You might have already read about the case concerning restraint in the form of the so-called Crucifixion of Jesus Christ several times from the Center. Now, however, the case has (finally) reached the Constitutional Court. Thus, the Constitutional Court had another opportunity to express its opinion on the scope of the constitutional rights of victims of crime and injured parties, as well as on its competence to remedy any errors in this regard. So how did the Constitutional Court rule, for the first time in this case, and what considerations did it add to the discussion so far?

Regarding the case concerning restraint in the form of the so-called Crucifixion of Jesus Christ in the Světlá nad Sázavou prison, you may have read in our last report that the matter was referred to the director of the Světlá nad Sázavou prison for a decision in disciplinary proceedings, based on the third decision of the Regional Court in Hradec Králové – Pardubice branch (the regional court). [1] The injured party filed a constitutional complaint against this decision.

In its recent and relatively brief ruling [2], the Constitutional Court (the CC) contributed to the case of (alleged) torture in the Světlá nad Sázavou prison. It ultimately overturned the final judgment of the regional court. This presented an opportunity to comment on the position of victims of criminal offenses before the CC and on the issue of legal error in the context of an inferred systemic error.

Arguments of the Injured Party and Statements of Others

The injured party argued that the guards’ actions fulfilled the criteria for torture under the UN Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment – specifically, by restraining her in a manner intended to cause her pain and suffering (both physical and psychological). She further argued that the guards’ knowledge is regularly tested, and that their claim of ignorance regarding the inappropriateness of their actions was therefore invalid, despite the prison management’s assertion that the use of restraints was “only used to calm the prisoner, not to force an apology”.

Regarding the manner of (non-)punishment of the guards, which resulted in disciplinary proceedings before the prison director, the injured party objected that a thorough investigation of the matter should also include an assessment of the adequacy of the sanction. In the case of intentional interference [3] with the prohibition of torture under Article 3 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (the Convention), the injured party believes that a criminal legal response should follow.

The Regional Public Prosecutor’s Office in Hradec Králové (RPPO) essentially agreed with the constitutional complaint. It emphasized that the guards’ ignorance was not excusable given their official position. According to the RPPO, the use of physical punishment for the victim’s previous inappropriate behavior in order to force her to apologize was both illegal and “directly contrary to the exercise of the authority entrusted to them”. It further pointed out that, according to the existing case law of the Constitutional Court, “coercive measures must not serve as punishment”.

One of the guards mainly presented arguments against the injured party, but he also claimed that she wanted to use the whole matter to support her application for parole. According to him, the general courts deliberately overlooked this aspect so that they would not have to deal with the issue of possible false accusations.

Reasoning Given by the CC (in particular for overturning the contested judgment)

The CC found that the conduct under review – “unlawful restraint for several hours in an uncomfortable position, as a result of which the complainant urinated and was subsequently forced to apologize” – fell within the scope of Article 3 of the Convention. According to the CC, it was not necessary to qualify the conduct in question as torture, given the previous conclusions of the European Court of Human Rights.

Regarding the arguments of the regional court, the CC criticized them for not being systematically structured, with key arguments not being elaborated in sufficient detail. The decisive factor for the CC’s considerations was its perception of the extent to which the alleged crime had been fulfilled by the indictment. The CC essentially accepted the conclusions of the general courts regarding the objective aspect. However, it pointed out that the regional court did not explicitly state its conclusion that it considered the objective aspect of the crime to be fulfilled in this case; however, the CC inferred this from its conclusions.

On the question of fulfilling the subjective aspect of the crime, the CC summarized the conclusions of the regional court by stating that it “questioned the culpability of the accused prison service members, referring to the fact that the same unlawful conduct towards persons serving sentences was commonly committed by several of their colleagues and that the prison management approved their actions”. However, in the context of torture and prison guards, the CC considered such an argument to be completely inadmissible. As a possible way of interpreting the argument, the CC offered a legal provision on so-called legal error under Section 19 of the Criminal Code, on the basis of which it would hypothetically be possible to exclude the guards’ culpability.

However, with regard to any considerations concerning the application of legal provisions on legal error regarding the criminality of the actions of prison guards, the CC emphasized that, in view of legal certainty and the constitutional rights of victims of criminal offenses, any conclusion that the legal conditions have been met must be justified in detail.[4]

The ÚS was unable to infer any other reason from the regional court’s judgment that would lead to the exclusion of the subjective element of the crime. It was therefore concluded that this error by the regional court, which interfered with the complainant’s right to physical integrity and protection from torture and inhuman and degrading treatment, was so serious that it was necessary to overturn the contested judgment.

The CC also made key conclusions on the issue of possible systematic errors. First and foremost, it concluded that “the entire ‘system’ was based on broad discretion on the part of individual guards, supported by management”, pointing to the obligations of guards in cases of orders that would lead to the commission of criminal offenses. As for the argument that the guards were unaware of the illegality of their actions, the CC pointed out that some of them had themselves expressed doubts before the general courts about the functionality of the procedures laid down by law. Procedures that they themselves were supposedly not supposed to know about in the first place.

Reflections on the Constitutional Rights of Victims of Crime (and Injured Parties)

In its ruling, the CC followed up on previous developments in the area of the constitutional rights of crime victims and their options for rectifying any errors made by the courts. It first referred to its previous ruling Pl. ÚS 17/24, in which, however, it clearly stated that it did not intend to comment on the question of whether its legal opinion expressed therein “also applies to factually and legally different constitutional complaints of injured parties against other decisions”. The question therefore, arises as to what extent this emphasis is still relevant.

However, in its ruling Pl. ÚS 17/24, the CC stated, regarding its relationship to the general courts, that it is not ideally situated to assess criminal policy settings or complex practical issues. It also highlighted the inappropriateness of centralizing in its own hands the power to quash final decisions based on constitutional complaints from injured parties, who otherwise lack procedural remedies with comparable effects within the criminal proceedings.

The ÚS also referred to three of its previous rulings. It pointed to ruling IV. ÚS 1993/21, in which it overturned the decisions of the courts because they had failed to fulfil their obligation to sufficiently clarify the facts of the case. It emphasized the state’s obligation to provide the bereaved with “means that they can invoke against the authorities involved in criminal proceedings”. It also referred to its ruling I. ÚS 443/23, in which it overturned a court judgment because it completely lacked written reasoning.[5]

Last but not least, the CC referred to its ruling III. ÚS 3006/21, in which it concluded that it was entitled, on the basis of a constitutional complaint filed by the victim, to review the constitutionality of court decisions that referred the matter to misdemeanour proceedings. Specifically, with regard to the principle of subsidiarity of criminal prosecution, the CC summarized that if “it considers it necessary that, in the case of such serious expressions of hatred [here], the human dignity and private life of the victims be protected by means of criminal law, it is not decisive whether the failure to provide such protection is the result of a decision by the public prosecutor or the court”.

It can therefore be summarized that the CC is gradually expanding the rights of victims of crime (and injured parties). How will the whole case proceed? Only time will tell.

Translated by Kryštof Urban.

 

Notes

[1] See the post on Centre’s blog here: https://www.centrumlidskaprava.cz/blog/svetla-nad-sazavou-mnoho-povyku-pro-nic. The restraint itself was supposed to last 3 hours, 34 minutes, and 58 seconds.

[2] Ruling of the Constitutional Court dated July 10, 2025, file no. III. ÚS 1252/24. Available at: https://www.usoud.cz/fileadmin/user_upload/Tiskova_mluvci/Publikovane_nalezy/2025/3-1252-24_AN.pdf.

[3] It was precisely the absence of awareness on the part of the guards of the unlawfulness and illegality of the procedure that was one of the key conclusions of the general courts in their decisions to date.

[4] However, the CC expressed considerable doubts about this possibility, given the obligation of guards to familiarize themselves with all relevant regulations and to comply with them. For example, reference can be made to its ruling IV. ÚS 2352/22, in which even professional antique dealers did not invoke legal error when purchasing a large quantity of ivory products.

[5] CC concluded that the oral statement of reasons thus acquires extraordinary significance, or rather whether the decision is properly explained to the injured party.

 

Sources

Dubják, J. (2025, February). Světlá nad Sázavou – mnoho povyku pro nic? [blog post]. Centre for Human Rights and Democracy. Available at: https://www.centrumlidskaprava.cz/blog/svetla-nad-sazavou-mnoho-povyku-pro-nic. 

Dubják, J. (2024). Derniéra případu (údajného) mučení před krajským soudem. Bulletin lidských práv, 16. ročník, s. 32-35. 

Ruling of the Constitutional Court dated July 10 2025, file no. III. ÚS 1252/24. Available at: https://www.usoud.cz/fileadmin/user_upload/Tiskova_mluvci/Publikovane_nalezy/2025/3-1252-24_AN.pdf. 

Ruling of the Constitutional Court dated March 19, 2025, file no Pl. ÚS 17/24. Available at: https://www.usoud.cz/fileadmin/user_upload/Tiskova_mluvci/Publikovane_nalezy/2025/Pl._%C3%9AS_17-24_AN.pdf. 

Ruling of the Constitutional Court dated May 10, 2023, file no I. ÚS 443/23. Available at: https://nalus.usoud.cz/Search/ResultDetail.aspx?id=123986&pos=1&cnt=1&typ=result. 

Ruling of the Constitutional Court dated May 9, 2023, file no IV. ÚS 2352/22. Available at: https://nalus.usoud.cz/Search/ResultDetail.aspx?id=123898&pos=6&cnt=44&typ=result. 

Ruling of the Constitutional Court dated April 26, 2022, file no. IV. ÚS 1993/21. Available at: https://www.usoud.cz/fileadmin/user_upload/Tiskova_mluvci/Publikovane_nalezy/2022/IV._US_1993_21_an.pdf. 

Ruling of the Constitutional Court dated March 22, 2022, file no. III. ÚS 3006/21. Available at: https://www.usoud.cz/fileadmin/user_upload/Tiskova_mluvci/Publikovane_nalezy/2022/III._US_3006_21_an.pdf.