Prison staff tolerance of informal hierarchy among prisoners. Intimidation and violence against those lower in the hierarchy! Inhuman and degrading treatment
JUDGMENT
S.P. and others v. Russia 02.05.2023 (app. no. 36463/11 and 10 others)
SUMMARY
The case concerned the treatment of the applicants when serving sentences in penal institutions in
various parts of Russia. Within an informal prisoner hierarchy, they had been categorised as
“outcasts”.
The Court found in particular that the existence of a hierarchy and the applicants’ placement at its
lowest rung amounted to inhuman and degrading treatment. The Government had failed to address,
deal with, or even acknowledge that situation and had thus failed to protect the applicants from the
suffering they had had to endure.
PROVISION
Article 3
PRINCIPAL FACTS
The applicants are 11 Russian nationals. They have all been convicted of crimes and have either
served their custodial sentences or are currently serving sentences. The facilities where they were
placed were located in Kostroma, Sverdlovsk, and Irkutsk Regions, and the Republics of Komi, Mariy
El, and Mordovia.
Inter-prisoner relations in the Russian penal system are governed by an informal code of conduct
known as “the rules” (понятия). Under these “rules”, prisoners are divided into four main “castes”
(масть): the “criminal elite” or “made men” (авторитеты or блатные), the highest grouping;
“collaborators” or “reds” (козлы or красные), who enforce order alongside the prison officers;
“lads” (мужики), who make up the vast majority of inmates; and a category of “outcasts” called
“cocks” (петухи), “untouchables” or “downgraded” (опущенные, обиженные).
The applicants assert, among many other things, that within this system they were categorised as
“outcasts”. As a result of this they were given tasks considered by the other prisoners to be too
degrading. According to the applicants, prisoners can be downgraded to “outcast” for a huge variety
of “offences”, including stealing, being a “snitch”, sex-crime convictions, and so forth. The stigma
followed them from facility to facility. If they did not carry out their degrading tasks, they could be
subject to violence or sexual violence. “Outcasts” were forbidden from touching any other prisoners
or their possessions, and had to stay in separate living quarters and eat at designated places with
special cutlery.
According to the applications these practices were tacitly endorsed by prison staff.
The applicants complained several times to various authorities, including the federal ombudsman, to
no avail. They alleged that the prison authorities were complicit in the informal hierarchy system.
The applicants A.T. and A.M. lodged separate civil claims, which were respectively summarily
rejected or dismissed by the Russian courts.
THE DECISION OF THE COURT…
The Court reiterated that Article 3 of the Convention enshrined one of the most fundamental values
of a democratic society, prohibiting in absolute terms torture or inhuman or degrading treatment or
punishment irrespective of the circumstances. Noting the credible and consistent submissions by the
applicants, the extensive academic research and reporting on the subject, and the failure of the
Government to engage with the applicants’ assertions, the Court found that found it established that
the informal prisoner hierarchy existed; that the applicants had been assigned to the lowest group in
that hierarchy and subjected to the treatment of which they complained of; and that the domestic
authorities had been, or ought to have been, aware of both the impugned hierarchy and the
applicants’ inferior status within it and hence their particular vulnerability.
Noting the enduring stigmatisation and physical and social segregation, their assignment to menial
labour, denial of basic needs such as bedding, hygiene and medical care, threats of violence and also
occasional physical and sexual violence, the Court considered that the applicants had suffered
mental anxiety and physical suffering for a period of years that had to have exceeded the
unavoidable suffering inherent in detention. It amounted to inhuman and degrading treatment.
Concerning the State’s responsibility, the Court stated that the applicants’ complaints about their
situation should have prompted action by the prison officers in the first place. That was entirely
lacking. There had not even been a policy to punish prisoners who had committed or threatened
violence against others. With reference to its previous case-law and the obvious flaws in the
protection systems in place, the Court ruled that the failure to deal with the treatment of “outcasts”
was a structural problem in the Russian penal system.
It found that the Russian authorities took no steps to acknowledge the issue or to protect the
applicants from the ill-treatment they had suffered. Furthermore, there had been no effective
remedy available to the applicants to complain of their situation, with even the Ombudsman
conceding that such complaints had no chance of success.
In view of the Government’s failure to address, deal with, or even acknowledge the inhuman and
degrading treatment to which the applicants had been subject while under State control, the Court
found that there had been a violation of Article 3 of the Convention, and a violation of Article 13 in
respect of those applicants that had raised that complaint.
Just satisfaction (Article 41)
The Court held that Russia was to pay the applicants the amounts claimed in respect of nonpecuniary damage up to a maximum of 20,000 euros (EUR) and the amounts claimed in respect of respect of costs and expenses up to a maximum of EUR 850.
