Supreme Court proposes releasing seriously ill prisoners from prisons immediately after court decision

The Supreme Court (SC) of Russia asks the State Duma to humanize the procedure for the release of seriously ill convicts. The law now requires them to be kept in custody for at least another 15 days after a positive court decision to give them the opportunity to appeal their release. The Armed Forces proposes to release them immediately. Human rights activists and lawyers support the initiative, but remind us of the main problem – it is extremely difficult to achieve release due to illness.

On Tuesday, December 12, the Supreme Court of Russia submitted draft amendments to the Criminal Procedure Code to the State Duma. They introduce a rule on the immediate execution of a court decision to release a seriously ill convict. Nowadays, at least 15 days pass from the court’s decision to release a person due to illness to the actual release – this period is allotted for an appeal. And if the prosecutor’s office appeals the court’s decision, the release of a seriously ill person could be delayed for months.

But the Supreme Court believes that such an order is “not fully consistent” with the provisions of the Constitution, since “one of the fundamental rights of man and citizen is the right to life; no one should be subjected to cruel punishment.” Also, the delay in the release of seriously ill people does not meet the “goals of punishment” and “the principles of humanism and the rational use of coercive measures.” Therefore, the Supreme Court proposes to enshrine in Art. 399 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of the Russian Federation, that “a court decision regarding the release of a convicted person from serving a sentence due to illness … is subject to immediate execution.”

Member of the Presidential Human Rights Council (HRC) Eva Merkacheva called the initiative “archivally important.” “It will take a long time for the court to write down the decision and for it to reach the correctional facility,” she says. “Once we called one of the pre-trial detention centers where a dying man was located and reported that the court had decided to release him. But the pre-trial detention center said that they would be able to release the person only when they received a document from the court. Although both the court and the pre-trial detention center are located in Moscow, this piece of paper, on which a person’s life depends, can take several weeks.”

However, Alexander Maltsev, a member of the Moscow Public Monitoring Committee and a lawyer for the Prisoners Assistance Fund, calls the initiative of the Armed Forces “cosmetic.” He says that problems with the release of seriously ill prisoners begin at the stage of medical examination: “To achieve a court decision, you already need to go through three circles of hell. The examination itself regarding the presence of serious diseases is carried out only upon the recommendation of the head of the institution. Then the certification process begins, which can last for years. Then comes the court, which often refuses. In this context, talk about 15 days (for appeal.— “Kommersant”) not serious”.

Mr. Maltsev also believes that doctors are afraid to give conclusions about the presence of serious illnesses in prisoners, since they themselves risk becoming defendants.

Let us note that yesterday, on the day the bill was introduced to the Supreme Court, the head physician of the hospital of the Matrosskaya Tishina pre-trial detention center, Alexander Kravchenko sentenced to seven years in prison. According to investigators, Alexander Kravchenko illegally released four convicts and four arrested in 2020, and also transferred an “authoritative” prisoner to hospital status without justification. The doctor himself insists that he was doing his duty, saving the lives of seriously ill patients.

The Federal Chamber of Lawyers (FPA) also believes that the main problem of seriously ill convicts is the complexity of the medical examination procedure. “Despite the fact that such examinations are carried out by civilian doctors, in the vast majority of cases they take an extremely superficial approach to the performance of their duties, without actually conducting any real research aimed at making the correct diagnosis. This is precisely the root of all evil,” FPA adviser, lawyer Dmitry Taraborin told Kommersant.

“On the one hand, the proposed measure really simplifies the situation a little and eases the fate of those whom the court releases due to a serious illness,” argues lawyer Olga Podoplelova. “On the other hand, it will sound a little cynical, but the measure is palliative in nature. Firstly, the system allows seriously ill people to end up in pre-trial detention centers and then in colonies. Secondly, in the case of a serious incurable illness, the courts let the person literally “live out” his last weeks and days in freedom – and only in order not to spoil the statistics on mortality in places of detention.”

In the explanatory note, the Supreme Court provides data on the relevance of the problem: “Decisions on release from serving a sentence due to serious illness were made by the courts: in 2020 – in relation to 2219 persons, in 2021 – 2013 persons, in 2022 – 2132 persons, in in the first half of 2023 – 1086 persons.” Previously, experts from Sitting Rus’ (in the register of foreign agents) told Kommersant that the courts “satisfy less than half of the requests for release due to illness.”

And according to the Federal Penitentiary Service for 2020, as many as 23% of those who requested release due to a serious illness eventually died before their release (such statistics were not published subsequently).

“Release through the court is a very formalized process,” says lawyer Kaloy Akhilgov. “The law requires it, because a person is in prison by a court decision – and must also be released by a court decision. But at least this issue cannot be left to the court, because there are many medical nuances in which the court cannot be competent. It seems to me that there should be some kind of notification procedure, and the initiative should be not only from the colony, but also from the doctors who examined the patient, so that they too could tell the court that the prisoner has a serious illness.”

Emilia Gabdullina