Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item:https://hdl.handle.net/20.500.12259/34610
Type of publication: Magistro darbas / Master thesis
Field of Science: Teisė / Law
Author(s): Dobrovolskienė, Greta
Title: Ar Lietuvos įkalinimo įstaigose tinkamai įgyvendinama Europos žmogaus teisių ir pagrindinių laisvių apsaugos konvencijos 3 straipsnyje įtvirtinta teisė nebūti kankinamam, nepatirti kitokio žiauraus, nežmoniško ar žeminančio elgesio ir baudimo?
Other Title: Is the implementation of the right to freedom from torture, other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment enshrined in article 3 of the European convention for the protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms proper in the Lithuanian prisons?
Extent: 51 p.
Date: 2-Jun-2017
Event: Vytauto Didžiojo universitetas. Teisės fakultetas
Keywords: Žmogaus teisės;Kalinys;Gyvenimo sąlygos;Įkalinimo įstaiga;Human rights;Prison;Right to freedom;Prisoner
Abstract: Šio magistro darbo tikslas – ištirti, ar Lietuvos įkalinimo įstaigose tinkamai užtikrinama Europos žmogaus teisių ir pagrindinių laisvių apsaugos konvencijos 3 straipsnyje įtvirtinta teisė nebūti kankinamam, nepatirti kitokio žiauraus, nežmoniško ar žeminančio elgesio ir baudimo. Pagrindiniai tyrimo teorinės dalies rezultatai siejami su EŽTK 3 straipsnio uždraustos veikos turinio analize. Prieita išvados, kad EŽTT nėra nurodęs visiškai aiškių kriterijų analizuojamos veikos turiniui apibrėžti ir atskiros veikoms (kankinimui, kitokiam žiauriam nežmoniškam ar žeminančiam elgesiui ir baudimui) atriboti. Bendrai šias veikas apibūdina tokie elementai: padariniai (kančia, kuri yra didelė, fizinė ar psichologinė), kankinant patiriama didžiausia kančia; subjektas (specialusis); kaltė (tyčia), veikos formos (aktyvi ar pasyvi); pažeminimas ir baudimas atribojamas pagal tikslus (sumenkinti, bausti). Veikoms pagal EŽTK 3 straipsnį identifikuoti reikalingas subjektyvus vertinimas – ar buvo peržengtas kentėjimo lygmuo, dėl ko konkrečiu atveju sprendžia teismas. Laikytina, kad šis darbas užpildo mokslinių tyrimų nišą, nes tyrimo klausimas nepakankamai nagrinėtas Lietuvos teisininkų: plačiausiai susijusius klausimus kompleksiškai 2013 metais tyrė S. Nikartas, kiti autoriai epizodiškai aptarė tik kai kuriuos susijusius klausimus. Tyrimo mokslinę problemą suponuoja ir daugelį metų Lietuvos įkalinimo įstaigoje egzistuojančios sisteminės problemos. Problematiką lemia ir kai kurie doktrininiais klausimai (kankinimo veikos turinys, atskirų veikų atribojimas ir pan.). Darbe pateikiami siūlymai susiję su teisiniu reglamentavimu ir praktiniais aspektais: Bausmių vykdymo kodekse nustatyti kalėjimo viršininko pareigą vykdyti atranką skirstant po kameras, įtvirtinti kalėjimo vadovybės pareigą stebėti, kaip sugyvenama bendrose kamerose ir esant reikalui inicijuoti kalinio izoliaciją; kratos atlikimą reguliuoti ne pareiginėse instrukcijose, o įstatyme; palaipsniui atsisakyti guminių lazdų, jas keičiant teleskopinėmis lazdomis, elektrošokus naudoti tik esant būtinybei ir jų kasdien nesinešioti. Patariama ir plačiau diskutuoti ir apie dekriminalizavimo procesą, nes LR BK “užteršimas“ taip pat kelia pavojų įkalinimo įstaigas perpildyti.
The aim of this Master's thesis is to analyze is the implementation of the right to freedom from torture, other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment enshrined in Article 3 of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms proper in Lithuanian prisons. The subject of the research is the assurance of the right to freedom from torture, other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment in Lithuanian prisons, the content of this right and international standards of its assurance in prisons. In order to achieve this aim, the following objectives have been set: a) to define the concept, legal nature and content of the right to freedom from torture, other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment; b) to analyze Lithuanian legal basis which ensure the right of imprisoned not to be tortured and the overall situation of Lithuania in this respect; 3) in accordance with the inspection results of the Committee against Torture to assess the situation of Lithuania in the aspect of implementation of Article 3 of ECHR by separate areas. The study was conducted through document analysis, comparison, systemic, linguistic, teleological methods. The research raises a hypothesis which will attempt to prove or disprove by the results of the research: “legal regulation of the assurance of the right to freedom from torture, other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment has gaps in Lithuania”. Several aspects determine the relevance and problems of the research. The research actualizes the fact that violations of the right enshrined in the Article 3 of ECHR are always more “visible” as the law is attributable to those with the highest status - absolute and unconditional. In this context the greatest risk to incur the violations of the above mentioned right raises for the person whose freedom is restricted. The importance of the problem does not reduce the fact that ECHR has accepted only a few violation of the right in respect of prisoners since the figures of persons that complain against torture for the Lithuanian authorities and the Committee actually are significantly higher. It is considered that this thesis fills a niche of scientific researches because the issue of the research was studied insufficiently by Lithuanian lawyers: related issues were investigated the most widely and comprehensively in 2013 by S. Nikartas, other authors only episodically discussed some related issues. The scientific problem of the research is also implied by the systemic problems existing in Lithuanian prisons for many years. The problems are also led by some doctrinal issues (the content of the acts of torture, separation of individual acts and etc.). The main results of the analysis of theoretical part are associated with the analysis of the content of the acts of torture of Article 3 of ECHR. It was concluded that ECHR has not specified absolutely clear criteria to define the content of analyzed acts and to distinguish between separate acts (torture, other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment). Altogether these acts are defined by the following elements: consequences (suffering which can be big, physical or psychological), the greatest suffering is experienced through torture; subject (special); fault (intentionally), forms of acts (active or passive); humiliation and punishment are separated by objectives (diminish, punish). To identify the acts in accordance with the Article 3 of ECHR the subjective evaluation is necessary – has the level of suffering been crossed; it is case by case decided by the court. The answer to the question of the thesis is not unequivocal. The following elements allowed to answer positively: a) determination of physical conditions (prisoners’ personal space standards, hygiene conditions and etc.) that meet international standards in the law; b) more rigorous control of the implementation of these conditions (higher powers of the Ombudsman); c) major changes in project level (modernization of the prisons that allows to deal with overcrowding and other problems); d) better regulation of the rights (Article 22 of CC) of arrested persons / detainees with the obligation to inform about the detention or arrest. The existence of these problems allows to answer to the thesis negatively: a) torture is directly prohibited in the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania and in Penal Sanction Enforcement Code, however there is the lack of concreteness in CC, Internal Order Regulations of Correctional institutions, Security and Surveillance Instructions of prisons; b) according to the level of implementation of international standards to ensure the rights of prisoners in law situation in Lithuania is one of the worst; c) recommended standards are not implemented (5 square meters of area in prison cells and etc.), however it is impossible without the modernization of prisons; d) there are some gaps in legal regulation: the duty of prison chef to inspect regularly the safety of prisoners is not ensured in law, prisoners' right to make a request in writing to be isolated from other prisoners due to the practical difficulties in implementation should be balanced by the responsibilities of management to initiate such isolation of prisoners (this allowed to confirm the hypothesis); e) power tools are still used, demonstrated (rubber batons, electroshock) and etc. Suggestions related to the legal regulation and practical aspects are presented in this thesis: In Penal Sanction Enforcement Code to determine the duty of prison chief to carry out the selection how the prisoners are divided to their prison cells, to consolidate the responsibility of prison’s management to observe prisoners live together in joint cells and, if necessary, to initiate the isolation of the prisoner; the performance of the search and seizure should be adjustable in law and not in positional instructions; gradually refuse to use rubber batons and change them to the telescopic batons, to use electroshocks only when it is necessary and do not carry them every day. It is advisable to discuss more about the decriminalization process as the "contamination" of CC also poses a threat to overcrowd the prisons.
Internet: https://eltalpykla.vdu.lt/1/34610
https://hdl.handle.net/20.500.12259/34610
Appears in Collections:2017 m. (TF mag.)

Files in This Item:
greta_dobrovolskiene_md.pdf1.29 MBAdobe PDF   Restricted AccessView/Open   Request a copy

Show full item record

Page view(s)

72
checked on Oct 13, 2019

Download(s)

6
checked on Oct 13, 2019

Google ScholarTM

Check


Items in DSpace are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.