![AC-2024-LON-0003395 - [2025] EWHC 2795 (Admin)](https://backend.juristeca.com/files/emisores/logo_fi51A75.png){kind=logo}
The Facts
The Facts
My chronological account includes case law documenting the state of Latvian prisons. Mr Igoniņs was born in July 1992 and is now 33. Mr Sostaks was born in January 1995 and is now 30. Both are Latvian nationals. Both have drug addiction problems. Both have convictions in Latvia and in this country for offending associated with drug addiction. Both came here while wanted by the Latvian authorities for the offences alleged in the accusation warrants. Further details need not be set out here, though I shall return to Mr Sostaks’ record later when considering his second ground of appeal.
The issue of prison conditions in Latvia has been considered in several cases including DF v. Latvia (app. no. 11160/07). The European Court of Human Rights decided in October 2013 that DF’s article 3 rights had been violated during his imprisonment which started in 2005. He claimed to be a police informer and had suffered violence from other prisoners. It was common ground that sex offenders and police informers were at heightened risk of violence from other prisoners. His transfer to a different prison was delayed, a matter in respect of which he had no effective domestic remedy, the court found.
When the Strasbourg court decided DF, article 3 arguments were also being raised in this country in numerous cases concerning Latvian prison conditions. Three appeals listed together were heard by Moses LJ and Collins J in March 2014. In their judgment in April 2014 they rejected any article 3 challenge, dismissed all three appeals and made clear that seven similar challenges then pending before the magistrates’ court were doomed to fail: see Brazuks v. Prosecutor General’s Office, Republic of Latvia [2014] EWHC 1021 (Admin).
The outcome was the same in Danfelds v. General Prosecutor’s Office, Latvia [2020] EWHC 3199 (Admin). Popplewell LJ and Johnson J heard two appeals together. Certain assurances had been sought at permission stage. Information in response was provided in August 2020. At the substantive stage, the court considered that material and other evidence including a 2019 report from the Committee on Prevention of Torture (CPT) but upheld the decisions below, adding at [65] that evidence “falls far short of what would be required to rebut the presumption that Latvia complies with its obligations under Article 3 …. .”
A delegation of the CPT visited three Latvian prisons (among other institutions) in May 2022 and published its resulting report over a year later, on 11 July 2023 (the 2023 CPT report (Footnote: 2)). There were positive comments but the summary said the CPT was “seriously concerned to note that no significant progress had been made in reducing the scale of inter-prisoner violence” (underlining in original); and that “[t]he informal prisoner hierarchy (or caste system) still seemed to be key foundation of prisoners’ life in the three prisons visited, with its traditions dictating internal order and being given priority over official rules.”
In more detail, paragraphs 71-81 on inter-prisoner violence stated that the committee had heard many credible allegations of such violence, including beatings and psychological pressure, though the level had decreased at Riga Central Prison. The problem remained serious at Jelgava and Daugavrīva Prisons. The cause was a combination of informal prisoner hierarchies, insufficient staff presence in accommodation areas and idleness. Some of the incidents were reported but victims would claim to have sustained the injuries accidentally, for fear of reprisals; this made the statistics unreliable.
The report went on to explain that some inmates would refuse a transfer to more open conditions controlled by those at the top of the informal hierarchy. Those in the “lowest caste” – the “untouchables” - were subjected to threats, verbal abuse and demeaning behaviour, being compelled to perform dirty work such as cleaning toilets and collecting rubbish. Informal leaders enjoyed higher quality furniture and living conditions. The untouchables had to obey orders from higher caste prisoners and not mix with them. Prison staff did not deny the problem and assured the delegation they were trying to tackle it.
The committee’s view was that “the situation of ‘untouchable’ prisoners in Latvia could be considered to be a continuing violation of Article 3 …. .” (paragraph 77). The CPT called on the Latvian authorities to take resolute action without further delay to address the “systemic and present shortcomings” in the prison establishment including “pro-active steps to combat inter-prisoner violence” by investing resources, recruiting more staff and offering decent living conditions (paragraph 80).
At paragraph 81 the CPT considered drug rehabilitation (emphases in original):
“Another area of concern, related to the phenomenon of informal prisoner hierarchy, was the reluctance of prisoners, in all establishments visited but more specifically at Daugavgrīva Prison, to participate in the rehabilitation programme in Olaine Prison Hospital’s Centre for inmates having had experience with addiction. The prisons’ managements confirmed that going through such a programme was almost the only channel through which a change of sentencing regime could become possible. In a later stage, it also influenced potential access to early release. [footnote 62] As the management of Daugavgrīva Prison was also well aware, inmates coming back from Olaine Rehabilitation Centre had to face threats to their physical and psychological integrity because they were systematically considered as being part of the lowest caste of the hierarchy. This was the reason why very few prisoners accepted to go through the rehabilitation programme at Olaine (and therefore remained on the low-level regime). The CPT would like to receive the data on the number of prisoners who have completed the rehabilitation programme at Olaine Rehabilitation Centre since January 2019, as well as the proportion of prisoners who were transferred from the low- to high-level regime in the same period of time.
The CPT welcomes the project of a “drug-free zone”, which was recently launched and implemented in Block 4 at Grīva Section, allowing prisoners coming back from such a rehabilitation programme not to have to be mixed with the general prison population; it therefore ensured them to have access to a safe place upon return. This type of initiative should also be encouraged in other prison establishments.”
At footnote 62 the report stated:
“[j]udges deciding on early release made it conditional upon the prisoner having completed the full rehabilitation programme at Olaine Rehabilitation Centre (based on Section 61 of the Criminal Code).”
The Latvian government’s response to the 2023 CPT report was published the same day. It acknowledged the problem of inter-prisoner violence and said that work was underway to introduce specific “resocialisation programmes developing social, communication and interaction skills, discovering and correcting thinking errors.” Three particular “Reasoning and Rehabilitation” programmes were at the planning stage and were to be introduced (page 26). The Latvian Prison Administration (LPA) “undertakes to take steps to address the shortcomings outlined in the Report and previous reports … .”
In response to paragraph 81 of the 2023 CPT report, the government stated that from January 2019 to December 2022, the addiction reduction programme at the Addiction Centre (at Olaine) had been completed by 270 convicted persons. The sentencing regime had been “alleviated” during the same period in 1,551 cases. Undergoing drug rehabilitation is one of various criteria for “alleviating” the sentencing regime, i.e. early release or a reduced term. Participation in other activities showing “resocialisation” is also relevant: employment, education, psychological aid, social problem solving, leisure time activity and other resocialisation measures are also taken into account (page 28).
On 14 November 2023, Swift J gave judgment in Vascenkovs v Prosecutor General’s Office, Republic of Latvia [2023] EWHC 2830 (Admin). The appeal concerned an accusation warrant relating to alleged benefit fraud. At the substantive hearing of an appeal on two grounds, the appellant sought permission to add ECHR article 3 as an additional third ground. Swift J refused to allow the amendment for reasons he gave at [32]-[36]. He referred to Danfelds, cited passages from the 2023 CPT report on inter-prisoner violence and some passages on the same subject in the Latvian government’s response.
Swift J rejected in short order ([35]-[36]) the submission that “matters have moved on” since an earlier 2017 CPT report considered in Danfelds. He referred to the strong presumption of compliance which “will prevail save where exceptional circumstances are demonstrated”. He referred to the Latvian government’s response and to “the specific steps being taken to re-socialise prisoners” and “to increase the number of prison officers”. While the slow progress since 2016 was of concern, the situation had not deteriorated since then and the authorities remained committed to addressing the shortcomings identified by the CPT and appeared to have made some progress at Riga prison.
Three days later, as it happened, Mr Igoniņs was arrested in Cambridgeshire on the basis of the accusation warrant in his case. He has been in custody at HMP Wandsworth, receiving opioid substitution therapy, since then. At the same time, the Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg was considering a further case about prison conditions in Latvia, D. v. Latvia (app. no. 76680/17) filed in 2017 by a Latvian prisoner who had served a sentence in three Latvian prisons from 2008 to 2017. The complainant, D, had exhausted national remedies in May 2017 without success and then filed his complaint to the Strasbourg court in October 2017.
The judgment in that case was issued on 11 January 2024, as it happened a month before Mr Sostaks was arrested in Watford based on the warrant in his case, whereupon he joined Mr Igoniņs at the same prison, with the same therapy. In D. v. Latvia, the Strasbourg court elaborated on the caste system, explaining at [6] that there were three castes: “the “blatnie” (the highest caste), the “mužiki” (the middle caste), and the “kreisie” (the lowest caste).” The applicant, D, was of the kreisie, being a sex offender. The kreisie, the court noted at [7]:
“were not permitted to sit on the same benches, nor to walk or stand in the same areas as other prisoners. Specific toilets, sinks, and dining areas were designated solely for their use. Moreover, they were prohibited from mingling with other inmates in the queue to the prison shop or the medical department. Participation in communal sporting activities or sharing shower facilities was also forbidden. They had to sleep on the least comfortable beds, located towards the edges of the living areas, and could not go into areas reserved for the other two castes. In addition to these restrictions, inmates of the lowest caste were tasked with performing undesirable or menial labour on behalf of other prisoners, which included standing guard, cleaning rooms, and laundering clothes.”
The European Court of Human Rights had before it reports from the Latvian Ombudsman and reports of the CPT up to and including the 2023 CPT report (from which at [29] the court cited paragraph 77, also mentioned above). As this is (so far as I am aware) the first domestic appeal about Latvian prison conditions since D. v. Latvia, it is worth quoting from the judgment in extenso. It is a good account of the law on article 3 in this context:
‘(c) Whether the applicant was subjected to a treatment prohibited by Article 3
The Court reiterates that ill-treatment must attain a minimum level of severity if it is to fall within the scope of Article 3 of the Convention. Ill-treatment that attains such a minimum level of severity usually involves actual bodily injury or intense physical or mental suffering. However, Article 3 cannot be limited to acts of physical ill-treatment; it also covers the infliction of psychological suffering. Where treatment humiliates or debases an individual, showing a lack of respect for or diminishing his or her human dignity, or arouses feelings of fear, anguish or inferiority capable of breaking an individual’s moral and physical resistance, it may be characterised as degrading and also fall within the prohibition of Article 3 (see Ananyev and Others, cited above, § 140, and Begheluri v. Georgia, no. 28490/02, § 100, 7 October 2014). The Court further reiterates that acts of abuse other than physical violence may also constitute ill-treatment because of the psychological harm they cause to human dignity. In particular, a threat of ill-treatment can also amount to a form of ill-treatment because of the fear of violence it instils in the victim and the mental suffering it entails (see Gäfgen v. Germany [GC], no. 22978/05, § 108, ECHR 2010).
With regard to what constitutes that minimum level of severity, the Court’s approach has evolved. Initially, the Court held that “the mere feeling of stress of a detained person” (see I.T. v. Romania (dec.), no. 40155/02, 24 November 2005) or “the mere fear of reprisals from the [applicant’s] cellmates” (see Golubev v. Russia (dec.), no. 26260/02, 9 November 2006) were not of themselves sufficient to bring the situation within the ambit of Article 3. However, when this fear of reprisals was accompanied by other factors, the Court has found that “the cumulative effect of overcrowding and the intentional placement of a person in a cell with persons who may present a danger to him may in principle raise an issue under Article 3 of the Convention” (see Gorea v. Moldova, no. 21984/05, § 47, 17 July 2007). In two subsequent cases, Rodić and Others v. Bosnia and Herzegovina (no. 22893/05, § 73, 27 May 2008), and Alexandru Marius Radu v. Romania (no. 34022/05, § 48, 21 July 2009), the Court found a violation of Article 3 on the grounds that “the hardship the applicants endured, in particular the constant mental anxiety caused by the threat of physical violence and the anticipation of such ... must have exceeded the unavoidable level [of suffering] inherent in detention”. Finally, in the cases of vulnerable prisoners in Latvian prisons, the Court held that a year-long exposure to “the protracted fear and anguish of the imminent risk of ill-treatment”, coupled with the absence of an effective domestic remedy, amounted to a violation of Article 3 (see D.F. v. Latvia, cited above, § 95, and compare J.L. v. Latvia, cited above, §§ 74-75 and 87-88).
In a recent case addressing the issue of an informal hierarchy among prisoners, the Court made significant findings regarding the threshold of severity triggering the application of Article 3 of the Convention. Although not all applicants in that case categorised as “outcast” prisoners experienced physical violence, they nonetheless lived under a constant threat of such violence for breaching the informal regulations. The resulting mental anguish and fear of ill-treatment were considered to undermine their human dignity and instil a sense of inferiority in them, thereby constituting a form of degrading treatment in violation of Article 3 (see S.P. and Others, cited above, § 92). The Court elaborated that the restrictions endured by the “outcast” applicants served as additional evidence of degrading treatment. Their separation from other inmates occurred on both physical and symbolic levels; they were allocated less comfortable spaces in the dormitory and canteen and had restricted access to essential prison resources like showers and medical care. Furthermore, they were not allowed to come into proximity with, much less touch, other inmates. This denial of human contact led to their social isolation and likely caused significant psychological repercussions (ibid., § 93). In addition, “outcast” applicants were forced to perform work considered to be inherently degrading and unacceptable for the other prisoners. This further debased them and perpetuated the feelings of inferiority (ibid., § 94).
In the present case, the applicant’s account bears relevant similarity to the above case, specifically as regards the physical and symbolic separation faced by prisoners in the "kreisie" category to which he belonged. He indicated that prisoners in that lowest group faced many arbitrary restrictions on using shared resources. They had separate benches, toilets, and dining areas and were not allowed to queue with other prisoners for the shop or medical care. They were also banned from joining in sports or using common showers. Their beds were less comfortable and located towards the periphery of shared spaces. In addition, they were tasked with performing menial jobs, such as cleaning and doing laundry for the other inmates (see paragraph 7 above). The Court concludes that such physical and symbolic separation has had the effect of sending a potent message of inferiority, thereby undermining the human dignity of prisoners in the applicant’s situation, and thus constitutes degrading treatment within the meaning of Article 3.
The fact that the applicant chose to comply with the demands and limitations set by the informal hierarchy, rather than opposing or challenging them, does not undermine the Court’s conclusion regarding the degrading nature of these dehumanising practices. The applicant’s emphasis on his own resilience, rather than on the tangible effects of the hierarchical norms imposed, provides the Court with insight into the coping mechanisms that prisoners in his situation may employ. While such mechanisms could potentially mask the full extent of emotional distress, it is imperative to recognise that the lack of overt confrontation and violent incidents does not lessen the reality of the underlying suffering. Life in such a hostile environment often results in a continuous accumulation of stress, particularly for individuals subjected to inequity, and not solely from immediate or chronic threats. The mere anticipation of such threats can also cause enduring mental harm and anxiety of an intensity exceeding the level of stress caused by detention under normal conditions.
In the light of the above, the Court finds that the applicant’s physical and social segregation, coupled with restricted access to basic prison resources and denial of human contact, has led him to endure mental anxiety that must have exceeded the unavoidable level of suffering inherent in detention, even though he has not been subjected to physical violence (compare S.P. and Others, cited above, § 96). That situation which he endured for years on account of his position in the lowest caste of prisoners in an informal hierarchy amounted to a treatment prohibited under Article 3 of the Convention. Since the applicant was personally affected by that situation, his claim cannot be said to amount to actio popularis.
It remains to be determined whether the domestic authorities have adequately addressed the problem.
State’s obligation to protect the applicant from ill-treatment
The Court established above that the applicant did not experience any ill-treatment from prison staff. Nevertheless, the absence of any direct State involvement in acts of ill-treatment that meet the condition of severity such as to engage Article 3 of the Convention does not absolve the State from its obligations under this provision (see Gjini v. Serbia, no. 1128/16, § 77, 15 January 2019). In this connection, the Court refers to the relevant principles concerning State responsibility, supervision and control in relation to detention, as well as the obligation to protect an individual from inter‑prisoner violence, which are set out in the case of Premininy (cited above, §§ 82-88). In particular, the national authorities have an obligation to take measures to ensure that individuals within their jurisdiction are not subjected to torture or to inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, including such ill-treatment administered by private individuals (ibid., § 84, and D.F. v. Latvia, cited above, §§ 83-84). The extent of this obligation of protection depends on the particular circumstances of each case (see Stasi, cited above, § 79).
Turning to the present case, the Court observes that the issue of informal prisoner hierarchies is well-documented within Latvian penal institutions. The applicant indicated, and the Government did not dispute, that this problem has been prevalent in the prisons where he was held (see paragraphs 5-7 above). In this situation, both the prison staff and the broader authorities should reasonably have been aware not only of the existence of the hierarchy but also of the applicant’s subordinate position within it. Even in the absence of explicit incidents of violence or confrontation, the inherent risk of ill-treatment faced by the applicant during his term of imprisonment could not be overlooked. Since the authorities were apparently aware of the risk confronting the applicant in this vulnerable situation, it falls to the Government to explain the measures the domestic authorities have implemented to mitigate the applicant’s vulnerability and to address the broader issue of prisoner hierarchies (see D.F. v. Latvia, cited above, § 87, and S.P. and Others, cited above, § 99).
The Court reiterates that the complaints concerning the degrading effects of an informal prisoner hierarchy are similar to other complaints that arise from structural problems in a prison environment. Such problems indicate a systemic failure rather than issues isolated to the specific circumstances of an individual applicant (see S.P. and Others, cited above, § 103). Given the systemic nature of these issues, individual interventions – such as initiating an inquiry or transferring the applicant to a different cell or facility – would not have addressed the core issue at the heart of the applicant’s grievances. Even if specific incidents of violence or ill-treatment were to be investigated and those responsible held to account, such measures would not alter the underlying power dynamics of the informal prisoner hierarchy, nor would they change the applicant’s subordinate position within it (ibid., § 104).
Limiting interventions to addressing specific incidents, as and when they arise, does not constitute the comprehensive approach that prison management authorities should adopt when grappling with a systemic issue such as an informal prisoner hierarchy. Since 2012 the Latvian Ombudsman has consistently criticised the lack of such an overarching approach, underlining the shortcomings of the traditional, incident-focused strategy (see paragraph 28 above). In the 2018 Report, the Ombudsman went further by asserting that the domestic authorities are acting unlawfully in their failure to dismantle the established informal hierarchies within prisons. This perspective was echoed by the Supreme Court of Latvia, which opined that State authorities bear a general obligation to address the issue of informal hierarchies, which is one contributing factor to inter-prisoner violence (see paragraph 26 above).
The Court accordingly finds that the domestic authorities have not taken adequate steps to protect the applicant from the treatment associated with his belonging to the group of “kreisie” prisoners. The domestic authorities did not have in place effective mechanisms to improve the applicant’s individual situation or to deal with the issue in a comprehensive manner.
There has accordingly been a violation of Article 3 of the Convention on account of the State authorities’ failure to protect the applicant from the treatment prohibited under that provision. Having reached this finding, the Court deems it unnecessary to examine the same set of facts from the perspective of Article 14 of the Convention.’
I should add that at the end of its judgment, the court concluded ([62]):
“62. The Court considers that to prevent future similar violations, the domestic authorities must address the issue of informal prison hierarchies highlighted in this judgment in a manner that goes beyond the circumstances of the present case. It falls to the competent authorities, in accordance with the respondent State’s obligations under Article 46 of the Convention, to draw the necessary conclusions from the present judgment and to take appropriate general measures in order to address the problem that has led to the finding of a violation here. More specifically, the domestic courts are required to take due account of the Convention standards as applied in this judgment (compare, for a similar approach, Yüksel Yalçınkaya v. Türkiye [GC], no. 15669/20, § 418, 26 September 2023).”
A few months after that judgment, from 22 to 31 May 2024 the CPT made a further nine day visit to four prisons in Latvia, Daugavgrīva, Jēkabpils, Jelgava, and Valmiera. The purpose was (as per the subsequent report, not published till February 2025 (the 2025 CPT report (Footnote: 3))) “to examine the treatment of persons held in prisons and to follow up on the situation found in the 2022 visit” (page 3). After that visit but before publication of the 2025 CPT report, and before publication also in February 2025 of the Latvian government’s response, the final hearing in Mr Sostaks’ case took place in Westminster Magistrates’ Court.
That hearing was on 23 September 2024. District Judge Ikram gave his succinct reserved judgment on 10 October 2024. He set out the law on article 3 based claims in uncontroversial terms, referring to case law I need not rehearse here. He stated the proposition that the burden is on the requested person to demonstrate that there are strong grounds for believing that if returned, he will face a real risk of being subjected to torture or inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. The risk must be substantial and not merely fanciful.
He noted that it was necessary to examine the foreseeable consequences of sending the person to the receiving state, bearing in mind the general situation and his personal circumstances. The existence of human rights violations in the receiving state was not the same as the risk that a particular individual would be at risk of being subjected to those violations, he noted. That would depend on whether the individual was specifically vulnerable to human rights abuse because of a particular characteristic.
The judge then referred to the strong presumption that a Council of Europe member state such as Latvia would be able and willing to fulfil its obligations under the ECHR; and that the presumption was even stronger in the case of an EU state such as Latvia which participates in the European Arrest Warrant scheme. The strength of the presumption is unaffected by the United Kingdom having left the EU.
The judge had an expert report before him. In his conclusions on article 3, he said this:
“5. The expert report is based on sources of information listed at page 2. The expert states that a likely sentence includes ‘deprivation of liberty.’ The RP has previous offences / convictions in Latvia.
6. The expert states that the RP would not be entitled to a status entitling him to ‘special procedure protection’ because [s]he says that the threats to him arise of out of financial debt rather than his testimony. The JA call no evidence in rebuttal and did not ask the witness be called to give live evidence to be cross examined. I accept what [s]he says. I find that he will not be afforded that special status which appears to be available only on the basis of threats connected with a person giving testimony. The lack of special status does not in itself, undermine the overall presumption that the authorities will provide a prison environment that is Article 3 compliant. The expert states that he will be able to turn to law enforcement agencies as he would be able to here.
7. Prison conditions and his encounters in 2019/2020 are not evidence of prison conditions today and prison regimes including security. The authorities will be well aware of concerns raised on inter prisoners violence (they are not unique to Latvia and are, incidentally, a real issue here in the UK) and can properly be assumed to be addressing the same.
8. I am bound to reject this argument.”
The judge also rejected the argument that it would be disproportionate, having regard to the factors in section 21A(2)(a)-(c) of the 2003 Act, to order Mr Sostaks’ extradition. He concluded as follows:
“I am satisfied that whilst the alleged offences are not, individually, the most serious, they form part of a series of offences over a relatively short period. They were also allegedly committed after he had been convicted of other offences of dishonesty in Latvia. Consideration of seriousness and likely penalty / sentence must take into account other relevant offending which must, in this case, have predated at least some of these allegations. They could well attract a custodial sentence in this country.”
In Mr Igoniņs’ case, the final hearing before District Judge Clarke was on 1 November 2024. The judge gave judgment on 29 November 2024. I need only refer to parts of it. Mr Igoniņs’ evidence included his claim to be addicted to fentanyl, a police informer and in debt to drug dealers. The judge recorded that he was asked in cross-examination about his evidence that he would become an “untouchable” if he were extradited to Latvia, if he sought drug rehabilitation treatment to gain early release after serving half or two thirds of his sentence.
The judge found that he was a fugitive from Latvian justice for reasons it is not necessary to recite. She referred to the 2023 CPT report and the response of the Latvian government. She had before her the relevant case law including D. v. Latvia. At [49] she stated that she could not find “that everyone who is in the lowest caste, and considered an untouchable, is subject to Article 3 non-compliant conditions, however I note that the [2023] CPT report that those in such a situation could [italics in original] be subject to such conditions.”
The judge discussed the case law at [50]-[61], uncontroversially. She decided the presumption of compliance by Latvia with its obligations under article 3 was not rebutted. At [62] the judge noted that when serving a previous sentence in Latvia the evidence of Mr Igoniņs was that he had been a mužik, i.e. in the middle caste, not an untouchable. The judge accepted that the 2023 CPT report provided support for the proposition that he would become an untouchable if he took part in the drug programme in prison. She accepted it was “highly likely” he would need to complete that course before successfully applying for early release.
She reasoned at [62] that Mr Igoniņs could choose between undertaking the course and securing early release at the cost of becoming an untouchable, or not taking the course, remaining a “middle tier” prisoner (i.e. a mužik), making early release highly unlikely. The core of her reasoning then followed:
“I have not been provided any authority which suggests that serving the entirety of a sentence amounts to Article 3 not compliant treatment. I also do not have any evidence before me which would suggest that the RP cannot be provided, or will not be provided with medical assistance with his drug addiction. His own evidence is that he was able to take part in some work with groups for those with addictions, which was not part of the drug programme. He also gave evidence that there was a nurse in the prison, as one would expect, and he was able to seek the nurses help although he did not seek it specifically for his drug addiction. Whilst in custody in this jurisdiction he is able to get a prescription for methadone. It has not been asserted and nor have I been provided with evidence to support an assertion that he would not be able to get access to such a prescription in the prison system in Latvia without undertaking the drug programme. Therefore, if the RP does not undertake the programme, he will not get early release, he will also not fall into the bottom category off the hierarchy and will not experience the difficulties outlined by the CPT.”
After that, on 26 February 2025 the CPT published the 2025 CPT report arising from their May 2024 return visit to Latvian prisons. The main points to emerge were as follows. There was a lack of progress in converting dormitory accommodation to cellular accommodation and with suppressing the culture of the informal prisoner hierarchy. It remained “deeply embedded in almost every aspect of daily prison life.” Complaints of ill-treatment were still rare and often not properly investigated. There were not enough prison staff. Among the lowest caste members (now also called levyje, see paragraph 45 and footnotes) there were some cases that could amount to modern slavery. Their treatment “could be considered to constitute a continuing violation of Article 3… .”
The report then went into more detail. The prison population was 3,300 persons, representing 68.2 per cent occupancy. There was therefore no overcrowding. A new prison was being built with cellular accommodation, two to a cell throughout. It was due to open in 2026. The CPT called on the Latvian authorities to speed up progress with conversion to cellular accommodation, suppression of the informal hierarchy and inter-prisoner violence, to increase staff and improve assistance to prisoners with substance abuse problems.
Most prisoners interviewed said the rules of the informal hierarchy were “slowly changing, becoming vaguer, and the pressure to respect them becoming less intense”, though breaching them could still lead to physical punishment, often in a way that leaves no visible injury, such as beating the upper body rather than hitting the face (paragraphs 53-54). There were changes: some blatnyje (the CPT’s spelling) were voluntarily demoted to levyje, finding the higher office burdensome or being fed up with the “stupid rules” (paragraph 56).
In support of its view that the levyje were receiving treatment in continuing breach of article 3, the report authors cited D. v. Latvia and mentioned that the delegation had been told by the prison authorities during the visit that the action plan to implement measures in response to the judgment would be approved by the government of Latvia in October 2024 (paragraph 60). The CPT expressed the hope that the measures suggested in the 2025 CPT report would be included in that action plan.
The report then addressed the subject of illicit drug use. Drugs in the prisons were rife, they said. The drugs arrive in many ways, from drone drops to smuggling in lorries and even by crossbow (paragraph 61). Upper and middle caste members insisted that the sale of drugs between inmates was prohibited; they could only be shared for free. A vor v zakone or “thief in law”, i.e. a leading prisoner, forbad as immoral making profit from another’s pain and illness (paragraph 62) (Footnote: 4). However, the prohibition against sale was weakening.
The committee was concerned that the sale of drugs, closely linked to organised crime, could increase. An increase in drug testing was recommended, but not carried out by health staff as this damages therapeutic relations. At paragraph 67, the report addressed therapeutic and prevention measures. Opioid agonist therapy (OAT), administering methadone and buprenorphine, was the only such measure available and only at two of the four prisons visited, Daugavgrīva and Jelgave. It was not available at Jēkabpils or Valmiera.
The authors called for increased prevention and treatment measures including initiating OAT at all prisons, combined with education and counselling. The committee expressed concern that the Olaine addiction treatment centre was not functioning properly and was operating at under half capacity: its work was being sabotaged by the informal prisoner hierarchy because all prisoners except the levyje were banned from attending the centre and the levyje, on returning from it, were at risk of violence and sometimes had to be accommodated separately for their safety (paragraphs 68-69).
Of relevance to the present appeals, footnote 66 stated:
“66. Reportedly, many prisoners applied to go to the Olaine Centre because it was a requirement in their individual sentence plan. However, despite applying, only a very small number, and only levyje or those ready to be demoted, actually went there, due to the informal prohibition.
Allegedly, the main obstacle was the fact that, in the Olaine Centre, inmates from different castes had to keep their food in the same fridges, use the same kettles, eat at the same table etc. Smotriaschije [an “overseer” prisoner in authority] interviewed by the delegation claimed that they were ready to “lift the ban” if the Prison Administration ensured that prisoners from different castes could co-exist separately in the Centre as they did in prisons but, according to them, the authorities were not willing to make such a compromise.”
The Latvian government’s response was published, as seems to be the convention, on the same day as the 2025 CPT report, so both documents are published at the same time. Like the 2025 CPT report, it bears signs that parts of it were written some time before the publication date and that when the response was written the government of Latvia already had access to the contents of what would become the published report. The same was the case when the 2023 CPT report was published.
The response referred to wide ranging amendments to Latvia’s sentencing code, effective from 1 September 2024. The highlights were (most materially here) first, transition to a two tier prison system, with open and closed conditions. Prisoners can earn a transfer to open conditions after serving half their sentence. Second, prison heads can group prisoners together according to their individual needs (“individualisation of sentence execution”), which is intended to help with “resocialisation” of prisoners. The range of “resocialisation measures” is expanded in various ways.
The government then referred to D. v. Latvia and measures to comply with the judgment. As predicted by the prison authorities on the occasion of the CPT’s May 2024 visit, the government explained in its response that it had, on 8 October 2024, approved a report called Measures to Reduce the Informal Hierarchy in Prisons (the October 2024 report). The government then summarised the October 2024 report, referring to the informal hierarchy and its traditions as “a certain historical legacy which is gradually changing”; meaning, I infer, the legacy of Soviet era prisons and prison camps.
There was a commitment to providing infrastructure that meets the CPT’s standards and to ensuring the availability of qualified staff, increased use of technology such as video surveillance, and regular security checks. The Ministry of Justice has been instructed to report on progress by the end of 2026 and again by 1 July 2028. Regional events to discuss the judgment in D. v. Latvia took place at the end of 2024, the government records. These brought together courts, police, the probation service, prosecutors, prison authorities and Ministry of Justice civil servants.
As for prison occupancy and replacement of dormitories with cells, the new Liepāja Prison, under construction and due to open in 2026, would provide 1,200 of a total 1,704 places that fully meet the required standards, in low capacity cells. Of those, 200 would be places in the Addiction Treatment Centre of Olaine Prison (Prison Hospital of Latvia). Cell occupancy would, eventually, be limited to four prisoners per cell. The government noted that at the time of the CPT’s visit in May 2024 the overall prison population was 3,344 persons.
In response to the CPT’s call to end the use of the smotriaschije as a means of maintaining order in prisons, to segregate them from other prisoners and increase staff levels, the government commented (page 17):
“Prisons continue to work purposefully on improvements, ensuring both order and safety as well as the respect for human rights within the prisons. Undeniably, prisons face staff shortages; however, the existing staff ensures order and security in prisons. Prison officials carry out the duties of monitoring prisoners, including by means of video surveillance technology, which facilitates supervision and reduces risks, such as those related to inter-prisoner violence or other illegal activities.
The segregation of informal leaders and their close circle from the rest of the prison population at the lowest level is already being implemented, and this practice will be upheld in the future.
In order to segregate first-time prisoners, protect them from being exposed to the informal prisoner hierarchy, and to prevent the evolution of prison subcultures, on 11 December 2024, the Administration sent out a letter to prisons instructing them to intensify control and ensure that remand prisoners who have not served a sentence in a prison before detention are allocated separately from other detained persons and prisoners … .
A similar approach applies to the segregation of first-time sentenced persons. In a letter dated 28 December 2024, the Ministry of Justice informed the Administration that first-time sentenced persons must be allocated separately from the rest of prison population and that such practice should be implemented in accordance with the applicable provisions of the CESL. Pursuant to Article 131 of the CESL, when deciding on the placement of a sentenced person in a specific prison, the Head of the Administration is required to assess security and crime prevention criteria, as well as evaluate whether a first-time sentenced person is at risk of being exposed to the informal prisoner hierarchy. This obligation of assessment is, in effect, currently imposed by the ECHR judgment. Similarly, when deciding on the allocation of a sentenced person in a prison in accordance with Article 132, paragraph 1, of the CESL, their criminal background is taken into account …. .”
On the subject of health care and education, the government pointed to a range of meetings with health professionals and efforts to increase the availability of and standard of health care, in connection with matters such as substance addiction, infectious diseases and sexual health. On the specific subject of measures to bring the Olaine Addiction Treatment Centre back to proper functioning, the government commented that the Centre is adequately staffed and equipped. As for occupancy and the problem that attendance is de facto limited to levyje, the government responded:
“The issues regarding the occupancy of the Addiction Treatment Centre, as described in the Committee’s report, have long been evaluated by the Administration, and it has been decided to implement radical changes to ensure that prisoners with addictions reach the Addiction Treatment Centre and receive appropriate help:
1) In 2025, the conditions for placing the prisoners in the Addiction Treatment Centre will be changed. In addition to the existing sections, new sections will be created for prisoners serving short-term sentences of deprivation of liberty, as the largest portion of this group have committed crimes under the influence of alcohol or drugs (e.g., drunk drivers, etc.). Those prisoners will be engaged in the improved Programme where one of the modules aims at tackling addiction-related issues. It is also planned to engage in the activities of the associations Latvian Anonymous Drug-Addicts and the Latvian Fellowship of Anonymous Alcoholics.
2) The programmes for the reduction of addictions currently implemented in the Addiction Treatment Centre will be updated within the framework of the SRRI Project (Measure 2.7 of the Action Plan).
3) The current model for selecting prisoners who wish to engage in the programmes offered by the Addiction Treatment Centre will be changed. Currently, the selection of sentenced prisoners for the addiction reduction programme is managed by the Addiction Treatment Centre coordinators working in prisons who consult the prisoners about the addiction reduction programme, the conditions for accommodation in the Addiction Treatment Centre, the scope and format of implementing the addiction reduction programme, as well as motivate them to participate in the programme. At the end of 2024, a pilot project was implemented in Riga Central Prison for a small group of prisoners, in which a contact person model was tested.43 The outcomes of the pilot project have proven to be successful in several areas, and as part of the continuation of the pilot project on introducing contact persons in 2025, Riga Central Prison plans to entrust the selection of prisoners for placement in the Addiction Treatment Centre to prison officials responsible for managing the sentenced prisoner’s resocialisation case (contact persons). The good practice of the pilot project is also to be implemented in other prisons.”
With the gradual introduction of a model for the system of contact persons (Activities 2.2–2.5 of the Action Plan), the selection of prisoners for the addiction reduction programme at the Addiction Treatment Centre in the prison will be ensured by contact persons responsible for managing the resocialisation cases of the sentenced prisoners.
[footnote:] 43 In addition, within the framework of the pilot project, on 25 November 2024, the senior inspectors of the Resocialisation Department were trained on issues regarding the selection for the addiction reduction programme.”
A series of other measures was included in the government’s response, which I will not set out in detail. They covered matters such as methods to combat the entry of drugs into the prisons from outside; increased use of technology, especially video surveillance to obviate the need to recruit large numbers of staff; and resocialisation measures, training under the October 2024 action plan, to deliver training for staff and enhance their work conditions and experience. The government explained that “with the new Liepāja Prison entering into service, at least three existing prisons will be closed” (page 33). Arrangements would be made for staff transfers accordingly.