ECtHR Cases with Criminal Law Implications (May 2016–July 2016)
| Author | Ben Wild |
| Published date | 01 September 2016 |
| Date | 01 September 2016 |
| DOI | http://doi.org/10.1177/203228441600700310 |
| Subject Matter | Update |
370 Intersentia
ECtHR CASES WITH CRIMINAL LAW
IMPLICATIONS MAY 2016 JULY 2016
B W
1. TREATMENT IN POSTCONVICTION DETENTION
1.1. PUGŽLYS v. POLAND No. 446/10
e applicant, Juozas Pugžlys, is a Lithuanian nationa l who was born in 1966 and is
serving a 12-year prison sentence in Suwałki Prison (Poland) for kidnapping and
leading an organis ed criminal gang.
e case ess entially concer ned his complaint about the particularly st ringent and
humiliating measures to which he had been subjected in the context of the criminal
proceedings brought again st him.
Mr Pugžlys was convicted in two sets of crim inal proceedings in April 2005 and
January 2010, respectively. In the rst set of proceedings (for armed robber y), he was
sentenced to four and a half years’ i mprisonment; and in the second set (for kidnappi ng
for ransom and leading an organised criminal gang) he was sentenced to 12 years’
imprisonment. Both judg ments were upheld on appeal.
roughout his trial in the second set of proceedings Mr Pugžlys alleges that he
repeatedly requested, w ithout success, that the presiding judge order his release from
the metal cage i n the courtroom as well as the removal of h is handcu s.
Arrested in Amsterdam in April 2003 and subsequently extradited to Poland in
the second set of criminal proceedings, Mr Pugžlys was classi ed as a dangerous
detainee and placed u nder a highsecurity regi me from October 2003 at the request of
the remand centre where he was being held on the g rounds that he had been charged
with a number of violent o ences and represented a security risk. From then on, the
prison authorities reviewed a nd extended the application of the regime to him ever y
three months, repeati ng the grounds in the initia l decision. e measure was l i ed in
July 2012 when it was decided that he no longer posed a threat to secu rity.
Relying in par ticular on Art icle3 (prohibition of inhuman or degr ading treatment),
Mr Pugžlys notably complai ned about the special high-secur ity measures to which he
had been subjected during his cla ssi cation as a dangerous detainee for nine yea rs –
namely his segregation from the prison community, his shackling whenever he was
taken out of his cell and t he routine daily strip searches.
To continue reading
Request your trial