How changes to the Criminal-Executive Code are working

With the amendments to the Criminal-Executive Code adopted by the Verkhovna Rada in April 2014, life-sentenced persons are allowed long-term visits. The necessity of these changes had been discussed for a long time; the European Committee for the Prevention of Torture recommended that Ukraine improve the conditions of detention for life-sentenced persons back in 2000.
The penitentiary service resisted such changes throughout that time.
Even now, when long-term visits for life-sentenced persons are already permitted, in its proposals for changes to the Criminal-Executive Code, the department insists on postponing the implementation of this provision.
However, quite a few life-sentenced prisoners have already received long-term visits.
According to data from the State Penitentiary Service of Ukraine, between May and October, out of 1,800 life-sentenced prisoners, 169 people received long-term visits, which is less than 10%. The impressions of relatives after such a visit can be found on the “Prison Portal” (http://ukrprison.org.ua/news/1409824350). But not a single visit was received by life-sentenced prisoners held in Zamkova Correctional Colony No. 58, the Kyiv Pre-trial Detention Centre, and the Odesa Pre-trial Detention Centre. According to the State Penitentiary Service, this is because there were no applications from the convicts. At the same time, there are reports that some life-sentenced prisoners are being refused long-term visits due to a lack of space for them to take place. However, the law does not provide for such a refusal for this reason, and in fact, the administration of such institutions is violating the law. There are also reports that bribes are demanded and taken from convicts for granting visits.

Another innovation of the Criminal-Executive Code was granting convicts the right to apply for a pension if they became eligible for it while serving their sentence. Before May 2014, discrimination existed, and the Penitentiary Service, contrary to the prohibition of discrimination, did not provide convicts with the opportunity to apply for pensions. From May to October 2014, according to the State Penitentiary Service, 170 convicts took advantage of the right to apply for pensions. Of these, pensions were assigned to 95 people, documents for pension assignment were submitted for 63 people, and 12 people were refused a pension by the Pension Fund authorities.
Analysing the reasons that hinder the realisation of this right is extremely important and should contribute to increasing its effectiveness.
The same analysis should be carried out regarding the provision of long-term visits to life-sentenced persons. It is necessary to ensure that all interested parties are informed about this right, and those who demand and take bribes for granting visits should be immediately dismissed from the penitentiary service. After all, in accordance with the standards of the European Committee for the Prevention of Torture, it must be realised that the guilt for ill-treatment extends from the actual perpetrator to anyone who knows or should know about it and does nothing to prevent it. In the event that effective measures cannot be taken, the relevant individuals — colleagues, senior management — inevitably become participants in the process of eroding the values that form the foundations of a democratic society.