Communicated on 10 July 2019
FIFTH SECTION
Application no. 76680/17
D
against Latvia
lodged on 25 October 2017
SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE
The application concerns an informal prisoner hierarchy (caste system) in Latvian prisons and the applicant’s treatment as a person relegated to its lowest strata. According to the applicant’s submissions, the prisoners in Latvia are divided into three castes. The members of the lowest caste are referred to as “the left” (kreisie). They cannot sit on the same stools or at the same tables as the others, they are not allowed to walk or stand in the same places or queue in the same lines. They are prohibited from using the same water closets or sinks, or the communal showers. They are obliged to sleep by the door and are forced to serve the members of the other castes (stand guard, clean premises, wash clothes). They cannot be touched. Even when being beaten they are attacked with iron bars or kicked. According to the applicant, this system is supported by the prison administrations throughout the penitentiary system, this fact being exemplified by the supervisory functions that are granted to the prisoners belonging to the highest strata.
The applicant brought proceedings to the administrative courts. While the courts acknowledged the existence of the caste system (relying inter alia on the reports of the European Committee for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment), as well as the fact that the applicant belonged to its lowest strata, they refused to award the applicant compensation considering that he had failed to substantiate how he had been individually affected by this system.
The applicant argues that the division of prisoners in castes – a system that is upheld by the authorities – is discriminatory and humiliating; it deprives prisoners belonging to the lowest strata of their rights, and constitutes inhuman and degrading treatment and punishment.
QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES
1. Has the applicant been subjected to inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, in breach of Article 3 of the Convention?
1.1. In particular, did the restrictions inherent to the applicant’s status in the informal prisoner hierarchy (caste system) amount to inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment in breach of Article 3 of the Convention (see Bouyid v. Belgium [GC], no. 23380/09, § 87, ECHR 2015 and D.F. v. Latvia, no. 11160/07, § 85, 29 October 2013)?
1.2. Considering that various State institutions have expressly acknowledged the existence of the caste system in the Latvian prisons, have the State authorities taken the necessary preventive measures to preserve the physical and psychological integrity and well-being of persons deprived of their liberty (see Premininy v. Russia, no. 44973/04, §§ 83-84, 87-88, 10 February 2011)?
1.3. In particular, what concrete steps did the prison administrations or their supervising authorities take to prevent the caste system from being enforced in prisons and to ensure a safe environment for the applicant?
2. Has the applicant suffered discrimination in the enjoyment of his Convention rights on the ground of being relegated to the lowest strata of the prisoner caste system, contrary to Article 14 of the Convention, read in conjunction with Article 3 of the Convention?
3. Has the applicant exhausted all effective domestic remedies, as required by Article 35 § 1 of the Convention? In particular, did he invoke before the national authorities, at least in substance, the rights on which he now wishes to rely before the Court?
The Government are invited to submit to the Court the applicant’s application to the Administrative District Court, his appeal against the judgment of the Administrative District Court, his appeal on points of law against the judgment of the Administrative Regional Court, and any further submissions made in the proceedings before the administrative courts.
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy