2.3.9 Disproportionate or health threatening disciplinary punishment Condensed: The severity of any disciplinary punishment should be proportionate to the offence. Disciplinary punishment may include a formal recorded warning, exclusion from work, forfeiture of wages, restrictions on involvement in recreational activities. Restrictions on family contact as disciplinary punishment should generally be avoided. Collective punishments are not allowed. Disciplinary punishment that may be prejudicial to the physical or mental health of a prisoner should only be used subject to priormedical examination that the prison is fit to sustain it and be subject to daily medical review for as long as it lasts. Under no condition may cruel, inhuman or degrading punishment, such as corporal punishment, be imposed as disciplinary punishment. Comprehensive: No person deprived of liberty may be subjected to disciplinary punishment except in accordance with law.[1] (See *unfair procedure in determining disciplinary punishment*). According to the commentary on the European Prison Rules disciplinary punishment may include:[2] A formal recorded warning, exclusion from work, forfeiture of wages (where these are paid for prison work), restriction on involvement in recreational activities, restriction on use of certain personal possessions, restriction on movement in the prison. Restrictions on family contact but not a total prohibition, may also be used as a punishment. Such punishment should be used only where the offence relates to such family contacts or staff are assaulted in the context of a visit. The European Prison Rules provides that ‘[t]he severity of any punishment shall be proportionate to the offence.’[3] In Yankov v Bulgaria the ECtHR held ‘the shaving off of the applicant's hair in the context of his punishment by confinement in an isolation cell for writing critical and offensive remarks about prison warders and State organs’ without specific justification was arbitrary and under the circumstances constituted degrading punishment in violation of article 3 of the ECHR.[4] Force-feeding may not be used to discipline a prisoner on hunger strike but only if medically necessary in order to save the life of the prisoner.[5] In contrast, a report of UN special procedures on the situation of detainees at Guantánamo Bay called on the United States to ‘ensure that the authorities in Guantánamo Bay do not force-feed any detainee who is capable of forming a rational judgment and is aware of the consequences pf refusing food.’[6] Additional days in prison may be imposed but only with regard to criminal charges with a hearing guaranteeing full fair trial guarantees.[7] Collective punishments are not allowed.[8] With regard to health threatening disciplinary punishment, punishment which constitutes *cruel, inhuman or degrading punishment*, such as corporal punishment and placement in ‘a dark cell’ is prohibited.[9] Reduction of diet constitutes cruel, inhuman or degrading punishment and should not be used as disciplinary punishment.[10] Handcuffs, chains, irons and strait jackets or other instruments of restraints should not be applied as a punishment.[11] According to the Standard Minimum Rules punishment that may be prejudicial to the physical or mental health of a prisoner should only be used subject to prior examination by a medical officer that the prisoner ‘is fit to sustain it’ and be subject to daily medical review for as long as it lasts.[12] Authorities must be particularly careful in imposing disciplinary punishment on mentally ill persons and children.[13]
[1]Standard Minimum Rules rule 30. European Prison Rules art 56. [2] CoE Commentary to recommendation Rec(2006)2 of the Committee of Ministers to member states on the European Prison Rules 27. [3]European Prison Rules art 60(2). [4]Yankov Bulgaria application 39084/97 (ECtHR 2003) paras 117, 120. [5]Nevemerzhitsky v Ukraine application 54825/00 (ECtHR 2005) para 94. [6]Special Procedures Joint Report on the Situation of Detainees at Guantánamo Bay, E/CN.4/2006/120, para 103. [7]Ezeh and Connors applications 39665/98 and 40086/98 (ECtHR (GC) 2003) paras 100-107, 120-130. [8]European Prison Rules art 60(3), ACHPR art 7(2), ACHR art 5(3). [9]SMR rule 31. [10]CAT Concluding Observations: Guyana, CAT/C/GUY/CO/1 (CAT, 2006), para 13. [11]SMR rule 33. [12]SMR rule 32. [13]Brough v Australia communication 1184/2003 (HRC 2006); Keenan v UK application 27229/95 (ECtHR 2001) para 116.
Condensed:
The severity of any disciplinary punishment should be proportionate to the offence. Disciplinary punishment may include a formal recorded warning, exclusion from work, forfeiture of wages, restrictions on involvement in recreational activities. Restrictions on family contact as disciplinary punishment should generally be avoided. Collective punishments are not allowed.
Disciplinary punishment that may be prejudicial to the physical or mental health of a prisoner should only be used subject to prior medical examination that the prison is fit to sustain it and be subject to daily medical review for as long as it lasts. Under no condition may cruel, inhuman or degrading punishment, such as corporal punishment, be imposed as disciplinary punishment.
Comprehensive:
No person deprived of liberty may be subjected to disciplinary punishment except in accordance with law.[1] (See *unfair procedure in determining disciplinary punishment*). According to the commentary on the European Prison Rules disciplinary punishment may include:[2]
A formal recorded warning, exclusion from work, forfeiture of wages (where these are paid for prison work), restriction on involvement in recreational activities, restriction on use of certain personal possessions, restriction on movement in the prison. Restrictions on family contact but not a total prohibition, may also be used as a punishment. Such punishment should be used only where the offence relates to such family contacts or staff are assaulted in the context of a visit.
The European Prison Rules provides that ‘[t]he severity of any punishment shall be proportionate to the offence.’[3] In Yankov v Bulgaria the ECtHR held ‘the shaving off of the applicant's hair in the context of his punishment by confinement in an isolation cell for writing critical and offensive remarks about prison warders and State organs’ without specific justification was arbitrary and under the circumstances constituted degrading punishment in violation of article 3 of the ECHR.[4] Force-feeding may not be used to discipline a prisoner on hunger strike but only if medically necessary in order to save the life of the prisoner.[5] In contrast, a report of UN special procedures on the situation of detainees at Guantánamo Bay called on the United States to ‘ensure that the authorities in Guantánamo Bay do not force-feed any detainee who is capable of forming a rational judgment and is aware of the consequences pf refusing food.’[6] Additional days in prison may be imposed but only with regard to criminal charges with a hearing guaranteeing full fair trial guarantees.[7] Collective punishments are not allowed.[8]
With regard to health threatening disciplinary punishment, punishment which constitutes *cruel, inhuman or degrading punishment*, such as corporal punishment and placement in ‘a dark cell’ is prohibited.[9] Reduction of diet constitutes cruel, inhuman or degrading punishment and should not be used as disciplinary punishment.[10] Handcuffs, chains, irons and strait jackets or other instruments of restraints should not be applied as a punishment.[11]
According to the Standard Minimum Rules punishment that may be prejudicial to the physical or mental health of a prisoner should only be used subject to prior examination by a medical officer that the prisoner ‘is fit to sustain it’ and be subject to daily medical review for as long as it lasts.[12] Authorities must be particularly careful in imposing disciplinary punishment on mentally ill persons and children.[13]
[1]Standard Minimum Rules rule 30. European Prison Rules art 56.
[2] CoE Commentary to recommendation Rec(2006)2 of the Committee of Ministers to member states on the European Prison Rules 27.
[3]European Prison Rules art 60(2).
[4]Yankov Bulgaria application 39084/97 (ECtHR 2003) paras 117, 120.
[5] Nevemerzhitsky v Ukraine application 54825/00 (ECtHR 2005) para 94.
[6]Special Procedures Joint Report on the Situation of Detainees at Guantánamo Bay, E/CN.4/2006/120, para 103.
[7]Ezeh and Connors applications 39665/98 and 40086/98 (ECtHR (GC) 2003) paras 100-107, 120-130.
[8]European Prison Rules art 60(3), ACHPR art 7(2), ACHR art 5(3).
[9]SMR rule 31.
[10]CAT Concluding Observations: Guyana, CAT/C/GUY/CO/1 (CAT, 2006), para 13.
[11]SMR rule 33.
[12]SMR rule 32.
[13] Brough v Australia communication 1184/2003 (HRC 2006); Keenan v UK application 27229/95 (ECtHR 2001) para 116.