In Russia there is the widely held view that legal reform is simply
changes in legislation and monitoring of implementation. Totalitarian strains in
administration and organization are ignored. Legislation thus plays a secondary role; both
officials and the public view it as a set of declarations, rather than as a guarantee of
the protection of the rights and freedoms of the individual and citizen. A lack of an
effective monitoring apparatus means that departmental interest and administrative
regulations take priority over law.
As research conducted by the MCPR
demonstrates, prison conditions actually deteriorated as a result of the Law of June 12,
1992 despite a number of elements designed to improve them. The only successful
innovations have been those made in accordance with the traditional way of managing
prisons at ITU's. Examples of successful new standards are
those stipulating rights to personal safety (art. 8 para. 2 of the Correctional Labor
Code) and right to freedom of religion (art. 8 para. 1 of the Correctional Labor Code).
The first norm helps prison staff to prevent possible conflicts between prisoners, the
second one fills to some extent the gap that emerged when political and educational
activity was abolished in correctional institutions. Besides, as ITUs' workers point out, visits of clergymen reduce tension
between inmates and administration.
There have been fewer conflicts and prisoners' riots in penitentiary
institutions recently. Use of cruel methods of suppressing prisoners, in particular,
spetsnaz and means of restraint "for crime prevention" can partially explain
this phenomenon. In 1994 and 1995, less tension between prisoners and staff was recorded.
In our opinion, it happened due to those innovations which were in line with previous
methods of managing prison populations. Another reason, however strange it may seem, is a
simultaneous deterioration in economic conditions both for prisoners and staff. In the
present desperate situation the both groups have found ways to survive.
But to examine the influence of these and other possible factors on the
situation in the CCS requires more research.
Nevertheless the facts cited above lead us to one important conclusion.
The main subject of ongoing reforms, in our view, must be the existing system of social
organization and state administration. The on-going changes should define the pace and
direction of legislative developments. The improvement in legal protections of human
rights must not outstrip the slower-going structural changes, lest these rights remain a
mere declaration.
