Disciplinary punishment of a Muslim prisoner for praying at bedtime. Violation of religious freedom
JUDGMENT
Korostelev v. Russia 12.05.2020 (no. 29290/10)
SUMMARY
Worship acts of prisoners and religious freedom.
Reprimand to a Muslim prisoner for performing acts of worship during the night in violation of the prison program. The applicant was punished for his misdemeanor in prison – that is, two acts of worship (“Salah”) at night – because “uninterrupted sleep” was provided for all prisoners.
However, according to the ECtHR, there was no indication that the applicant’s commitment to worship at night posed a risk to prison or security. Also, the reprimand not only reduced the applicant’s chances of being released early, but also had a deterrent effect on other detainees. Strasbourg, although recognizing the importance of prison discipline, could not accept such a formalist approach and concluded that the proportionality of this sanction had not been substantially assessed by the domestic courts. Violation of religious freedom (Article 9 of the ECHR).
PROVISION
Article 9
PRINCIPAL FACTS
The applicant, Anton Korostelev, is a Russian national who was born in 1987 and is detained in penal
colony IK-18 in the settlement of Kharp (Yamalo-Nenetskiy Region, Russia).
The case concerned his complaint about a violation of his religious rights after he had been
reprimanded for praying during the prison’s obligatory night-time sleeping period.
Mr Korostelev was sentenced to life imprisonment in June 2009. He is a practising Muslim and
believes that it is his religious duty to perform acts of worship at least five times a day, including
night-time.
In July 2012 and May 2013, while being held in remand prison no. 1 in the town of Syktyvkar,
Republic of Komi (“IZ-1”), prison guards observed him saying prayers in the early hours. They
ordered him to return to his sleeping place, but he refused.
The guards reported him to the prison governor for failing to observe the prison’s daily schedule,
which stated that a prisoner had to sleep at night between 10 p.m. and 6 a.m. After looking into the
matter, including statements by the applicant, the governor in August 2012 and May 2013 formally
reprimanded him for a breach of the Pre-trial Detention Act.
The applicant appealed to the Syktyvkar Town Court, which dismissed his appeal in November 2012.
The court found that his conduct – absence from his sleeping place at the time set for uninterrupted
night-time sleep – had violated the daily prison schedule and the legislative rules on prison
discipline. The Supreme Court of the Republic of Komi dismissed an appeal by him in February 2013.
The applicant also submitted that he had been reprimanded in IK-18 in March 2018 for an act of
worship performed during the daytime.
The applicant complained about the disciplinary proceedings under, in particular, Article 9 (freedom
of thought, conscience, and religion).
THE DECISION OF THE COURT…
Article 9 § 1
The applicant complained that the disciplinary proceedings brought against him for performing acts of worship at night-time and the lack of opportunity for him to comply with his religious duties violated Article 9 of the Convention. It is undisputed between the parties that the imposition of a disciplinary punishment on the applicant amounted to an interference with his right to freedom of religion.
It seems that the only reason for the applicant’s disciplinary punishment was the official incompatibility of his actions with the prison program and the authorities’ attempt to ensure full and unconditional compliance with this program by each prisoner. Although the Court recognized the importance of prison discipline, it could not accept such a formalist approach, which illegally ignored the applicant’s individual situation and did not take into account the requirement to strike a fair balance between the private and public interests on both sides.
It was particularly important for the applicant to comply with his duty to perform acts of worship at the time prescribed by his religious faith. This duty had to be observed every day, especially during Ramadan. There was nothing to suggest that the applicant’s commitment to worship at night posed a risk to prison or security. The applicant had not used dangerous objects or attempted to engage in collective worship with a large group of other prisoners. In addition, the applicant’s cult had not bothered the prison population or the guards because he had executed Salah while in solitary confinement, without noise or other disturbing factors. Finally, Salah’s execution does not appear to have exhausted the applicant or could have undermined his health or his ability to participate in criminal proceedings.
The prison program did not explicitly specify the “time for worship” or “personal time” that could be used at the discretion of detainees, as recommended by European prison rules. Under the circumstances of the case, no special arrangements would be required to fulfill the applicant’s wish to practice his religion.
Finally, the reprimand imposed on him, because it was a form of disciplinary action, not only reduced the applicant’s chances of being released early, reduced his sentence or received a benefit, but also had a deterrent effect on other detainees. The proportionality of this sanction had not been substantially assessed by the domestic courts. Authorities have restricted their investigation into whether the applicant’s conduct violated the prison’s schedule. They failed to identify the legitimate purpose of the interference with the applicant’s religious freedom, nor to carry out a balancing act.
In light of the above, interfering with the applicant’s religious freedom could not be considered necessary in a democratic society.
The ECtHR unanimously ruled that the right to freedom of religious conscience had been violated.
Just satisfaction: EUR 2,600 (non-pecuniary damage) and EUR 2,000 (costs and expenses)
