor may suspend its execution and may request its overturning according to the relevant order (before the court or by the superior administrative body).
              - may refer to the relevant disciplinary body and request its consideration.

        2. As an authority of the State prosecution and if assesses, that the infringement presents the signs of a crime, the competent prosecutor may initiate a criminal proceeding against the guilty person and may involve him/her in the capacity of accused with all consequences following from this act. For certain offences it is possible the prosecutor to request for the removal of the defendant from office as a form of procedural compulsion.

        De quels moyens dispose le procureur à l’encontre des autorités ou agents qui n’exécutent pas complètement ou correctement les décisions du tribunal ou du procureur concernant les sanctions et/ou les mesures privatives de liberté ? Si le procureur détecte une négligence, peut-il donner des instructions contraignantes visant à faire cesser immédiatement l’infraction à la loi ? Peut-il initier une procédure pénale ou disciplinaire, une action en réparation ou tout autre type d’action en contestation ? Quels sont les autres instruments d’action publique à sa disposition ?

        Question 11

        How often do prosecutors carry out monitoring visits of institutions of criminal and administrative detention? Are there concrete follow-ups related to these visits?

        Колко често прокурорите осъществяват мониторингови визити в институциите за наказателно или административно задържане? Има ли конкретни последици, свързани с тези визити?

        The frequency of the monitoring visits is clarified by the answer to question № 9. From it follows concrete consequences. Exactly at his/her monitoring visits in the prisons and the arrests, the prosecutor may find out violations and grounds for intervention, which lead to the issuing of mandatory dispositions with regard to the penitentiary body.

        Quelle est la fréquence des visites de contrôle du procureur dans les lieux de détention et de rétention ? Ces visites peuvent-elles faire l’objet d’un suivi concret ?

        Question 12

        Within the framework of their monitoring duties, do prosecutors have the power to take action at any time of the day (even at night) in the institutions of criminal and administrative detention?

        В рамките на своите надзорни (мониторингови) задължения, имат ли прокурорите право да извършват действия по всяко време на деня (дори нощем) в институциите за наказателно или административно задържане?

        Yes. The prosecutor, who is assigned to carry out monitoring duties on the activity of the penitentiary bodies, has the right of access to the institutions at any time and the administration of the prison is obliged to fulfill his/her dispositions, with regard to the observation of the rules for execution of the penalty. This competence is regulated in Article 5of the Law on Execution of Penalties and Detention.

        Le procureur a-t-il la possibilité d’intervenir à toute heure (même la nuit) dans le lieu de détention et de rétention dans le cadre de sa tâche d’inspection?

        Question 13

        May prosecutors commission experts to assist them in their tasks related to supervision and inspection?

        Могат ли експерти да подпомагат прокурорите в изпълнението на задачите им по супервизии и инспекции?

        The prosecutor may at his/her own discretion involve experts from other spheres in the exercising of the supervision on the activity of the penitentiary body.

        Pour leurs tâches de contrôle et d’inspection, les procureurs ont-ils la possibilité de recourir à des experts ?

        Question 14

        Are complaints and/or denunciations regarding criminal and administrative detention subject to prosecutorial inquiry independently of any relevant authority or employees/officers? Is it a prosecutor’s duty to complete investigations himself/herself or is he/she allowed to forward these complaints for investigation to the officers/employees that are the subject of those complaints?

        Има ли оплаквания и/или изобличения, отнасящи се наказателно или административно задържане, които са обект на прокурорски разследвания (проверки), независими спрямо компетентните пенитeнциарни власти или служители. Задължение на прокурора ли е да приключи разследването сам, или той има право да препрати оплакванията за разследване към органите/служителите, срещу които са тези оплаквания?

        Yes. There are cases, in which the complaints for infringements at the detention and execution of penalties or other compulsory measures are subject to prosecutorial inquiry and investigations by the prosecutor. The prosecutor has the right to perform the inquiry and the investigation by himself/herself, or to assign it to investigating body – most often to investigating police officer. The administration on the execution of the penalty and the compulsory measures and the police in Bulgaria are bodies of different ministries ( Ministry of Justice and Ministry of Interior) and are independent from each other.

        Les plaintes et/ou dénonciations concernant la détention et la rétention font-elles l’objet d’investigations par le procureur, indépendamment des autorités ou des agents concernés?Le procureur a-t-il le devoir d’enquêter lui-même ou peut-il transmettre les plaintes pour enquête aux agents qui sont l’objet de la plainte ?

        Question 15

        In case of sudden death, accident or criminal offence committed against a prisoner, or if a prisoner commits a crime against another prisoner or a prison staff member, is the investigation conducted by a prosecutor acting as an independent judicial authority or is it simply supervised by a prosecutor? Do prosecutors have any role in investigations?

        В случай на внезапна смърт, инцидент или криминално деяние, извършено спрямо затворник, или ако затворник извърши престъпление спрямо друго затворник или служител на затвора, разследването ръководи ли се от прокурор като независим юридически орган, или просто се супервизира от прокурор. Имат ли прокурорите някаква роля в разследванията?

        Еach case of sudden death, severe accident or criminal act, that result injury to the health of a prisoner, or an offence, committed against a prisoner, is a subject of investigation. The prosecutor is the supreme guiding body of this investigation. He/she may perform it alone or may assign it to an investigating police officer or an investigating magistrate. The directions of the investigation are determined by the prosecutor, who rules or co-ordinates the involvement of the accused and takes decision whether to bring the defendant to the court, to discontinue or suspend the criminal proceeding.

        En cas de décès subit, d’accident ou d’infraction pénale à l’encontre du détenu, ou si celui-ci commet un crime à l’encontre d’un autre détenu ou d’un agent de l’administration pénitentiaire, l’affaire est-elle instruite par le procureur en tant qu’instance judiciaire indépendante ou est-elle simplement contrôlée par le procureur ? Les procureurs ont-ils un rôle quelconque dans l’enquête ?

        Question 16

        Are prosecutors entitled to take action in procedures concerning the adoption/revocation of special measures for high risk detaineed or subject to special restrictions in connection with their role and position in active criminal organizations ? If so, how?
        Оправомощени ли са прокурорите да предприемат действия в процедури, касаещи предприемането на специални мерки спрямо затворници, които представляват висок риск или са подложени на специални рестрикции във връзка с тяхната роля и позиция в активни престъпни организации. Ако е така, как става това?

        1. The administrative head of the District Prosecutor’s Office at the location of the prison is empowered to request from the court a substitution of the regime for execution of the penalty for a heavier type with regard to dangerous prisoners or prisoners in offence.

          2. A prosecutor from the District Prosecutor’s Office participates in the Commission on execution of penalties at each prison, which takes decisions with regard to dangerous prisoners or prisoners in offence for:

              - substitution of the regime for execution of the penalty for a heavier type and taking away out the convicted person to a prisoners institution of a heavier type (at certain conditions);
              - submission of a request to the court for substitution of the regime for execution of the penalty for a heavier type and taking away out the convicted person to a prisoners institution of a heavier type.

          3. The prosecutor participates in the hearings before the court, in connection with aggravating the conditions for execution of the penalties.

        The imposition of disciplinary punishments with regard to prisoners, who perform violations, including their isolation in a penal cell, is within the powers of the administrative head of the prison, whose orders are subject of appeal before the court.

        Le procureur peut-il intervenir, et le cas échéant de quelle manière, dans des procédures concernant l’adoption/la révocation de mesures spéciales pour les détenus à haut risque ou soumis à des restrictions spécifiques en raison de leur rôle et leur position dans les organisations criminelles actives ?

        Question 17

        With a view to preserving them from any type of influence, are prosecutors autonomous or subordinated to other colleagues when monitoring the detention’s legality?

        С оглед предпазването им от всякакъв тип влияние, прокурорите автономни ли са, или са подчинени на свои колеги, когато осъществяват надзор (мониторинг) относно законността на задържането?

          1. The Prosecutor’s Office of the Republic of Bulgaria according to the Constitution is an unified and centralized system, within which all prosecutors are subordinated to the Prosecutor General. The issued prosecutorial acts, that are not a subject of appeal before the court, may be revised and revoked by a prosecutor superior in office, who is competent to perform actions of the competence of the prosecutors subordinate to him/her or to give him/her mandatory directions.

          2. While performing his/her concrete powers, including those regarding the supervision on the execution of the penalties and the other compulsory measures, the prosecutor is guided by his/her own internal discretion and the law. In this meaning his/her autonomy at exercising of original competence is guaranteed.

        Afin de les protéger contre toute forme d’influence, les procureurs exercent-ils de manière autonome le contrôle de la légalité de la détention ou sont-ils subordonnés à d’autres collègues?

        Question 18

        Is a prosecutor involved in granting a person’s pardon, amnesty or release, especially in the case of negative effects resulting from the punishment? Do prosecutors supervise criminal records?

        Прокурорът участва ли в даването на помилване, амнистия или предсрочно освобождаване, особено в случай на негативни резултати от наказанието. Прокурорът супервизира ли (проверява ли) криминалното досие?(

        1. The court pronounces on proposals for release ahead of term of a prisoner only by a proposal of the District prosecutor or of the Commission on execution of penalties, which is established at each prison. At both cases a prosecutor participates in the court hearings, gives his/her conclusions and is entitled to submit a challenge against the judicial act.
        2. At the sessions of the Commission on execution of penalties participates a prosecutor, who presents opinion on the requests for release ahead of the term. The prosecutor is not entitled to vote.

        Les procureurs participent-ils au processus de grâce, d’amnistie ou de libération des personnes notamment en cas d’effets négatifs de la sanction ? Les procureurs contrôlent-ils les casiers judiciaires ?

        Question 19

        Are special qualifications and training required of prosecutors who carry out duties in matters of criminal and administrative detention? Please specify.

        Изискват ли се специални квалификации и обучение за прокурора, който изпълнява задълженията си в областта на наказателното и административно задържане?

        There is no preliminary requirement for a special qualification and training of the prosecutors, responsible for the supervision on the execution of the penalties and the other compulsory measures. After being assigned to work in this field, the prosecutors are granted with additional training within the framework of the institution. Some of the powers in this sphere are assigned only for the administrative heads of prosecutor’s offices.

        Les procureurs bénéficient-ils de qualifications et formations spéciales pour l’accomplissement de leurs tâches en matière de détention et de rétention des personnes? Veuillez préciser.

        Question 20

        What acts (presentation of conclusions, attend hearings, appeal against court decisions) are prosecutors entitled to carry out during proceedings before judges with jurisdiction over the enforcement of sentences/surveillance judges (“juges de l’application des peines”), in states where such judge exists?

        Какви актове (представяне на заключения, участие в производство, жалби срещу съдебни решения) са оправомощени да издават прокурорите по време на процедурите пред съдиите с юрисдикция върху изпълнението на санкциите (съдиите по изпълнение на наказанието) – в страните, където има такива съдии?

        There are no specialized judges in the Republic of Bulgaria on execution of penalties. The proceedings with regard to execution of penalties are considered by the District court in the place of the location of the prison or the probation service.

        In states where such a judge does not exist, what acts (release on probation, subsequent alteration of the detention’s enforcement scheme, further restriction of a detainee’s rights, placement in solitary confinement, disciplinary punishment, and so on) are prosecutors entitled to carry out as regards court decisions?

        В страните, където няма такива съдии, какви актове са оправомощени да издават прокурорите, касаещи освобождаването с пробационни мерки, допълнителни изменения на плана за изпълнение на наказанието, последващо утежняване на рестрикциите върху правата на задържания/осъдения, преместване в самостоятелен затвор (не съм сигурен в превода – вероятно се има предвид изолиране в наказателна килия) и относими към съдебните решения?

        The competences of the prosecutor in the court proceedings in connection with execution of penalties, are:
        1. Referring to the court proposals for:
        - aggravation of the regime for execution of the penalty in relation to prisoners in offence;
        - release ahead of the term;
        - substitution of probation penalty for imprisonment penalty;
        - substitution of life imprisonment penalty for imprisonment penalty;
        2. Participation in all above indicated court proceedings by giving conclusions and affording the opportunity to submit evidence and requests.
        3. Submission of a challenge before the Court Instance of Appeal against the pronounced judicial acts.

        Quelles sont les types d’action (présentation de conclusions, présence à l’audience, appel contre la décision) que le procureur peut accomplir durant la procédure devant le juge d’application des peines, dans les Etats où un tel juge existe?

        Dans les Etats dans lesquels un tel juge n’existe pas, quels sont les actes que peut faire un procureur concernant la décision judiciaire (libération avec mise à l’épreuve, modification postérieure du régine d’exécution de la détention, renforcement des restrictions des droits des détenus, placement en isolement/confinement, sanction disciplinaire, etc.) ?

        Question 21

        When monitoring the enforcement of punishments, do public prosecutors interact with the ombudsman or any other organisation linked to or charged with controlling the enforcement of punishments? If so, what type of interactions are they? Could you give the names of these organisations, whether they be institutional or not, and explain briefly their roles?

        Когато наблюдават изпълнението на наказанията, прокурорите взаимодействат ли с омбудсмана или други организации, свързани или натоварени с контрол върху изпълнението на наказанията? Ако е така, за какъв тип взаимодействия става въпрос? Бихте дали наименованията на тези организации, дали се касае за институции или не, като обясните накратко техните роли?
        The main partners of the prosecutors (The Supreme Cassation Prosecutor’s office) in the activity on enforcement of penalties, are:

              - The Execution of Penalty Chief Directorate within the Ministry of Justice – a centralized state body, within the system of which are all penitentiary institutions. It exercises operative, controlling and methodological functions.
              - Council of Execution of Penalties at the Ministry of Justice – a collective inter-institutional state body. In its staff participate representatives of ministries, magistrates and non-governmental organizations, as well as a representative of the Supreme Cassation prosecutor’s Office. The Council has scientific research, methodological and training functions and prepares projects of legal acts in relation to execution of penalties.
              - The national Ombudsman – a public body with powers to monitor complaints and reports for violated rights by the activity of the administration bodies and to refer to the Prosecution.
              - Non-governmental organizations in the field of protection of Human rights – the Bulgarian Helsinki Committee – on projects for research and improvement of the conditions for the treatment of persons, placed involuntary in institutions.

        Le procureur qui contrôle l’exécution des sanctions a-t-il des relations, le cas échéant de quels types, avec le médiateur ou d’autres organisations liées au ou chargées du contrôle de l’exécution des sanctions? Pouvez-vous citer ces organisations, institutionnelles ou non, et expliquer brièvement leur rôle ?

        Question 22

        Could you give other useful information to the preparation of the draft Opinion (relevant questions to add, documents, etc)?

        Pouvez-vous fournir d’autres informations que vous jugez utile à la préparation du projet d’Avis (questions pertinentes à évoquer, documents, etc.) ?

        CROATIA

        State Attorney’s Office of the Republic of Croatia Reply to the Consultative Council of European Prosecutors (CCPE) Questionnaire (2001)1 PROV2 in regard to the preparation of the Opinion No. 6(2001) of the CCPE

        1. Introduction remarks

        In order to understand the State Attorney’s Office of the Republic of Croatia Reply to the Consultative Council of European Prosecutors (CCPE) Questionnaire (2001)1 PROV2 in regard to the preparation of the Opinion No. 6(2001) of the CCPE (hereinafter: “Replay”), it is necessary to emphasise that there is a comprehensive criminal law reform undergoing in the Republic of Croatia, primarily determined with enacting of the new Criminal Procedure Code (Official Gazette No. 152/08, 76/09; hereinafter: “CPC”).

        The CPC has complex vacatio legis. It came into force for crimes within the jurisdiction of the Office for the Suppression of Corruption and Organised Crime on 1 July 2009 and will come into force for all other criminal cases on 1 September 2011. The CPC also urged amendments of other encompassing laws, which led to enactment of the new State Attorney’s Office Act (Official Gazette No. 76/09, 153/09, 116/10, 145/10) whose vacatio legis follows the one of the CPC.

        In context of the Questionnaire, forms of deprivation of liberty in Croatian legal system, as well as State Attorney’s concrete legal powers and obligations in that regard, are regulated with the CPC and Execution of Prison Sentence Act (Official Gazette No. 128/99, 55/00, 59/00, 129/00, 59/01, 67/01, 11/02, 190/03, 76/07, 27/08, 83/09, 18/11; hereinafter: “Execution of Prison Sentence Act”).

        Bearing the enforcement regime of CPC and other aforementioned laws, the Reply will be based only on the new legislation.

        1.1. Use of terms

        The scope and application of the Recommendation Rec(2006)2 according to Part I, paragraph 10.1 – 10.4 of the Appendix to Recommendation Rec(2006)2, when related to the relevant rules of the Croatian legal system, consider three non-conviction forms of deprivation of liberty: arrest, pre-trial detention and investigative detention; and one form of following-conviction deprivation of liberty: the sentence of imprisonment.

        The term arrest will be used for the short-term deprivation of liberty by the police without formal supervision of the judiciary authorities, regulated in Articles 106 – 111 of the CPC. The term pre-trial detention will be used for the short-term State Attorney’s supervised deprivation of liberty according to Articles 112 – 118 of the CPC; and the term investigative detention will be used for the non-conviction deprivation of liberty supervised by the competent court during the criminal procedure, according to Articles 122 – 144 of the CPC. The term sentence of imprisonment will reflect all final custodial sentences passed by the competent court, enforced according to the Execution of Prison Sentence Act.

        Prisons, as defined in Part I, paragraph 10.2 of the Appendix to Recommendation Rec(2006)2, in Croatian legal system relate to: detention units, jails and prisons.

        The term detention unit will be used for facilities in which the pre-trial detention is carried, that are organised and governed by the Ministry of Interior. Term jail considers facilities where the investigative detention is carried in compliance with the CPC or where the short term prison sentences or administrative offences prison sentences are executed, which are organised and governed by the Ministry of Justice. The term prison will be used in regard to facilities for execution of the sentence of imprisonment, which are also organised and governed by the Ministry of Justice.

        For officials and civil servants within the competent State Attorney’s Office term “prosecutor” will be used, when referring to their concrete authorities and actions.

        2. Reply to Question 2

        First prosecutorial infliction into the issues of deprivation of liberty in course of the criminal procedure appears as a supervision task to the legality and necessity of further detention of an arrested individual. However, the arrest itself is within autonomous authority of the police.

        Police authorities are obliged under the CPC to bring the arrested person to the detention unit within 12 or, in exceptional circumstances, 24 hours from the moment of the arrest, and surrender that person to the detention supervisor. The detention supervisor is a specialized police officer dealing with the detained persons. After the detention supervisor has made a record regarding the identity of the arrested person and circumstances of his or her arrest, the record must be submitted to the competent State Attorney’s Office. Within 20, or in exceptional circumstances, 32 hours starting from the moment of the arrest, prosecutor to which the detention supervisor’s record was submitted, must decide on further deprivation of liberty of the arrested individual or on his or her release. The law strictly obliges detention supervisor to release the individual brought to the detention unit if competent prosecutor does not make this determination within the proscribed time limit.

        The prosecutor must examine and analyse case file against the arrested person and if conditions set in Article 112 CPC have been met, must pass the decision of pre-trial detention. Prosecutor’s decision on pre-trial detention can be subject of an appeal to the judge of investigations. Maximum period of the pre-trial detention is 48 hours, and it can be exceptionally prolonged to additional 48 hours only upon the application of the prosecutor and decision of the judge of investigations. This decision can also be subject of an appeal on which a panel of judges decides.

        If there are grounds for further detention of the individual during the criminal proceedings, upon prosecutor’s order and within the proscribed time limit, the detained person shall be brought before the judge of investigations for his or her decision on the investigative detention. The investigative judge can render the decision only after an oral adversarial hearing has been held. Parties, the prosecution and the defence, are allowed without prejudice to the substantive matter of the proceedings, present its case for further detention or release. The decision on investigative detention is also subject of an appeal. The investigative detention can last until the finality of the criminal procedure, but not beyond the time limits prescribed in article 133 of the CPC. Further decisions on investigative detention are within the authority of the competent court, depending on the stage of the procedure. During this stage prosecution only has powers to recommend or request further detention or release, without any concrete decisive actions or powers and obligations.

        After finality of the sentence of imprisonment or after the first instance judgment has been passed and upon defendant’s request, the convicted person is subjected to the enforcement of the sentence procedure. The procedure is governed in compliance with the Execution of Prison Sentence Act by the Ministry of Justice and under the supervision of the executing judge, also with minimum and limited authorities of the State Attorney’s Office.

        3. Reply to Question 3

        Authorities of the State Attorney’s Office in regard to prison matters are primarily determined trough the position which State Attorney’s Office bears in national legal system. That means protection of public interests, as well as basic rights of detained persons, through the regular system of criminal investigations and prosecutions. However, there are no concrete authorities invested in the State Attorney’s Office when it comes to the administrative prison matters. From the substantive point, the reasons are certainly related with the autonomous and independent constitutional and legal position of the State Attorney’s Office in regard to the Ministry of Interior that governs detention units, and Ministry of Justice that governs jails and prisons. Both of these institutions have their internal system of supervision and control, and both are subjected to general human rights protection mechanisms.

        Concrete administrative authority of State Attorney’s Office in regard to persons deprived of liberty is authority of the prosecutor in criminal proceedings to limit, through means of supervision, or to exclude contacts of arrested person with his or her defence attorney. In order to exercise this authority special conditions, proscribed in Article 75 of the CPC, must be met and decision must be made in writing with clear expression of reasons. This decision is subjected to the appeal before the judge of investigations. However, when the arrested person becomes detainee in the pre-trial detention or investigative detention regime, this authority passes to the judge of investigations and prosecutor is only allowed to make submissions in that regard.

        During the enforcement of sentence of imprisonment, State Attorney’s Office also has only limited, informative means of influence to the administrative issues. So in accordance with Execution of Prison Sentence Act relevant prison or jail authorities are allowed to seek information from State Attorney’s Office when deciding on benefits of leave for an inmate. However, information provided by the State Attorney’s Office does not have the decisive influence on the final decision.

        4. Reply to Question 4

        As already noted in regard to Question 3, Republic of Croatia has such a legal system where Prosecution Service has only general competences in regard to prison administration. However, every breach of human rights that would represent a crime or any other punishable offence must be reported by the prison or jail administration to the competent State Attorney’s Office, which must react ex officio on such a report. Prison or jail administration is obliged to do so according to Article 204 of the CPC which sets formal obligation on all state institutions to report any crime that they discovered or are otherwise aware of. In addition, rules on internal supervision or civil oversight of the prison or jail administration oblige bodies conducting the supervision to report any breach of human rights to the competent State Attorney’s Office.

        As a mean of fast action, practice set out for conduct of detention supervisors in regard to pre-trial detention, represents a form of immediate and direct control of any possible infringement of detainees’ human rights. Namely, after an individual has been detained in his or her detention unit, the detention supervisor is obliged to file a thorough report on all circumstances of imprisonment to the competent prosecutor. The prosecutor is obliged to interview the detained person within 10 hours after the person has been brought to the detention unit. This serves not only for the investigative purposes, but also sets out a form of control on the detention.

        5. Reply to Question 5

        The positive and decisive role of State Attorney’s position in control of prison administration is related to the authority of instigation and conduct of criminal investigations and prosecutions in cases of human rights infringements. This is the element, certainly missing in competency of any other state or civil form of prison supervision.

        6. Reply to Question 6

        Concrete specially established paths and mechanisms of reporting of possible infringements of human rights in detention facilities to the State Attorney’s Office, are still missing. It can create negative conflict of competences and it can prolong reaction even in the situations when immediate measures of protection or preservation of evidence must be preformed.

        7. Replay to Question 7

        If State Attorney’s Office would be by any means informed on infringements of human rights in detention facilities, it would have powers and obligations to investigate such reports. The nature or regime of the detention facility has no influence on State Attorney’s powers and obligations. Depending on the results of the investigation, State Attorney’s Office would have authority to initiate a criminal procedure and trial or to instigate another appropriate, disciplinary or other, action.

        8. Reply to Question 8

        Concrete legally established procedure for direct communication of prisoners and prosecutors in regard to possible mistreatment in prisons does not exist. However, there is no rule that would prohibit such a situation, especially if prosecutor would exercise his or her powers of investigation.

        9. Replay to Question 9

        Organisation and governance of detention facilities is not in any way connected with State Attorney’s Office. That disallows State Attorney’s Office to make any proposals and recommendations to the budgetary issues. The compliance of detention facility with rules of the Council of Europe regarding prison administration is supervised by the executing judge. The law does not have any proscribed mechanism for prosecutors to participate in such actions.

        10. Reply to Question 10

        If informed on any form of misconduct of the prison staff, State Attorney’s Office has powers to investigate such misconduct if there is probable cause to believe that the crime or administrative offence has been committed. The disciplinary measures as well as other forms of actions against prison staff is within the authority of penitentiary administration of the Ministry of Justice. Disciplinary actions are mandatory procedures if certain conditions have been met, which means that the State Attorney’s Office can instigate such proceedings by referring relevant information or evidence to supervisory bodies of the penitentiary administration. The actions for damage are subject of civil claims before competent court which can be instigated only by the injured party.

        11. Reply to Question 11

        Monitoring of prisons and other detention facilities is within authority of executing judge, supervisory bodies of the Ministry of Justice or Ministry of Interior and civil system of control primarily through the institution of Ombudsman. State Attorney’s Office does not have any formal legal powers or obligations in that regard. However, State Attorney’s Office specialized sections for juvenile crime are obliged twice a year to visit and make control on development and execution of custodial sentences on convicted juveniles and wardens of such specialized penitentiary facilities are obliged to submit their reports to the State Attorney’s Office in same regard within every six months. Although this system is more focused on the juvenile personal development during the execution of sentence phase, it nevertheless includes control of penitentiary facilities. This procedure is regulated through a separate act, the Juvenile Courts Act (Official Gazette No. 111/97, 27/98, 12/02).

        12. Reply to Question 12

        See answer under No. 11.

        13. Reply to Question 13

        The reply to this question is determined by the fact of non-existing monitoring authorities of the State Attorney’s Office. In regard to the system of control of the juvenile penitentiary system, it must be noted that prosecutors are always accompanied by non-legal experts in the fields of protection of youth and juvenile delinquency while making their on-site inspections or assessing the received reports.

        14. Reply to Question 14

        This question has been already answered under No. 10. It can be additionally explained that all State Attorney’s actions in regard to investigations of any form of infringements of prisoners’ rights are absolutely autonomous and independent. All reached findings can be used in various subsequent proceedings including the disciplinary one. The information and materials are always referred to the supervisory bodies of the individual or institution that has been investigated.

        15. Reply to Question 15

        According to the Article 149 of the Execution of Prison Sentence Act, if during the execution of the sentence of imprisonment, prisoner commits a crime punishable with fine or imprisonment up to six months, that prisoner shall be punished only disciplinary. Accordingly this would consider investigation for such a crime led by the prison authorities. But for all other crimes State Attorney’s Office is allowed to conduct the investigation autonomously and independently without any restrictions.

        16. Reply to Question 16

        The Prosecution does not have any formal authority in regard to the subject of this question.

        17. Reply to Question 17

        The only instance when prosecution is entitled to decide on legality of the detention is possible prolongation of the deprivation of liberty following the arrest. It concerns the pre-trial detention decision vested in the authority of the prosecution, as already explained. This decision, according to Article 77 of the State Attorney’s Office Act, can be passed by the competent State Attorney or his or her Deputy but with previous consent of the State Attorney. The decision is appealable to the judge of investigations. In other instances when making proposals for prolongation of investigative detention or for release, general rules of prosecution service conduct apply.

        18. Reply to Question 18

        State Attorney’s Office is a party to the procedure before the execution judge, when the decision of execution of the sentence of imprisonment is passed. State Attorney’s Office is involved in the information gathering process in regard to benefit of leave as explained under No. 3. State Attorney’s Office can propose to the execution judge application of the parole in regard to a concrete prisoner and upon judge’s request has to provide its opinion and estimation, and can also request postpone of the execution of sentence for an individual.

        19. Reply to Question 19

        There are no formal special requests imposed upon prosecutors in this regard. Although, constant education, visits to penitentiary facilities and seminars on non-legal aspects of imprisonment are constantly being conducted.

        20. Reply to Question 20

        Within the procedures already described, State Attorney’s Office can file motions and appeals in regard to all decisions of the execution judge in procedures in which prosecution is allowed to participate. These procedures are: procedure for passing of the decision on execution of the sentence of imprisonment, procedure in regard to benefit of leave, application of the parole and postpone of the execution of sentence procedure.

        21. Reply to Question 21

        As already noted State Attorney’s Office is only generally and in a very limited manner engaged in monitoring of the enforcement of punishments. However, legally is obliged to react on any reports of mistreatment of prisoners, especially if the report has been filed by Ombudsman, or other specialized institutions of civil society such as non-governmental organisations dealing with these particular issues.

        22. Reply to Question 22

        Based on the experience of the Republic of Croatia and its system of participation of the State Attorney’s Office in deprivation of liberty and general penitentiary issues, it appears as necessary to establish models for more immediate, technically unified and administratively simple procedure for involvement of prosecution into the penitentiary issues. This involvement must be in exceptional circumstances with possibility for the prosecution to exercise all its authority when it appears necessary to investigate possible human rights infringements within prisons. This concerns strict guidelines for conduct both to prosecution and to other authorities involved in supervision of penitentiary facilities. With such approach Prosecution Service can maintain the position of not directly involved authority in the very administration of prisons but with high and important role of effective protection of basic substantive rights of individuals deprived of liberty.


        CYPRUS

        English

        Français

        Remarks

        Remarques

        This questionnaire is addressed to prosecutors and the member of the CCPE of each State shall be responsible for collecting of replies.

        In some States, prosecutors have only reduced powers within matters of prison administration. Some States will therefore not be able to reply to all questions.

        It will not be implied from the fact that this questionnaire was answered that prosecutiors shall have a role in this matter.

        The scope of the questionnaire is identical to that of Recommendation Rec(2006)2 (see para.10): this questionnaire concerns any person deprived of liberty, in any form whatsoever and not strictly the person detained in a prison.

        This questionnaire does not concern the enforcement of sanctions in general but is limited to the prosecutor’s supervision of the legality of the enforcement of sanctions.

        Ce questionnaire s’adresse aux procureurs et le membre du CCPE au titre de chaque Etat est responsable de la collecte des réponses.

        Dans certains Etats, les procureurs ont peu de compétences en matière d’administration pénitentiaire. Certains Etats ne pourront donc pas répondre à toutes les questions.

        Le fait de répondre à ce questionnaire ne sous-entend pas que les procureurs doivent avoir un rôle en la matière.

        Le champ d’application du questionnaire est le même que celui de la Recommandation Rec(2006)2 (voir para.10) : ce questionnaire concerne toute personne privée de liberté, sous quelque forme que ce soit, et non simplement de la personne détenue dans un établissement pénitentiaire.

        Ce questionnaire ne concerne pas l’exécution des sanctions de manière générale et se limite au contrôle de la légalité de l’exécution des sanctions par le procureur.

        Question 2

        What are the Prosecution Service’s powers regarding prison matters and in terms of deprivation of liberty?

        In Cyprus, the Department of Prisons comes under the competences of the Ministry of Justice. The Attorney General’s Office does not have any direct role regarding prison matters.

        Question 3

        In States where prosecutors do not have full authority in prison matters, what are nevertheless their means of action used as regards prisons ?

        If a violation of human rights, which constitutes a criminal offence, occurs in prison (see the Law providing for the rights of persons arrested and in detention 163(I)/2005, which criminalizes the violation of the human rights and the rights of persons in detention), the Attorney General has the power to direct the Police to initiate criminal investigations or to appoint criminal investigators to investigate instances of alleged commission of criminal offences by members of the police.

        Question 4

        If prosecutors have general competences as regard prisons and detention, what kind of means have been provided to the Prosecution Service to allow its effective and fast action towards protecting human rights in matters of prison administration?

        See previous questions.

        Question 5

        What are the positive and decisive elements of the prosecutor’s role in terms of protecting Human rights compared to other mechanisms of legal protection?

        See previous questions.

        Question 6

        What could be the improvements to this system of protection?

        -

        Question 7

        Do prosecutors have jurisdiction to examine whether the rights (Human rights and especially procedural rights) of persons in criminal (for example as regards enforcement of prison sentences or pre-trial detention) or administrative detention are respected at the detention centre?

        No, this is one of the responsibilities of the Ombudsman, according to Law 2(III)/2009 (the Law which ratifies the Optional Protocol to the Convention against Torture and other Cruel, Inhumane or Degrading Treatment or Punishment adopted on 18 December 2002). This Law provides that the Ombudsman is designated as the ‘national preventive mechanism’, thus, the body which will be able to visit “any place under the jurisdiction and control where persons are or may be deprived of their liberty, either by virtue of an order given by a public authority or at its instigation or with its consent or acquiescence (…places of detention). These visits shall be undertaken with a view to strengthening, if necessary, the protection of these persons against torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment”. However, if the Ombudsman notices or is informed of a violation of human rights which constitutes a criminal offence, according to article 9 of Law 2(III)/2009, shall notify the Attorney General (and the Independent Authority for the Investigation of Allegation and Complaints against the Police – IAIACAP, see Q21), who has the power to direct the Police or the IAIACAP to initiate investigations.

        Question 8

        Can a prisoner meet in private with a prosecutor to determine whether they had been subjected to torture or to any other inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment?

        See Q 7.

        Question 9

        Do prosecutors examine, and if so, how frequently, whether the accommodation provided to prisoners meet the recommendations of the Council of Europe (and namely of the European Committee for the prevention of Torture/CPT3? Can prosecutors make proposals in that direction which have an influence on the relevant budget ?

        See Q 7.

        Question 10

        What kind of means exist for prosecutors to deal with authorities or officers/employees which have not completely or properly enforced the decisions of the court or the Prosecution Service related to punishments and/or measures involving deprivation of liberty? If a prosecutor detects such negligence, is he entitled to give binding instructions for the immediate termination of the breach of law? Is it in their power to initiate criminal or disciplinary proceedings, actions for damages or any other kind of impeachment? What other prosecutorial instruments are at his disposal ?

        See Q 7.

        Question 11

        How often do prosecutors carry out monitoring visits of institutions of criminal and administrative detention? Are there concrete follow-ups related to these visits?

        Not applicable

        Question 12

        Within the framework of their monitoring duties, do prosecutors have the power to take action at any time of the day (even at night) in the institutions of criminal and administrative detention?

        Not applicable

        Question 13

        May prosecutors commission experts to assist them in their tasks related to supervision and inspection?

        Not applicable

        Question 14

        Are complaints and/or denunciations regarding criminal and administrative detention subject to prosecutorial inquiry independently of any relevant authority or employees/officers? Is it a prosecutor’s duty to complete investigations himself/herself or is he/she allowed to forward these complaints for investigation to the officers/employees that are the subject of those complaints?

        Prosecutors do not carry out investigations. The Attorney General can only direct the Police or the IAIACAP to initiate investigations or appoint independent criminal investigators to investigate instances of alleged commission of criminal offences by members of the police (see also Q3 and Q15).

        Question 15

        In case of sudden death, accident or criminal offence committed against a prisoner, or if a prisoner commits a crime against another prisoner or a prison staff member, is the investigation conducted by a prosecutor acting as an independent judicial authority or is it simply supervised by a prosecutor? Do prosecutors have any role in investigations?

        The Criminal Procedure Law (Cap.155 s.4.1) gives police the primary responsibility for investigations but it also allocates to the Council of Ministers a complementary – to the general police power – authority to appoint independent investigators in any case they consider appropriate. In 1996, for the first time, the Council of Ministers delegated to the Attorney General the power to appoint criminal investigators to investigate instances of alleged commission of criminal offences by members of the police and also economic offences punishable with more than one year imprisonment.
        In addition to that, in exercise of his constitutional powers, the Attorney General of the Republic of Cyprus, can ex-proprio motu ask the Police to initiate, and carry out an investigation into the commission of any criminal offence for the purpose of determining whether to institute criminal proceedings against any person, and can give instructions to the Police regarding the conduct of the investigation (collection of evidence and interrogations).
        Therefore, the Attorney General has the power to appoint criminal investigators to investigate instances of alleged commission of criminal offences by members of the police or order the police to initiate investigations regarding the cases you are referred to.
        The prosecutors do not carry out investigations.

        Question 16

        Are prosecutors entitled to take action in procedures concerning the adoption/revocation of special measures for high risk detaineed or subject to special restrictions in connection with their role and position in active criminal organisations? If so, how?

        No

        Question 17

        With a view to preserving them from any type of influence, are prosecutors autonomous or subordinated to other colleagues when monitoring the detention’s legality?

        Not applicable.

        Question 18

        Is a prosecutor involved in granting a person’s pardon, amnesty or release, especially in the case of negative effects resulting from the punishment? Do prosecutors supervise criminal records?

        According to Article 53 of the Cyprus Constitution, the President of the Republic, on the unanimous recommendation of the Attorney General and the Deputy Attorney General of the Republic, remits, suspends or commutes any sentence passed by a Court in the Republic.

        Question 19

        Are special qualifications and training required of prosecutors who carry out duties in matters of criminal and administrative detention? Please specify.

        Not applicable.

        Question 20

        What acts (presentation of conclusions, attend hearings, appeal against court decisions) are prosecutors entitled to carry out during proceedings before judges with jurisdiction over the enforcement of sentences/surveillance judges (“juges de l’application des peines”), in states where such judge exists?

        In states where such a judge does not exist, what acts (release on probation, subsequent alteration of the detention’s enforcement scheme, further restriction of a detainee’s rights, placement in solitary confinement, disciplinary punishment, and so on) are prosecutors entitled to carry out as regards court decisions?

        Not applicable.

        Question 21

        When monitoring the enforcement of punishments, do public prosecutors interact with the ombudsman or any other organisation linked to or charged with controlling the enforcement of punishments? If so, what type of interactions are they? Could you give the names of these organisations, whether they be institutional or not, and explain briefly their roles?

          Ø See Q.7

          Ø - Ombudsman (See Q.7)
          - Independent Authority for the Investigation of Allegation and Complaints against the Police – IAIACAP (investigates allegations and complaints against the police for – inter alia – acts that constitutes violation of human rights). IAIACAP is an independent authority appointed by the Council of Ministers.

        Question 22

        Could you give other useful information to the preparation of the draft Opinion (relevant questions to add, documents, etc)?

         

        CZECH REPUBLIC

        1.

        -

        2.

        The public prosecutor's office conducts supervision of the compliance with legal regulations in “detention facilities”, i.e. facilities the purposes of which are listed below:

          · pre-trial custody (remand prisons where accused persons are held, provided their pre-trial custody was ordered),
          · sentence (prisons where convicts are held),
          · preventive detention (preventive detention institute where dangerous convicts, who were diagnosed with a mental illness, are held),
          · court-imposed measure – protective education (educational facilities for preventive education for young offenders and children who committed an act that is qualified as an offense under normal circumstances, pursuant to the act on justice over juveniles),
          · court-ordered institutional care (educational facilities for institutional care where, pursuant to the Family Act, children are held whose upbringing is at serious risk or distorted and in whose case no other measures have so far been effective, or children whose parents cannot provide the upbringing of their child due to other material reasons).

        3.

        -

        4.

        In conducting said supervision activities, public prosecutors are entitled to the following:

          a) they can visit the aforementioned places at any time of the day,
          b) they can review documents, files and written orders and resolutions
          c) they can speak to inmates in private (i.e. without a third person being present)
          d) they can seek explanations from employees of the respective facility,
          e) they can verify the legality of

              a. procedures and resolutions issued by the educational facility with respect to institutional care or protective education, or
              b. orders and resolutions of the Prison Service of the Czech Republic with respect to the pre-trial custody, sentence or preventive detention,

          f) they can order that compliance with the applicable legal regulations be ensured with respect to the respective detention,
          g) they can order that a person be released, provided the person's custody/imprisonment is against the law
          h) they can file a motion requesting that institutional care or protective education be terminated, or a motion requesting the imposition of protective education upon a minor under 15 years of age who has already been living in a facility pursuant to a resolution on institutional care.

        5.

        Unlike NGO's or the Public Defender of Rights (who can also inspect these facilities), a public prosecutor may issue orders addressed to the Prison Service of the Czech Republic, and the Prison Service must “comply immediately”.
        Unlike the inspections conducted in prisons or preventive detention facilities by the Ministry of Justice or the General Directorate of the Prison Service, inspections conducted by a public prosecutor's office are independent. The office is not responsible for the operation of prisons and institutions. Only the criterion of legality is taken into consideration by the public prosecutor's office, it does not take into account any organisational, financial or staffing issues.
        Similar principles apply with respect to supervision of educational facilities.
        Therefore, the specific aspect of the supervision by the public prosecutor's office is the right to issue orders and its independence in the procedure.

        6.

        It is essential to emphasise the incompatibility of the role of a public prosecutor as an authority concerned with criminal proceedings and the role of the same public prosecutor as an authority concerned with detention supervision. The system as such shall disallow the involvement in the supervision of the public prosecutor who was/is actively involved in the proceedings with the person who is subject of the detention. The public prosecutor in charge of supervision should not be influenced by the res gestae that had lead to the imprisonment of the person in detention. This is why it is suitable to reintroduce the increased independence of the respective specialists of the public prosecutor's office (see below).

        7.

        Should the term “detention centre” refer to facilities that are not referred to above, the public prosecutor's office does not carry out supervision in them. This includes especially:

          · facilities where foreigners who reside in the Czech Republic are kept due to administrative reasons,
          · police custody cells,
          · mental hospitals.

        8.

        Yes. A public prosecutor may speak with all the persons who are kept in facilities listed under Section 2 alone, i.e. without other persons being present.

        9.

        Public prosecutors conduct inspections usually once in every two months. The purpose of these inspections is, inter alia, to focus on the issues of accommodation of inmates, as the issue of solitary confinement is governed by Czech legal regulations as well. Should they find that a certain legal regulation has been breached, they shall issue an order to the Prison Service of the Czech Republic, irrespective of the fact that costs may be incurred with respect to the requested compliance with the applicable law. Therefore, public prosecutors do not take into consideration the question of how these measures are to be financed by prison administration authorities. The same applies to supervision of educational facilities.

        10.

        As already stated under Section 4 letter f) above, in case of any material breach of legal regulations within the process of aforementioned detentions, a public prosecutor shall respond by requesting strict compliance with the applicable legal regulation in the process of said detention. The request is addressed to the respective prison administration authority (usually to the warden of the prison in question) or to the educational facility (usually its principal). This order may also request that these authorities comply with the resolutions of courts and public prosecutors – e.g. resolution on parole (release from prison) or resolution on preliminary placement of a minor to an educational facility. This order must be complied with immediately. If the responsible person fails to comply, the public prosecutor has several options how to proceed with respect to the addressee of the order:
        · In cases when the failure to comply resulted in criminal offense the public prosecutor in charge of the supervision of detention shall submit his/her findings to his/her colleagues specialising in criminal law who shall adopt further measures as necessary, i.e. within criminal proceedings (criminal prosecution and putting on trial).
        · Otherwise the public prosecutor may proceed as follows:

              o he/she may inform the Director General of the Prison Service of the Czech Republic (i.e. the main prison administration authority) about his/her findings regarding the respective warden's misconduct; the Director General may impose a disciplinary punishment on the warden. If even the Director General fails to act, the public prosecutor may inform the Minister of Justice about his/her findings. The minister can adopt further measures, as he/she is the superior authority to the Director General. However, the public prosecutor has no legal power to act on his/her own in this case.
              o he/she may inform the Ministry of Education, Youth and Sports about his/her findings regarding the respective principal's misconduct, for the purpose of proceedings on a fine for the neglect of duty. The public prosecutor has no legal power to act on his/her own in this case.

        11.

        Public prosecutors visit all prisons once in every two months, while every educational facility is visited once in every three months. This frequency was established pursuant to an internal directive of the public prosecutor's office and it has been maintained to this date, even though it is not defined as strictly as it used to be.

        12.

        Yes. Public prosecutors are entitled to visit all aforementioned facilities “at any time of the day”, i.e. especially at night. They are entitled to take measures there any time.

        13.

        Pursuant to the act on public prosecution and other legal regulations, public prosecutors have no legal power to entrust experts with tasks that are related to detention supervision. In the process of conducting investigation, the public prosecutor's office is entitled to contact, by a letter of request, individual ministries and other state authorities, local administration bodies, as well as professional bodies and interest group bodies, in order to seek the necessary information.

        14.

        Children who are placed in educational institutions may address to the public prosecutor's office (or to other state authorities and authorities concerned with social and legal protection of children) their requests, complaints and motions whose contents may not be reviewed. These motions must be sent “on the first business day that follows after the day on which they were handed over to employees of the institution”.
        Similarly, accused persons, convicted persons or inmates in protective detention cannot have their correspondence reviewed if it is addressed to their attorneys, state authorities, diplomatic missions and consulates of foreign countries or international organisations whose mission includes the review of motions concerning human rights protection. This kind of correspondence shall be mailed “immediately”.
        If and when the aforementioned persons contact the public prosecutor's office, a public prosecutor must conduct an independent investigation.
        A complaint cannot be assigned to the person whose conduct is subject of the claimant's submission. In principle, it should not be assigned to the warden/director of the institution, even though he/she himself/herself is not mentioned by the claimant in the submission. Pursuant to the provisions of the act on public prosecution, the tasks of a public prosecutor may not be carried out by other institutions or persons in lieu of the public prosecutor. This principle is occasionally breached in real life, which is why the Supreme Public Prosecutor's Office attempts to make sure that motions are not assigned to wardens/directors of the facilities in question.

        15.

        Investigation of criminal offences commited under such particular circumstances is conducted classically, it means by the police under the supervision of a public prosecutor. The public prosecutor is entitled, inter alia, to give instructions that are binding on the police, to overrule their decisions or to conduct legal acts on his/her own. He/she has full control over the pre-trial process and the police must follow his/her instructions.
        While a public prosecutor is legally entitled to carry out the entire process of investigation of a certain case himself/herself, they rarely do so in real life.

        16.

        Aside from the framework defined above, public prosecutors have no special powers to directly interfere with the adoption or reversal of special measures adopted with respect to particularly dangerous inmates. On the other hand, they may ascertain whether or not these measures are in compliance with the generally binding legal regulations and they may order that they be brought into accord with these regulations.

        17.

        Until 30th June 2009, public prosecutors had had “independent status” with respect to the supervision of detention. They had been personally appointed by the Supreme Public Prosecutor for the purpose of supervision and they only reported to similarly appointed public prosecutors from a higher-level public prosecutor's office. This independence has not existed since 1st July 2009. Therefore, public prosecutors no longer need individual appointment and they report to the “chief public prosecutor” from their respective public prosecutor's offices.

        18.

        If and where stipulated by the Code of Criminal Procedure, public prosecutors take part in proceedings on pardons or amnesties. However, this agenda is not associated with the detention supervision agenda at all.
        The public prosecutor's office does not supervise the Criminal Register.

        19.

        Pursuant to the applicable law, public prosecutors need not be particularly qualified for the detention supervision agenda. The process of education of public prosecutors is administered, in particular, by Justiční akademie (the Justice Academy which is an organisational subdivision of the state)) and the Supreme Public Prosecutor's Office. There are two levels on which methodological assistance by the Supreme Public Prosecutor's Office is conducted:
        · Methodological aids are sent regularly “to people's desks” – they include explanatory diagrams and tables containing information on current issues or diagrams and tables facilitating familiarization with various topics (extent of responsibilities of prisons with respect to reporting on incidents, types and specialisations of educational facilities, main principles of supervision, rules that are/aren't subject of supervision, etc.).
        · Public prosecutors attend presentations where they are informed (by means of PowerPoint presentations) about current issues of detention supervision. These presentations take place at their workplaces or in facilities of Justiční akademie (the Justice Academy), respectively.

        20.

        Just like wardens and convicts themselves, public prosecutors are entitled to propose parole or a change in the conditions of sentence. In such cases public prosecutors take part in the respective proceedings. However, this agenda is not associated with the detention supervision agenda at all.

        21.

        The Supreme Public Prosecutor's Office and the Office of the Public Defender of Rights mutually exchange the outcomes of their respective assessments – by sending the final reports to each other. The ombudsman's findings represent valuable sources of information for the evaluation of supervision by public prosecutors. Public prosecutors provide to the Office of the Public Defender of Rights background information for the purpose of the ombudsman's visit to prisons. In cases where the public prosecutor's office has run out of all legal measures, not being able to achieve a remedy (e.g. due to an error in the activities of the ministry or due to an imperfect legal regulation), it shall inform the ombudsman.
        There is no continuous cooperation established with other organisations.

        22.

        The key aspect of the detention supervision is strict compliance with legal regulations, irrespective of any organisational, staffing or financial issues experienced by the supervised subject. In this regard, I do not play on the same team with the supervised subject and public prosecutors should refrain from establishing personal relationships with wardens/directors of the supervised facilities.


        DENMARK

        English

        Français

        Remarks

        Remarques

        This questionnaire is addressed to prosecutors and the member of the CCPE of each State shall be responsible for collecting of replies.

        In some States, prosecutors have only reduced powers within matters of prison administration. Some States will therefore not be able to reply to all questions.

        It will not be implied from the fact that this questionnaire was answered that prosecutiors shall have a role in this matter.

        The scope of the questionnaire is identical to that of Recommendation Rec(2006)2 (see para.10): this questionnaire concerns any person deprived of liberty, in any form whatsoever and not strictly the person detained in a prison.

        This questionnaire does not concern the enforcement of sanctions in general but is limited to the prosecutor’s supervision of the legality of the enforcement of sanctions.

        Ce questionnaire s’adresse aux procureurs et le membre du CCPE au titre de chaque Etat est responsable de la collecte des réponses.

        Dans certains Etats, les procureurs ont peu de compétences en matière d’administration pénitentiaire. Certains Etats ne pourront donc pas répondre à toutes les questions.

        Le fait de répondre à ce questionnaire ne sous-entend pas que les procureurs doivent avoir un rôle en la matière.

        Le champ d’application du questionnaire est le même que celui de la Recommandation Rec(2006)2 (voir para.10) : ce questionnaire concerne toute personne privée de liberté, sous quelque forme que ce soit, et non simplement de la personne détenue dans un établissement pénitentiaire.

        Ce questionnaire ne concerne pas l’exécution des sanctions de manière générale et se limite au contrôle de la légalité de l’exécution des sanctions par le procureur.

        Question 2

        What are the Prosecution Service’s powers regarding prison matters and in terms of deprivation of liberty?

        Quelles sont les compétences du Ministère public en matière pénitentiaire et en matière de privation de liberté ?

        As a main rule, the Prosecution Service does not have powers regarding prison matters or regarding the terms relating to the deprivation of liberty etc. of sentenced persons. Thus, all question related to prison matters of sentenced persons are handled by the Danish Prison and Probation Service.

        The Danish Parliamentary Ombudsman does moreover have the right and role to inspect prisons and detention facilities. The Ombudsman has furthermore been assigned competences relating to inspections under the auspices of the UN’s Optional Protocol to the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment.

        The Prosecution Service does however have powers relating to the terms of the deprivation of liberty of non-sentenced persons i.e. deprivation of liberty of accused or indicted persons during trial.

        These powers relate inter alia to the application of restrictions regarding detained persons’ use of means of communication (i.e. sending and receiving letters, telephone calls etc.) and rights to receive visitors etc. All restrictions imposed upon the detained person by the Prosecution Service can be brought before the courts.

        The Prosecution Service would furthermore assess whether pre-trial detention in isolation is required. It is however for the court to decide whether pre-trial detention in isolation is necessary.

        Question 3

        In States where prosecutors do not have full authority in prison matters, what are nevertheless their means of action used as regards prisons ?

        Dans les Etats dans lesquels les procureurs n’ont pas de compétence générale en matière de prisons, quels sont néanmoins les moyens d’action dont ils disposent concernant les systèmes pénitentiaires ?

        Refer to question 2.

        Question 4

        If prosecutors have general competences as regard prisons and detention, what kind of means have been provided to the Prosecution Service to allow its effective and fast action towards protecting human rights in matters of prison administration?

        Si les procureurs sont compétents en matière de prisons et de détention, quels sont les moyens à disposition du Ministère public pour lui permettre d’agir efficacement et rapidement pour protéger les droits de l’homme en matière d’administration pénitentiaire ?

        N/A as the Prosecution Service does not have general powers regarding prison and detention matters and is therefore not assigned with the task of the protection of prisoners’ or detained persons’ human rights in general.

        Question 5

        What are the positive and decisive elements of the prosecutor’s role in terms of protecting Human rights compared to other mechanisms of legal protection?

        Quels sont les éléments positifs et déterminants du rôle du procureur en matière de protection des droits de l’homme, par rapport aux autres mécanismes de protection juridique ?

        N/A as the Prosecution Service’s does not have general powers regarding prison and detention matters. Refer to question 4.

        Question 6

        What could be the improvements to this system of protection?

        Quels sont les améliorations qui pourraient être apportées à ce système de protection ?

        N/A as the Prosecution Service’s does not have general powers regarding prison and detention matters. Refer to question 4.

        Question 7

        Do prosecutors have jurisdiction to examine whether the rights (Human rights and especially procedural rights) of persons in criminal (for example as regards enforcement of prison sentences or pre-trial detention) or administrative detention are respected at the detention centre?

        Le procureur a-t-il compétence pour examiner si les droits (droits de l’homme et en particulier droits procéduraux) des personnes détenues ou retenues (par exemple en matière d’exécution de peines de prison ou de détention provisoire) sont respectés au centre de détention?

        No. The Prosecution Service would however assess whether any limitation of inter alia the rights described under question 2 for persons being pre-trial detained would be in accordance with any applicable human right’s standards before imposing limitations.

        Question 8

        Can a prisoner meet in private with a prosecutor to determine whether they had been subjected to torture or to any other inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment?

        Les détenus peuvent-ils avoir une entrevue en tête-à-tête avec le procureur pour savoir s’ils ont été exposés à un acte de torture ou à tout autre peine ou traitement inhumain ou dégradant ?

        Yes.

        Question 9

        Do prosecutors examine, and if so, how frequently, whether the accomodation provided to prisoners meet the recommendations of the Council of Europe (and namely of the European Committee for the prevention of Torture/CPT4? Can prosecutors make proposals in that direction which have an influence on the relevant budget ?

        Le procureur examine-t-il, le cas échéant à quelle fréquence, si l’hébergement des détenus respecte les recommandations du Conseil de l’Europe (et en particulier du Comité européen pour la prévention de la torture/CPT)1 ?
        Le procureur peut-il faire des propositions en ce sens ayant une influence sur le budget concerné ?

        No.

        Question 10

        What kind of means exist for prosecutors to deal with authorities or officers/employees which have not completely or properly enforced the decisions of the court or the Prosecution Service related to punishments and/or measures involving deprivation of liberty? If a prosecutor detects such negligence, is he entitled to give binding instructions for the immediate termination of the breach of law? Is it in their power to initiate criminal or disciplinary proceedings, actions for damages or any other kind of impeachment? What other prosecutorial instruments are at his disposal ?

        De quels moyens dispose le procureur à l’encontre des autorités ou agents qui n’exécutent pas complètement ou correctement les décisions du tribunal ou du procureur concernant les sanctions et/ou les mesures privatives de liberté ? Si le procureur détecte une négligence, peut-il donner des instructions contraignantes visant à faire cesser immédiatement l’infraction à la loi ? Peut-il initier une procédure pénale ou disciplinaire, une action en réparation ou tout autre type d’action en contestation ? Quels sont les autres instruments d’action publique à sa disposition  ?

        The Prosecution Service does not have powers in this regard. Refer to question 2.

        Question 11

        How often do prosecutors carry out monitoring visits of institutions of criminal and administrative detention? Are there concrete follow-ups related to these visits?

        Quelle est la fréquence des visites de contrôle du procureur dans les lieux de détention et de rétention? Ces visites peuvent-elles faire l’objet d’un suivi concret ?

        N/A refer to question 2.

        Question 12

        Within the framework of their monitoring duties, do prosecutors have the power to take action at any time of the day (even at night) in the institutions of criminal and administrative detention?

        Le procureur a-t-il la possibilité d’intervenir à toute heure (même la nuit) dans le lieu de détention et de rétention dans le cadre de sa tâche d’inspection?

        N/A refer to question 2.

        Question 13

        May prosecutors commission experts to assist them in their tasks related to supervision and inspection?

        Pour leurs tâches de contrôle et d’inspection, les procureurs ont-ils la possibilité de recourir à des experts ?

        N/A refer to question 2.

        Question 14

        Are complaints and/or denunciations regarding criminal and administrative detention subject to prosecutorial inquiry independently of any relevant authority or employees/officers? Is it a prosecutor’s duty to complete investigations himself/herself or is he/she allowed to forward these complaints for investigation to the officers/employees that are the subject of those complaints?

        Les plaintes et/ou dénonciations concernant la détention et la rétention font-elles l’objet d’investigations par le procureur, indépendamment des autorités ou des agents concernés?Le procureur a-t-il le devoir d’enquêter lui-même ou peut-il transmettre les plaintes pour enquête aux agents qui sont l’objet de la plainte ?

        N/A refer to question 2.

        Question 15

        In case of sudden death, accident or criminal offence committed against a prisoner, or if a prisoner commits a crime against another prisoner or a prison staff member, is the investigation conducted by a prosecutor acting as an independent judicial authority or is it simply supervised by a prosecutor? Do prosecutors have any role in investigations?

        En cas de décès subit, d’accident ou d’infraction pénale à l’encontre du détenu, ou si celui-ci commet un crime à l’encontre d’un autre détenu ou d’un agent de l’administration pénitentiaire, l’affaire est-elle instruite par le procureur en tant qu’instance judiciaire indépendante ou est-elle simplement contrôlée par le procureur ? Les procureurs ont-ils un rôle quelconque dans l’enquête ?

        The Prosecution Service would investigate crimes etc. conducted during detention or in a prison or detention facility as ordinary crime. The investigation would against this background be governed by the ordinary procedures etc. following from the Danish Administration of Justice Act. Sudden deaths or suicides in prisons would initially be examined by the Danish Prisons or Probation Service, and would only be handed over to the Prosecution Service if it were assessed that a criminal offence might have been committed.
        In cases where a person in police custody dies or is seriously injured, the case will be investigated by the Prosecution Service. However, from 1 January 2012, a new independent Police Complaint Authority will take over the investigation of cases where people die or are seriously injured during police custody.

        Question 16

        Are prosecutors entitled to take action in procedures concerning the adoption/revocation of special measures for high-risk detainees or subject to special restrictions in connection with their role and position in active criminal organisations? If so, how?

        Le procureur peut-il intervenir, et le cas échéant de quelle manière, dans des procédures concernant l’adoption/la révocation de mesures spéciales pour les détenus à haut risque ou soumis à des restrictions spécifiques en raison de leur rôle et leur position dans les organisations criminelles actives ?

        Refer to question 2 regarding the competences of the Prosecution Service regarding detained non-sentenced persons.

        Question 17

        With a view to preserving them from any type of influence, are prosecutors autonomous or subordinated to other colleagues when monitoring the detention’s legality?

        Afin de les protéger contre toute forme d’influence, les procureurs exercent-ils de manière autonome le contrôle de la légalité de la détention ou sont-ils subordonnés à d’autres collègues?

        N/A refer to question 2.

        Question 18

        Is a prosecutor involved in granting a person’s pardon, amnesty or release, especially in the case of negative effects resulting from the punishment? Do prosecutors supervise criminal records?

        Les procureurs participent-ils au processus de grâce, d’amnistie ou de libération des personnes notamment en cas d’effets négatifs de la sanction ? Les procureurs contrôlent-ils les casiers judiciaires ?

        The Prosecution Service will, in some cases, be asked to provide an opinion whether parole should be granted. Furthermore, the Prosecutions Service is heard before pardon is granted. The Prosecution Service is also competent to make a first instance decision on whether or not execution of a prison can be postponed. Finally, the Prosecution Service is heard in some cases regarding the prisoner’s right to temporarily leave prison (family visits, education etc.).

        Question 19

        Are special qualifications and training required of prosecutors who carry out duties in matters of criminal and administrative detention? Please specify.

        Les procureurs bénéficient-ils de qualifications et formations spéciales pour l’accomplissement de leurs tâches en matière de détention et de rétention des personnes? Veuillez préciser.

        N/A refer to question 2.

        Question 20

        What acts (presentation of conclusions, attend hearings, appeal against court decisions) are prosecutors entitled to carry out during proceedings before judges with jurisdiction over the enforcement of sentences/surveillance judges (“juges de l’application des peines”), in states where such judge exists?

        In states where such a judge does not exist, what acts (release on probation, subsequent alteration of the detention’s enforcement scheme, further restriction of a detainee’s rights, placement in solitary confinement, disciplinary punishment, and so on) are prosecutors entitled to carry out as regards court decisions?

        Quelles sont les types d’action (présentation de conclusions, présence à l’audience, appel contre la décision) que le procureur peut accomplir durant la procédure devant le juge d’application des peines, dans les Etats où un tel juge existe?

        Dans les Etats dans lesquels un tel juge n’existe pas, quels sont les actes que peut faire un procureur concernant la décision judiciaire (libération avec mise à l’épreuve, modification postérieure du régine d’exécution de la détention, renforcement des restrictions des droits des détenus, placement en isolement/confinement, sanction disciplinaire, etc.) ?

        No sentences/surveillance judges exist in Denmark.

        The Prosecution Services does however have the competences to request a non-sentenced person to be pre-trial detained in isolation, refer to question 2. The ordinary courts would assess the request.

        Matters relating to sentenced persons and the enforcements of imposed sentences are dealt with by the Danish Prison and Probation Services.

        The Danish Prison and Probation Services furthermore assess and decide on matters related to the specific conditions when enforcing a sentence to be served in prison etc.

        Question 21

        When monitoring the enforcement of punishments, do public prosecutors interact with the ombudsman or any other organisation linked to or charged with controlling the enforcement of punishments? If so, what type of interactions are they? Could you give the names of these organisations, whether they be institutional or not, and explain briefly their roles?

        Le procureur qui contrôle l’exécution des sanctions a-t-il des relations, le cas échéant de quels types, avec le médiateur ou d’autres organisations liées au ou chargées du contrôle de l’exécution des sanctions? Pouvez-vous citer ces organisations, institutionnelles ou non, et expliquer brièvement leur rôle ?

        Refer to question 2. No direct interaction is present between the Prosecution Service and the Parliamentary Ombudsman regarding inspections of prisons and prisoners conditions. The Parliamentary Ombudsman is however interacting directly with the Danish Prison and Probation Services when conducting inspections and assessing conditions at prisons and detention facilities.

        Question 22

        Could you give other useful information to the preparation of the draft Opinion (relevant questions to add, documents, etc)?

        Pouvez-vous fournir d’autres informations que vous jugez utile à la préparation du projet d’Avis (questions pertinentes à évoquer, documents, etc.) ?

         

        ESTONIA

        English


        Français

        Remarks

        Remarques

        This questionnaire is addressed to prosecutors and the member of the CCPE of each State shall be responsible for collecting of replies.

        In some States, prosecutors have only reduced powers within matters of prison administration. Some States will therefore not be able to reply to all questions.

        It will not be implied from the fact that this questionnaire was answered that prosecutiors shall have a role in this matter.

        The scope of the questionnaire is identical to that of Recommendation Rec(2006)2 (see para.10): this questionnaire concerns any person deprived of liberty, in any form whatsoever and not strictly the person detained in a prison.

        This questionnaire does not concern the enforcement of sanctions in general but is limited to the prosecutor’s supervision of the legality of the enforcement of sanctions.

        Ce questionnaire s’adresse aux procureurs et le membre du CCPE au titre de chaque Etat est responsable de la collecte des réponses.

        Dans certains Etats, les procureurs ont peu de compétences en matière d’administration pénitentiaire. Certains Etats ne pourront donc pas répondre à toutes les questions.

        Le fait de répondre à ce questionnaire ne sous-entend pas que les procureurs doivent avoir un rôle en la matière.

        Le champ d’application du questionnaire est le même que celui de la Recommandation Rec(2006)2 (voir para.10) : ce questionnaire concerne toute personne privée de liberté, sous quelque forme que ce soit, et non simplement de la personne détenue dans un établissement pénitentiaire.

        Ce questionnaire ne concerne pas l’exécution des sanctions de manière générale et se limite au contrôle de la légalité de l’exécution des sanctions par le procureur.

        Question 2

        What are the Prosecution Service’s powers regarding prison matters and in terms of deprivation of liberty?

        The Prosecutor’s Office of Estonia Republic is a government agency within the area of government of the Ministry of Justice. .According to the Prosecutor’s Office Act, the Prosecutor’s Office participates in planning surveillance required for the prevention and detection of crimes;
        leads pre-trial criminal proceedings ensuring its lawfulness and effectiveness;
        represents public prosecution in court and fulfils other duties imposed on the Prosecutor’s Office by law.Being the leader of criminal proceedings, the prosecutor guides the preliminary investigator in collecting evidence and decides whether to bring charges against a person on the basis of the facts established
        In Estonia prosecutors do not have full authority in prison mattes. Ministry of Justice have full authority in prison matters. Ministry of Justice of Estonia Republic The Department of Prisons is the administrative management unit of the prison system with its principal duty of managing, enhancing and supervising work in prisons. The department is led by the Deputy Secretary-General for prisons of the Ministry of Justice and is divided into four divisions. In addition, the adviser and chief chaplain, secretary and the assistant to the Deputy Secretary-General also form part of department personnel.

        Quelles sont les compétences du Ministère public en matière pénitentiaire et en matière de privation de liberté ?

        Question 3

        In States where prosecutors do not have full authority in prison matters, what are nevertheless their means of action used as regards prisons ?

        According to the Code of Criminal Procedure suspect or accused may be arrested at the request of a Prosecutor's Office and on the basis of an order of a preliminary investigation judge or on the basis of a court ruling if he or she is likely to abscond from the criminal proceeding or continue to commit criminal offences.

        Dans les Etats dans lesquels les procureurs n’ont pas de compétence générale en matière de prisons, quels sont néanmoins les moyens d’action dont ils disposent concernant les systèmes pénitentiaires ?

        Question 4

        If prosecutors have general competences as regard prisons and detention, what kind of means have been provided to the Prosecution Service to allow its effective and fast action towards protecting human rights in matters of prison administration?

        Si les procureurs sont compétents en matière de prisons et de détention, quels sont les moyens à disposition du Ministère public pour lui permettre d’agir efficacement et rapidement pour protéger les droits de l’homme en matière d’administration pénitentiaire ?

        Question 5

        What are the positive and decisive elements of the prosecutor’s role in terms of protecting Human rights compared to other mechanisms of legal protection?

        According to the Code of Criminal Procedure investigative bodies, Prosecutors’ Offices and courts shall treat the participants in a proceeding without defamation or degradation of their dignity. No one shall be subjected to torture or other cruel or inhuman treatment.

        According to Imprisonment Act Prisoners, prisoner or a person in custody be treated in a manner that respects their human dignity and ensures that the serving of the punishment, the penalty following the detention or held in custody did not cause her more suffering or distress to the ones that inevitably a prison or detention house detention. Prisoners, after withholding penalty, freedom of the detained or arrested by law subject to the restrictions. If the law does not stipulate specific restrictions, the prison, the Ministry of Justice or the house of detention applied only to such limitations as are necessary in prison or house arrest for security reasons. Restrictions must comply with the execution of the principle of human dignity and must not distort the law of other rights and freedoms.

        Quels sont les éléments positifs et déterminants du rôle du procureur en matière de protection des droits de l’homme, par rapport aux autres mécanismes de protection juridique ?

        Question 6

        What could be the improvements to this system of protection?

        Quels sont les améliorations qui pourraient être apportées à ce système de protection ?

        Question 7

        Do prosecutors have jurisdiction to examine whether the rights (Human rights and especially procedural rights) of persons in criminal (for example as regards enforcement of prison sentences or pre-trial detention) or administrative detention are respected at the detention centre?

        According to the Code of Criminal Procedure safeguarding of personal liberty and respect for human dignity
        A suspect may be detained for up to forty-eight hours without an arrest warrant issued by a court. A person under arrest shall be immediately notified of the court’s decision on arrest in a language and manner which he or she understands. Investigative bodies, Prosecutors’ Offices and courts shall treat the participants in a proceeding without defamation or degradation of their dignity. No one shall be subjected to torture or other cruel or inhuman treatment. In a criminal proceeding, it is permitted to interfere with the private and family life of a person only in the cases and pursuant to the procedure provided for in this Code in order to prevent a criminal offence, apprehend a criminal offender, ascertain the truth in a criminal matter or secure the execution of a court judgment.

        Le procureur a-t-il compétence pour examiner si les droits (droits de l’homme et en particulier droits procéduraux) des personnes détenues ou retenues (par exemple en matière d’exécution de peines de prison ou de détention provisoire) sont respectés au centre de détention?

        Question 8

        Can a prisoner meet in private with a prosecutor to determine whether they had been subjected to torture or to any other inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment?

        A prisoner or a person in custody has the right of recourse to an administrative court for compensation for damage caused by a prison on the condition that the prisoner or the person in custody has previously submitted an application for compensation for damage pursuant to the procedure provided for in the State Liability Act to the prison and the prison has returned the application or refused to satisfy the application or to review the application during the term.

        Les détenus peuvent-ils avoir une entrevue en tête-à-tête avec le procureur pour savoir s’ils ont été exposés à un acte de torture ou à tout autre peine ou traitement inhumain ou dégradant ?

        Question 9

        Do prosecutors examine, and if so, how frequently, whether the accomodation provided to prisoners meet the recommendations of the Council of Europe (and namely of the European Committee for the prevention of Torture/CPT5? Can prosecutors make proposals in that direction which have an influence on the relevant budget ? No

        In Estonia we have a different system and we can´t answer to this question.

        Le procureur examine-t-il, le cas échéant à quelle fréquence, si l’hébergement des détenus respecte les recommandations du Conseil de l’Europe (et en particulier du Comité européen pour la prévention de la torture/CPT)1 ?
        Le procureur peut-il faire des propositions en ce sens ayant une influence sur le budget concerné ?

        Question 10

        What kind of means exist for prosecutors to deal with authorities or officers/employees which have not completely or properly enforced the decisions of the court or the Prosecution Service related to punishments and/or measures involving deprivation of liberty? If a prosecutor detects such negligence, is he entitled to give binding instructions for the immediate termination of the breach of law? Is it in their power to initiate criminal or disciplinary proceedings, actions for damages or any other kind of impeachment? What other prosecutorial instruments are at his disposal ?

        If a Prosecutor's Office finds elements of a disciplinary offence in the conduct of an official of an investigative body in a pre-trial proceeding, the Prosecutor's Office shall submit a written proposal to the person entitled to impose disciplinary penalties that disciplinary proceedings be commenced against the official of the investigative body. The person entitled to impose disciplinary penalties is required to notify the Prosecutor's Office in writing of the results of resolution of the proposal and of the bases for the resolution within one month as of the receipt of the proposal.

        De quels moyens dispose le procureur à l’encontre des autorités ou agents qui n’exécutent pas complètement ou correctement les décisions du tribunal ou du procureur concernant les sanctions et/ou les mesures privatives de liberté ? Si le procureur détecte une négligence, peut-il donner des instructions contraignantes visant à faire cesser immédiatement l’infraction à la loi ? Peut-il initier une procédure pénale ou disciplinaire, une action en réparation ou tout autre type d’action en contestation ? Quels sont les autres instruments d’action publique à sa disposition  ?

        Question 11

        How often do prosecutors carry out monitoring visits of institutions of criminal and administrative detention? Are there concrete follow-ups related to these visits?

        In Estonia we have a different system and we can´t answer to this question.

        Quelle est la fréquence des visites de contrôle du procureur dans les lieux de détention et de rétention? Ces visites peuvent-elles faire l’objet d’un suivi concret ?

        Question 12

        Within the framework of their monitoring duties, do prosecutors have the power to take action at any time of the day (even at night) in the institutions of criminal and administrative detention? No

        In Estonia we have a different system and we can´t answer to this question.

        Le procureur a-t-il la possibilité d’intervenir à toute heure (même la nuit) dans le lieu de détention et de rétention dans le cadre de sa tâche d’inspection?

        Question 13

        May prosecutors commission experts to assist them in their tasks related to supervision and inspection?

        No

        Pour leurs tâches de contrôle et d’inspection, les procureurs ont-ils la possibilité de recourir à des experts ?

        Question 14

        Are complaints and/or denunciations regarding criminal and administrative detention subject to prosecutorial inquiry independently of any relevant authority or employees/officers? Is it a prosecutor’s duty to complete investigations himself/herself or is he/she allowed to forward these complaints for investigation to the officers/employees that are the subject of those complaints? No

        A prisoner or a person in custody has the right of recourse to an administrative court for compensation for damage caused by a prison on the condition that the prisoner or the person in custody has previously submitted an application for compensation for damage pursuant to the procedure provided for in the State Liability Act to the prison and the prison has returned the application or refused to satisfy the application or to review the application during the term.

        Les plaintes et/ou dénonciations concernant la détention et la rétention font-elles l’objet d’investigations par le procureur, indépendamment des autorités ou des agents concernés?Le procureur a-t-il le devoir d’enquêter lui-même ou peut-il transmettre les plaintes pour enquête aux agents qui sont l’objet de la plainte ?

        Question 15

        In case of sudden death, accident or criminal offence committed against a prisoner, or if a prisoner commits a crime against another prisoner or a prison staff member, is the investigation conducted by a prosecutor acting as an independent judicial authority or is it simply supervised by a prosecutor? Do prosecutors have any role in investigations?

        Investigative bodies and Prosecutors’ Offices are required to conduct criminal proceedings upon the appearance of facts referring to a criminal offence unless the circumstances provided for in the Code which preclude criminal procedure or the grounds to terminate criminal proceedings pursuant to subsection of this Code exist.

        En cas de décès subit, d’accident ou d’infraction pénale à l’encontre du détenu, ou si celui-ci commet un crime à l’encontre d’un autre détenu ou d’un agent de l’administration pénitentiaire, l’affaire est-elle instruite par le procureur en tant qu’instance judiciaire indépendante ou est-elle simplement contrôlée par le procureur ? Les procureurs ont-ils un rôle quelconque dans l’enquête ?

        Question 16

        Are prosecutors entitled to take action in procedures concerning the adoption/revocation of special measures for high risk detaineed or subject to special restrictions in connection with Notheir role and position in active criminal organisations? If so, how? No

        Le procureur peut-il intervenir, et le cas échéant de quelle manière, dans des procédures concernant l’adoption/la révocation de mesures spéciales pour les détenus à haut risque ou soumis à des restrictions spécifiques en raison de leur rôle et leur position dans les organisations criminelles actives ?

        Question 17

        With a view to preserving them from any type of influence, are prosecutors autonomous or subordinated to other colleagues when monitoring the detention’s legality?
        The authority of a Prosecutor's Office in criminal proceedings shall be exercised independently by the prosecutor in the name of the Prosecutor's Office and the prosecutor is governed only by law.

        Afin de les protéger contre toute forme d’influence, les procureurs exercent-ils de manière autonome le contrôle de la légalité de la détention ou sont-ils subordonnés à d’autres collègues?

        Question 18

        Is a prosecutor involved in granting a person’s pardon, amnesty or release, especially in the case of negative effects resulting from the punishment? Do prosecutors supervise criminal records?

        For release of a prisoner on parole, the prison shall forward to the court, after the prisoner has served the term of punishment provided for in of the Penal Code, the personal file of the prisoner, the opinion of the probation supervisor concerning the probationary period and the selected obligations to be imposed upon the prisoner and the term for imposition thereof and the consent of the prisoner to application of electronic monitoring if the prisoner applies for release on the basis of the Penal Code. The Court can ask from prosecutor opinion. The judge in charge of execution of court judgments at the county court of the place of execution of a punishment may release a convicted offender on parole after the convicted offender has served the term of punishment provided for in the Penal Code.

        Les procureurs participent-ils au processus de grâce, d’amnistie ou de libération des personnes notamment en cas d’effets négatifs de la sanction ? Les procureurs contrôlent-ils les casiers judiciaires ?

        Question 19

        Are special qualifications and training required of prosecutors who carry out duties in matters of criminal and administrative detention? Please specify. No

        Les procureurs bénéficient-ils de qualifications et formations spéciales pour l’accomplissement de leurs tâches en matière de détention et de rétention des personnes? Veuillez préciser.

        Question 20

        What acts (presentation of conclusions, attend hearings, appeal against court decisions) are prosecutors entitled to carry out during proceedings before judges with jurisdiction over the enforcement of sentences/surveillance judges (“juges de l’application des peines”), in states where such judge exists? No

        If a convicted offender was not kept under arrest during the court proceeding, the county court enforcing the court decision shall send a notice prepared according to the treatment plan to the convicted offender, setting out by which time and to which prison the convicted offender must appear for the service of the sentence. Such notice shall set out that in the case of failure to appear in the prison at the time specified compelled attendance shall be applied to the person.

        In states where such a judge does not exist, what acts (release on probation, subsequent alteration of the detention’s enforcement scheme, further restriction of a detainee’s rights, placement in solitary confinement, disciplinary punishment, and so on) are prosecutors entitled to carry out as regards court decisions?

        Quelles sont les types d’action (présentation de conclusions, présence à l’audience, appel contre la décision) que le procureur peut accomplir durant la procédure devant le juge d’application des peines, dans les Etats où un tel juge existe?

        Dans les Etats dans lesquels un tel juge n’existe pas, quels sont les actes que peut faire un procureur concernant la décision judiciaire (libération avec mise à l’épreuve, modification postérieure du régine d’exécution de la détention, renforcement des restrictions des droits des détenus, placement en isolement/confinement, sanction disciplinaire, etc.) ?

        Question 21

        When monitoring the enforcement of punishments, do public prosecutors interact with the ombudsman or any other organisation linked to or charged with controlling the enforcement of punishments? If so, what type of interactions are they? Could you give the names of these organisations, whether they be institutional or not, and explain briefly their roles?

        In Estonia we have a different system and we can´t answer to this question.

        Le procureur qui contrôle l’exécution des sanctions a-t-il des relations, le cas échéant de quels types, avec le médiateur ou d’autres organisations liées au ou chargées du contrôle de l’exécution des sanctions? Pouvez-vous citer ces organisations, institutionnelles ou non, et expliquer brièvement leur rôle ?

        Question 22

        Could you give other useful information to the preparation of the draft Opinion (relevant questions to add, documents, etc)?

        Ministry of Justice of Estonia Republic The Department of Prisons is the administrative management unit of the prison system with its principal duty of managing, enhancing and supervising work in prisons. The department is led by the Deputy Secretary-General for prisons of the Ministry of Justice and is divided into four divisions. In addition, the adviser and chief chaplain, secretary and the assistant to the Deputy Secretary-General also form part of department personnel.
        The competence of the Sentencing Enforcement Division includes:

          · supervision and surveillance activities;
          · accounting and statistics of imprisoned persons and persons held in custody;
          · maintenance of the register of prisoners;
          · placement of imprisoned persons and persons held in custody;
          · activities of the armed units of prisons;
          · security and other safety systems, weapons, ammunition and special equipment of the Ministry and institutions in the area of jurisdiction of the Ministry.

        The competence of the Rehabilitation Division includes:

          · system of social rehabilitation of imprisoned persons and persons held in custody and social work in prisons;
          · probation supervision;
          · psychological assistance;
          · education and cultural activities of imprisoned persons and persons held in custody;
          · health care of imprisoned persons and persons held in custody;
          · drug prevention and rehabilitation.

        The competence of the Legal and Development Division includes:

          · development of the prison organisation;
          · legislative drafting;
          · accounting, development and training of human resources;
          · development of minimum-security imprisonment;
          · issues pertaining to prison budgets;
          · international cooperation and communication.

        The competence of the Internal Control Division includes:

          · prevention and detection of offences committed by employees of the Prisons Department and prison officers and, where necessary, carrying out surveillance activities with regard to prison officers;
          · collection and analysis of surveillance information and other information received from prisons;
          · coordination of protection of state secrets and inspection thereof in prisons;
          · organisation and coordination of surveillance activities and criminal proceedings in prisons and coordination of cooperation between prisons and other investigative and surveillance bodies;
          · exercising supervisory control over the activities of prisons;
          · resolution of petitions, requests and challenges.

        Pouvez-vous fournir d’autres informations que vous jugez utile à la préparation du projet d’Avis (questions pertinentes à évoquer, documents, etc.) ?

        FINLANDE

        CONSUL TATIVE COUNCIL OF EUROPEAN PROSECUTORS (CCPE)

        Questionnaire concerning "The relationships between prosecutors and prison administration"

        According to the Finnish legislation the prosecutor has no powers at all

        - within matters of prison administration or supervision of prisons,
        - regarding protecting of human rights of persons taken into custody or of remand prisoners,
        - regarding enforcement of imprisonment or supervision of enforcement.

        The prosecutor is not involved

        - in decision-making concerning an imprisoned person's disciplinary measures,
        - or in granting a person's pardon
        - or in decision-making of releasing a person on parole.

        In Finland this kind of legality control belongs to the Parliamentary Ombudsman.

        The only legal provision giving the prosecutor an opportunity to influence the circumstances of a remand prisoner, is in the Coercive Measures Act, Chapter 1, Section 18b. During the pretrial investigation communication of a remand prisoner with another person can be restricted if there is a reasonable cause to suspect that the communication seriously endangers the purpose of the remand imprisonment. Except the prison governor or the officer in charge of the investigation, a proposal of restricting the communication of a remand prisoner can also be made by the prosecutor to the court which will give the final decision.

        GEORGIA

        Question 2

        Quelles sont les compétences du Ministère public en matière pénitentiaire et en matière de privation de liberté ?

        Réponse :

        En Géorgie, les procureurs n’ont pas de compétence en matière du contrôle d’exécution de peine. Le Ministère public (Parquet Principal de la Géorgie), lequel de sa part dépend du Ministère de la justice est séparé du Ministère pénitentiaire, de probation et d’aide juridique. Ainsi, le Ministère pénitentiaire, de probation et d’aide juridique est l’autorité compétente en matière pénitentiaire et en matière de privation de liberté.

        En plus, le 1 octobre 2010 est entré en vigueur le nouveau Code de Procédure Pénale de la Géorgie, conformément auquel le procureur ne donne plus son avis par rapport la sorte et la durée de la peine à déterminer, mais le juge la définit sans entendre la position du procureur.

        Question 3

        Dans les Etats dans lesquels les procureurs n’ont pas de compétence générale en matière de prisons, quels sont néanmoins les moyens d’action dont ils disposent concernant les systèmes pénitentiaires ?

        Réponse :

        Au Ministère pénitentiaire, de probation et d’aide juridique il existe une unité spéciale, dite «Département d’investigation», laquelle d’une manière générale mène des enquêtes sur les crimes et les délits commis sur les territoires des établissements pénitentiaires; commis par les détenus ou contre eux; ayant rapport avec les détenus et ayant rapport avec l’exécution de peine. La surveillance procédurale sur ces enquêtes est assurée par le Ministère public.

        Néanmoins, conformément à l’article 33 du Code de Procédure Pénale de la Géorgie, le procureur peut toujours mener l’enquête lui-même indépendamment, sans recourir à l’aide des enquêteurs du Département d’investigation du Ministère pénitentiaire, de probation et d’aide juridique.

        En plus, le parquet mène exclusivement lui-même l’enquête sur les délits et les crimes commis par les fonctionnaires d’Etat ou personnes assimilées à eux lors de l’exécution de leurs fonctions. Ainsi, puisque les agents des établissements pénitentiaires ont le statut des fonctionnaires ou personnes assimilées à eux et s’ils commettent des crimes lors de l’exécution de leurs fonctions, ces affaires sont enquêtées directement par le parquet.

        Question 4

        Si les procureurs sont compétents en matière de prisons et de détention, quels sont les moyens à disposition du Ministère public pour lui permettre d’agir efficacement et rapidement pour protéger les droits de l’homme en matière d’administration pénitentiaire ?

        Réponse :

        Le Ministère public géorgienne veille à ce que les droits des personnes mises en détention soient respectés. A cette fin, sur la demande du détenu les procureurs spécialisés en la matière organise l’entrevue en tête-à-tête immédiate et confidentielle avec lui, le rencontrent, dressent les procès-verbaux et les font suivre. S’il s’avère que l’information reçue de leur part contient les signes du corps de délit ou de crime, l’enquête sera ouverte. Dans le cas contraire, l’information est transmise au Service du contrôle du Département pénitentiaire du Ministère pénitentiaire, de probation et d’aide juridique.

        En plus, il faut signaler que tous les détenus qui sont transférés dans les établissements pénitentiaires sont les sujets d’examens médicaux. Ainsi, si lors de cet examen médical il s’avère que le détenu a des signes d’agression, l’information est immédiatement transmise au Ministère public et les procureurs spécialisés en la matière vérifient sa provenance. S’il s’avère que le détenu a reçu les blessures lors de son arrestation ou pendant sa mise en garde à vue préalable dans les établissements policières, l’enquête sera ouverte et transmise pour l’investigation aux autorités compétentes.

        Question 5

        Quels sont les éléments positifs et déterminants du rôle du procureur en matière de protection des droits de l’homme, par rapport aux autres mécanismes de protection juridique ?

        Réponse :

        Les procureurs assurent la surveillance procédurale sur toutes les enquêtes menées par les organes d’investigation géorgienne et entre outre par le Département d’investigation du Ministère pénitentiaire, de probation et d’aide juridique; les procureurs peuvent instruire le dossier eux-mêmes; ils peuvent donner des orientations aux enquêteurs; dans le cas de la nécessité les procureurs se rendent personnellement aux établissements pénitentiaires pour l’entretien avec les détenus et l’information ainsi reçue peut être servie pour l’ouverture de l’enquête.

        Question 6

        Quels sont les améliorations qui pourraient être apportées à ce système de protection ?

        Réponse :

        Les autorités géorgiennes sont prêtes à examiner toutes les suggestions lesquelles serviront à l’amélioration de ce système de protection impliquant les procureurs.

        Question 7

        Le procureur a-t-il compétence pour examiner si les droits (droits de l’homme et en particulier droits procéduraux) des personnes détenues ou retenues (par exemple en matière d’exécution de peines de prison ou de détention provisoire) sont respectés au centre de détention?

        Réponse :

        Sur la demande des personnes détenues ou retenues, les procureurs spécialisés en la matière se rendent personnellement aux établissements pénitentiaires pour l’entretien avec eux. Si ces personnes dénoncent certaines violations de leurs droits au sein de l’établissement et si l’objet de cette dénonciation contient des signes du corps de délit ou de crime, l’enquête sera ouverte, sinon cette information sera transmise au Service du contrôle du Département pénitentiaire du Ministère pénitentiaire, de probation et d’aide juridique.

        Question 8

        Les détenus peuvent-ils avoir une entrevue en tête-à-tête avec le procureur pour savoir s’ils ont été exposés à un acte de torture ou à tout autre peine ou traitement inhumain ou dégradant ?

        Réponse :

        Oui, les détenus peuvent avoir une entrevue confidentielle en tête-à-tête avec le procureur et ils ont la possibilité de lui donner l’information directement et personnellement. Sur le fondement de cette information l’enquête préalable sera ouverte.

        Question 9

        Le procureur examine-t-il, le cas échéant à quelle fréquence, si l’hébergement des détenus respecte les recommandations du Conseil de l’Europe (et en particulier du Comité européen pour la prévention de la torture/CPT)1 ?
        Le procureur peut-il faire des propositions en ce sens ayant une influence sur le budget concerné ?

        Réponse :

        Non, le procureur n’a pas cette compétence, mais ceci relève de la qualité des autres autorités du droit public, parmi lesquelles il faut signaler le rôle majeur du médiateur public («défenseur public»). L’information fournie par le médiateur peut servir de base pour l’ouverture de l’enquête.

        Le procureur ne peut pas non plus faire des propositions sur le budget concerné.

        Question 10

        De quels moyens dispose le procureur à l’encontre des autorités ou agents qui n’exécutent pas complètement ou correctement les décisions du tribunal ou du procureur concernant les sanctions et/ou les mesures privatives de liberté ? Si le procureur détecte une négligence, peut-il donner des instructions contraignantes visant à faire cesser immédiatement l’infraction à la loi ? Peut-il initier une procédure pénale ou disciplinaire, une action en réparation ou tout autre type d’action en contestation ? Quels sont les autres instruments d’action publique à sa disposition  ?

        Réponse :

        Conformément à l’article 381 du Code Pénal de la Géorgie l’inexécution des décisions des juges est un délit. Ainsi, lorsqu’il y a une telle information, l’enquête est ouverte et si cette enquête est instruite par l’enquêteur, le procureur assure sa surveillance procédurale.

        Si le procureur détecte une négligence de la part des agents de l’établissement pénitentiaire, le procureur initie la procédure pénale ou disciplinaire (si son comportement ne contient pas des signes du corps du délit ou du crime). Si la procédure disciplinaire est initiée, le procureur adresse son rapport aux supérieurs de l’agent mis en cause et demande de lui communiquer dans un délai prévu par la législation (10 jours) les résultats qui ont été entrepris contre l’agent concerné. Le procureur peut même demander qu’il soit appelé pour participer à la réunion au moment de laquelle la décision disciplinaire doit être prise et il peut demander qu’il soit entendu lors de cette réunion.

        Question 11

        Quelle est la fréquence des visites de contrôle du procureur dans les lieux de détention et de rétention? Ces visites peuvent-elles faire l’objet d’un suivi concret ?

        Réponse :

        Ceci dépend de la demande émanant de la part des détenus. Pour avoir l’entrevue en tête-à-tête avec eux, le procureur se rend dans l’établissement pénitentiaire immédiatement. Ainsi, ces visites peuvent avoir lieu même chaque jour si le détenu a de l’information concrète sur la violation probable de ses droits.

        L’information reçue lors de ces visites peut être utilisée pour l’ouverture de la procédure pénale ou disciplinaire.

        Question 12

        Le procureur a-t-il la possibilité d’intervenir à toute heure (même la nuit) dans le lieu de détention et de rétention dans le cadre de sa tâche d’inspection?

        Réponse :

        Comme nous avons signalé plus haut, en Géorgie le procureur n’a pas de compétence d’inspection des établissements pénitentiaires, mais il s’y rend sur la demande des détenus. En cas d’urgence il peut s’y rendre à n’importe quelle heure, même la nuit.

        Question 13

        Pour leurs tâches de contrôle et d’inspection, les procureurs ont-ils la possibilité de recourir à des experts ?

        Réponse :

        Pour vérifier l’état physique de détenu et la gravité de l’agression probable subie, les procureurs peuvent recourir à des experts.
        Question 14

        Les plaintes et/ou dénonciations concernant la détention et la rétention font-elles l’objet d’investigations par le procureur, indépendamment des autorités ou des agents concernés? Le procureur a-t-il le devoir d’enquêter lui-même ou peut-il transmettre les plaintes pour enquête aux agents qui sont l’objet de la plainte ?

        Réponse :

        Lorsque l’enquête est ouverte par rapport à la violation probable de droit de l’homme du détenu, l’affaire est instruite d’une manière générale par l’enquêteur du Département d’investigation du Ministère pénitentiaire, de probation et d’aide juridique. La surveillance procédurale sur cette enquête est toujours assurée par le procureur. Néanmoins, conformément à l’article 33 du Code de Procédure Pénale de la Géorgie, le procureur peut toujours mener l’enquête lui-même indépendamment, sans recourir à l’aide de l’enquêteur.

        Il faut signaler, qu’on distingue les agents de l’établissement pénitentiaire et les enquêteurs, lesquels sont responsables d’enquête (sous réserve du précédent alinéa). Ainsi, l’agent de l’établissement pénitentiaire qui est l’objet de la plainte ne peut pas mener l’enquête et l’enquêteur qui mène la dite investigation ne dépend pas du Département pénitentiaire du ministère comme c’est le cas pour les agents pénitentiaires. L’enquête est instruite par le Département d’investigation du Ministère et pas par le Département pénitentiaire.

        En plus, comme nous avons remarqué plus haut, il faut prendre en compte que le parquet mène lui-même l’enquête sur les délits et les crimes commis par les fonctionnaires d’Etat ou personnes assimilées à eux lors de l’exécution de leurs fonctions. Ainsi, puisque les agents des établissements pénitentiaires ont le statut des fonctionnaires ou personnes assimilées à eux et s’ils commettent des délits ou des crimes lors de l’exécution de leurs fonctions, ces affaires sont enquêtées directement et exclusivement par le parquet.

        Question 15

        En cas de décès subit, d’accident ou d’infraction pénale à l’encontre du détenu, ou si celui-ci commet un crime à l’encontre d’un autre détenu ou d’un agent de l’administration pénitentiaire, l’affaire est-elle instruite par le procureur en tant qu’instance judiciaire indépendante ou est-elle simplement contrôlée par le procureur ? Les procureurs ont-ils un rôle quelconque dans l’enquête ?

        Réponse :

        Dans ces cas aussi, l’affaire est instruite d’une manière générale par l’enquêteur du Département d’investigation du Ministère pénitentiaire, de probation et d’aide juridique. La surveillance procédurale sur cette enquête est toujours assurée par le procureur. Néanmoins, conformément à l’article 33 du Code de Procédure Pénale de la Géorgie, le procureur peut toujours mener l’enquête lui-même indépendamment, sans recourir à l’aide de l’enquêteur.

        Question 16

        Le procureur peut-il intervenir, et le cas échéant de quelle manière, dans des procédures concernant l’adoption/la révocation de mesures spéciales pour les détenus à haut risque ou soumis à des restrictions spécifiques en raison de leur rôle et leur position dans les organisations criminelles actives ?

        Réponse :

        Conformément à l’article 46 du Code des prisonniers de la Géorgie, le type de l’établissement pénitentiaire où le détenu doit être placé est décidé par le directeur du Département pénitentiaire du Ministère pénitentiaire, de probation et d’aide juridique de la Géorgie compte ténu de la gravité du crime perpétré.

        En plus, conformément à l’article 50 du même code, les détenus à haut risque (des criminels dangereux, dont le caractère, l’autorité criminelle, le motif du crime, le résultat du crime ou le comportement dans l’établissement pénitentiaire met en danger l’établissement pénitentiaire soit les détenus s’y trouvant) sont isolés des autres détenus.

        Dans cette procédure les procureurs n’interviennent pas.

        Question 17

        Afin de les protéger contre toute forme d’influence, les procureurs exercent-ils de manière autonome le contrôle de la légalité de la détention ou sont-ils subordonnés à d’autres collègues?

        Réponse :

        En Géorgie le procureur n’a pas de compétence de contrôle de la légalité de la détention.

        Question 18

        Les procureurs participent-ils au processus de grâce, d’amnistie ou de libération des personnes notamment en cas d’effets négatifs de la sanction ? Les procureurs contrôlent-ils les casiers judiciaires ?

        Réponse :

        Non, en Géorgie le procureur ne participe pas dans ces procédures.

        Question 19

        Les procureurs bénéficient-ils de qualifications et formations spéciales pour l’accomplissement de leurs tâches en matière de détention et de rétention des personnes? Veuillez préciser.

        Réponse :

        Oui, au sein du Ministère de la Justice de la Géorgie fonctionne «le centre d’étude» lequel organise d’une manière systématique les formations pour les procureurs compte ténu de leurs tâches spécifiques en matière de détention et de rétention des personnes.

        Dans ces formations participent les experts convoqués à cette fin et il y est discuté des différents sujets ayant rapport avec le rôle des procureurs dans le système pénitentiaire.

        Question 20

        Quelles sont les types d’action (présentation de conclusions, présence à l’audience, appel contre la décision) que le procureur peut accomplir durant la procédure devant le juge d’application des peines, dans les Etats où un tel juge existe?

        Dans les Etats dans lesquels un tel juge n’existe pas, quels sont les actes que peut faire un procureur concernant la décision judiciaire (libération avec mise à l’épreuve, modification postérieure du régine d’exécution de la détention, renforcement des restrictions des droits des détenus, placement en isolement/confinement, sanction disciplinaire, etc.) ?

        Réponse :

        Dans le système judiciaire géorgien il n’existe pas le juge d’application des peines.

        Après le prononcé du jugement définitif le procureur ne participe en aucune pareille procédure.

        Question 21

        Le procureur qui contrôle l’exécution des sanctions a-t-il des relations, le cas échéant de quels types, avec le médiateur ou d’autres organisations liées au ou chargées du contrôle de l’exécution des sanctions? Pouvez-vous citer ces organisations, institutionnelles ou non, et expliquer brièvement leur rôle ?

        Réponse :

        En Géorgie, le procureur ne contrôle pas l’exécution des sanctions. Mais si le médiateur public («défenseur public») ou autre organisation gouvernementale ou non-gouvernementale s’intéressant des droits de l’homme dans les établissements pénitentiaires présente de l’information sur la violation probable des droits des prévenus, l’enquête sera ouverte et le procureur exercera ses fonctions dans cette enquête.

        Question 22

        Pouvez-vous fournir d’autres informations que vous jugez utile à la préparation du projet d’Avis (questions pertinentes à évoquer, documents, etc.) ?

        Réponse :

        Au sein du Ministère pénitentiaire, de probation et d’aide juridique il existe le service de sûreté des établissements pénitentiaires dont les officiers ont la compétence d’exercer les fonctions opérationnelles. La surveillance procédurale sur l’activité de ces officiers est assurée également par les procureurs.

        GREECE

        Regarding the draft questionnaire compiled by CCPE for the preparation of the 6Ih CCPE Opinion (2011) on the relationships between prosecutors and prison administration in particular in the light of the Recommendation Rec (2006) 2 on the European prison rules, we have the honour to provide the following replies :

        1. Introductory remark

        The enforcement of custodial sentences or security measures is supervised by the "Supervising Prosecutor". In the four largest prisons (Piraeus, Thessaloniki, Patras and Larissa), the Supervising Prosecutor holds the rank of Deputy Prosecutor for the Court of Appeal and his legal substitute is a Prosecutor for the First Instance Court, who assists him in the performance of his duties (article 572§3 of the Code of Penal Procedure). In the other prisons, supervision is exercised by the Prosecutor for the Magistrate Court (first instance court) of the place where the sentence is served (article 572§1 of the Code of Penal Procedure). In the Juvenile Prison of Athens in particular, supervision is exercised by the Prosecutor for Minors (first instance court). Reply to question 2

        The powers of the Supervising Prosecutor are laid down in article 7 of the General Prison Bylaws as follows;

        1. In the context of supervision, the prosecutor cooperates with the warden and the chiefs of the various sections of the prison and makes recommendations on matters relating to the enforcement of the sentences.

        2. The supervising prosecutor, or his substitute, has powers of jurisdictional, disciplinary and inspecting nature. Specifically, the supervising prosecutor:

        1) Sees to the implementation of the provisions, as applicable from time to time, on the treatment of prisoners and the provisions of the Penal Code and special laws relating to the enforcement of sentences and the implementation of security measures;
        2) Presides over the Disciplinary Board and the Prisoner Labour Board;
        3) Grants special leaves of absence to prisoners for the fulfilment of family, vocational or other emergency and unpredictable needs. To grant special leaves, applicant prisoners must submit written documentation establishing that: (i) the situation is not common and chronic, and (ii) there are no arrangement to cover such needs, similar to those concerning prisoners' healthcare and visits with persons other than relatives up to the fourth degree;
        4) Decides on the beneficial calculation of sentence days, on recommendation of the Prisoner Labour Board;
        5) Participates in the meetings of the Prison Board by invitation or ex officio;
        6) Presides over the Prison Board when the latter meets to decide warden's recommendations on the transfer of a prisoner;
        7) Lodges, on discretion, appeals against the decisions of the Prison Board before the Magistrate Council, in its capacity of Sentence Enforcement Court;
        8) Participates in the Magistrate Council, in the region of which the prison is located, when it meets as Sentence Enforcement Court, unless it reviews an appeal lodged by the prosecutor against a decision of the Prison Board;
        9) Accepts prisoners, their relatives and attorneys in audience on request;
        10) Reviews matters of court protection of prisoners, suggesting to concerned parties to take appropriate action, and forwards to competent authorities legal aid requests by prisoners who are financially unable to have access to justice and exercise their defence rights, pursuant to article 33 hereof;
        11) Calls the police force to provide any necessary assistance in case of mass prisoner unruliness, riot or resistance to a legitimate order, especially an order to return to and remain in prison cells or wards;
        12) Checks increased prison security measures;
        13) Lays down restrictions to the living conditions of prisoners in extraordinary cases, in order to ensure the smooth operation and security of the supervised prison;
        14) Decides on the admission or not of the children of female prisoners in child care institutions when they became three years old, provided that they are deprived of appropriate relatives, having listened to their parents;
        15) Calls for the cooperation of specialised scientific staff and utilises their proposals and the findings of their inquiries, when they relate to his supervision;
        16) Sees to the sanitary inspection of the prison regularly, within the first ten days of each quarter, and extraordinarily, at his discretion, and attends such inspection;
        17) Orders appropriate measures when the prisoner is unable or refuses to consent to a medical act deemed necessary for his health by the competent physician;
        18) Orders appropriate measures, on recommendation of the competent physician, for hunger strike prisoners who face imminent risk to their life or serious and permanent damage to their health, taking into consideration the prisoners' personality, their pursuits and the solidity of their decision;
        19) Determines, following a pertinent medical opinion, the treatment dictated by the legal pr actual situation of prisoners awaiting trial;
        20) Invites physicians of appropriate specialty to examine prisoners, when such a physician does not serve in the prison and cannot be found, out of a list of visiting physicians and nurses, on recommendation of the prison warden;
        21) Takes any other action provided for by these bylaws and monitors compliance herewith.

        Reply to question 3

        -------

        Reply to question 4

        Conducting preliminary inquiries and transmitting the case file and the relevant findings to: (a) the prosecutor who initiates criminal proceedings, for evaluation of the initiation or not of criminal proceedings, (b) the Ministry of Justice, for disciplinary treatment of prison staff.

        Reply to question 5

        Prosecutors may conduct the preliminary inquiries referred to in reply 4 above, accept prisoners, their relatives or attorneys in audience at their request, review matters of court protection of prisoners by suggesting appropriate action thereto, forward to competent authorities legal aid requests by prisoners with little financial means, conduct sanitary inspections in prisons.

        Reply to question 6

        Better infrastructures and increase in human resources, enriching them with other specialities, such as criminologists and interpreters, due to the large number of non-national prisoners.

        Reply to question 7

        Yes

        Reply to question 8

        Yes

        Reply to question 9

        They examine and submit proposals to the Ministry of Justice, but have no direct influence on the relevant budget. Moreover, they have no direct powers: (a) to make funds available for improvement of accommodation, (b) to deal with the overcrowding of prisons. These matters are regulated by the Ministry of Justice. As regards prison overcrowding, alternative sentences (e.g. increase of limits for conditional suspension, conversion, payment of the conversion sum in instalments, provision of community work) have been recently (December 2010) introduced for custodial sentences (10 days to 5 years).

        Reply to question 10

        The prison supervising prosecutor has the powers mentioned in reply 4.

        Reply to question 11

        In the four largest prisons (Piraeus, Thessaloniki, Patras, Larissa), the supervising deputy prosecutor for the Court of Appeal or his substitute, prosecutor for the Magistrate Court, visit the prisons every day. In other prisons, the local prosecutor for the Magistrate Court or his substitute makes visits twice a week. However, if so warranted by the circumstances (e.g. incidents, need to make an extraordinary inspection), visits can be carried out at any time.

        Reply to question 12

        Yes

        Reply to question 13

        Yes (e.g. research for narcotics or weapons).

        Reply to question 14

        Yes, inquiries are conducted by the prison supervising prosecutor and, as regards the criminal part; the case is transmitted to the locally competent prosecutor for the first instance court. Denunciations or complaints cannot be investigated by prison staff against whom such denunciations or complaints are made.

        Reply to question 15

        The investigation is conducted by the prosecutor acting as an independent judicial authority, either by himself or under his orders and instructions by the competent preliminary investigation officers (such as junior prosecutors or justice court judges), i.e. by persons unrelated to prisons.

        Reply to question 16

        Yes. Prison supervising prosecutors can issue relevant orders e.g. relating to restrictions to living conditions in prison. High risk detainees may be transferred to other prisons, according to the decision of the Central Transfers Committee of the Ministry of Justice.

        Reply to question 17

        They are autonomous. In case of objections to the enforcement of a sentence, they are introduced to and heard, by the Three-member Magistrate Council sitting at the place of detention.

        Reply to question 18

        Not in amnesty (which is only provided for political offences and is decided by Parliament with the special majority of 3/5). In case of requests for pardon or elimination of consequences of criminal sentence, the prosecutor who participated in the court that delivered the sentence (or, if he has resigned from service, his substitute) expresses his opinion in writing to the Pardon Boards of the Ministry of Justice. All Prosecutor Services for the First Instance Court have a Criminal Records Section supervised by the prosecutor for the first instance court.

        Reply to question 19

        No

        Reply to question 20

        The prison supervising prosecutor may set restrictions to the living conditions of detainees in exceptional cases for security reasons. In his capacity of chairman of the Three-member Prison Disciplinary Board, he decides together with the other two members on disciplinary sanctions against detainees, such as solitary confinement, granting regular or educational leaves of absence. He can grant extraordinary leaves of absence for special reasons, as determined by the Penitentiary Code. He decides on the beneficial calculation of sentence days, on recommendation of the Prisoners Labour Board.

        He lodges, at discretion, appeals against the decisions of the Prison Board before the Three-member Magistrate Council (sitting at the place of sentence enforcement), in its capacity of sentence enforcement court. The Three-member Magistrate Council consists of three judges and is attended by a prosecutor, who must be heard before the delivery of the judgment.

        The supervising prosecutor participates in the Three-member Magistrate Council, when the latter meets as Sentence Enforcement Court, unless it reviews an appeal lodged by the prosecutor against a decision of the Prison Board, in which case another prosecutor participates in the Magistrate Council.

        When a prisoner has served the prescribed minimum sentence, the supervising prosecutor shall, at the prisoner's request, submit a proposal to the Magistrate Council for the conditional release of the prisoner.

        Only the prosecutor for the court of appeal is entitled to appeal against the said decisions of the Three-member Magistrate Council.

        Reply to question 21

        Not applicable to us.

        Reply to question 22

        No. the questionnaire is satisfactory.

        HUNGARY

        RESPONSES OF THE HUNGARIAN DELEGATION TO THE QUESTIONNAIRE

        elaborated with a view to the preparation of the Opinion No.6 (2011) of the CCPE on the relationships between prosecutors and prison administration, in particular in the light of the Recommendation Rec (2006)2 on the European prison rules

        Ad 1. There is no Question 1 in the Questionnaire.

        Ad 2 In the sense of Section 51, Subsection (2) of the Constitution and of Section 11 of Act V of 1972 on Prosecution Service of the Republic of Hungary, the public prosecutor shall assume the supervision of legality of all punishments, supplementary punishment, and penal measures, coercive measures applied in the course of criminal proceedings, measures, restricting liberty and confinement, ordered by authorities of public administration, custody applied under aliens legislation, or designated mandatory staying at the centres for immigration detainees, expulsion of foreign nationals irregularly staying in Hungary, post-release assistance for prisoners, of keeping the criminal and warrants of arrest records. While exercising these supervisory functions, the public prosecution service is entitled to control the legality of execution of the imposed punishments of deprivation of liberty, of community service work, of fine, of restraint of profession, of suspension of driving privileges, of expulsion; the legality of the imposed supplementary punishments of banishment from holding public office, and banishment from entering certain places; of penal measures of reprimand, of probation, of forced medical treatment, of seizure, of confiscation of property, of supervision by probation officer, of education in reformatory institution for juveniles, as well as of penal measures, ordered against entities with legal personality, and also the legality of the execution of apprehension, of warrant of compulsory attendance, of short term criminal or administrative detention, of the detention of foreign nationals, applied under immigration legislation (with a maximal duration of 72 hours, of preventive detention, of temporary forced medical treatment, of house arrest, at the authorities in charge of the execution of these penal measures (namely the institutions of the execution of punishments, police, probation service, immigration authorities, regional officer's service, National Office of Immigration and Nationality, national authority keeping criminal records). The public prosecutor shall have access to the instructions, relating to the conditions and regime of the detention and to the documents relating to the detention; shall hear the detainees (in private as well); shall review the complaints, submitted against the execution of decisions, rendered in criminal matters; shall supervise the legality of treatment of detainees and the enforcement of dispositions on the safeguard of rights. The supervisory visits at places of detention (i.e. prisons, police facilities, facilities of investigating authorities for apprehension of persons, guarded shelters for foreign nationals) once a fortnight (according to the CPT recommendation, since 2000; before, such visits had only monthly occurrence); the hearing of detainees in private on demand, and dialogue with detainees chosen at random; the settlement on the spot of a part of complaints, applications and allegations made by detainees and the solution of the rest of them later on, at the prosecutor's office - if it is necessary, concealing their person before the staff of the concerned institution with a view of their protection - have been proved to be both efficient and popular tools for remedy and protection of rights.

        While effectuating inspections at places of detention, the prosecutor shall examine the regularity of documents serving as grounds for the detention, the legality of the execution of measures, laid down in these documents, the observance of deadlines determined for the detention, the treatment of detainees, the enforcement of the rights, and the enforcement of the obligations foreseen by legal norms. Exclusively the public prosecutor shall verify the execution of the latter dispositions that is that neither the parliamentary commissioner for human rights, nor non-governmental organizations shall have this responsibility. The inspection is also required for preventing favouritism, backstairs influence and corruption. An advantage, provided by such way in favour of certain detainees will be a disadvantage for other detainees, which will infringe the principle of equal rights and chances/opportunities.

        While accomplishing legality supervision over the execution of punishments of imprisonment, the public prosecutor shall verify the legality and order of the execution process of admission to the prison, detention and release; as well as detainees' rights and obligations, material conditions of detention, medical care, gratification and retribution and work regime of sentenced prisoners. The public prosecutor shall also have information on whether the necessary measures have been taken with a view of continuing the execution of the remaining part of the punishment after the suspension, short time leave or pass; application of tempered prison regime, as well as after the expiration of the permission of leave the penal institution while being in a transitional regime before release. While accomplishing legality supervision over controlling condemned prisoners being in conditional release, the public prosecutor shall have access to the documents, hear the sentenced prisoners released conditionally; he/she shall address a request to the authority in charge of the control of the concerned prisoner having been conditionally released to give information on the conduct, work and personal circumstances of the latter. When additional information is required to prove the infringement of rules of conduct, prescribed for the detainee on conditional release, the public prosecutor asks for designation of subsequent evidence of the probation officer, or the police station, which is competent by the domicile or place of staying of the conditionally released prisoner.

        Whenever an incident happens at any place of detention or restriction of personal liberty, the public prosecutor shall be obliged to draw a rapport, on one hand, and to accomplish an inspection, on the other hand. An incident may be any action or omission, or any other event, which grievously disturbs the order of the detention. Such an event is for example cases of fire, suicide or escape tentative of detainees, etc. In case of a serious accident or sudden dead of the detainee, the public prosecutor shall appear on the spot as soon as possible and investigate the reasons leading to the emergence of the special event, evaluate the conclusions, made by the authority, accomplishing the detention, and the preventive measures taken.

        The accomplishment of these duties means the guarantee for the protection of detainees. The public prosecutor - while promoting unified jurisprudence and expeditious settlement of criminal proceedings - participate in judicial proceedings connected to the execution of punishments (before the judge of execution of punishment /juge de l'application des peines, at first instance). He/she shall present motions and be present at the trial; is authorized to participate at the hearing, and to lodge appeal against judicial decisions. The public prosecutor has also the power to participate at hearings at second instance; has the duty to be present at the trial, and has the power to lodge motions.

        The public prosecutor has to draw annual report on the evolution of the legality of the treatment of detainees, which shall cover all detention places in Hungary, as well as all criminal and disciplinary cases, complaints and information, made on this subject. Namely, while accomplishing visits once a fortnight at the places of detention, he/she shall simultaneously gather information - independently of the concrete subject of the actual inspection or investigation - on the respect of dispositions, enshrined in the European Convention on the Prevention of Torture and other Inhuman or Degrading Punishment or Treatment.

        The powers of the Hungarian Prosecution Service are very similar to the scope, covered by the Recommendation Rec (2006)2 on European Prison Rules. The Hungarian public prosecutor has even more duties, while accomplishing not only supervision of legality over the execution of imprisonment, but he/she exercises the supervision of legality of the execution of all sanctions, relating to any restriction of liberty, and by its essence itself implies the interference by the State with the legal position of citizen.

        The public prosecutor's power does not extend to the patients hospitalized at the psychiatric wards of civil institutions [the Rule 12 in the Rec (2006)2 extends this power equally to such patients, in accordance with the CPT practice]. Moreover, the CPT visits also - on the grounds of that large interpretation of powers - social welfare institutions for psychiatric patients where persons with restricted rights are accommodated.

        Rule 92 stipulated in Part VI - entitled Inspection and monitoring, Governmental inspection disposes, that "Prisons shall be inspected regularly by a governmental agency in order to assess whether they are administered in accordance with the requirements of national and international law, and the provisions of these rules." Rule 93 - Independent monitoring imposes, moreover, that "The conditions of detention and the treatment of prisoners shall be monitored by an independent body or bodies whose findings shall be made public. Such independent monitoring body or bodies shall be encouraged to co-operate with those international agencies that are legally entitled to visit prisons." According to the Commentaries on the Prison Rules: "This Rule uses the neutral term ‘governmental agency’. This agency can be part of one ministry, e.g. the Ministry of Justice or the Ministry of the Interior, or can be an agency under the control of more than one ministries. The essential point is that such an agency or inspectorate is established by, and reports to, the highest authorities.
        The ways in which governmental inspection is organised will vary from mere checking of the book keeping of prisons to in depth and on the spot audits, which take into account all aspects of prison administration and of the treatment of prisoners. What is important is that the results of these inspections are reported to the competent authorities and made accessible to other interested parties without undue delay.
        These rules do not specify how planning and control systems and audits should be organized, as this is for the governmental authorities to decide. Concerning Independent monitoring: "In the member-states of the Council of Europe different models of independent monitoring of conditions of imprisonment can be found. In some countries, an ombudsman has powers in this respect; in other states, this task is entrusted to judicial authorities, often combined with the power to receive and handle complaints of prisoners. This Rule does not intend to prescribe one single form of monitoring but underlines the need for a high quality of such independent supervision. This presupposes that these monitoring bodies are supported by a qualified staff and have access to independent experts. It is important that the findings of these bodies, together with any observations that may have been submitted by the management of the prison concerned, are open to the public. Reports of the monitoring bodies may contain proposals and observations concerning existing or draft legislation.
        Independent monitoring bodies should be encouraged to forward copies of their reports and the responses of the governments concerned to international bodies, authorised to monitor or inspect the prisons such as the European Committee for the Prevention of Torture. This would assist these international bodies to plan their visits and allow them to keep their finger on the pulse of the national penitentiary systems. Because of their limited financial resources and the increase of the number of states to be visited, international bodies must rely increasingly on communication with independent national monitoring bodies. In many penitentiary systems, individual prisons are being monitored in some way or another by boards of visitors, consisting of (professionally) interested volunteers recruited from the community. A common approach of these boards is that its members take turns to visit the prison, talk to prisoners about their worries and complaints and, in most cases, try to mediate between the prison management and the prisoners to find solutions for perceived problems.
        Though it is self evident that the existence of local boards of visitors can be a guarantee for a more intensive and involved monitoring, in small countries with only a few prisons and a small prison population independent monitoring by a national authority could be sufficient." Moreover, in accordance with paragraphs 11 and 15 of the Annex to the Resolution 57/1990/1 EAC, adopted in Vienna, at 11th session of the Commission on Crime Prevention and Control of the Economic and Social Council of the United Nations, public prosecutors shall have an active role in the execution and the supervision of execution of judicial decisions; they have to devote a due attention to the cases of abuse of power and the grievous infringement of human rights.
        In Hungary, Act XXXIII of 1871 - by which the first unified prosecution service was established - prescribed for the then Royal Public Prosecution Service to verify the effectuation of final judicial decisions.
        The CPT emphasised in its rapport on the visit in 1994 in Hungary the importance of activities, which the public prosecution service had concerning the protection of rights in the field of execution of punishments, in assuring the fair treatment of detainees, whereas in 1999, it underlined the role of the Hungarian public prosecution service in the prevention of torture.
        In its case 21.967/1993, the European Commission of Human Rights emphasized the public prosecution service role in lodging motions in the framework of its supervision of legality. The European Court of Human Rights recognized as an efficient way of remedy the complaint to be lodged to the public prosecutor in detention matters, which has to be exhausted before application to European mechanisms of protection (Kokavecz versus Hungary, decision 27312/95, 20 April 1999). The remedies, laid down by Section 11 item a), and Section 12 of Act V of 1972 (on Prosecution Service) guarantee also efficient tools for the protection of human rights and liberties in terms of Article 35, paragraph 1st) and Article 13 of the Convention.

        The Recommendation (2000)19 of the Council of Europe to Member States, paragraph 4 proposes, that "States should take effective measures to guarantee that public prosecutors are able to fulfil their professional duties and responsibilities under adequate legal and organisational conditions as well as adequate conditions as to the means, in particular budgetary means, at their disposal. Such conditions should be established in close co-operation with the representatives of public prosecutors." Moreover, paragraph 24 of the same Recommendation contains, that:" In the performance of their duties, public prosecutors should in particular: ... respect and seek to protect human rights, as laid down in the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms; it is also clarified by the Explanatory Memorandum to this Recommendation, that public prosecution service should have a particularly important role concerning execution of punishments.
        It has been worded as a recommendation at the meeting of the Council of Europe, held in 1996 on "Supervision of Legality of European Prisons" that - similarly to the Hungarian legal regulation - the supervisory role of the prosecution service as regard the execution of punishments should be reinforced.
        Ad 3. Hungarian prosecution service has full authority in prison matters.
        Ad 4. The public prosecutor has the power to give injunction (i.e. a kind of quasi instruction) to authorities belonging to the administration of the execution of punishments, which are absolutely independent of the prosecution service) when he/she observes the infringement of human rights or legislation as well as whenever he/she finds that norms regulating conditions of detentions are not respected. The public prosecutor calls the attention of the head of the competent authority, which shall be obliged to comply with the instructions given by the public prosecutor in relation to respecting the law and conditions of custody of the detainees under remand within 8 days. The heads of such authorities shall have the right to file, through their superior organ, a remonstrance with the superior public prosecutor against any instruction of the public prosecutor. Nevertheless, the remonstrance shall have no delaying force. The public prosecutor shall be obliged to release any person that has been kept detained without a lawful decision or for a time longer than provided in the decision.
        The public prosecutor shall address signalization to the official charged with the implementation of the detention whenever he/she disapproves any circumstance of detention or observes shortcomings not constituting a breach of law, but menacing legality and in cases, when he/she detects a minor breach of law. While issuing such a signalization, the public prosecutor shall initiate a disciplinary, administrative, or criminal proceeding - depending on the seriousness of the observed shortcoming - against the official, implementing the deprivation of liberty, the responsibility of which should be established for the illegal act or negligence observed or there is a justified suspicion for the establishment of this responsibility.
        The public prosecutor shall lodge an action for damages in cases when the infringement of law resulted also in damages, or have whenever the right to institute, if any important state or social interest is involved or when the person entitled is not able to defend his rights for any reason, a contentious or non-contentious civil procedure or to take measures aimed at protecting legality in any phase of the proceedings.
        Should the public prosecutor notice any circumstance that gives rise to taking measure concerning the activity of the court for administrative correctional affairs, he shall initiate the action of the county (metropolitan) court’s president in order to ensure the prevailing the legal provision.
        Ad 5. The Hungarian prosecution service has national competence, i.e. it has not only central, but also local organs, namely in the same town or nearly where there is an establishment or an institution of detention. Other organizations for protection of human rights do not have such local branches or units. The public prosecutor is competent not only in investigation of complaints or grief, or disadvantageous situations which have been alleged to him, but also he ascertains ex officio of such injuries while accomplishing inspections (once a fortnight, at least), investigations or hearing of detainees. Therefore, he is able not only to detect irregularities but also to find effective remedies for the eventual breach of norm within the shortest time.
        The territorial proximity of places of detention and powers entrusted by the law, his competences in positive and procedural criminal law as well as in prison law and professional skills in law application enable the public prosecutor not only detect the breaches of law but also their eradication more quickly, professionally and efficiently than other organs effectuating protection of human rights. In case of eventual mistakes or non-observation of legal dispositions or deontological norms, the public prosecutor shall assume a very serious criminal, disciplinary responsibility and a liability for damages. That is not the same for other organisms assuming the protection of human rights. The public prosecutor shall be accountable for all inadvertence of cases of breach of law, and violation of human rights. As regards other organisms - especially non-governmental organisations - a similar accountability does not exist. The public prosecutor shall be able to identify all cases of eventual breach of law, the violation of the right of other detainees and the infringement of public interest, and take promptly the necessary measures for their elimination. The public prosecution service has an overview over all the phases of the criminal proceedings, i. e. from the opening of the criminal proceeding to the accomplishment of the post-release assistance for prisoners, moreover all along to the radiation of the entries to the criminal records. Due to this position, and taking advantage of his power to have prompt access to all necessary information via his colleges, proceeding in the criminal case, founding the detention on the person of detainee and reasons of his/her detention, the public prosecutor in charge of the supervision of legality of execution of punishments and protection of right, shall acquire all the necessary information, which provides an unique opportunity for the promotion of the rapid investigation and arrangement of the case. Whenever another organism asks for any information from the prosecution service, the latter have to examine whether it is competent to ask for that particular piece of information. Such restrictions encumber the other organs of protection of rights to take real and efficient measures concerning the criminal case, the legal ground for the detention, etc.
        The powers of supervision, legal remedy and taking necessary measures, as well as legal competences, practical methods of the public prosecution service are much more positive and important than that which other mechanisms of legal protection dispose.
        Ad 6. The legal protection system could be improved if there was a reinforced coordination between each organ assuming such tasks and if they considered each other as someone willing give a helping hand to their peers. The exchange of experience would be promoted by the organisation of common meetings, as it has yet been a practice in Hungary.
        This part of activity of the prosecution service (namely, making frequent visits at and inspection of the places of detention, hearing in private of the detainees, consequent exercising of power to respond appropriately) is relatively independent from other parts of prosecutorial activities; therefore, no interference shall be made from public prosecutors, proceeding in other fields.
        Ad 7. In Hungary, the public prosecutor is competent /has jurisdiction to pursue investigation concerning the rights of all persons, the liberty of which has been restricted. He is expressly obliged by special legal dispositions to investigate whether human rights, procedural rights and other institutional rights of persons being apprehended or put in pre-trial detention are respected; and also to verify whether the human rights, other institutional rights and all those constitutional rights of the sentenced detainees are guaranteed, which have not been expressly restricted or suspended by laws for the period of the execution of the imprisonment. Moreover, the public prosecutor shall supervise the observance of the human rights and other legal rights of those, to whom a restriction of liberty has been imposed while held in a facility for apprehended persons by the investigating authority, administrative confinement, inflicted in an administrative procedure, custody applied under aliens legislation, or designated mandatory staying at the centres for immigration detainees of foreign nationals.
        Ad 8. The legal regulation assures for the public prosecutor to have hearings in private with detainees to establish whether torture or other inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment was applied to the prejudice of the detainee. The public prosecutor shall provide such a hearing at least once a fortnight. On these occasions, he is hearing not only detainees who asked for, but while visiting the establishments, he chooses himself the detainees, whom he wishes hear. He may also mingle with a group of 20-30 detainees, offering the opportunity for lodging application for those who really wishes to lodge a complaint without disclosing their persons before the management of the prison and thereby avoiding eventual staff's retorsion because of the complaint. Before the opening of the relevant procedure, the prosecutor even takes orders to transfer the applicant and witnesses to another prison. That is a much-approved practice in Hungary. The legal regulation of the latter measure - id est that on the transfer - has to be enacted to legally assure their protection.
        Ad 9. Every year, the public prosecutor shall conduct special inspection concerning the conditions of detention, and whether standards and recommendations of the Council of Europe, and especially those formulated by European Committee for the Prevention of Torture (CPT) are observed. The observance of the rules concerning overcrowding and separation of different categories of detainees shall be controlled once a fortnight. He had to exercise his power of issuing instructions due to breaching of the latter, which shall be executed immediately. He must regularly issue a signalization as regard the overcrowding of the places of detention.
        In response to these signalizations, the heads of the concerned institutions have declared in the recent years that the necessary renovations and reparations could not be effectuated without external resources, only from their own financial found. Naturally, these responses must not be satisfying for the public prosecutor, therefore the public prosecution service addressed general /summarizing reports to the central authorities on the issue of general picture on prisons overcrowding. The competent central authorities replied that the renovation and the enlargement of prisons would be effectuated depending on financing resources, but there was no financial provision even for repairing shortcomings, but the problem would be placed on the agenda. As concerns the public prosecutor, he has the same attitude: conducts regular inspections, takes the necessary measures even towards the authorities at national level in order to attain the remedy of shortcomings. The Prosecutor General emphasises the problem in his annual report to be lodged to the Parliament, and therefore he is able to exercise some influence to the Members of the Parliament when they vote about the national budget.

        Ad10. The public prosecutor shall be entitled to give binding instructions to the authority of the Execution of punishments or officials if they do not enforce properly the decisions of the court or the prosecutor; in Hungary, such instructions are denominated as "order"/utasítás. The only exceptions are the courts to be bound by such orders. While issuing an order, the public prosecutor disposes on the immediate cessation of the breach of law. The heads of such authorities shall have the right to file, through their superior organ, a remonstrance with the superior public prosecutor against any instruction of the public prosecutor. The remonstrance shall have no delaying force. The suppression of an illegal situation represents a more important value at the level of the rule of law and human rights than the suspensory/delaying effect attached to the right of legal remedy of the person, who is responsible for the existence of the violation of law. The public prosecutor shall be entitled to initiate criminal or disciplinary, or administrative-misdemeanour proceedings - depending on the seriousness of the observed shortcoming - against the responsible official and the official, having committed the breach of law, and to lodge an action for damages in a civil judicial procedure.
        The public prosecutor shall address signalization to the official charged with the implementation of the detention whenever he/she observes a situation, menacing legality.
        Ad 11. The public prosecutor shall conduct monitoring visits twice a month at the places of detention (i.e. in prisons, police facilities, and facilities for apprehended persons) as well as at places, enforcing custody of foreigner nationals under immigration legislation and guarded shelters. Each of such monitoring visits has its special prefixed purpose and programme, but the public prosecutor shall investigate all breaches of law, if observes any irregularity while conducting his regular monitoring visit. An illustration may be the example, when the subject of the inspection is to verify whether possibilities for contacts of the detainees with the outside world are provided, but the public prosecutor observes accidentally the breaching of the right to exercising legal remedies, he shall investigate also the latter problem - along with the planned in advance matter. The public prosecutor shall draw an official rapport on his findings made during inspection, which shall be entered to the roll of each prosecutor's organ and sent to the head of the inspected institution.
        Whenever the public prosecutor observes any shortcomings or breach of law at his monitoring visit, he shall give a detailed description of it in a memorandum and attaches to the letter to be addressed to the competent authority or official a copy of the prosecutorial measure to be taken in order to put an end to them (order, signalization, motion for initiating criminal or disciplinary or administrative-misdemeanour proceedings or lodging civil action for damages).
        He must not indicate the detainee's name, having made the application/complaint neither in his memorandum nor in the letter and instruction to be sent to the head of the concerned institution for preventing eventual reprisal against the detainee for his complaint. The name of the latter shall be entered to the domestic/confidential documents of the prosecutor with a view to reaching him eventually during subsequent phases of the procedure. While conducting the next visit, the public prosecutor shall especially gather information whether he has suffered any reprisal of the prison staff for his complaint. Therefore, the method of hearing in private a few numbers of detainees at the same prosecutor's monitoring visit seems to be approved and useful.
        Ad 12. Yes, the public prosecutor has the power to enter any time (even at night) all places of detention or guarded shelters for foreign nationals while conducting his supervisory duties. That power is enshrined in legal disposition.
        Ad 13. Yes, whenever special competences are required, he shall have recourse to experts. In Hungary, in case of a detainee's death, when the expertise laid down in the official necropsy record or other facts of which the prosecutor get knowledge does not justify reassuringly the death by natural reason, or the adequacy of the medical care, the prosecutor shall be entitled to designate ex officio en expert in forensic medicine. In case of industrial accident, he is entitled to designate an expert in protection of labour safety, and in all matters, concerning alimentation or other material conditions or hygiene, he designates an expert in hygiene.
        Ad 14. Public prosecutors treat complaints and/or denunciations regarding criminal and administrative detention independently of any relevant authority, when he is not able to remedy the complaint or the denunciation immediately, on the spot. In case of minor breach of law, which may be remedied simply and easily, he also has the faculty to send the complaint to the head of the concerned institution, and in such cases, he ask for a report on the way of remedy of the complaint. The public prosecutor in charge of the supervision of legality of the execution of punishments shall pursue an inspection, but not an (criminal) inquiry/investigation. While conducting an inspection, when he perceives suspicion of the perpetration of a criminal offense; he shall inform the investigative prosecution office – which belongs to the unified prosecution service too - on his observations and suspicion, meanwhile he shall inform the competent military prosecution office – which is also part of the unified prosecution service - on his suspicion as regards the prison officer, concerned by the complaint/denunciation. The public prosecutor in charge of the supervision of the legality of the execution of punishments may promote the investigation in such cases by drawing a record on the denunciation and the hearing of witnesses. Naturally, the public prosecutor shall proceed in a manner that the prison staff could not have any information on the content of these documents. The former practice has been ceased, according to which the public prosecutor followed the complaints to the prison officers/employees against whom the complaint directed. However, it may still sporadically emerge with a view of diminishing the workload, but that method seems to be inacceptable both in the approach of the efficient legal remedy and the requirement of the fair proceeding.
        Ab 15. If the public prosecutor acquires information on the death of the detainee, he shall appear on the scene of the death as soon as possible and inspect the conditions under which the death has set in. When there is suspicion of a criminal offence, he shall order a necropsy by an expert in forensic medicine. The costs of the latter shall be to the charge of the prosecution service. When there is a justified suspicion that the death of the detainee was caused by a criminal offense, only the public prosecutor is authorized to issue a permit for the burying of the body when the necropsy by an expert in forensic medicine has been accomplished. The public prosecutor shall also verify the findings made by the authority in charge of the detention concerning the death of the detainee. If the responsibility of a prison staff member/employee for the death or the examination of its causes and circumstances emerges, the public prosecutor shall initiate the establishment of his/her responsibility (in criminal, or disciplinary or administrative-misdemeanour proceedings, or in civil judicial procedure).
        If the public prosecutor acquires information on the accident of the detainee, he shall appear on the scene of the accident within 8 days of the accident and inspect the conditions under which the accident has happened as well as its causes. Ha shall also evaluate the findings made by the authority in charge of the detention in the framework of the verification, as well as the measure taken by the latter. If the accident or poisoning has caused the death or fatal injury of the detainee, the public prosecutor shall appear at the scene of the accident as soon as possible with a view to accomplish the above duties. If the responsibility of a prison staff member/employee for the accident or concerning the clearance of its causes and circumstances emerges, the public prosecutor shall initiate the establishment of his/her responsibility (in criminal, or disciplinary or administrative-misdemeanour proceedings, or in civil judicial procedure).
        If the detainee commits criminal offence to the prejudice of another detainee or a member of the prison staff, the incident shall be qualified as unordinary event, and the case shall be investigated – as independent authority – by the public prosecutor in charge of the supervision of the execution of punishments, while the criminal inquiry shall be conducted by an investigating authority – in the person of another prosecutor – and the legality of the criminal inquiry shall be supervised by the prosecutor in charge of the supervision over the legality of criminal inquiries and investigations.
        Public prosecutors have also an important role in conducting of criminal inquiries. They conduct both criminal inquiries in cases belonging to the exclusive investigating competence of the prosecution service, on the one hand, and supervise inquiries in other criminal cases – which are conducted by other investigating authorities – on the other hand. Criminal cases, belonging to the exclusive investigating competence of the prosecution service, are exhaustively enumerated by Act on Criminal Proceedings, Section 29. Among the large number of criminal offences, listed by the Act have special relevance those, which are non-military crimes committed by persons being members of the professional staff of the Police or members of the professional staff of the penitentiary service in relation to the service. Military criminal proceedings shall apply in the case of a criminal offence committed by permanent staff member of a penal institution at his post or in connection whit his duty [Act on Criminal Proceedings, Section 470, Subsection 1st and item c)].
        Ad 16. The public prosecutor shall be entitled to take action – and there were concrete examples too – in procedures concerning the lack of remedy against a decision on placement of the detainee in a high risk degree unit. He also has the power to initiate the revision of the relevant decision. However, the decision will be rendered by a Committee constituted by the administration of the penitentiary, and the head (director) of the concerned prison shall be responsible for the execution of the rendered decision. Consequently, the public prosecutor does not participate in such decision-making; the only exception being the execution of pre-trial detention. During the execution of the pre-trial detention, the public prosecutor shall have power of disposition concerning the execution until the lodging of the bill of indictment, as well as in the preparatory phase of the trial – until the rendering of decision; after that, this power shall be transferred to the court, where the bill of indictment has been lodged. During these phases, the power of disposition covers the order or the revocation of the so called “reinforced custody” for pre-trial detainees, who already had suicide-tentative, or are presumed to have it, or manifested a comportment, dangerous both for themselves and the public, or are presumed to manifest such a comportment, or there is a justified suspicion that they committed a criminal offence for which life imprisonment may be inflicted under the Criminal Code. As regard pre-trial detainees, the “reinforced custody” regime means at the same time a category of “high risk”. Its application may be challenged – in the prosecutorial phase of the proceeding - by lodging a complaint to the hierarchically superior prosecutor, and in the judicial phase of the proceeding – considering that it was ordered by the court – by lodging an appeal to the superior judicial instance.
        Ad 17. The public prosecutors in charge of the supervision of legality working at the Office of Prosecutor General accomplish their work autonomously – as from 1998 - in order to protect them of any undue interference. Such independence has been reinforced in 2000, and their status reappears also in the denomination of the Division where they work: Independent Division for Supervision of Legality of Prison Administration and Protection of Rights. They are subordinated only to the Deputy Prosecutor General, and when international affairs are concerned, they are directly subordinated to the Prosecutor General. At local level, County Prosecution Offices (20) accomplish these duties – with the same territorial competence that judges of enforcement of sentences /juges de l’application des peines have. County level public prosecutors in charge of the surveillance of legality assume their duties under the guidance of the deputy chief prosecutor of the County. There are some county prosecution offices, where they work directly under the guidance of the chief prosecutor of the county. So, they are not subordinated to any of their colleagues, working in other fields.
        Ad 18. Hungarian public prosecutors shall supervise the legality of the execution of decisions on pardon and amnesty. During the (individual) pardon procedure, public prosecutors having proceeded in the concrete criminal case shall give written opinion. The legality of the release is constant subject of systematic legality supervision. Only the execution of imprisonment punishment inflicted to grievously and incurably ill detainees has been interrupted on the ground of negative/harmful effects of the punishment.
        Public prosecutors accomplish legality supervision: they conduct inspections twice a week in the National Office of Criminal Records.
        Ad 19. If "special qualifications and training" mean whether public prosecutors, assuming supervision of legality of the execution of punishment have special mandate for accomplishing this task, the answer is yes. Namely, the opinion of the head of the competent field of law at the Office of the Prosecutor General has to be acquired before his/her appointment to this post. There are many prosecutors in this field, who regularly follow post-gradual special education, especially in prison psychology, criminal- pedagogy and sociology. There are others, who acquire a second university diploma as professors, philosophers, economists, etc. and pass proficiency examination in foreign languages.
        Every year, the Prosecutor General Office at its Centre for Postgraduate Education of Public Prosecutors organizes a three-day special residential course/training on the thematic of duties, related to the detention and custody. Both eminent Hungarian specialists and also a few lecturers of the Council of Europe deliver lectures on these occasions.

        Ad 20. In Hungary, the institution of the judge of execution of punishments /juge de l'application des peines exists, and the public prosecutor participates in proceedings before him/her. The public prosecutor shall obligatorily attend the trials, and his/her participation is facultative in the hearings. The public prosecutor has the power to present motions concerning revoking parole, carrying provisionally into effect the remaining part of imprisonment, issuing of an arrest warrant, revoking the provisory release from reformatory (juvenile delinquents), ordering probation, conversion of general interest work into imprisonment, designation of a new place of work or of a new kind of work in case of punishment of general interest work, declaration of the enforceability of the punishment of general interest work, and declaration of the impossibility of enforceability of the execution of the measure of expulsion. Between the 19 different kinds of decisions, constituting the competence of the judge of execution of punishment, there are only two (administrative) types of decisions, which may not be appealed by either the public prosecutor, or the defence counsel, while there are 17 others, which may be challenged. The public prosecutor has the power to participate and lodge motions in proceedings of second instance.
        Ad 21. The relationship with the ombudsman consists in sending the ombudsman's rapports to the Office of the Prosecutor General on the examination of complaints from institutions of execution of punishments. The Office of the Prosecutor General, on its part, sends the summarizing rapports on each inspection to the Ombudsman's Office. It happens too, that the ombudsman asks for opinion on certain legal issues or interpretation of law, and for the examination of complaints, he received. He also invited the competent leading prosecutors to the conference he organized on the standing of the execution of punishments, and he participates in major events of the prosecution service.
        One of the duties of the Ombudsman is that he examines the anomalies concerning constitutional rights of citizens he was acquainted with, and initiate general or individual measures with a view of their remedy. He conducts examinations only in cases, when it is necessary and not regularly, therefore his individual examinations may not be considered as supervision, therefore they produce a weaker preventive influence. The Ombudsman does not appear on the inspected places, he does not have a global overview on their functioning as a whole, and he does not participate in the process of the administration of criminal justice. However, the major part of grieves may be derived from the criminal proceedings. The Ombudsman's role is therefore not accomplishing supervision of legality, but assuring an instance for the protection of human rights. The role of the public prosecutor and that of the Ombudsman are different, but they mutually reinforce each other.
        Non-governmental organizations address applications to the prosecution service concerning detainees' complaints and interpretation of laws. They systematically invite members of the prosecution service to their professional events. One of the most important NGO is the Hungarian Helsinki Committee, which has been implementing its program for visiting police facilities and prisons for nearly twenty years, in the framework of a convention, executed by the National Police Department and the Commandant of National Prison Administration. A great number of lawyers/defense counsels are working for them. Their attention concentrates principally on the conditions of detention, treatment and contacts of the detainees with the outside world. They inform mass media every year on their observations and experience. There are nearly thirty other organizations, with which the National Prison Administration signed an individual convention, but their missions aim principally at the support and reintegration of the detainees to the society. They forward also detainees' complaints and applications to the prosecution service. The control by the society shall not be equal to the supervision of the legality, because NGO are not repressive or other authorities. Therefore, they are not able to resolve serious problems neither in the field of positive or procedural criminal law, nor those of legality of prison law; and especially not without delay, but they may forward these problems to the authority, possessing adequate professional competence and means.
        Ad 22. There are a few numbers of prisons in Hungary, which operate with utilizing private founds of capital. In such penitentiary institutions, it is also necessary to subject the protection of detainees' human rights to the supervision of legality, implemented by the prosecution service. It is crucial to prevent that such institutions become merely so called "stocks of human beings" and guarantee that prisoners' work remain between legal limits, the healthy alimentation, and human rights of the detainees are maintained.
        It may be a helping guideline not only for prosecutors, assuming supervision of legality of the execution of punishments, but also for those, conducting criminal inquiries and assuming supervision over the criminal inquiries, if Opinion No. 6 (2011) of the CCPE covers also the scope of the power of disposition during pre-trial detention, attributed to the public prosecutor, conducting criminal inquiry. It would be very useful if the said Opinion contained a point of view concerning contacts of pre-trial detainees with outside world (by enumerating persons, contact with whom should be prohibited or restricted; manners and forms of ordering of such prohibitions and restrictions; in case when the public prosecutor, conducting criminal inquiry has reserved to himself the power of control over such prohibitions and restrictions and not delegated this power to the penal institution, whether only he is authorized to accomplish such control or another public prosecutor, or eventually a trainee-public prosecutor has also the competence to accomplish such control; should he have the power to designate the place of execution of the pre-trial detention, and the transfer of the concerned pre-trial detainee should be effectuated only with his approval – except for cases of grievous illnesses, necessitating urgent hospital care - ; should he authorize the transfer of such pre-trial detainee to the investigating authority, conducting criminal investigation in another criminal case; the ordering of the reinforced custody; authorization of the participation in the funeral ceremony of a close relative, etc.

        ITALY

        Question 1

        = = =

        Question 2

        What are the Prosecution Service’s powers regarding prison matters and in terms of deprivation of liberty?

        In the Italian system a Public Prosecutor does not perform general functions in prison matters and deprivation of liberty (custody and detention).
        As far as these matters are concerned, the main bodies are the Judge and the Court supervising the execution of the penalty (Magistrato di Sorveglianza and Tribunale di Sorveglianza). This Judge has control and jurisdiction on prisons’ organization (he ensures that custody measures are applied in accordance with acts and regulations, checks requests and claims of the convicted persons, approves the program for the treatment of convicts and provides for releasing them on parole). The Court is composed of two professional judges and two experts in various fields. As well as the Judge, the Court performs judicial functions such as entrusting the convicted person to the social service, admitting him/her to house arrest or deciding on the above mentioned Judge’s decisions as a Court of appeal.
        Public Prosecutors take part -as a public party- in cases before the Judge and the Court supervising the execution of the penalty. Depending on the procedure, they express their advice either in a verbal or in a written form and can also appeal any decision.

        Question 3

        In States where prosecutors do not have full authority in prison matters, what are nevertheless their means of action used as regards prisons?

        Normally, Public Prosecutors have no autonomous coercive powers. In prison matters they act in two different ways:

          a) Enforcement of the penalty:

        The Public Prosecution Office is the driving body for the enforcement of criminal punishments. When the sentence becomes final, Public Prosecutors issue an order of imprisonment and establish the exact duration of the penalty.
        However, if any action is undertaken, a Judge has jurisdiction upon judicial guarantees in order to check on the legal assumptions which the conviction is based on.

          a) Detention measures:

        Italian Public Prosecutors lead the investigations and coordinate the action of the police criminal investigative department. Yet, except in case of urgency related to the actual risk of escape, they are not entitled to arrest the person under investigation for any reasons concerning the investigations. They can only request the Judge for the Preliminary Investigation (the so-called G.I.P.) to adopt preventive measures of detention.
        After the enforcement of these measures, in special occasions Public Prosecutors may ask the Judge to increase or decrease them.
        They have to express their opinion on the applications that the person under preventive measures may submit.

        Question 4

        If prosecutors have general competences as regard prisons and detention, what kind of means have been provided to the Prosecution Service to allow its effective and fast action towards protecting human rights in matters of prison administration?

        As already said in the answer to question no. 2, Public Prosecutors have no general functions in prison matters.

        Question 5

        What are the positive and decisive elements of the prosecutor’s role in terms of protecting Human rights compared to other mechanisms of legal protection?

        Public Prosecutors do not play a special role to safeguard human rights. Their intervention is restricted to verify whether crimes are eventually committed and to carry on investigations. These offenses can also be human rights violations, for example when the convict has been subject to any form of violence.

        Question 6

        What could be the improvements to this system of protection?

        In the Italian system measures improving the protection of human rights might be referred to the above mentioned Judges supervising the execution of the penalty rather than to Public Prosecutors, since those Judges represent the main relevant justice body in prison matters.

        Question 7

        Do prosecutors have jurisdiction to examine whether the rights (Human rights and especially procedural rights) of persons in criminal (for example as regards enforcement of prison sentences or pre-trial detention) or administrative detention are respected at the detention centre?

        Public Prosecutors have no competence in such cases. Nevertheless, they are entitled to check whether any crime is committed against the convicts during their pre-trial detention as well as when they are serving the sentence. In this respect Public Prosecutors lead the investigations and then they decide whether to start a prosecution.

        Question 8

        Can a prisoner meet in private with a prosecutor to determine whether they had been subjected to torture or to any other inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment?

        The Judge supervising the execution of the penalty is the main reference point for a convict, especially if he is serving a final sentence. The convict may also address himself to the Public Prosecutor to reveal a violence he has suffered. In such a case, when a crime is reportedly to be committed, the Public Prosecutor has the duty to make appropriate investigations.

        Question 9

        Do prosecutors examine, and if so, how frequently, whether convicts have been subject to torture or to any other inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment?

        Public Prosecutors haven’t got such a specific task. It lies within the responsibility of the Judge supervising the execution of the penalty. The latter has jurisdiction and performs control functions, as we have already explained in the answer to question no. 2.

        Question 10

        What kind of means exist for prosecutors to deal with authorities or officers/employees which have not completely or properly enforced the decisions of the Court or the Prosecution Service related to punishments and/or measures involving deprivation of liberty? If a prosecutor detects such negligence, is he entitled to give binding instructions for the immediate termination of the breach of the law? Is it in their power to initiate criminal or disciplinary proceedings, actions for damages or any other kind of impeachment? What other prosecutorial instruments are at his disposal?

        In these cases Public Prosecutors may only act if there is a breach of criminal law. If this is the case, they have to conduct appropriate investigations. If they find out administrative offences committed by civil servants, Public Prosecutors can point them out to the Public Authorities which might take disciplinary actions.

        Question 11

        How often do prosecutors carry out monitoring visits of institutions of criminal and administrative detention? Are there concrete follow-ups related to these visits?

        Public Prosecutors do not perform such a duty. It lies within the responsibility of the Judge supervising the execution of the penalty. The latter has jurisdiction and performs control functions, as we have already explained in the answer to question no. 2

        Question 12

        Within the framework of their monitoring duties, do prosecutors have the power to take action at any time of the day (even at night) in the institutions of criminal and administrative detention?

        As pointed out in the answer to the previous question, Public Prosecutors do not have general supervising powers. Nevertheless, if special investigations are needed for crimes committed inside prison walls, Public Prosecutors may carry out inspections and searches (at any time of the day and without notice) as provided for by the Code of Criminal Procedure.

        Question 13

        May commission experts to assist them in their tasks related to supervision and inspection?

        Yes, they may, but only when Public Prosecutors are conducting investigations about crimes committed inside prison walls.

        Question 14

        Are complaints and/or denunciations regarding criminal and administrative detention subject to prosecutorial inquiry independently of any relevant authority or employees/officers? Is it a prosecutor’s duty to complete investigations himself/herself or is he/she allowed to forward these complaints for investigations to the officers/employees that are the subject of those complaints?

        Complaints against any breach of law with respect to detention are under Public Prosecutors’ investigations, whatever person committed the crime, even if he/she works in the same prison as the convict who suffered from it.
        If such is the case, Public Prosecutors can charge of the investigations a police of their choice. They are not compelled to entrust them to the same unit which the officers under investigation belong to.

        Question 15

        In case of sudden death, accident or criminal offence committed against a prisoner, or if a prisoner commits a crime against another prisoner or a prison staff member, is the investigation conducted by a prosecutor acting as an independent judicial authority or is it simply supervised by a prosecutors? Do prosecutors have any role in investigation?

        The investigation is conducted by a Public Prosecutor who directs the police criminal investigative department. The Prosecutor acts as an independent judicial authority who has a plenty role in this activity.

        Question 16

        Are prosecutors entitled to take action in procedures concerning the adoption/revocation of special measures for high risk detainees or subject to special restrictions in connection with their role and position in active criminal organisations? If so, how?

        Offenders of very serious crimes (such as crimes of terrorism, even international terrorism, subversion of the democratic system through violence, criminal organizations and mafia related crimes, reducing people to slavery, kidnapping for ransom, juvenile prostitution and sexual abuse) are subject to a stricter kind of detention.
        Such a detention is organized in various ways, depending on the crime committed. For example, reward permits and alternative measures to detention can be applied to convicts who are sentenced for terrorism or mafia crimes only on condition that they cooperate with police officers as state witnesses.
        A Public Prosecutor plays the role of giving his opinions to the Judge supervising the execution of the penalty.
        In the case of offenders charged with mafia and terrorism, if order and safety reasons come about, the Minister of Justice is entitled to suspend all or some detention measures which are usually in favour of convicts. He can also do so upon request of the Minister of the Interior.
        In this case Public Prosecution Offices also get involved in the Minister of Justice’s action by giving their advice on the matter. Besides, the National Anti-mafia Prosecuting Department (D.N.A.) provides any needed information. Then Public Prosecutors take part in eventual rehearing proceedings before the Court supervising the execution of the penalty and, in case of appeal against a decision, in front of the Supreme Court.

        Question 17

        With a view to preserving them from any type of influence, are prosecutors autonomous or subordinated to other colleagues when monitoring the detention’s legality?

        As we have already indicated, Public Prosecutors limit their intervention to cases where crimes are committed during detention. In the following investigations they are absolutely independent.
        In this perspective every Italian Public Prosecutor enjoys a statute of independence which is safeguarded by the High Council for the Judiciary (CSM), i.e. a body of self-government for Public Prosecution and the Judiciary.

        Question 18

        Is a prosecutor involved in granting a person’s pardon, amnesty or release, specially in the case of negative effects resulting from the punishment? Do prosecutors supervise criminal records?

        Amnesty is a general, not discretional measure. Its requirements are provided for by law. For the application of amnesty Public Prosecutors act according to the Code of Criminal Proceeding and the concerned cases are decided by Judges.
        The Criminal record Office is established at the Public Prosecution Offices.

        Question 19

        Are special qualifications and training required of prosecutors who carry out duties in matters of criminal and administrative detention? Please specify.

        No special qualifications or training periods are required for Public Prosecutors who are charged with prison matters. Nevertheless, in the inner organization of each Prosecution Office there is a division among work groups or sections, each of them being charged with special subjects. Such groups or sections can also deal with the execution of the penalty.
        Some sessions of professional training for Public Prosecutors and judges are dedicated to prison matters.

        Question 20

        What acts (presentation of conclusions, attend hearings, appeal against court decisions) are prosecutors entitled to carry out during proceedings before judges with jurisdiction over the enforcement of sentences/surveillance judges, in States where such judge exists?

        The Court supervising the execution of the penalty is the main reference point in prison matters. Public Prosecutors may make requests (with respect to the application of some benefits such as entrusting the convicted person to the social service, day release from prison, leaves, early release). They can also state their conclusions about the requests which are made by convicts or their lawyers in the same matters.
        Public Prosecutors are entitled to appeal judges’ decisions to a higher Court in all the cases they intervene in.
        Signing an arrest warrant for the execution of a penalty is one of the Public Prosecutors’ main duties when they act as enforcement bodies. For sentences up to 3 years of detention, Public Prosecutors issue an order of execution together with an order to stay the proceeding. By doing so, they prevent the deprivation of liberty from being enforced to sentenced people who are in abstract entitled to benefit from alternative measures to detention. The convict is served a warrant stating that he/she may make a request to obtain an alternative measure, instead of detention, within 30 days from notice. The following step of the procedure takes place before the Judge.

        Question 21

        When monitoring the enforcement of punishments, do public prosecutors interact with the ombudsman or any organisation linked to or charged of controlling the enforcement of punishments? If so, what type of interactions are they? Could you give the names of these organisations, whether they by institutional or not, and explain briefly their roles?

        In the Italian system the Judges supervising the enforcement of the penalty are in charge also of this matter, rather than Public Prosecutors.

        Question 22

        Could you give other useful information to the preparation of the draft Opinion (relevant questions to add, documents, etc.)?

        = = =

        LATVIA

        Replies to questionnaire

        2nd question
        The powers of the Prosecution Office regarding imprisonment institutions and liberty deprivation sentence are provided for by the Section 15 of the Prosecution Office Law.
        Section 15. Supervision of the Execution of a Sentence of Deprivation of Liberty
        (1) A prosecutor in accordance with the procedures prescribed by law shall supervise the execution of sentences of deprivation of liberty adjudged by a court and the places where persons arrested, detained or under guard are kept and shall take part in the sittings of a court relating to a change in the specified term of a sentence or of circumstances.
        (2) A prosecutor has the right and the duty to, without delay, take a decision and release from places of deprivation or restriction of liberty persons held there illegally.
        (3) A protest by a prosecutor with respect to a sentence illegally imposed on a person held in a place of deprivation of liberty shall suspend its further execution until the review of the protest is completed.
        Presently is elaborated a draft law by which is planned to reduce Prosecutor’s powers regarding supervision of imprisonment and liberty deprivation sentence execution. It is required because imprisoned persons according to effective legal acts have wide possibilities to apply with national and international institutions, the Court and other bodies provided for by Sentence Execution Code and Law on Procedures for Keeping of Persons in Custody of Latvia with aim to defend their own rights. For example, from Law on Department of Imprisonment Institutions stems out that Department of Imprisonment Institutions examines complaints of imprisoned persons regarding living conditions, education, health care, employment, food and other issues related with conditions of imprisonment. If violations are found, the Department of Imprisonment Institutions is obliged to react and rectify them. Nevertheless as core task of the Prosecution Office is supervision of compliance with legality and to counter against violations of law, in the draft law is foreseen to preserve supervision of Prosecutor related with detection and prevention of the criminal offences in places where arrested, detained persons, persons remanded to custody and persons sentenced with liberty deprivation sentences are kept. Additionally the Prosecutors competence to attend hearings of administrative commissions of the imprisonment institutions which examines issues related with execution of the criminal sentences will remain intact. It is foreseen to exclude from Prosecutor’s powers a Prosecutor’s protest, because it can not be considered as effective remedy. It is admitted also by the Constitutional Court of the Republic of Latvia, who in its case-law has referred to ruling of the European Court of Human Rights in the case “Tumilovich against Russia” (1999), wherein is specified that Prosecutor’s protest in the context of the Convention might be regarded as a discretionary power, but not as effective remedy. So that to ensure fair adjudication of case and respecting of person’s rights, an interested party must be provided with possibility to request revision of rendered ruling in the court by his/her own initiative.
        4th question

            If information is received regarding violation of imprisoned person’s rights and lawful interests, the Prosecutor institutes examination according to procedure provided for by the Law. See Section 17(2) of the Prosecution Office Law:

        Section 17. Powers of a Prosecutor when Carrying out Examination of a Submission
        (2) A prosecutor, determining a violation of law, in conformity with its nature has the duty to:
        1) warn of the non-admissibility of the violation of law;
        2) submit a protest or a submission regarding the necessity of prevention of the violation of law;
        3) bring an action in court;
        4) initiate a criminal matter; and
        5) to initiate the adjudication of the question of subjecting to administrative or disciplinary liability.
        Moreover the Prosecutor according to the Section 15(2) of the Prosecution Office Law has the right and the duty to, without delay, take a decision and release from places of deprivation or restriction of liberty persons held there illegally.
        5th question

            The Prosecutor is granted sufficiently wide powers provided for by the Section 17(2) of the Prosecution Office Law (see extract of the Law in reply to 4th question) for responding to breaches of imprisoned person’s rights.

        6th question

            We consider that role of Prosecutor regarding defending of imprisoned person’s rights is sufficiently regulated by the legal acts.

        7th question
        The Prosecutor has rights to check how detention institution complies with rights of person. It stems out from Prosecution Office Law, Criminal Procedure Law and Law of Procedures for Keeping of Persons in Custody.
        8th question

            Imprisoned person can meet with Prosecutor individually. Upon application of imprisoned person the Prosecutor arrives to such person in imprisonment institution or such meeting may take place in imprisonment institution in working hours of Prosecutor. Prosecutors regularly arrange meetings in all imprisonment institutions and imprisoned person, who wants individual meeting with Prosecutor, may apply for such one.

        9th question

            If application of imprisoned person is received, Prosecutor takes examination and responds to the violation according to the procedure provided for by the Section 17 of the Prosecution Office Law:

        Section 17. Powers of a Prosecutor when Carrying out Examination of a Submission
        (1) When carrying out an examination of a submission in accordance with the procedures prescribed by law, a prosecutor has the right to:
        1) request and receive regulatory enactments, documents and other information from State administrative institutions, banks, the State Audit Office, local governments, undertakings, authorities and organizations, as well as to, without hindrance, enter the premises of such institutions;
        2) assign heads and other officials of undertakings, institutions and organizations to carry out examinations, audits and expert-examinations and to submit opinions, as well as to provide the assistance of specialists in the examinations carried out by the prosecutor;
        3) invite a person and receive from him or her an explanation of the violation of law. If the person, in bad faith, evades attending pursuant to the invitation of the prosecutor, the prosecutor may take a decision on the forcible conveyance of such person, which shall be carried out by the police.
        (2) A prosecutor, determining a violation of law, in conformity with its nature has the duty to:
        1) warn of the non-admissibility of the violation of law;
        2) submit a protest or a submission regarding the necessity of prevention of the violation of law;
        3) bring an action in court;
        4) initiate a criminal matter; and
        5) to initiate the adjudication of the question of subjecting to administrative or disciplinary liability.

        10th question
        If violation of law is found, Prosecutor may take measures provided for by the Section 17(2) of the Prosecution Office Law (extract of law attached in reply to 4th question), including instituting of the criminal procedure, possibility to charge with the disciplinary liability, lodging claim with the court.

        11th question

            Prosecutors visit imprisonment institutions with intention to take examination upon necessity and mainly if complaints are received.

        12th question

            Prosecutor may appear in the imprisonment institution at any time, including in the night, so that to take examination upon his/her own initiative or if information on possible violation is received.

        13th question

        Prosecutor during examination has rights to involve experts, assign examinations, audits and investigations and submit opinions, as well as provide support of specialist in taken examinations (Section 17(1), para 2 of the Prosecution Office Law, extract of law attached in reply to 9th question).

        14th question
        If complaint regarding possible illegal actions of imprisonment institution official or employee is received, Prosecutor may take inspection himself or herself or request to do it Department of Imprisonment Institutions, which supervises imprisonment institutions. After receiving of opinion from Department of Imprisonment Institutions, Prosecutor may institute a criminal procedure, disciplinary case or take any other measures provided for by the Section 17(2) of the Prosecution Office Law (extract of law attached in reply to 4th question). After institution of the criminal procedure Prosecutor surrenders it to the Department of Imprisonment Institutions, which investigates the criminal offences committed by the officials or employees of the imprisonment institution. The instituted disciplinary case also is forwarded to the Department of Imprisonment Institutions, which has rights to decide issue regarding imposing of disciplinary sanctions.
        15th question

            Investigation is taken by the officials entitled by the Department of Imprisonment Institutions – investigators, but Prosecutor supervises investigation. The obligations and rights of supervising prosecutor are provided for by the Section 37 of the Criminal Procedure Law:

        Section 37.      Public Prosecutor Supervising Investigation
         (1) The public prosecutor who must perform supervision of an investigation in accordance with a distribution of duties specified in a prosecutorial institution, or an order in concrete criminal proceedings, shall be the supervising public prosecutor.
        (2) During an investigation, a supervising public prosecutor has a duty:
        1) to give instructions regarding the selection of the type of proceedings, the direction of an investigation and the performance of investigative actions, if a person directing the proceedings does not ensure a targeted investigation and allows for unjustified intervention in the life of a person or a delay.
        2) to request that the direct supervisor of an investigator replace a person directing the proceedings, or make changes in the investigative group, if assigned instructions are not fulfilled or if procedural violations are allowed that threaten the progress of criminal proceedings;
        3) [28 September 2005];
        4) [12 March 2009];
        5) to examine complaints within the competence thereof;
        6) to decide rejections within the competence thereof;
        7) to take over the direction of criminal proceedings without delay when sufficient evidence for the fair regulation of criminal legal relations has been obtained in an investigation.
        (3) The public prosecutor supervising an investigation has the right to:
        1) take a decision regarding the initiation of criminal proceedings and the transfer thereof to an investigative institution;
        2) request the execution of provided instructions;
        3) carry out investigative actions, informing a person directing the proceedings beforehand regarding such carrying out of investigative actions;
        4) familiarize him or herself at any time regarding the materials of the criminal proceedings;
        5) revoke the decisions of the person directing the proceedings and a member of the investigative group;
        6) submit a proposal to a more senior prosecutor regarding the determination of the direct supervisor of another investigator in concrete criminal proceedings, or the transfer of criminal proceedings to another investigative institution;
        7) participate in a meeting wherein the investigating judge decides regarding the granting of permission to apply compulsory measures and to perform special investigative actions;
        8) to participate in the performance of the procedural actions that are directed at co-operation with the person who has the right to defence, as well as to participate in the selection of simpler proceedings.
        16th question

            Prosecutor does not adopt and does not revoke any special measures regarding imprisoned persons of high risk. In its turn if such measures cause violation of imprisoned person rights, Prosecutor has obligation to respond according to the procedure provided for by the Section 17(2) of the Prosecution Office Law (extract of law attached in reply to 4th question).

        17th question
        That issue is regulated by the Section 6(1) of the Prosecution Office Law:
        Section 6. Independence of a Prosecutor

          (1) In his or her activities a prosecutor shall be independent of the influence of other institutions or officials exercising State authority and administration and shall observe only the rule of law.

        18th question

            Prosecutor is not involved in examination of pardon applications, because according to the Amnesty Law pardon is granted by the State President upon application of convicted, his/her counsel of defense, legal representative, parents, children or spouse.
            Amnesty is applied by special Amnesty Law, which provides for mandatory participation of Prosecutor in amnesty commission hearings. Last amnesty in Latvia took place according to the Amnesty Law adopted on November 20, 1997 and was applied to persons, who has committed criminal offences till December 6, 1997, when mentioned law took effect.

        Prosecutors participate in administrative commission hearings pursuant to the procedure provided for by the Law on Execution of Sentences of Latvia, which examines issues related with sentence execution, including issues regarding early release from sentence serving and release from sentence serving in cases provided for by the law.
        19th question

            Prosecutor needs no special qualification for examination of such issues. If complaint on possible illegal actions during criminal procedural and administrative detention of person is received, any Prosecutor has rights to examine it and respond pursuant to procedure provided for by the Law.

        20th question

            In Latvia does not exist sentence execution supervision judge. If Prosecutor considers that a court judgment is unreasoned or illegal, Prosecutor may lodge appeal or cassation protest.

        21st question

            Prosecutor during sentence execution supervision cooperates with ombudsman, who within his/her competence provided for by the Law has rights to request information, files and opinions from Prosecutor, as well as in case if violation is found, to request Prosecutor to apply responding measures provided for by the Prosecution Office Law, including instituting of the criminal procedure. Moreover some cooperation takes place also with Department of Imprisonment Institutions and Ministry of Justice, which supervises Department of Imprisonment Institutions.

        LIECHTENSTEIN

        English


        Français

        Remarks

        Remarques

        This questionnaire is addressed to prosecutors and the member of the CCPE of each State shall be responsible for collecting of replies.

        In some States, prosecutors have only reduced powers within matters of prison administration. Some States will therefore not be able to reply to all questions.

        It will not be implied from the fact that this questionnaire was answered that prosecutors shall have a role in this matter.

        The scope of the questionnaire is identical to that of Recommendation Rec(2006)2 (see para.10): this questionnaire concerns any person deprived of liberty, in any form whatsoever and not strictly the person detained in a prison.

        This questionnaire does not concern the enforcement of sanctions in general but is limited to the prosecutor’s supervision of the legality of the enforcement of sanctions.

        Ce questionnaire s’adresse aux procureurs et le membre du CCPE au titre de chaque Etat est responsable de la collecte des réponses.

        Dans certains Etats, les procureurs ont peu de compétences en matière d’administration pénitentiaire. Certains Etats ne pourront donc pas répondre à toutes les questions.

        Le fait de répondre à ce questionnaire ne sous-entend pas que les procureurs doivent avoir un rôle en la matière.

        Le champ d’application du questionnaire est le même que celui de la Recommandation Rec(2006)2 (voir para.10) : ce questionnaire concerne toute personne privée de liberté, sous quelque forme que ce soit, et non simplement de la personne détenue dans un établissement pénitentiaire.

        Ce questionnaire ne concerne pas l’exécution des sanctions de manière générale et se limite au contrôle de la légalité de l’exécution des sanctions par le procureur.

        Question 2

        What are the Prosecution Service’s powers regarding prison matters and in terms of deprivation of liberty?

        Der Strafvollzug ist in Liechtenstein im Strafvollzuggesetz StVG vom 20.09.2007, LGBl. 2007/295, www.gesetze.li/Seite1.jsp?LGBlm=2007295 geregelt. Für die Anordnung des Strafvollzuges ist das erkennende Gericht zuständig. Die Überwachung des Vollzuges obliegt dem Vollzugsgericht, dem Anstaltsleiter und der Regierung. Eine wichtige Funktion kommt daneben der unabhängigen Vollzugskommission nach Art. 17 StVG zu. Die ist für die Einhaltung der Vollzugsvorschriften, insbesondere für die Behandlung der Strafgefangenen zuständig. Sie hat dem Gefängnis mindestens vierteljährlich unangemeldete Besuche abzustatten. Die Anordnung und der Vollzug der Untersuchungshaft fallen in die Zuständigkeit des Untersuchungsrichters. Die Staatsanwaltschaft hat daher keine direkte Zuständigkeit in Bezug auf Strafvollzugsangelegenheiten oder den Entzug der Freiheit.

        Quelles sont les compétences du Ministère public en matière pénitentiaire et en matière de privation de liberté ?

        Question 3

        In States where prosecutors do not have full authority in prison matters, what are nevertheless their means of action used as regards prisons?

        Die Zuständigkeit der Staatsanwaltschaft beschränkt sich auf die Enthaftung von Untersuchungshäftlingen und die Untersuchung gerichtlich strafbarer Handlungen, die im Rahmen des Vollzuges der Untersuchungs- oder Strafhaft an Häftlingen begangen werden. Die Untersuchungshaft kann nur über Antrag des Staatsanwaltes verhängt werden. Der Staatsanwalt kann jederzeit die Aufhebung der Untersuchungshaft beantragen. In diesem Fall muss der Untersuchungsrichter zwingend die Enthaftung verfügen. Anzeigen oder Beschwerden von Untersuchungs- oder Strafhäftlingen, aus denen sich der Verdacht einer gerichtlich strafbaren Handlung ergibt, hat die Staatsanwaltschaft von Amts wegen zu verfolgen. Die Staatsanwaltschaft veranlasst dabei in der Regel die Befragung des Anzeigers und allfälliger Verdächtigen durch einen Untersuchungsrichter. Die Mitglieder der Vollzugskommission sind nach dem Gesetz Beamten gleichgestellt. Stellen sie bei ihren Inspektionen des Gefängnisses Sachverhalte fest, die den Verdacht einer gerichtlich strafbaren Handlung begründen, sind sie daher zur Anzeige bei der Staatsanwaltschaft verpflichtet.

        Dans les Etats dans lesquels les procureurs n’ont pas de compétence générale en matière de prisons, quels sont néanmoins les moyens d’action dont ils disposent concernant les systèmes pénitentiaires ?

        Question 4

        If prosecutors have general competences as regard prisons and detention, what kind of means have been provided to the Prosecution Service to allow its effective and fast action towards protecting human rights in matters of prison administration?

        Does not apply.

        Si les procureurs sont compétents en matière de prisons et de détention, quels sont les moyens à disposition du Ministère public pour lui permettre d’agir efficacement et rapidement pour protéger les droits de l’homme en matière d’administration pénitentiaire ?

        Question 5

        What are the positive and decisive elements of the prosecutor’s role in terms of protecting Human rights compared to other mechanisms of legal protection?

        Violations of prisoners’ Human rights often constitute criminal acts. By prosecuting these cases abuses are punished and made public. This has a deterring effect.

        Quels sont les éléments positifs et déterminants du rôle du procureur en matière de protection des droits de l’homme, par rapport aux autres mécanismes de protection juridique ?

        Question 6

        What could be the improvements to this system of protection?

        As far as the role of Public Prosecutor is concerned no improvements are needed.

        Quels sont les améliorations qui pourraient être apportées à ce système de protection ?

        Question 7

        Do prosecutors have jurisdiction to examine whether the rights (Human rights and especially procedural rights) of persons in criminal (for example as regards enforcement of prison sentences or pre-trial detention) or administrative detention are respected at the detention centre?

        See answer to question 2.

        Le procureur a-t-il compétence pour examiner si les droits (droits de l’homme et en particulier droits procéduraux) des personnes détenues ou retenues (par exemple en matière d’exécution de peines de prison ou de détention provisoire) sont respectés au centre de détention?

        Question 8

        Can a prisoner meet in private with a prosecutor to determine whether they had been subjected to torture or to any other inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment?

        In case of a complaint the prosecutor will refer the case to an Investigative Judge (Magistrate) who will examine the prisoner as a witness. This examination is done in the presence of the prisoner, the Magistrate and a court clerk, hence in private.

        Les détenus peuvent-ils avoir une entrevue en tête-à-tête avec le procureur pour savoir s’ils ont été exposés à un acte de torture ou à tout autre peine ou traitement inhumain ou dégradant ?

        Question 9

        Do prosecutors examine, and if so, how frequently, whether the accomodation provided to prisoners meet the recommendations of the Council of Europe (and namely of the European Committee for the prevention of Torture/CPT6? Can prosecutors make proposals in that direction which have an influence on the relevant budget?

        No. This falls into the competency of the “Vollzugskommission” (prison commission; see anwer to question 2).

        Le procureur examine-t-il, le cas échéant à quelle fréquence, si l’hébergement des détenus respecte les recommandations du Conseil de l’Europe (et en particulier du Comité européen pour la prévention de la torture/CPT)1 ?
        Le procureur peut-il faire des propositions en ce sens ayant une influence sur le budget concerné ?

        Question 10

        What kind of means exist for prosecutors to deal with authorities or officers/employees which have not completely or properly enforced the decisions of the court or the Prosecution Service related to punishments and/or measures involving deprivation of liberty? If a prosecutor detects such negligence, is he entitled to give binding instructions for the immediate termination of the breach of law? Is it in their power to initiate criminal or disciplinary proceedings, actions for damages or any other kind of impeachment? What other prosecutorial instruments are at his disposal?

        See answers to question 1, 2, 3, 5 and 8.

        De quels moyens dispose le procureur à l’encontre des autorités ou agents qui n’exécutent pas complètement ou correctement les décisions du tribunal ou du procureur concernant les sanctions et/ou les mesures privatives de liberté ? Si le procureur détecte une négligence, peut-il donner des instructions contraignantes visant à faire cesser immédiatement l’infraction à la loi ? Peut-il initier une procédure pénale ou disciplinaire, une action en réparation ou tout autre type d’action en contestation ? Quels sont les autres instruments d’action publique à sa disposition  ?

        Question 11

        How often do prosecutors carry out monitoring visits of institutions of criminal and administrative detention? Are there concrete follow-ups related to these visits?

        Prosecutors do not carry out visits. These visits fall into the competence of the independent prisons commission (“Vollzugskommission”). See answers to question 2.

        Quelle est la fréquence des visites de contrôle du procureur dans les lieux de détention et de rétention? Ces visites peuvent-elles faire l’objet d’un suivi concret ?

        Question 12

        Within the framework of their monitoring duties, do prosecutors have the power to take action at any time of the day (even at night) in the institutions of criminal and administrative detention?

        Does not apply.

        Le procureur a-t-il la possibilité d’intervenir à toute heure (même la nuit) dans le lieu de détention et de rétention dans le cadre de sa tâche d’inspection?

        Question 13

        May prosecutors commission experts to assist them in their tasks related to supervision and inspection?

        Does not apply.

        Pour leurs tâches de contrôle et d’inspection, les procureurs ont-ils la possibilité de recourir à des experts ?

        Question 14

        Are complaints and/or denunciations regarding criminal and administrative detention subject to prosecutorial inquiry independently of any relevant authority or employees/officers? Is it a prosecutor’s duty to complete investigations himself/herself or is he/she allowed to forward these complaints for investigation to the officers/employees that are the subject of those complaints?

        If complaints and/or denunciations contain facts which raise the suspicion of a criminal act, the Public Prosecutor instigates an investigation. See answers to question 8.
        If the complaints an/or denunciations concern incidences which raise disciplinary questions they do not fall into the competence of the Public Prosecutor but the director of the prison. His decisions can be appealed to an independent court.

        Les plaintes et/ou dénonciations concernant la détention et la rétention font-elles l’objet d’investigations par le procureur, indépendamment des autorités ou des agents concernés?Le procureur a-t-il le devoir d’enquêter lui-même ou peut-il transmettre les plaintes pour enquête aux agents qui sont l’objet de la plainte ?

        Question 15

        In case of sudden death, accident or criminal offence committed against a prisoner, or if a prisoner commits a crime against another prisoner or a prison staff member, is the investigation conducted by a prosecutor acting as an independent judicial authority or is it simply supervised by a prosecutor? Do prosecutors have any role in investigations?

        Yes, in such cases an independent inquiry led by the Prosecutor and an investigative Judge (Magistrate) is conducted.

        En cas de décès subit, d’accident ou d’infraction pénale à l’encontre du détenu, ou si celui-ci commet un crime à l’encontre d’un autre détenu ou d’un agent de l’administration pénitentiaire, l’affaire est-elle instruite par le procureur en tant qu’instance judiciaire indépendante ou est-elle simplement contrôlée par le procureur ? Les procureurs ont-ils un rôle quelconque dans l’enquête ?

        Question 16

        Are prosecutors entitled to take action in procedures concerning the adoption/revocation of special measures for high risk detaineed or subject to special restrictions in connection with their role and position in active criminal organizations? If so, how?

        No.

        Le procureur peut-il intervenir, et le cas échéant de quelle manière, dans des procédures concernant l’adoption/la révocation de mesures spéciales pour les détenus à haut risque ou soumis à des restrictions spécifiques en raison de leur rôle et leur position dans les organisations criminelles actives ?

        Question 17

        With a view to preserving them from any type of influence, are prosecutors autonomous or subordinated to other colleagues when monitoring the detention’s legality?

        Does not apply.

        Afin de les protéger contre toute forme d’influence, les procureurs exercent-ils de manière autonome le contrôle de la légalité de la détention ou sont-ils subordonnés à d’autres collègues?

        Question 18

        Is a prosecutor involved in granting a person’s pardon, amnesty or release, especially in the case of negative effects resulting from the punishment? Do prosecutors supervise criminal records?

        As for a pardon, custody and release the decision lies with the Head of State or the courts. The Public Prosecutor is heard in these proceedings and may appeal court decisions. Criminal records are supervised by the Princely Court.

        Les procureurs participent-ils au processus de grâce, d’amnistie ou de libération des personnes notamment en cas d’effets négatifs de la sanction ? Les procureurs contrôlent-ils les casiers judiciaires ?

        Question 19

        Are special qualifications and training required of prosecutors who carry out duties in matters of criminal and administrative detention? Please specify.

        No.

        Les procureurs bénéficient-ils de qualifications et formations spéciales pour l’accomplissement de leurs tâches en matière de détention et de rétention des personnes? Veuillez préciser.

        Question 20

        What acts (presentation of conclusions, attend hearings, appeal against court decisions) are prosecutors entitled to carry out during proceedings before judges with jurisdiction over the enforcement of sentences/surveillance judges (“juges de l’application des peines”), in states where such judge exists?

        No such judges exist.

        In states where such a judge does not exist, what acts (release on probation, subsequent alteration of the detention’s enforcement scheme, further restriction of a detainee’s rights, placement in solitary confinement, disciplinary punishment, and so on) are prosecutors entitled to carry out as regards court decisions?

        Public Prosecutors may appeal court decisions in these matters.

        Quelles sont les types d’action (présentation de conclusions, présence à l’audience, appel contre la décision) que le procureur peut accomplir durant la procédure devant le juge d’application des peines, dans les Etats où un tel juge existe?

        Dans les Etats dans lesquels un tel juge n’existe pas, quels sont les actes que peut faire un procureur concernant la décision judiciaire (libération avec mise à l’épreuve, modification postérieure du régine d’exécution de la détention, renforcement des restrictions des droits des détenus, placement en isolement/confinement, sanction disciplinaire, etc.) ?

        Question 21

        When monitoring the enforcement of punishments, do public prosecutors interact with the ombudsman or any other organisation linked to or charged with controlling the enforcement of punishments? If so, what type of interactions are they? Could you give the names of these organisations, whether they be institutional or not, and explain briefly their roles?

        See answers to questions 2 and 3 in relation to the independent prison commission (“Vollzugskommission”).

        Le procureur qui contrôle l’exécution des sanctions a-t-il des relations, le cas échéant de quels types, avec le médiateur ou d’autres organisations liées au ou chargées du contrôle de l’exécution des sanctions? Pouvez-vous citer ces organisations, institutionnelles ou non, et expliquer brièvement leur rôle ?

        Question 22

        Could you give other useful information to the preparation of the draft Opinion (relevant questions to add, documents, etc)?

        None.

        Pouvez-vous fournir d’autres informations que vous jugez utile à la préparation du projet d’Avis (questions pertinentes à évoquer, documents, etc.) ?


        MONACO

        English

        Français

        Remarks

        Remarques

        This questionnaire is addressed to prosecutors and the member of the CCPE of each State shall be responsible for collecting of replies.

        In some States, prosecutors have only reduced powers within matters of prison administration. Some States will therefore not be able to reply to all questions.

        It will not be implied from the fact that this questionnaire was answered that prosecutiors shall have a role in this matter.

        The scope of the questionnaire is identical to that of Recommendation Rec(2006)2 (see para.10): this questionnaire concerns any person deprived of liberty, in any form whatsoever and not strictly the person detained in a prison.

        This questionnaire does not concern the enforcement of sanctions in general but is limited to the prosecutor’s supervision of the legality of the enforcement of sanctions.

        Ce questionnaire s’adresse aux procureurs et le membre du CCPE au titre de chaque Etat est responsable de la collecte des réponses.

        Dans certains Etats, les procureurs ont peu de compétences en matière d’administration pénitentiaire. Certains Etats ne pourront donc pas répondre à toutes les questions.

        Le fait de répondre à ce questionnaire ne sous-entend pas que les procureurs doivent avoir un rôle en la matière.

        Le champ d’application du questionnaire est le même que celui de la Recommandation Rec(2006)2 (voir para.10) : ce questionnaire concerne toute personne privée de liberté, sous quelque forme que ce soit, et non simplement de la personne détenue dans un établissement pénitentiaire.

        Ce questionnaire ne concerne pas l’exécution des sanctions de manière générale et se limite au contrôle de la légalité de l’exécution des sanctions par le procureur.

        Question 2

        What are the Prosecution Service’s powers regarding prison matters and in terms of deprivation of liberty?

        Quelles sont les compétences du Ministère public en matière pénitentiaire et en matière de privation de liberté ?
        Le ministère public peut dans le cas de flagrant délit placer une personne en détention pour un très court délai à l’issue duquel une formation du siège statue sur cette mesure ; Il est chargé de veiller à la mise à exécution des peines d’emprisonnement prononcées par les juridictions pénales dont il s’assure qu’elles soient exécutoires. Il donne, au directeur de la maison d’arrêt les ordres de remise en liberté notamment, lorsque la détention préventive n’est plus estimée justifiée par les juges. Il dispose également d’une compétence en matière de permis de visite, d’extractions et de contrôle du courrier des détenus. Il visite tous les trois mois la maison d’arrêt afin de s’assurer des conditions de détention et du bon ordre de la maison d’arrêt. Il est avisé de toute sanction disciplinaire ainsi que de tout décès d’un détenu. Il fait procéder, le cas échéant, au transfèrement des condamnés dans les prisons françaises. Son avis est requis en matière de libération conditionnelle.

        Question 3

        In States where prosecutors do not have full authority in prison matters, what are nevertheless their means of action used as regards prisons ?

        Dans les Etats dans lesquels les procureurs n’ont pas de compétence générale en matière de prisons, quels sont néanmoins les moyens d’action dont ils disposent concernant les systèmes pénitentiaires ?
        Le Procureur Général dispose de la possibilité, s’il constate un dysfonctionnement à la maison d’arrêt, de saisir le Directeur des Services Judiciaires sous le contrôle duquel est placé la maison d’arrêt. Un magistrat du Parquet Général est membre du bureau d’administration pénitentiaire qui est consulté pour tout ce qui touche à la maison d’arrêt et dispose ainsi de la possibilité de faire valoir son point de vue.

        Question 4

        If prosecutors have general competences as regard prisons and detention, what kind of means have been provided to the Prosecution Service to allow its effective and fast action towards protecting human rights in matters of prison administration?

        Si les procureurs sont compétents en matière de prisons et de détention, quels sont les moyens à disposition du Ministère public pour lui permettre d’agir efficacement et rapidement pour protéger les droits de l’homme en matière d’administration pénitentiaire ?
        Ainsi qu’il vient d’être dit, le Procureur Général visite une fois par trimestre les lieux de détention et dresse rapport au Directeur des Services Judiciaires de ses visites, il peut en conséquence porter à l’attention de celui-ci toute atteinte aux droits de l’homme.

        Question 5

        What are the positive and decisive elements of the prosecutor’s role in terms of protecting Human rights compared to other mechanisms of legal protection?

        Quels sont les éléments positifs et déterminants du rôle du procureur en matière de protection des droits de l’homme, par rapport aux autres mécanismes de protection juridique ?
        Le Procureur Général pourrait en cas de violation des droits de l’homme engager des poursuites pénales à l’encontre des auteurs de mauvais traitements et dispose des possibilités d’action visés supra. Il pourrait également saisir le Directeur des Services Judiciaires aux fins de sanction disciplinaire si le personnel de la maison d’arrêt devait être responsable d’atteintes aux droits de l’homme.

        Question 6

        What could be the improvements to this system of protection?

        Quels sont les améliorations qui pourraient être apportées à ce système de protection ?
        Le système actuel semble satisfaisant eu égard notamment à la bonne concertation existante entre les différents acteurs du système pénitentiaire du fait d’un établissement unique de détention de taille réduite qui permet une bonne gestion de la maison d’arrêt et de bonnes conditions de détention des détenus.

        Question 7

        Do prosecutors have jurisdiction to examine whether the rights (Human rights and especially procedural rights) of persons in criminal (for example as regards enforcement of prison sentences or pre-trial detention) or administrative detention are respected at the detention centre?

        Le procureur a-t-il compétence pour examiner si les droits (droits de l’homme et en particulier droits procéduraux) des personnes détenues ou retenues (par exemple en matière d’exécution de peines de prison ou de détention provisoire) sont respectés au centre de détention?
        Le Procureur Général a compétence pour faire appliquer dans le respect des lois les décisions prononcées par les juridictions. Il peut être saisi par écrit par tout détenu qui s’estimerait victime d’une violation de
        ses droits.

        Question 8

        Can a prisoner meet in private with a prosecutor to determine whether they had been subjected to torture or to any other inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment?

        Les détenus peuvent-ils avoir une entrevue en tête-à-tête avec le procureur pour savoir s’ils ont été exposés à un acte de torture ou à tout autre peine ou traitement inhumain ou dégradant ?
        De telles entrevues peuvent être demandées à tout moment à l’initiative d’un détenu.

        Question 9

        Do prosecutors examine, and if so, how frequently, whether the accomodation provided to prisoners meet the recommendations of the Council of Europe (and namely of the European Committee for the prevention of Torture/CPT7? Can prosecutors make proposals in that direction which have an influence on the relevant budget ?

        Le procureur examine-t-il, le cas échéant à quelle fréquence, si l’hébergement des détenus respecte les recommandations du Conseil de l’Europe (et en particulier du Comité européen pour la prévention de la torture/CPT)1 ?
        Le procureur peut-il faire des propositions en ce sens ayant une influence sur le budget concerné ?
        Le Procureur Général ou le substitut qu’il délègue visite tous les trois mois la maison d’arrêt et peut faire des propositions d’amélioration, qui si elles sont approuvées, seront prévues au budget affecté à la maison d’arrêt.

        Question 10

        What kind of means exist for prosecutors to deal with authorities or officers/employees which have not completely or properly enforced the decisions of the court or the Prosecution Service related to punishments and/or measures involving deprivation of liberty? If a prosecutor detects such negligence, is he entitled to give binding instructions for the immediate termination of the breach of law? Is it in their power to initiate criminal or disciplinary proceedings, actions for damages or any other kind of impeachment? What other prosecutorial instruments are at his disposal ?

        De quels moyens dispose le procureur à l’encontre des autorités ou agents qui n’exécutent pas complètement ou correctement les décisions du tribunal ou du procureur concernant les sanctions et/ou les mesures privatives de liberté ? Si le procureur détecte une négligence, peut-il donner des instructions contraignantes visant à faire cesser immédiatement l’infraction à la loi ? Peut-il initier une procédure pénale ou disciplinaire, une action en réparation ou tout autre type d’action en contestation ? Quels sont les autres instruments d’action publique à sa disposition  ?
        Le Procureur Général veille à ce que les décisions privatives de liberté soient strictement respectées et peut, dans certains cas, ordonner la mise en liberté immédiate d’un détenu lorsque sa détention est illégale ou n’est plus légalement justifiée.

        Question 11

        How often do prosecutors carry out monitoring visits of institutions of criminal and administrative detention? Are there concrete follow-ups related to these visits?

        Quelle est la fréquence des visites de contrôle du procureur dans les lieux de détention et de rétention? Ces visites peuvent-elles faire l’objet d’un suivi concret ?
        Ainsi qu’il a été dit, ces visites ont lieu à la fin de chaque trimestre et permettent un suivi concret

        Question 12

        Within the framework of their monitoring duties, do prosecutors have the power to take action at any time of the day (even at night) in the institutions of criminal and administrative detention?

        Le procureur a-t-il la possibilité d’intervenir à toute heure (même la nuit) dans le lieu de détention et de rétention dans le cadre de sa tâche d’inspection?
        Oui, si nécessaire.

        Question 13

        May prosecutors commission experts to assist them in their tasks related to supervision and inspection?

        Pour leurs tâches de contrôle et d’inspection, les procureurs ont-ils la possibilité de recourir à des experts ?
        Le Procureur Général pourrait, au besoin, demander par le biais du bureau d’administration pénitentiaire l’assistance d’experts pour procéder à des inspections. De plus, aucun texte ne s’oppose à ce qu’il se fasse accompagner lors de ses visites trimestrielles.

        Question 14

        Are complaints and/or denunciations regarding criminal and administrative detention subject to prosecutorial inquiry independently of any relevant authority or employees/officers? Is it a prosecutor’s duty to complete investigations himself/herself or is he/she allowed to forward these complaints for investigation to the officers/employees that are the subject of those complaints?

        Les plaintes et/ou dénonciations concernant la détention et la rétention font-elles l’objet d’investigations par le procureur, indépendamment des autorités ou des agents concernés?Le procureur a-t-il le devoir d’enquêter lui-même ou peut-il transmettre les plaintes pour enquête aux agents qui sont l’objet de la plainte ?
        Ces plaintes sont traitées par le Procureur Général comme toute plainte pénale par le Procureur Général qui peut saisir les services de police aux fins d’enquête ou un juge d’instruction. Il est exclu que ce type de plainte soit instruit par les agents concernés.

        Question 15

        In case of sudden death, accident or criminal offence committed against a prisoner, or if a prisoner commits a crime against another prisoner or a prison staff member, is the investigation conducted by a prosecutor acting as an independent judicial authority or is it simply supervised by a prosecutor? Do prosecutors have any role in investigations?

        En cas de décès subit, d’accident ou d’infraction pénale à l’encontre du détenu, ou si celui-ci commet un crime à l’encontre d’un autre détenu ou d’un agent de l’administration pénitentiaire, l’affaire est-elle instruite par le procureur en tant qu’instance judiciaire indépendante ou est-elle simplement contrôlée par le procureur ? Les procureurs ont-ils un rôle quelconque dans l’enquête ?
        Le Procureur Général doit être avisé immédiatement de tout décès d’un détenu et il est avisé de tout problème médical grave concernant un détenu placé sous sa responsabilité comme par exemple en cas de transport à l’hôpital. Une infraction pénale perpétrée par un détenu ou contre un détenu est traitée comme toute infraction pénale soit sous le contrôle du Procureur en cas d’enquête préliminaire soit par un juge d’instruction en cas d’ouverture d’une information judiciaire

        Question 16

        Are prosecutors entitled to take action in procedures concerning the adoption/revocation of special measures for high risk detaineed or subject to special restrictions in connection with their role and position in active criminal organisations? If so, how?

        Le procureur peut-il intervenir, et le cas échéant de quelle manière, dans des procédures concernant l’adoption/la révocation de mesures spéciales pour les détenus à haut risque ou soumis à des restrictions spécifiques en raison de leur rôle et leur position dans les organisations criminelles actives ?
        Les mesures de sécurité au sein de la maison d’arrêt font l’objet d’une concertation entre les différents acteurs concernés pour chaque détenu. Un magistrat du Parquet ou du siège est toujours compétent pour décider de mesures de sécurité renforcées.

        Question 17

        With a view to preserving them from any type of influence, are prosecutors autonomous or subordinated to other colleagues when monitoring the detention’s legality?

        Afin de les protéger contre toute forme d’influence, les procureurs exercent-ils de manière autonome le contrôle de la légalité de la détention ou sont-ils subordonnés à d’autres collègues?
        Le Procureur Général n’est soumis à aucune autorité hiérarchique dans ce domaine mais selon les cas ce sont les juges du siège qui disposent de la compétence pour statuer sur la légalité de la détention et non le Procureur Général.

        Question 18

        Is a prosecutor involved in granting a person’s pardon, amnesty or release, especially in the case of negative effects resulting from the punishment? Do prosecutors supervise criminal records?

        Les procureurs participent-ils au processus de grâce, d’amnistie ou de libération des personnes notamment en cas d’effets négatifs de la sanction ? Les procureurs contrôlent-ils les casiers judiciaires ?
        Le Procureur Général donne son avis quant aux mesures de libération conditionnelle. Le droit de grâce et d’amnistie appartient au Prince Souverain

        Question 19

        Are special qualifications and training required of prosecutors who carry out duties in matters of criminal and administrative detention? Please specify.

        Les procureurs bénéficient-ils de qualifications et formations spéciales pour l’accomplissement de leurs tâches en matière de détention et de rétention des personnes? Veuillez préciser.
        Outre leur formation initiale au sein de l’Ecole Nationale de la Magistrature française qui comprend des modules relatifs à la détention, les procureurs peuvent suivre des formations continues dans ce domaine s’ils le souhaitent.

        Question 20

        What acts (presentation of conclusions, attend hearings, appeal against court decisions) are prosecutors entitled to carry out during proceedings before judges with jurisdiction over the enforcement of sentences/surveillance judges (“juges de l’application des peines”), in states where such judge exists?

        In states where such a judge does not exist, what acts (release on probation, subsequent alteration of the detention’s enforcement scheme, further restriction of a detainee’s rights, placement in solitary confinement, disciplinary punishment, and so on) are prosecutors entitled to carry out as regards court decisions?

        Quelles sont les types d’action (présentation de conclusions, présence à l’audience, appel contre la décision) que le procureur peut accomplir durant la procédure devant le juge d’application des peines, dans les Etats où un tel juge existe?
        Le rôle de Juge d’application des peines concerne le suivi des peines avec exécution fractionnée ou sous le régime de liberté d’épreuve ainsi qu’à donner un avis sur les demandes de libération conditionnelle.
        Dans les Etats dans lesquels un tel juge n’existe pas, quels sont les actes que peut faire un procureur concernant la décision judiciaire (libération avec mise à l’épreuve, modification postérieure du régine d’exécution de la détention, renforcement des restrictions des droits des détenus, placement en isolement/confinement, sanction disciplinaire, etc.) ?
        C’est au condamné qu’il appartient de solliciter une mesure de libération conditionnelle. Les mesures de placement en isolement sont de la compétence du magistrat sous le contrôle duquel est placée la détention. Les sanctions disciplinaires sont du ressort du directeur de la maison d’arrêt et le cas échéant d’une commission de discipline au sein de cet établissement, n’intervient pas mais est avisé des sanctions disciplinaires.

        Question 21

        When monitoring the enforcement of punishments, do public prosecutors interact with the ombudsman or any other organisation linked to or charged with controlling the enforcement of punishments? If so, what type of interactions are they? Could you give the names of these organisations, whether they be institutional or not, and explain briefly their roles?

        Le procureur qui contrôle l’exécution des sanctions a-t-il des relations, le cas échéant de quels types, avec le médiateur ou d’autres organisations liées au ou chargées du contrôle de l’exécution des sanctions? Pouvez-vous citer ces organisations, institutionnelles ou non, et expliquer brièvement leur rôle ?
        La Principauté ne dispose pas de telles institutions.

        Question 22

        Could you give other useful information to the preparation of the draft Opinion (relevant questions to add, documents, etc)?

        Pouvez-vous fournir d’autres informations que vous jugez utile à la préparation du projet d’Avis (questions pertinentes à évoquer, documents, etc.) ?
        Il convient de conserver à l’esprit le caractère spécifique de Principauté et le fait qu’à ce jour, les autorités ne sont pas confrontées à une problématique d’atteintes aux droits de l’homme en détention du fait notamment du petit nombre de détenus et de la faible durée de leur incarcération sur le territoire monégasque.

    NORWAY

        English


        Français

        Remarks

        Remarques

        This questionnaire is addressed to prosecutors and the member of the CCPE of each State shall be responsible for collecting of replies.

        In some States, prosecutors have only reduced powers within matters of prison administration. Some States will therefore not be able to reply to all questions.

        It will not be implied from the fact that this questionnaire was answered that prosecutiors shall have a role in this matter.

        The scope of the questionnaire is identical to that of Recommendation Rec(2006)2 (see para.10): this questionnaire concerns any person deprived of liberty, in any form whatsoever and not strictly the person detained in a prison.

        This questionnaire does not concern the enforcement of sanctions in general but is limited to the prosecutor’s supervision of the legality of the enforcement of sanctions.

        Ce questionnaire s’adresse aux procureurs et le membre du CCPE au titre de chaque Etat est responsable de la collecte des réponses.

        Dans certains Etats, les procureurs ont peu de compétences en matière d’administration pénitentiaire. Certains Etats ne pourront donc pas répondre à toutes les questions.

        Le fait de répondre à ce questionnaire ne sous-entend pas que les procureurs doivent avoir un rôle en la matière.

        Le champ d’application du questionnaire est le même que celui de la Recommandation Rec(2006)2 (voir para.10) : ce questionnaire concerne toute personne privée de liberté, sous quelque forme que ce soit, et non simplement de la personne détenue dans un établissement pénitentiaire.

        Ce questionnaire ne concerne pas l’exécution des sanctions de manière générale et se limite au contrôle de la légalité de l’exécution des sanctions par le procureur.

        Question 2

        What are the Prosecution Service’s powers regarding prison matters and in terms of deprivation of liberty?

        Answer from Norway:
        In Norway the Prosecution Service is involved in matters of deprivation of liberty only where this is related to an on going criminal case. The Prosecution Service has no role concerning prison matters when a person is serving a sentence in prison.

        The Prosecution Service in Norway is divided in three levels:

        1) Police prosecutors are working in the police districts together with police officers. They are involved in investigation of all types of crimes, and have the competence to decide indictment or to drop the case concerning less serious crimes.
        2) Regional public prosecutors have the competence to decide indictment or to drop the case in more serious criminal cases in their region.
        3) The Director of Public Prosecutions has the competence to decide indictment or to drop the case in the most serious criminal cases all over the country.

        It is mainly the police prosecutors who are involved in deprivation of liberty, particularly during investigation.

        An arrest order is given by the court or by the police prosecutor if there is no time to go to court. While the person is in police custody the police prosecutor has the responsibility to ensure that the deprivation is legal. (The prosecutor is not involved if a person is being arrested only because he is too drunk or can not take care of him self, or if a person is being detained for maximum 4 hours to check his identity etc. In these cases the police officers have the competence to decide to deprive a person his liberty.)

        The police prosecutor has to bring the arrested person to court within the third day after his arrest if the prosecutor wants to keep the person arrested for a longer period. When the court has given a remand order, the police prosecutor has to ensure that the person is being transferred from the police arrest to a prison.

        If the court has decided that the suspect shall be in solitary confinement or without any visit during the period of custody, the police prosecutor has to consider if such special restrictions can be discharged if the investigation shows that there is no need for the restrictions any longer.

        When a person has been convicted and is serving his sentence in prison the prosecutors – as mentioned above – has no responsibility for the prisoner and his conditions. At this stage the Norwegian Correctional Services has the responsibility.

        The public prosecutors in the region do from time to time control the use of the use of custody on remand and the use of police cells.

        The Director of General Prosecutions has given guidelines to the police prosecutors and the public prosecutors concerning custody on remand and the use of police cells.

        Quelles sont les compétences du Ministère public en matière pénitentiaire et en matière de privation de liberté ?

        Question 3

        In States where prosecutors do not have full authority in prison matters, what are nevertheless their means of action used as regards prisons?

        Answer from Norway:
        The Norwegian prosecutors have no special means of action as regards prisons except starting investigation if there is reason to believe that there has been committed a criminal offence by the prison staff or by prisoners.

        Dans les Etats dans lesquels les procureurs n’ont pas de compétence générale en matière de prisons, quels sont néanmoins les moyens d’action dont ils disposent concernant les systèmes pénitentiaires ?

        Question 4

        If prosecutors have general competences as regard prisons and detention, what kind of means have been provided to the Prosecution Service to allow its effective and fast action towards protecting human rights in matters of prison administration?

        Answer from Norway:
        Cf. the answer to question 2.

        Si les procureurs sont compétents en matière de prisons et de détention, quels sont les moyens à disposition du Ministère public pour lui permettre d’agir efficacement et rapidement pour protéger les droits de l’homme en matière d’administration pénitentiaire ?

        Question 5

        What are the positive and decisive elements of the prosecutor’s role in terms of protecting Human rights compared to other mechanisms of legal protection?

        Answer from Norway:
        In Norway there are no specific mechanisms concerning the prosecutors’ role in protecting human rights compared to other mechanisms of legal protection. However, the Human Rights Act states in section 3 that “the provisions of the conventions and protocols mentioned in section 2 [among others ECHR and ICCPR] shall take precedence over any other legislative provisions that conflict with them”.

        Quels sont les éléments positifs et déterminants du rôle du procureur en matière de protection des droits de l’homme, par rapport aux autres mécanismes de protection juridique ?

        Question 6

        What could be the improvements to this system of protection?

        Answer from Norway:
        Cf. the answers to question 2 and 5. Improvements of the system of protection are difficult to draft. Present problems concerning deprivation of liberty seem rather to be lack of adequate pre trial detention facilities than insufficient legal mechanisms for human rights protection.

        Quels sont les améliorations qui pourraient être apportées à ce système de protection ?

        Question 7

        Do prosecutors have jurisdiction to examine whether the rights (Human rights and especially procedural rights) of persons in criminal (for example as regards enforcement of prison sentences or pre-trial detention) or administrative detention are respected at the detention centre?

        Answer from Norway:
        The Prosecution Service in Norway does not as such have jurisdiction to control enforcement of prison sentences or pre-trail detention in prisons. The Norwegian Correctional Services has a supervisory board that controls the prisons, which might have representatives from the prosecution service although this is not compulsory.

        The use of police arrest is controlled by the Chief of Police in each police district, and also by a supervisory board consisting of persons from the Police Directorate and a regional public prosecutor.

        Le procureur a-t-il compétence pour examiner si les droits (droits de l’homme et en particulier droits procéduraux) des personnes détenues ou retenues (par exemple en matière d’exécution de peines de prison ou de détention provisoire) sont respectés au centre de détention?

        Question 8

        Can a prisoner meet in private with a prosecutor to determine whether they had been subjected to torture or to any other inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment?

        Answer from Norway:
        No, but the Norwegian Correctional Services has a supervisory board who meets prisoners and controls the prisons.

        Les détenus peuvent-ils avoir une entrevue en tête-à-tête avec le procureur pour savoir s’ils ont été exposés à un acte de torture ou à tout autre peine ou traitement inhumain ou dégradant ?

        Question 9

        Do prosecutors examine, and if so, how frequently, whether the accomodation provided to prisoners meet the recommendations of the Council of Europe (and namely of the European Committee for the prevention of Torture/CPT8? Can prosecutors make proposals in that direction which have an influence on the relevant budget?

        Answer from Norway:
        No, not in the prisons. But the Norwegian Correctional Services has a supervisory board that controls the prisons.

        The supervisory board, including a public prosecutor, that controls the use of police arrest, visits the local police arrests as often as it sees fit. The Chief of police in each police district report once a year on the use of police arrest in the district.

        The Director of Public Prosecutions can give guidelines that might affect the relevant budget in the police.

        Le procureur examine-t-il, le cas échéant à quelle fréquence, si l’hébergement des détenus respecte les recommandations du Conseil de l’Europe (et en particulier du Comité européen pour la prévention de la torture/CPT)1 ?
        Le procureur peut-il faire des propositions en ce sens ayant une influence sur le budget concerné ?

        Question 10

        What kind of means exist for prosecutors to deal with authorities or officers/employees which have not completely or properly enforced the decisions of the court or the Prosecution Service related to punishments and/or measures involving deprivation of liberty? If a prosecutor detects such negligence, is he entitled to give binding instructions for the immediate termination of the breach of law? Is it in their power to initiate criminal or disciplinary proceedings, actions for damages or any other kind of impeachment? What other prosecutorial instruments are at his disposal?

        Answer from Norway:
        The prosecution service can order the release of a person in custody, or that restrictions shall no longer apply, cf. also the answer to question 2. This competence of course implies that if such instructions are not followed, they can be repeated, and the case in question could be directed to a higher level within the Correctional Services. In the unlikely event of negligence to comply with direct instructions, the prosecutor could initiate criminal prosecution. Also, an administrative complaint could be filed.

        De quels moyens dispose le procureur à l’encontre des autorités ou agents qui n’exécutent pas complètement ou correctement les décisions du tribunal ou du procureur concernant les sanctions et/ou les mesures privatives de liberté ? Si le procureur détecte une négligence, peut-il donner des instructions contraignantes visant à faire cesser immédiatement l’infraction à la loi ? Peut-il initier une procédure pénale ou disciplinaire, une action en réparation ou tout autre type d’action en contestation ? Quels sont les autres instruments d’action publique à sa disposition  ?

        Question 11

        How often do prosecutors carry out monitoring visits of institutions of criminal and administrative detention? Are there concrete follow-ups related to these visits?

        Answer from Norway:
        See the answer to question 9.

        Quelle est la fréquence des visites de contrôle du procureur dans les lieux de détention et de rétention? Ces visites peuvent-elles faire l’objet d’un suivi concret ?

        Question 12

        Within the framework of their monitoring duties, do prosecutors have the power to take action at any time of the day (even at night) in the institutions of criminal and administrative detention?

        Answer from Norway:
        Except controlling the police arrest the prosecutors have no powers to take action in the institutions of detention.

        Le procureur a-t-il la possibilité d’intervenir à toute heure (même la nuit) dans le lieu de détention et de rétention dans le cadre de sa tâche d’inspection?

        Question 13

        May prosecutors commission experts to assist them in their tasks related to supervision and inspection?

        Answer from Norway:
        This is not an issue in Norway, cf. the answers to question 2 and 7.

        Pour leurs tâches de contrôle et d’inspection, les procureurs ont-ils la possibilité de recourir à des experts ?

        Question 14

        Are complaints and/or denunciations regarding criminal and administrative detention subject to prosecutorial inquiry independently of any relevant authority or employees/officers? Is it a prosecutor’s duty to complete investigations himself/herself or is he/she allowed to forward these complaints for investigation to the officers/employees that are the subject of those complaints?

        Answer from Norway:
        In Norway we have a special unit in the police who only works with complaints concerning crimes committed by police officers during duty. If the complaint is concerning a police officers treatment of an arrested person in police arrest this special unit will handle the case.

        If the complaint concerns the prison officers’ treatment of a prisoner in prison, then the local police will handle the case.

        Les plaintes et/ou dénonciations concernant la détention et la rétention font-elles l’objet d’investigations par le procureur, indépendamment des autorités ou des agents concernés?Le procureur a-t-il le devoir d’enquêter lui-même ou peut-il transmettre les plaintes pour enquête aux agents qui sont l’objet de la plainte ?

        Question 15

        In case of sudden death, accident or criminal offence committed against a prisoner, or if a prisoner commits a crime against another prisoner or a prison staff member, is the investigation conducted by a prosecutor acting as an independent judicial authority or is it simply supervised by a prosecutor? Do prosecutors have any role in investigations?

        Answer from Norway:
        If a person dies while in a police arrest the special unit who investigates crimes committed by the police, is obliged to investigate the case.

        If a person dies while the person is in a prison it depends on the circumstances whether the police will investigate the case. If the death is suspicious the police will investigate it.

        The prosecutors are formally in charge of all police investigations, and act as an independent judicial authority for all practical purposes (formally the King in Counsel has the right in all cases to instruct the Director of Public Prosecutions – that can instruct lower levels in the prosecutions service in all matters – although this competence is never used).

        In minor cases the prosecutors are seldom involved before the investigators consider that the investigation is complete. In an investigation of a death in prison the prosecutor will normally give orders to the police concerning the investigation and what the police must do.

        En cas de décès subit, d’accident ou d’infraction pénale à l’encontre du détenu, ou si celui-ci commet un crime à l’encontre d’un autre détenu ou d’un agent de l’administration pénitentiaire, l’affaire est-elle instruite par le procureur en tant qu’instance judiciaire indépendante ou est-elle simplement contrôlée par le procureur ? Les procureurs ont-ils un rôle quelconque dans l’enquête ?

        Question 16

        Are prosecutors entitled to take action in procedures concerning the adoption/revocation of special measures for high risk detaineed or subject to special restrictions in connection with their role and position in active criminal organisations? If so, how?

        Answer from Norway:

        No, see the answer to question 2.

        Le procureur peut-il intervenir, et le cas échéant de quelle manière, dans des procédures concernant l’adoption/la révocation de mesures spéciales pour les détenus à haut risque ou soumis à des restrictions spécifiques en raison de leur rôle et leur position dans les organisations criminelles actives ?

        Question 17

        With a view to preserving them from any type of influence, are prosecutors autonomous or subordinated to other colleagues when monitoring the detention’s legality?

        Answer from Norway:
        See the answers to question 2 and 15.

        Afin de les protéger contre toute forme d’influence, les procureurs exercent-ils de manière autonome le contrôle de la légalité de la détention ou sont-ils subordonnés à d’autres collègues?

        Question 18

        Is a prosecutor involved in granting a person’s pardon, amnesty or release, especially in the case of negative effects resulting from the punishment? Do prosecutors supervise criminal records?

        Answer from Norway:

        Prosecutors are involved in granting a persons pardon by giving their opinion to the Department of Justice, but they do not have any decisive power.

        Norwegian Prosecutors are not involved in releases of prisoners, except where the prisoner has been sentenced to an indeterminate sentence. Then the public prosecutors decide whether they want to ask the court for an extension when the minimum time is done.

        The Norwegian Prosecutors do not supervise criminal records.

        Les procureurs participent-ils au processus de grâce, d’amnistie ou de libération des personnes notamment en cas d’effets négatifs de la sanction ? Les procureurs contrôlent-ils les casiers judiciaires ?

        Question 19

        Are special qualifications and training required of prosecutors who carry out duties in matters of criminal and administrative detention? Please specify.

        Answer from Norway:
        There is no special qualifications or training for prosecutors who carry out duties in matters of detention.

        Les procureurs bénéficient-ils de qualifications et formations spéciales pour l’accomplissement de leurs tâches en matière de détention et de rétention des personnes? Veuillez préciser.

        Question 20

        What acts (presentation of conclusions, attend hearings, appeal against court decisions) are prosecutors entitled to carry out during proceedings before judges with jurisdiction over the enforcement of sentences/surveillance judges (“juges de l’application des peines”), in states where such judge exists?

        Answer from Norway:
        Such judges do not exist in Norway.

        In states where such a judge does not exist, what acts (release on probation, subsequent alteration of the detention’s enforcement scheme, further restriction of a detainee’s rights, placement in solitary confinement, disciplinary punishment, and so on) are prosecutors entitled to carry out as regards court decisions?

        Answer from Norway:
        Norwegian prosecutors have no right to decide in such matters while the person is in prison. While the suspect is in custody the prosecutors can decide to release the suspect, or to stop restrictions like isolation or limited visits.

        Quelles sont les types d’action (présentation de conclusions, présence à l’audience, appel contre la décision) que le procureur peut accomplir durant la procédure devant le juge d’application des peines, dans les Etats où un tel juge existe?

        Dans les Etats dans lesquels un tel juge n’existe pas, quels sont les actes que peut faire un procureur concernant la décision judiciaire (libération avec mise à l’épreuve, modification postérieure du régine d’exécution de la détention, renforcement des restrictions des droits des détenus, placement en isolement/confinement, sanction disciplinaire, etc.) ?

        Question 21

        When monitoring the enforcement of punishments, do public prosecutors interact with the ombudsman or any other organisation linked to or charged with controlling the enforcement of punishments? If so, what type of interactions are they? Could you give the names of these organisations, whether they be institutional or not, and explain briefly their roles?

        Answer from Norway:
        Not relevant.

        Le procureur qui contrôle l’exécution des sanctions a-t-il des relations, le cas échéant de quels types, avec le médiateur ou d’autres organisations liées au ou chargées du contrôle de l’exécution des sanctions? Pouvez-vous citer ces organisations, institutionnelles ou non, et expliquer brièvement leur rôle ?

        Question 22

        Could you give other useful information to the preparation of the draft Opinion (relevant questions to add, documents, etc)?

        Pouvez-vous fournir d’autres informations que vous jugez utile à la préparation du projet d’Avis (questions pertinentes à évoquer, documents, etc.) ?

        PORTUGAL

        I. Système de justice pénale :

        1. Dans votre pays, les procureurs ont-ils la charge d’appliquer une politique générale concernant la justice des mineurs ? Suivent-ils à cette fin des lignes directrices?

        (Si oui, veuillez préciser. Les réponses à cette question doivent inclure, entre autres, la dominante répressive ou éducative de la politique générale de votre pays ainsi que l’âge minimum pour la responsabilité pénale).

        2. Le système de justice pénale de votre pays prévoit-il des procureurs spécialisés pour les mineurs, chargés d’appliquer des lois et procédures spécifiques? Les procureurs forment-ils, avec les juges spécialisés pour les mineurs, une entité spécialisée au sein de la juridiction, au sein de laquelle, par exemple une politique générale en matière de justice des mineurs serait définie ou réfléchie ? Veuillez développer.

        3. Si oui comment les procureurs sont-ils formés, sélectionnés et quelle formation continue suivent-ils?

        4. S’agissant des mineurs victimes d’infractions, les procureurs ont-ils à leur disposition des procédures et des moyens particuliers, notamment pour le recueil des témoignages ? Par ailleurs, ont-ils toute latitude dans leurs choix d’action publique ou leurs compétences sont-lles parfois limitées par la loi, ar exemple quant au choix de mesures alternatives aux sanctions pénales ou aux réquisitions de détention pour des mineurs déjà condamnés ou récidivistes ? Ces choix d’action publique, pour la prison, pour certains types de peines, sont-ils également différenciés par la loi en fonction de l’âge du mineur en cause ? Si oui, veuillez préciser.

        5. Quel est le rôle spécifique du procureur dans la détention avant le jugement, lors des audiences et lors de la détention après la condamnation, lorsqu'il s'agit de mineurs ?

        6. Quel est le rôle joué par les procureurs dans le partenariat avec les agences locales socio-administratives agissant dans le domaine de la délinquance des mineurs ? Les procureurs sont-ils par exemple associés à des choix de politique de la ville et participent-ils à des instances où l’on retrouve ces partenaires et des élus (comme par exemple les maires des villes), les établissements d’enseignement et les enseignants, etc. ?

        7. Dans la pratique, quel rôle les procureurs jouent-ils dans la coordination et la coopération des principaux acteurs impliqués dans le processus d'enquête (tels que les services de protection de l'enfance, la police, les tribunaux, les professionnels
        médicaux, autres) ? Veuillez préciser.

        II. Système de justice civile et procédures administratives :

        8. Quel est le rôle des procureurs dans l’accès à la justice pour les mineurs ? Veuillez distinguer entre les mineurs en danger éducatif, matériel etc., qui ont besoin d’une protection par la justice, et les mineurs victimes d’infractions qui demandent réparation.

        9. Dans votre pays, y a-t-il des situations touchant les mineurs dans lesquelles les procureurs peuvent diligenter des enquêtes de leur propre initiative ? Si oui, veuillez préciser.

        10. Quel est le rôle spécifique du procureur dans l’application des mesures de protection éducatives au regard des mineurs ? Dans ce cadre, les procureurs sont-ils en relation avec d’autres instances ou organisations, comme par exemple les foyers d’hébergement, les établissement d’enseignement, et comment sont organisés leurs contacts avec ceux-ci (correspondants désignés, numéro de téléphone gratuit, etc.)?

        11. Quel est le rôle du procureur dans les cas de soustraction d'un enfants par un parent et d'autres cas qui relèvent du droit de la famille ?

        12. Quel est le rôle du procureur dans des cas de rétention des mineurs en attente
        d'expulsion ou d'autres cas ?

        III. Autres remarques et particularités qui vous paraissent devoir être signalées et touchant au rôle des procureurs de votre pays en matière de justice des mineurs

        REPONSE
        Dans les réponses présentées on a procédé à une modification de l'ordre des questions formulées, dans le but de recueillir des bénéfices de leur ajustement sur la façon comme, en général, est organisé le système portugais de justice juvénile.

        Ainsi:
        I
        Système de Justice pour Mineurs

        Au Portugal, le système de justice pour mineurs peut se dessiner à partir de trois grands axes:

        a) tutélaire civil – où essentiellement on règle le lien des mineurs9 à la famille (réglementation des responsabilités parentales10/ autorité parentale; inhibition du pouvoir parental; investigation d’office de paternité/matem âge; adoption; tutelle, etc.), Code civil et organisation tutélaire de mineurs (OTM);

        b) promotion et protection - adressé aux enfants et jeunes, de 0 à 18 ans, pouvant être étendu jusqu’à 21 ans, qui se trouvent en situation de danger pour leur sécurité, leur santé, leur formation, leur éducation ou leur développement, et ne disposant pas de support familier capable d’écarter tel danger - loi sur la protection des enfants et des jeunes en danger (LPCJP) (loi nº 147/99, de 1er septembre, qui est entrée en vigueur le 1.1.2001)

        c) tutélaire éducatif – adressé aux jeunes, de 12 à 1611 ans, qui pratiquent des faits qualifiés par la loi de crime - loi tutélaire éducative (LTE) ((loi n.º 166/99, du 14 septembre, qui est entrée en vigueur le 1.1.2001).

        La politique générale, qui préside à un quelconque de ces axes, contient dans sa genèse la défense du supérieur intérêt de l'enfant ou du jeune, le Ministère public (procureurs) exerçant dans sa poursuite, et en général, la fonction de magistrature d'initiative.

        II Le Ministère Public dans le Système de Justice pour Mineurs

        Ainsi, incombant au Ministère public, d’après la loi, la défense et la représentation des mineurs12, il lui appartient et il a la légitimité pour:

        a) dans le domaine tutélaire civil - de nature essentiellement judiciaire, entamer des initiatives processuelles visant à la régularisation des rapports entre parents et enfants ou à la définition de la situation juridique de l'enfant ou du jeune.

        Dans les cas de divorce par consentement mutuel, l'accord des parents concernant la réglementation de l'exercice des responsabilités parentales est soumis à l'homologation du Ministère public, étant dispensée l'intervention judiciaire.

        Dans ce domaine, l'assistance technique auprès du tribunal (juge/ministère public) est assurée, en particulier, par l'Institut de sécurité sociale, I.P. (IPP, I.P. ), et, dans les questions d’expertise du for de la santé, par les services médicaux du service national de santé et de l'institut de médecine légale.

        En général, dans ce type de procédures, dès que l’on vérifie qu’il n’y a pas de consensus entre les parents, le mineur impliqué, indépendamment de son âge13, est entendu par le tribunal, à moins que des circonstances sérieuses le déconseillent.

        Cette audition (prise de déclarations) du mineur, présidée par le juge et en présence du procureur, est entourée des plus grandes précautions, ayant lieu, en principe, dans un milieu informel et calme, pouvant, si tel s’avère utile et nécessaire, être assisté par un technicien spécialisé.

        Dépendant toujours des particularités concrètes du cas, on n'exclut pas la possibilité de la réalisation de ces auditions dans une salle de visualisation unidirectionnelle14.

        Dès qu’il s’avère possible et nécessaire, et dans le but d’éviter des répétions de dépositions du mineur, les magistrats du Ministère public de l’aire tutélaire civile et du crime articulent entre eux des procédures et stratégies.
        b) dans le domaine de la promotion et protection, établir le pont entre les commissions de protection d'enfants et jeunes (CPCJ)15 et le tribunal, dans la certitude que, dans cette matière, la primauté de la compétence incombe aux CPCJ, le tribunal disposant de compétence subsidiaire.

        Dans cette mesure, il appartient au Ministère public, d’après la loi, la fiscalisation et la surveillance de l’activité des CPCJs (article 72 LPCJP), et, lorsque c’est le cas de transition vers le Tribunal, il lui appartient également, et en exclusif, d’entamer la procédure de promotion et de protection respective, ainsi qu’accompagner, en intervenant, dans la prise de décision judiciaire, en se prononçant sur la mesure à appliquer, sur son exécution, sa révision et cessation.

        De même ici, les assistances techniques sont assurées tel qu’il est précédemment mentionné pour l’aire tutélaire civile.

        Dans les procédures judiciaires de promotion et protection, l'audition de l'enfant ou du jeune est obligatoire et se déroule de façon identique à celles susmentionnées, vis-à-vis de l’aire tutélaire civil.

        c) dans le domaine tutélaire éducatif, assumer, exclusivement, la titularité, la conduction et la clôture de l'enquête, c’est-à-dire, dans la première phase de la procédure tutélaire éducative.

        Lors de la clôture de l'enquête, le Ministère public peut :

        1) classer (soit par l’inexistence ou l’insuffisance d'indices de la pratique du fait, soit par l’inutilité d'application de la mesure tutélaire éducative);
        2) suspendre ou
        3) requérir l'ouverture de la phase juridictionnelle.

        L'application d’une mesure tutélaire éducative16 est de la compétence exclusive du juge, bien que toujours sous proposition du Ministère public, à qui incombe, aussi, le suivi de son exécution (révision et cessation) de telle mesure.

        Dans ce domaine, l'assistance technique auprès du tribunal (juge/Ministère public) est assurée, en particulier, par la Direction générale de réinsertion sociale (DGRS).

        III Justice Tutélaire Éducative: Spécificités

        L'intervention tutélaire éducative ne vise pas la punition du jeune, mais plutôt son éducation pour le droit, cherchant à lui inculquer des notions et des valeurs, notamment, de respect, de responsabilité et d'autorité, et à lui proportionner les instruments/outils lui permettant de s'insérer, dans la vie en communauté, de façon digne et responsable.

        1- Pour autant, et si nécessaire, le JUGE peut, sous proposition du Ministère public,
        appliquer au jeune la mesure tutélaire éducative plus onéreuse, du fait que celle-ci implique la perte de liberté: celle de l’internement dans un centre éducatif17.

        Dans n’importe quelle phase de la procédure tutélaire éducative (PTE), et afin de prévenir le danger de fuite, ou le danger de la pratique d’autres faits qualifiés par la loi de crime, une fois vérifiées certaines conditions relatives à la gravité des faits pratiqués, le juge peut, toujours et seul à la demande du Ministère public pendant la phase d'enquête, appliquer au jeune une mesure conservatoire de garde dans un centre éducatif.

        Cette mesure conservatoire de garde a une durée de 3 mois, susceptibles de prorogation jusqu’à la limite maximale de plus de 3 mois, en cas de complexité particulière. En général, et en synthèse, dans le cadre de la procédure tutélaire éducative, il appartient au Ministère public de :

        - diriger l'enquête ;
        - promouvoir les démarches qu'il considérera utiles et d’interjeter recours, dans la défense et dans l'intérêt du jeune;
        - promouvoir l’exécution des mesures tutélaires;
        - donner obligatoirement un avis sur les recours, demandes et plaintes formulées ou déposées;
        - donner obligatoirement un avis sur le projet éducatif personnel du jeune assujetti au suivi éducatif ou interné dans un centre éducatif;
        - réaliser des visites aux centres éducatifs et contacter avec les Jeunes internés.

        2. Dans la phase d'enquête, est obligatoire l'audition du jeune, diligence présidée, nécessairement et personnellement, par le procureur, et assistée par le défenseur (avocat) que le jeune ait constitué ou que lui ait été nommé par le procureur.

        Dans ce type de procédures il est très fréquent d’apparaître comme victime un autre mineur, qui ainsi ait acquis le statut de témoin. L'audition de ce témoin, dès que celui-ci ait moins de 16 ans, lorsque réalisée dans la phase d'enquête, est présidée, nécessairement et personnellement, par le procureur.

        En tout cas, et quelle que soit la phase où se trouve la procédure tutélaire éducative, est assuré au témoin – en particulier le témoin mineur - un ensemble de conditions compatibles avec la sauvegarde des vulnérabilités qu’il présente.

        3. Dans le système de justice tutélaire éducatif est permise la détention du jeune, en flagrant délit et en dehors du flagrant délit.

        La détention en dehors du flagrant délit a seul lieu lorsque la comparution du mineur ne peut pas être assurée par les parents, le représentant légal ou la personne à qui sa garde ait été confiée de fait et a lieu par mandat du juge, sur requête du Ministère public pendant l'enquête et, ensuite, même d’office (article 51, § 2, LTE).

        IV Le Système de Justice pour Mineurs : Spécialisation

        La justice pour mineurs est, en règle, enseignée dans un tribunal de compétence spécialisée mixte: le Tribunal aux affaires familiales (TAF).

        Dans le TAF, le Ministère public est représenté par un magistrat avec la catégorie intermédiaire de procureur de la République, ce qui signifie que les magistrats du Ministère public seul peuvent exercer des fonctions dans un TAF après avoir 10 ans au minimum de service.

        On privilégie ainsi l'expérience de vie, associée à l'expérience professionnelle, en expérimentant aussi d’autres formes qui permettent d’apporter la plus grande consistance possible à la formation spécialisée qu’exige l’exercice de fonctions dans ces lieux.

        Ainsi, et par exemple, le centre d'études judiciaires18, dans son programme de formation permanente de magistrats, fournit, tous les ans, et depuis 20 ans, la fréquence de cours thématiques, multi et interdisciplinaires, dédiés à la juridiction de la famille et des mineurs.

        À son tour, les Parquets généraux du district19 organisent, régulièrement, des rencontres et des actions de formation dans ce domaine, dirigées aux magistrats du Ministère public en exercice de fonctions au TFM.

        V Le Système de Justice pour Mineurs: Le Ministère Public et la Communauté

        Dans les dernières années, le Ministère public a développé des expériences de partenariat et de collaboration avec des entités locales et socio-administratives, en particulier dans le domaine du combat au phénomène de la violence domestique, souscrivant et agissant dans cadre de Protocoles qui impliquent des maires, professionnels de la santé, enseignants, polices, techniciens de service social, éléments d'institutions particulières de solidarité sociale, etc.

        Outre ceci, et dans le champ spécifique de l'intervention protectrice de mineurs, le Ministère public, malgré le fait que celui-ci n’intègre pas les CPCJs20, a des pouvoirs et fonctions de surveillance et fiscalisation, étant doté dans chaque CPCJ d’un magistrat du Ministère public interlocuteur, circonstance qui a justifié l’émission récente d'une directive conjointe, souscrite par le procureur général de la République et le Président de la Commission nationale d'enfants et jeunes en risque, ayant en vue l’uniformisation de procédures fonctionnelles entre les magistrats interlocuteurs et les CPCJs.

        VI Régime Criminel Spécial pour Jeunes Délinquants

        Il s'agit d'un régime spécial, dirigé aux jeunes qui, à la date de la commission du crime, aient déjà atteint l’âge de 16 ans révolus, sans avoir encore atteint 21 ans (DL n.º 401/82, du 23 septembre).

        En traits très généraux, ce régime se traduit dans l'éventuelle:

        - atténuation spéciale de la peine d’emprisonnement;
        - application subsidiaire du régime tutélaire éducatif;
        - substitution de la peine d’emprisonnement par des mesures de correction.

        En tout cas, l'application de ce régime est de l'exclusive compétence du juge, ce qui ne dispense pas le Ministère public de, dans la respective procédure, maintenir un rôle actif, en promouvant ce qui, même, lui semblera plus ajusté, en syntonie, d’ailleurs, avec les orientations sur la petite criminalité prévues dans la loi de la politique criminelle pour la biennale 2009-201121.

        De la conjugaison entre le régime spécial, prévu dans le décret-loi n.º 401/82, du 23 septembre, et les orientations de politique criminelle, contenues dans la loi n.º 38/2009, du 20 juillet, il résulte, pour les jeunes prévenus de moins de 21 ans, un modèle punitif caractérisé, en général, par la préférence accordée aux peines non privatives de liberté, incombant au Ministère public le rôle d’instigateur de ce modèle.

        Toutefois, ajoutons que celui-ci est un espace de notre ordre juridique de fragilité reconnue, et qui a suscité un débat et une réflexion, aussi bien dans le champ de la jurisprudence que de la doctrine, étant prévisibles, à court/moyen terme, des mutations, ajustements et investissements sur le plan législatif et politique.22

        ROMANIA

        Draft Questionnaire for Consultative Council of European Prosecutors (CCPE)

        Answers of the Prosecutor's Office attached to the High Court ofCassation and Justice

        Question 2
        What are the Prosecution Service’s powers regarding prison matters and in terms of deprivation of liberty?
        According to Article 63 (j) of the Law No. 304/2004 on the judicial organization, republished, with the subsequent amendments and completions, the Public Ministry, through its public prosecutors, has the responsibility to check the observance of the law in preventive detention facilities. (See also the answer to Question 4.)
        According to the provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code, public prosecutors may decide to take the accused or the defendant into custody for maximum 24 hours (Article 143); He/she must also prepare a grounded proposal for the preventive detention of the accused for a period not exceeding 10 days (Article 146) or of the defendant for a period not exceeding 30 days (Article 1491) ordered by the judge, and may make grounded proposals for the extension, by the judge, of the duration of the preventive detention during the criminal investigation for periods not exceeding 30 days (Article 156), for a maximum total of 180 days.
        Also, according to the provisions of Article 243 (3) and Article (245 (3) of the Criminal Procedure Code, when the abating of the criminal action concerns an accused or a defendant who is in preventive detention, the public prosecutor must decide the abating of the criminal action on the same day he has received the proposal for such abatement from the criminal investigation authority, the result being the discontinuance by right of the preventive detention and the immediate release of the accused or defendant; the same procedure applies in case the prosecutor decides to exempt the accused or defendant kept in administrative detention from the criminal investigation (Article 249 (2), Criminal Procedure Code).

        Question 3
        In States where prosecutors do not have full authority in prison matters, what are nevertheless their means of action used as regards prisons?
        When dealing with crimes committed by employees from within the prison system of the kind provided by the Criminal Code and by special laws, the public prosecutors may, as the case may be, carry out the criminal investigation or supervise the criminal investigations carried out by judicial police officers, in order to establish the criminal responsibility of the culprits.
        Mention should be made of the fact that, with the Law No. 19 of October 9, 1990, Romania joined the UN Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Punishment or Treatment adopted in New York on December 10, 1984, Romanian public prosecutors carrying out their activity in full compliance with the principles promoted by the said Convention.

        Question 4
        If prosecutors have general powers as regards prisons and detention, what kind of means have been provided to the Prosecution Service to allow its effective and fast action towards protecting human rights in matters of prison administration?
        Prosecutors do not have general powers as regards prisons and detention.
        According to the provisions of the Law No. 275/2006 on enforcing punishments and the implementation of the measures decided by the judicial authority during the criminal trial, such powers correspond to the judge designated to enforce custodial punishments and the judge designated to the department dealing with the enforcement of criminal sentences in each enforcing court (Article 6).

        Question 5
        What are the positive and decisive elements of the prosecutor’s role in terms of protecting human rights compared to other mechanisms of legal protection?
        According to the provisions of Article 131 (1) of the Romanian Constitution: “In carrying out its judicial activity, the Public Ministry represents the general interests of the society and defends the rule of law and the citizens’ rights and freedoms.”
        The Constitutional provisions are also stipulated by the Law No. 304/2004 on the judicial organization, Article 62 (3) providing that “Prosecutors carry out their functions in compliance with the law, respecting and protecting human dignity and defending individual rights.”
        According to the provisions of Article 63 (j) of the Law No. 304/2004 – referred to under Question 2 – prosecutors are currently checking the observance of the law in pre-trial detention facilities.

        Question 6
        What could be the improvements to this system of protection?
        Due to the limited powers of the Public Ministry concerning the theme under consideration, any specific legislative improvements should be brought forward by the Ministry of Justice, the authority holding the legal power to advance legal proposals.

        Question 7
        Do prosecutors have jurisdiction to examine whether the rights (human rights, especially procedural rights) of the persons in criminal or administrative detention (for example as regards enforcement of custodial sentences or pre-trial detention) are observed at the detention center?
        Yes, as regards pre-trial detention facilities.

        Question 8
        Can the prisoner meet with a prosecutor in private to determine whether he/she had been subjected to torture or any other kind of inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment?
        The prosecutor designated to check the observance of the law in pre-trial detention facilities can meet in private with the individual in custodial arrest to determine if his/her rights have been violated.
        Also, once informed that a criminal act has been committed, the prosecutor can meet in private with the individual in custodial arrest in the course of the criminal investigation.

        Question 9
        Do prosecutors examine - and, if so, how often – whether the accommodation provided to prisoners meets the Council of Europe recommendations (namely of the European Committee for the Prevention of Torture/CPT)? Can prosecutors make proposals in this direction to influence the relevant budget?
        Yes, during the regular checks concerning the observance of the law in pre-trial detention facilities, ex officio or following notification from detained persons.
        Prosecutors can make proposals in this respect, the Ministry of Administration and Interior having the authority to solve them.

        Question 10
        What kind of means exist for prosecutors to deal with the authorities or officers/employees who have not fully or properly enforced the decisions of the court or of the prosecution service relating to custodial punishments and/or measures? If a prosecutor detects such negligence is he/she entitled to give binding instructions for the immediate termination of such breach of the law? Can he/she institute criminal or disciplinary procedures, actions for damages or any other type of impeachment? What other prosecutorial instruments are available to the prosecutor?
        The administrative or criminal detention cases deemed unlawful by the prosecutor are clarified and solved during when checking the observance of the law in the custodial detention facilities of the Ministry of Administration and Interior.
        Such cases are determined only after careful examination by the prosecutor of the cases under investigation or, as the case may be, pending in court, followed by their submission to the management of the competent police authority and prior information of the first prosecutor of the prosecutor’s office that will deliver the final solution in each and every case.
        After carrying out the checking action, the prosecutor prepares an information note presenting the breaches discovered accompanied by actual examples, the guilty persons and the measures required to reinstate legality. This information note is submitted to the first prosecutor of the prosecutor’s office who notifies the management of the police authority and, if necessary, brings to administrative or disciplinary account the persons found guilty.
        If the cases of illegality found by the prosecutor during his/her checking are of a criminal nature, he/she institutes ex officio legal proceedings, preparing a criminal file concerning the illegalities found.

        Question 11
        How often do prosecutors carry out monitoring visits of the criminal and administrative detention institutions? Are there concrete follow-ups after these visits?
        Prosecutors check the observance of the law in the detention facilities within the Ministry of Administration and Interior on a weekly basis but they also pay unannounced monitoring visits whenever necessary, preparing information notes presenting the breaches found accompanied by actual examples, the guilty persons and the measures required to reinstate legality.
        These information notes are submitted to the head of the prosecutor’s office who notifies the management of the police authority and, if necessary, brings to administrative or disciplinary account the persons found guilty. (See also the Answer to Question 10.)

        Question 12
        Within the framework of their monitoring duties, do prosecutors have the power to take action at any time of the day (even at night) in the institutions of criminal and administrative detention?
        Yes.

        Question 13
        May prosecutors commission experts to assist them in their supervision and control duties?
        No, such duties are the exclusive responsibility of the prosecutor.

        Question 14
        Are complaints and/or denunciations regarding the criminal or administrative detention subject to prosecutorial inquiry, independently of any relevant authority or employees/officers? Is it a prosecutor’s duty to complete the investigations himself/herself or is he/she allowed to forward the complaints for investigation to the officers/employees who are the subject of the respective complaints?
        The complaints or the denunciations regarding the detention conditions are investigated by prosecutors.
        When they regard a crime that can only be investigated by a prosecutor [Article 209 (3) of the Criminal Procedure Code], the case is investigated by a prosecutor.
        Criminal cases concerning other types of offences are investigated by police authorities under the direct supervision of the prosecutor (Article 216 and the next of the Criminal Procedure Code).
        The officers/employees against whom the complaint or the denunciation is filed are by no means involved in carrying out the criminal investigation activities.

        Question 15
        In case of sudden death, accident or criminal offence committed against a prisoner or in case a prisoner commits a crime against another prisoner or against a prison staff member, is the investigation conducted by a prosecutor acting as an independent judicial authority or is it simply supervised by a prosecutor? Do prosecutors have a role in investigations?
        According to the provisions of Article 209 (3) of the Criminal Procedure Code, in case of illegal arrest and abusive investigation (Article 266, Criminal Code), subjection to ill-treatment (Article 267, Criminal Code), torture (Article 2671, Criminal Code), and unjust repression (Article 268, Criminal Code), the criminal investigation must be conducted by a prosecutor; These provisions are also applicable in case of crimes against a person’s life (Article 174 – 176, and Article 179, Criminal Code) as well as in case of labor protection crimes followed or not by an accident resulting in the injury or death of the victim.
        In case other crimes than the ones referred to under Article 209 (3) of the Criminal Procedure Code are committed, prosecutors conduct and control directly the criminal investigation activity carried out by the judicial police and order procedural solutions.

        Question 16
        Are prosecutors entitled to take action in procedures concerning the adoption/revocation of special measures for high- risk prisoners or prisoners who are subject to special restrictions related to their role and position in active criminal organizations? If so, how?
        No.
        However, it should be pointed out that the detention facility employees prepare information sheets on each prisoner.

        Question 17
        In order to be free from any kind of influence, are prosecutors independent or are they subordinated to other colleagues when monitoring the detention legality?
        According to the provisions of Article 65 of the Law No. 304/2004, prosecutors in prosecutor’s offices are subordinated to the head of the respective prosecutor’s office, whose binding decisions and issued in writing, according to the legal provisions.

        Question 18
        Are prosecutors involved in granting a person’s pardon, amnesty or release, especially when the punishment produces negative effects? Do prosecutors supervise criminal records?
        According to Article 135 (1) of the Criminal Code, convicts can be rehabilitated upon request by the court after certain periods of time stipulated by the law.

        Question 19
        Are special qualifications and training required of prosecutors with responsibilities in criminal and administrative detention matters? Please specify.
        According to Article 36 of the Law No. 303/2004 on the status of judges and prosecutors, republished, with the subsequent amendments and completions, “the responsibility for the continuous professional training of judges and prosecutors lies with the National Institute of the Magistracy, the heads of the courts or prosecutor’s offices where they carry out their activity, as well as with every judge and prosecutor through his/her individual training.
        The National Institute of the Magistracy prepares the annual continuous training program for judges and prosecutors and submits it for approval to the Superior Council of the Magistracy.
        Depending on the actual situation, this program also includes such training courses.

        Question 20
        What acts (present conclusions, attend hearings, appeal court decisions) are prosecutors entitled to carry out during proceedings before judges competent to enforce sentences/surveillance judges (“juges de l’application des peines”) in the states where such judges exist?
        In the states where such judges do not exist, what acts (release on probation, subsequent alteration of the detention execution scheme, further restriction of a prisoner’s rights, placement in solitary confinement, disciplinary punishment, a.s.o.) are prosecutors entitled to carry out as regards court decisions?
        According to the provisions of Article 6 of the Law No. 275/2006 on the execution of sentences and of the measures ordered by the judicial authorities during the criminal trial, custodial sentences are enforced under the supervision, control and authority of the judge designated for the enforcement of custodial sentences, while non-custodial sentences are enforced under the supervision and control of the judge designated to the department for the enforcement of criminal sentences in each enforcing court.
        The legal provisions do not grant the prosecutor the power to supervise and control the legality of the enforcement of these categories of punishments.
        According to the provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code (Article 447 - 450), alterations in the enforcement of convictions may legally occur. They are decided by the court, the prosecutor being directly involved in the process because the law empowers him/her to notify the court competent to solve the issue, to attend the trial sessions, and to file appeal (for example, Article 447 – Revocation or cancellation of the stay of execution, Article 448 – Replacing the life detention sentence, Article 450 – Release on probation).

        Question 21
        When monitoring the enforcement of punishments, do prosecutors interact with the Ombudsman or any other organization linked with or charged with controlling the enforcement of punishments? If so, what type of interactions are they? Can you name such organizations, be they institutional or not, and explain briefly their roles?
        According to the provisions of Article 59 of the Romanian Constitution, the Ombudsman exerts its functions ex officio or upon request by the persons whose rights and freedoms have been violated, within legal limits, and the public authorities must grant the Ombudsman the support needed to carry out its duties.
        In compliance with the Constitutional norms and according to Article 17 (1) of the Law No. 35/1997 on the organization and functioning of the Ombudsman, republished: “The management of penitentiaries, of the juvenile rehabilitation centers, of penitentiary hospitals, of the Public Ministry, and of the police authorities shall allow, without any restrictions, persons serving prison sentences or, as the case may be, persons in criminal or administrative detention, as well as juveniles in rehabilitation centers, address, in any way, the Ombudsman concerning the violation of their rights and freedoms, except the legal restraints.”
        If the Ombudsman finds that the power to solve the request addressed to it lies with the judicial authorities, it may address, as the case may be, the Ministry of Justice, the Superior Council of the Magistracy, the Public Ministry or the president of the court, who are obliged to communicate the measures taken (Article 18 of the same law).
        Pursuant to the powers granted to it by law, the Public Ministry must examine the notifications concerning criminal acts committed in relation with the enforcement of punishments, interacting for this purpose with the relevant NGOs.

        Question 22
        Could you give other useful information to the preparation of the Opinion draft (relevant questions to be added, documents, etc.)?
        The legislation in force covers in our opinion all the issues mentioned in this Questionnaire.

        RUSSIAN FEDERATION

        The answers of the Prosecutor General’s Office to the questionnaire of the Consultative Council of European Prosecutors on prosecutors’ interaction with prison administration

            Question 2

        According to the prevailing legislation of the Russian Federation the Prosecutor General’s Office of the Russian Federation exercises supervision over the execution of the laws and observance of human rights and freedoms by the federal ministries, state committees, services and other federal bodies of executive power, subjects exercising pubic control over ensuring human rights in the places of forced confinement and assistance to the persons, staying in places of forced confinement, and also over the execution of the laws by administrations of bodies and institutions, which enforce punishment and apply coercive measures imposed by the court, by the administrations of detention and remand facilities.

        Supervision shall be exercised over the following:

        - the legality of holding persons in detention facilities, in custody pending trial and in correctional labour and other penal bodies and institutions, enforcing the punishment and coercive measures imposed by the court;

        - observance of the rights and responsibilities of detainees, remand prisoners, convicted prisoners and persons subjected to compulsory measures, and of the procedure and conditions governing their detention;

        - the legality of the execution of non-custodial sentences.

        When exercising supervision over the execution of laws, prosecutors shall be entitled:

        - to visit at any time the penitentiary bodies and institutions; to question detainees, remand prisoners, convicted prisoners and persons subjected to compulsory measures;

        - to inspect the records on the basis of which these persons were detained, remanded in custody, convicted or subjected to compulsory measures, together with the relevant operative materials;

        - to require the administration to create the necessary conditions to safeguard the rights of detainees, remand prisoners, convicted prisoners and persons subjected to compulsory measures, to ensure that any orders, regulations or decisions issued by the administration of the penitentiary bodies and institutions conform to the legislation of the Russian Federation, to demand explanations from officials, to make appeals and recommendations and to institute administrative proceedings. Pending the examination of an appeal, the operation of the enactment appealed against shall be suspended by the administration of the institution concerned;
        - to set aside any disciplinary penalties imposed in violation of the law against persons remanded in custody or convicted prisoners, to order their immediate release from punishment cells, cell-type accommodation, solitary confinement cells or disciplinary cells.
        The supervising prosecutor shall be bound to immediately order the release of any person who is being held without legal justification in penal institutions, enforcing punishment and coercive measures, or who has been unlawfully detained, remanded in custody pending trial or placed in a psychiatric institution.

            Question 4

        When a law violation is detected, the prosecutor shall be entitled:

        - to require that the administration create the necessary conditions to safeguard the rights of detainees, remand prisoners, convicted prisoners, to ensure that any orders, regulations or decisions issued by the administration of the penitentiary bodies and institutions conform to the legislation of the Russian Federation, to demand explanations from officials, to make appeals and recommendations and to institute administrative proceedings;
        - to set aside any disciplinary penalties imposed in violation of the law against persons remanded in custody or convicted prisoners, to order their immediate release from punishment cells, cell-type accommodation, solitary confinement cells or disciplinary cells.
        The prosecutor or his deputy shall be bound to immediately order the release of any person who is being held without legal justification in penal institutions, enforcing punishment and coercive measures, or who has been unlawfully detained, remanded in custody pending trial or placed in a psychiatric institution.
        Any decrees and requests issued by the prosecutor concerning observance of the statutory procedure and conditions for holding detainees, remand prisoners, convicted prisoners and persons subjected to compulsory measures or placed in psychiatric institutions shall be subject to compulsory execution by the administration and also by the bodies enforcing court sentences in respect of the persons sentenced to non-custodial penalties.
        The officials entitled to visit at any time the bodies and institutions enforcing punishment without any special permission thereto in executing their official duties are the Prosecutor General of the Russian Federation, the prosecutors of the Russian Federation constituent components (subjects) and their subordinate prosecutors, and also the prosecutors, who directly supervise over the execution of punishment on the appropriate territories.

        Question 5

        Along with the control by the courts, agencies, the general public over the activities of penal institutions of the system for enforcing criminal punishments (SECP) a special role belongs to the prosecution bodies.
        A unique feature of the prosecution service as an authority exercising control over law observance in SECP institutions and bodies is accounted for, firstly, by the fact that it is an independent authority, whose activities are subordinated to the law only, and requiring, due to its competences, unconditional compliance with the law requirements from other organizations, officials and citizens.

            Secondly, the prosecution service possesses a wide range of possibilities to detect law violations, including consider convicts’ claims, free visits to penitentiary institutions and remand centers by the supervising prosecutors, documentary checks of the activities of the SECP institutions’ administrations, require the necessary information and so on.
            Besides, prosecutors have powers in respect of the institutions and organizations supervised by them. Their demands to eliminate the detected law violations are binding for SECP officials, institutions and bodies.
            Another distinctive feature of the prosecutor’s supervision is that it allows to promptly restore the violated rights of prisoners. Many violations are eliminated right in the course of checks in penitentiary institutions, the others, registered in special acts of prosecutor’s response – in prosecutor’s protests and submissions –in 10 and 30 days time respectively. While doing so the prosecutors not only detect violations and demand their elimination, but also reveal the causes of such violations in order to avoid them in future.

        Question 7

        In the Russian Federation while exercising supervision over the execution of laws the prosecutor shall be entitled to visit at any time to visit at any time the bodies and institutions (including penitentiary), to question detainees, remand prisoners, convicted prisoners and persons subjected to compulsory measures; to inspect the records on the basis of which these persons were detained, remanded in custody, convicted or subjected to compulsory measures, together with the relevant operative material.
        Besides, in conformity with Article 37 Part 2 (5) of the Code of Criminal Procedure of the Russian Federation (hereinafter RF CCP) the prosecutor is entitled to give consent to the inquirer for their addressing the court with a petition for the selection, the cancellation or the modification of the measure of restriction, or for the performance of any other procedural action, admissible on the ground of the court decision; pursuant to Article 37 Part 2 (8) of the RF CCP to participate in court proceedings during pre-trial examination of the issues on selecting a measure of restriction in the form of detention, on the prolongation of the term of detention or on the revocation or change of this measure of restriction.

        Question 8

        Yes, he can. The prosecutor shall be entitled to visit at any time penitentiary bodies and institutions, to question detainees, remand prisoners, convicted prisoners and persons subjected to compulsory measures.

        Question 9

        In conformity with the Order No.19 of the Prosecutor General of the Russian Federation of 30.01.2007 “On organization of supervision over the execution of laws by the administrations of bodies and institutions enforcing criminal punishments and remand centers in respect to keeping suspects and accused of the commission of crimes” the authorized prosecutors every month perform checks of law observance in remand centers and penitentiary institutions of the criminal enforcement system, and the prosecutors of the subjects of the Russian Federation carry out such checks in person not less than once in three months. Every time the prosecutor performs a check he is obliged to pay special attention to the issues of securing the rights and lawful interests of the persons staying in penitentiary institutions.
        Based on the results of these checks given there are grounds available the prosecutors shall be entitled to introduce their requirements and proposals on bringing the conditions of keeping persons in penitentiary institutions in accordance with the recommendations of the Council of Europe.

        Question 10

        In case of a negligent attitude to the orders of the court and prosecution bodies on the part of the officials, the supervising prosecutor shall be bound to demand that the administration create conditions, ensuring the rights of detainees, remand prisoners, convicted prisoners and persons subjected to compulsory measures, to ensure that any orders, regulations or decisions issued by the administration of the bodies and institutions conform to the legislation of the Russian Federation, to demand explanations from officials, to make appeals and recommendations, to announce warnings, to institute administrative proceedings, file cases to the court, to send information letters and so on. Pending examination of an appeal, the operation of the instrument appealed against shall be suspended by the administration of the institution concerned.
        It should be noted that the decrees and requests issued by the prosecutor concerning observance of the statutory procedure and conditions for holding detainees, remand prisoners, convicted prisoners and persons subjected to compulsory measures or placed in psychiatric institutions shall be subject to compulsory execution by the administration and also by the bodies enforcing court sentences in respect of the persons sentenced to non-custodial penalties.
        Besides, by virtue of Article 37 Part 2 (2) of the RF CCP the prosecutor shall be entitled to pass a grounded resolution on forwarding the appropriate materials to an investigative or inquiring body to resolve the issue of criminal prosecution in respect of the detected violations of the criminal law.

        Question 11

        In conformity with the Order No.19 of the Prosecutor General of the Russian Federation of 30.01.2007 “On organization of supervision over the execution of laws by the administrations of bodies and institutions enforcing criminal punishments and remand centers in respect to keeping suspects and accused of the commission of crimes” the authorized prosecutors every month perform checks of law observance in remand centers and correctional institutions of the criminal enforcement system, and the prosecutors of the subjects of the Russian Federation do this in person not less than once in three months. If necessary, the checks are carried out immediately, irrespective of the regularity.

            Concrete mandatory follow-ups related to these visits are not envisaged by the legislation.
            However, in case of detecting violations prosecutors file recommendations to respective officials on the elimination of law violations and bringing the persons guilty thereof to disciplinary liability, file protests in respect of illegal enactments, announce warnings, institute administrative proceedings, file cases to the courts, send information letters and so on. If necessary, prosecutors carry out control checks in the penal institutions of criminal enforcement system.

        Question 12

        While exercising supervision the prosecutor shall be entitled to visit at any time penitentiary bodies and institutions.
        Furthermore, under the Order No.19 of the Prosecutor General of the Russian Federation of 30.01.2007 “On organization of supervision over the execution of laws by the administrations of bodies and institutions, executing criminal punishments, remand centers when keeping suspects and accused of the commission of crimes” prosecutors are obliged to make checks of isolation wards and penitentiary institutions during non-working hours.

        Question 13

        While performing the entrusted functions the prosecutor shall be entitled to commission experts to clarify the arising questions.

        Question 14

        The prosecution bodies receive, and in conformity with the competences, resolved the applications, claims and other submissions containing information on law violations (including during imprisonment or keeping persons in custody). On each claim where it is examined by a prosecution body, the prosecutor checks all the statements contained in it.
        While referring an application to another state authority, a local government body or another official they may be asked to provide the information on the results of the consideration of the application.
        The application may not be transmitted for the consideration to a state authority, a local government body or the official, whose act (omission) is appealed against.

        Question 15

        The prosecutor has no competences to check the communications about crimes and conduct preliminary investigation.
        However, on each case of a death of the persons kept in penitentiary institutions and remand centres, and likewise a crime committed in a penitentiary institution, the prosecutor is obliged to arrange for sending the materials to investigative authorities for making checks pursuant to Articles 144-145 of the RF CPC.
        If a criminal case is instituted the authorized prosecutor exercises supervision over its investigation.

        Question 16

        In his/her activities the supervising prosecutor is governed by the principle of equality of all the detainees and convicts, and performs his/her activities, irrespective of the risk group they belong to.

        Question 17

        The prosecutor is autonomous while executing his supervising activities on monitoring the detention’s legality.
        At the same time the prosecution service of the Russian Federation is a single centralized system in which lower-level prosecutors are subordinate to higher-level prosecutors and to the Prosecutor General of the Russian Federation.

        Question 18

        In all cases of pre-term release of the convicted prisoner (following the acts of pardon, amnesty in conformity with the resolution or determination of the court) the prosecutor must supervise the legality of the decision made and a timely release of the person concerned.
        The prosecution bodies do not supervise over the persons who have served their term of punishment.

        Question 19

        In order to ensure for the high level of professional training in the prosecution service of the Russian Federation there is a system of continuous education and professional development of the personnel, including individual and group training according to a special curriculum, a probation in superior prosecution bodies, scientific and education institutions of the prosecution service, training in regional education centers and institutes of professional development.
        Advance professional training is deemed an official duty of prosecutors.

        Question 20

        In accordance with the legislation of the Russian Federation prosecutors are entrusted with participation in court examination stages of criminal proceedings in prosecutions on behalf of a state and in state-private prosecution, and also in criminal trials in private prosecution, if a criminal case was instituted by an investigator or, at prosecutor’s consent, by an inquirer.
        The prosecutor (the state prosecuting party) in determining his position as to the punishment is governed by the requirements of the law on its proportionality and fairness taking into account the nature and level of the public danger of the crime, the personality of the guilty person, and also the circumstances mitigating and aggravating the punishment.
        In case the court passes an unlawful, unjustified and unfair decision in criminal matters the prosecutor is obliged to timely submit appeal and cassation petitions against such decisions.
        Besides, the prosecutor must in time file supervision petitions with the view to repeal the court decisions in criminal matters in connection with the application of a law which provides for a more grave crime, due to the light punishment or on other grounds entailing the aggravation of the convicts’ position, as well as an acquittal decision or resolution or determination of the court on the termination of the criminal case or criminal prosecution, if in the previous examination serious law violations were made which influenced the outcome of the case.

        Question 21

        In order to increase the efficiency of supervision over the lawfulness of execution of criminal punishments prosecution authorities carry out joint coordinated actions together with federal executive power authorities, their representatives in the subjects of the Russian Federation, public organizations.
        In the framework of interaction with the Commissioner for Human Rights of the Russian Federation and human rights organizations, including those abroad, information exchange is carried out on human rights in the SECP institutions. Notably, the Department has been regularly preparing such information in connection with the applications and visits of the delegations of the European Committee on the Prevention of Torture, UN Committee against Torture, UN Parliamentary Assembly, human right organization “Amnesty International” and others.
        Moreover, in conformity with the Federal Law No. 73-FZ “On public control over human rights in the places of forced confinement and on assistance to the persons, staying in the places of forced confinement” in each subject of the Russian Federation public supervising commissions have been established and operating which are entrusted with the competences to exercise public control over human rights in the places of deprivation of freedom, including by visits to these institutions.
        The prosecutors are directed to determine the forms and methods of interaction with the public control subjects, providing to them the necessary aid, including legal, in carrying out their functions.
        The prosecution bodies attach priority attention to the constructive cooperation with public associations and organizations, cooperating closely with them.

        Prosecutor General’s Office of the Russian Federation

        March 2011

        SLOVAKIA

        Re: Questionnaire on the relationships between prosecutors and prison administration with the view to preparation of the CCPE Opinion

            Referring to your request for answering questions concerning Public Prosecution Service and included in the Questionnaire, I can provide replies to different questions in relation to powers and competencies of Public Prosecution Service of the Slovak Republic in the area of prison administration as well as in the related area of enforcement of sentence of deprivation of liberty pursuant to the legal order of the Slovak Reublic; the replies are as follows:

        Answer to question no. 2

        Powers of the Public Prosecution Service are defined in the Act no. 301/2005 (i.e. Code of Criminal Procedure, hereinafter referred to as CCP). It follows from its Section 85, par. 1 and subs. that an individual suspected of commission of criminal offence may be detained (apprehended) by the Police if there is one of the grounds for custody pursuant to the Section 71, par. 1 CCP or if he is considered suspected individual pursuant to the Section 204, par. 1, CCP even if he still was not charged with accusation. Prior consent of prosecutor is necessary in order to apprehend a person unless a case is urgent and the consent is impossible to be obtained in advance especially if person was caught in the very act of crime or while escaping.

        A Police agent (who apprehended a person or to whom a person was handed over after apprehension pursuant to separate law or caught in very act of crime pursuant to the par. 2) has the obligation to immediately notify a prosecutor and to write record thereon including place and time of arrest or taking-over as well as detailed circumstances and relevant reasons for it and also identification data of apprehended individual. The original version of this record shall be forwarded to the prosecutor without delay.

        A Police agent who apprehended a person or to whom a person was handed over after apprehension pursuant to separate law or caught in very act of crime pursuant to the par. 2, has the obligation to immediately inform that person of reasons for arrest and to hear/interview the apprehended; if suspicion is ungrounded/unjustified or if grounds for arrest cease to exist for any other reason, apprehended person shall be released at liberty without delay by means of measure issued in writing. In case that a person is not released, the Police shall charge him/her with accusation and shall interview him/her. After questioning, the dossier/file shall be forwarded to a prosecutor for decision on motion to take in custody or on procedure pursuant tot he Section 204, par. 1. Police or prosecutor shall proceed so that apprehended person is referred to the Court at the latest within 48 hours since arrest or arrest pursuant to separate law or since he/she was handed over pursuant the par. 2, otherwise the person shall be released at liberty by means of prosecutor’s order (in writing) including adequate justification.

        If one of reasons for custody does exist pursuant to the Section 71, CCP and the case is urgent and decision on custody is impossible to be obtained beforehand, the Police itself may provisionally arrest a suspect person. Without delay, apprehended person shall be informed by the Police about reasons for arrest and shall be interviewed. The Police has the obligation to immediately inform prosecutor about arrest and to forward him the original version of the records written after arrest as well as to forward to the prosecutor other dossier for decision on motion to take in custody. That motion has to be filed so that the accused may be referred to the court within 48 hours otherwise he/she must be released at liberty.

        If it is established after arrest that the grounds for arrest pursuant to the Section 71 CCP ceased to exist, the Police may release at liberty the accused by means of measure issued in writing and upon prosecutor’s consent.

            If prosecutor refers the acused to the Court, he has to refer also the accusation or the motion to take into custody with all relevant files obtained up to that moment; otherwise prosecutor shall issue written order including appropriate justification and release the person at liberty.

        Pursuant to the Section 79, par. 1 subs., if grounds for custody cease to exist or if grounds for further custody cease to exist, or if the legal time period defined in the CCP expires the accused must be immediately released at liberty. Decision thereon shall be taken by prosecutor within preliminary (pre-trial) proceedings.

        The Police, prosecutor and judge for pre-trial proceedings have the obligation to review in every stage of criminal prosecution whether the grounds for custody still exist or whether they changed. Judge for pre-trial proceedings shall act so only while deciding on prosecutor’s motion to extend the time period of custody or to change grounds for custody and while deciding about accused person’s application for release from custody. If prosecutor establishes within pre-trial proceedings that grounds for custody changed, he shall file his motion to decide on changement of grounds for custody, that motion shall be submitted to the judge for pre-trial proceedings. Judge for pre-trial proceedings shall decide on this motion without delay.

        In any time, the accused has right to request for release at liberty. If prosecutor does not grant such application within pre-trial proceedings, he has the obligation to forward it (together with his opinion) without delay to the judge for pre-trial proceedings for decision and to inform the acccused and his/her defence lawyer. This application shall be decided without delay. If the application is dismissed and the accused shall not include new reasons for his application, it may be submitted again after 30 days since the decision on previous application came into force.

        If prosecutor gives his consent to release the accused at liberty, the presiding judge may issue written order (including justification) to release at liberty the accused within proceedings before the court; the sme applies to prosecutor if he proceeds pursuant to the Section 79, par. 1, second sentence.

        Within the context of the above said, it is necessary to mention that it is exclusively the court that shall decide on custody as security measure within criminal proceedings.

        Pursuant to the Section 18, par. 1, Act no. 153/2001 on Public Prosecution Service as amended (hereinafter referred to as APPS) prosecutor has the obligation to supervise whether any person was deprived of liberty only by court decision or by decision of any other authorized state body as well as to supervise observance of laws and other generally binding legal rules in places where police detention, custody, sentence of deprivation of liberty, disciplinary punishments of members of Armed Forces, protective treatment, protective young offenders rehabilitation (social retraining), in-patient treatement, special medical treatment are enforced.

        Prosecutor has the obligation to perform inspection visits in order to verify whether laws are observed in the above mentioned institutions and

          a) to issue written order to release at liberty a person kept in such institution unlawfully, without court decision or contrary to court decision or contrary to decision by any ohter authorized state body
          b) to issue written order to cancel or suspend enforcement of decision, order or measure taken by administration of such institutions or by their superior authority if such decision is contrary to law or any other generally binding legal rule
          c) to supervise that any complaint and information submitted by persons kept in these institutions are delivered without delay to authorities of officials which they were addressed to.

        While performing his supervisory competencies the prosecutor is authorized to visit places concerned and to have free acess to any premises therein and

          a) to inspect any documents related to deprivation or restriction of personal freedom
          b) to speak in private with individuals kept in such places
          c) to examine whether decisions and measures taken by administration bodies in these insitutions are in accordance with laws and other generally binding legal rules
          d) to request staff and administration personnel for any explication, submission of files and decisions concerning deprivation or restriction of personal freedom of persons kept in places within scope of their administration.

        Answer to question no. 3

            The means of action used as regards prisons result from the answer to question no. 2.

        Answer to question no. 4

        Powers available to prosecutor in prison matters result from the answer to the question no. 2.

        Answer to question no. 5

        In cases specified in the law, the Public Prosecution Service has the status of independent state body which has authority to release at liberty any unlawfully imprisoned individual. In relation to places where persons restricted in their liberty are kept, prosecutor has authority to visit such places in any time and to have free access to any premises therein, has authority to suprevise observance of law in such places, review disciplinary punishments imposed to prisoners. There is also very important possibility for the prosecutor to talk to imprisoned individuals in private.

            Answer to this question can be found also in the answer no. 2.

        Answer to question no. 6

        I do not think necessary to make any changes to the existing system of protection in the context of the Slovak Republic. The valid legal regulation applicable to the field concerned meets all conditions as may be necessary in order to enable the Public Prosecution Service to take effective measures to protect law in cases where human rights might be interfered with. As for further mechanisms of control/supervision especially in relation to the „national mechanism of prevention“ resulting from the Article 3, part I., Optional Protocol to the UN Convention against Torture and other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment adopted the 18 December, 2002 in the 57th UN General Assembly by the Resolution A/RES/57/199 which entered into force the 22 June, 2006, the General Prosecutor’s Office recommends that the mission of the national mechanism for prevention is taken over by the Office of the Ombudsman upon consent of the Government of the Slovak Republic and subsequent consent of the National Council of the Slovak Republic – this would correspond with the legal regulations of the neighboring countries.

        Answer to question no. 7

            Yes they do. Please see also the answer to question no. 2.

        Answer to question no. 8

            Yes, he/she can. In the institutions for enforcement of sentence of deprivation of liberty the competent prosecutor performs regular and systematic inspections concerning observance of legality; within the scope of this mission he deals also with applications and complaints of imprisoned persons, these complaints and suggestions are put into locked box available in every institution and accessible only to competent prosecutor.

        Answer to question no. 9

            Yes, they do. The accomodation of prisoners is examined within the scope of regular inspections concerning observance of laws, inspections are carried out 4 times per year, monitoring visits also may be performed upon complaint or request of a prisoner. If a breach of law is detected, competent prosecutor may inform administration of these places in order to provide remedy.

        Answer to question no.10

            Answer to question no. 10 (first and second sentence) results from answer to question no. 1. As for question no. 10 (third and fourth sentence) we need to explain that pursuant to the Section 3, par. 1 and par. 2 in the APPS, the Public Prosecution Service protects rights and interests protected by law in respect to natural persons, legal entities and the State. Within the scope of its competence the Public Prosecution Service has the obligation in public interest to take any measure as may be necesary in order to prevent breaches of law, to detect and remove breaches of law, to restitute infringed rights and to draw responsibility for such infringments. While exercising its competencies, the Public Prosecution Service is obliged to make use of any legal means in order to ensure consistent, efficient and quick protection of rights and legally protected interests of natural persons, legal entities and the State.

            The missions and competencies of the Public Prosecution Service are performed by individual prosecutors also in cases of criminal prosecution of persons suspected of commission of criminal offences and also within prosecutorial competence to supervise observance of laws prior to commencement of criminal prosecution in the extent defined in the CCP and also within pre-trial proceedings. In case that a prosecutor learns of any acting substantiating suspicion of commission of a crime, he is obliged to take measures aiming to criminal prosecution. Criminal prosecution may be initiated by a prosecutor or by Police agent upon prosecutor’s instruction.
            In case that prosecutor learns of acting substantiating suspicion of commission of breach of discipline, he has the obligation to inform the body competent to execute disciplinary proceedings. Further powers and competencies of prosecutor result from the answer to question no. 2.

        Answer to question no.11

            Monitoring visits are carried out regularly every 3 months. Answer to question 11, second sentence is included in the answer to question no. 2 and 9.

        Answer to question no. 12

            Yes, they have such powwer.

        Answer to question no.13

            Yes, prosecutors may commission experts to assist them.

        Answer to question no. 14

            Answer to first sentence: Yes.

            Answer to second sentence: Prosecutor deals with complaints and problems that fall within his competence pursuant to the law. Complaints and problems are also forwarded for dealing to superiors of the persons subject of complaints if law provides so.

        Answer to question no.15

            Prosecutor has authority to investigate the mentioned acts since he is independent state authority. If such acts are under police investigation the prosecutor carries out supervision over investigation.Tasks of prosecutor in relation to investigation are included in the Section 230, CCP according to which the prosecutor carries out supervision over observance of laws prior to commencement of criminal prosecution as well as within pre-trial proceedings. While performing supervision the prosecutor has power to give binding instructions to the Police, to direct the investigative procedure and to impose time limits to investigations, to request files, dossiers, documents and materials from the Police as well as reports on stage of criminal proceedings, to monitor whether the Police started criminal prosecution in due time and whether they progress properly, to participate in the Police acts, to perform any act in person, to carry out whole investigation in person, to issue decision in any matter; while doing so, he is obliged to proceed according to the CCP. Complaint is admissible against prosecutor’s or Police decision. Furthermore, prosecutor may return back the matter to the Police for supplementary investigation together with his instructions, to impose deadline for supplementary investigation. If a case is returned back to the Police for supplementary investigation, both the accused and injured party are informed thereof. Prosecutor may cancel unlawful or ungrounded police decision and replace it by his/her own decision. If resolution is issued to discontinue criminal prosecution, to suspend criminal prosecution or to transfer the matter, the prosecutor may do so within 30 days since service thereof. If police decision is replaced by his own decision otherwise than on the basis of complaint made by entitled person, complaint is admissible against both prosecutor’s and police decision. Prosecutor may withdraw a case from a Police agent and order it to another Police agent (even without local jurisdiction) or to take a measure with the aim to order the case to other police agent or police agents.

        Answer to question no. 16

            Prosecutor has supervisory and monitoring (inspection) powers pursuant to the CCP and Criminal Code. These powers are described in the answer to the question 2, 5, 10 and 15.

        Answer to question no. 17

            They are autonomous while performing monitoring. They are obliged to submit their report on monitoring results to superior prosecution office.

            We need to remark in this context that pursuant to the Section 6, par. 1 APPS, superior prosecutor has power to give instructions to subordinated prosecutor concerning tasks and proceedings he is carrying out and he also has power to execute subordinated prosecutor’s acts himself or to decide that other subordinated prosecutor shall act.

            Instruction given to subordinated prosecutor must be in writing. Subordinated prosecutor is obliged to discharge the instruction unless provided otherwise in the APPS and within proceedings before the court the subordinated prosecutor is bound by the superior prosecutor’s instructions unless changes occur in the evidence in the course of proceedings.

        Subordinated prosecutor is obliged to refuse execution of instruction if discharge of it would be commission of criminal offence, delict, other administrative delict or breach of discipline. Refusal must be in writing and justified.

        Subordinated prosecutor may refuse execution of instruction if discharge of it would endanger his life and health or life and health of a person in close relation to him. If subordinated prosecutor supposes that discharge of instruction would cause a damage he is obliged to inform his superior prosecutor.

        If subordinated prosecutor considers instruction as contrary to legal rule or to his own legal opinion, he may submit written application to his superior prosecutor in order to request for removal of the case from him. Request must be justified. Superior prosecutor shall grant the application and he shall commission antoher prosecutor or he shall deal with the case himself.

        Answer to question no. 18

            Prosecutor is not involved in granting pardon and amnesty.

            He is involved in proceedings on conditional release at liberty of a convicted person, within these proceedings he expresses his opinion in respect to statutory conditions of release and is competent to lodge appeal against decision of the court within such proceedings.

            Criminal Records Department is a part of the General Prosecutor’s Office and is governed by it. The General Prosecutor’s Office fulfils the tasks of Central Authority for reception of and requests for information on final decisions and related decisions and measures from Central Authorities of other EU Member States and it also provides such information to Central Authorities of EU Member States pursuant to special regulation. Information is sent abroad in the official language.

        Answer to question no. 19

        No, they are not required. According to the law, competent prosecutors are commissioned to fulfil tasks in this area either by the General Prosecutor of the Slovak Republic or by the Regional Prosecutors.

        The General Prosecutor’s Office of the Slovak Republic organizes trainings and seminars on regular basis for prosecutors; some of these trainings are prepared in co-operation with Directorate-General of Prison and Judicial Guard and with Prison Directors.

        The General Prosecutor’s Office of the Slovak Republic issues methodological guidelines and carries out monitoring of prosecutorial supervision over prisons; these tasks are also fulfilled by competent Regional Prosecutor in the extent defined in internal rules of the Public Prosecution Service.

        Answer to question no. 20

            In general, prosecutor has right to lodge appeal against court decision concerning execution of sentence. In trial held in public and concerning execution of sentence, prosecutor has right to attend, to make specific motions and to closing speech and to suggest how the court should decide.

        Answer to question no. 21

            In some individual cases prosecutor co-operates with ombudsman.

        Answer to question no. 22

            No. Any relevant and important fact was described in the above stated answers to the questions of the questionnaire.

        SLOVENIA

        English

        Français

        Remarks

        Remarques

        This questionnaire is addressed to prosecutors and the member of the CCPE of each State shall be responsible for collecting of replies.

        In some States, prosecutors have only reduced powers within matters of prison administration. Some States will therefore not be able to reply to all questions.

        It will not be implied from the fact that this questionnaire was answered that prosecutiors shall have a role in this matter.

        The scope of the questionnaire is identical to that of Recommendation Rec(2006)2 (see para.10): this questionnaire concerns any person deprived of liberty, in any form whatsoever and not strictly the person detained in a prison.

        This questionnaire does not concern the enforcement of sanctions in general but is limited to the prosecutor’s supervision of the legality of the enforcement of sanctions.


        Ce questionnaire s’adresse aux procureurs et le membre du CCPE au titre de chaque Etat est responsable de la collecte des réponses.

        Dans certains Etats, les procureurs ont peu de compétences en matière d’administration pénitentiaire. Certains Etats ne pourront donc pas répondre à toutes les questions.

        Le fait de répondre à ce questionnaire ne sous-entend pas que les procureurs doivent avoir un rôle en la matière.

        Le champ d’application du questionnaire est le même que celui de la Recommandation Rec(2006)2 (voir para.10) : ce questionnaire concerne toute personne privée de liberté, sous quelque forme que ce soit, et non simplement de la personne détenue dans un établissement pénitentiaire.

        Ce questionnaire ne concerne pas l’exécution des sanctions de manière générale et se limite au contrôle de la légalité de l’exécution des sanctions par le procureur.

        Question 2

        What are the Prosecution Service’s powers regarding prison matters and in terms of deprivation of liberty?
        The Prosecution Service does not have any special rights or duties regarding the execution of prison sanctions.

        Quelles sont les compétences du Ministère public en matière pénitentiaire et en matière de privation de liberté ?

        Question 3

        In States where prosecutors do not have full authority in prison matters, what are nevertheless their means of action used as regards prisons ?

          - The State prosecutor can request a deferral of a prison sentence;
          - A prisoner who believes he has been subjected to torture or other cruel forms of inhumane or degrading treatment may request legal protection by means of a proposal. The proposal must be forwarded by the prison to the competent State Prosecutor.
          - A Supreme State Prosecutor is a member of the Commission for conditional releases.
          - The State Prosecutor has the right to give his opinion regarding the request for extraordinary mitigation of punishment filed by the convicted person;
          - Extraordinary mitigation of punishment may be requested by the public prosecutor if proceedings were instituted at his request.

        Dans les Etats dans lesquels les procureurs n’ont pas de compétence générale en matière de prisons, quels sont néanmoins les moyens d’action dont ils disposent concernant les systèmes pénitentiaires ?

        Question 4

        If prosecutors have general competences as regard prisons and detention, what kind of means have been provided to the Prosecution Service to allow its effective and fast action towards protecting human rights in matters of prison administration?
        A prisoner who believes he has been subjected to torture or other cruel forms of inhumane or degrading treatment may request legal protection by means of a proposal. The proposal must be forwarded by the prison to the competent State Prosecutor.

        Si les procureurs sont compétents en matière de prisons et de détention, quels sont les moyens à disposition du Ministère public pour lui permettre d’agir efficacement et rapidement pour protéger les droits de l’homme en matière d’administration pénitentiaire ?

        Question 5

        What are the positive and decisive elements of the prosecutor’s role in terms of protecting Human rights compared to other mechanisms of legal protection?
        There is no special role of the Prosecution Service. The Prosecutor can react according his jurisdiction, when a criminal offence has been committed.

        Quels sont les éléments positifs et déterminants du rôle du procureur en matière de protection des droits de l’homme, par rapport aux autres mécanismes de protection juridique ?

        Question 6

        What could be the improvements to this system of protection?
        /

        Quels sont les améliorations qui pourraient être apportées à ce système de protection ?

        Question 7

        Do prosecutors have jurisdiction to examine whether the rights (Human rights and especially procedural rights) of persons in criminal (for example as regards enforcement of prison sentences or pre-trial detention) or administrative detention are respected at the detention centre?
        In our system, the Judge has this authority.

        Le procureur a-t-il compétence pour examiner si les droits (droits de l’homme et en particulier droits procéduraux) des personnes détenues ou retenues (par exemple en matière d’exécution de peines de prison ou de détention provisoire) sont respectés au centre de détention?

        Question 8

        Can a prisoner meet in private with a prosecutor to determine whether they had been subjected to torture or to any other inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment?
        It not legally determined, but in practice it would be possible

        Les détenus peuvent-ils avoir une entrevue en tête-à-tête avec le procureur pour savoir s’ils ont été exposés à un acte de torture ou à tout autre peine ou traitement inhumain ou dégradant ?

        Question 9

        Do prosecutors examine, and if so, how frequently, whether the accomodation provided to prisoners meet the recommendations of the Council of Europe (and namely of the European Committee for the prevention of Torture/CPT23? Can prosecutors make proposals in that direction which have an influence on the relevant budget ?
        /

        Le procureur examine-t-il, le cas échéant à quelle fréquence, si l’hébergement des détenus respecte les recommandations du Conseil de l’Europe (et en particulier du Comité européen pour la prévention de la torture/CPT)1 ?
        Le procureur peut-il faire des propositions en ce sens ayant une influence sur le budget concerné ?

        Question 10

        What kind of means exist for prosecutors to deal with authorities or officers/employees which have not completely or properly enforced the decisions of the court or the Prosecution Service related to punishments and/or measures involving deprivation of liberty? If a prosecutor detects such negligence, is he entitled to give binding instructions for the immediate termination of the breach of law? Is it in their power to initiate criminal or disciplinary proceedings, actions for damages or any other kind of impeachment? What other prosecutorial instruments are at his disposal ?
        /

        De quels moyens dispose le procureur à l’encontre des autorités ou agents qui n’exécutent pas complètement ou correctement les décisions du tribunal ou du procureur concernant les sanctions et/ou les mesures privatives de liberté ? Si le procureur détecte une négligence, peut-il donner des instructions contraignantes visant à faire cesser immédiatement l’infraction à la loi ? Peut-il initier une procédure pénale ou disciplinaire, une action en réparation ou tout autre type d’action en contestation ? Quels sont les autres instruments d’action publique à sa disposition  ?

        Question 11

        How often do prosecutors carry out monitoring visits of institutions of criminal and administrative detention? Are there concrete follow-ups related to these visits?
        /

        Quelle est la fréquence des visites de contrôle du procureur dans les lieux de détention et de rétention? Ces visites peuvent-elles faire l’objet d’un suivi concret ?

        Question 12

        Within the framework of their monitoring duties, do prosecutors have the power to take action at any time of the day (even at night) in the institutions of criminal and administrative detention?
        /

        Le procureur a-t-il la possibilité d’intervenir à toute heure (même la nuit) dans le lieu de détention et de rétention dans le cadre de sa tâche d’inspection?

        Question 13

        May prosecutors commission experts to assist them in their tasks related to supervision and inspection?
        /

        Pour leurs tâches de contrôle et d’inspection, les procureurs ont-ils la possibilité de recourir à des experts ?

        Question 14

        Are complaints and/or denunciations regarding criminal and administrative detention subject to prosecutorial inquiry independently of any relevant authority or employees/officers? Is it a prosecutor’s duty to complete investigations himself/herself or is he/she allowed to forward these complaints for investigation to the officers/employees that are the subject of those complaints?
        /

        Les plaintes et/ou dénonciations concernant la détention et la rétention font-elles l’objet d’investigations par le procureur, indépendamment des autorités ou des agents concernés?Le procureur a-t-il le devoir d’enquêter lui-même ou peut-il transmettre les plaintes pour enquête aux agents qui sont l’objet de la plainte ?

        Question 15

        In case of sudden death, accident or criminal offence committed against a prisoner, or if a prisoner commits a crime against another prisoner or a prison staff member, is the investigation conducted by a prosecutor acting as an independent judicial authority or is it simply supervised by a prosecutor? Do prosecutors have any role in investigations?
        The investigation is conducted by a prosecutor acting as an independent.

        En cas de décès subit, d’accident ou d’infraction pénale à l’encontre du détenu, ou si celui-ci commet un crime à l’encontre d’un autre détenu ou d’un agent de l’administration pénitentiaire, l’affaire est-elle instruite par le procureur en tant qu’instance judiciaire indépendante ou est-elle simplement contrôlée par le procureur ? Les procureurs ont-ils un rôle quelconque dans l’enquête ?

        Question 16

        Are prosecutors entitled to take action in procedures concerning the adoption/revocation of special measures for high risk detaineed or subject to special restrictions in connection with their role and position in active criminal organisations? If so, how?
        When a prisoner is considered as an endangered witness, the Prosecutor has the authority to propose protection measures, according to the Witness protection Act. Supreme State Prosecutor is a member of the Commission, which decides on protection measures.

        Le procureur peut-il intervenir, et le cas échéant de quelle manière, dans des procédures concernant l’adoption/la révocation de mesures spéciales pour les détenus à haut risque ou soumis à des restrictions spécifiques en raison de leur rôle et leur position dans les organisations criminelles actives ?

        Question 17

        With a view to preserving them from any type of influence, are prosecutors autonomous or subordinated to other colleagues when monitoring the detention’s legality?
        /

        Afin de les protéger contre toute forme d’influence, les procureurs exercent-ils de manière autonome le contrôle de la légalité de la détention ou sont-ils subordonnés à d’autres collègues?

        Question 18

        Is a prosecutor involved in granting a person’s pardon, amnesty or release, especially in the case of negative effects resulting from the punishment? Do prosecutors supervise criminal records?

          - A Supreme State Prosecutor is a member of the Commission for conditional releases.
          - The State Prosecutor has the right to give his opinion regarding the request for extraordinary mitigation of punishment filed by the convicted person;
          - Extraordinary mitigation of punishment may be requested by the public prosecutor if proceedings were instituted at his request. Prosecutor doesn’t supervise criminal records.

        Les procureurs participent-ils au processus de grâce, d’amnistie ou de libération des personnes notamment en cas d’effets négatifs de la sanction ? Les procureurs contrôlent-ils les casiers judiciaires ?

        Question 19

        Are special qualifications and training required of prosecutors who carry out duties in matters of criminal and administrative detention? Please specify.
        /

        Les procureurs bénéficient-ils de qualifications et formations spéciales pour l’accomplissement de leurs tâches en matière de détention et de rétention des personnes? Veuillez préciser.

        Question 20

        What acts (presentation of conclusions, attend hearings, appeal against court decisions) are prosecutors entitled to carry out during proceedings before judges with jurisdiction over the enforcement of sentences/surveillance judges (“juges de l’application des peines”), in states where such judge exists?
        /

        In states where such a judge does not exist, what acts (release on probation, subsequent alteration of the detention’s enforcement scheme, further restriction of a detainee’s rights, placement in solitary confinement, disciplinary punishment, and so on) are prosecutors entitled to carry out as regards court decisions?
        /

        Quelles sont les types d’action (présentation de conclusions, présence à l’audience, appel contre la décision) que le procureur peut accomplir durant la procédure devant le juge d’application des peines, dans les Etats où un tel juge existe?

        Dans les Etats dans lesquels un tel juge n’existe pas, quels sont les actes que peut faire un procureur concernant la décision judiciaire (libération avec mise à l’épreuve, modification postérieure du régine d’exécution de la détention, renforcement des restrictions des droits des détenus, placement en isolement/confinement, sanction disciplinaire, etc.) ?

        Question 21

        When monitoring the enforcement of punishments, do public prosecutors interact with the ombudsman or any other organisation linked to or charged with controlling the enforcement of punishments? If so, what type of interactions are they? Could you give the names of these organisations, whether they be institutional or not, and explain briefly their roles?
        /

        Le procureur qui contrôle l’exécution des sanctions a-t-il des relations, le cas échéant de quels types, avec le médiateur ou d’autres organisations liées au ou chargées du contrôle de l’exécution des sanctions? Pouvez-vous citer ces organisations, institutionnelles ou non, et expliquer brièvement leur rôle ?

        Question 22

        Could you give other useful information to the preparation of the draft Opinion (relevant questions to add, documents, etc)?
        /

        Pouvez-vous fournir d’autres informations que vous jugez utile à la préparation du projet d’Avis (questions pertinentes à évoquer, documents, etc.) ?

        SPAIN

        English


        Français

         

        Remarks

        Remarques

        This questionnaire is addressed to prosecutors and the member of the CCPE of each State shall be responsible for collecting of replies.

        In some States, prosecutors have only reduced powers within matters of prison administration. Some States will therefore not be able to reply to all questions.

        It will not be implied from the fact that this questionnaire was answered that prosecutiors shall have a role in this matter.

        The scope of the questionnaire is identical to that of Recommendation Rec(2006)2 (see para.10): this questionnaire concerns any person deprived of liberty, in any form whatsoever and not strictly the person detained in a prison.

        This questionnaire does not concern the enforcement of sanctions in general but is limited to the prosecutor’s supervision of the legality of the enforcement of sanctions.

        Ce questionnaire s’adresse aux procureurs et le membre du CCPE au titre de chaque Etat est responsable de la collecte des réponses.

        Dans certains Etats, les procureurs ont peu de compétences en matière d’administration pénitentiaire. Certains Etats ne pourront donc pas répondre à toutes les questions.

        Le fait de répondre à ce questionnaire ne sous-entend pas que les procureurs doivent avoir un rôle en la matière.

        Le champ d’application du questionnaire est le même que celui de la Recommandation Rec(2006)2 (voir para.10) : ce questionnaire concerne toute personne privée de liberté, sous quelque forme que ce soit, et non simplement de la personne détenue dans un établissement pénitentiaire.

        Ce questionnaire ne concerne pas l’exécution des sanctions de manière générale et se limite au contrôle de la légalité de l’exécution des sanctions par le procureur.

        Question 2

        What are the Prosecution Service’s powers regarding prison matters and in terms of deprivation of liberty?

        The constitutional role of Spanish prosecutors include “to promote the action of Justice in defence of legality, of the citizen’s rights and of the public interest as defined by law, ex officio or upon request” (art. 124 of the Constitution) and the Act on prosecutors includes to defend and protect fundamental rights as well as to ensure the proper execution of judicial decisions (arts 3.3 and 3.9 of the Act).

        Art. 4 of the Act on prosecutors provides for the right of prosecutors to “visit detention or penitentiary centers of any kind at any moment within the territory of its competence, to examine the files and documents and to request as much information as he may deem necessary” as well as to request the notification of any judicial decision or information about the situation of proceedings, in order to be able to ensure its proper enforcement.

        This status enables the prosecutor to come to know any decision which implies preliminary or definitive measures restricting rights as well as to carry inspection visits to all detention centers throughout the country (penitentiary, police, minors, foreigners, etc.) in which he/she can review all documents, request documentation that may not be available on the spot, and conduct reserved interviews with inmates or detainees. These visits can be conducted without prior notification to the centers.

        Quelles sont les compétences du Ministère public en matière pénitentiaire et en matière de privation de liberté ?

        Question 3

        In States where prosecutors do not have full authority in prison matters, what are nevertheless their means of action used as regards prisons ?

        N/A

        Dans les Etats dans lesquels les procureurs n’ont pas de compétence générale en matière de prisons, quels sont néanmoins les moyens d’action dont ils disposent concernant les systèmes pénitentiaires ?

        Question 4

        If prosecutors have general competences as regard prisons and detention, what kind of means have been provided to the Prosecution Service to allow its effective and fast action towards protecting human rights in matters of prison administration?

        Being one of the constitutional functions of the prosecution service the control of detention and deprivation of liberty, all means put at the service of this institution can be used for this purpose, including the possibility to issue orders to police in order to investigate any actions the prosecutor may consider to be a criminal offence.

        Si les procureurs sont compétents en matière de prisons et de détention, quels sont les moyens à disposition du Ministère public pour lui permettre d’agir efficacement et rapidement pour protéger les droits de l’homme en matière d’administration pénitentiaire ?

         

        Question 5

        What are the positive and decisive elements of the prosecutor’s role in terms of protecting Human rights compared to other mechanisms of legal protection?

        The prosecutor is entitled to promote the habeas corpus proceedings if he finds out someone is illegally deprived from his/her liberty, and can also trigger criminal actions and/or investigations to establish whether criminal liability is to be attributed to anyone for this. He/she can also send information about the irregularities detected to the administration so that disciplinary measures can be adopted; or to the judicial authorities for correction of conditions of the imprisonment, if the case may be.

        All actions taken by the prosecutor have the presumption of authenticity, according to the general rule established by art. 5 Act on Prosecutors.

        Prosecutors have also the possibility to present to the public through the media whatever cases or situations that may be required, always respecting the confidentiality and/or secrecy of proceedings.

        The Ombudsman has also the possibility to visit penitentiary and detention centers and to promote the habeas corpus, but not to act before the investigating judge (judicial authority controlling the laglity of centers for foreigners) or before the penitentiary judge (judge in control of execution of penalties depriving of liberty). For this, the Ombudsman would need to ask for the cooperation of the prosecutor.

        Quels sont les éléments positifs et déterminants du rôle du procureur en matière de protection des droits de l’homme, par rapport aux autres mécanismes de protection juridique ?

         

        Question 6

        What could be the improvements to this system of protection?

        One possibility would be to add to the traditional information of rights every detained persons must receive, information concerning specific rights in relation with his/her condition of being deprived of liberty, that is, to inform about the right to formulate complaints as regards the way in which detention or prison is being carried out, as well as who are the competent authorities the person can address when formulating these complaints (director of penitentiary administration, prosecutor, ombudsman, etc). The Spanish systems contemplates this as regards retention centres for foreigners but not as a general rule for all persons deprived form liberty.

        Quels sont les améliorations qui pourraient être apportées à ce système de protection ?

         

        Question 7

        Do prosecutors have jurisdiction to examine whether the rights (Human rights and especially procedural rights) of persons in criminal (for example as regards enforcement of prison sentences or pre-trial detention) or administrative detention are respected at the detention centre?

        Yes, as explained above.

        Le procureur a-t-il compétence pour examiner si les droits (droits de l’homme et en particulier droits procéduraux) des personnes détenues ou retenues (par exemple en matière d’exécution de peines de prison ou de détention provisoire) sont respectés au centre de détention?

         

        Question 8

        Can a prisoner meet in private with a prosecutor to determine whether they had been subjected to torture or to any other inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment?

        Yes, as explained above. During meetings with the inmates or detainees, only the prosecutor and the concerned person are present. Any inmate or detainee can ask to see the prosecutor this way, and can also address petitions, requests or complaints. They receive a stamped copy of their request in order to have a proof that their petition has been forwarded to and received by the prosecutor. This is also annotated in Official Register Book containing all petitions sent by inmates to any Authority.

        Les détenus peuvent-ils avoir une entrevue en tête-à-tête avec le procureur pour savoir s’ils ont été exposés à un acte de torture ou à tout autre peine ou traitement inhumain ou dégradant ?

         

        Question 9

        Do prosecutors examine, and if so, how frequently, whether the accomodation provided to prisoners meet the recommendations of the Council of Europe (and namely of the European Committee for the prevention of Torture/CPT24? Can prosecutors make proposals in that direction which have an influence on the relevant budget ?

        Yes, as explained above.

        Le procureur examine-t-il, le cas échéant à quelle fréquence, si l’hébergement des détenus respecte les recommandations du Conseil de l’Europe (et en particulier du Comité européen pour la prévention de la torture/CPT)1 ?
        Le procureur peut-il faire des propositions en ce sens ayant une influence sur le budget concerné ?

         

        Question 10

        What kind of means exist for prosecutors to deal with authorities or officers/employees which have not completely or properly enforced the decisions of the court or the Prosecution Service related to punishments and/or measures involving deprivation of liberty? If a prosecutor detects such negligence, is he entitled to give binding instructions for the immediate termination of the breach of law? Is it in their power to initiate criminal or disciplinary proceedings, actions for damages or any other kind of impeachment? What other prosecutorial instruments are at his disposal ?

        Prosecutors can adress the Administration Directive Center with competence over the concrete penitentiary or detention center in order to inform about irregularities, suggest their removal and ask for disciplinary proceedings to start. Prosecutors can also do the follow up of this mechanism, asking for updated information.

        The possibility to open criminal investigation has already been analysed before.

        De quels moyens dispose le procureur à l’encontre des autorités ou agents qui n’exécutent pas complètement ou correctement les décisions du tribunal ou du procureur concernant les sanctions et/ou les mesures privatives de liberté ? Si le procureur détecte une négligence, peut-il donner des instructions contraignantes visant à faire cesser immédiatement l’infraction à la loi ? Peut-il initier une procédure pénale ou disciplinaire, une action en réparation ou tout autre type d’action en contestation ? Quels sont les autres instruments d’action publique à sa disposition  ?

         

        Question 11

        How often do prosecutors carry out monitoring visits of institutions of criminal and administrative detention? Are there concrete follow-ups related to these visits?

        According to internal instructions given by the Prosecutor General, visits to penitentiary centers are due at least every second month, although in practice most prosecutor’s offices carry them out weekly. This is also applicable in case of minors and foreigners.
        No rules are set as to visits to Police detention centers, so prosecutors can carry them out whenever they want to. In practice, the limit for detention (72 hours) and judicial control ensure that conditions will be met.

        Quelle est la fréquence des visites de contrôle du procureur dans les lieux de détention et de rétention? Ces visites peuvent-elles faire l’objet d’un suivi concret ?

         

        Question 12

        Within the framework of their monitoring duties, do prosecutors have the power to take action at any time of the day (even at night) in the institutions of criminal and administrative detention?

        Yes, as indicated above.

        Le procureur a-t-il la possibilité d’intervenir à toute heure (même la nuit) dans le lieu de détention et de rétention dans le cadre de sa tâche d’inspection?

         

        Question 13

        May prosecutors commission experts to assist them in their tasks related to supervision and inspection?

        Yes. Prosecutors are assisted by interpreters and coroners (medical experts) whenever is needed. If any other sort of exerts would be required, prosecutors are entitled to seek their cooperation.

        Pour leurs tâches de contrôle et d’inspection, les procureurs ont-ils la possibilité de recourir à des experts ?

         

        Question 14

        Are complaints and/or denunciations regarding criminal and administrative detention subject to prosecutorial inquiry independently of any relevant authority or employees/officers? Is it a prosecutor’s duty to complete investigations himself/herself or is he/she allowed to forward these complaints for investigation to the officers/employees that are the subject of those complaints?

        The Prosecution Service can receive complaints to trigger its action, after which it can decide to submit the results to the administrative authority in order to seek administrative liability of the officials investigated, to submit the results to the investigative judge in order to open criminal proceedings, or to dismiss the case. During the phase of this pretrial investigation, the prosecutor can adopt any investigative measures except for those affecting fundamental rights. If the prosecutor comes to know that an investigative judge has opened an investigation over the same facts, must immediately stop its investigation and send everything that was achieved to the investigative judge.

        Les plaintes et/ou dénonciations concernant la détention et la rétention font-elles l’objet d’investigations par le procureur, indépendamment des autorités ou des agents concernés?Le procureur a-t-il le devoir d’enquêter lui-même ou peut-il transmettre les plaintes pour enquête aux agents qui sont l’objet de la plainte ?

         

        Question 15

        In case of sudden death, accident or criminal offence committed against a prisoner, or if a prisoner commits a crime against another prisoner or a prison staff member, is the investigation conducted by a prosecutor acting as an independent judicial authority or is it simply supervised by a prosecutor? Do prosecutors have any role in investigations?

        In the Spanish system the ordinary authority for investigating criminal facts is the investigative judge, although the prosecutor can conduct pretrial investigation as long as no judge has opened an investigation over the same facts. However, in the case of offences allegedly committed by minors, the competent authority is the prosecutor, not the investigative judge.

        En cas de décès subit, d’accident ou d’infraction pénale à l’encontre du détenu, ou si celui-ci commet un crime à l’encontre d’un autre détenu ou d’un agent de l’administration pénitentiaire, l’affaire est-elle instruite par le procureur en tant qu’instance judiciaire indépendante ou est-elle simplement contrôlée par le procureur ? Les procureurs ont-ils un rôle quelconque dans l’enquête ?

         

        Question 16

        Are prosecutors entitled to take action in procedures concerning the adoption/revocation of special measures for high risk detaineed or subject to special restrictions in connection with their role and position in active criminal organisations? If so, how?

        In the Spanish system, the decision about putting an inmate under the highest security controls corresponds to the Penitentiary Administration, but must be communicated to the penitentiary judge (art. 76.2j) of the Penitentiary Act) who can accept it or reverse it. It is during this phase before the judge wjhere the prosecutor comes to know about the penitentiary decision and must express its opinion on the matter. The prosecutor can also appeal the decision of the judge in case it is contrary to the prosecutor’s opinion.

        A similar system is in place as regards other limitations put on normal rights of the inmate when it is considered necessary by the Administration in order to better protect his/her life or integrity.

        Although it is not specifically regulated, in case a prosecutor comes to know facts which may deem relevant for the Administration in order to consider the adoption of the above mentioned decisions, nothing prevents the prosecutor from transmitting this information to the Administration.

        Le procureur peut-il intervenir, et le cas échéant de quelle manière, dans des procédures concernant l’adoption/la révocation de mesures spéciales pour les détenus à haut risque ou soumis à des restrictions spécifiques en raison de leur rôle et leur position dans les organisations criminelles actives ?

         

        Question 17

        With a view to preserving them from any type of influence, are prosecutors autonomous or subordinated to other colleagues when monitoring the detention’s legality?

        Prosecutors are autonomous and subject to the legality principle, although also subject to hierarchical dependence from his superior. The Constitution considers legality and impartiality principles as preferent when conflicting whith hierarchy or the principle of action. The Act on prosecutors stipulates mechanisms for a prosecutor to oppose orders deemed against law or inadequate, calling for a board of prosecutors to discuss the matter. In case of discrepancy the opinion of the higher prosecutor prevails.

        Afin de les protéger contre toute forme d’influence, les procureurs exercent-ils de manière autonome le contrôle de la légalité de la détention ou sont-ils subordonnés à d’autres collègues?

         

        Question 18

        Is a prosecutor involved in granting a person’s pardon, amnesty or release, especially in the case of negative effects resulting from the punishment? Do prosecutors supervise criminal records?

        The prosecutor must express its opinion on every case of pardon and must assess whether there are reasons based on Justice r equity to justify it. In case of inmates serving a term of conviction there is a specific procedure in which the prosecutor must also be heard.

        In cases of conditional release, the prosecutor must be heard and must control if the legal requisites exist in the given case.

        Amnesty is the competence of Parliament through law, and therefore there is no intervention of the prosecutor.

        Les procureurs participent-ils au processus de grâce, d’amnistie ou de libération des personnes notamment en cas d’effets négatifs de la sanction ? Les procureurs contrôlent-ils les casiers judiciaires ?

         

        Question 19

        Are special qualifications and training required of prosecutors who carry out duties in matters of criminal and administrative detention? Please specify.

        Prosecutors specialised in penitentiary law enjoy a permanent training system based on annual Seminars for specialised prosecutors in which it has been decided to start a format whereby Joint Acting Criteria will be set, always under the supervision of the General Prosecutor’s Office in order to ensure the principle of unity of action.

        Prosecutors specialised in Minors constitute separate sections within each territorial prosecutor’s office and also enjoy permanent training.

        Les procureurs bénéficient-ils de qualifications et formations spéciales pour l’accomplissement de leurs tâches en matière de détention et de rétention des personnes? Veuillez préciser.

         

        Question 20

        What acts (presentation of conclusions, attend hearings, appeal against court decisions) are prosecutors entitled to carry out during proceedings before judges with jurisdiction over the enforcement of sentences/surveillance judges (“juges de l’application des peines”), in states where such judge exists?

        Prosecutors can submit to the judge complaints or reports and participate in every file opened by the judge, informing about the legality and pertinence of any decision. Prosecutors can appeal any decision taken by the judge; as well as file a cassation remedy before the Supreme Court for unification of interpretation.

        In states where such a judge does not exist, what acts (release on probation, subsequent alteration of the detention’s enforcement scheme, further restriction of a detainee’s rights, placement in solitary confinement, disciplinary punishment, and so on) are prosecutors entitled to carry out as regards court decisions?

        Quelles sont les types d’action (présentation de conclusions, présence à l’audience, appel contre la décision) que le procureur peut accomplir durant la procédure devant le juge d’application des peines, dans les Etats où un tel juge existe?

        Dans les Etats dans lesquels un tel juge n’existe pas, quels sont les actes que peut faire un procureur concernant la décision judiciaire (libération avec mise à l’épreuve, modification postérieure du régine d’exécution de la détention, renforcement des restrictions des droits des détenus, placement en isolement/confinement, sanction disciplinaire, etc.) ?

         

        Question 21

        When monitoring the enforcement of punishments, do public prosecutors interact with the ombudsman or any other organisation linked to or charged with controlling the enforcement of punishments? If so, what type of interactions are they? Could you give the names of these organisations, whether they be institutional or not, and explain briefly their roles?

        The Ombudsman can address the prosecution service seeking assistance but not the other way around. In some autonomic regions equivalent institutions to the ombudsman have been set up to supervise the actions of the regional administration. Catalonia is the only region in Spain with transferred competence over penitentiary institutions, therefore the regional ombudsman can monitor the performance of the regional administration and ask for the opinion of the prosecution service.

            In addition to the above, some NGOs cooperate in programmes to assist and advice inmates. The prosecution service is in touch with them and this is a valuable source of information for prosecutors.

            Also, some local Bar associations offer free legal aid to inmates. They also are in touch with the prosecution

        Le procureur qui contrôle l’exécution des sanctions a-t-il des relations, le cas échéant de quels types, avec le médiateur ou d’autres organisations liées au ou chargées du contrôle de l’exécution des sanctions? Pouvez-vous citer ces organisations, institutionnelles ou non, et expliquer brièvement leur rôle ?

         

        Question 22

        Could you give other useful information to the preparation of the draft Opinion (relevant questions to add, documents, etc)?

        Pouvez-vous fournir d’autres informations que vous jugez utile à la préparation du projet d’Avis (questions pertinentes à évoquer, documents, etc.) ?

         

1 Suspects held in custody/defendants, men/women, juveniles/adults, criminal prisoners/other prisoners, ill/healthy persons, accessories to criminal conspiracy, recidivists/first offenders, officials - police, military, detention facility staff - involved in criminal procedures.

2 Suspects held in custody/defendants, men/women, juveniles/adults, criminal prisoners/other prisoners, ill/healthy persons, accessories to criminal conspiracy, recidivists/first offenders, officials - police, military, detention facility staff - involved in criminal procedures.

3 Suspects held in custody/defendants, men/women, juveniles/adults, criminal prisoners/other prisoners, ill/healthy persons, accessories to criminal conspiracy, recidivists/first offenders, officials - police, military, detention facility staff - involved in criminal procedures.

4 Suspects held in custody/defendants, men/women, juveniles/adults, criminal prisoners/other prisoners, ill/healthy persons, accessories to criminal conspiracy, recidivists/first offenders, officials - police, military, detention facility staff - involved in criminal procedures.

5 Suspects held in custody/defendants, men/women, juveniles/adults, criminal prisoners/other prisoners, ill/healthy persons, accessories to criminal conspiracy, recidivists/first offenders, officials - police, military, detention facility staff - involved in criminal procedures.

6 Suspects held in custody/defendants, men/women, juveniles/adults, criminal prisoners/other prisoners, ill/healthy persons, accessories to criminal conspiracy, recidivists/first offenders, officials - police, military, detention facility staff - involved in criminal procedures.

7 Suspects held in custody/defendants, men/women, juveniles/adults, criminal prisoners/other prisoners, ill/healthy persons, accessories to criminal conspiracy, recidivists/first offenders, officials - police, military, detention facility staff - involved in criminal procedures.

8 Suspects held in custody/defendants, men/women, juveniles/adults, criminal prisoners/other prisoners, ill/healthy persons, accessories to criminal conspiracy, recidivists/first offenders, officials - police, military, detention facility staff - involved in criminal procedures.

9 "Est considéré comme mineur quiconque n’a pas atteint l’age de dix-huit ans révolus" ; - article 122 du Code civil

10 Récemment, par le biais de la loi n.º 61/2008, du 31 octobre, on a procède à la modification de la terminologie, l’"autorité parentale" étant désormais désignée par "responsabilités parentales".

11 À partir de 16 ans, les mineurs sont pénalement responsables (article 19 du Code pénal).

12 Article 3 du Statut du Ministère Public (loi n.º 47/86, du 15 octobre).

13 Modification introduite par la loi n.º 61/2008, du 31 octobre. Jusqu'à alors, seule était obligatoire l'audition du mineur majeur de 14 ans (article 1901, § 2, du Code civil).

14 À présent, seul le Tribunal aux affaires familiales de Lisbonne est équipé avec ce type d'équipement.

15 Les CPCJs sont des entités officielles, non judiciaires, de composition interinstitutionnelle et

16 les mesures tutélaires éducatives prévues à l’LTE sont 9 (article 4):

17 En ce moment il y a, dans l’ensemble du pays, 8 Centres éducatifs, dirigés par la Direction générale de réinsertion sociale. Par décision du juge, et sous proposition du Ministère public, la mesure d'internement peut être exécutée en régime ouvert, semi ouvert ou fermé, dépendant de la gravité du fait pratiqué par le jeune et de son âge, dans la certitude que le régime fermé seul peut être appliqué aux jeunes d’un âge supérieur à 14 ans, à la date de l'application de la mesure.

18 École portugaise de formation de magistrats du siège et du parquet.

19 Siégés à Lisbonne, Porto, Coimbra et Évora.

20 La CPCJ est intégrée, notamment, par des représentants de la municipalité; de la sécurité sociale; du

21 Voir, en particulier, les articles 16 et 18 de la loi n.º 38/2009, du 20 juillet, (loi qui définit les objectifs, priorités et orientations de la po1itique criminelle pour la biennale 2000-2011, dans l’accomplissement de la loi n.º 17/2005, du 23 mai (loi cadre de la politique criminelle»).

22 D’une certaine manière, une indication dans ce sens est, par exemple, la récente résolution de l'assemblée de la République n.º 2/2010, du 6 janvier, qui recommande au Gouvernement la modification de divers aspects de la loi de politique criminelle pour la biennale 2009-2011.


23 Suspects held in custody/defendants, men/women, juveniles/adults, criminal prisoners/other prisoners, ill/healthy persons, accessories to criminal conspiracy, recidivists/first offenders, officials - police, military, detention facility staff - involved in criminal procedures.

24 Suspects held in custody/defendants, men/women, juveniles/adults, criminal prisoners/other prisoners, ill/healthy persons, accessories to criminal conspiracy, recidivists/first offenders, officials - police, military, detention facility staff - involved in criminal procedures.