"The question of notification of relatives is sufficiently settled." Or not?

Exactly a month ago, December 9, 2016, the State Duma refused to introduce the norm to the Criminal Executive Code, which grants the convicts the right to inform relatives of transfer from one colony to another, considering it “excessive”. On January 8, the issue of the need to reform the legislation on the transfer was again raised by the head of the Presidential Council of Human Rights, Mikhail Fedotov, in connection with the disappearance of convicted activist Ildar Dadin, the whereabouts of which were not reported to relatives for more than a month. The OVD-Info publishes the text of the Public Verdict Foundation, in which the experts of the fund Alexander Brester and Nikolai Zboroshenko talk about how it is regulated now.

It is not necessary to look for the norms in the Criminal Executive Code (PEC of the Russian Federation) that would at least somehow oblige relatives or lawyer to transfer a person from one correctional institution to another and about the course of the stage itself. There are no such norms in WIK.

What should the administrations of colonies and pre -trial detention centers?

The PEC obliges the colony administration to inform relatives about the arrival of the convict from the pre -trial detention center to them, to the place of imprisonment, 10 days are allocated to this (Article 17 of the PEC of the Russian Federation). It's about arriving at the place, and not about where and how the stage passes.

The pre -trial detention center must notify one of the relatives (at the choice of the convicted person) about where he is sent to serve his sentence (Article 75 of the PEC of the Russian Federation).

Thus, the notification is provided for transferring from pre -trial detention center to the colony, that is, when the verdict entered into force and the person goes to the place of punishment. On the one hand, the pre -trial detention center notifies where the convict went. On the other hand, the colony notifies that the person has arrived.

This case does not apply to the transfer of a person who is already serving a sentence into another colony.

And one more thing: the PEC to take care of the victim - the obligation of notification is found in part 2.1 of Art. 81 PEC of the Russian Federation and concerns the victim, but in the event that the convicted person has a copy of the ruling or decision of the court to notify the victim or his legal representative.

How is the stage?

By itself, the translation of a person who is already convicted and serving a sentence is a rare case. For this there should be one of the grounds approved by Article 81 of the PEC of the Russian Federation:

• Disease of the convict,
• ensuring his personal security,
• reorganization or liquidation of a correctional institution,
• Other exceptional circumstances that impede the further finding of the convicted person in this correctional institution.

You can bring anything under exceptional circumstances, but nevertheless, the decision to transfer is made at the Federal Penitentiary Service of Russia after they receive a rather detailed conclusion from the management of the Federal Penitentiary Service in the region. In the case of Ildar Dadin, the decision to transfer to another colony was made not by the Karelian UFSIN, but by the federal headquarters.

After determining the final point - the new colony, the route is being developed and the convicted person is sent, most often by train, to the new place of serving the sentence. If you go long enough or a long-term dock is required, then the convicted person along the way is placed in the so-called transit-piercing point (CCI). Such CCIs are created on the basis of various colonies or pre -trial detention centers and the conditions for being in them should be the same as provided for by the regime to which the convict was sentenced. In total, the convicted person can stay in the “Shipment” for no more than 20 days. In fact, this period can be many more, and the conditions are much worse than it should be. The convicted person in the “Sent should be able to call or send a letter in accordance with his regime. However, this does not always succeed. More precisely, almost never. In the field they refer to the fact that it is not clear how to register letters, and that technically there is no way to call.

During the stage, a person may not get to the CCI, but just go for a very long time. Then he practically does not have the opportunity to report himself. And the FSIN has no obligations to inform relatives or lawyers. During the stage, the notification of relatives or lawyer is the work of the convict himself, who, in most cases, cannot do this until the moment arrives at the final destination.

The absence of the obligation of the colony to notify the end point of the “travel” and the course of thisthing is a systemic problem, those who have been doing this for a long time can cite more than one example of many -month “skiing” of Russian convicts in the vastness of Russia.

The problem is that relatives and lawyer lose their sight during a long sending. Of course, we need to talk about the decision to translate to relatives and defender even before the start of the very stage, ”explains Alexander Brester, candidate of legal sciences, associate professor of the Department of Criminal Procedure and Forensics of the Siberian Railways Law Institute. - It is equally important to ensure that the convicted person in the direction of movement is achieved. Moreover, this applies as issues of humanity - in relation to relatives, issues of their own sense of security, but also issues of providing qualified legal assistance. In fact, for the entire time of the stage, a person loses her. If there is information about where the client is going, you can: a) plan legal assistance issues; b) ensure legal support for the time of the stage; c) hold meetings at the CCI. Otherwise, this is impossible. Moreover, you can appeal the decision on translation if it is announced before the stage.

According to the lawyer of the “public verdict” Nikolai Zboroshenko, representing the interests of Dadin, “the legal uncertainty of the PEC can be considered not only in the context of the right to respect private and family life (Article 8 of the Convention), but also in the context of the right to appeal to the ECHR (Article 34 of the Convention). Due to the non-notice of the whereabouts of the applicant himself (and the last nature of this situation), obstacles are created in the preparation in the interests of Dadin of the next complaint in the ECHR. ”

What could be done? Close draft law on notification

Symbolically, but on December 9, 2016, the State Duma rejected the bill No. 409808–6 “On Amendments to the Criminal Executive Code of the Russian Federation”. This bill contained the norm that the convicts should be granted the right to notify relatives of transferring from one colony to another. The draft law was introduced by members of the Federation Council K. E. Dobrynin, A. A. Klishas, ​​V. A. Tulpanov.

The bill lay in the Duma for almost three years and received a negative review of the government and the relevant committee. In the conclusion, the relevant committee wrote the following : “The specified additions are excessive, since the current version of the PEC is a question of notifying relatives of the convicted person in case of transfer to another correctional institution sufficiently resolved.”

“The state does not see any problems, judging by the reviews to the bill specified above. The FSIN is very convenient - this is part of their discretion. In this sense, the question of such a notification, in my opinion, is a matter of compliance with the norms of the PEC of the Russian Federation of the Constitution at least in terms of the right to qualified legal assistance. In the meantime, relatives and lawyers are forced to look for people throughout Russia when translating people and waiting for news from the face, ”concludes Alexander Brester