Strasbourg, 20 March 2011 CCPE-GT(2011)4

WORKING GROUP
OF THE CONSULTATIVE COUNCIL OF EUROPEAN PROSECUTORS

(CCPE-GT)

Report of the 8th meeting

Strasbourg, 17-18 March 2011

Secretariat document, prepared by the

Directorate General of Human Rights and Legal Affairs

I. INTRODUCTION

1. The Working Group of the Consultative Council of European Prosecutors (CCPE-GT) held its 8th meeting in Strasbourg on 17 and 18 March 2011. The meeting was chaired by Mr Joao Manuel da SILVA MIGUEL (Portugal).

2. The agenda and the list of participants are set out in Appendices I and II respectively.

II. COMMUNICATION BY THE CCPE PRESIDENT, MEMBERS OF THE BUREAU AND THE SECRETARIAT

3. The Chairman thanked in his absence, Mr. Olivier DE BAYNAST (France) for his excellent chairmanship of the CCPE at which were adopted Opinion No. 4 (2009), together with the CCJE, entitled "Judges and prosecutors in a democratic society" and Opinion No. 5 (2010) entitled" The role of public prosecution and juvenile justice, Declaration of Yerevan".

4. It also entrusted Ms Nelly HARUTIUNYAN with the transmission to the General Prosecutor of Armenia warm thanks of the members of the CCPE for the excellent hospitality and organisation of the 5th plenary meeting of the CCPE, held in Yerevan from 18 to 20 October 2010.

III. PREPARATION OF THE CCPE OPINION NO.6 ON THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN PROSECUTORS AND PRISON ADMINISTRATION, IN PARTICULAR IN THE LIGHT OF THE RECOMMENDATION REC(2006)2 ON EUROPEAN PRISON RULES

5. The Chair thanked Mr Peter POLT (Hungary) for having prepared a questionnaire on the relationship between prosecutors and the prison administration, which allowed, thanks to the large number of replied received, to have a brighter picture of the situation in Member States in this area (see replies in the CCPE website: www/coe.int/CCPE).

6. The CCPE-GT examined a document prepared by the Secretariat entitled "Reflexion elements for the proposed structure" (document CCPE-GT (2011) 3) which proposes to link the Opinion around the actors, the respective competences and then the institutional framework aiming to improve the relationship between prosecutors and prison administration.

7. The CCPE-GT emphasized the necessity to follow the same scope of that of Recommendation Rec(2006)2 on European Prison Rules.

8. Based on this discussion, the CCPE-GT prepared a detailed project structure (document CCPE-GT (2011) 3REV3 attached in Appendix III to this document) containing the following elements:
- Introduction, including the Philosopy of the Opinion, the goals of the Opinion and important definitions;

    - A detailed description of the various existing systems in this area, given their great diversity;
    - The role of prosecution service with respect to the imprisonment of persons and the execution of sentences;
    - The role of prosecution service with respect to the regime of detention, the resocialisation of criminals and the Human rights;
    - The role of prosecution service with respect to reactions to offenses (criminal and disciplinary) and breaches of law;
    - The role of prosecution service with respect to the prison administration;
    - The role of prosecution service with respect to the release of prisoners.

9. Some members of the Group were volunteer to write the different parts contained in the structure (see in Appendix III, the names of contributors in square brackets).

IV. DISCUSSION OF THE OVERALL WORKING PROGRAMME FOR 2011

10. It was agreed that the various contributions should be sent to the Secretariat in English or French before May 2, 2011, so that it enables the Secretariat to present a text in English and French for the next meeting.

11. The draft Opinion should be finalized during the 9th meeting of the CCPE-GT, enabling its members to provide additional comments during summer. In September, the draft Opinion will be sent to all members of the CCPE for comments, with a view of its adoption by the CCPE at its plenary meeting to be held in Strasbourg on 24 and 25 November 2011.

V. OTHER ITEMS

12. The Working Group was informed that the next meeting should be held in Rome (Italy), on 6 and 7 July next, at the invitation of the Italian High Judicial Council which will organise the day before a conference on the occasion of the 10th anniversary of Recommendation Rec(2000)19.

APPENDIX I
AGENDA

1. Opening of the meeting

2. Adoption of the agenda

3. Communication by the President, members of the Bureau and the Secretariat

4. Preparation of the CCPE Opinion No.6 on the relationships between prosecutors and prison administration, in particular in the light of the Recommendation Rec(2006)2 on European prison rules

5. Discussion of the overall working programme for 2011

6. Any other business / Divers

APPENDIX II

LIST OF PARTICIPANTS

MEMBERS OF CCPE-GT / MEMBRES DU CCPE-GT

ARMENIA / ARMENIE

Ms Nelly HARUTIUNYAN, Head of Department, Office of the Prosecutor General, Yerevan

CROATIA / CROATIE (excused/excusé)

Mr Josip CULE, Deputy Attorney General, Head of International Legal Assistance and Cooperation Department, Zagreb

CZECH REPUBLIC / REPUBLIQUE TCHEQUE (Deputy member/suppléant)

Ms Jana ZEZULOVA, Public Prosecutor, Supreme Public Prosecutor’s Office, Analytic and Legislative Department, Brno

DENMARK / DANEMARK

Ms Alessandra GIRALDI, Assistant Deputy Director, Rigsadvokaten, Copenhagen

FRANCE (excused/excusé)

M. Olivier de BAYNAST, Procureur Général près la Cour d’Appel d’Amiens, Palais de Justice, Amiens

GERMANY / ALLEMAGNE

Mr Harald RANGE, Generalstaatsanwalt, Celle

HUNGARY / HONGRIE

Mr Peter POLT, Prosecutor General of Hungary, Budapest

NETHERLANDS / PAYS-BAS

Mr Arend B. VAST, Chief Public Prosecutor, The Hague

RUSSIAN FEDERATION / FÉDÉRATION DE RUSSIE

Mr Alexander Grigorievich ZVYAGINTSEV, Deputy Prosecutor General, Office of the Prosecutor General, Moscow

Mr Sergey KUDENEEV, Prosecutor General’s Office, General Department of International Legal Co-operation, Moscow

Ms Ekaterina PRIZ, interpreter

SPAIN / ESPAGNE

Mr Antonio VERCHER NOGUERA, Deputy Attorney General, Fiscalia General del Estado, Madrid

***

MEMBERS OF CCPE-BU / MEMBRES DU CCPE-BU

BELGIUM / BELGIQUE

M. Cedric VISART de BOCARME, Procureur Général de Liège

FINLAND / FINLANDE

Ms Raija TOIVIAINEN, State Prosecutor, Head of the International Unit, Helsinki

ITALY / ITALIE (Vice-Chair of CCPE /Vice-Président du CCPE)

M. Antonio MURA, Deputy Prosecutor General of the Supreme Court, Roma

PORTUGAL (Chair of CCPE/Président du CCPE)

M. João Manuel DA SILVA MIGUEL, Eurojust, The Hague

***

COUNCIL OF EUROPE’S SECRETARIAT /

SECRETARIAT DU CONSEIL DE L’EUROPE

Directorate General of Human Rights and Legal Affairs/

Direction Générale des Droits de l’Homme et des Affaires Juridiques

E-mail : ccpe@coe.int

Fax : +33 (0) 88 41 37 43

Muriel DECOT, Secretary of the CCPE / Secrétaire du CCPE, Tel: + 33 (0)3 90 21 44 55, e-mail : muriel.decot@coe.int

Jean-Pierre GEILLER, Documentation, Tel : + 33 3 88 41 22 27, e-mail : jean-pierre.geiller@coe.int

Annette SATTEL, Communication, Tel: + 33 3 88 41 39 04, e-mail: annette.sattel@coe.int

Emily WALKER, Assistant/Assistant, Tel : + 33 3 90 21 48 39, e-mail : emily.walker@coe.int

Sophie BOURLA-OHNONA, Trainee/Stagiaire

Paul MEYER, Trainee/Stagiaire

APPENDIX III

Opinion No. 6 on the CCPE on the relationship between prosecutors and the prison administration

Draft structure decided by the CCPE-GT during its 8th meeting

    I. Introduction

    1. Philosophy of the Opinion (A. VAST/ A. ZVYAGINTSEV/ C. VISART DE BOCARME)

    - Values of prosecutors concerning persons in prisons (good treatment, training, etc) in order to avoid recidivism, to improve criminal policy

    - The prosecutor can decide to send persons to prison. Specific relevance of the respect of Human Rights in prison. For this reason, it is of crucial importance that the supervision and monitoring of these rights should be done by a separate authority than that of the prison administration (prosecutor, etc.). This is in accordance with the role of the prosecutor to control legality and promote an adequate implementation of the law. Specific competences for prison authorities in these matters (the necessity to take into account States where prosecutors are not directly involved at this stage)

    - Safeguarding human rights is an essential issue to be dealt with. How does the prosecutor ensure appropriate safeguards?

    - Pre-trial detention is a sensitive topic when dealing with competences of prosecutors

    - Why is a sanction involving deprivation of liberty given? Reference to alternative sentencing/give facts and figures on prison sentences

    - (What can be done within prisons?/ Which purposes are served/fulfilled by prisons?)

    2. Reference documents (SECRETARIAT)

    - Recommendation Rec(2006)2 on the European Prison Rules

    - ECHR case-law

    3. The objectives of the Opinion (C. VISART DE BOCARME)

    - Taking into account Recommendation (2000)19, examining Recommendation (2006)2, this opinion should focus on determining the role of prosecutors in prison matters

    - It should be ensured that the prosecutor is able to carry out his tasks which include verifying that the sanction involving deprivation of liberty is enforced accordingly with the law

    - Does the prosecutor have means to resolve the problems within prisons that are difficult to resolve because they are little-known (violence, racism, drugs, etc).

    - Is the prosecutor accountable of what happens in prisons?

    4. Definitions (SECRETARIAT)

    - Same scope of the Rec(2006)2 – see item 10.1

    - Mention of other forms of detention, which would merit another Opinion

    - Other definitions

    II. Description of the different legal systems and various competences of public prosecution in prison matters (SECRETARIAT AND A. ZVYAGINTSEV)

    Analysis of replies to the questionnaire

    III. Role of the prosecution service with respect to:

      A. Imprisonment of persons and execution of sentences (C. VISART DE BOCARME AND A. ZVYAGINTSEV)

    - Arrest and detention by police/pre-trial detention/judicial order for provisional prison (but relationships between prosecutors and the police are not directly addressed in this Opinion)

    - Necessity to have an competent body (besides prison administration) to examine the legality of the execution of a sentence

      B. Detention regime, resocialisation of criminals, Human rights

    1. Detention regime (J. ZEZULOVA)

      a. Allocation, health care, hygiene, clothing, bedding, nutrition, work, education, freedom of thought, recreation, etc.

      b. Security, use of force, weapons, instruments of restraint, special measures, etc.

      c. Specific groups of prisoners to be considered:

      § Women, infants, children, foreign nationals, handicapped persons, prisoners with poor health, minorities, etc.

      § Persons awaiting trial/pretrial detention

    2. Resocialisation of criminals (A. TASYURT)

      - Decisions upon requests and complaints made by prisoners, legal advice, alternative measures, reduction of the period of imprisonment, permissions, etc.

      - Return into society after detention in the best possible conditions

      C. Reactions to offenses/breaches of law in prisons (criminal and disciplinary matters) (H. RANGE)

    1. Offenses committed by prisoners

      - Instruments/means available to prosecutors in order to prevent such offences

    2. Offences committed against prisoners

      D. Prison administration (P. POLT)

    1. Budget

    2. Prison management and staff

    3. Controls, monitoring, supervision, inspection

      E. Release of prisoners (A. VERCHER NOGUERA)

Conclusions



 Top