ANNUAL REPORT OF THE PUBLIC DEFENDER OF GEORGIA 2013 The actual practice follows the written rules. The CPT has recommended the Georgian Government “to take steps to ensure that the placement of prisoners in disciplinary cells does not include a total prohibition on family contacts. Any restrictions on family contacts as a form of punishment should be used only where the offence relates to such contacts.”33 In this regard, the Public Defender addressed the Parliament in 2012 with a recommendation to enact appropriate amendments in the legislation but Article 88 of the Code of Imprisonment remains unchanged this far. Having said the above, we believe prohibition of contact with the outside world should not be used as a form punishment. Stability in prisons could be achieved by increasing and expanding measures of encouragement and fair use of punishment when necessary; on the other hand, unfair and unlawful treatment may actually ignite unnecessary conflicts between the prisoners and the prison administration or amongst the prisoners themselves. As regards application of sanctions by heads of penitentiary institutions for disciplinary misconduct, the laws currently in force do not determine which specific sanction should be used in specific circumstances. Therefore, the discretion afforded to heads of penitentiary institutions in deciding which sanction is appropriate in the given circumstances is too broad. Our monitoring has found that prisoners are sanctioned completely differently for the same misconduct in different penitentiary institutions. For example, punishments for violations such as “making noise and bumping on the cell door” or “insulting a staff member of the penitentiary institution” varied from institution to institution, from “limiting the right to receive parcels and packages” to “limiting the right to have a conversation over the phone” to “solitary confinement” for various periods. Solitary confinement as a sanction was most commonly used in the Institution No. 2 (43 cases), the Institution No. 8 (306 cases), and the Institution No. 15 (66 cases). In the Institution No. 7, pursuant to information obtained from the same institution, there were 38 prisoners by 1 January 2013 and 50 prisoners by 31 December 2013. During the reporting period, this Institution used “limitation of phone conversation” 43 times and “limitation of short-term visits” 11 times as sanctions. These figures are record figures compared to other penitentiary institutions if account is taken of the percentage ratio of other institutions’ populations. As a conclusion, it follows that, in applying sanctions, in the Penitentiary Institution No. 7 they favor using sanctions envisaging greater isolation of prisoners from the outside world. We would like to summarize by saying that penitentiary institutions apply disciplinary sanctions inconsistently, which may eventually serve as a cause of prisoners’ protest. Recommendations: To the Parliament QQ To amend the Code of Imprisonment with an effect that prisoners placed in solitary confinement cells retain the right to visits. To the Minister of Corrections QQ To elaborate guidelines on the use of disciplinary sanctions so that the practice of application of such sanctions is consistent in all of the penitentiary institutions. CONDITIONS OF LIVING QQ Pursuant to the European Prison Rules, the accommodation provided for prisoners, and in particular all sleeping accommodation, shall respect human dignity and, as far as possible, privacy, and meet the requirements of health and hygiene, due regard being paid to climatic conditions and especially to floor space, cubic content of air, lighting, heating and ventilation.34 In all buildings where prisoners are required to live, work or congregate: the windows shall be large enough to enable the prisoners to read or work by natural light in normal conditions and shall allow the entrance of fresh air except where there is an adequate air conditioning system; artificial light shall satisfy recognized technical standards; and there shall be an alarm system that enables prisoners to contact the staff 33 Report to the Georgian Government on the visit to Georgia carried out by the European Committee for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (CPT) from 5 to 15 February 2010, par. 115, available at http://www. cpt.coe.int/documents/geo/2010-27-inf-geo.pdf [last accessed 16.03.2014]. 34 The European Prison Rules, Rule 18.1. NPM Report 12