KAZLAUSKAS v. LITHUANIA
Inadmissible
Carlo Ranzoni;Egidijus Kūris;Ganna Yudkivska;Marko Bošnjak;Paulo Pinto De Albuquerque
1. The applicant, Mr Aidas Kazlauskas, is a Lithuanian national who was born in 1968 and is detained in Lukiškės Remand Prison. He was represented before the Court by Ms L. Meškauskaitė, a lawyer practising in Vilnius. 2. The Lithuanian Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Ms K. Bubnytė. 3. The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows. 4. The applicant has been serving a life sentence since 1994. In 2005 he was transferred to Pravieniškės Correctional Facility. In April 2005 the applicant attempted to murder another convicted inmate and in 2007 he was transferred back to Lukiškės Remand Prison. In his written appeal concerning his conviction for the attempt of murder, the applicant asked to be transferred back to Lukiškės Remand Prison and never to be returned to freedom, because he was afraid of liberty. 5. In 2009 the applicant married. At that time his wife was also serving a sentence in Lukiškės Remand Prison but in 2011 was transferred to Panevėžys Correctional Facility. 6. In June 2011 the applicant wrote to the administration of Lukiškės Remand Prison requesting a visit from his spouse; the duration of the visit was not specified in the applicant’s request. His request was granted; however, the director of Panevėžys Correctional Facility refused to allow his wife to attend the visit, referring to the provisions of domestic law (see paragraph 19 below). 7. In July 2011 the applicant complained to the Parliamentary Committee on Human Rights about the refusal of Panevėžys Correctional Facility to bring his wife to the visit. The complaint was forwarded to the Prison Department. In August 2011 it issued a response stating that the applicant did not have a right to long-term conjugal visits because he was serving his sentence in prison. The Prison Department stated that the law did not provide for short–term visits for spouses who were both convicted and serving their imprisonment sentences. In February 2012 he received similar response from the Parliamentary Committee on Human Rights. In the same month the applicant also received a response from the Ministry of Justice stating that long-term conjugal visits were not available to convicted inmates serving their sentences in prison. He was also informed that, in accordance with the provisions of domestic law, he would have been entitled to a long-term conjugal visit if he had been transferred to a correctional facility. 8. In September 2012 the Parliamentary Commission on Petitions examined the applicant’s proposal to amend the Code for the Execution of Sentences, so it allowed the spouses who were both serving their imprisonment sentences, and one of them was serving his or her sentence in prison, to have three long-term or short-term visits per year without the guards’ supervision. The Parliamentary Commission on Petitions held that the applicant’s proposal did not follow the principles of just and progressive execution of sentences and that if the applicant’s proposal had been adopted, the convicted spouses, both serving their sentences in correctional facilities, would have been deprived of visits, and would be discriminated. It was also observed that in a number of European Union Member States long-term conjugal visits were not allowed for convicted prisoners, and that they could communicate with their family members through short-term or home visits, as well as telephone conversations and letters. 9. The applicant brought court proceedings complaining about the refusal of his request to be allowed a short-term visit of up to four hours from his imprisoned spouse without guards’ supervision. The representative of Panevėžys Correctional Facility claimed that long-term conjugal visits were not allowed if one of the spouses was serving his or her sentence in prison. Convicted inmates, serving their sentences in prisons, had a right to short-term visits but this right was restricted by the provisions of domestic law (see paragraph 19 below). The Prison Department stated that the contested provision of domestic law was not applicable to convicted inmates, serving their sentences in prisons because such persons had a right only to short-term visits. But because the provisions of domestic law were silent about short-term visits when both spouses were serving their prison sentences, the Prison Department considered that short-term visits were not available to persons in the applicant’s situation. On 12 July 2012 the Panevėžys Regional Administrative Court held that the applicant and his wife had a right to a short-term visit of up to four hours and that his wife also had a right to a long-term conjugal visit of up to two days. The court also noted that, under the provisions of domestic law, the applicant could see his spouse at a short-term visit without guards’ supervision, in equipped premises, upon the approval of the prison director. The court therefore ordered Panevėžys Correctional Facility to organise a short-term visit of up to four hours for the applicant and his wife. 10. The Prison Department appealed, and on 20 December 2012 the Supreme Administrative Court held that a convicted inmate serving a life sentence in prison and belonging to the “ordinary” group of prisoners had a right to short-term visits of up to four hours every two months. However, the court also held that the court of first instance should not have ordered the Panevėžys Correctional Facility to organise a short-term visit and instead ordered it to reconsider the applicant’s request to be allowed a shortterm visit. 11. Following the decision of the Supreme Administrative Court (see paragraph 10 above), on 6 February 2013 Panevėžys Correctional Facility decided that the applicant’s wife could attend a short-term visit of up to four hours at Lukiškės Remand Prison. 12. On 25 April 2013 the applicant received a response from Panevėžys Correctional Facility stating that it had decided to allow his wife to attend a short-term visit at Lukiškės Remand Prison. 13. The applicant was granted short-term visits of up to four hours with his imprisoned spouse on five occasions in 2013 (14 May, 31 July, 30 September, 8 October and 10 December), six occasions in 2014 (12 February, 15 April, 18 June, 19 August, 22 October and 30 December), five occasions in 2015 (3 March, 5 April, 7 June, 8 September and 10 November) and five occasions in 2016 (12 January, 30 March, 31 May, 9 August and 6 September). The applicant used his right to ask for additional short-term visits and was granted them on 30 September 2013 and 6 September 2016. 14. According to the information available to the Court, the applicant never requested any long-term conjugal visits from his wife; he also never complained that he was not provided with more short-term visits up to four hours. 15. In February and July 2016 the applicant refused to participate in social rehabilitation programmes. 16. Article 62 § 1 provides that there are four types of correctional institutions: correctional facilities, juvenile correctional facilities, prisons and open colonies. 17. Article 72 provides that convicted inmates serving their sentences in a correctional facility are divided into ordinary, light and disciplinary groups. At the material time, Article 73 provided that convicted inmates in a correctional facility assigned to the ordinary group of prisoners had a right to receive one long-term and one short-term visit every three months. Since an amendment that came into force on 1 January 2017, convicted inmates in a correctional facility assigned to the ordinary group of prisoners have had the right to two long-term and one short-term visit every two months. 18. Article 84 provides that convicted inmates in prisons are assigned to ordinary and disciplinary groups of prisoners. Article 85 § 1 provides that convicted inmates in prisons assigned to the ordinary group of prisoners have a right to receive one short-term visit every two months. Article 85 § 2 provides that a short-term visit may take place without the supervision of a representative of the correctional facility. In such cases, visits take place in special premises. 19. At the material time, Article 94 § 1 provided that convicted inmates had the right to short-term visits of up to four hours and long-term visits of up to forty-eight hours. The nature and number of visits depended on the group of convicted inmates and the correctional institution. Article 94 § 6 provided that a husband and wife both serving prison sentences were allowed to have two long-term visits a year. 20. Article 165 § 1 provides that life prisoners serve their sentences in prison. Convicted inmates who have served the first ten years of their life sentence may, taking into account their behaviour in prison and the security risk they pose, at the request of the prison administration or by a decision of the district court be transferred to a correctional facility for the remainder of their sentence. 21. At the material time, Article 51 of the Criminal Code provided that life prisoners served their sentences in prison.