Legal analysis of bills aimed at improving the mechanism of application of life imprisonment in Ukraine, namely: “On Amendments to Certain Legislative Acts Implementing Decisions of the European Court of Human Rights” № 4048 and “On Amendments to the Code of Ukraine on Administrative Offenses, the Criminal Code of Ukraine and the Criminal Procedural Code of Ukraine on the execution of decisions of the European Court of Human Rights” № 4049 is provided in the article. It is determined that the mechanism of parole in the form of life imprisonment proposed by these bills consists of two stages: the first stage is the replacement of life imprisonment with a milder punishment under the rules of the new version of Article 82 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine; the second stage is conditional early release from serving a sentence in the form of imprisonment, which is assigned to a convict in order to replace life sentence with a milder punishment (imprisonment) under the rules of a new version of Article 81 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine. The legal positions of the Committee on Ukraine’s Integration with the European Union, the Main Scientific and Expert Department of the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine, and the expert assessment of the Council of Europe are analyzed. The generalized legal analysis of bills 4048, 4049 gave an opportunity to reveal their progressive provisions, as well as shortcomings. Progressive provisions of the bills include: convicts’ drawing up their personal plan for reintegration into society, a temporary restriction on re-applying for the replacement of life sentence with imprisonment for a definite term or a request for a parole. The shortcomings of the bills include: unjustifiably short minimum sentence that a convict must serve in order to be released from life sentence; lack of a mechanism for determining the risk assessment of those sentenced to life imprisonment; lack of legislation to provide for probation in the process of replacing life sentence with a milder sentence and parole in terms of risk assessment, reintegration plan and monitoring compliance with court obligations; lack of criteria for determining the risk of re-offending; implementation of administrative supervision by police bodies over persons released on parole; lack of clear content of the reintegration plan; providing conclusions of the administration of a penal institution on convict’s preparing for release. Key words: bill 4048, bill 4049, life sentence, parole, European standards, implementation.
The article provides a legal analysis of the decisions of the European Court of Human Rights in such cases like “Vinter and Others v. The United Kingdom”, “Hutchinson v. The United Kingdom”. The European Court of Human Rights has established key standards for those sentenced to life imprisonment, compliance with which will ensure that this type of punishment meets the requirements of the Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights. Such standards are: 1) sentencing of life imprisonment is not prohibited and does not conflict with the Article 3 or any other article of the Convention. The imposition of “non-reducible” life imprisonment may raise questions of compliance with the requirements of the Article 3 of the Convention; 2) in decision making whether life imprisonment can be considered as “non-reducible”, it is necessary to establish whether the person convicted to life imprisonment had any prospect of release. If national law provides for the possibility of reviewing life imprisonment regarding its mitigating, reducing, terminating or releasing, this is sufficient to satisfy the requirements of th Article 3 of the Convention; 3) for the purposes of the Article 3 of the Convention it is sufficient that life imprisonment is reducible de jure and de facto; 4) European penitentiary policy is currently focusing on the correctional purpose of imprisonment, in particular until the end of long prison sentences; 5) at the very beginning of the sentence a person convicted to life imprisonment has the right to know what he must do to consider the possibility of his release and under what conditions the sentence will be reviewed or also in what order a request to this may be made; 6) if domestic law does not provide for any mechanism or possibility to review life imprisonment, then the non-compliance with the requirements of the Article 3 of the Convention occurs at the time of imposition of life imprisonment and not at a later stage. The importance of such standards separating of the European Court of Human Rights for the national theory and practice of life imprisonment is that these provisions are effective guidelines for determining the prospects of releasing from sentencing in the form life imprisonment. Key words: European Court of Human Rights, Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, case law, convict, life imprisonment.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
customersupport@researchsolutions.com
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.