Верховный суд Латвийской Республики
6 мая 2010 года
Facts
The applicant, Mr. R., complained that during his imprisonment he had not received a toothbrush, toothpaste, toilet paper and soap for washing his clothes. He requested these items to the prison administration, but his requests were denied. He also complained that he had requested to the prison administration meat-free diet explaining that his religion – Islam – does not allow him to eat meat or meat products. Such a diet was not provided. Moreover, Mr. R., was not provided with an opportunity to obtain primary education in prison.
Complaint
The applicant complained that lack of hygiene products caused deterioration of his dental health and made him feel dirty thus violating the prohibition of degrading treatment. He alleged that failure to provide meat-free diet violates his freedom of religion under article 99 of the Constitution. Moreover, he complained that the fact that he is unable to obtain primary education in prison violated his human rights. He also asked for a moral compensation which lower courts had failed to award.
Court's ruling
The Court emphasized that Article 95 of the Constitution protects one of the basic values of a democratic society – prohibition of inhuman and degrading treatment. Such prohibition is absolute – no circumstances can justify a failure to observe it. The Court emphasized that prisoners should only be subject to such restrictions which are inherent in deprivation of liberty and are compatible with the respect of human dignity. The Court considered it obvious that a person deprived of liberty should have a possibility to maintain his/her hygiene. In this regard a prisoner shouldn’t be treated differently from any other person.
In the case at hand the Court also emphasized that lack of toiletries, except one toothbrush, for a year and a half, inevitably makes a person feel humiliated. The Court also emphasized that other toiletries, in this case – soap, cannot be used as a substitute for toothpaste. Considered the prohibition of degrading treatment is absolute, the Court rejected that lack of financial resources could justify the lack of toiletries. Thus, the Court concluded that the lower court should have awarded the applicant appropriate moral compensation for a serious violation of the prohibition of degrading treatment.
The Court noted that freedom of religion includes the right to manifest one’s religion. However, it does not protect every act motivated or inspired by a religion or belief. The Court noted that religious beliefs may be expressed through observance of religious traditions and performance of religious rituals which form a part of a particular religion. Therefore, they are protected under Article 9 of the Convention and Article 99 of the Constitution. A special diet is a part of some religions and therefore is also protected by freedom of religion regardless of whether a person is in prison or not. Therefore, a diet which complies with the religious beliefs of prisoner must be provided to him or her unless the particular interference is prescribed by law, serves a legitimate aim and is proportional to this aim. Thus, the Court quashed the lower court’s judgment and returned it for re-examination on merits.
The Court stated that the extent to which each state ensures the right to education is largely dependent on its resources and policy. According to Latvian law state institutions, including prisons, must ensure primary education to children up to age of 18. Therefore, human rights do not oblige the state to guarantee individuals older than 18 the opportunity to obtain primary education. The Court explained that the prison administration should try to ensure this possibility only as far as financial resources available to prison administration allow that. Therefore, the Court found no violation of Mr. R’s rights.