CAT/OP/KAZ/1 105. The Subcommittee is concerned about the excessively restrictive approach to contact with families. Recent amendments to the Criminal Execution Code exacerbated further already drastic restrictions on contact with the outside world. Therefore, the Subcommittee recommends that prisoners be allowed to maintain or establish such relations with persons or agencies outside the prison as may promote the prisoner’s rehabilitation.28 3. Maintaining discipline 106. The disciplinary regime in prison colonies is based on transfers from common to soft or strict conditions, which, in turn, are dependent on whether detainees comply with prison rules. However, punishments for even relatively minor violations involving no violence, such as verbal conflicts with other detainees, cursing, refusal to be searched or possession of a mobile telephone, are drastic. The person in question is first transferred to a disciplinary cell, and is subject to the strict regime for a lengthy period. That system culminates in the possibility of the court prolonging the prison term, on the grounds of disobedience of legal orders of the penitentiary administration, by up to five years for the first incident and up to seven years in cases of repetition. 29 Furthermore, it appears that threats of transfer to stricter conditions are used to intimidate detainees. The Subcommittee was told that there are few, if any, effective review mechanisms. 107. It is not easy to escape from the chain of punishment, as it is interlinked with sophisticated informal punishment systems, sometimes administered by “helpers” involved in informal disciplining measures in exchange for rewards from the prison administration. Other informal forms of intimidation include being threatened with rape, which is targeted especially at those who are not afraid of harsher prison conditions, and with transfers to harsher prison colonies as punishment measures, which leads to fear and discourages detainees from filing complaints. There is a strong link between these unofficial and official systems, as volunteers are said to sometimes provoke conflicts, which then trigger official disciplinary action. 108. The Subcommittee recalls that disciplinary punishments should be strictly proportional, 30 and recommends that the system of disciplinary punishment be reviewed, as current punishment terms are clearly excessive. Also, prisoners should be enabled to challenge disciplinary sanctions before an independent body. Imposing criminal sanctions, i.e. additional prison terms of several years, for disciplinary violations is excessive and suggests that the penitentiary system is deficient when dealing with offences by detainees. In the light of these findings, the Subcommittee recommends a revision of article 428 of the Criminal Code. The Subcommittee further recalls that disciplinary sanctions should not include the prohibition of family contact,31 and that no detainees should be employed, in the service of the prison, in any disciplinary capacity.32 4. Conditions 109. Overall the material conditions were in line with international standards and there was no overcrowding, although in some cases conditions in small and disciplinary cells may be degrading. Also, hierarchical structures within the prison population appear to persist, with lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and intersex persons, previously segregated, now integrated in the general population, but still reported as stigmatized. Security is generally overemphasized, with many staff devoted to maintaining security and numerous control and head-count measures. 110. There were few complaints about the quantity of food, but many prisoners complain about its quality. Many prisoners in the northern parts of Kazakhstan mentioned the harsh climate and insufficient winter clothes as an issue. 28 29 30 31 32 Nelson Mandela Rules, rule 107. Criminal Code, art. 428. Nelson Mandela Rules, rule 39 (2). Ibid., rule 43 (3). Ibid., rule 40. 17