[
* The initial report submitted by the Government of the Czech Republic is contained in document CAT/C/21/Add.2; for its consideration by the Committee, see documents CAT/C/SR.197 and 198 and Official Records of the General Assembly, Fiftieth session, Supplement No. 44 (A/50/44), paras. 86-94.
The second periodic report submitted by the Government of the Czech Republic is contained in document CAT/C/38/Add.1; for its consideration by the Committee, see documents CAT/C/SR.466, 469 and 477 and Official Records of the General Assembly, Fifty-sixth session, Supplement No. 44 (A/56/44), paras. 106-114.
The information submitted by the Czech Republic in accordance with the consolidated guidelines for the initial part of the reports of States parties is contained in document HRI/CORE/1/Add.71.
I. GENERAL INFORMATION ....................................................... 1 - 2
II. INFORMATION CONCERNING THE INDIVIDUAL
ARTICLES OF THE CONVENTION .......................................... 3 - 118
Article 2 .........................................................................................
3 - 7
Article
3 .........................................................................................
8 - 22
Article
4 .........................................................................................
23
Article
5 .........................................................................................
24
Article
6 .........................................................................................
25 - 30
Article
7 .........................................................................................
31 - 33
Article
8 .........................................................................................
34
Article
9 .........................................................................................
35
Article
10 .......................................................................................
36 - 41
Article
11 .......................................................................................
42 - 83
Article
12 .......................................................................................
84 - 86
Article
13 .......................................................................................
87 - 110
Article
14 .......................................................................................
111 - 116
Article
15 .......................................................................................
117
Article
16 .......................................................................................
118
III. REACTION TO THE CONCLUSIONS AND
RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE COMMITTEE ....................... 119 - 137
i. General Information
1. The third periodic report of the Czech Republic, submitted in keeping with article 19, paragraph 1, of the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (hereinafter referred to as the “Convention”), links up to the initial (CAT/C/21/Add.2) and second periodic (CAT/C/38/Add.1) reports of the Czech Republic. The following documents have been taken into consideration when drafting this report:
(a) General guidelines on the form and content of the report on the implementation of obligations ensuing from the Convention submitted by the Contracting Parties (CAT/C/14);
(b) Conclusions and recommendations of the Committee
against Torture on the second periodic report of the
(c) Relevant facts and new measures adopted by the
2.
The third periodic report of the
II. Information Concerning the Individual
Articles of the Convention
Article 2
3. Act No. 140/1961 Coll., the Penal Code, as amended by later regulations (hereinafter referred to as the “Penal Code”), defines the criminal act of torture or other inhuman and cruel treatment as follows: “He who shall cause to another person physical or mental suffering through torture or other inhuman and cruel treatment in connection with the exercise of his powers of a State authority, local government body or a court, shall be punished by imprisonment for six months to three years.” As for subsequent qualified facts, duration of the sentence is increased. One to five years’ imprisonment shall be imposed on a perpetrator who committed such an act as a public official, [1] together with at least two other persons, or who keeps committing such acts for a longer period of time. A perpetrator who caused grievous bodily harm by such an act shall be punished by imprisonment of 5-10 years. [2] If somebody causes death by this act he shall be punished by imprisonment lasting from 8-15 years (art. 259a).
4. In addition to classifying torture and other inhuman and cruel treatment among criminal acts pursuant to the Penal Code, guarantees safeguarding detainee’s three fundamental human rights are perceived as a major component of the measures aimed at preventing torture: [3] the right to legal assistance from the beginning of detention, the right to be examined by a physician of one’s choice, and the right to contact one’s next of kin or another chosen person.
5. The right to legal assistance in proceedings before courts, other State authorities and bodies of public administration is guaranteed pursuant to Act No. 2/1993 Coll., on the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, as amended by later regulations (hereinafter referred to as the “Charter of Rights and Freedoms”) to anyone from the very outset of court proceedings (art. 37, sect. 2). Under the provisions of Act No. 141/1961 Coll., on Criminal Court Proceedings, as amended by later regulations (hereinafter referred to as the “Criminal Code”), a detainee, i.e. a suspected or accused person, is entitled to choose a defence counsel and to consult with him/her already during detention (art. 76, sect. 6).
6. The right to be examined after detention by a physician of one’s choice is not secured in the Czech legal system. Act No. 283/1991 Coll., on the Police of the Czech Republic, as amended by later regulations (hereinafter referred to as the “Police Act”), only stipulates that if a police officer discovers that a person to be placed in a cell is injured, or if such a person claims to be suffering from a serious illness, or if there is reasonable suspicion that this person really suffers from such an illness, the police officer shall secure medical treatment for such a person, and shall ask for a physician’s opinion whether such a person can be placed in a cell (art. 28, sect. 3). Medical care is provided also to persons placed in a cell. If such a person falls ill, injures him/herself or makes a suicide attempt, the police office guarding the cell shall take necessary measures aimed at saving the life and health of such a person, especially by providing first aid and by calling in a physician, and ask for a statement as to the further stay of such a person in the cell or his/her transfer to a medical facility (para. 32). Neither of the above-mentioned provisions, however, guarantees the right of such a person to be examined by a physician of his/her own choice. Pursuant to the provisions of article 9, section 2, of Act No. 20/1966 Coll., on the Care for Public Health, as amended by later regulations, the right to a free choice of physician shall be limited only for persons in custody and imprisoned, which means that according to this Act, detainees in a police cell have the right freely to choose their own physician.
7. The third safeguard against ill-treatment - the right to contact next of kin or another chosen person - is not guaranteed in this particular form. After detaining a person, a police officer is obliged, at detainee’s request, to notify the detainee’s next of kin (art. 12, sect. 3) [4] or another appointed person (art. 14, sect. 4).
Article 3
Extradition
8.
A far-reaching amendment to the Penal Code,
enacted by Act No. 265/2001 Coll., which came into effect on
9. Later on, a court shall rule at a public hearing whether extradition is admissible. If it rules that extradition is not admissible, and the person concerned is in custody, the court shall at the same time order his/her release from custody. If the court rules on the admissibility of extradition, custody shall be obligatory, and the court shall not be bound by the grounds for custody pursuant to the provisions of article 67 of the Penal Code. It is admissible to lodge a complaint against the ruling, which has a suspensory effect. At the same time, the suspensory effect of a complaint lodged by a State Prosecuting Attorney against a ruling to release from custody shall be limited. If a State Prosecuting Attorney’s complaint is to have suspensory effect, it must be lodged immediately after the ruling is announced.
10. Acting on the basis of a proposal made by a State Prosecuting Attorney, the presiding judge of a regional court [5] may decide to remand a person in extradition custody if there is a danger that the person might escape. The duty of a court to hear the person before it rules on remanding him/her into custody is newly instituted. The deadlines stipulated in the Penal Code for custody within the framework of internally conducted criminal proceedings (provisions of article 67 of the Penal Code) [6] also apply to custody in extradition procedures.
11.
If the reasons for which a person was remanded
in extradition custody expire, a court shall order the person’s release, at
his/her request or without it. Likewise, the court is obliged to release such
a person from custody if the preliminary investigation was initiated without
a request for extradition from a foreign State and the request failed to be
delivered to the
12. In case of extradition pursuant to article 3 of the Convention, the extradition provision does not explicitly mention the principle of non-refoulement in the same way as does the legislative regulation on banishment and administrative banishment.
Banishment
13. Specific measures relating to the execution of the sentence of banishment were secured only by the 1997 amendment to the Penal Code. This legislation stipulates which particular measures and which deeds may be taken by the presiding judge (eventually by the Ministry of Justice) in connection with the sentence of banishment.
14. Once a sentence of banishment has been imposed and the judgement has come into force, a court shall call on the convict to leave the territory of the Czech Republic, and if there is no concern that the convict who is at large may hide or otherwise obstruct the execution of the ruling, the court may then fix an appropriate time limit for travelling for the purpose of arranging the convict’s affairs.
15. If there is concern that the convict might obstruct the execution of the sentence of banishment, a court can issue a ruling to remand the convict in banishment custody. However, in this case (unlike with extradition custody), custody may be replaced by a guarantee, a pledge or a financial guarantee.
16. The Penal Code amendment enacted by Act No. 265/2001 Coll. has brought only minimum changes to the legislative regulation of the sentence of banishment and its execution. The new provision laying down the court’s duty to desist from the execution of the sentence of banishment, should there arise facts for which the sentence of banishment cannot be imposed, is essential.
17. The principle of non-refoulement is anchored in the provisions on the sentence of banishment in the Penal Code. It expressly states that - among other reasons - the sentence of banishment cannot be imposed if such banishment would expose the offender to torture or inhuman or degrading treatment or if, in the State to which the offender is to be banished, he/she would be persecuted for his race, nationality, membership of a specific social group, or political or religious thinking.
18. The application of the Act on Serving Custody to banishment custody appears to be problematic. Persons remanded in custody pursuant to the provisions of article 67 of the Penal Code, are - owing to the ongoing criminal procedures - subject to justifiably different and mostly stricter restrictions than those imposed on persons detained in banishment custody, i.e. whose guilt has already been proved in a criminal procedure. The only reason for why persons sentenced to banishment find themselves in custody is concern that they may hide or otherwise obstruct the execution of the sentence. That is why there is no reason for any other restrictions ensuing from the Act on Serving Custody, primarily those concerning the convict’s contact with the outside world. When deciding about remanding such persons in custody, on many occasions such persons are not heard by a judge. Equally problematic is the absence of a provision fixing the maximum duration of banishment custody. In some cases, the process of arranging formalities connected with the issue of substitute travel documents may be unduly long, or such documents may not be issued at all if the diplomatic authorities of foreign States are reluctant to cooperate. Another problem is the uncoordinated practice of courts in deciding about the release from banishment custody if travel documents vital for the execution of the sentence of banishment cannot be secured.
Administrative banishment
19. Act No. 326/1999 Coll., on the Residence of Aliens in the Territory of the Czech Republic, as amended by later regulations (hereinafter referred to as the “Residence of Aliens Act”), has managed to unify the legal concept of banishment and the prohibition of residence in the territory of the Czech Republic with the legal concept of administrative banishment, with the duration of the validity of the ruling on administrative banishment replacing the sanction of the prohibition of residence in the territory of the Czech Republic. Chapter X of the Residence of Aliens Act lays down the terms for imposing administrative banishment, the period for which it may be imposed, the conditions for modifying the strict conditions of administrative banishment, and the coverage of the costs connected therewith.
20.
Administrative banishment is the termination
of an alien’s residence in the territory of the
21. Amendment to the Residence of Aliens Act came into force in July 2001, broadening the range of offences and acts for which administrative banishment may be imposed. Administrative banishment may be imposed for a maximum period of 10 years. A banishment ruling cannot be issued if such banishment would lead to an inappropriate interference with the alien’s private or family life. However, there is information indicating that - in some cases - such interference was never investigated.
22. The Residence of Aliens Act lays down the terms under which it is impossible to implement a decision on administrative banishment. This involves the concept of “obstacle to travelling”. An alien cannot have his residence terminated if he is to be banished to a State where he would be threatened with torture or inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, where his life would be jeopardized by an armed conflict, where his life or freedom would be endangered because of his race, religion, membership of a specific social group or his political conviction, or to a State which requests his extradition for a criminal act for which the laws of that particular State stipulate the death sentence.
Article 4
23.
The
Article 5
24.
The
Article 6
25. A person suspected of having committed a criminal act may be detained, and an accused may be taken into custody; no special provisions apply to the crime of torture and other inhuman and cruel treatment pursuant to article 259a of the Penal Code.
26.
Under the assumption that some of the grounds
for custody exist, in urgent cases a police investigator may detain a person
suspected of having committed a criminal act.
A person accused of a criminal act may be detained if - owing to the
urgent character of the case - a ruling on custody cannot be obtained beforehand.
In both cases, the detainee must be handed over to a court within 48
hours, with the court ruling whether to release the detainee or take him into
custody. The detainee has the right
to choose a defence counsel and consult him during custody. The detainee is entitled to the appointment of
a defence counsel at the cost of the State only in cases stipulated by law.
[7]
During the monitored period, the time period
for handing over detainees to court mentioned above was extended from 24 to
48 hours by the amendment to the Charter of Rights and Freedoms No. 162/1998
Coll., and by the subsequent amendment to the
27. The Penal Code amendment (Act No. 265/2001 Coll.) has also affected the provisions concerning custody. These provisions cover all criminal acts, including the crime of torture and other inhuman and cruel treatment. The reasons for remanding into custody have remained unchanged. These continue to include reasonable concern that the accused may flee or go into hiding to evade punishment or criminal proceedings, affect witnesses or co-accused, or otherwise obstruct the process of clarifying facts substantial for criminal prosecution, or re-offend, complete an offence he/she had attempted to commit, or commit a criminal act he/she had prepared or threatened to commit. However, this provision newly stipulates that the accused may be remanded in custody under the assumption of the fulfilment of some of the above-mentioned grounds solely if and when the purpose of custody cannot be achieved by any other measure at the time of ruling (art. 67).
28. There are new provisions stipulating cases when custody cannot be imposed. The main criterion is the seriousness of the criminal act involved, which is measured by the sentence imposed for such an act by law. Therefore, a person prosecuted for an intentional criminal act which carries a prison sentence whose upper limit does not exceed two years, and a person prosecuted for a negligent criminal act for which the law stipulates a prison sentence whose upper limit does not exceed three years cannot be remanded in custody. The upper limit for the crime of torture and other inhuman and cruel treatment is fixed at three years. [8] However, the above-mentioned restrictions applying to the process of remanding in custody shall not be applied under the conditions precisely specified by law, which include when the accused has escaped or gone into hiding, continues to commit the type of criminal act for which he/she had been prosecuted, obstructed the process of clarifying facts substantial for the criminal proceedings, etc.
29. Courts decide on remanding in custody. In preliminary proceedings, i.e. at the stage of criminal prosecution from the notification of accusation to bringing an action, a judge decides on remanding in custody following a proposal by a State Prosecuting Attorney. Continued custody is decided by court, in preliminary proceedings by a State Prosecuting Attorney. In the preliminary phase of the proceedings, a State Prosecuting Attorney may decide to release the accused from custody even without application. But if a State Prosecuting Attorney does not comply with an application for release from custody, he is obliged to submit the decision to a court for a ruling. After the submission of an indictment, it is the court that takes decisions pertaining to release from custody.
30. Only partly in compliance with paragraph 3 of this article of the Convention, the law stipulates the duty of the court, if an alien is remanded in custody, to notify the consular office of the State whose citizen that alien is. The prevailing practice in this case corresponds with the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations, [9] of which the Czech Republic is a Contracting Party: an alien remanded in custody is notified by the appropriate authorities of that right, which may be refused.
Article 7
31. In addition to the criminal act of torture and other inhuman and cruel treatment (paragraph 259a of the Penal Code), the military criminal act of violating the rights and protected interests of servicemen is also classified among criminal acts pursuant to article 4 of the Convention (article 279a and b of the Penal Code [10] ).
32. The table below gives the number of criminal investigations into suspected acts of torture or other inhuman and cruel treatment pursuant to article 259a of the Penal Code, and the criminal act of violating the rights and protected interests of servicemen in accordance with article 279a and b of the Penal Code.
| |
1998 |
1999 |
2000 |
||||
| |
Male |
Female |
Male |
Female |
Male |
Female |
|
| Art. 259a |
Prosecuted |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
| |
Charged |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
| |
Convicted |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
| Art. 279a |
Prosecuted |
113 |
0 |
116 |
0 |
105 |
0 |
| |
Charged |
79 |
0 |
101 |
0 |
84 |
0 |
| |
Convicted |
47 |
0 |
98 |
0 |
73 |
0 |
| Art. 279b |
Prosecuted |
159 |
0 |
91 |
0 |
102 |
0 |
| |
Charged |
139 |
0 |
74 |
0 |
90 |
0 |
| |
Convicted |
84 |
0 |
114a |
0 |
67 |
0 |
a The actual course of criminal proceedings does not depend on calendar year and that
is why the number of convicts in 1999 exceeded the number of initiated criminal proceedings.
33. As implied by this table, nobody was prosecuted, charged or convicted for the criminal act of torture or other cruel and inhuman treatment during the monitored period. The same held true of the previous period. This particular criminal act was incorporated into the Penal Code by the amendment to Act No. 290/1993 Coll., which came into force on 1 January 1994. Its provisions have not been applied since.
Article 8
34. As mentioned in the previous reports, there is no obstacle in the Czech legal system preventing the implementation of the obligations ensuing from this article. The Convention is directly binding pursuant to article 10 of the Constitution of the Czech Republic, therefore representing a sufficient legal instrument for the extradition of persons suspected of committing criminal acts pursuant to article 4 of the Convention, including to States with which the Czech Republic does not have an extradition treaty.
Article 9
35. During the monitored period, the Attorney-General’s Office did not provide any legal assistance to another State in connection with criminal proceedings initiated pursuant to article 4 of the Convention.
Article 10
36. Training of the staff of the Prison Service is safeguarded by the Training Institute of the Prison Service of the Czech Republic and is organized at several levels. Education in human rights, also covering issues of the prohibition of torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, is contained in each of those levels, and is included in virtually all specialized subjects in which the Prison Service staff are trained.
37. The elementary training level consists of initial 10-week training courses attended by all the Prison Service personnel. The following subjects are taught: fundamentals of law and social sciences (rudiments of psychology, rudiments of pedagogy, rudiments of law and professional ethics), specialized subjects (guard, escort and warden service, judicial guard service, serving prison terms, serving custody) and martial arts and self-defence practices. In terms of content, the training courses draw primarily on the Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners, the European Prison Rules, the Code of Behaviour of Law Enforcement Officials, the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and other sources.
38. Specialized training courses represent a higher level of training. Their ultimate goal is to acquire new findings and skills in the specialized branches, in professional ethics, law and psychology. Organized periodically, such courses are tailor made according to the functions discharged by the Prison Service staff. All the training courses serve to broaden the horizon of the specialists in the given field, facilitate orientation in interpersonal relations, gain new information and - last but not least - to establish contact with other staff working in similar posts in other prison facilities, and to exchange information.
39. The Training Institute of the Prison Service of the Czech Republic has set up a Commission for Education in Human Rights. Translation into Czech of a handbook on education in human rights in the Prison Service has been completed under the Commission’s auspices. This manual will now be used in initial training courses aimed at promoting respect for human rights. These activities will be introduced in the courses first on an experimental basis in the initial training of judicial guards in July 2001, after which such courses will be attended by all the teachers of the Training Institute to be in a position to use the new knowledge in teaching their own subjects. Part and parcel of this wide-ranging project will also be the training of other Prison Service staff in an effort to provide education in human rights both within the Training Institute and also in all the organizational sections of the Prison Service.
40. No changes occurred in the system of specialized training of servicemen in the Army of the Czech Republic, members of the Police of the Czech Republic and municipal police, and in the practice of reflecting the principle of prohibiting torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. A conference entitled “Police and Human Rights” was held in 2001 as part of the training activities of the Police of the Czech Republic and - working in conjunction with the Ministry of the Interior - the Documentation and Information Centre of the Council of Europe published a booklet called “Visits of CPT - What Is Actually Involved?”, which was later distributed to police units.
41. Respect shown by judges and State Prosecuting Attorneys for the prohibition of torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment, should primarily be safeguarded by their legal training. Continued education of judges and State Prosecuting Attorneys is provided by the Institute for Further Training of Judges and State Prosecuting Attorneys, which falls under the methodological guidance of the Ministry of Justice. During the monitored period, the Institute did not organize any systematic additional training courses in this field. However, the issues of prohibiting torture and other ill-treatment are discussed during the workshops specializing in the protection of human rights. A series of specialized workshops aimed at expounding the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms for judges was held between 1995 and 1998. State Prosecuting Attorneys are systematically trained in lifelong education in compliance with the ethical rules of their profession. A code of ethics for State Prosecuting Attorneys and judges has not yet been issued. Still, a bill on the State Prosecuting Attorney’s Office, currently being debated by the Senate of the Parliament of the Czech Republic, [11] contains a relatively extensive catalogue of duties to be discharged by State Prosecuting Attorneys, some of which have a distinctly ethical nature. Similar provisions are contained in the draft amendment to the country’s Courts and Judges Act.
Article 11
42. Amendment to the Charter of Rights and Freedoms (Act No. 162/1998 Coll.) was approved back in 1998. This was followed by amendment to the Penal Code (Act No. 166/1998 Coll.). Proceeding from those legislative regulations, the time period within which an accused or a suspect is handed over to court after detention has been extended from 24 to 48 hours. Extension of the period was necessitated by efforts on the part of State Prosecuting Attorneys to determine more thoroughly whether there are grounds in specific cases for remanding a detainee in custody which is decided by a judge after the expiry of the deadline. According to information from the Attorney-General’s Office, this particular legislation has proved its worth in legal practice.
Serving prison terms
43. A new Act No. 169/1999 Coll., on Serving Prison Terms (hereinafter referred to as “Serving Prison Terms Act”), which came into force on 1 January 2000 and which replaced the previous outdated legislation from 1965, was approved in 1999. This law was followed by a new Directive of the Ministry of Justice No. 345/1999 Coll., laying down rules for confinement in penitentiary.
44. In its general provisions the new legislation explicitly formulated the main principles for serving prison terms. According to them, a prison term may only be served in a way that respects the dignity of the convict’s personality and limiting the harmful effects of the deprivation of freedom, although under the condition that this shall not threaten the need to protect society. Convicts serving prison terms should be treated in a way so as to preserve their health and - if their prison term allows - their confinement should support the development of such attitudes and skills that will help them reintegrate into society and facilitate a self-sufficient law-abiding life after release from prison.
45. The legislation introduces a new classification of prisons, according to the mode of external guarding and safeguarding security, into four basic types, namely open prisons, prisons under supervision, specially guarded prisons and top-security prisons, with open prisons having the most lenient regime and the top-security penitentiaries the strictest one. This legislation lays down uniform rights and duties of the convicts in all types of prisons.
46. One of the objectives of the new legislation was to involve municipalities and non-State subjects in the serving of prison terms. The law has paved the way for the establishment of “consultative councils” in prisons, composed of experts from different professions and community officials not employed in the prisons. Consultative councils are expected to participate in solving day-to-day as well as conceptual problems in the serving of prison terms. In practice, it is always difficult to find experts for this kind of work, as it is voluntary work and without any claim to remuneration, and those who could work in consultative councils are not motivated to participate. As a result, there are only a few prisons which have already established such consultative councils that are now functioning. Another measure used by the law to promote cooperation between the community and non-State subjects in the serving of prison terms is the possibility of setting up prisons in non-State objects, following agreement with their owners. And following agreement with the pertinent community it is possible to establish prisons for the local execution of prison terms where the convicts with short prison terms would work for the benefit of the local community. Even though this legislation has set the stage for such developments, no prison has been opened as yet in a non-State object. Similarly, no community has yet displayed an interest in establishing a prison for convicts serving prison terms locally. Meanwhile, communities seem to be supporting alternative punishment, primarily the performing of community service.
47. The new legislation has introduced changes aimed at making it easier for convicts to maintain their social contacts. These changes concern primarily the provisions guiding the regime of visits, the convicts’ possibility to use the telephone, and the serving of prison terms by mothers of minor children. The provisions on receiving and sending correspondence have remained unchanged.
48. The right to receive visitors has been newly regulated. As a result, during one calendar month convicts are entitled to receive visits by their next of kin for a total period of up to three hours. For serious reasons, convicts may be allowed visits by persons other than next of kin. But the officially stipulated duration of such visits spells out their maximum, and not minimum, period, which provides scope for interpretation, according to which some convicts’ entitlement to visits is, in some cases, unjustifiably curtailed. A suitable solution would be to fix a minimum entitlement in this respect.
49. Pursuant to the new Act, in justified cases convicts may be allowed to use the phone to contact a next of kin. [12] For serious reasons convicts may also be allowed to use the phone to contact other persons. The costs connected therewith are covered by the convict. In both cases, the Prison Service is entitled to know the content of such phone calls through eavesdropping.
50. The law lays down the conditions for improving the situation of mothers of minor children serving prison terms. Under given circumstances, the law gives the convicted women an opportunity to have their children up to the age of 3 with them. Under the new legislation, women who had properly looked after their minor children before starting their prison terms are allowed to extend their parole to visit their children by up to 10 days in each calendar year. Since the practical provisions for the serving of prison terms for mothers with children are demanding in material, technical and personnel terms, proper conditions have not yet been created for that. At present, a new concept for mothers with children serving prison terms is being drawn up in the Světlá nad Sázavou Penitentiary.
51. A major change - as compared with the previous legislation - is the abolition of the provision on minimum accommodation space without any compensation. The Czech Republic has had long-standing problems with overcrowded prisons, a predicament that culminated in 2000, when the accommodation capacities of the Czech prisons and detention prisons were filled to 117.2 per cent of their capacity. The competent Czech authorities are fighting off efforts to reintroduce restrictions in the shape of fixing a minimum accommodation space, justifying their position by saying that this would lead to an unlawful state of affairs. Even though the excessive occupancy rate of the Czech prisons has been systematically decreasing since 2000, their accommodation capacities are still being overstretched.
52. The table below gives the number of imprisoned persons and the occupancy rate of the accommodation capacities between 1998 and 2001.
| As of |
Accused |
Convicted |
Total |
Accommo-dation capacity |
Occupancy rate of accommo-dation
capacities in % |
||||||
| |
Male |
Female |
Total |
| |||||||