Condensed: All disciplinary offences and punishments must be specified by law or regulations which are made available to all staff and prisoners. No prisoner shall be punished before (a) being informed of the alleged offence and (b) before being given the opportunity to present his defence. Prisoners who are subject to disciplinary action have the right of appeal to a higher and impartial authority which can review the decision.
Comprehensive: The Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners provide: 29. The following shall always be determined by the law or by the regulation of the competent administrative authority: (a) Conduct constituting a disciplinary offence; (b) The types and duration of punishment which may be inflicted; (c) The authority competent to impose such punishment. 30. (1) No prisoner shall be punished except in accordance with the terms of such law or regulation, and never twice for the same offence. (2) No prisoner shall be punished unless he has been informed of the offence alleged against him and given a proper opportunity of presenting his defence. The competent authority shall conduct a thorough examination of the case. (3) Where necessary and practicable the prisoner shall be allowed to make his defence through an interpreter. Similar provisions on the procedure to be followed in relation to the imposition of disciplinary punishment are included in other international and regional instruments.[1] The rules and procedures concerning disciplinary punishment must be published and made available to all prisoners and staff so that it is fully understood what will happen if there are infringements.[2] Detainees have a right to an opportunity to respond to any allegations which could form the basis for disciplinary action. This is more so where the detainee faces considerable punishment at the conclusion of the disciplinary hearing such as loss of reduction of sentence. In Campbell and Fell v United Kingdom, the ECtHR held that it was unfair for prison authorities to impose a loss of remission for 570 days on prisoners without providing legal representation.[3] The procedure should follow ‘due process of law’.[4]Witnesses may thus be called to corroborate evidence by both sides.[5] Prisoners who are subject to disciplinary action have the right of appeal to a higher and impartial authority.[6] In Vuolanne v Finland,[7]the applicant was a conscript subjected to solitary confinement for ten days and nights as a form of military disciplinary punishment. The HRC held that despite the fact that disciplinary punishment was imposed by an administrative body, the state party was under an obligation ‘to make available to the person detained the right of recourse to a court of law’, although, in this particular case, it was irrelevant ‘whether the court would be civilian or military’.[8]
[1] Body of Principles for the Protection of All Persons under Any Form of Detention or Imprisonment principle 30; UN Rules for the Protection of Juveniles Deprived of their Liberty rule 68; European Prison Rules art 57-59; Principles and Best Practices on the Protection of Persons Deprived of Liberty in the Americas principle XXII.[2] SMR 35.[3]Campbell and Fell v United Kingdomapplication 7878/77 (ECtHR 1984) para 97. [4]Principles and Best Practices on the Protection of Persons Deprived of Liberty in the Americasprinciple XXII. [5] European Prison Rules art 59(d). [6]Body of Principles for the Protection of All Persons under Any Form of Detention or Imprisonment principle 30(2); UN Rules for the Protection of Juveniles Deprived of their Liberty rule 70.[7]Vuolanne v Finland, communication 265/1987 (HRC 1989).[8]Vuolanne v Finland, communication 265/1987 (HRC 1989) para 9.5-9.6.
All disciplinary offences and punishments must be specified by law or regulations which are made available to all staff and prisoners. No prisoner shall be punished before (a) being informed of the alleged offence and (b) before being given the opportunity to present his defence. Prisoners who are subject to disciplinary action have the right of appeal to a higher and impartial authority which can review the decision.
Comprehensive:
The Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners provide:
29. The following shall always be determined by the law or by the regulation of the competent administrative authority:
(a) Conduct constituting a disciplinary offence;
(b) The types and duration of punishment which may be inflicted;
(c) The authority competent to impose such punishment.
30. (1) No prisoner shall be punished except in accordance with the terms of such law or regulation, and never twice for the same offence.
(2) No prisoner shall be punished unless he has been informed of the offence alleged against him and given a proper opportunity of presenting his defence. The competent authority shall conduct a thorough examination of the case.
(3) Where necessary and practicable the prisoner shall be allowed to make his defence through an interpreter.
Similar provisions on the procedure to be followed in relation to the imposition of disciplinary punishment are included in other international and regional instruments.[1]
The rules and procedures concerning disciplinary punishment must be published and made available to all prisoners and staff so that it is fully understood what will happen if there are infringements.[2]
Detainees have a right to an opportunity to respond to any allegations which could form the basis for disciplinary action. This is more so where the detainee faces considerable punishment at the conclusion of the disciplinary hearing such as loss of reduction of sentence. In Campbell and Fell v United Kingdom, the ECtHR held that it was unfair for prison authorities to impose a loss of remission for 570 days on prisoners without providing legal representation.[3] The procedure should follow ‘due process of law’.[4] Witnesses may thus be called to corroborate evidence by both sides.[5]
Prisoners who are subject to disciplinary action have the right of appeal to a higher and impartial authority.[6] In Vuolanne v Finland,[7]the applicant was a conscript subjected to solitary confinement for ten days and nights as a form of military disciplinary punishment. The HRC held that despite the fact that disciplinary punishment was imposed by an administrative body, the state party was under an obligation ‘to make available to the person detained the right of recourse to a court of law’, although, in this particular case, it was irrelevant ‘whether the court would be civilian or military’.[8]
[1] Body of Principles for the Protection of All Persons under Any Form of Detention or Imprisonment principle 30; UN Rules for the Protection of Juveniles Deprived of their Liberty rule 68; European Prison Rules art 57-59; Principles and Best Practices on the Protection of Persons Deprived of Liberty in the Americas principle XXII.[2] SMR 35.[3] Campbell and Fell v United Kingdomapplication 7878/77 (ECtHR 1984) para 97.
[4] Principles and Best Practices on the Protection of Persons Deprived of Liberty in the Americasprinciple XXII.
[5] European Prison Rules art 59(d).
[6] Body of Principles for the Protection of All Persons under Any Form of Detention or Imprisonment principle 30(2); UN Rules for the Protection of Juveniles Deprived of their Liberty rule 70.[7] Vuolanne v Finland, communication 265/1987 (HRC 1989).[8] Vuolanne v Finland, communication 265/1987 (HRC 1989) para 9.5-9.6.