According to the Prosecutor General’s office information, 30% of the pre-trial prisons’ inmates are placed there without weighty grounds. Yuri Chaika, the Prosecutor General, stated the other day that “About one third of the accused of minor and middle-grave crimes are taken into custody today and afterwards 70% of them get the punishment not related to incarceration. Granted are 90% of petitions for custodial placement. Why are we inoculating the imprisonment subculture to the population?”. The Russian Federal Bar Chamber has published a research recently telling about the situation of people that get to pre-trial prisons. Each year tens of thousands of people deal with pre-trial prisons. According to Federal Penal service information as of 1 March 2008 the 160,000 of people were kept in pre-trial prisons, while the general number of those kept in prisons is 892,300 people.    

The long-awaited procedural criminal code became effective in spring 2002. The practiced by most countries judicial order of custodial placement was one the dramatic changes. Initially, it had a positive effect, as the courts began to examine cases more closely, and investigators, apprehending being dressed-down, chose the restrictions not related to incarceration. Soon, however, the law enforcement system got used to the new rules of the game, and situation worsened again. In 2006 the courts considered 273,186 petitions for custodial placements and agreed with investigators in 93.1 % of cases. 14,900 similar petitions were granted in relation to the under-aged suspects. 214,841 petitions for prolongation of the term of custody being considered, 98.5% out of them were met, out of this figure 13,499 petitions dealt with the under-aged. The situation got worsened in September 2007 when the new changes were made to the Criminal Code causing the reduction of the prosecutor’s control. Then it became enough for investigators getting approval from one’s superior to make a petition for arrest.    

The lawyers admit to their impotence. The changed Criminal Code, on which great hopes were laid, kept traditionally unequal relations between lawyer and investigator. For example, the investigator has the right to examine witnesses and victims before sending the petition for arrest, while the lawyer may interrogate people only with their consent and the lawyer has no right of warning them about liability for giving false testimony. A long queue of the lawyers trying to get the meeting with their defendants is the typical picture in the pre-trial prisons. It may be difficult to do due to the lack of investigative rooms in those facilities. Another problem is that pre-trial prisons’ administrations restrict unlawfully the paper circulation between the lawyer and the defendant.

In the bar community’s opinion, it’s imperfection of the law – and the criminal procedural code above all – that causes the mass violation of the citizens’ rights. For example, in accordance with Article #97 of the Criminal Code describing the grounds for arrest - where the accused or suspect is believed to may escape, continue one’s criminal activity, destroy the evidence or threaten the participants of the legal proceedings – a mere suspicion is enough. So if you have an international passport and you are suspected of being an offender, you are likely to spend all the time before trial behind the bars. Another norm from the Criminal Code says that arrest is possible if the incriminated offence is punishable with more than two years of prison. However, the crimes are classified not only in terms of gravity but also in terms of deliberateness or recklessness. It should be admitted that there is no reason to keep a person in prison if he/she has committed unintentional crime.       

The judge’s mentality is another reason. Statistics shows that law enforcers prefer arrest or written cognizance not to leave. As for personal guarantee, bail or house arrest – which has proved to be effective in the international practice and which is a sensible alternative to arrest – this is used very seldom in Russia. The matter is not only corporate belief by investigators and judges in the vicious human nature, which prevents them from using guarantees, for example. The questions arise in relation to specific character itself of this ethics fixed in the law. According to the Criminal Code, the investigator has the right to petition to the judge for bail, while the suspect or the lawyer has no right to do that. Today no one can be put under house arrest as no special law has appeared since the new Criminal Code became effective.   

Repressive nature of arrest is manifested most clearly in cases where gravely ill people get detained, whose health condition does not allow any incarceration. It’s enough to remember the former owner of YUKOS Platon Lebedev, who hasn’t been allowed to be visited by independent doctors so far. Or we can mention the accused lawyer Mikhail Trepashkin suffering with grave asthma which was not treated while he was imprisoned. Of course, the loudest case is that of Vasily Aleksanyan whose chance for saving is based only on the close public attention.    

A person that gets to the pre-trial prison being considered innocent till sentenced is treated much worse than inmates in the penal colonies. The European Court has repeatedly recognized the domestic prison conditions to be equal to tortures. It’s rare when a person occupies more than 2 sq.m. in a pre-trial prison. The inmates often have to sleep in turn due to the narrowness. No wonder that many inmates die before the trial without getting their sentences. Incidentally, absolute majority of trials are finished with verdicts of guilty.    

Public control over the pre-trial prisons, penal colonies and other correctional facilities might improve the situation. The corresponding bill was passed in the first reading 11 years ago and then successfully “buried” by the law enforcement lobby: law enforcers are not going to share their powers with the community.