ANNUAL REPORT OF THE PUBLIC DEFENDER OF GEORGIA 2013 In exceptional cases, when it is impossible to accommodate a prisoner in an institution located close to his/her relatives, the European Committee for the Prevention of Torture (CPT) recommends adopting a somewhat flexible approach: “The CPT wishes to emphasize in this context the need for some flexibility as regards the application of rules on visits and telephone contacts vis-à-vis prisoners hose families live far away (thereby rendering regular visits impracticable). For example, such prisoners could be allowed to accumulate visiting time and/ or be offered improved possibilities for telephone contacts with their families.”64 Through 1 January – 31 December 2013, 8,538 prisoners were transferred from one penitentiary institution to another. Pursuant to European Prison Rules, as far as possible, prisoners shall be consulted about their initial allocation and any subsequent transfer from one prison to another.65 The Public Defender has been receiving applications from sentenced prisoners asking for their transfer from closed institutions to half-open institutions, taking into account their sentence. Under Article 61 of the Code of Imprisonment, convicted individuals will, by default, be allocated to half-open institutions if they have been convicted of less serious or serious crime and if the imposed sentence is no more than 10 years. Unfortunately, this requirement is ignored in quite a number of cases. For example, N.Sh., a convicted prisoner, asked for his transfer from a closed to an open institution because his sentence was only 2 years and 6 months. The prisoner was also alleging that he had been subjected to ill-treatment and was at the material time allocated to a cell along with those who had participated in his beating. Accordingly, the prisoner was stating that he had to stay in a psychologically tensed and stressed environment all the time. The Office of the Public Defender addressed the Penitentiary Department in writing several times with the same request but with no avail. Sometimes, in order to maintain order in the prison, prison administrations resort to transferring a prisoner to another institution if the prisoner is often violating the rules. However, the European Committee for the Prevention of Torture (CPT) has been stressing in this regard that the continuous moving of a prisoner from one establishment to another can have very harmful effects on his psychological and physical wellbeing. Moreover, a prisoner in such a position will have difficulty in maintaining appropriate contacts with his family and lawyer.66 When a prisoner is transferred from one institution to another, the prison authorities do not take a prompt action to inform his family members and lawyer thereabout. Prison administrations are obligated to inform a close relative of a sentenced prisoner about his admission into a penitentiary institution no later than within 3 days after admission.67 In addition, pursuant to the European Prison Rules,68 upon the admission of a prisoner to prison, the death or serious illness of, or serious injury to a prisoner, or the transfer of a prisoner to a hospital, the authorities shall, unless the prisoner has requested them not to do so, immediately inform the spouse or partner of the prisoner, or, if the prisoner is single, the nearest relative and any other person previously designated by the prisoner. Often times prisoners are unaware of the reasons of their transfer.69 Moreover, the Penitentiary Department refuses to inform the Public Defender’s Office about the reasons of transfer. Normally, a template letter from the Penitentiary Department will say that a prisoner has been transferred from one institution to another on the basis of a confidential letter of the institution’s director. The European Court of Human Rights has explained that a decision to transfer a prisoner from one establishment to another must be reasoned and must serve a legitimate goal. The frequent moving of a prisoner from one institution to another, depending on the specific circumstances of the case, may result in violation of Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights.70 During monitoring, trustees of the Public Defender have found in a number of cases that both remand prisoners 64 2nd General Report on the CPT’s activities covering the period 1 January to 31 December 1991, par. 51 see http://www.cpt.coe. int/en/annual/rep-02.htm [last accessed 14.03.2014]. 65 Rule 17.3. 66 2nd General Report on the CPT’s activities covering the period 1 January to 31 December 1991, par. 57. 67 Code of Imprisonment, article 34. 68 The European Prison Rules, Rule 24.9. 69 Only one prisoner challenged an order on the transfer of prisoners to another institution in 2013. 70 Khider v. France, Judgment of 9 July 2009. NPM Report 26