Vladimir Putin supported the request of HRC member Eva Merkacheva to grant amnesty to women prisoners

“Dear Vladimir Vladimirovich!

Based on the results of my speech last time, there were several instructions, for which I am very grateful to you. But two topics – imprisonment and the fight against torture – need to be brought to the end, where I would like to start.

And the first. In 13 regions, isolation centers are overcrowded. In order, for example, to relieve pressure on the Moscow pre-trial detention center, prisoners are transported to other regions. The stages themselves are painful, especially for sick people, women with children and the elderly.

The Supreme Court, in pursuance of your instructions, has prepared a bill banning the detention of people suspected of non-violent crimes.

And I would like the ban to apply not only to pregnant women and women with young children, but to everyone in general. At least a third of the prisoners could wait until the end of the investigation under subscription or bail. They are accused of economic and other crimes that have nothing to do with violence. These people definitely do not pose a threat to society. They would be with their families, working, being useful.

Instead, they sit in cells, in concrete bags, for years (some for five or six years before sentencing). For comparison: in Soviet times, when there were no video cameras on the streets, mobile phones and, accordingly, their billing capabilities, new DNA testing techniques and other advances, the most complex criminal cases were investigated on average for 2-3 months, and a court decision was made in a few days…

Second. A law has been passed that tightens penalties for torture, and this is good. But many victims of torture are now afraid to talk about them publicly, and even if they are resolved, criminal cases are initiated against the perpetrators in rare cases, and the victims themselves are subject to repression and therefore refuse their testimony.

I’ll give you an example: the legendary human rights activist and ascetic, Andrei Babushkin (alas, he died a year ago), and I, while touring individual colonies, received evidence from victims of torture. We persuaded them to give official testimony. But they ended up being left alone in the same colonies with those who tortured them. And he continued to mock them. Moreover, criminal cases have also been opened against the victims of torture, allegedly for libel.

Two simple solutions could stop this. So that a person who complains about beatings or torture is transferred to an institution in another region. And so that cases of torture are investigated not at the local regional level (where usually the chief investigator, prosecutor and jailer not only interact with each other, but are friends), but by the central apparatus of the Investigative Committee.

Third. Huge sentences.

In general, the number of non-custodial sentences is growing, and this is wonderful. But against this background, the terms for those who are sentenced to real imprisonment for non-violent crimes have increased. In general, the terms seem wild – 7, 10, 15, 20 or more years for a crime that resulted in no one being killed or injured.

Article 2 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation puts in the first place the task of protecting human rights and freedoms, and then property, public order, etc. But today, for an economic crime and any other non-violent crime, they can assign two to three times more than for rape and murder with extreme cruelty.

A striking example is that recently the prosecutor asked journalist Bayazitova to serve 14 years for allegedly asking a banker for money to block negative information on a telegram channel. The victim himself, apparently, was shocked by this figure; he asked the court not to impose imprisonment on the journalist. The court ordered it anyway. Maybe not 14, but 5 years, which is also unbearably long for someone suffering from diabetes. I note that the average sentence for murder is 6 years.

Huge deadlines are a phenomenon that has emerged in recent years. Despite the fact that people did not live 200 years.

Article 43 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation states that “punishment is applied in order to restore social justice, as well as to correct the convicted person and prevent the commission of new crimes.” Huge sentences do not have any corrective function: after 5 years in prison, according to research, irreversible consequences for the psyche occur, and then it is difficult to integrate the person into society.

I ask you to give instructions to review criminal policy in the field of punishment for non-violent crimes.

Fourth. For the first time, there were about a hundred thousand young people convicted under the “people’s” article 228.1 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation (for drugs), sentenced to huge terms (from 8 to 16 years). In some colonies, the number of girls and boys under Article 228 has already reached 80 percent. Experts predict a sharp increase in the prison population in the long term precisely because of the colossal sentences that are given today under Article 228.

Drugs are bad, who can argue. Long sentences are part of today’s government policy in the fight against drug addiction. But it doesn’t work. The authors of this concept, apparently, were guided by American practice. In the United States in the 1980s, during the drug epidemic, people began to be sentenced to enormous terms, up to life in prison, for drug trafficking crimes. Soon the prisons there were overcrowded (prisoners were not released, but new ones kept coming in), and this led to the fact that there was nowhere to house them.

Vladimir Vladimirovich, it is possible and necessary to fight the drug epidemic in other ways. I am asking for a review of policies in the fight against drug addiction. Within its framework, prohibit dubious advertising about hiring couriers in order to earn big money, create social videos about punishments for drug offenses, attract real dealers, and not so-called pawnbrokers, who, in turn, are the very last link in a long chain of drug distribution funds, to reduce the sentences of those convicted under Art. 228–228.1, 229.1 and 234, who committed a crime for the first time.

And I ask you to instruct us to develop a system for preventing crime among young people in general. Now, in fact, it doesn’t exist. Law enforcement officers admit in confidential conversations that they are required to provide indicators. And this is the main problem. Let the indicator be crime prevention. Let law enforcement officers receive awards for it, and not vice versa, as now.

Fifth. Now AI has begun to be used in the investigation of crimes (especially in past years), which leads to tragedies. Few of us can remember where we were 20-25 years ago and provide evidence of this. But even those who can are powerless against AI. The example of the scientist Tsvetkov is proof of this.

Artificial intelligence revealed: the sketch of the woman killer compiled in 2003 coincides 55% with Tsvetkov’s biometric data. But during the days of the murders, he was on an expedition with professors, doctors of science (including the director of the Institute of the Russian Academy of Sciences), there are joint photos, extracts from orders. One hundred percent alibi, as many would say. But, despite this, the scientist has been in pre-trial detention for almost a year.

I ask you to instruct the prosecutor’s office and the Supreme Court to study the practice of using AI, coupled with the testimony of people in prison during the investigation of crimes of past years.

Next year is the year of family. Much is said about the need to support women’s desire to give birth. But if a prisoner gives birth, she is returned from the hospital to the pre-trial detention center on the same day (there were cases when this happened two hours later), and the child is left alone. During the most important first days of his life, he does not see his mother, and she does not see him.

In the colonies, if a child gets sick, he is also hospitalized alone, without his mother. Volunteers take care of such children of prisoners.

There is only one reason – there is not enough convoy. I ask you to instruct the Federal Penitentiary Service to solve this problem.

But in general, mothers with children behind bars are nonsense. I ask you to pardon all women who have minor children and who are suspected or have already been convicted of non-violent crimes. Let mothers and babies return home.

And I ask you to pardon all women who have committed a non-violent crime for the first time, in whose cases there are no victims or who are not against their release. Let them be at home, let them start families. I am sure that this step of mercy on the part of the state will change a lot for the whole country. He will show that mercy is possible in any situation, and it is higher than justice, it is the highest justice itself.”

After Eva Merkacheva’s report, Vladimir Putin spoke about the problems she identified. The President emphasized: now, alternative measures to detention have begun to be used more and more widely. The number of people in custody decreased by 10 percent, and those subject to other penalties increased by 11 percent.

Regarding the delay in the investigation, the head of state noted: “It is necessary for the investigation to be carried out quickly, but efficiently. I see that the time spent in custody is often too long, often unacceptable, and not all issues in this regard have been resolved.”

As for the excessive severity of punishments, Putin drew attention, it is no coincidence that in some countries truly severe and even cruel punishments are provided for tax crimes: “But this is a conscious position of the state and the legislator. This is how the legislator reacts to manifestations that he considers the most dangerous for the state.” At the same time, the president proposed to consider the problem in more detail, to turn to the State Duma and the government for an analysis of what can be changed in this area.

“The topic of drugs is a delicate issue,” Vladimir Putin continued. – Yes, I know that the “prison population” is largely formed by those who are imprisoned under these articles. But if we asked parents who have lost their children to drugs whether the standard of punishment for those responsible for the death of their children should be lowered, they would not praise us.

But we need to look at where punishments actually lead to a reduction in such crimes. Take a closer look with the experts. We will do so.”

Finally, the head of state said: “The examples you gave about women in prison are convincing. It is necessary to prepare and make appropriate decisions, including amnesty for certain categories of women who are in prison.”