Supreme Court of the Republic of Latvia
5 September 2013
Facts
The applicant, Mr. Ļ., was serving his prison sentence. The daily outdoor exercises had been made mandatory in the prison. A refusal to go outside was considered to be a breach of the rules of prison and the prisoner refusing to go outside was held in the solitary confinement for the time of the planned outdoor exercises.
Complaint
The applicant complained that mandatory outdoor exercise and the resulting placement in a disciplinary cell violated his right to liberty.
Court’s ruling
The Court noted that prisoners have a right, not duty to outdoor exercise and they must not be punished for their choice not to make use of this right. Although at the outset the applicant did not seem to have actually been punished with a disciplinary punishment for a refusal to take an outdoor walk, the lower court which had initially rejected for non-exhaustion of proper disciplinary appeal procedure, had to examine more carefully the factual circumstances surrounding the mandatory walks, including whether or not the applicant placed in solitary confinement for a refusal to take a walk. Thus the Court quashed the lower court’s judgement and returned it to be re-examined on merits.