This report
aims to summarise and analyse the trends in the protection from torture in 9
countries of the former USSR. It is based on nine country reports, which assess
national legislation, practices and experience of national experts in the
field.
The nine
target countries of the former USSR are located in three sub-regions: Eastern
Europe (Russia, Ukraine, Belarus), South Caucasus (Georgia, Armenia,
Azerbaijan) and Central Asia (Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan). All target
countries were member republics of the USSR and gained (or re-gained)
independence in 1991 following the break-up of the Soviet Union. As a result,
they inherited the criminal justice system of the former Soviet Union,
including penitentiary legislation, administration and infrastructure. This is
of particular significance: as the analysis below demonstrates, their common
features as post-Soviet states still overweight the differences - including
membership in the Council of Europe - between them even 20 years into their
independence.
Over the years
of their independence, all target countries have created some form of
monitoring mechanism. While during the Soviet era, prosecutors had exercised
monitoring, positions of Ombudspersons were created in 1990s or early 2000s,
except for Belarus where no Ombudsman exists and Tajikistan where the post of
Ombudsman has only recently been established. Entrusted with wide mandates,
Ombudspersons, however, hardly had a chance to focus on monitoring of
conditions of detention and the prevention of torture. This was a result of
either the lack of capacity, or prevalent interest in other matters,
or of their working environment, including political factors. In most of the
target countries democratic institutions and decision-making procedures have
yet struggled to function independently and effectively over the last 10 years.
Even in those countries with stronger democratic features law enforcement
bodies had some opposition to public monitoring and judicial oversight of their
activities. In some countries they particularly opposed the creation of
monitoring mechanisms involving civil society. Yet, such bodies have ultimately
been established in all countries but Tajikistan over the last years.
However, it is
yet to be seen how the creation of National Preventive Mechanisms (hereinafter
NPMs) will affect the respective civil society monitoring mechanisms in mid and
long term. In Georgia the designation of an NPM has worryingly resulted in the
dissolution of the prison monitoring commissions which had consisted of representatives of human rights
NGOs. It remains a concern as this model might be followed by other
countries, even though the exclusion of monitoring bodies supplementing the NPM
does in fact not reflect the spirit and objective of the OPCAT.
This report
seeks to assess, in a comparative perspective, the legislative framework and
conditions of detention before focusing on the complaints and monitoring
mechanisms across the region with a particular emphasis on the establishment of
civil society monitoring mechanisms and National Preventive Mechanisms under
the OPCAT.
