At the first stage of the reform (1988—1991) prison conditions were improved without any
considerable changes in legislation. All the innovations of this period were upheld in the
new Law.
As early as in 1988, a reduced norm of nutrition, as an additional
punishment, in ShiZOs, isolation cells and PKTs was abolished. Prison colonies became open for the press,
clergymen and NGOs. Prison administration stopped persecuting inmates and confiscating
religious books and items. The Internal Ministry of the USSR carried out an experiment
humanizing prison conditions in a number of female colonies and VTKs.
The Law was adopted also due to the fight of
Russian prisoners for their rights and active support of human rights organizations for
prisoners' demands.
As it was noted in the official report of the Russian Federation:
"The wave of strikes and mutinies that occurred in correctional establishments in the
autumn of 1991, the data of independent public organizations, and also an extensive
verification carried out in September 1991 by the Human Rights Committee of the Supreme
Council of the Russian Federation all played a part in bringing about appreciable
amendments to the Corrective Labor Code in 1992-1993, amendments concerning the system and
conditions of detention, the aim of which was to ensure that prisoners should be free from
torture and punishment."
Prisoners staged mass riots or the first time since the prison
uprisings in the early 1950s, in the autumn of 1991. They were political in nature and
highlighted in the media. In a number of regions prisoners' demands were supported even by
penitentiary workers. At the height of the riots the Internal Ministry, in agreement with
the Prosecutor's Office, met prisoners' demands and introduced significant changes to the
internal prison regulations.
Soon after a nationwide strike of prisoners held on November 13, 1991
at the initiative of the Moscow Helsinki Group and MCPR,
the federal authorities were moved to satisfy the main demands of prisoners and human
rights activists. Thus, at the end of November the Russian President ordered a decree to
abolish 50% deductions from prisoners' salaries "for the maintenance of correctional
labor institutions". At the beginning of December the Supreme Council put the issue
on introducing alterations to correctional labor legislation on the agenda.
According to our estimates, as a result of prisoners'
demands put forward during the mass riots in autumn of 1991 about 20 new standards were
later introduced in the Correctional Labor Code.
The first draft of the Law
Late in 1991, the Human Rights Committee of the Supreme Soviet assigned
the MCPR to work out a draft law on changes to the
Correctional Labor Code.
The draft law developed by the MCPR in summer 1991 stipulated the following changes
to penitentiary legislation:
1. Gradual decentralization of the penal institutions administration.
In particular, we suggested introducing a regulation allowing regional
authorities to establish their own bodies and institutions of criminal corrections
(outside the Internal Ministry's jurisdiction). This norm (not obligatory) should have
been accompanied with a federal program to support establishing and functioning of local
penitentiary institutions. Primarily, such institutions should be established for minors
and other socially vulnerable groups of prisoners (women, women with children, the sick,
and elderly prisoners, etc.).
2. Closing legal loopholes and bringing the law more in line with
reality.
2.1. Standards defining the legal status of a prisoner should be clear
and concise. The role of penitentiary regulations should be strictly limited so that they
do not impinge on or reduce prisoners' rights as stated in the law.
2.2. Effective mechanism of control over the application of laws and
conflict resolution between prisoners and administration as defined in the Correctional
Labor Code. In particular, we suggested a standard stipulating judicial control over
corrections, standards of deputies' and public control, as well as the right to send
complaints to courts and other state bodies without censorship. The MCPR also worked out a draft of a provision on supervising
commissions which would have turned such commissions into supervisory bodies for
penitentiary institutions on the part of local authorities and NGOs. In addition, these
commissions were supposed to promote the creation of local penitentiary facilities. Much
attention in the draft law was devoted to appealing prison administration actions and
solving conflicts between prisoners and administration, and penitentiary administrations
and NGOs.
3. Bringing legal prisoner's status in accordance with international
standards for the treatment of prisoners and ending the practice of using the Correctional
Labor Code as an instrument simply for managing a prison while treating the prisoners
solely en masse.
3.1 We proposed to introduce individual articles for:
3.1.1. The prisoners' right to personal safety. This article includes
means of implementation.
3.1.2. Right to the freedom of conscience and religion.
3.2. The abolishment of punishments and treatment that can be regarded
as torture, threatening prisoners' health and degrading dignity. In particular, it was
proposed to abolish the use of straitjackets, and improve conditions in ShiZOs, disciplinary cells, solitary confinement cells and PKTs by supplying prisoners with bedding, the right to daily
exercise etc., as well as putting a limit to the length and the annual number of these
types of punishments.
3.3. In this slate of standards we must include abolishing obligatory
uniforms for women, girls and juveniles, permission to wear hair short, beard and
mustaches for men, abolishing the administrations' right to refuse visits, prisoners'
parcels or their chance to purchase food.
4. Reducing negative consequences of imprisonment and allowing
prisoner's to preserve social ties with the outside.
4.1. A number of standards stipulated leaves, telephone calls, family
visits outside the institution, prohibition on transporting prisoners from the regions of
their residence without their consent (excluding certain cases) and unrestricted
correspondence.
4.2. It was also proposed to provide prisoners with rights to personal
working activity, insurance, buying shares, transferring money to bank accounts, paid
medical service and self-education.
5. Measures for prisoners' social protection.
Measures proposed in the draft law concerned rights to the guaranteed
minimal salary, unemployment benefits, pensions, benefits for bringing up a child,
providing certain groups of prisoners with food and clothing free of charge.
6. The greater part of the draft Criminal Corrections Code developed by
Internal Ministry specialists concerning legal status and protection of prison staff, and
prison conditions for women and juveniles was included in the draft law practically
without change.
The history of the draft law developed by the MCPR was rather tragic. In the final variant of the new Law
almost all provisions for better prison conditions were preserved or even widened, while
standards concerning decentralization of administration of penitentiary institutions,
limiting departmental lawmaking and stipulating mechanisms of effective control over the
observance of prisoners' rights, (para. 1, 2) were excluded almost completely.
Below are opinions of experts who worked closely on the development of
the Law or its implementation soon after it came in force:
"...the final variant of the Law of June 12 is in many ways
inconsistent and compromised" (Sergey Kovalev, Chairman of the Human Rights Committee
at the Supreme Soviet of Russia); "...appeared to be drafted in the spirit and
traditions of the Soviet era and some of its standards are not clearly formulated"
(Lev Ivanov, Chairman of the Legislative Commission of the Supreme Soviet); "was
affected by the obsolete ideology and was an attempt 'to patch up the old suit' "
(Arseny Roginski, the "Memorial" Society); "... lack completeness and
consistence" (Yury Sherbanenko, Deputy Head of the Department at the Procurator's
Office); "...implementation of the new Law...requires enormous funds, but legislators
are unlikely to give money in the present circumstances" (Valery Khrebtov, Deputy
Head of the Penitentiary Department in the Ministry of Internal Affairs)...
It should be noted, that all experts pointed out that the Law was aimed
at humanization of prison conditions. But can these more humane legislative standards work
in practice in a criminal corrections system still basically totalitarian in nature? Here
are two more opinions expressed in November 1992:
"How did penitentiary workers react toward the Law of June 12,
1992? While in general speaking favorably about it, they point out that abolition of some
punishments resulted in the partial loss of control over prisoners. Sometimes conflicts
arise because inmates demand that new standards concerning leaves, telephone calls, etc.
be met in spite of the fact that there is no real possibility to providing them."
(Sergey Shimovolos, Deputy Chairman of the Monitoring Commission of the Nizhny Novgorod
region).
"As paradoxical as it may sound, the Law, intended to improve prison conditions in
theory, in practice had exacerbated the situation with human rights in penitentiary
institutions. Prison reform can be successful only through the fundamental structural
reformation of the penitentiary system and establishment of genuine rule of law in penal
institutions. Without it the process of humanizing prison conditions may result in
instability in penitentiaries, loss of control by prison administration and increase of
the number of passive methods to repress inmates by prison staff." (Valery Abramkin, Director of the Moscow Center for Prison Reform.)
