Refusal of parole for non-participation in self-management organisations is illegal

In 2006, the Russian authorities deprived persons sentenced to imprisonment of the right to be members and participants in any public associations. If one excludes the sphere of religious life, then now, convicted prisoners in Russia have only one opportunity to exercise their freedom of association with others—that is participating in the activities of so-called self-management organisations of convicts.
Meanwhile, these self-management organisations still remain more of a relic of the GULAG, where it was widely practised to set privileged groups of prisoners against the main mass of inmates of Stalin’s concentration camps, rather than an institution of self-government for convicts intended to assist in the socialisation of criminals. The trouble is that all self-management organisations of convicts in Russia are under the complete control of the administrations of the respective penal colonies. And since these administrations are quite often headed by poorly educated, embittered, or corrupt officials, the work of self-management organisations for convicts under such leadership is, at best, an imitation of some useful activity for reporting to higher management, and at worst, serves the purposes of intimidation and humiliation of the main mass of prisoners.
That is precisely why the personal convictions of many Russian prisoners do not allow them to belong to self-management organisations for convicts. Not wishing to put up with such a civic stance, the authorities take revenge on these people by consistently rejecting their petitions for parole or other mitigation of the punishment imposed by the court. Thus, for many thousands of Russian prisoners, the freedom of association with others turns into an obligation to associate with others under the guidance of penitentiary officials. At the same time, the authorities do not want to reflect on whether the activities of specific self-management organisations, in which a convict is forced to participate, have any useful character at all.
The applicants in this case became victims of the practice described above.
On 19 October 2010, the Knyazhpogostsky District Court, by its ruling, left the petition of Mr N. for his conditional early release from places of imprisonment without satisfaction, with reference, in particular, to the fact that he does not participate in the activities of self-management organisations for convicts.
On 30 September 2010, the Syktyvkar City Court, by its ruling, left the petition of Mr T. for the substitution of the unserved part of his sentence of imprisonment with a milder type of punishment without satisfaction, with reference, in particular, to the fact that he does not participate in the activities of self-management organisations for convicts. Earlier, by a similar ruling of the same court on 10 June 2010, the petition of Mr T. for his conditional early release from places of imprisonment was rejected.
On 10 June 2010, the Syktyvkar City Court, by its ruling, left the petition of Mr B. for the substitution of the unserved part of his sentence of imprisonment with a milder type of punishment without satisfaction, with reference, in particular, to the fact that he does not participate in the activities of self-management organisations for convicts.
On 7 April 2010, the Ukhta City Court, by its ruling, left the petition of Mr V. for his conditional early release from places of imprisonment without satisfaction, with reference, in particular, to the fact that he does not participate in the activities of self-management organisations for convicts.
All the indicated rulings of local courts were appealed by the applicants and upheld by the Supreme Court of the Komi Republic.
The applicants believe that the authorities’ refusal to satisfy their petitions with reference to the fact that they do not participate in the activities of self-management organisations for convicts (without detailed analysis of whether these self-management organisations provided the applicants with conditions for self-expression, which the courts could interpret as circumstances indicating one or another degree of their rehabilitation) is, in itself, and as part of a broader policy aimed at forcing prisoners into membership in self-management organisations for convicts, a violation of the freedom of association with others, as guaranteed by Article 11 of the European Convention on Human Rights. A complaint regarding the facts set out will be sent to Strasbourg within the time limit established by the Court.