Such a letter caused a real shock to the prisoner – Vismantas S., who was recognized as a recidivist, tried to explain why the officers write to him about “body cavities” and their use “for their intended purpose”, but did not hear a clear answer. And then decided not to keep quiet – Department of Prisons the actions of the officials were appealed not only to the Seimas ombudsman, but also to the court.
The prisoner’s complaint stated that during his detention in Šiauliai remand center he had applied to the head of the correctional facility, asking him to order razor. However, he soon received an answer – that it is impossible to find such a razor that the convict would like to buy. The man disagreed with such an answer and complained to the Prisons Department.
“And then I got an answer that is incomprehensible to the mind, humiliating me and trying to make fun of me,” said Vismantas S.
And he submitted a letter to the officers.
“We believe that mutual courtesy, cooperation, compliance with legal requirements, use of body cavities as intended will help to avoid misunderstandings between you and the Šiauliai remand center in the future,” the prison department’s letter to the convict said about the razor complaint.
“I didn’t understand what the body cavities and the razor were for here,” prisoner explained that such a response not only belittled but also offended him.
Department of Prisons officials, signing the letter to the convict, argued that it had no intention of insulting the convict and argued that a technical error had occurred due to negligence. True, they were still unable to explain how this mistake could have been made.
“We note that due to technical errors and negligence during the investigation of the complaint, the situation was discussed with the staff of the Security Management Division of the Department of Prisons, who were additionally reminded of the requirements for processing requests, applications and complaints. All prison department staff were also informed by e-mail that the legal status of the applicants had been taken into account during the examination of the applications, applications and complaints of the persons held in the detention facilities and remand centers. The Department of Prisons acknowledges that technical errors of negligence have been made in the response and hopes that similar mistakes will be avoided in the future, ”the department said.
The Seimas ombudsman acknowledged that Vismantas S.’s complaint was justified because “it cannot be denied that the written phrase is ambiguous and could be understood as degrading his dignity”.
Associative photo
–
After receiving this conclusion, the convict went to court – in his complaint the prisoner stated that he believed that the prison department officials had taken revenge for the complaints written to the courts and that the phrase about the body cavities was intended to ridicule him and degrade his dignity.
Anot convicted, officials did not apologize for such a letter.
“The Lithuanian state is guilty of employing incompetent, non-compliant officials in its institutions, who humiliate and despise people, abuse their current duties,” the prisoner explained that due to the offensive content of the letter, he felt unworthy, discriminated against because of his social and legal status.
Vismantas S. asked the state to pay 6 thousand euros for non-pecuniary damage – allegedly due to a letter received.
The Department of Prisons, which disagreed with such a request, stated that the letter “did not disclose to the prisoner any message or fact that could degrade the person’s honor, dignity or correspond to reality”.
“The applicant assessed the sentence on the basis of his negative attitude towards the institution and on the basis of subjective internal criteria, possibly a desire to make a profit, although this was not a humiliating or offensive response,” officials reiterated that there was a technical error in the drafting. grounds for non-pecuniary damage and to regard this as a violation of the rights of the person who has received the letter.
“The letter was probably written on an existing template,” officials said. At the time, the officer who drafted the letter emphasized that the phrase “the intended use of body cavities” was justified because the prisoner had lodged a complaint about the use of electrical appliances.
“This phrase is also used in other letters prepared by the Department of Prisons on the procedure for using electrical appliances,” the official noted.
The Department of Prisons also noted that it receives about 480 complaints per month, which must be dealt with within the statutory deadlines.
At the time, the court ruled that prison department officials had acted irresponsibly and negligently, relying on the provisions of a law that did not correspond to his legal status (Vismantas S. was arrested at the time, not a convicted person) and used an ambiguous phrase unrelated to that. the dispute before it.
“There was no evidence in the case that the Prison Department had taken any action to rectify the technical error, the complainant stated in his complaint that the Prison Department’s officials had not apologized to him and had not shown a willingness to rectify the situation,” the court said. the department did not properly implement the principle of good public administration and the illegality of its actions was proved.
Associative photo
–
In addition, the court noted that after the Seimas ombudsman had drawn up a certificate finding a violation, the Prison Department had not taken any steps to eliminate the violation or mitigate its consequences, stating that a technical error had been made but did not correct it, and did not take any steps to explain to the applicant, why an error was made, he did not apologize.
After assessing the circumstances of the case, the court concluded that Vismantas S. “may have suffered additional negative spiritual experiences, deterioration in quality of life, additional discomfort as a result of the violation, which he would not have suffered if the prison department had acted diligently and responsibly and suffered non-pecuniary damage. “.
Taking into account the violation found in the case, the actions of the Prison Department without taking any active measures to eliminate the consequences of the violation even after the Seimas ombudsman’s investigation and certificate, the court decided to award non-pecuniary damage to a prisoner from the Lithuanian state represented by the Prison Department. In addition, the department was ordered to pay more than € 330 in legal costs.
In addition, the convict complained that one prison department official had disrespectfully communicated with him by telephone, but this complaint was rejected as unfounded.
–
It is strictly forbidden to use the information published by DELFI on other websites, in the media or elsewhere, or to distribute our material in any form without consent, and if consent has been obtained, it is necessary to cite DELFI as the source.
